Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Cracking The Legal Code Of King James
Cracking The Legal Code Of King James The average Christian in this world has been sold on the idea that they can buy their way into heaven, through the middle-man salesmen priest of their perspective church and its particular doctrine, as if this will somehow wash away their sins just like the three credit rating agencies can magically wipe away a bad credit score. If I were a man on the street and I made the claim that for $100 dollars I could save your soul by somehow bypassing God Himself and His wrathful judgement, I’d be locked up in the nearest asylum (run by nuns) and charged with conspiracy to defraud the public. But if I incorporate and call myself a 501(c)3 religion, suddenly that same sales pitch becomes authorized by law and fervently protected by government… all 40,000 of them! But did anyone ever do their due diligence and check the Bible to see if this was actually what’s supposed to happen? Does the definition of what a Christian is and which path he or she is supposed to walk have anything to do with a corporate religion, a religious doctrine, a constitution of legal de facto government, or even a church? Can a man buy love, purchase forgiveness, tithe for his sins with the money of Caesar (government), and then step up to knock-knock-knock on Heaven’s door in forgiveness of these Biblical no-no’s? Can a church give men license to sin in exchange for the payment of blessings from priests in ceremonial robes? Surprisingly, the answers to all of these questions within the Bible are both shocking and beautiful… And they all begin with the words absolutely not! The Bible does not say these things, and it does not bestow status on men to act in God’s or Jesus Christ’s name as a vicar (replacement) – which is surprisingly the claimed basis of all legal authority in religion and government (church and state). But the church and state sure wants you to think it does… Words like saved, salvation, and redemption are part of an alternative language not taught to most church-going folks, for these are the words of attorneys and lawyers – the language of secret societies and Orders that seek power and control through govern-ment (mind control) of the masses, so that we may never be free from the self-imposed debt that can only be forgiven through the comprehension of the Bible and its legal interpretation. The first time I even began to contemplate the power of the Bible was when a friend entered the whole Bible as evidence of his clients personal credo of law into a federal court… and it was accepted and honored without question! Then, some time later, I was approached by a man who tried to convince me to do what he was doing, which was to copy what the wealth in-the-know business elite do. He explained that the registrar loved it when the elitist few brought in the King James “authorized” 1611 Bible and claimed it as law, utilizing it in the creation of a trust to turn the artificial person (strawman) attached as the surname into a non-for-profit corporation, where the new trust controlled the name, and then proceeded to show me all of the IRS tax forms that these society men utilized to get all of their tax dollars back in redemption at the end of each year. All of this was based on entering the Bible as evidence of law. And while at first I was intrigued, I quickly realized this road was not for me, and that it was steeped in comprehensible participation of the fraud of the system. I chose not to benefit from this organized corruption. And the secretive gent has never contacted me again, asking me not to share what he told me. Needless to say, this made me want to learn more about this Bible and how it was being used in law! And this began a journey of actualization that I never thought I’d take. I started reading the Bible and cross-referencing the words with our legal language of the law society. And what I found was an exact match! Before we can understand how to use the language of the Bible as a remedy in law, we must first define legally the words of that Sacred Book so as to comprehend the legal process hidden within. For they are of the same language. Only then can we be successful in the utilization of the Bible as a legal remedy in the legal language of the law society to escape the laws of man and mammon. In truth, anyone who has read the Bible will need to reread it once they learn this dualistic legal code, which naturally is the code of church and state. It is ironic, really, that the powers that be have divided these two languages of man’s law and the Bible (church and state). I now understand that this was an important step in conquering the minds of men within the powerful G20 nations. We must understand that there is no true redemption for mankind in the legal law, for the law of men only deals with strawmen – artificial persons that are created as fictions of law and owned by government. Thus a living man will never find remedy in legal law alone while acting as a legal fictional person, and certainly not in the constitution that created that legal fiction. On the other hand there is the Bible, to which the priests in their own religious societies never reveal the true legal language of that sacred Tome. So it is equally accurate to say that no fictional “person” will ever find remedy within the Bible, for the Bible is for mankind alone, and persons are mere legal fictions of mankind that are not to be respected. Thus a citizen (person) will never be able to utilize the Bible as remedy, for persons have no essence or “soul”, and are not found in nature (where the Bible is the natural law of God). Persons are creations of law, not God. And yet the priest-class continuously bombard their parishioners with fallacy confiding patriotism for legal law issued by government as “law of the land”, when in fact all the real Earth and land is under the law of God and nature. But the bridge between the code written in the Bible and what is written in the legal code is never crossed while educating the masses. Church and state are indeed one, and cannot be separated, for the authority of law is based on God’s authority. Indeed, if this relationship were ever discovered, all good men would turn away from fiction and choose to be free under God’s law and no longer be enslaved by man’s legal fiction, as the Bible instructs to escape. And no slaves would be left to run the machine of mammon. I am well on my way to cracking this Code, and so I want to share with you what I’ve uncovered so far. Whatever your opinion or beliefs about religion and the Bible are, they do not apply here. I’m not interested in proving the existence of anything but what exists in nature and can be proven. The nature of God or lack thereof is for you to decide individually, and has absolutely no relevance within this discussion. The words we will be defining here are straight out of the Bible AND the legal dictionaries of government. When you comprehend that these things are one in the same, and that the Bible is the hidden authority of the laws of the men in government and religion, you will have your own revelation that I cannot imagine one to be able to put into words. The word abandon, for instance, may be defined as two seemingly opposite concepts. Abandon on one hand means totally free and unhindered expression of will, while in the same definition it may also mean to leave something behind. But for our purposes, we must certainly combine these definitions in our comprehension that in order to be free and unhindered in our lives as free men (in abandon) under God (under the laws of nature), we must also abandon and leave behind permanently the ties that bind us in chains of debt and obligation to government. In other words, we must abandon our person so as to act as living beings (in abandon). A man that carries a commercial entity in the form of an artificial person in commerce with government (mammon) in truth carries around a “demon”, and therefore cannot live life in abandon. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the word demon as: “signifying an evil spirit or genius, which influences the conduct or directs the fortunes of mankind“. And just what exactly is an “evil genius”? Genius - n. [Latin from the root of gigno; Gr. to beget.] 1. Among the ancients, a good or evil spirit or demon supposed to preside over a man’s destiny in life, that is, to direct his birth and actions and be his guard and guide; a tutelary deity; the ruling and protecting power of men, places or things. This seems to be merely a personification or deification of the particular structure or bent of mind which a man receives from nature, which is the primary signification of the word. 2. The peculiar structure of mind which is given by nature to an individual, or that disposition or bent of mind which is peculiar to every man, and which qualifies him for a particular employment; a particular natural talent or aptitude of mind for a particular study or course of life; as a genius for history, for poetry or painting. 3. Strength of mind; uncommon powers of intellect, particularly the power of invention. In this sense we say, Homer was a man of genius. Hence, 4. A man endowed with uncommon vigor of mind; a man of superior intellectual faculties. Shakespeare was a rare-genius. (Webster’s 1828) An evil genius (demon) might be one who, let’s say, creates a doctrine of religion that goes completely against the teachings of the character of Jesus Christ, incorporates that doctrine into a corporate church, and then deceives all the followers of that religion that its word is not only of and inspired by God, but that his genius is the only true interpretation of the will of God as God’s spokesman and author. And thus one of a thousand religions is born, completely hiding the fact that religion, ceremony, symbols, and mammon is forbidden in the Bible for true followers of the legal and spiritual story of Jesus Christ and its guidance to be free from the influences and enslavement of the church and state. And rest assured here that a demon (genius) needs no wings, horns, or claws as depicted in ancient artifacts. These are just frightening imagery to scare children and adults into never perceiving that ordinary men like themselves could be so evil in their genius. They live among us, controlling us, feeding off of our collective ignorance, harvesting our wealth and happiness… and they are just as human as you and me. They are as we are, simply of Adam. ADAM - n. In Heb., Man; primarily, the name of the human species, mankind; appropriately, the first Man, the progenitor of the human race. The word signifies form, shape, or suitable form, hence, species. It is evidently connected with Heb., to be like or equal, to form an image, to assimilate. Whence the sense of likeness, image, form, shape; a body, like. [See Man.] (Webster’s 1828) I, however, am no genius. I have no religion to sell, and I want none of your money or your pledged oath in exchange for this sharing of work. I give it freely in the hopes of breaking away the supposed mysteries of the Bible and revealing what it truly is to be free and to live in peace among all men under its teachings. For all men must know these words or be permanently stuck in their already existing bondage to the religion of church and State. Ultimately, church and state are the same thing. In short, I want to help you to save you from your fictional self. I want you to stop taking part in the demonic possession of an artificial person. Remember the popular axiom that possession is 9/10′s of the law? Well, this really means that the law is worthless unless you possess and appear as the person belonging to government – the legal fiction that the government’s fictional laws only apply to. You see, the laws of men do not apply to you, unless you claim and possess man’s fictional demon (citizen) as your person! Nine-tenth’s of man’s law, in other words, is only applicable to the government’s own property – the artificial person you possess called a citizen – creating a contractual obligation to follow the laws of man’s government over God’s. The laws of government (Satan) govern only persons (demons), not living men. Not dis-similarly, the rules and regulations of Walmart employees only regulate the demon person created as and called the “employee” – another artificial status of person-hood. No man is bound by the rules of any corporation unless they are employed by that corporation, including all of the municipalities and offices of government (the corporation nation). If you are employed, you are possessing an additional legal fictional status added to a person called an “employee”. POSSESSION – n. The having, holding or detention of property in one’s power or command; actual seizing or occupancy, either rightful or wrongful. One man may have the possession of a thing, and another may have the right of possession or property. In bailment, the bailee, who receives goods to convey, or to keep for a time, has the possession of the goods, and a temporary right over them, but not the property. Property in possession includes both the right and the occupation. 2. Any thing valuable possessed or enjoyed. Christian peace of mind is the best possession of life. 3. The state of being under the power of demons or invisible beings; madness; lunacy; as demoniacal possession… To take possession to enter on, or to bring within one’s power or occupancy. To give possession to put in another’s power or occupancy. (Webster’s 1828) EMPLOYMENT - n. The act of employing or using. 1. Occupation; business; that which engages the head or hands; as agricultural employments; mechanical employments. Men, whose employment is to make sport and amusement for others, are always despised. 2. Office; public business or trust; agency or service for another or for the public. The secretary of the treasury has a laborious and responsible employment. He is in the employment of government. (Webster’s 1828) EMPLOY – v.t. [Latin plico.] 1. To occupy the time, attention and labor of; to keep busy, or at work; to use… A portion of time should be daily employed in reading the scriptures, meditation and prayer; a great portion of life is employed to little profit or to very bad purposes. 2. To use as an instrument or means. We employ pens in writing, and arithmetic in keeping accounts. We employ medicines in curing diseases. 3. To use as materials in forming any thing. We employ timber, stones or bricks, in building; we employ wool, linen and cotton, in making cloth. 4. To engage in one’s service; to use as an agent or substitute in transacting business… 5. To occupy; to use; to apply or devote to an object; to pass in business; as, to employ time; to employ an hour, a day or a week; to employ one’s life. To employ one’s self, is to apply or devote one’s time and attention; to busy one’s self. - n. That which engages the mind, or occupies the time and labor of a person; business; object of study or industry; employment. 1. Occupation, as art, mystery, trade, profession. 2. Public office; agency; service for another. (Webster’s 1828) ENGAGE - v.t. 1. To make liable for a debt to a creditor; to bind one’s self as surety. 2. To pawn; to stake as a pledge. 3. To enlist; to bring into a party; as, to engage men for service; to engage friends to aid in a cause. 6. To unite and bind by contract or promise. Nations engage themselves to each other by treaty. 8. To occupy; to employ assiduously. (Webster’s 1828) As a citizen, you are employing (using) and occupying in trust the person owned by government, and are therefore agreeing to its rules (codes). In a corporation, your person is the tool being employed (used) for your actual time and labor as a man (connected as surety to the person). Thus you are a human tool no less artificial than a pen or a brick being used in business. A slave has no rights, not even a paid one. For an employee is a person, and a person has no unalienable rights. A corporation hires the demon (surname of the person), and you work to satisfy the obligation of the demon in contractual “employment”. So what is your “occupation”? If your answer is a licensed doctor, attorney, or an unlicensed busboy or garbageman, or any other one of a million legal “occupations”, then you are using a legal title (status) of government regulated under a person with the status of “employee” of government while under its tax code, receiving a pension from government via your tax contributions to Social Security. This binds you to the federal income tax as a beneficiary of that insurance trust and its future benefit payments. That’s why they say that the income tax is voluntary, because you volunteer just by being and possessing an employed citizen, and government’s property (the person/employee) is obligated in that debt with you as surety. This is the price of being possessed. The demon (person) brings the man out of nature and into government’s hell on Earth. And what is hell, really? Are we to take the Bible literally in its allegory of a dystopian underworld where fire and brimstone burns sinners for the rest of time after they depart the Earth in physical form? Of course not. The body remains, so what’s left to burn? The fable of hell is simply the allegory of the unnatural (legally dead) state of being a debtor, as all persons (citizens) of government are. The United States is an open air prison for debtors, and all citizens are indeed legally classified as debtors. Sure, you must be considered legally dead to go to hell, but hell is not referencing the after-life. You are born alive, a pure and innocent child of God, and are then immediately delivered into hell by your birth certificate – your registration as a visitor to hell on Earth – thus creating your artificial status here as a person/citizen. We are still alive within the hell on this Earth, and our possession in artificial person-hood makes us a citizen of hell. Afterlife is just a clever allegory for life lived while imitating a fiction, and doing so as a debtor in hell. Hell – The name given to a place under the exchequer chamber, where the king’s debtors were confined. Rich. Diet. (Black’s 4rth Edition) (Balentines) Hell was a dungeon for those who did not pay their debts to the government (kingdom). Today, to be under the U.S. constitution (a debt compact), as a “constitutor”, simply means to be a “debtor”. Since all citizens are debtors, the jurisdiction of the United States in its entirety is really just one giant open-air debtors prison. Why do I claim this to be so? It’s simple if you understand the nature of the U.S. dollar, which is nothing more or less than “a promise to pay a debt”. Do you actually believe that you can pay a debt with another debt (promise to pay)? If no debt can ever be paid, because there is no lawful money in existence within the debtor nation, then how can a citizen/person ever be anything else but a debtor that can never pay his or her debt? Our particular version of a “living hell” as debtors (persons) is that hell is indeed eternal as long as we accept citizenship and are possessed of such fictional obligations (like the national debt). There is no escaping hell as long as we consent to respecting persons of any kind, including government, church, and all other corporations of any function. Our eternity on this Earth will last until we die from an accidental or natural death – a death of the flesh and blood man. But these artificial persons are all created as dead instruments, and government remedies can only be comfort to the dead. Government can only summon the dead (person) to court with a legal fiction summons. The hell of indebtedness is perpetual and eternal for all persons, and we cannot escape hell because there is no actual remedy or way to ever pay your national debt, since the money is already debt-based. To have “eternal life”, as the allegory of the Bible tells us over and over, we cannot respect persons (we cannot admit of being debtors). We must always remain living men in and of nature with unalienable rights under God. We must not contract with the synagogue of Satan (man) to go under the Devil’s (man’s) law. This guarantees us eternal “life” on Earth, not in some incomprehensible after-life. You might call this hidden utopia a “Heaven on Earth”. Again, this is simply allegory for not accepting contracts as dead pledges and other legal personifications of our living souls into fiction. Some may think this amounts to mere anarchy. Most can’t imagine that instead this amounts to mere Christianity – the following of the teachings of the character Jesus Christ. but then most have thrown out the Bible without reading or have read it without understanding its legal language. But to have and to hold heaven on Earth, man must have logical and reasonable rules to abide by, and must agree amongst themselves to follow those unalienable truths in nature in order to live in peace and to protect the very Earth they claim as home together. This is the essence of the Bible; the essence of following the laws of nature. How difficult would this really be to accomplish, compared to the millions of codes and statues of man that no one can ever comprehend, let alone count? Well, try this one all-encompassing law on for size… Do no harm. That’s it! Sweet and simple. In fact, any law that man can create for the benefit of society would automatically fall under this simple Maxim. In a shocking paradox to this simple truth, most of man’s laws create the opposite – a license and permission to break God’s commandments and natural law and thus to legally harm other “persons”, which directly effects the natural man possessed of that person. This is indeed just an end run around responsibility to your fellow man for your own actions – a way to cause harm and get off the hook for it. And this is anti-Christ. The following words are defined for the benefit of the reader who wishes to finally bring logic and reason to the rhetoric and allegory of the Bible – the officially authorized legal presentation and evidence (testament) of law, issued by King James, 1611. The following is not religion, and in point of fact is quite far from it. For the Bible is not about religion, and is in fact surprisingly shunning of such corporate things as religion and government. Religions and their proclaimed doctrines are built around and very much in spite of the Bible’s words. Religions indeed existed long before the Bible was ever written, and have created many gods and tools of control over the ages. Thus religion and the Bible are not synonymous in any way, except for the claims made by religions and governments (both are churches) to the contrary in order to control the information we are about to uncover. Information is power. Power (authority of law) is control. And ignorance enslaves those without knowledge. As we delve into the true meaning of the scriptures (defined as ancient written knowledge and understanding, not religion), we discover that quite shockingly there are no true Biblical “Christians” in America. Amazingly, the very book to prove this statement has all along been the very Bible that corporate churches twist and use to mislead good people into a state of anti-christian thought, behavior, custom, and lifestyle. Isn’t it ironic that the atheist’s greatest weapon against religion turns out to be the Bible itself? But how do men of any religious or non-religious claim use it correctly to defeat those men who act as gods on Earth with the authority of that book? For the critic and “non-believer”, the following legal understanding of the words in that Bible is perhaps the greatest tool against organized corporate religion (and government) available, as presented in our dictionaries. For incredibly, even that word “believer” is a legal term, and means something other than what religion proclaims. And what is more religiously doctrinal than the belief in the legitimacy of government and the patriotic indoctrination that is created from it? As it stands, the average citizen-person of the United States or any other government for that matter does the following… They believe in government, as if it were not a work of fiction (a corporation/person). They have faith in government, placing all love and devotion within this artificial thing. They have trust in government; a financial bond enslaving them as surety to things unnatural. They declare a pledge of fealty (allegiance) to government, salute its war flag, and even invoke the name of God to justify man’s authority over God (nature). They obey the millions of commandments (legal laws) of government, which gives (issues) them license to “sin” against the laws and commandments of nature (God’s law). They seek remedy, redemption, and salvation in government, which can only offer such things to artificial persons, not men. These are legal terms. They pray (plead) to government in its courts, asking fictional characters to judge their actions instead of God. They are servants (in servitude) to that government fiction, disobeying the laws of nature as a requirement of tenure. They consider government as their master, and even bless it in prayer to God, though it was created by men. They worship government’s paper constitution as if it were the Bible, claiming it to be inspired by God and even claiming rights from it above God, even though it is patently against everything written in the Bible. See the similarities here? The question is, why is it so easy to believe in an absolutely known fiction called government and yet the same belief and faith in our tangible nature all around us and the laws of its “creator” are labeled as silly and fictional? What is real, the grass that grows or the municipal corporation (city) codes that regulate its growth? What is fiction, the legal codes of government or the omnipresence of nature all around us? Your answer depends solely on the disposition of your soul: Are you a natural man (being human), or are you im-person-ating an artificial, fictional person like a demon? Imagine if instead of teasing or demeaning people for having a spiritual connection to nature in the form of a belief in God as if God was the reality of nature, misguided as some may be, you teased people for believing in government instead – which by its own laws, definitions, and admission in its own courts is a complete and utter fictional story requiring consent and acceptance to its purely imaginary, contractual existence? Ha ha ha! You believe in government? What an idiot! It doesn’t even exist in nature! Even it doesn’t believe it exists! LOL!!! I guarantee that this is exactly what the powers that be in government and religion say behind your backs as they strip you of your life, liberty, prosperity, and happiness. Of course, they tell you that these traits are protected under the constitution even as they take them from you at will, paying you money that says “In God We Trust”. And indeed they are protected by the constitution if you are a responsible living man under God as it states, but not if you foolishly become a citizen and give up those natural unalienable rights in a permissive and obligatory contract to government to possess a subjected person (demon) of government that have no unalienable rights. In other words, men and people are not the same thing. Only men, not people, are listed as having unalienable rights. They are tricky like that… In truth, the answer is now clear to me, though it has taken my whole life to fall upon such comprehension. It’s a simple case of mistaken identity! Men believe that they truly are the artificial person they pretend to be, which is in fact property of government. Like an actor believes he is the character he plays on the stage to improve the preformance, men forget they are natural beings, which are property of God (nature), and instead abandon the laws of nature (God) by accepting an immense legal doctrine from government – much worse than any religious one. Government is simply a Godless religion! Living men destroy nature (God’s kingdom) by not being in their own minds but act in that of their citizen-person, doing so without conscious as artificial representatives of their selves; as citizens. They refer to their actions as they’ve been brainwashed to do using patriotic terms like civil liberties, civil rights, liberty, and freedom (all legal privileges of persons), and they do so under the banner (flag) of their fictional master – a government that protects the actions of these demons (citizens) by granting licenses to kill, to steal, to rape, to pillage, to plunder, and to blaspheme all that is sacred in nature (under God’s dominion and law). Blasphemy in the legal fiction is again a legal term, meaning crime against the church and state. Belief and faith in government is the belief and faith (trust) that man is god, contractually speaking. And with no higher authority, men through government may control other men in spite of God and nature, and in spite of the Bible’s teachings that this is an unnatural status that can only exist through the “respect of persons”. Under God a man is only ever himself, and has no person to hide himself away from his responsibilities. He or she acknowledges his or her actions and takes responsibility for them as forgiveness for his sin against nature (legally known as restitution). Thus the man has no need of the laws of other men (Satan), for he belongs to God, and need not be compelled to take responsibility for harm. Under government, as a citizen, it is quite the opposite. Man hides behind his or her artificial person, and the crimes against nature (including to other men) are “forgiven” only by government, for the fictional person belongs to the fictional government, and crime is against persons not men. Like a puppet, man inhabits the person and acts under it, taking man outside of God’s protection of true law. In other words, as a person, man must give up all rights under God (man’s unalienable inherent rights), for government law is always anti-nature (anti-God/anti-Christ) and can never be inherent, for those rights are copyrighted fictions of man, and are always artificial (opposed to nature/not inherent). Government granted rights are to persons, not men, including those “people” of the constitution. And so for a man to answer for his or her crimes, he or she must embrace this fact and stand in person (impersonation) on an actors stage called a court not as a human being, but by possessing a demon (person). This is called representation. In order to use and operate a government citizen (demon/artificial person), a man must re-present him or her self not as a human, but as that demon. The man represents and is bound in surety to the actions of the artificial person. Representation of Persons – A fiction of the law, the effect of which is to put the representative in the place, degree, or right of the person represented. Civil Code La. art. 894. (–Black’s 1st Edition) Represent - v. t. s as z. [Latin repraesento; re and Low Latin praesenter, from praesens, present.] – 1. To show or exhibit by resemblance. 4. To personate; to act the character or to fill the place of another in a play; as, to represent the character of king Richard. 5. To supply the place of; to act as a substitute for another. The parliament of Great Britain represents the nation. The congress of the United States represents the people or nation. The senate is considered as representing the states in their corporate capacity… 7. To stand in the place of, in the right of inheritance. As we study the words in the Bible, we slowly comprehend that the Bible is not at all about death or about a mystical life after our physical departure from this Earth, for it was written by men who had only but lived here on Earth and could not have reasonably known God or an afterlife. Instead, the Bible is an allegorical instruction book about how to live on this earth, within the constructs of nature, without religion and without government, and yet to adhere to the laws of nature so as to preserve and live healthy lives. It is a story about living life in the fullest. Ironically, to inhabit and impersonate an artificial person is in fact to accept death (fiction) and to oppose life (nature). There is no life or nature within legal statutes, and I’m sure I don’t have to convince anyone by now that a fictional person is not alive. Ultimately, the Bible offers two paths, one of grace (life) in nature under God’s law and one of fiction (death) within church and state under man’s legal fiction (mammon), and it leaves that choice up to the individual. It’s all about choice… a choice between two rulers – God (law of nature) and Satan (law of man). Grace or disgrace. Of course in modern times this knowledge is lost on men, and is hidden by both the church and the state’s “forced government education”, either purposefully (Vatican) or through ignorance (small local churches of any denomination). I realize now that men have been thrown into citizenship without ever being truly provided with a consenting choice. In this way, men are created (re-presented) as gentiles (goyim), which is defined as “people” – the common mass of peasantry and lowest status of person. We are acting as the synagogue wishes us to act, in the capacity of its property through impersonation. This creates inequity on a grand scale (which we ironically call legal “equality), and confers a concentration of power unprecedented in history that milks “public” wealth to its own ends. As persons, we have no sex, no race, no specialness, no culture. We are equal in our corporate blandness and rights – a machine. This unnatural state is exactly what the Bible warns against – an army of dead persons; the dead walking the Earth. That’s us… The Bible is an instruction book on being free in life, not death. It instructs us on being responsible for our own actions within a state of love and protection to all men with sanctity of the same rights and duty to others. It tells us how to protect nature and the laws governing our use of Earth while we are here, as well as each other. It advises us on avoiding the bondage and servitude of the corporate institutions that would otherwise use that book of God’s natural law to entrap and enfranchise the whole of mankind into bonded servitude to a small minority of men (a synagogue of Satan) against nature in the world of corporate fiction, which is often interpreted by fools to be the sole basis of the book as a justification of the evils of the church. Of course, to understand evil, one must describe it and how to avoid it. What is evil? EVIL – n. Evil is natural or moral. Natural evil is any thing which produces pain, distress, loss or calamity, or which in any way disturbs the peace, impairs the happiness, or destroys the perfection of natural beings. Moral evil is any deviation of a moral agent from the rules of conduct prescribed to him by God, or by legitimate human authority; or it is any violation of the plain principles of justice and rectitude. There are also evils called civil, which affect injuriously the peace or prosperity of a city or state; and political evils, which injure a nation, in its public capacity. All wickedness, all crimes, all violations of law and right are moral evils. Diseases are natural evils, but they often proceed from moral evils. 2. Misfortune; mischief; injury. There shall no evil befall thee. Psalms 91:10. A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself. Proverbs 22:3. 3. Depravity; corruption of heart, or disposition to commit wickedness; malignity. Satan is and describes man. The concept of Satan is not some pitchforked demon as portrayed in a child’s story told to frighten the children of men til they die, in order to compel their obedience to obey church doctrine and government legality. It is not a he or a she. It is a descriptive word for the concept of influence of all men against nature (against God) and the laws of nature. Satan – noun [Heb. an adversary.] The grand adversary of man; the devil or prince of darkness; the chief of the fallen angels. Devil - n. Devl. [Latin , to calumniate.] 1. In the Christian theology, an evil spirit or being; a fallen angel, expelled from heaven for rebellion against God; the chief of the apostate angels; the implacable enemy and tempter of the human race. In the New Testament, the word is frequently and erroneously used for demon. 2. A very wicked person, and in ludicrous language, an great evil. In profane language, it is an expletive expressing wonder, vexation, etc. 3. An idol, or false god. Leviticus 17:7. 2 Chronicles 11:15. As we can read, the word Satan refers to the Hebrew word for the “adversary of man”. Like the word demon, there is no supernatural quackery here. The Bible allegory uses fire and brimstone to describe men of unfettered evil genius that are adversarial to nature and life, and therefore must place other men in bondage and surety to them through the concepts of government and religion. Monsanto, Ratheon, Bank of America, the Vatican, the City of London, Washington D.C… these are the personifications of men in rebellion against God (nature); idols of false gods. Mere men. Satan incarnate. So far, the synagogue of Satan has suppressed not only the Bible’s teachings, but also the path to abandon of all mankind from government. It has created in men a false status misleadingly called “Christianity”, that under church doctrine follow government as the “law of the land” while abusing and usurping God’s creation (nature). In truth, every action of today’s modern Christian is against the teachings of the Bible and its Christ character. “Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct.” –William H. Prescott, “History of the Conquest of Peru,” 1847 Here are just some of the “religious” legal words that in actuality are quite opposed to religion, to government, and that are designed to make all men free in their comprehension by and through the allegory of the Bible: –=– The Following Are Taken From: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language Unless Otherwise Noted –=– Nickname – n. [G. To banter. Signifies to surname, to call by a name of reproach.] A name given in contempt, derision or reproach; an opprobrious appellation.- v.t. To give a name of reproach; to call by an opprobrious appellation. Opprobrious – a. [See Opprobrium.] 1. Reproachful and contemptuous; scurrilous; as opprobrious language; opprobrious words or terms. 2. Blasted with infamy; despised; rendered hateful; as an opprobrious name. Appellation – n. [L. appellatio. See Appeal.] Name; the word by which a thing is called and known. Spenser uses it for appeal. Render n. 1. A surrender; a giving up. 2. A return; a payment of rent. – v. t. [This is probably the Latin reddo, with a casually inserted.] 1. To return; to pay back. See that none render evil for evil to any man. 1 Thessalonians 5:15. 6. To surrender; to yield or give up the command or possession of; as, to render one’s self to his enemies. 7. To afford; to give for use or benefit. Washington rendered great service to his country. 8. To represent; to exhibit. To render back, to return; to restore. (Note: To render back what is Caesar’s means to stop using the government’s property, money, and person-hood (citizenship) and to give it back with no intention to ever use it again. This is often confused to mean bow down to government in that Bible verse, but is in fact the opposite. Only in rendering back the use of government property (the person/surname) to government can one be free of its implied and contractual usury, taxation, and other obligations of that government for usage of government property. The surname and social security number are examples of government property used by men against God and nature that should be “rendered back to Caesar”.) Surname – n. [L. super and nomen.] 1. An additional name; a name or appellation added to the baptismal or christian name, and which becomes a family name. Surnames, with us, originally designated occupation, estate, place of residence, or some particular thing or event that related to the person. Thus William Rufus or red; Edmund Ironsides; Robert Smith,or the smith; William Turner. 2. An appellation added to the original name. Christian Name - the name a person receives by baptism, as distinguished from surname. Addition – n. [Latin additio, from addo.] 1. The act of adding, opposed to subtraction, or diminution; as, a sum is increased by addition. 2. Any thing added, whether material or immaterial. 4. In law, a title annexed to a man’s name, to show his rank, occupation or place of residence; as John Doe, Esq.; Richard Roe, Gent; Robert Dale, Mason; Thomas Way, of New York.8. In popular language, an advantage, ornament, improvement; that is, an addition by way of eminence. Diminution - n. [Latin] 1. The act of lessening; a making smaller; opposed to augmentation; as the diminution of size, of wealth, of power, of safety. 2. The state of becoming or appearing less; opposed to increase; as the diminution of the apparent diameter of a receding body. 3. Discredit; loss of dignity; degradation. 4. Deprivation of dignity; a lessening of estimation. (Note: A surname is an addition, meaning it is a fiction added to the given name. This combination makes the person. The addition of the surname is actually a dimunition from God’s natural law. To “appear” as less refers to standing in a courtroom, as a status in the legal society. This makes you “common” and means you are no longer under God’s jurisdiction and protection under the laws of nature (unalienable rights), for you are no longer acting as a man under God but as a fictional person owned by another. This is a step down, a loss of dignity, and degradation. Only a person can appear in court, and only as less than a man.) Baptism, n. [Gr. to baptize.] 2. The sufferings of Christ. Matt.xx22.23. (Note: Baptism is simply the naming process, and does not require a religion, blessed water (for all water is considered as created and therefore it is all blessed), or a priest from a corporate church, all of which are “idolatry” and ceremonial. The Bible story of true Christianity is indeed strictly against ceremony, religion, and government’s act of bestowing surnames to “persons”. No church or priest needed, only intent. Thus, the given name is said to be a gift from God through the remedy of the sufferings of Christ. See “son”.) Name – n. That by which a thing is called. A noun. A person. Assumed character of another. Authority; behalf; part; as in the name of the people. Appearance only; sound only; not reality; as a friend in name. (Rev. 3). When a man speaks or acts in the name of another, he does it by their authority or in their behalf, as their representative. Reputation; character; that which is commonly said of a person; as a good name; a bad name. Renown; fame; honor; celebrity; eminence; praise; distinction.- v.t. To entitle. Name - The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation. In law a man cannot have more than one Christian name. 1 Ld. Baym. 562. (Black’s 1st Edition) Noun - n. [altered from Latin name.] In grammar, a name; that sound or combination of sounds by which a thing is called, whether material or immaterial. [See name.] (Note: The legal language is composed mostly of nouns – the names of persons, places, and things, which are all artificial “legal titles” of actual things. A name as a noun is not natural, for it is always of the hands of man. It is strictly a legal definition in acknowledgement of those persons, places, and things. However, in the legal realm the “given name” or “Christian name” (first name) is considered a gift from God (a natural and unalienable right unnameable in legal fiction) . The first name alone cannot be considered a person in law without an attached (added) surname. This is very important. All things are legally named (titled) by government (man) in the form of a noun, giving government jurisdiction over the surname or “title” of persons, places, and things. The name/noun or “title” is artificial and not of nature. It merely describes natural things in fictional terms to bring them into the realm of legalese.) Nominative - a. Pertaining to the name which precedes a verb, or to the first case of nouns; as the nominative case or nominative word. Misnomer – n. In law, the mistaking of the true name of a person; a misnaming… Nomen (plural nomina) was the Roman gens (clan) name. In the typical Roman name it was preceded by the praenomen and followed by the cognomen. Praenomen - Lat. Forename, or first name. The first of the three names by which the Romans were commonly distinguished. It marked the individual, and was commonly written with one letter; as “A.” for “Aulus;” “C.” for “Caius,” etc… (Note: By the 2nd century, praenomina were no longer commonly used.) Cognomen – In Roman law. A man’s family name. The first name (praenomen) was the proper name of the individual; the second (nomen) indicated the gens or tribe to which he belonged; while the third (cognomen) denoted his family or house. In English law. A surname. A name added to the nomen proper, or name of the individual; a name descriptive of the family. Cognomen majorum est ex sanguine tractum, hoc intrinsecum est; agnomen extrinsecum ab eventu. The cognomen is derived from the blood of ancestors, and is intrinsic; an agnomen arises from an event, and is extrinsic. (Note: Originally cognomina were nicknames. Thus the cognomen in combination with the nomen functioned as a surname, breaking families into smaller groups than just the nomen alone.) (Black’s 1st Edition) Agnomen – Lat. An additional name or title; a nickname. A name or title which a man gets by some action or peculiarity; the last of the four names sometimes given a Roman. Thus, Scipio Africanus, (the African,) from his African victories. (These were generally nicknames acquired at some point during the lifetime, but never given at birth.) (Black’s 1st Edition) Agnomination – A surname; an additional name or title; agnomen. (Black’s 1st Edition) Patronym (or patronymic) is a name derived from the name of the father or another paternal ancestor. Some surnames are patronymic in origin, like Peterson = “Peter’s son”. Some cultures, such as Iceland, use uninherited patronyms instead of surnames. (BehindTheName.com) Acquire - v t. [Latin acquiro, ad and quaero to seek, that is to follow, to press, to urge; acquiro signifies to pursue to the end or object; Heb. to seek, to make towards, to follow. The Latin quaesivi, unless contracted, is probably from a different root. See class Gr. and Gs.] To gain, by any means, something which is in a degree permanent, or which becomes vested or inherent in the possessor; as, to acquire a title (name), estate, learning, habits, skill, dominion, etc. Plants acquire a green color from the solar rays. A mere temporary possession is not expressed by acquire but by gain, obtain, procure, as to obtain [not acquire] a book on loan. Descent is the title whereby a man, on the death of his ancestor, acquires his estate, by right of representation, as his heir at law. Forsake – To quit or leave entirely; to desert; to abandon; to depart from. Friends and flatterers forsake us in adversity. Forsake the foolish, and live. (Prov. 9.2). To abandon; to renounce; to reject. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments – (Ps. 89). To leave; to withdraw from; to fail. (Note: You must forsake the person to live free in abandon under God and nature. Never forget that a person is a fiction of man’s law.) Fiction – n. [L. fictio, from fingo, to feign.] 1. The act of feigning, inventing or imagining; as, by the mere fiction of the mind. 2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. The story is a fiction. So also was the fiction of those golden apples kept by a dragon, taken from the serpent which tempted Eve. Remedy – n. [L. remedium; re and medeor, to heal.] 1. That which cures a disease; any medicine or application which puts an end to disease and restores health; with for; as a remedy for the gout. 2. That which counteracts an evil of any kind; with for, to or against; usually with for. Civil government is the remedy for the evils of natural liberty (and thus the opposite must be true). 3. That which cures uneasiness. 4. That which repairs loss or disaster; reparation. In the death of a man there is no remedy. (Note: Christianity is the only remedy from man’s law. No living man can get remedy from an agency that only deals in fiction (death). Your reparation to nature and God is to counteract your demon by quitting (quitclaim) your possession of it. To quit government, you must have a higher authority than man to govern you. This is the nature of man’s law, not my opinion. And government will require proof of claim of a higher authority, which is why so many men have evidenced the Bible as their own law in court.) Death -In theology, perpetual separation from God, and eternal torments; called the second death Revelation 2:10. Spiritual Death – Separation or alienation of the soul from God; a being under the dominion of sin, and destitute of grace or divine life… We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. 1 John 3:1. Luke I. (Note: “Spiritual death” is the contractual consent to abandon God’s law and protection, denounce Jesus Christ as lawful remedy to be in lawful receivership of God’s law and protection, and give up the unalienable rights of the law of nature so that government can harm your person without recourse as it controls your surname.) Civil Death - The separation of a man from civil society, or from the enjoyment of civil rights; as by banishment, abjuration of the realm, entering into a monastery, etc. (Note: One must have civil death in order to only be considered a natural living being under God. This means giving up all privileges (civil rights) and obligations (duties) granted by government (for a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven). Government and its courts cannot see living things, only the im-person-ation of living things as legal persons with (noun) names and surnames. In other words, the synagogue of Satan can only see demons. But without the remedy of the invocation of true Christianity (the Bible), that life would be considered by government to be non-spiritual (strictly temporal) and without a governing set of laws. In other words, government would consider you as chattel livestock with no rights either civil or natural, for no invocation of God’s law (the law of nature) was recorded. In this vein, the concept of a “free man on the land” is missing the key element of the law of God as a lawful declaration of governance. You can only serve one master, not two… but also not zero. You must choose and declare God’s law through the lawful remedy of Christ in order for government to recognize your negative rights. Remember, this is not a declaration of religion or status, but rather a notice to government that you do not recognize it as the god on Earth it pretends to be – that government is not the vicar or replacement of Christ – and that you will access your personal God as you see fit. Thus, you must acknowledge a higher authority than government, which government will only lawfully recognize as the biblical God. This is a legal process, not religion. It is the basis of law and authority, and invoking the “authorized” higher power of God is the only available recourse to get out from under government tyranny as false-god.) Abjuration – n. [See Abjure.] 1. The act of abjuring; a renunciation upon oath; as ‘an abjuration of the realm, ‘ by which a person swears to leave the country, and never to return. It is used also for the oath of renunciation. Formerly in England, felons, taking refuge in a church, and confessing their guilt, could not be arrested and tried, but might save their lives by abjuring the realm; that is by taking an oath to quit the kingdom forever. 2. A rejection or denial with solemnity; a total abandonment; as ‘an abjuration of heresy.’ (Note: It is very important here to recognize that a country is nothing but a piece of paper, and some imaginary lines drawn on a map. You are not ever in a county, state, nation, city, town, district, or any other legal fiction because quite simply, they are fiction and you are non-fiction. You as a living being cannot be physically in a state. A state is a legal document. You must accept a fictional status to become a character in that legal fiction (jurisdiction). Thus to swear an oath to God to never return to a country simply means that you swear to God to never leave the kingdom of God in nature, never be artificial again, and that God’s law is the only law despite the claims of government. You can only be in God’s kingdom, not man’s fiction. Only a fictional person can inhabit a fictional realm. Thus the term “abjuration of the realm” literally means never respecting persons or anything man-made, for the realm is also just a fictional legal document. The term “leave the country” simply means to give up (abandon) citizenship to be governed by God (higher authority) instead of man.) Heresy – In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach. 2. heresy in law, is an offense against Christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained. 3. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics. (Note: Here the reference to an “offense against Christianity” is referring to an offense against the corporate church doctrine and political laws of government, not the Bible itself. This is not true Christianity (what’s taught in the Bible), which is against religion and organized church and legal law. We know this simply because this dictionary definition says “in law” (meaning “legally speaking”), thus we know it speaks only as something artificial/fictional, as all man’s laws are, and thus can only be offended by civil law persons, not natural human beings. Thus, it is literally heresy to disagree with government’s legal law and doctrine as a person. The trick is to distinguish within the Bible when the law is of nature and God and when it is of man acting as god and vicar. Many or most of the mentions of “god” and “lord” in the Bible refer to the kings who claim to rule as God on Earth in Christ’s departure (until His return). The Bible switches between capitalized God and little god; Lord and lord.) Save – To except, reserve, or exempt; as where a statute “saves” vested rights. To toll, or suspend the running or operation of; as to “save” the statute of limitations. (Note: To be saved is to stop acting or “impersonating” something else that is not under God (in nature). To cease to be an artificial person is saving yourself and acting under God and nature again (becoming a “christian”). In religion, they will tell you that you can be saved and still be a citizen (fiction/person). Religion seeks to control you through fiction under the doctrine of “law of the land”. Government is religion. This doctrine is contrary to the nature of life itself (a person is not natural), thus by default is contrary to “God”. Either save yourself under God or remain a debtor person subject to man. Again, you cannot serve two masters. You must choose between God and mammon. To be “born again” is to quit using your artificial person and be reborn into this life on Earth, that’s all.) Saver Default – L. Fr. In old English practice. To excuse a default. Termes de la Ley. Saving the Statute of Limitations - A creditor is said to “save the statute of limitations” when he saves or preserves his debt from being barred by the operation of the statute. Thus, in the case of a simple contract debt, if a creditor commences an action for its recovery within six years from the time when the cause of action accrued, he will be in time to save the statute. Brown. Injure - v.t. [Latin injuria, injury.] 1. To hurt or wound, as the person; to impair soundness, as of health. 2. To damage or lessen the value of, as goods or estate. 3. To slander, tarnish or impair, as reputation or character. 4. To impair or diminish; to annoy; as happiness. 5. To give pain to; to grieve; as sensibility or feelings. 7. To hurt or weaken; as, to injure a good cause. 8. To impair; to violate; as, to injure rights. 9. To make worse; as, great rains injure the roads. 10. In general, to wrong the person, to damage the property, or to lessen the happiness of ourselves or others. A man injures his person by wounds, his estate by negligence or extravagance, and his happiness by vices. He injures his neighbor by violence to his person, by fraud, by calumny, and by non-fulfillment of his contracts. (Note: To injure (to cause injury) means to cause need for an action by or against another man or person. It literally means that you’ve done harm to another person or another against you. To injure is to bring some thing into law (jure = law). In the legal fiction world, such harms can be claimed by artificial persons where the harm is not in any way in nature and has no effect on the man claiming that person-hood. In and under God’s law, also called the “Laws of Nature”, a living man is responsible for all his or her own actions, and therefore there will never be need for injury – no need for man’s legal remedies in courts of men. Only a man that is not responsible for his own actions would need to be injured (brought into law) by man’s legal fiction. Under god, man lives by the simple credo of “do no harm”. No harm literally and consequentially translates to and presents no injury, and thus no person can be harmed under God, for a person is artificial and cannot truly be harmed in nature (reality). In this hierarchy, God is the creator and ruler of man, and under that, man is the god and ruler of persons. God creates man, and only then can man create persons (again this is not a religious view, but a legal precedent). A man of God cannot be charged with harming or injuring a person, for again the man is of God while the person is a fictional creation of man. Man is always superior to persons. Only a person can harm a person (act or crime of fiction), and only a man can harm a man (act of God). Mammon never trumps God, thus an artificial person never trumps a living man. To avoid being in-jured (brought into man’s fictional realm), we must abandon our fictional person to ensure abjuration from that realm. The legal realm can only exist within man’s realm. Without God, there be no man. Without man, there be no fiction of man. This is a legal concept, and it requires not your belief in any doctrine. Unfortunately, even if you don’t believe in it, it believes in you, for this is the maxim of law and it ultimately controls your person whether you like it or not. In legal law, a person’s reputation can be harmed, for it is artificial as is the law that protects it. In nature, a man’s reputation cannot be harmed in law, for it is real. In legality, a persons reputation is a mark or blemish (mark of the beast) and includes credit score, prison record, etc. In nature, man’s reputation is his actual actions and trustworthiness in life, not on paper. Without it, he will be shunned. Politicians and thieves thrive in the artificial world where reputation (credit score) can be fixed with money, power, and influence. In nature, there is no such system, for no man has title or status above another, and no demons are allowed or respected.) Quit – Ad. Free; clear; discharged from; absolved 4. To quit one’s self, reciprocally, to clear one’s self of incumbent duties by full performance. 11. To forsake; to abandon. Such a superficial way of examining is to quit truth for appearance. To quit cost, to pay; to free from by an equivalent; to reimburse; as, the cultivation of barren land will not always quit cost. 9. To leave; to give up; to resign; to relinquish; as, to quit an office. 6. To vacate obligation; to release; to free from – Dangers of law, actions, decrees, judgments against us quitted. 2. To free; to clear; to liberate; to discharge from. 3. To carry through; to do or perform something to the end, so that nothing remains; to discharge or perform completely. Quit - Clear; discharged; free; also spoken of persons absolved or acquitted of a charge. (Blacks Law 1st) Quitclaim, v. t. [quit and claim.] To release a claim by deed without covenants of warranty; to convey to another who hath some right in lands or tenements, all one’s right, title and interest in the estate, by relinquishing all claim to them. The words used in the instrument are, ‘A hath remised, released and forever quitclaimed all his right, title and interest to a certain estate. – n. A deed of release; an instrument by which all claims to an estate are relinquished to another without any covenant or warranty, express or implied. Quitclaim – v. In conveyancing. To release or relinquish a claim; to execute a deed of quitclaim. – n. A release or acquittance given to one man by another, in respect of any action that he has or might have against him. Also acquitting or giving up one’s claim or title. (Black’s Law 1st) Quitclaim Deed - A deed of conveyance operating by way of release; that is, intended to pass any title, interest, or claim which the grantor may have in the premises, but not professing that such title is valid, nor containing any warranty or covenants for title. (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: A quitclaim is a legal document, quitting or ceasing to claim possession of the person, and conveying (transferring) it back to its owner government. It is like getting out of your car and abandoning it, never to drive (use) it again. Unless you quite claiming to be a person under mammon, you can never claim to be a man under God., for you may not serve two masters. You must discharge by dismissal your connection to anything artificial that might draw you back into the realm of fiction. You must take responsibility for your self 100% of the time with no exceptions. You cannot ever officially claim the surname again.) Conveyance - n. 1. The act of conveying; the act of bearing, carrying, or transporting, by land or water, or through any medium. 2. The act of transmitting, or transferring, as titles, estates or claims from one person to another; transmission; transference; assignment. 3. The instrument or means of passing a thing from place to place, or person to person; as, a vehicle is a conveyance for persons or goods; a canal or aqueduct is a conveyance for water; a deed is a conveyance of land. 4. Removal; the act of removing or carrying. 5. Management; artifice; secret practices. Discharge – n. 4. Dismission from office or service; or the writing which evidences the dismission. The general, the soldier, obtains a discharge. 5. Release from obligation, debt or penalty; or the writing which is evidence of it; an acquittance; as, the debtor has a discharge. 6. Absolution from a crime or accusation; acquittance. 7. Ransom; liberation; price paid for deliverance. 8. Performance; execution; applied to an office, trust or duty. A good man is faithful in the discharge of his duties, public and private. 9. Liberation; release from imprisonment or other confinement. 10. Exemption; escape. 11. Payment, as of a debt. Acquittance - n. 1. A discharge or release from a debt. 2. The writing, which is evidence of a discharge; a receipt in full, which bars a further demand. Deliverance – n. 1. Release from captivity, slavery, oppression, or any restraint. He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives. Luke 4:18. 2. Rescue from danger or any evil. God sent me to save your lives by a great deliverance Genesis 45:7. 3. The act of bringing forth children. 4. The act of giving or transferring from one to another. 5. The act of speaking or pronouncing; utterance. [In the three last senses, delivery is now used.] 6. Acquittal of a prisoner, by the verdict of a jury. God send you a good deliverance. Salvation – n. [Latin salvo, to save.] 1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity. 2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation. 3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exodus 14:13. 4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19:9. (Note: Eternal death refers again to acting in dead pledge as a person, in bondage and liability/debt to the government. To live your life as something artificial is to live your life as a dead person. The legal redemption of your soul from this captivity is what the allegory of the Bible speaks about.) Redemption – n. [Latin redemptio. See Redeem.] 1. Repurchase of captured goods or prisoners; the act of procuring the deliverance of persons or things from the possession and power of captors by the payment of an equivalent; ransom; release; as the redemption of prisoners taken in war; the redemption of a ship and cargo. 2. Deliverance from bondage, distress, or from liability to any evil or forfeiture, either by money, labor or other means. 3. Repurchase, as of lands alienated. Leviticus 25:24. Jeremiah 32:7. 4. The liberation of an estate from a mortgage; or the purchase of the right to re-enter upon it by paying the principal sum for which it was mortgaged with interest and cost; also, the right of redeeming and re-entering.6. In theology, the purchase of God’s favor by the death and sufferings of Christ; the ransom or deliverance of sinners from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God’s violated law by the atonement of Christ. In whom we have redemption through his blood. Ephesians 1:7. Colossians 1:14. Distress – n. [See Stress.] 1. The act of distraining; the taking of any personal chattel from a wrong-doer, to answer a demand, or procure satisfaction for a wrong committed. 2. The thing taken by distraining; that which is seized to procure satisfaction. 4. Affliction; calamity; misery. On earth distress of nations. Luke 21:23. - v.t. 1. To pain; to afflict with pain or anguish; applied to the body or the mind. [Literally, to press or strain.] 2. To afflict greatly; to harass; to oppress with calamity; to make miserable. Distrain – v.t. [Latin Dis and stringo. See Strain. Blackstone writes distrein.] 1. To seize for debt; to take a personal chatel from the possession of a wrong-doer into the possession of the injured party, to satisfy a demand, or compel the performance of a duty; as, to distrain goods fro rent, or for an amercement. 2. To rend; to tear. – v.i. To make seizure of goods. For neglecting to do suit to the lords court, or other personal service, the lord may distrain of common right. (Note: In all cases, the property of a person (citizen) and resident is the property of the State, for the person is also property of the State. A person can only be a tenant of State property, and so government will put a person in distress to take (distrain) that property on behalf of itself or for corporations (banks) that foreclose in its name and protection when the person does not pay his or her debts. This action of demand could not be done on living man with claimed higher authority (God), for man is above (god of) that fiction. A distress against a living man is not lawful, while a distress against an artificial person is no crime, for a person is not alive.) Mortgage – n.. 1. Literally, a dead pledge; the grant of an estate in fee as security for the payment of money, and on the condition that if the money shall be paid according to the contract, the grant shall be void, and the mortgagee shall re-convey the estate to the mortgager… 2. The state of being pledged; as lands given in mortgage. 3. A pledge of goods or chattels by a debtor to a creditor, as security for the debt. v. t. 1. To pledge; to make liable to the payment of any debt or expenditure. Mortmain – n.In law, possession of lands or tenements in dead hands, or hands that cannot alienate. Alienation in mortmain is an alienation of lands or tenements to any corporation, sole or aggregate, ecclesiastical or temporal, particularly to religious houses, by which the estate becomes perpetually inherent in the corporation and unalienable. (Note: Dead, dead, dead. That’s what a person is. Thus a mortgage is a pledge by a dead person, which can only hold that property with (imaginary) dead hands. And a person cannot alienate, therefore a person cannot stop government (corporation) from taking. The word “fee” is equal to the word feudal or fief. It’s time you realize that you live in a modernized feudal state that has been around since before the Bible was written – an ancient system of pledging now streamlined and computerized.) Alienable – a. That may be sold, or transferred to another; as, land is alienable according to the laws of the State. Unalienable - a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights. Inalienable - a. [Latin alieno, alienus.] Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature. (Note: Inalienable is the legal version of unalienable, but legal rights (privileges) can be taken or given away within an inalienable state, where natural (unalienable rights) cannot. Remember, nothing Government grants to persons (rights/benefits) are unalienable. Thus, while in the United States jurisdiction, property is always inalienable (alienable only by legal means), and thus legally property and land can be taken under eminent domain because the property does not belong to a man, but to a government created corporation or person. When property of any kind is registered under a surname, that property and land becomes government owned, where the person can only be a tenant (user). An artificial fictional thing (citizen) cannot own anything in nature, thus men as persons (demons) have no real property rights in the United States. All rights of persons are in fact ultimately artificial, and thus are ultimately always considered legally alienable under the doctrine of necessity.) Pray – n. 2. To petition; to ask, as for a favor; as in application to a legislative body. Prayer – The request contained in a bill in equity that the court will grant the process, aid, or relief which the complainant desires. Also, by extension, the term is applied to that part of the bill which contains this request. (Black’s Law 1st) Prayer of Process – is a petition with which a bill in equity used to conclude, to the effect that a writ of subpoena might issue against the defendant to compel him to answer upon oath all the matters charged against him in the bill. (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: The word pray was used in court until recently instead of the word plead. When one falls on ones knees and makes a pleading to the lord of the courtroom (the judge) for a lenient judgement, this was called praying to the court (lord).) Atonement - n. 1. Agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy. Romans 5:11. 2. Expiation; satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or injury; with for. When a man has been guilty of any vice, the best atonement he can make for it is, to warn others not to fall into the like. 3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ. Expiation n. [Latin expiatio.] The act of atoning for a crime; the act of making satisfaction for an offense, by which the guilt is done away, and the obligation of the offended person to punish the crime is canceled; atonement; satisfaction. Among pagans and Jews, expiation was made chiefly by sacrifices, or washings and purification. Among Christians, expiation for the sins of men is usually considered as made only by the obedience and sufferings of Christ. 1. The means by which atonement for crimes is made; atonement; as sacrifices and purification among heathens, and the obedience and death of Christ among Christians. (Note: Accepting and declaring the grace of God is the legal remedy for atonement of the sins of the person. A man can have no obligations to the State unless he continues to claim and stand in his or her artificial person. Did I mention this is not religion?) Grace - n. [Latin gratia, which is formed on the Celtic; Eng. agree, congruous, and ready. The primary sense of gratus, is free, ready, quick, willing, prompt, from advancing.] 1. Favor; good will; kindness; disposition to oblige another; as a grant made as an act of grace 2. Appropriately, the free unmerited love and favor of God, the spring and source of all the benefits men receive from him. And if by grace then it is no more of works. Romans 11:5. 3. Favorable influence of God; divine influence or the influence of the spirit, in renewing the heart and restraining from sin. My grace is sufficient for thee. 2 Corinthians 12:9. 4. The application of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Romans 5:2. 5. A state of reconciliation to God. Romans 5:2:2. 9. Eternal life; final salvation. 1 Peter 1:13. 10. Favor; mercy; pardon. Bow and sue for grace With suppliant knee. 11. Favor conferred. 12. Privilege. 14. Natural or acquired excellence; any endowment that recommends the possessor to others; as the graces of wit and learning. 18. The title of a duke or an archbishop, and formerly of the king of England, meaning your goodness or clemency. His grace the Duke of York. Your grace will please to accept my thanks. 19. A short prayer before or after meat; a blessing asked, or thanks rendered.Day in grace in theology, time of probation, when an offer is made to sinners. Days in grace in commerce, the days immediately following the day when a bill or note becomes due, which days are allowed to the debtor or payor to make payment in. In Great Britain and the United States the days of grace are three, but in other countries more; the usages of merchants being different. -v.t. To adorn; to decorate; to embellish and dignify. 1. To dignify or raise by act of favor; to honor. He might at his pleasure grace or disgrace whom he would in court. 3. To supply with heavenly grace. Disgrace - n. [dis and grace.] 1. A state of being out of favor; disfavor; disesteem; as, the minister retired from court in disgrace 2. State of ignominy; dishonor; shame. 3. Cause of shame; as, to turn the back to the enemy is a foul disgrace; every vice is a disgrace to a rational being. (Note: This again leaves us with a choice: Do you prefer the grace of God in nature or the disgrace of a man in demonic robe and status who claims to be god on Earth? Who or what do you want to be the judge of your actions? To what do you wish to be responsible to, God and nature or to men who claim to be of higher authority than God? Hint: only a psychopath claims to be a god or act criminally against nature in God’s name… A man supplied with “Heavenly Grace” needs not pretend grace (shame) and lives life eternally here on Earth. A man without God’s grace in legal form must suffer man’s shame, judgement, and wrath in hell on earth as an eternal debt-slave.) Enmity - n. 1. The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice, and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient. I will put enmity between thee and the woman. Genesis 3:15. The carnal mind is enmity against God.Romans 8:7. 2. A state of opposition. The friendship of the world is enmity with God. James 4:4. (Note: Friendship of the world refers to accepting dead/artificial things as persons created by men to have authority over nature and God. It is also referred to in the Bible as the “respecting of persons”. A person is an enemy (in enmity) of God, by simply being opposed to (not created by) nature and its laws.) Son - n. 2. A male descendant, however distant; hence in the plural, sons signifies descendants in general, a sense much used in the Scriptures. The whole human race are styled sons of Adam. 4. A native or inhabitant of a country; as the sons of Britain. Let our country never be ashamed of her sons. 5. The produce of any thing. Earth’s tall sons, the cedar, oak and pine. [Note. The primary sense of child is produce, issue; a shoot.] 6. One adopted into a family. Moses was the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Exodus 2:2. 7. One who is converted by another’s instrumentality, is called his son; also, one educated by another; as the sons of the prophets. 8. Christ is called the son of God, as being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, or in consequence of his relation to the Father. (Note: To be a son of God is to be an instrument of God. Instrument is a legal term. You are born a man (son of God) and then converted into a financial instrument through the attaching of a surname on a birth certificate into an artificial state of being a person. To find grace and salvation (remedy) to that artificial state in law, it requires you to to be re-converted back into nature – thus we say a person must abandon his person by “converting to Christianity”.) GOD - n. 1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe. GOD is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24. 2. A false god; a heathen deity;an idol. Fear not the gods of the Amorites. Judges 6:10. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. Exodus 22:28. Psalms 97:7. 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. Whose god is their belly. Philippians 3:19. (Note: Do not honor or respect persons as gods. The majority of the mention of the word “god”, “gods”, and “lord” in the Bible is referring to persons (Kings and Priests as vicars), not to GOD (Supreme Being/Creator). This must be understood to comprehend how and why the Bible tells two stories (God and false “temporal” god) and describes two paths, one of God and one of mammon. For instance it was the King’s (god’s) will that blood sacrifices be made to God, not GOD/creators will. Nature requires no such idolatry and no ceremony under the path of Christianity, for the sacrifice/crucifixion was already allegorically made in order to satisfy the law of men acting as gods who demanded sacrifices of blood. Again, literal or fundamental translation to this story will get you nowhere in life, and will continue to hide the allegorical brilliance of the Bible as a remedy to man’s claim of being authority over God and other men. You do not need to prove that Plato’s Cave actually existed in his Allegory of the Cave to be able to apply it’s lessons in real life. Robin Hood and King Arthur need not be anything but fictional characters and yet still their stories teach men. Why then cannot one learn from and utilize the Bible without the need for proof of its allegory?) Mammon – n. Riches; wealth; or the god or riches. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24. (Note: In this definition the distinction is made between God capitalized and god un-capitalized. Little god is man acting in the stead of God, claiming to be god, which is also known as idolatry. The god of riches is government and corporate church of course, for it creates money and is mammon.) Vicar - n. [Latin vicarius, from vicis, a turn, or its root.] 1. In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office. The pope pretends to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. He has under him a grand vicar who is a cardinal, and whose jurisdiction extends over all priests, regular and secular. 2. In the canon law, the priest of a parish, the predial tithes of which are impropriated or appropriated, that is, belong to a chapter or religious house, or to a layman, who receives them, and only allows the vicar the smaller tithes or a salary. Apostolical vicars, are those who perform the functions of the pope in churches or provinces committed to their direction. Authorized - participle passive, Warranted by right; supported by authority; derived from legal or proper authority; having power or authority. (Note: By having the title of “Authorized Version”, the 1611 King James Bible is literally the “legal authority” of the legal law of men (mammon). We don’t read the King James because it is a “good translation” or more easily understandable, but rather because it is the book that the current legal law is based upon. Other translations are irrelevant for legal purposes. You must not look for an easy to read translation, for that will be a work of mere fiction, and we are reading the Bible to find the legal remedy to invoke Christ as remedy. You must learn the language of the authorized version so as to understand what authority is – which is the legal language of the vicar of Christ. Remember, this translation is of the King (god), of the government (god), and is the evidence (testament) of law that all right and authority is claimed by the “vicar”. In God We Trust…) Idolatry – n. [Latin idololatria. Gr. idol, and to worship or serve.] 1. The worship of idols, images, or any thing made by hands (of man/unnatural), or which is not God (of and found in nature). Idolatry is of two kinds; the worship of images, statues, pictures, etc. made by hands; and the worship of the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon and stars, or of demons, angels, men and animals. 2. Excessive attachment or veneration for any thing, or that which borders on adoration. (Note: There is no image of God, for man cannot perceive God. Look around you and worship the creation of God, for that is the closest you will ever get to perceiving God. And more importantly, worship all men (respect their rights) who are Sons of God (I AM) in total equality, so that no man may ever have an artificial status (person) above any other. This is called peace.) Peace - n.[Latin pax, paco, to appease.] 1. In a general sense, a state of quiet or tranquillity; freedom from disturbance or agitation; applicable to society, to individuals, or to the temper of the mind. 2. Freedom from war with a foreign nation; public quiet. 3. Freedom from internal commotion or civil war. 4. Freedom from private quarrels, suits or disturbance. 5. Freedom from agitation or disturbance by the passions, as from fear, terror, anger, anxiety or the like; quietness of mind; tranquillity; calmness; quiet of conscience. Great peace have they that love the (natural) law. Psalms 119:165. 7. Harmony; concord; a state of reconciliation between parties at variance. 8. Public tranquillity; that quiet, order and security which is guaranteed by the laws; as, to keep the peace; to break the peace. This word is used in commanding silence or quiet; as, peace to this troubled soul. To be at peace to be reconciled; to live in harmony. To make peace to reconcile, as parties at variance. To hold the peace to be silent; to suppress one’s thoughts; not to speak. Reconciliation - noun [Latin reconciliatio.] 1. The act of reconciling parties at variance; renewal of friendship after disagreement or enmity. Reconciliation and friendship with God, really form the basis of all rational and true enjoyment. 2. In Scripture, the means by which sinners are reconciled and brought into a state of favor with God, after natural estrangement or enmity; the atonement; expiation. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. Daniel 9:24. Hebrews 2:17. 3. Agreement of things seemingly opposite, different or inconsistent. (Note: A man cannot reconcile with government his desire to be free of its person without making atonement to nature and thus showing favor of God as highest authority to government. You will be governed by men until you can prove and legally declare a higher God, and thus live in peace, for the meek shall inherit the world.) Converted – p.p. Turned or changed from one substance or state to another; turned form one religion or sect to another; changed from a state of sin to a state of holiness; applied to a particular use; appropriated. Meek, a [Latin mucus; Eng. mucilage; Heb. to melt.] 1. Mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding; given to forbearance under injuries. Now the man Moses was very meek above all men. Numbers 12:3. 2. Appropriately, humble, in an evangelical sense; submissive to the divine will; not proud, self-sufficient or refractory; not peevish and apt to complain of divine dispensations. Christ says, ‘Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls.’ Matthew 11:29. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5. (Note: Persons may not inherit the Earth, for they are not natural as the Earth is. Only men who are meek, self-sufficient without government, and who pay for injuries caused to other natural things and beings as responsible for their own actions shall be allowed by governments to inherit the Earth without being governed by men.) Inherit – v. t. [Latin hoeres, an heir. See Heir.] 1. To take by descent from an ancestor; to take by succession, as the representative of the former possessor; to receive, as a right or title descendible by law from an ancestor at his decease. The heir inherits the lands or real estate of his father; the eldest son of the nobleman inherits his father’s title, and the eldest son of a king inherits the crown. 2. To receive by nature from a progenitor. The son inherits the virtues of his father; the daughter inherits the temper of her mother, and children often inherit the constitutional infirmities of their parents. 3. To possess; to enjoy; to take as a possession, by gift or divine appropriation; as, to inherit everlasting life; to inherit the promises. –That thou mayest live, and inherit the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. Deuteronomy 16:20. The meek shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5. (Note: Maturity of thought creates the realization that no man may own the property (creation) of God. The creator of the Earth (a higher law) was the first progenitor, and only the men who are Sons of God may inherit that land – with merely the responsibility to keep and protect it as caretaker (dominion) but never to claim demonic possession of it through fictional title of property (corporate person). Persons being not of God, can only thus inherit a fictional paper title also not of God, which is unnatural and not the soil of the land itself (of the creator). The meek shall inherit the whole Earth, not incorporated plots (parts) of it. If this sounds like an impossible disposition for men, which is perfectly understandable considering today’s society, we must remember the most important rule of Christianity – DO NO HARM. To do no harm means also to respect the duty to never harm natural rights of all other men. Peace may never be on Earth (in heaven) without this duty being always upheld. I, for one, am not confident this pipe-dream can ever become reality among men, I am only deciphering the code so that if it is possible, men of God may have a fighting chance at peace and harmony – at heaven on Earth. I do claim to know that the way things are today requires war, occupation, and crimes against nature, and thus will never end in peace and quiet, for it is literally hell on Earth.) Quiet – a. Unmolested ; tranquil; free from interference or disturbance. – v. To pacify; to render secure or unassailable by the removal of disquieting causes or disputes. This is the meaning of the word in the phrase “action to quiet title”, which is a proceeding to establish the plaintiff’s title to land by bringing into court an adverse claimant and there compelling QUIET. Quiet Title – a suit brought about to obtain a determination as to the title of a certain piece of property. Title Quiet – used to describe a suit in a court of equity that will settle all claims of rightful ownership. Peace and Quiet – a term referring to a right to security, freedom and tranquility as is guaranteed by the law. (Note: Only the quieting of persons and destruction of titles (status) can peace happen. Peace and legal quiet go hand in hand.) Attachment n.1. A taking of the person, goods or estate by a writ or precept in a civil action, to secure a debt or demand. 2. A writ directing the person or estate of a person to be taken, to secure his appearance before a court. 3. Close adherence or affection; fidelity; regard; any passion or affection that binds a person; as, an attachment to a friend, or to a party. Fidelity – n. [Latin fidelitas, from fides, faith, fido, to trust. See Faith.] 1. Faithfulness; careful and exact observance of duty, or performance of obligations. We expect fidelity in a public minister, in an agent or trustee, in a domestic servant, in a friend. The best security for the fidelity of men, is to make interest coincide with duty. 2. Firm adherence to a person or party with which one is united, or to which one is bound; loyalty; as the fidelity of subjects to their king or government; the fidelity of a tenant or liege to his lord. 3. Observance of the marriage covenant; as the fidelity of a husband or wife. 4. Honesty; veracity; adherence to truth; as the fidelity of a witness. Faith. 1. Confidence; credit; reliance. Thus, an act may be said to be done “on the faith” of certain representations. 2. Belief; credence; trust. Thus, the constitution provides that “full faith and credit” shall be given to the judgments of each state in the courts of the others. 3. Purpose; intent; sincerity; state of knowledge or design. This is the meaning of the word in the phrases “good faith” and “bad faith.” (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: In government, a person is under an agreement of faith as a financial instrument, which has nothing to do with a belief in God. It is a bond of insurance or pledge to church and government, not God.) Faith – n. [Latin fides, fido, to trust; Gr. to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. In the Greek Lexicon of Hederic it is said, the primitive signification of the verb is to bind and draw or lead, as signifies a rope or cable. But this remark is a little incorrect. The sense of the verb, from which that of rope and binding is derived, is to strain, to draw, and thus to bind or make fast. A rope or cable is that which makes fast. Heb.] 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth… 2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind. 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar. 4. Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God’s testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God’s character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God’s testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation. Being justified by faith Romans 5:1. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hebrews 11:1. For we walk by faith and not by sight. 2 Corinthians 5:7. The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind, which is called trust or confidence, exercised towards the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior. Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. Faith is a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word; or a full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them. 5. The object of belief; a doctrine or system of doctrines believed; a system of revealed truths received by christians. 7. An open profession of gospel truth. 8. A persuasion or belief of the lawfulness of things indifferent. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Rom 14. 9. Faithfulness; fidelity; a strict adherence to duty and fulfillment of promises. 10. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity. 11. Sincerity; honesty; veracity; faithfulness. We ought in good faith to fulfill all our engagements. 12. Credibility or truth. (Note: Whatever your claim of religion as a person, you automatically have faith in government as a person over God. Putting your faith in God simply means placing your whole self into the realm of nature under that law instead of man’s. You are putting faith in the teachings of the Bible through the “character” of Christ, not in the notion that Christ lived or did not live. Logic and reason must prevail here, or religion will form from even your own self-created doctrine. Plato’s Cave and the characters called slaves need not be proven to have lived in reality for the faith in its veracity of knowledge to be true. Do not allow religious thought to cloud your judgement or to demonize the Bible as just religion. You believe, put faith in, and obey the U.S. CODE, knowing it is merely the fiction of men. Why can you not therefore believe, put faith in, and obey the words of the Christ character to escape that U.S. CODE and be free?) Respect, v. t. [Latin respecto, or respectus, from respicio; re and specio, to view.] 1. To regard; to have regard to in design or purpose. 2. To have regard to, in relation or connection; to relate to. The treaty particularly respects our commerce. 3. To view or consider with some degree of reverence; to esteem as if possessed of real worth… To respect the person, to suffer the opinion or judgment, to be influenced or biased by a regard to the outward circumstances of a person, to the prejudice of right and equity. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor. Leviticus 19:15. Neither doth God (nature) respect any person (artificial thing). 2 Samuel 14:14. - n. [Latin respectus.] 5. Partial regard; undue bias to the prejudice of justice; as the phrase, respect of persons. 1 Peter 1:17. James 2:1. Proverbs 24:23. 6. Respected character; as persons of the best respect in Rome. 7. Consideration; motive in reference to something. Character/Characteristic – a. That constitutes the character; that marks the peculiar, distinctive qualities of a person or thing. – n. 1. That which constitutes a character; that which characterizes; that which distinguishes a person or thing from another. (Note: The character of persons is distinguished by the name and surname, and by the number assigned to that unnatural combination. You might call the Social Security number the number and mark of the Beast. A man with no surname or number is indistinguishable in mans’ law, for he has no prescribed legal character and no corporate or artificial characteristics.) Person, noun per’sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.] 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being. 2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them. 3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant. 4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person’s attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect. 5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear. 6. Character of office. How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend. 7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb… 8. In law, an artificial person is a corporation or body politic. In person by one’s self; with bodily presence; not be representative. The king in person visits all around. - v. t. To represent as a person; to make to resemble; to image. (Note: The word person takes up many pages in law to describe. It can be used in nature and in fiction. But be clear that always in law and legal settings, a person is but a legal fiction and artificial. Thus, when speaking of man’s law, it can only recognize men if the respect the person assigned to them by government. The legal realm only deals with men when they possess a demon in impersonation of that fictional character. God protects men under the laws of nature only if they are not in possession and surety of a demon.) Impersonate – v. t. To personify. Personify - v. t. [Latin persona and facio.] To give animation to inanimate objects; to ascribe to an inanimate being the sentiments, actions or language of a rational being or person, or to represent an inanimate being with the affections and actions of a person. Thus we say, the plants thirst for rain. The trees said to the fig-tree, come thou, and reign over us. Judges 9:1. Ascribe, v. t. [Latin ascribo, of ad and scribo, to write.] 1. To attribute, impute, or set to, as to a cause; to assign, as effect to a cause; as, losses are often to be ascribed to imprudence. 2. To attribute, as a quality, or an appurtenance; to consider or allege to belong; as, to ascribe perfection to God, or imperfection to man. Job 36:3. Psalms 68:34. 1 Samuel 18:8. Attribute – v.t. [Latin attribuo; ad and tribuo, to divide, to bestow, to assign; tribus, a tribe, division or ward. See Tribe.] 1. To allot or attach, in contemplation; to ascribe; to consider as belonging. We attribute nothing to God, that contains a contradiction. 2. To give as due; to yield as an act of the mind; as, to attribute to God all the glory of redemption. 3. To impute, as to a cause; as, our misfortunes are generally to be attributed to our follies or imprudence. – n. 1. That which is attributed; that which is considered as belonging to, or inherent in; as, power and wisdom are attributes of the Supreme Being; or a quality determining something to be after a certain manner; as, extension is an attribute of body. 2. Quality; characteristic disposition; as bravery and generosity in men. 3. A thing belonging to another; an appendant; as the arms of a warrior. In painting and sculpture, a symbol of office or character, added to the principal figure; as a club is the attribute of Hercules. 4. Reputation; honor. (Note: An artificial person is an attribute of government granted to a man. It is a title. The person does not belong to you, and therefore every action taken in person and everything purchased in person and everything accomplished in life in person belongs to the owner of that person, which is government. Thus everything you have in person can be taken by government, from property to freedom. Remember, a person has no unalienable rights in nature, for a person is not of nature; not created by God and not under God’s authority and jurisdiction. All conglomerate corporations for profit or not are also property of government, as they are property of a person, not a man. The man incorporates in person, thus the corporation is fiction of government and thus government acts as god over that corporation (person).) Appurtenance - n. So written for appurtenance. See Appertain.] That which belongs to something else; an adjunct; an appendage. Appropriately, such buildings, rights and improvements, as belong to land, are called the appurtenances; as small buildings are the appurtenances of a mansion. Adjunct - n. [Latin adjunctus, joined, from adjungo. See join.] 1. Something added to another, but not essentially a part of it; as, water absorbed by a cloth or sponge is its adjunct. Also a person joined to another. - a. Added to or united with, as an adjunct professor. (Note: A man is joined under legal law to a person through what is known as a surety. It is the goal of a man in becoming a “Christian” to abandon such an artificial joinder and to instead be a surety to Christ, being then bound by the laws of nature (God).) Surety, n. Certainty; indubitableness. Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs Genesis 15:13. 1. Security; safety. 2. Foundation of stability; support. 3. Evidence; ratification; confirmation. 4. Security against loss or damage; security for payment. 5. In law, one that is bound with and for another; one who enters into a bond or recognizance to answer for another’s appearance in court, or for his payment of a debt or for the performance of some act, and who, in case of the principal debtor’s failure, is compellable to pay the debt or damages; a bondsman; a bail. He that is surety for a stranger, shall smart for it. Proverbs 11:15. 6. In Scripture, Christ is called ‘the surety of a better testament.’ Hebrews 7:22. He undertook to make atonement for the sins of men, and thus prepare the way to deliver them from the punishment to which they had rendered themselves liable. 7. A hostage. (Note: One of the most important legal terms in both realms, a surety-ship is comparable to the shackles of a slave. Being attached through surety to an artificial person is like carrying around a ventriloquist’s doll, where the doll pulls your strings and speaks for you in law. The purpose of the action of surety is literally the bondage of man to a person. It is an insurance policy insuring that government’s property (the person) is not damaged, and creating a pact that the man shall pay the debts of the person. The remedy to this enslavement through bonded indebtedness to government is the act of abandoning the usage of that person and literally becoming a slave to the will and testament of God, through the legal concept of Christ Jesus. Faith and belief are thus removed from government and placed in God, and man is now bonded with Christ in redemption, no longer a slave in the legal fiction realm, abjuring to the laws of nature as his or her only true jurisdiction in law. This is an actual legal process, not to be mistaken with mere religions thought or doctrine. It involves all of the legal concepts discussed here, correctly applied within the authorized legal testament (evidence) of law of kings. In other words, this is the only authorized remedy by kings and governments, for only the usurpation of their claimed authority as vicar (replacement) of God on temporal/corporal Earth can legally be considered and recognized by that authority of man as remedy to that legal claim.) Believer – n. One who believes; one who gives credit to other evidence than that of personal knowledge. 1. In theology, one who gives credit to the truth of the scriptures, as a revelation from God. In a more restricted sense, a professor of christianity; one who receives the gospel, as unfolding the true way of salvation, and Christ, as his Savior. (Note: This word believer is very important. No other word creates more tension than this one by religious persons among non-religious men. But please understand that belief in anything is not a requirement in a religious or doctrinal way. Instead, this word legally signifies “use” with “confidence” as evidence of law under God and not man. To “receive” the gospel is to accept the Christian remedy in law in order to abandon man’s law of mammon. Belief is more easily understood here as confidence or trust. It is the state of being by one in receivership of God’s authority over man.) Receive - v.t. [Latin recipio; re and capio, to take.] 1. To take, as a thing offered or sent; to accept. He had the offer of a donation, but he would not receive it. 2. To take as due or as a reward. He received the money on the day it was payable. He received ample compensation. 3. To take or obtain from another in any manner, and either good or evil. Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10… 5. To take or obtain intellectually; as, to receive an opinion or notion from others. 6. To embrace. Receive with meekness the engrafted word. James 1:7. 7. To allow; to hold; to retain; as a custom long received. 8. To admit. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Psalms 73:24. 9. To welcome; to lodge and entertain; as a guest. 10. To admit into membership or fellowship. Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye. Romans 14:1. 11. To take in or on; to hold; to contain. 12. To be endowed with. Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you. Acts 1:8. 13. To take into a place or state. After the Lord had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven. Mark 16:19. 14. To take or have as something ascribed; as, to receive praise or blame. Revelation 4:11. Revelation 5:12. 15. To bear with or suffer. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 16. To believe in. John 1:11. 17. To accept or admit officially or in an official character. The minister was received by the emperor or court. 18. To take stolen goods from a thief, knowing them to be stolen. Reciever - n. 1. One who takes or receives in any manner. 2. An officer appointed to receive public money; a treasurer. 3. One who takes stolen goods from a thief, knowing them to be stolen, and incurs the guilt of partaking in the crime (i.e. sin). 4. A vessel for receiving and containing the product of distillation. 5. The vessel of an air pump, for containing the thing on which an experiment is to be made. 6. One who partakes of the sacrament (oath). (Note: In law, the human body is considered a fleshly vessel that carries the soul. Upon that body is placed in surety a person. This requires voluntary receipt of that demon in possession and use. Is it so hard to accept grace as remedy of God in renunciation of government’s person when all of your life you’ve accepted and embraced the artificial fiction of government in its stead? Would it harm your ego so badly to accept the endowment of Christ as your Lord and Savior, even as you now accept government as your god, if it meant being free of bonded debt-slavery? Still think we are talking about religion here, oh foolish one? The ego is the devils prize, for it prevents good men from shining true to their natural character. And religion is the devil’s (man’s) tool to prevent ego death and thus the peace and natural liberty of mankind. And so man remains in hell as long as he lives on Earth, all the time avoiding the heaven it could be.) Confidence – n. [Latin See Confide.] 1. A trusting, or reliance; an assurance of mind or firm belief in the integrity, stability or veracity of another (either God or mammon), or in the truth and reality of a fact. It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man. Psalms 118:8. I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things. 2 Corinthians 7:16. Mutual confidence is the basis of social happiness. I place confidence in a statement, or in an official report. 2. Trust; reliance; applied to one’s own abilities, or fortune; belief in one’s own competency. 3. That in which trust is placed; ground of trust; he or that which supports. Jehovah shall be thy confidence Proverbs 3:26. 4. Safety, or assurance of safety; security. 5. Boldness; courage. Preaching the kingdom of God with all confidence Acts 28:31. (Note: Is government a fact, a truth, and a reality? Do you trust in it? Do you freely place your confidence in it? Is your faith in it? Isn’t insanity really defined as putting your faith in men (government) over and over and expecting different results? Do you understand now that faith, trust, and confidence are all legally BINDING terms?) Testament – n. [Latin testamentum, from testor, to make a will.] 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. 2. The name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ. In the primitive church, those who had been instructed in the truths of the gospel and baptized, were called believers; in distinction from the catechumens, who were under instruction, as preparatory to baptism and admission to church privileges. Synonym = evidence. Witness - n. 1. Testimony; attestation of a fact or event. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 5:31. 2. That which furnishes evidence or proof… 3. A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; as, he was witness; he was an eye-witness. 1 Peter 5:1. 4. One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it for the purpose of confirming its authenticity b his testimony. 5. One who gives testimony; as, the witnesses in court agreed in all essential facts. – v.t. 1. To see or know by personal presence… 2. To attest; to give testimony to; to testify to something. Behold, how many things they witness against thee. Mark 15:4. 3. To see the execution of an instrument, and subscribe it for the purpose of establishing its authenticity; as, to witness a bond or a deed. – v.i. 1. To bear testimony. 2. To give evidence. (Note: The popular religions term to “be a witness for Christ” is yet another misapplied legal action by misleading or mislead religious corporations. To witness for Christ is to legally attest that your law is under God through His remedy called Christ Jesus. Doing so in a religious setting has no weight in law. Witnessing, however, in court of law or in a legal declaration overrules man’s law, with Christ as your witness. This is the presentation of evidence of God’s law which exempts man from the law of man and mammon. Without a witness, there be no crime. A person may not use Christ as a witness, for a person is not known to God. Only a man who abandons the surname and benefits of person-hood may use the Bible and the character of Christ as witness and evidence of law above that of man. There can be no uncertainty in your faith and belief – your slavery to Christ as Lord.) Certainty - n. 1. A fixed or real state; truth; fact. 2. Full assurance of mind; exemption from doubt… perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas. 3. Exemption from failure; as the certainty of an event, or of the success of a medicine. The certainty of punishment is the truest security against crimes. 4. Regularity; settled state. (Note: It’s your choice… your state of being is either real or fiction. Are you certain you can prove you are only a human being without a another state?) Exemption – n. The act of exempting; the state of being exempt. 1. Freedom from any service, charge, burden, tax, evil or requisition, to which others are subject; immunity; privilege. No man can claim an exemption from pain, sorrow or death. (Note: A fictional person may never be exempt from government, for the person is property of government and subject to all its (creator’s) laws. Government is the author of that fictional character in its fictional tale. The only true exemption, redemption, and remedy happens within the real, and is declared with abandonment of the false.) Evil - n. Evil is natural or moral. Natural evil is any thing which produces pain, distress, loss or calamity, or which in any way disturbs the peace, impairs the happiness, or destroys the perfection of natural beings. Moral evil is any deviation of a moral agent from the rules of conduct prescribed to him by God, or by legitimate human authority; or it is any violation of the plain principles of justice and rectitude. There are also evils called civil, which affect injuriously the peace or prosperity of a city or state; and political evils, which injure a nation, in its public capacity. All wickedness, all crimes, all violations of law and right are moral evils. Diseases are natural evils, but they often proceed from moral evils. 2. Misfortune; mischief; injury. There shall no evil befall thee. Psalms 91:10. A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself. Proverbs 22:3. 3. Depravity; corruption of heart, or disposition to commit wickedness; malignity. The heart of the sons of men is full of evil Ecclesiastes 9:3. 4. Malady; as the king’s evil or scrophula. – adv. [generally contracted to ill.] 1. Not well; not with justice or propriety; unsuitable. Evil it beseems thee. 2. Not virtuously;not innocently… 4. Injuriously; not kindly. The Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us. In composition, evil denoting something bad or wrong, is often contracted to ill. (Note: In a word, evil is described as “against government”. By assuming the persona of artificiality or fiction, government gives license to commit ill deeds that injure others, as a license to kill. No such license exists in natural law or under God, except in defense of life and the natural realm. License is permission by “god” the government to commit an illegal and/or immoral act. But remember, government also considers true Christianity to be amoral and sin against government. False gods do not like loosing slaves. Ironically, it is the goal of the Christian to become illegal in the eyes of government law, meaning not approved or created by that law. Disturbing the three great natural unalienable rights of life, liberty (peace) and happiness is a natural evil caused by political authority, and is a done deal once citizenship is accepted over God’s grace.) Moral – n. Morality; the doctrine or practice of the duties of life. 1. The doctrine inculcated by a fiction; the accommodation of a fable to form the morals. Fable – n. [Latin , Gr. The radical sense is that which is spoken or told.] 1. A feigned story or tale, intended to instruct or amuse; a fictitious narration intended to enforce some useful truth or precept. 2. Fiction in general; as, the story is all a fable. 3. An idle story; vicious or vulgar fictions. But refuse profane and old wives fables. 1 Timothy 4:7. 5. Falsehood; a softer term for a lie. – v.t. To feign; to invent; to devise and speak of, as true or real. The hell thou fablest. (Note: The Bible is a moral fable “true or real” that is “intended to instruct” and “intended to enforce some useful truth or precept”. Real – a. [Low Latin realis. The Latin res and Eng. thing coincide exactly with the Heb. a word, a thing, an event. See Read and Thing.] 1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as a description of real life. The author describes a real scene or transaction. 2. True; genuine; not artificial, not counterfeit or factitious; as real Madeira wine; real ginger. 3. True; genuine; not affected; not assumed. The woman appears in her real character. 4. Relating to things, not to persons; not personal. 5. In law, pertaining to things fixed, permanent or immovable, as to lands and tenements; as real estate, opposed to personal or movable property. (Note: Real means artificial in civil law, referring to title or status. Many words in legalese have opposite meanings from their conversational (non-legal) usage. In understanding the Bible and its remedy, we must understand the legal meaning, not what the corporate church preaches. The gods of religious doctrine are also “real” in concept, in that these gods are created on paper and don’t exist in nature.) Covenant - n. [L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.] 1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. A covenant is created by deed in writing, sealed and executed; or it may be implied in the contract. 2. A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties; or the clause of agreement in a deed containing the covenant. 3. In theology, the covenant of works, is that implied in the commands, prohibitions, and promises of God; the promise of God to man, that mans perfect obedience should entitle him to happiness. The covenant of redemption, is the mutual agreement between the Father and Son, respecting the redemption of sinners by Christ. The covenant of grace, is that by which God engages to bestow salvation on man, upon the condition that man shall believe in Christ and yield obedience to the terms of the gospel. 4. In church affairs, a solemn agreement between the members of a church, that they will walk together according to the precepts of the gospel, in brotherly affection. – v. i. To enter into a formal agreement; to stipulate; to bind ones self by contract. Covenant – In practice. The name of a common-law form of action ex contractu, which lies for the recovery of damages for breach of a covenant, or contract under seal. In the law of contracts. An agreement, convention, or promise of two or more parties, by deed in writing, signed, sealed, and delivered, by which either of the parties pledges himself to the other that something is either done or shall be done, or stipulates for the truth of certain facts. An agreement between two or more parties, reduced to writing and executed by sealing and delivery thereof, whereby some of the parties named therein engage, or one of them engages, with the other, or others, or some of them, therein also named, that some act hath or hath not already been done, or for the performance or non-performance of some specified duty. A promise by deed. (Black’s Law 1st) ‘Ark, n. [Latin arca.] 1. A small close vessel, chest or coffer, such as that which was the repository of the tablets of the covenant among the Jews… 3. A depository. Arise, O Lord, into thy rest, thou and the ark of thy strength. Psalms 132:8. Depository - n. A place where any thing is lodged for safe-keeping. A warehouse is a depository for goods; a clerks office, for records. (Note: There is no mystery as to what the “ark of the covenant” was. It was a bank depository – a safe-deposit box – used by the same money-changers that enslave us in debt today! It was not Christian; not of God; but of the corporate church. Today the U.S. Government’s ark holds the Birth Certificates printed on bank notes of all the United States persons in trust, today called a bank vault. The simple secret of the ark of the covenant is nothing more than human trafficking through the ancient system of pledging – human beings enfranchised as corporate person denizens (citizens) and traded on the securities markets as future labor. The ark story is nothing if not ceremonial idolatry by the church. The Bible explains how to instead live under a covenant with God (the laws of nature), through the legal remedy called “Jesus Christ”, which simply means to legally claim a spiritual covenant to God (nature) and also to abandon any pledge and allegiance to mammon by quitclaiming the surname.) Consume – verb transitive [Latin , to take. So in English we say, it takes up time, that is, it consumes time.] 2. To destroy by dissipating or by use; to expend; to waste; to squander; as, to consume an estate. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. James 4:3. 3. To spend; to cause to pass away, as time; as, to consume the day in idleness. Their days did he consume in vanity. Psalms 78:33. 4. To cause to disappear; to waste slowly. 5. To destroy; to bring to utter ruin; to exterminate. Let me alone– that I may consume them. Exodus 32:10. The wicked shall perish–they shall consume Psalms 37:20. (Note: Your status as a consumer is literally a hidden reference to gentiles (goyim) as persons serving mammon, thus the Biblical reference to “the wicked shall perish” is akin to “burning in hell” – which legally means being consumed by greed and held in an open-air debtor’s prison called the United States. See “hell” defined above. A consumer can only be a debtor slave, for money is but debt, and debt can never pay off debt.) Testament – A disposition of personal property to take place after the owner’s decease, according to his desire and direction. A testament is the act of last will, clothed with certain solemnities, by which the testator disposes of his property, either universally, or by universal title, or by particular title. Civil Code La. art. 1571. Strictly speaking, the term denotes only a will of personal property; a will of land not being called a “testament.” The word “testament” is now seldom used, except m the heading of a formal will, which usually begins: “This is the last will and testament of me, A. B.,” etc. Sweet. (Black’s Law 1st) Testament – n. [Latin testamentum, from testor, to make a will.] 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. A man in certain cases may make a valid will by words only, and such will is called nuncupative. 2. The name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ. (Note: Testament is synonymous with evidence. The Vatican and its vicar pope claims to be the heir to the last will and testament of Jesus Christ (evidence of God’s will), creating a false god on and of the Earth as land-lord (god) of the temporal realm. By posing as or “impersonating” the Christ (until His alagorical return), through anointment and ceremony, the church claims the power to cleanse people of their sins that only God can forgive, and to somehow forgive digressions over that of God Himself, as if to invoke an earthly power to create a strange state of amnesia in God when a man dies and meets his maker, (that God will not know about a man’s sins?). Thus, the church gives “license” to commit all sorts of unlawful acts under and before God and nature but in the name of the fictional church while pretending to play the part of God’s ambassador on Earth, in clear contradiction to the sacred oath that says God will ultimately judge all of man’s actions. When any oath is taken, in all of law and any legal settings, it is taken to God as witness and ultimate judge under perjury. This is not theory, but has always been the traditional oath (sacramentum), and the church and government uses that oath as an excuse to play gods and land-lords of the secular temporal planet while convincing mankind to treat the church as God’s embassy.) Redeem – To buy back. To liberate an estate or article from mortgage or pledge by paying the debt for which it stood as security. To repurchase in a literal sense; as, to redeem one’s land from a tax-sale. (Black’s Law 1st) Redeemable – . 1. Subject to an obligation of redemption; embodying, or conditioned upon, a piomise or obligation of redemption; convertible into coin; as, a “redeemable currency.” 2. Subject to redemption; admitting of redemption or repurchase; given or held under conditions admitting of reacquisition by purchase; as, a “redeemable pledge.” (Black’s Law 1st) Redeemable Rights – Rights which return to the conveyor or disposer of land, etc., upon payment of the sum for which such rights are granted. (Black’s Law 1st) Redemption – A repurchase; a buying back… The liberation of a chattel from pledge or pawn, by paying the debt for which it stood as security. Repurchase of notes, bills, or other evidences of debt, (particularly bank-notes and paper-money,) by paying their value in coin to their holders. (Black’s Law 1st) Redeem - v.t. [Latin redimo; red, re, and emo, to obtain or purchase.] 1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge. 2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the possessor. 3. To rescue; to recover; to deliver from. The mass of earth not yet redeemed from chaos. 5. To free by making atonement. Thou hast one daughter who redeems nature from the general curse. 7. To save. He could not have redeemed a portion of his time for contemplating the powers of nature. 8. To perform what has been promised; to make good by performance. He has redeemed his pledge or promise. 9. In law, to recall an estate, or to obtain the right to re-enter upon a mortgaged estate by paying to the mortgagee his principal, interest, and expenses or costs. 10. In theology, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God’s violated law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner, or by doing and suffering that which is accepted in lieu of the sinner’s obedience. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Galatians 3:13. Titus 2:14.) Redeemer - n. 1. One who redeems or ransoms. 2. The Savior of the world, JESUS CHRIST. (Note: God’s violated law is the respect of persons. To be redeemed in law from this violation and from the bondage of sin (person-hood) is the goal of the follower of Christ’s teachings. But they must declare this in the redemption process. Redemption is to “deliver us from evil” of demonic possession, meaning to deliver us from government fiction.) Savior - n. savyur. One that saves or preserves; but properly applied only to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, who has opened the way to everlasting salvation by his obedience and death, and who is therefore called the savior by way of distinction, the savior of men, the savior of the world. General Washington may be called the saver, but not the savior of his country. (Note: Why do we call Christ the redeemer? Why is Christ called a savior? Why do we say we are saved by Christ? Why does belief in Christ give onto us everlasting salvation? Because redeem, savior, save, belief, and salvation are all legal terms utilized to remedy man back into nature from the artificial church and government. The real question you should be asking is: Why have the corporate religions and secret societies lied about the true meaning of these words to the common man? Knowledge is power, and power is control. And the word govern literally translates to mean control. The truth: “Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.” No controlling church or state wishes its members to learn that!) Deliver – v.t. [Latin Free, disengaged; to free, to peel.] 1. To free; to release, as from restraint; to set at liberty; as, to deliver one from captivity. 2. To rescue, or save. Deliver me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked. Psalms 71:4. 3. To give, or transfer; to put into another’s hand or power; to commit; to pass from one to another. 4. To surrender; to yield; to give up; to resign; as, to deliver a fortress to an enemy. It is often followed by up; as, to deliver up the city; to deliver up stolen goods. 7. To exert in motion. To deliver to the wind, to cast away; to reject. To deliver over, to transfer; to give or pass from one to another; as, to deliver over goods to another.2. To surrender or resign; to put into anothers power; to commit to the discretion of; to abandon to. Deliver me not over to the will of my enemies. Psalms 27:12. To deliver up, to give up; to surrender. (Note: To be delivered from evil is simply to be freed, released, liberated, rescued, saved, transferred, and resigned from the artificial person in total abandonment. It is the act of rejection of all of the fictional things of mammon. Forgive us our tresspasses (debts)… for thine is the kindom and the power and the glory forever…) Trespass - n. In law, violation of another’s rights, not amounting to treason, felony, or misprision of either. Thus to enter another’s close, is a trespass; to attack his person is a trespass. When violence accompanies the act, it is called a trespass vi et armis. 1. Any injury or offense done to another. If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14. 2. Any voluntary transgression of the moral law; any violation of a known rule of duty; sin. Colossians 2:13. You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2:1. (Note: Though a difficult concept, we must forgive the trespass of all against our person, for we no longer accept the person as true, thus such trespass and harm cannot harm us. Bear no ill will towards men who attack your person in their own persona. Instead simply abandon and quitclaim-ing the person and forgive those who trespass against it, for it is an empty vessel of fiction unattached to your body and soul. Enmity by freed and delivered men over actions done by fictional persons to other fictional persons is foolish and ultimately pointless in nature. Forgiveness is paramount to peace. And most necessary is forgiveness of the self and any trespass and debt through redemption of Christ, legally speaking!) Surrender, verb transitive [Latin sursum, and rendre, to render.] 1. To yield to the power of another; to give or deliver up possession upon compulsion or demand; as, to surrender one’s person to an enemy… 2. To yield; to give up; to resign in favor of another; as, to surrender a right or privilege; to surrender a place or an office. 3. To give up; to resign; as, to surrender the breath. 4. In law, to yield an estate, as a tenant, into the hands of the lord for such purposes as are expressed in the act. 5. To yield to any influence, passion or power; as, to surrender one’s self to grief, to despair, to indolence or to sleep. – v.t. To yield; to give up one’s self into the power of another. – n. The act of yielding or resigning one’s person or the possession of something, into the power of another; as the surrender of a castle to an enemy; the surrender of a right or of claims.2. In law, the yielding of an estate by a tenant to the lord, for such purposes as are expressed by the tenant in the act. (Note: Quite simply, by surrendering to God and God’s plan of remedy through Christ, we surrender and thus abandon our surety and bond to the fictional person, holding no claim to rights or duties and claiming no redemption, privilege, or law from government. You must surrender your person back to its owner (government) in order to cease being liable for its usury charges and obligations (duties). You must cease to be a user of government property. Note also that this word is a combination of the word sur and the word render, and that in an official surrender it is the name that is given up in the action.) Atonement - n. 1. Agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy. Romans 5:11. 2. Expiation; satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or injury; with for. When a man has been guilty of any vice, the best atonement he can make for it is, to warn others not to fall into the like. 3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ. Purchase - v.t. [... purchaser is to pursue to the end or object, and hence to obtain. In Law Latin, purchase the noun, was written purchacium... In its primary and legal sense, to gain, obtain or acquire by any means, except by descent or hereditary right (to gain through artificial means without deserving). 2. In common usage, to buy; to obtain property by paying an equivalent in money. It differs from barter only in the circumstance, that in purchasing, the price or equivalent given or secured is money; in bartering, the equivalent is given in goods. We purchase lands or goods for ready money or on credit. 3. To obtain by an expense of labor, danger or other sacrifice; as, to purchase favor with flattery. 4. To expiate or recompense by a fine or forfeit; as, to purchase out abuses with tears and prayer. 5. To sue out or procure, as a writ... It is foolish to lay out money in the purchase of repentance. Offering - p.p.t. Presenting; proposing; sacrificing; bidding; presenting to the eye or mind. - n. That which is presented in divine service; an animal or a portion of bread or corn, or of gold and silver, or other valuable articles, presented to God as an atonement for sin, or as a return of thanks for his favors, or for other religious purpose; a sacrifice; an oblation. In the Mosaic economy, there were burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, peace-offerings, trespass-offerings, thank-offerings, wave-offerings, and wood-offerings. Pagan nations also present offerings to their deities. Christ by the offering of himself has superseded the use of all other offerings, having made atonement for all men. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed - Isaiah 53:10. (Note: Have you ever considered that by placing check or cash into an offering plate that you are actually participating in a blood sacrifice? After all, what thing has more innocent blood attached to it than that of the U.S. Dollar and the wars and many collective sins it represents? This offering of sacrifice is not to God, for God does not require such things. Only man would destroy what God creates. And if anything, the offering of mammon (money) to God could only be taken as a severe insult and blasphemy to everything Sacred and Holy in the Bible, which is totally against the concept of money.) Dummy - n. One who holds legal title for another; a straw man. - a. Sham; make-believe; pretended; imitation. (Black's Law 4rth) Bail – v. To procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he shall appear at the time and place designated and submit himself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court. To set at liberty a person arrested or imprisoned, on security being taken for his appearance on a day and a place certain, which security is called “bail,” because the party arrested or imprisoned is delivered into the hands of those who bind themselves for his forthcoming, (that is, become bail for his due appearance when required,) in order that he may be safely protected from prison. – n. In practice. The sureties who procure the release of a person under arrest, by becoming responsible for his appearance at the time and place designated. Those persons who become sureties for the appearance of the defendant in court. Upon those contracts of indemnity which are taken in legal proceedings as security for the performance of an obligation imposed or declared by the tribunals, and known as undertakings or recognizances, the sureties are called “bail.” In Canadian law. A lease. Bail erhphyteotique. A lease for years, with a right to prolong indefinitely. It is equivalent to an alienation. Civil bail. That taken in civil actions. Special bail, being persons who undertake that if the defendant is condemned in the action he shall pay the debt or surrender himself for imprisonment. (Note: Because the God-given name and the surname are connected in contract and consent, this is a fictional representation of the natural man and the artificial person also being connected. Though born naked and innocent, the man is immediately incorporated with the invisible veil of clothing of the corporate fiction person. For purely commercial purposes, the man acts as the person (man is legally an actor playing the part of the person) and is thus responsible for what the artificial person does in commerce. Of course, government passes laws that make every action in natural life appear to be a commercial venture in law, requiring licenses, permits, insurances, and other bondage tools in order to do just about everything that is in fact non-commercial in nature. This brings into law (in-jures) every action taken by the man and makes it commerce of the person, no matter how insignificant it may be. The artificial person is a debtor, we must not forget that. No man can be in debt, except to God, for man can have no other master and must abandon the debt system of mammon to be a slave to God. So any “crime” the person makes is always as a debtor. Thus, all prisons are debtor’s prisons. To get out of jail, the man must pay the debt of his strawman person in the form of bail, agreeing to appear as that artificial person in a debtor’s court. This ensures that man will fulfill his or her role as an actor, playing the part of the debtor person, appearing as a strawman.) Strawman – 1. Draft or outline copy ready for suggestions and comments. 2. Third party used as a cover in illegal or shady deals. 3. Nominee director. 4. A weak or flawed person with no standing. Also called man of straw. See judgement proof. (Black’s Law 2nd) Stramineus Homo - L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. Slave – n. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civil Code La. art. 35. (Note: Here we understand that you cannot serve two masters (God and Mammon), or more to the point a man cannot be a slave to both. To declare oneself to be a “slave of Christ” or God is to declare oneself not to be a slave-person of government. This is a legal standing, not a religious sentiment. The court cannot recognize only a person of government (mammon), not a servant God. As a slave to God, a man can only acquire what is of God (natural) in nature, which means he or she cannot acquire (respect) a person or anything artificial or fictional in law. This creates a sort of automatic remedy by never allowing surety or bondage to any man-made thing, status, or person. But man must walk in the true Christian path to avoid such status, bondage, and person-hood.) Sin Tax – An ad valorem tax or flat tax levied on services and goods that are considered to be morally or physically harmful such as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. (Black’s Law 2nd) (Note: Under government you ridiculously pay a tax as forgiveness of sin. Under God, you have no such forgiveness. Yet the church is there to reenforce this hypocrisy to God through doctrinal remission.) Indulgence – In the Roman Catholic Church. A remission of the punishment due to sins, granted by the pope or church, and supposed to save the sinner from purgatory. Its abuse led to the Reformation in Germany. Forbearance… Forbearance – The act of abstaining from proceeding against a delinquent debtor; delay in exacting the enforcement of a right; indulgence granted to a debtor. Refraining from action. The term is used in this sense in general jurisprudence, in contradistinction to “act.” Combustio – Burning. In old English law. The punishment inflicted upon apostates. (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: Think debtors burning alive in the dungeons called hell for abandoning the church. True Christians that abandoned church and religious doctrine in seeking the peace and purity of God and Christ were burned, tortured, and thrown to the lions by the church and state, for they could not be controlled by man’s law. True Christianity is indeed illegal.) Apostata - In civil and old English law. An apostate; a deserter from the faith; one who has renounced the Christian faith. (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: Here the word faith is stated as a legal status; as a person, member, or citizen of the church and state. Your personal (illegal) faith does not matter to the church and state, only your legally pledged faith as servitude to that corporate structure’s control of your person. Abandonment makes you an apostate of the corporate structure, but in God’s eyes as a legal remedy it makes you a true Biblical Christian immune to corporate law.) Apostasy – In English law. The total renunciation of Christianity, by embracing either a false religion or no religion at all. This offense can only take place in such as have once professed the Christian religion. (Black’s Law 1st) Apostate - n. [Gr.] One who has forsaken the church, sect or profession to which he before adhered. In its original sense, applied to one who has abandoned his religion; but correctly applied also to one who abandons a political or other party. - a. False; traitorous. (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: Apostasy was part of the law of the land, created by the church, and not just some religious concept without true legal meaning. Yet again the Bible refers to the “vicar” of the Christ here, as an apostate is one who forsakes the church/government, not to be mistaken for the abandonment of God (creator). To be an apostate is a declaration of abandonment of a corporate church and its doctrinal religion upon a person, having nothing to do with the Bible or with God. It is not a sin against God to quitclaim religion, but rather only a sin against government and corporate church. The word sin in the Bible ofter refers to sin against church and state (the god or landlord), not sin against God Himself.) Fictio – In Roman law. A fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. “Fictio” in the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction. (Black’s Law 1st) Fiction - n. [Latin fictio, from fingo, to feign.] 1. The act of feigning, inventing or imagining; as, by the mere fiction of the mind. 2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. The story is a fiction. So also was the fiction of those golden apples kept by a dragon, taken from the serpent which tempted Eve. Fiction – An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. A fiction is a rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Fictions are to be distinguished from presumptions of law. By the former (fiction), something known to be false or unreal is assumed as true; by the latter (presumtion of law), an inference is set up, which may be and probably is true, but which, at any rate, the law will not permit to be controverted. (Black’s Law 1st) (Note: Though the courts know and recognize that a person is not alive, not true, imaginary, feigned, invented, and completely false, the government itself falls under that same description, and thus a fiction can only recognize another fiction. A living man is unrecognizable in court without a surname (person), as government only has jurisdiction over fictions, and government holds no authority over men claimed in surety to Christ.) Overcome – v.t. [See Come.] 1. To conquer; to vanquish; to subdue; as, to overcome enemies in battle. 2. To surmount; to get the better of; as, to overcome difficulties or obstacles. 3. To overflow; to surcharge. – v.i. To gain the superiority; to be victorious. Romans 3:4. Overcome – As used in a statute providing that a presumption may be overcome by other evidence, this term is not synonymous with overbalance or outweigh, but requires merely that such evidence counterbalance the presumption, where the party relying on it has the burden of proof. (Black’s Law 4rth) Overcome – a term that is used for overcoming evidence that is presented by a party to a suit by presenting more convincing evidence. (Black’s Law 2nd) (Note: Evidence of God’s laws of nature is always better and of higher authority as evidence than any fiction of man’s law.) Enfranchise – To make free; to incorporate a man in a society or body politic. (Black’s Law 1st) Enfranchisement – The act of making free; giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Admission to the freedom of a city; admission to political rights, and particularly the right of suffrage (voting). Anciently, the acquisition of freedom by a villein from his lord. The word is now used principally either of the manumission of slaves, (or) of giving to a borough or other constituency a right to return a member or members to parliament, or of the conversion of copyhold into freehold. (Final Note: The word citizen stems from the word denizen, which means to enfranchise slaves and lower class common men into an equal state under the law. This signifies the act of assigning a surname to a man or slave and assigning that name to certain privileges, otherwise known as political rights. The citizen should know that the words freedom, liberty, and rights are all alienable privileges granted by government to persons (citizens). The word free-dom means obey the law of man or be punished. The word liberty means the same – to be free to act as long as man’s law is followed. The prefix “dom” means dominion, so as to signify that the state of being free for a man is dominated by the state, which it calls political freedom or political or civil liberty. Man can only be free under God, whereas he can only have artificial freedom under mammon, for he impersonates a regulated fiction of mammon. Like a rented car (vehicle), the fictional person (vehicle) comes with many rules for the user to comply with under force of law. In nature, the only law is to do no harm, and as long as this is maintained, a man is always free to do as he pleases. The word people means gentiles; common peasants; the lowest form of person and societal status. If you are one of the people, then you have no voice, only the collective has the voice, and it is completely controlled by the noble (higher) wealthy class. Knowing this, I wish you luck in your continuing disgrace in nature as you posses like a demon your rented fiction of man. –=– Conclusion
City University of New York Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 Winter 2005 Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision-Making Sanja Zgonjanin CUNY School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons The CUNY Law Review is published by the Office of Library Services at the City University of New York. For more information please contact email@example.com. Recommended Citation Sanja Zgonjanin, Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision-Making, 9 N.Y. City L. Rev. 31 (2005). Available at: 10.31641/clr090102 Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision- Making Acknowledgements The author thanks Professor Ruthann Robson for her invaluable comments and suggestions. This article is available in City University of New York Law Review: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol9/iss1/3 QUOTING THE BIBLE: THE USE OF RELIGIOUS REFERENCES IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING Sanja Zgonjanin* INTRODUCTION The use of religion in judicial decision-making is the subject of an ongoing debate.1 Whether and to what extent a decision is based on religious argument or influenced by religious convictions is a difficult question to answer. While scholars disagree on the appropriateness of religious arguments or influences in judicial decision- making,2 they commonly recognize that explicit reference to religious authority in a written opinion is problematic.3 Many * J.D. Candidate, City University of New York School of Law, May 2006; M.A., Columbia University, 2000; M.L.S., Queens College, 1999. The author thanks Professor Ruthann Robson for her invaluable comments and suggestions. 1 See Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, S. 520, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 1070, 109th Cong. (2005). 2 Scholars differ on the issue of the appropriateness of religion in judicial decision- making. However, most legal literature on the issue is written from the perspective advocating the use of religion in judicial decision-making. That viewpoint is shared by moderates and conservatives alike. See generally MICHAEL J. PERRY, RELIGION IN POLITICS: CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL PERSPECTIVES 102-04 (1999); KENT GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND POLITICAL CHOICE 239-41 (1988) [hereinafter GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS]; Scott C. Idleman, The Concealment of Religious Values in Judicial Decisionmaking, 91 VA. L. REV. 515 (2005) [hereinafter Idleman, Concealment]; Teresa S. Collett, “The King’s Good Servant, but God’s First”: The Role of Religion in Judicial Decisionmaking, 41 S. TEX. L. REV. 1277 (2000); Mark B. Greenlee, Faith on the Bench: The Role of Religious Belief in the Criminal Sentencing Decisions of Judges, 26 U. DAYTON L. REV. 1 (2000); Daniel G. Ashburn, Appealing to a Higher Authority?: Jewish Law in American Judicial Opinions, 71 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 295 (1994). 3 GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 239 (“Judicial opinions are formalized justifications for decisions. Opinions are supposed to refer only to what is legally relevant . . . . What is legally relevant is generally conceived to be the same for all judges, so neither personal religious convictions nor any other idiosyncratic convictions are legally relevant. Given this understanding about judicial opinions, it follows that opinions should not contain direct references to the religious premises of judges.”); Mark C. Modak-Truran, Reenchanting the Law: The Religious Dimension of Judicial Decision Making, 53 CATH. U. L. REV. 709, 814 (2004) (“In addition, judges are not insincere by leaving their religious or comprehensive justifications out of their opinions but consistent with the Establishment Clause (i.e., the ‘rule of law’) and a proper understanding of religious pluralism. Leaving out religious justifications also facilities [sic] consensus on legal results and lower-level legal rules and principles without raising the thorny philosophical, theological, and hermenuetical [sic] questions implicated by religious justifications.”); Scott C. Idleman, The Limits of Religious Values in Judicial Decisionmaking, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 537, 542-43 (1998) (“In fact, given that religious bases may be less than universal in their acceptance among the relevant audiences to the opinion, it is quite sensible that the judge would not necessarily 31 32 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 judges are religiously active and outspoken about the impact of religion on their work.4 Some well-known Supreme Court justices were, and are, deeply religious.5 Unlike the past, today’s Supreme Court Justices, such as Antonin Scalia, speak publicly about their religious faith.6 Some judges have explicitly stated in their opinions that “[c]ourts must recognize that the state is but one of several spheres of government, each with its distinct jurisdiction and make reference to them in the act of justification.”); Bruce A. Green, The Role of Personal Values in Professional Decisionmaking, 11 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 19, 35 (1997) (“One would expect that a savvy judge who bases his or her decision on personal morality will not do so explicitly, but will cite only legally relevant grounds for the decision.”); Kent Greenawalt, Religious Expression in the Public Square—The Building Blocks for an Intermediate Position, 29 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1411, 1419 (1996); see generally David Barringer, Higher Authorities, A.B.A. J., Dec. 1996, at 68. 4 See, for example, Raul A. Gonzalez, Climbing the Ladder of Success—My Spiritual Journey, 27 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 1139, 1157 (1996), in which Texas Supreme Court Justice Gonzalez describes his religious re-awakening and the impact his faith had on his decisions, including Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1984); Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984); In re Unnamed Baby McLean, 725 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1987); Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1988); Cox v. Thee Evergreen Church, 836 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1992), Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993); Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. 1993); Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1996); and Krishnan v. Sepulveda, 916 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. 1995). He concludes: In each of the above cases, my relationship with God impacted the way I considered and wrote about the issues presented. How we experience God and our level of religious commitment (or lack of commitment) impacts our work. One’s views on how the world began, sin, forgiveness, and redemption influences our attitudes, behavior, and everything that we do. Gonzalez, supra, at 1157. 5 See generally James W. Gordon, Religion and the First Justice Harlan: A Case Study in Late Nineteenth Century Presbyterian Constitutionalism, 85 MARQ. L. REV. 317 (2001); Thomas C. Berg & William G. Ross, Some Religiously Devout Justices: Historical Notes and Comments, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 383 (1998); Stephen L. Carter, The Religiously Devout Judge, 64 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 932 (1989). Some judges believe that they have a right to use religious references in justifying their decisions. Judge Griffen, who is also a Baptist pastor, explains why he thinks he has that right: Finally, devout judges must remain sensitive to the important role that religious values and their proper expression serve within a pluralistic society. If the devout judge does not remind society that certain conduct is condemned as offensive to domestic tranquility, contrary to the laws of nature, or inconsistent with truth, then society is denied the value of that information and judgment in its pursuit of justice. The give-and-take of competing moral, behavioral, intellectual, and cultural philosophies is how a pluralistic society operates. The devout judge, as a citizen of two societies, helps society remain pluralist by thinking and acting in a holistic way, not by trivializing religious conviction. Wendell L. Griffen, The Case for Religious Values in Judicial Decision-Making, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 513, 520 (1998). 6 See Joan Biskupic, Scalia Makes The Case for Christianity; Justice Proclaims Belief in Miracles, WASH. POST, Apr. 10, 1996, at A1; see also, e.g., Michael Stokes Paulsen & Steffen N. Johnson, Scalia’s Sermonette, 72 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 863 (1997). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 33 limited authority granted by God,”7 and “that God, not the state or any government established by man, is the source of all our rights.”8 Some judges use religion as an alternative to traditional sentencing such as jail or rehabilitation for drug and alcohol offenders. 9 Other judges go as far as prohibiting the parents in a divorce decree from exposing their child to “non-mainstream” religious beliefs and rituals.10 Despite the unprecedented presence of religion in the lives of ordinary American citizens,11 some scholars12 continue to maintain “a modern myth that religion is somehow persecuted in American life.”13 Responding to the argument that explicit religious references are rare or absent from judicial opinions,14 this Article will demonstrate that judges’ personal religious beliefs and religious education very often find a place in decisions they write.15 A quick 7 Ex parte G.C., No. 1040001, 2005 WL 1793345, at *22 (Ala. July 29, 2005) (Parker, J., dissenting). 8 Id. at *14 (Bolin, J., concurring specially). 9 See Alan Maimon, Judge Lets Some Defendants Attend Worship as Sentencing Option, COURIER-J. (Louisville, KY), May 31, 2005, at A1. Michael Caperton, a Laurel district judge since 1994 and a devout Christian, offered the option of attending worship for ten services “about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders.” Id. 10 See Kevin Corcoran, Father Appeals Anti-Wicca, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, May 26, 2005, at A1. 11 See generally Faith Based and Community Initiatives, http:// www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/index.html (last visited Jan. 24, 2006). In the field of legal theory, one author suggested it is time to develop a Christian jurisprudence. Jonathan Edward Maire, The Possibility of a Christian Jurisprudence, 40 AM. J. JURIS. 101, 101-02 (1995). 12 Paulsen & Johnson, supra note 6, at 867 (commenting that Justice Scalia’s speech at a prayer breakfast at the First Baptist Church in Jackson, Mississippi, on April 9, 1996, was “about the clash of world views between Christianity and today’s dominant culture. It was about the difficulties of being a Christian in a secular world—our culture and, especially, our legal culture.”). 13 Biskupic, supra note 6, at A7 (quoting James Dunn, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs). 14 Idleman, Concealment, supra note 2, at 520 (“To most observers of the American legal system, including its participants, the absence of overt religious language or reasoning in judicial decisionmaking is unremarkable. In all likelihood, it is not even noticed.”); Modak-Truran, supra note 3, at 786-87 (“[e]xplicit religious references rarely appear in judicial opinions.”); Berg & Ross, supra note 5, at 387 (“Note, however, the limits on the importance of religious arguments. First, such arguments do not appear as often as one might expect in an age of pervasive Christianity: one can basically count them on two hands.”); Richard H. Hiers, The Death Penalty and Due Process in Biblical Law, 81 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 751, 752 (2004) (“Biblical texts occasionally are even cited as authority in judicial opinions.”). 15 See generally J. Michael Medina, The Bible Annotated: Use of the Bible in Reported American Decisions, 12 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 187 (1991). This annotation collects cases where a court directly cites a biblical passage, and the author lists the following doctrines for which the Bible is cited as the foundation: “the sequestration rule, punitive damages, forgiveness of debts, due process, forfeiture, alien rights, statutory construc34 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Westlaw online survey of federal and state cases for the use of biblical books, such as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, produces a high number of results.16 Interestingly, courts of the nineteenth century rarely quoted the Bible, despite the fact that many judges were devoutly religious and active in their local congregations. 17 Quoting the Bible is much more characteristic of twentieth-century American courts and is a matter of great concern to anyone who believes that judicial decision-making should not be based on comprehensive doctrines such as religion.18 The first part of this Article discusses the judicial use of the Bible in criminal sentencing by trial courts. The second part examines some of the ways in which courts undermine the religious character of biblical quotations. The third part examines the variety of purposes for which courts use biblical quotations. The fourth part is a case study of judicial use of two specific biblical tion, basic agency doctrine, tenancy by the entirety, the two-witness rule, the right of confrontation, judicial impartiality, criminalization of sodomy, the necessity defense to criminal charges, the right of free travel, usury, eminent domain, impeachment of witnesses, the law of apportionment, property tax exemptions, double jeopardy, and various elements of past and present domestic relations law.” Id. at 189-91. 16 For example, a Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006 resulted in the following: Genesis 1 is quoted in 10 state and 11 federal cases; Exodus 21 is quoted in 59 state and 27 federal cases; Leviticus 24 is quoted in 5 state and 8 federal cases; Deuteronomy 19 is quoted in 16 state and 7 federal cases. In the same search, the word Leviticus appeared in 126 state, 89 federal, and 4 Supreme Court cases; the word Deuteronomy appeared in 173 state, 100 federal, and 5 Supreme Court cases. This author’s review of search results showed that only a small number of quotations are part of the facts of a case. Due to the lack of more precise search methods in Westlaw and Lexis databases that would allow comprehensive inquiries of biblical quotations, this Article was limited to a discussion of a very narrow scope of biblical quotations in judicial opinions. 17 See infra Appendix. 18 John Rawls based his theory of justice on the concept of public reason shared by all citizens, “independent of opposing and conflicting philosophical and religious doctrines,” and “an overlapping consensus of reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines.” He said: The religious doctrines that in previous centuries were the professed basis of society have gradually given way to principles of constitutional government that all citizens, whatever their religious view, can endorse. Comprehensive political and moral doctrines likewise cannot be endorsed by citizens generally, and they also no longer can, if they ever could, serve as the professed basis of society. JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM 9-10 (1993). Rawls viewed the Supreme Court as the best exemplar of public reason in a society of constitutional regime with judicial review and argued that public reason is “well suited to be the court’s reason in exercising its role . . . .” Id. at 231. But see generally GREENAWALT, Publicly Accessible Grounds of Decision and Religious Convictions, in RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 49-84; and Richard Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory, 111 HARV. L. REV. 1637 (1998). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 35 passages, Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. The fifth part considers the judicial use of religious references other than the Bible. The Article concludes that the use of religious references in judicial decision- making should be prohibited.19 “The Christian state knows only privileges.”20 Christian faith is privileged in the United States.21 Because a privilege is not a right, the government is under no obligation to confront the injustice and discrimination created by it.22 On the contrary, since the religious beliefs of a majority of Americans are associated with Christianity, 23 such privilege is largely invisible and sustained by the power it creates.24 As is often the case, the characteristics of the majority become so internalized that they are considered the social norm.25 In a way, they “domesticate” the minority.26 Additionally, 19 “The justices cannot, of course, invoke their own personal morality, nor the ideals and virtues of morality generally. Those they must view as irrelevant. Equally, they cannot invoke their or other people’s religious or philosophical views.” RAWLS, supra note 18, at 236. 20 KARL MARX, On The Jewish Question, in 3 KARL MARX & FREDERICK ENGELS: COLLECTED WORKS 1843-44, at 146, 146 (Jack Cohen et al. trans., 1975). 21 Joseph R. Duncan, Jr., Privilege, Invisibility, and Religion: A Critique of the Privilege that Christianity Has Enjoyed in the United States, 54 ALA. L. REV. 617, 626 (2003). See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952) (upholding a New York City program permitting public schools to release students to attend religious instruction and stating, “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”); Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892) (holding that a statute prohibiting the contracting of foreigners to perform labor and services did not apply to clergy, and stating that “this is a Christian nation”). 22 See Duncan, supra note 21, at 621. 23 See BARRY A. KOSMIN ET AL., THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY 12 (2001), http:// www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf (on file with the author). According to the most comprehensive study of religious identification of American adults, done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 76.5% of the U.S. population self-identifies as Christians. Id. See also Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America, http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html (last updated Jan. 24, 2006). 24 Duncan, supra note 21, at 622. See also Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). Applying Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the court held that the county board’s invocation policy excluding a county resident’s Wiccan religion was constitutionally sound and that the Wiccan religion was not monotheistic, did not “fit broadly within ‘the Judeo-Christian tradition,’” and lacked “the unifying aspects of our heritage.” Id. 25 See Stephanie M. Wildman with Adrienne D. Davis, Language and Silence: Making Systems of Privilege Visible, 35 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 881, 890 (1995). See also STEPHANIE M. WILDMAN, PRIVILEGE REVEALED: HOW INVISIBLE PREFERENCE UNDERMINES AMERICA 141 (1996). [O]ur social system is not supposed to privilege organized religion or religious belief over the secular realm. But this protection of the secular creates a peculiar vacuum, in which religion is supposed to be invisible, yet Christmas is a national holiday. Even the phrasing ‘church [but 36 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 religious practices and expressions are widely accepted and sanctioned by courts based on their context27 or tradition.28 It is now accepted that religious practices and expressions that are deeply embedded in the nation’s history and tradition do not violate the Constitution.29 They include, among others, opening the Supreme Court session with “God save the United States and this honorable not synagogue or mosque] and state’ privileges Christianity as the defining religion for constitutional drafting. Systems of privilege and the religious/ secular dichotomy intertwine with the rule of law to contribute to the undermining of justice. Systemic privileging and oppression remain invisible and undiscussed, in accordance with the unwritten rules of our society. The rule of law does nothing to end this invisibility and may even contribute to its continuation. Thus the very act of seeing that the rule of law and systems of privilege undermine justice is itself problematic. A full attack on privileging and oppression can begin in earnest only when the legal profession recognizes this privileging dynamic. But this reality—privilege—that we must see has not even found articulation in legal vocabulary. Id. 26 The term “domestication” is borrowed from lesbian legal theory. “Domestication also describes a process of substituting one way of thinking for another. Domestication has occurred when the views of the dominant culture, in this case legal culture, are so internalized they are considered common sense.” Ruthann Robson, Mother: The Legal Domestication of Lesbian Existence, 7 HYPATIA 172, 172 (1992). 27 See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 621 (1989) (holding that a display of the cr`eche in a county courthouse violates the Establishment Clause while the display of a menorah in front of a county building, in a particular setting next to a Christmas tree, does not); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (holding that “notwithstanding the religious significance of the cr`eche,” its display by the city did not violate the Establishment Clause). Justice Burger stated: It would be ironic, however, if the inclusion of a single symbol of a particular historic religious event, as part of a celebration acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, by the Executive Branch, by the Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so “taint” the city’s exhibit as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To forbid the use of this one passive symbol— the cr`eche—at the very time people are taking note of the season with Christmas hymns and carols in public schools and other public places, and while the Congress and legislatures open sessions with prayers by paid chaplains, would be a stilted overreaction contrary to our history and to our holdings. Id. at 686. 28 See Freethought Soc’y of Greater Phila. v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247, 269 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that a Ten Commandments plaque affixed to a courthouse is not a real threat to the Establishment Clause). The court noted that “the age and history of the plaque provide a context which changes the effect of an otherwise religious plaque.” Id. at 264 (citing County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). 29 See Marsh, 463 U.S. at 788-89. Justice Burger held that a century-old practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid with public funds does not pose a real threat to the Establishment Clause. Id. at 795. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 37 Court;”30 opening a legislative session with a prayer;31 recognizing the nation in the pledge of allegiance as “one Nation under God;”32 and printing “In God We Trust” on our money,33 and posting it in court rooms, Congressional chambers, and other places of government business. After all, “In God we trust” is our national motto,34 and Thanksgiving and Christmas are national holidays.35 President Reagan even once proclaimed 1983 the year of the Bible.36 The privilege of Christian religion is also affirmed and supported by Congress. For example in 2005, members of Congress introduced a House resolution directing the Speaker of the House to display the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber in case the Supreme Court was to rule that the government display of the Ten Commandments in public places is unconstitutional.37 Advanced by Representatives King, Chabot, Bartlett, Norwood, Pitts, Westmoreland, Blackburn, Fox, Gingrey, Hostettler, Goode, and Alexander, the resolution was introduced in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on two Ten Commandment cases argued during the April 2005 term: Van Orden v. Perry38 and McCreary County v. ACLU.39 The resolution states, among other things, that the House “recognizes that posting the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber is a constitutionally protected expression of our Nation’s heritage and the foundation of our laws.”40 The statement that biblical commands are the foundation of our laws may come as a surprise to law school students who, upon entering law school, first 30 County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (reaffirming the secular purpose of “ceremonial deism” of the phrase, “God save the United States and this honorable Court,” which, despite its religious roots, does not convey endorsement of a particular religious belief). 31 Marsh, 463 U.S. at 795. See also Simpson, 404 F.3d at 282 (applying Marsh, which “teaches[ ] legislative invocations perform the venerable function of seeking divine guidance for the legislature”). But see Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2990 (2005) (holding that the Town Council’s invoking of Jesus Christ while excluding deities associated with other faiths was “not constitutionally accepted legislative prayer like that approved in Marsh”). 32 4 U.S.C. § 4 (2000). 33 31 U.S.C. § 5112 (2000). 34 36 U.S.C. § 302 (2000). 35 5 U.S.C. § 6103 (1990). 36 S.J. Res. 165, 97th Cong., 96 Stat. 1211 (1982). 37 H.R. Res. 214, 109th Cong. (2005). 38 125 S. Ct. 2854, 2864 (2005) (holding that the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas state capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause). 39 125 S. Ct. 2722, 2745 (2005) (holding that displaying the Ten Commandments at a Kentucky county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause). 40 H.R. Res. 214, 109th Cong. (2005). 38 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 learn about the history and sources of American law. One of the most popular law school books on this topic is the Historical Introduction to Anglo-American Law in a Nutshell.41 In tracing American legal history, this book starts by pointing out that most of the concepts of Anglo-American law were developed in the last eight hundred years,42 thus excluding the Bible as a direct source of our laws. The book also lays out two main sources of law upon which the American legal system relies: cases and statutes.43 The Bible is not mentioned as a source of American law. The privilege of Christianity as the predominant religion in the United States is vigorously supported by the media. While the author was working on this Article, Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005.44 Shortly thereafter, on April 11, 2005, Maurice Hilleman, one of the greatest scientists of modern times, died.45 While Pope John Paul II was considered by many to be one of the most important “spiritual leaders and moral teachers of the Modern Era”46 and probably one of the most famous people in the world, microbiologist Maurice Hilleman remained “the world’s best kept secret.” 47 The discrepancy in the print media coverage of the deaths of these two important persons speaks for itself and is stunning. A search of the term “Pope John” in the “Major Newspapers” section of the Lexis News & Business online database produced 1086 entries for the period between April 2, 2005, when the Pope died, and April 3, 2005, when the news was announced. In contrast, a search for “Maurice Hilleman” in the same database for the period between April 11, 2005, when the scientist died, and April 12, 2005, when the news was released, produced only four results: the Balti- 41 FREDERICK G. KEMPIN, JR., HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW IN A NUTSHELL (3d. ed. 1990). 42 Id. at 2. 43 See id. at 95-125. For a detailed explanation of sources of Anglo-American law, see generally CARLETON KEMP ALLEN, LAW IN THE MAKING (1927); and SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW BEFORE THE TIME OF EDWARD I (2d ed. 1923). 44 See After 26-Year Reign, Pontiff Dies at 84, CNN, Apr. 2, 2005, http:// www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/02/pope.dies/index.html; Ian Fisher, Pope John Paul II Dies at 84, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 3, 2005, at A1. 45 Lawrence K. Altman, Maurice Hilleman, Master in Creating Vaccines, Dies at 85, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 12, 2005, at A1. 46 S. Res. 95, 109th Cong. (2005). See also S. Res. 94, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. Res. 186, 109th Cong. (2005). 47 Patricia Sullivan, Maurice R. Hilleman Dies; Created Vaccines, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at B6. Maurice Hilleman “invented over 40 vaccines, including those for mumps, chickenpox, measles, rubella, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, and countless variants of the flu virus.” Caroline Richmond, Obituary, Maurice Hilleman; Inventor of More than 40 Vaccines, INDEPENDENT (London), Apr. 20, 2005, at 35. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 39 more Sun, the New York Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Seattle Times. While religious expression is recognized as part of American tradition and history, no court has yet provided a reasonable explanation of how the passage of time makes religious expression less religious and more secular so that it becomes a primary source of constitutional legitimacy.48 The proposition that religious practices and expressions do not violate the Constitution because they are accepted by a majority of society or are somehow “secularized” is a dangerous one.49 The government’s endorsement and use of religion encourages the oppression of minorities because it makes religious privilege invisible, allowing the majority in power to use the law according to its own beliefs.50 Congress is the biggest threat today to both judicial independence from religion and the court’s traditional role as the interpreter of the law. Members of Congress introduced the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.51 48 Charles Gregory Warren, No Need to Stand on Ceremony: The Corruptive Influence of Ceremonial Deism and the Need for a Separationist Reconfiguration of the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, 54 MERCER L. REV. 1669, 1691-92 (2003). See also State v. Ceballos, 832 A.2d 14, 55 (Conn. 2003) (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). [N]ot all religious references, including allusions to the Bible, God or other biblical characters, are impermissible. This is because many words and phrases traditionally viewed as religious in nature or derived from religious sources have become, over time, an integral part of the English language, and no longer may be recognized by either prosecutors or jurors as having purely religious connotations or derivations. Consider, for example, the phrases “raising Cain” and “for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Both phrases are common expressions derived from the Bible. Still other expressions, such as “an eye for an eye,” have both religious and secular origins. Id. (citation omitted). 49 Warren, supra note 48, at 1692-93. 50 See generally Duncan, supra note 21. 51 S. 520, 109th Cong. (2005); see also H.R. 1070, 109th Cong. (2005). The Constitution Restoration Act was first introduced during the 108th Congress. See S. 2082, 108th Cong. (2004); S. 2323, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 3799, 108th Cong. (2004). During the 108th Congress, many other bills and resolutions were introduced recog40 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 By imposing its own religious values, the conservative religious right movement is destroying two of the most important values of American society: tolerance and pluralism.52 Attempts by conservative members of Congress to deprive the Supreme Court and the federal courts of their jurisdiction in solving disputes with religious subject matter are without precedent in our history. These attempts undermine the long-standing principle of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison.53 At the same time, courts’ use of religious references and religious convictions in their decisionmaking is on the rise.54 It is hardly worth noting that, in a society with a Christian majority, the majority of judges are Christians.55 The power of the nizing the privilege of Christianity. See also H.R.J. Res. 39, 108th Cong. (2004) (constitutional amendment proposing “[a] law that prescribes the Pledge of Allegiance or provides for United States coins or currency is not a law respecting an establishment of religion because it refers to God in the Pledge or includes a reference to God on coins or currency.”); S. 1558, 108th Cong. (2003) (Religious Liberties Restoration Act proposing: the power to display the Ten Commandments on government property; the power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on government property; the power to recite the national motto “In God We Trust” on government property; and the power to except this subject matter from the jurisdiction of federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court); S. Con. Res. 91, 108th Cong. (2004) (proposing to designate April 2005 as American Religious History Month and requesting that “the President issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe the year with appropriate ceremonies and activities”). 52 Abraham H. Foxman, Foreword to ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: THE ASSAULT ON TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM IN AMERICA, at iii-iv (1994). This book provides an insight into the grassroots organizing and political commitment of the religious right that led to its enormous power and influence over all three branches of the government in the 1990s. The author defines the religious right as an: array of politically conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting to influence public policy based on shared cultural philosophy that is antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation. The movement consists mainly of Protestants, most of them evangelical or fundamentalist, a far smaller number of Catholics, and a smattering of Jews. Id. at 7. 53 See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Id. 54 See infra Appendix. 55 The first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court, Louis D. Brandeis, was appointed in 1916 by President Wilson. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg, From Benjamin to Brandeis to Breyer: Is There a Jewish Seat?, 41 BRANDEIS L.J. 229, 233 (2002). See also Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court, http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html (last modified Jan. 31, 2006) (noting that with the confirmation of Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court consists of seven Christian (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Stevens, and Thomas) and two Jewish (Breyer and Ginsburg) justices). Statistics show that the Supreme Court is 78% Christian, with a Catholic majority of 56%; while 76.5% of the total U.S. population is affiliated with Christianity. Id. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 41 courts to use religious references as they see fit should not be underestimated. Speaking about the power of judicial review, Alexander Bickel once said, “[t]he least dangerous branch of the American government is the most extraordinarily powerful court of law the world has ever known.”56 Judges should be mindful of the power they are vested with and the public trust in their impartiality and refrain entirely from using religious references in their decision-making. Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which, in addition to its canons requiring that judges uphold the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary,57 clearly states: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.58 The arbitrariness, inconsistency, and lack of law on the use of religious references in decision-making are some of the main reasons why such use should be proscribed. I. RELYING ON THE BIBLE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING While the use of religious references in judicial decision-making is generally unjustified and inappropriate, the most disturbing and harmful invocation of the Bible takes place in criminal sentencing decisions. The Bible is regularly quoted during the criminal sentencing phase of trials by prosecutors and defense attorneys. In their closing arguments, both sides often invoke the Bible in order to convince juries that defendants deserve or do not deserve punishment. Even those defendants who do not wish to use biblical passages in their closing arguments, or for whom such use may be inappropriate, are coerced into doing so in response to prosecutorial use of religion. Such biblical invocation poses a great threat to a defendant’s constitutional rights.59 However, attorneys 56 ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 1 (2d. ed. 1986). 57 ANNOTATED MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canons 1 & 3 (2004). 58 Id. at Canon 3 (B)(5). 59 See generally Marcus S. Henson, Carruthers v. State: Thou Shalt Not Make Direct Religious References in Closing Argument, 52 MERCER L. REV. 731 (2001). But see Elizabeth A. Brooks, Thou Shalt Not Quote the Bible: Determining the Propriety of Attorney Use of Religious Philosophy and Themes in Oral Arguments, 33 GA. L. REV. 1113 (1999). 42 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 are not alone in quoting the Bible. They are increasingly joined by trial judges, who use religious references in their decision-making process and their written opinions.60 While no court has yet specifically addressed whether judicial reliance on religious convictions in written opinions violates the Establishment Clause,61 some courts have considered the issue of whether a defendant’s due process rights are violated when judges rely on religious convictions or religious texts during the sentencing phase. In one well-publicized case, televangelist James O. Bakker, convicted of fraud and conspiracy, challenged his forty-fiveyear sentence claiming a due process violation because the trial judge made personal religious remarks during sentencing.62 The Fourth Circuit held that the trial judge’s comment, “[h]e had no thought whatever about his victims and those of us who do have a religion are ridiculed as being saps from money-grubbing preachers or priests,” made during sentencing, violated Bakker’s due process.63 The Bakker court recognized that the Constitution does not require judges to relinquish their religious beliefs when they assume the office, but it stated that “[c]ourts, however, cannot sanction sentencing procedures that create the perception of the bench as a pulpit from which judges announce their personal sense of religiosity and simultaneously punish defendants for offending it. Whether or not the trial judge has a religion is irrelevant for purposes of sentencing.”64 While Bakker does not involve explicit religious reference by a judge, it serves as a good example of a decision validating the utmost importance of judicial impartiality. However, judges differ on their approach to the use of religious references by their colleagues. The Ohio case of James Arnett is illustrative of the opposing views that judges hold about the use of religious references in judicial decision-making. James Arnett was sentenced to fifty-one years in prison after pleading guilty to ten counts of rape and one count of pandering obscenity to the minor daughter of his live-in girl- 60 See Lis Wiehl, Judges and Lawyers Are Not Singing from the Same Hymnal When It Comes to Allowing the Bible in the Courtroom, 24 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 273, 274 (2000). 61 Modak-Truran, supra note 3, at 783. For a discussion about the lack of Establishment Clause violation challenges in capital cases involving religion during the penalty phase, closing arguments, and jury deliberations, see Gary J. Simson & Stephen P. Garvey, Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: Rethinking the Role of Religion in Death Penalty Cases, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 1090, 1104-30 (2001). 62 United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740 (4th Cir. 1991). 63 Id. at 740-41. 64 Id. at 740. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 43 friend.65 On appeal, the court remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial judge acted outside the state’s sentencing guidelines and that she violated the defendant’s due process when she used a specific text from the Bible as a determining factor in sentencing.66 The trial judge explained to the defendant that when she had recently imposed a twenty-year sentence for a murder, at least the victim was gone and there was no pain to suffer, but in his case the victim would hurt for the rest of her life.67 The judge proceeded by describing her struggle the night before the sentencing decision about what sentence to impose when she found the answer in a biblical passage.68 The judge then quoted a passage from Matthew 18:5-6: “And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, [sic] receiveth me. But, [sic] whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that [sic] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”69 It is interesting to note that Judge Painter, who wrote the Ohio Court of Appeals opinion, added a footnote after the above quotation, in which he noted: We must quote from the trial transcript, which is not entirely consistent with the Bible, King James Version. The notation “sic” indicates instances where words should have been italicized and where commas should not have been added. We assume that the court reporter added these errors and that the judge read the passage correctly.70 The apologetic tone of this footnote about quoting from a nonauthoritative version of the Bible and the care taken to achieve compliance with the King James Version is most striking. The authoritativeness of the King James Version71 appears to be self-evident for readers familiar with Christian religious texts, but this is most peculiar for someone who does not belong to that majority. It is not entirely clear why the judge took such care to correct the 65 State v. Arnett, Nos. C-980172, C-980173, 1999 WL 65632, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 5, 1999), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 66 Id. at *2. 67 Id. at *1. 68 Id. 69 Id. 70 Id. at *1 n.1. 71 More than fifty English translations were printed before the King James Bible was published in 1611. DAVID CRYSTAL, THE STORIES OF ENGLISH 271-75 (2004). The King James Version, popularly known as the “Authorized Version,” was selected to be read in churches. Id. Most of its vocabulary and phrasing derived from the first English translation by William Tyndale, printed in 1525-1526. Id. 44 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 errors, namely italics and misplacement of commas, or why there was a concern with whether the judge read the passage correctly. It seems almost as if there was a legal requirement that when a court cites the Bible, the King James Version must be used. After the state appealed, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the sentence, holding that a sentencing judge’s quotation of a religious text and the acknowledgement of its use during the deliberation process is not impermissible per se and does not violate a defendant’s due process.72 The defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause and his due process rights.73 The district court held that the First Amendment claim was waived due to failure to include it in a brief and argument before the state appellate court, but that the judge’s reliance on a biblical passage as the final source for determining the sentence warranted conditional habeas relief until resentencing by a different judge.74 Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the habeas petition, holding that the trial judge’s quotation of Matthew 18:5-675 in determining the sentence did not violate the defendant’s due process right because the biblical passage relied upon was just an “additional” source, rather than the “final” source of the decision.76 However, the dissent noted that the trial judge’s reliance on the New Testament provision to determine the sentence was dispositive because, according to the record, the judge admitted that her struggle over the final sentence was answered by this biblical passage. 77 Relying on Bakker, the dissent concluded that the use of a religious text as an authoritative source for reaching a legal result violated the defendant’s fundamental expectation of due process and expressed this related concern: If the Constitution sanctions such direct reliance on religious sources when imposing criminal sentences, then there is nothing to stop prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers from regularly citing religious sources like the Bible, the Talmud, or the Koran to justify their respective positions on punishment. The 72 State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793, 804 (Ohio 2000), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 73 Arnett v. Jackson, 290 F. Supp. 2d 874, 875 (S.D. Ohio 2003). The court found that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the standard of review set forth in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Id. at 877-78. 74 Id. at 878. 75 Arnett v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 681, 684 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 76 Id. at 688. 77 Id. at 689 (Clay, J., dissenting). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 45 judge would be placed in the position of not only considering statutory sentencing factors, but also deciding which religious texts best justify a particular sentence. Under this approach, the judgments of trial courts could begin to resemble the fatwas of religious clerics, and the opinions of appellate courts echo the proclamations of the Sanhedrin.78 The Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that “[t]here is nothing in the totality of the circumstances of Arnett’s sentencing to indicate that the trial judge used the Bible as her ‘final source of authority,’ as found by the district court,”79 is contrary to the trial judge’s own words: Because I was looking for a source, what do I turn to, to make, to make that determination, what sentence you should get . . . . And in looking at the final part of my struggle with you, I finally answered my question late at night when I turned to one additional source to help me.80 Although the trial judge said she turned to “one additional source,” she used the words “make that determination” when she referred to the sentence to impose.81 More importantly, she used the words “final part” and “finally answered” which clearly emphasized that the finality of her sentencing decision was solved by that one additional source.82 The plain meaning of the language “final” and “finally” was simply dismissed by the Sixth Circuit. The court justified its conclusion by reasoning that, “The [b]iblical principle of not harming children is fully consistent with Ohio’s sentencing consideration to the same effect.”83 The fact that the judge did not impose the maximum sentence commanded by the Bible proved that she did not actually sentence the defendant based upon her religious belief.84 As is obvious from the Arnett case, courts often justify the use of religious references on the grounds of consistency with the statutory law applied in the case. That is an unnecessary and disturbing practice. In considering the defendant’s due process 78 Id. at 691 (Clay, J., dissenting). 79 Id. at 688. 80 Id. at 684. 81 Id. In discussing what constitutes reliance on religious convictions, Kent Greenawalt states, “[t]he clearest instances of reliance on religious convictions occur when the person is certain that he would make a different choice if he disregarded those convictions. . . . A person is clearly not relying on religious convictions when his choice rests firmly on independent grounds.” GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 36. 82 Arnett, 393 F.3d at 684. 83 Id. at 688. 84 Id. 46 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 violation claim in Arnett, the Sixth Circuit used the Supreme Court rule that a defendant’s due process rights are violated when the death sentence is based on “factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process, such as for example the race, religion or political affiliation of the defendant.” 85 The Sixth Circuit then said, without any additional explanation, that the trial judge in Arnett did not base her decision on an impermissible factor, and that the factor used was not “totally irrelevant” because it was consistent with the sentencing statute.86 Nevertheless, before it reversed and remanded the case, the Sixth Circuit recognized the following: “We reach this conclusion despite the fact that reasonable minds could certainly question the propriety of the trial judge making mention of the Bible at all in her sentencing decision.”87 Whether the biblical passage quoted in an opinion is consistent or inconsistent with the statutory provision governing the case is irrelevant and, as such, should not be considered or included in a written opinion justifying a decision. Another example of the judicial use of biblical passages in criminal sentencing is the Nebraska case State v. Pattno.88 In Pattno, the defendant pled guilty to the sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to a minimum of twenty months and a maximum of five years in prison by the trial court judge.89 Before he imposed the sentence, the trial judge recited an extensive biblical scripture against homosexuality90 followed by the comment that he also con- 85 Id. at 686 (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885 (1983)). 86 Id. at 686-87. 87 Id. at 688. 88 579 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 1998). 89 Id. at 506. 90 Id. at 505-06. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his external power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him as God, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever [sic]. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 47 sidered the “nature . . . of the defendant.”91 The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a reasonable person could have questioned the trial judge’s impartiality because he relied upon his personal religious beliefs in deciding the sentence.92 The court also pointed out that the defendant was convicted of having sexual contact with a minor, which is a crime, and not of having sexual contact with a person of the same gender, which is not a crime in the state of Nebraska.93 It is not unusual for judges to inject biblical passages in their opinions as justification for supporting the harsh punishment of certain crimes such as child sexual abuse. In People v. Jagnjic, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to no less than five and no more than fifteen years in prison.94 However, the New York Appellate Division found that, absent a professional psychiatric evaluation, the sentence was excessive. 95 In a dissenting opinion, Justice Lupiano pointed to the heinous nature of the crime, arguing that the sentencing decision should not be disturbed and quoted a biblical passage to support that view: The condemnation of crimes against the young is deeply ingrained in the ethical and moral history of western civilization. Indeed, the bible is replete with references to this universal condemnation as, for example, the following scriptural passage concerning children—“Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones . . . it were better than a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).96 Quoting the Bible in support of a judicial decision is in clear violation of the judicial code, and it prejudices defendants not only by the content of the religious reference, but by the very fact that an irrelevant, extralegal source is used in the decision-making process. Id. (quoting the Bible). 91 Id. at 506. 92 Id. at 509. 93 Id. at 508. No statute in this state criminalizes sexual contact between consenting adults of the same gender. Thus, Pattno’s crime is that he had sexual contact with a minor; not that he had sexual contact with another male. Therefore, the biblical scripture which the judge read was not relevant to the crime to which Pattno pled guilty, and it should not have been considered by the judge in determining an appropriate sentence. Id. 94 447 N.Y.S.2d 439, 439 (App. Div. 1982). 95 See id. at 439-40. 96 Id. at 443 (Lupiano, J., dissenting). 48 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 As the Arnett, Pattno, and Jagnjic cases illustrate, any reliance on the Bible as a direct or supporting source of authority in the decisionmaking process jeopardizes the integrity of the criminal justice system and, if not proscribed, encourages further use of the Bible by judges and other officers of the court. II. UNDERMINING THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF RELIGIOUS REFERENCES There are many cases where judicial reference to a biblical passage is justified by the use of language that undermines the religious character of the text or its authority.97 This type of qualifying statement is in direct contradiction to the actual meaning of the text and to courts’ use of the Bible to support their arguments in countless cases in which the biblical references are used in their proper meaning. It is only logical to conclude that any use of biblical references in judicial decision-making, especially in written opinions, must be entirely arbitrary. On one hand, judges invoke the Bible as serious support for their propositions, and, on the other, their use of the Bible is trivialized. Judge Hildebrandt, who dissented in the State v. Arnett Ohio Court of Appeals decision finding a violation of due process, used the “mere”98 language justifica- 97 By qualifying a statement with “mere” or “merely,” courts undermine the religious value of the source from which the quotation is taken, despite the fact that the Bible is cited as the authority. This trend is consistent with the Supreme Court’s “secularization” of religious expressions. See generally Ashley M. Bell, “God Save This Honorable Court”: How Current Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Can Be Reconciled with the Secularization of Historical Religious Expressions, 50 AM. U. L. REV. 1273 (2001). Bell criticizes the Supreme Court’s secularization approach to religious expression: In addition to being an inconsistent solution, secularization does a great disservice to both religion and society. . . . Moreover, the Court seems more apt to secularize practices derived from Christianity, thus preferring Christianity over other religions. This consequence results in ‘religious divisiveness, violating the fundamental principles behind the religion clauses.’ Thus, the entire purpose of secularization backfires in its process. While attempting to neutralize religious influence, the Court in actuality prefers some religions, namely Christianity, over others. Id. at 1305-07. This critique is consistent with the famous quote of the Supreme Court that, “The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact.” Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980). 98 The Oxford English Dictionary defines “mere” and “merely” as follows: “mere- Having no greater extent, range, value, power, or importance that the designation implies; that is barely or only what it is said to be;[ ] insignificant, ordinary, foolish, inept” and “merely-Without any other quality, reason, purpose, view, etc.; only (what is referred to) and nothing more.” SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES 1750 (5th ed. 2002). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 49 tion twice in a very short opinion. Hildebrandt stated that “[t]he language quoted from the Bible merely reflects society’s interests in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, a laudable goal that is incorporated into the sentencing guidelines enacted by the General Assembly.”99 The dissent concluded, “[t]he mere citation of scriptural material in pronouncing the sentence should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the trial judge based her decision on the proper statutory considerations and that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice resulted from the judge’s statements.”100 In reinstating the sentence, Supreme Court of Ohio Judge Cook used the “mere” language to distinguish general principles from personal beliefs: “Several state supreme courts, though they cite Bakker with approval, have declined to vacate sentences where the judge’s religious comments merely acknowledge generally accepted principles, as opposed to highly personal religious beliefs that become the basis for the sentence imposed.”101 In conclusion, the court found that “Arnett’s sentencing judge cited a religious text merely to acknowledge one of several reasons—‘one additional source’—for assigning significant weight to a legitimate statutory sentencing factor.”102 The court’s distinguishing of Bakker from Arnett is unpersuasive when it states that “Bakker merely prohibits a judge’s personal religious principles from being ‘the basis of a sentencing decision.’”103 There is no explanation of how the trial judge’s personal religious principles in Arnett were not implicated within the general principles when she turned to the book of Matthew for final help in determining the sentence. A judge’s personal perception of the meaning of biblical passages seems to be crucial in determining whether the use of the Bible is authoritative or symbolic. A judge’s use of the word “mere” often determines whether a defendant’s due process challenge succeeds. For example, in State v. Cribbs, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence of a defendant convicted of premeditated first degree murder.104 On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution’s use of biblical references to justify the death sentence violated his due process rights.105 The state argued 99 Arnett, 1999 WL 65632, at *3 (Hildebrandt, J., dissenting). 100 Id. 101 Arnett, 724 N.E.2d at 803. 102 Id. 103 Id. at 804. 104 967 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Tenn. 1998). 105 Id. at 783. 50 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 that although biblical quotations were impermissible, the prosecutor’s use of the language “‘whatever a man sows, so shall he reap’ was merely a metaphor for individual accountability, rather than a justification for imposition of the death penalty.”106 Noting that a biblical reference in this case was inappropriate, the court nevertheless accepted the state’s argument finding that it did not prejudice the defendant.107 The court justified its finding by calling attention to the consistency of the biblical principle with the statute: “[W]e view the comments by the prosecutor which implied that Tennessee law embraced the principle of ‘reap what you sow’ as merely an extension of that metaphor.”108 Similarly, the dissent in People v. Harlan used the “merely” phraseology to point out the trial court’s misquoting of biblical passages in the trial record. Harlan was sentenced to death for first-degree murder, but his sentence was vacated because the jury was permitted to bring “the Bible into the jury room to share with others the written Leviticus and Romans texts during the deliberation.” 109 According to the dissent, the trial court concluded that one of the jurors used Romans 13:1, “which requires that one look at government authorities as God’s representative on earth and follow their lead as agents of ‘wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer.’”110 The dissent did not contest that the juror used Romans 13:1, but it explained that the passage “merely states ‘Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.’”111 The judge said that the trial court actually imported the language “wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer” from Romans 13:4 and criticized the majority for not correcting “these overstatements.”112 The thrust of the Romans passage is an absolute submission to the authorities—and only those established by God. The trial court’s use of language from 106 Id. 107 Id. at 784. 108 Id. 109 109 P.3d 616, 632 (Colo. 2005). This case immediately caught the attention of the media. See Kirk Johnson, Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 29, 2005, at A1; Thane Rosenbaum, Is Court a Place for Morals?, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 30, 2005, at B11; Eric Gorski, Book, Not Faith, Broke Court Rules, DENV. POST, Mar. 30, 2005, at 1A; Suzanne Goldenberg, US Jury’s Bible Death Sentence Quashed, GUARDIAN, Mar. 30, 2005, at 11; Bible-Influenced Death Penalty Ruling Rejected, IRISH TIMES, Mar. 30, 2005, at 10. 110 Harlan, 109 P.3d at 635 (Rice, J., dissenting). 111 Id. 112 Id. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 51 Romans 13:4 about the consequences of wrongdoing that would be imposed by God’s appointees neither changed the nature of the command from Romans 13:1 nor undermined the main idea of divine authority this biblical passage conveyed. The juror’s reference to Romans 13:1 alone was sufficient as an improper invocation of an extra-legal authority and cannot be undermined by the dissent’s language “merely states.” This case exemplifies how a judge’s personal view and interpretation of the Bible may affect the outcome of a case. There are many other ways courts qualify the use of religious references in order to find it justifiable or to undermine the impact of such references. One example of the characterization of the use of a biblical passage is found in Bussard v. Lockhart.113 In that case, the court denied a habeas petition for a defendant who escaped from arrest after committing murder, remaining at-large for four years.114 The prosecutor in Bussard used a biblical passage to support the inference of guilt from the escape: “Proverbs 28:1 fits it just as clear as it can be. ‘The guilty flee when no man pursueth while the righteous stand bold as a lion.’ He fled to avoid coming to trial. That shows guilt.”115 In addressing the use of the biblical passage, the court stated: The prosecutor did not use the Bible to invoke the wrath of God against Bussard or to suggest that the jury apply divine law as an alternative to the law of Arkansas. Instead, the prosecutor simply resorted to Proverbs for a more poetic version of a commonsense connection expressly recognized by Arkansas law: flight suggests consciousness of guilt.116 The court cited two cases Killcrease v. State117 and Ward v. State118 in support of the proclamation that Arkansas law expressly recognizes that flight suggests consciousness of guilt.119 A careful reader will notice, however, that only in the Killcrease case was there an issue of flight from arrest.120 Although in Ward the court discussed the fact that the defendant fled the scene upon the arrival of the police, nowhere did the court indicate that the flight was an issue in the case, nor did it state a particular rule related to flight other than “it 113 32 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 1994). 114 Id. at 323. 115 Id. at 324. 116 Id. 117 836 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Ark. 1992) (flight from arrest corroborates other evidence of guilt). 118 816 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991) (flight from scene of crime). 119 Bussard, 32 F.3d at 324. 120 Killcrease, 836 S.W.2d at 381. 52 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 may be considered with other evidence in determining guilt.”121 In Killcrease, the defendant was convicted of raping his minor daughter and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the evidence of his arrest in Louisiana was irrelevant because no warrant was issued or any charges filed when he left Arkansas.122 The court held that it was up to a jury to determine whether the defendant fled to avoid arrest and that “[f]light to avoid arrest may be considered by the jury as corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”123 In support of this rule, the Killcrease court cited two opinions, Riddle v. State and Ferguson v. State.124 The long line of cases using this rule leads to Stevens v. State, the first case that formulated it as follows: “Flight of the accused is admissible as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”125 Although many courts followed the rule as articulated in Stevens,126 the court in Ferguson changed the language by omitting the word “circumstance” from its holding that flight may “be considered as corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”127 The difference between the biblical proverb used by the prosecutor in Bussard to support the demonstration of guilt and the rule as originally formulated by the Supreme Court of Arkansas is evident. The language in the proverb sends the message that fleeing is evidence of guilt, while the language of the court’s rule states that fleeing may be considered as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to prove guilt. Even if one compares the modified language of the rule that fleeing suggests consciousness of guilt, the difference is still insufficient for the court to conclude that the biblical passage was a “poetic version” of the rule. The Bussard case is an illustration of the judicial slippage from biblical text to legal rules without realizing the impact such conflation actually has on the life of a human being. Concerned with the confounding of morality and law, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his famous essay The Path of the Law, “[t]he law is full of phraseology drawn from morals, and by the mere force of language continually invites us to pass from one domain to the other without perceiving it, as we are sure to do unless we have the 121 See Ward, 816 S.W.2d at 175. 122 Killcrease, 836 S.W.2d at 382. 123 Id. 124 Id. (citing Riddle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 708 (Ark. 1990), and Ferguson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 418 (Ark. 1989)). 125 221 S.W. 186, 188 (Ark. 1920). 126 See Smith v. State, 238 S.W.2d 649, 655 (Ark. 1951); Mason v. State, 688 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Ark. 1985); Yedrysek v. State, 739 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Ark. 1987). 127 Ferguson, 769 S.W.2d at 419. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 53 boundary constantly before our minds.”128 However, there are a variety of ways in which religious references are used in the decision-making process and in reasoning justifying decisions. Courts quote the Bible in order to support their propositions and to show that they are consistent with traditional morality. They sometimes use biblical passages as metaphors or to illuminate a particular common law principle. The Bible often becomes part of the historical explanation of a particular law or practice. In some instances, a biblical passage appears as a rule upon which a decision is based or accompanies a common law or statutory rule as a confirmation of the consistency of our law. The next part will show different ways in which the Bible is used in judicial opinions. III. QUOTING THE BIBLE FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES In some instances, judges use the Bible to express their personal religious and moral beliefs, and former Chief Justice Moore of the Supreme Court of Alabama may be the best example of this practice. In Ex parte H.H., a lesbian ex-wife was denied custody of her children despite the fact that there was evidence of her exhusband’s excessive disciplinary punishment of children.129 Justice Moore’s special concurring opinion is an illustration of inappropriate judicial decision-making using the Bible as law. He starts his opinion with a strong statement: [T]he homosexual conduct of a parent—conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender— creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.130 Justice Moore’s perspective that a parent’s homosexual conduct is unfit per se is founded entirely on religious teachings against samesex sexual relationships.131 Unlike the gender-based tender years presumption that the Supreme Court of Alabama found unconstitutional, 132 the sexual orientation-based presumption is still valid in some states.133 The main justification for the per se rule is ex- 128 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 459-60 (1897). 129 830 So. 2d 21, 25-26 (Ala. 2002). 130 Id. at 26. 131 See Romans 1:18-32 (New International). 132 See Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981). 133 See, e.g., Roe v. Roe, 324 S.E.2d 691 (Va. 1985). Some courts require that a 54 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 plained by Justice Moore: “Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated.”134 Justice Moore finds support for his proposition in Blackstone’s Commentaries135 and proceeds to quote from the Bible and various other sources condemning homosexuality.136 He concludes his opinion with the following words: “The common law adopted in this State and upon which our laws are premised likewise declares homosexuality to be detestable and an abominable sin. Homosexual conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society.”137 By quoting biblical passages in support of their decisions, judges like Justice Moore perpetuate homophobia and the legitimacy of laws based on religious morality138 without any concern for the parties involved and the actual legal standards governing our society. One of those standards directly disregarded by Justice Moore in the Ex parte H.H. case is the best-interest-of-the-child standard. This case demonstrates the judicial misconduct present in invoking personal religious beliefs and morality as a basis of judgment. It is most interesting that Justice Moore was never disciplined for basing his decisions on his personal religious beliefs, but was actually removed when he refused to comply with a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument he displayed in the rotunda of the state judicial building.139 In commenting on the controversy around Justice Moore, one author contrasted the invisibility of the judicial use of religious references to the physical appearance of impropriety, making the following point: parent involved in a same-sex relationship prove absence of harm. See, e.g., Thigpen v. Carpenter, 730 S.W.2d 510, 513-14 (Ark. 1987). Other courts use a “nexus test” requiring only proof that a parent’s sexual conduct will have or has had an adverse impact. See, e.g., A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660, 664 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). 134 Ex parte H.H., 830 So. 2d at 26. 135 Id. at 32, 34, 37. 136 Id. at 33-37 (quoting biblical passages Genesis 1:27, 2:24; Leviticus 20:13). 137 Id. at 38. 138 See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Upholding a Georgia sodomy statute, the Court stated that “[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots,” referring to Judeo-Christian moral standards. Id. at 192. Concurring Justice Burger reiterated that, “Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian [sic] moral and ethical standards,” id. at 196, validating the state’s invocation of the biblical books of Leviticus and Romans to justify the sodomy statute, id. at 211 (Blackmun, J. dissenting). 139 See Glassroth v. Moore, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff’d 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1000 (2003). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 55 While the plaintiffs, media, and judicial ethicists were earnestly setting their sights on this highly conspicuous jurist, they were devoting little if any attention to the question of the proper relationship between religion and the decisions judges actually render, including religiously devout judges like Chief Justice Moore. To be sure, the Chief Justice’s fundamental mistake, at least from a job retention perspective, appears not to have been his firm and guiding belief that God’s law ought to inform human law, or even his clear expression of that belief in judicial opinions, which is to say that he was not and would not obviously have been removed from office for actually implementing and manifesting his religious beliefs in his judicial capacity. His apparent mistake, instead, was to manifest them by erecting a granite monument in his administrative, and in many respects less important or less influential, role.140 Often courts use biblical references to explain the historical background of a legal concept. For example, tracing the origin of an in rem forfeiture proceeding by the government against the property involved in or acquired by crime, the Supreme Court cited Exodus 21:28: “[i]f an ox gore a man or a woman, and they die, he shall be stoned and his flesh shall not be eaten.”141 After locating the original source of this legal concept in the Bible, the Court traced the development of the forfeiture further to the common law concept of “deodand,” citing to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England and Holmes’s The Common Law.142 While it is a fact that Blackstone cited Exodus in his Commentaries,143 Holmes and other authors did not go that far.144 Other federal and state courts have also used the biblical passage Exodus 21:28 to explain not only the origin of the law of forfeiture, but also other tort actions, despite the availability of other sources of legal history upon which American law is actually founded.145 140 Idleman, Concealment, supra note 2, at 517-18. 141 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 681 n.17 (1974). See also United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 330 n.5 (1998). 142 Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 681 (citing to “O. Holmes, the Common Law, c. 1 (1881)” and “1. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *300”). See also Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 330 (citing to “1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 290-292 (1765); O. Holmes, The Common Law 10-13, 23-27 (M. Howe ed. 1963)”). 143 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *291. 144 See OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 1-38 (45th printing 1923, 1909, 1881); FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 473-74 (2d ed. 1923). 145 Federal courts citing or quoting Exodus 21:28: United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 295 F.3d 23, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002); United States v. Gilbert, 244 F.3d 888, 918 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. One Parcel Prop., 74 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. 785 St. Nicholas Ave., 983 F.2d 396, 401 (2d 56 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 The controversial Justice Moore of Alabama provides another example of biblical invocation in support of a historical analysis of a particular concept. Dissenting in Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, he engaged in a historical discussion of the concept of separation between the church and state, quoting from numerous biblical passages.146 Other judges also turn to the Bible in order to solidify the idea that a particular law is rooted in history. In a case involving a defamation suit, the West Virginia Supreme Court used Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 19:16-21, and Ecclesiastes 7:1 as historical evidence that slander was prohibited since the beginning of time.147 After quoting the Bible as its first source, the court proceeded by listing numerous legal sources on defamation, libel, and slander. The historical concept of subjecting “illegitimate” children to legal discrimination is also explained using Deuteronomy 23:2: “Throughout history, illegitimate children were precluded from, among other legal rights, entering certain professions. The Book of Deuteronomy states: a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to this tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Deut. 23:2.”148 Supreme Court justices join lower court judges in quoting the Bible when they resort to providing a historical review of certain Cir. 1993); United States v. Seifuddin, 820 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Sandini, 816 F.2d 869, 872 (3d Cir. 1987); United States v. $39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210, 1218 n.4 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, 618 F.2d 453, 454 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Funds from Prudential Sec., 362 F. Supp. 2d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2005); United States. v. Croce, 334 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786 n.13 (E.D. Pa. 2004); United States v. Funds From Prudential Sec., 300 F. Supp. 2d 99, 100 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2004); United States v. 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 747 F. Supp. 173, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1990); United States v. Haro, 685 F. Supp. 1468, 1473 (E.D. Wis. 1988). State courts citing or quoting Exodus 21:28: Allen v. State, 605 A.2d 994, 998 n.3 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992); Prop. Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dep’t v. Molomo, 583 N.Y.S.2d 251, 253 (App. Div. 1992); Duren v. Kunkel, 814 S.W.2d 935, 937 n.3 (Mo. 1991); Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe, 574 A.2d 631, 636 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990); Holtzman v. Samuel, 495 N.Y.S.2d 583, 585 n.1 (Sup. Ct. 1985); Dist. Attorney of Queens County v. McAuliffe, 493 N.Y.S.2d 406, 411 (Sup. Ct. 1985); Dir. of Fin. v. Cole, 465 A.2d 450, 456 n.2 (Md. 1983); New Jersey v. One 1977 Dodge Van, 397 A.2d 733, 734 n.1 (Middlesex County Ct. 1979); Prince George’s County. v. Blue Bird Cab Co., 284 A.2d 203, 205 (Md. 1971); Magrine v. Spector, 241 A.2d 637, 639 n.2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968); Robidoux v. Busch, 400 S.W.2d 631, 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966); Johnson v. Olson, 67 P.2d 422, 425 (Kan. 1937). 146 847 So. 2d 331, 350-53 (Ala. 2002) (quoting the following chapters from King James: 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, 2 Chronicles 26:18, 1 Samuel 13:13-14, Ezra 7:21-24, Matthew 22:21, Matthew 18:15-20, Matthew 16:19, 1 Corinthians 6). 147 Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70, 76 (W. Va. 1984). 148 Miscovich v. Miscovich, 688 A.2d 726, 728 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). See also Kohler v. Bleem, 654 A.2d 569, 572 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 57 legal principles. While such biblical references are usually placed in footnotes, occasionally they are prominently displayed in the main body of the opinion. For example, in Payne v. Tennessee, holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the admission of victim impact evidence in jury sentencing,149 Chief Justice Rehnquist quoted Exodus 21:22-23, proscribing “[a]n eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” to demonstrate how the guiding principles in criminal sentencing varied over time.150 In his review of the historical principles guiding criminal sentencing, Justice Rehnquist started with the Bible before he moved on to the English law and legislative enactments.151 Sometimes, a court quotes the Bible as support for a proposition using a “cf.” as a citation signal. “Cf.” is an abbreviation for the Latin word “confer,” which means “compare.”152 Black’s Law Dictionary states, “As a citation signal, cf. directs the reader’s attention to another authority or section of the work in which contrasting, analogous, or explanatory statements may be found.”153 Such support was used in the United States v. Ryan case by a dissenting judge to interpret the statutory meaning of “the building used . . . in . . . any activity affecting interstate . . . commerce.”154 The dissenting judge argued that the statutory requirement of “activity” was missing in respect to the building in question.155 The dissent cited the Bible, stating, “The building here was just cumbering the ground. Cf. Luke 13:7 (King James). It was not being ‘used’ in any ‘activity.’” 156 The biblical passage cited states: “So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’”157 The judge used this citation assuming the reader’s familiarity with a biblical passage of this length and on this particular topic, which was listed under the chapter “Repent or Perish” in Luke. This assumption seems to be a long stretch if the extralegal authority was used as an analogy to show that there was no use for the building in question. Another example of the use of a biblical citation with a cf. citation signal is in the Conklin v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ. 149 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991). 150 Id. at 819. 151 Id. 152 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 243 (8th ed. 2004). 153 Id. 154 41 F.3d 361, 369 (8th Cir. 1994) (Arnold, C.J., dissenting). 155 Id. 156 Id. 157 Luke 13:7 (New International). 58 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 case.158 Parents of a dyslexic child challenged the county’s program as not being in compliance with the Education of the Handicapped Act.159 In a footnote, discussing the fact that the board took advantage of the child’s temporary progress (which was actually due to private tutoring) to show its compliance with the statute, the court quoted this passage from the Bible when it said: “Annual grade promotion may, as a result, be a reasonable barometer for measuring the progress that this handicapped child can achieve in the coming years. . . . Cf. Matthew 26:52 (King James) (‘[A]ll they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’).”160 The court took the board’s argument and created a standard to which the board should adhere in the future, consisting of annual grade promotion and additional tutoring provided by the board.161 The court assumed that the reader was familiar with the biblical passage it partially quoted. The passage is part of the chapter on Jesus’s arrest and its idea only becomes clear if one knows its entire context: Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”162 The fact that judges resort to citing the Bible in support of their arguments shows the privilege that Christianity enjoys in our society. The invisibility of that privilege is enhanced by the judges’ assumptions of their audience’s familiarity with the Bible and by their disregard of the need for a full explanation of a cited source and its relation to the proposition at hand. Courts also use the Bible to explain the origins of a word. For example, in Bok v. McCaughn, the court explained that “[c]harity, derived from the Latin caritas, originally meant love. In the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians the revised version uses the word ‘love’ in defining the third of the three cardinal virtues, which, in King James’ version read ‘Faith, Hope and Charity.’”163 The term “sodomy” also finds its origin in the Bible, as the court noted in Stone v. Wainwright, citing Genesis 13:13 and 18:20 and quoting Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: 158 946 F.2d 306 (4th Cir. 1991). 159 Id. at 309. 160 Id. at 315 n.6. 161 Id. 162 Matthew 26:50-52 (New International). 163 42 F.2d 616, 618-19 (3d Cir. 1930). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 59 it is abomination.”164 Similarly, Justice Breyer quoted the Bible to explain the origin of the word “carries” in a drug trafficking case where the statute included the phrase “carries a firearm.”165 Arguing that the word includes “conveyance in a vehicle,” he said, “[t]he greatest of writers have used the word with this meaning. See, e.g., The King James Bible, 2 Kings 9:28 (‘[H]is servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem’); id., Isaiah 30:6 (‘[T]hey will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses’).”166 The Bible has also been called upon to determine the meaning of seemingly simple words such as “daytime.” In a criminal prosecution, a defendant moved to quash a search warrant because it was not served during daytime as required by law.167 He claimed that the warrant was served at 7:15 p.m. and that the sun set at 6:53 p.m. on that day.168 Before citing Shakespeare, Webster’s Dictionary, and finally federal and state courts, the court resorted to the Bible as its first source of interpretation: “In the Bible, Genesis 1:5, we find ‘And God called the light day and the darkness he called night.’”169 The court dismissed the motion to quash the warrant, concluding that it had no merit because of the general rule that daytime is determined by the presence of light.170 While today’s courts are comfortable using biblical passage as a rule, the courts in the past refrained from actually quoting the Bible. For example, in a famous 1872 case, the Supreme Court held constitutional Illinois’s refusal to admit a woman to practice law, stating, “[t]he paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”171 The Court did not specify what exact legal source it was referring to when it invoked “the law of the Creator.” 172 Modern courts, however, are more explicit in the invoca- 164 478 F.2d 390, 393 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1973). The text of the cited passages state, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD,” Genesis 13:13 (New International), and “Then the LORD said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous,’” Genesis 18:20 (New International). 165 Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 128-29 (1998). 166 Id. 167 United States v. Liebrich, 55 F.2d 341, 342 (M.D. Pa. 1932). 168 Id. 169 Id. 170 Id. at 343 (stating “it is reasonable to hold that it is daytime for at least thirty minutes after the time when the sun sets, and it is nighttime from then until thirty minutes before the time when the sun rises”). 171 Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1872). 172 Id. 60 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 tion of biblical passages when formulating rules upon which they decide cases. The Second Circuit, in a suit for a securities violation, discussed the doctrine of “offensive collateral estoppel (more recently called offensive issue preclusion),” pointing to judicial efficiency as a primary “virtue” of the doctrine.173 It then indicated its disadvantage: Its virtues do not come without a price, however. Just as occasionally ‘the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong . . . but time and chance happeneth to them all,’ Ecclesiastes 9:11 (King James ed.), so too the results of an earlier resolution of an issue may simply be wrong.174 Some courts, when formulating standards, go directly to the Bible for support. In a dual adultery divorce suit, the husband filed a counterclaim alleging that the wife’s lesbian relationship constituted adultery.175 The court started its inquiry this way: To better understand the underlying issue it is helpful to briefly review both the legal and social standards and to distinguish between adultery as a crime as opposed to a private civil wrong. The [S]eventh [C]ommandment states that “Thou shall not commit adultery” Exodus 20:14. A biblical definition of “Adultery” is “the lying with a woman married to a husband.” See Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus, 20:10. . . . If a married man be “lying with a woman not betrothed” the biblical crime was fornication and punishment by a fine of 50 shekels of silver. Deuteronomy 22:29 (The commentators generally opine that even the thought of adultery was an offense under the biblical code, an issue which we need not deal with today.)176 After the court quoted the above biblical passages, it proceeded with common law and New Jersey statutory treatment of adultery. Despite announcing that it would review “legal and social standards,” the court started with religious moral authorities on the issue, assuming that religious morality is a synonym for a social standard. These are just some of the various ways in which courts use biblical references in written opinions. The next part of this Article will demonstrate the many different forms in which a particular biblical passage enters judicial opinions. 173 Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295, 303 (2d Cir. 1999). 174 Id. at 303-04. See also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fag Bearings Corp., 335 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting the same biblical passage from Monarch Funding, 192 F.3d at 303-04). 175 S.B. v. S.J.B., 609 A.2d 124, 124 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. 1992). 176 Id. at 125. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 61 IV. REFERENCING “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”177 While the Supreme Court has never cited either Matthew or Luke, federal and state courts prominently do so when using the phrase “no man can serve two masters” to express the rule against an attorney’s dual representation.178 In Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Foster, a state court invoked the following sources of authority: “The [b]iblical mandate that ‘No man can serve two masters’ has its modern-day application in cases of this nature. See Canon 6, Canons of Professional Ethics, 31 F.S.A.”179 Canon 6 of Professional Ethics, entitled Adverse Influences and Conflicting Interests, imposes a duty on a lawyer to disclose to a client any potential interest that might adversely affect the client.180 Contrary to biblical mandate, Canon 6 does not prohibit a lawyer from representing two clients, but instead permits such representation by express consent of all parties after full disclosure of the facts.181 The invocation of a biblical mandate in this case is unclear because the court held that the insured who was represented by the insurer’s attorney was not harmed by any breach of fiduciary duty in failing to provide information about settlement offers.182 Thus it follows that not only can a man serve two masters, but even when such servitude constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, the attorney will only be liable when the plaintiff who is suing suffered harm. Some judges are willing to disregard existing legal standards, instead quoting biblical teaching as a primary source of the authority for their decision. In People v. Williams, a case charging a husband and wife for sex offenses upon their minor adopted child, a court held that there was no conflict of interest that would make joint representation of the defendant and codefendant improper. 183 Dissenting in an extensive opinion, Justice Pincham stated: Civilization’s most sacred, learned, dedicated and staunchest advocate of all times, centuries ago, admonished: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other.” The advocate was the Christ Jesus; the admonition was to his disci- 177 See infra Appendix. 178 See infra Appendix. 179 528 So. 2d 255, 277 (Miss. 1988) (citing Spadaro v. Palmisano, 109 So. 2d 418 (Fla. App. 1959)). 180 CANONS OF PROF’L ETHICS Canon 6 (2004). 181 Id. 182 Foster, 528 So. 2d at 276. 183 538 N.E.2d 564, 566 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). 62 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 ples and the multitude during His Sermon on the Mount; the admonition is cited in the most dynamic, accurate and prestigious of all law books, The Holy Bible, at Matthews the 6th Chapter and the 24th Verse.184 After citing the highest authority to support his argument, the dissenting judge then proceeded to cite Canon 5 (5-1, 5-14, 5-15, 5- 17) of The Model Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association.185 A significant number of cases state that the biblical mandate “no person can serve two masters” is consistent with the Restatement of the Law on Agency and reflects the current legal framework within which courts operate. Contrary to what many judges state in their opinions, however, the Restatement of the Law of Agency does not prohibit dual servitude. The rules regulating the relation of agency explicitly provide that “[a] person may be the servant of two masters, not joint employers, at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve abandonment of the service to the other.”186 The comments for this section further elaborate on this issue, allowing for a servant to be employed by joint masters.187 The most important issue in the servant’s relationship with a master is the master’s consent to service188 and not, as the courts suggest, whether there is one or multiple masters. The same is true for the law governing lawyers. The Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers clearly establishes that a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest189 unless the client consents to such representation.190 Consent, and not the number of clients or masters, is the key element in a lawyer’s representation of a single or multiple clients in civil and criminal litigation.191 Similarly, the ABA Model of Professional Conduct Rule 1.13 allows an attorney to represent an organization and “its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7.”192 It is also worth noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include one of the most important rules allowing for 184 Id. at 569 (Pincham, J., dissenting). 185 Id. at 569-570. 186 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 226 (1958). 187 Id. § 226(b). 188 Id. § 221. 189 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 121 (2001). 190 Id. § 122. 191 See id. §§ 128, 129. 192 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.13(g) (2004). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 63 multiple representation: Rule 23 governing class action.193 The Restatement of the Law of Agency and the Law Governing Lawyers, together with the ABA Rules of Conduct, represent legal authorities upon which judges should rely. Any extralegal authorities, especially those that conflict with legal standards established by the accepted authoritative legal sources of statutory or common law, are constitutionally suspect and their invocation in judicial opinions is unsound. V. USING OTHER RELIGIOUS REFERENCES While citations to the King James version of the Bible are numerous, courts rarely use other religious authorities. A search for the word “Talmud,” a collection of Jewish civil and canonical laws,194 returns only three results in the Supreme Court cases database in Westlaw: County of Allegheny v. ACLU,195 School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania. v. Schempp,196 and Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of New Orleans.197 The word “Torah,” the first five books of the Old Testament, appears only five times in Supreme Court opinions: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,198 Lee v. Weisman,199 County of Allegheny v. ACLU,200 Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,201 and Miranda v. Arizona. 202 The word “Halakhah,” a Jewish law book consisting of the 193 FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g). 194 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1494 (8th ed. 2004). 195 492 U.S. at 583-84 (using the Talmud in describing certain Jewish practices). 196 374 U.S. 203, 273 (1963). “There was ample precedent, too, for Theodore Roosevelt’s declaration that in the interest of ‘absolutely nonsectarian public schools’ it was ‘not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in those schools.’” Id. (citation omitted). 197 44 U.S. 589, 604-05 (1845). “In the case of The Commonwealth v. Abram Wolf, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 48, Chief Justice Tilghman affirmed the validity of an ordinance of Philadelphia, imposing a fine for working on a Sunday, against a Jew; though under the teachings of the Jewish Talmud and the Rabbinical Constitutions, the Jew deemed Saturday as the Jewish Sabbath, and felt it both as a privilege and a duty to labour for six days, and to rest on the seventh, or Saturday.” Id. 198 512 U.S. 687, 691 (1994) (part of the facts). 199 505 U.S. 577, 639 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 200 492 U.S. at 584 n.24. “A Torah scroll—which contains the five Books of Moses—must be buried in a special manner when it is no longer usable. App. 237- 238.” Id. 201 490 U.S. 680, 701 (1989). “We also assume for purposes of argument that the IRS also allows taxpayers to deduct ‘specified payments for attendance at High Holy Day services, for tithes, for torah readings and for memorial plaques.’” Id. (quoting Foley v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 844 F.2d 94, 96 (1988)). 202 384 U.S. 436, 458 n.27 (1966). “Thirteenth century commentators found an analogue to the privilege grounded in the Bible. ‘To sum up the matter, the principle that no man is to be declared guilty on his own admission is a divine decree.’ 64 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Torah and the law instituted by the rabbi, appears in only one opinion: Garrity v. New Jersey.203 The Supreme Court used the words “Koran,” “Kuran,” “Qur’an,” or “Qor’an,” a Muslim book of revelations, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,204 O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,205 Clay v. United States,206 and Lemon v. Kurtzman.207 The Book of Mormon, a Mormon scripture, is cited in two decisions: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris208 and Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.209 Statistical evidence demonstrates that the appearance of references from Jewish or Muslim religious authorities is rare. Federal and U.S. Supreme Court case law mentions “Talmud” in 63 cases, “Torah” in 155 and “Halakhah” in 4 cases.210 The same search in the state case law database produces “Talmud” in 151 cases, “Torah” in 306 cases, and “Halakhah” in 2 cases, a pale comparison with the words “King James,” which produce 599 cases in state case law, and the word “Bible,” which is not possible to search due to an extremely high number of cases in which it appears.211 The various versions of the word “Koran” produce 499 cases in federal law and 349 cases in state law, but in most of those cases the word actually appears as a personal name.212 One needs go no farther than statistical data to conclude that the Bible is by far the most bellowed religious authority that judges use in their decision-making process and their written opinions. The apparent disparity in the use of different religious sources re- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (Code of Jewish Law), Book of Judges, Laws of the Sanhedrin, c. 18, ¶ 6, III Yale Judaica Series 52-53.” Id. 203 385 U.S. 493, 497 n.5 (1967) (comparing Jewish law with the Fifth Amendment). 204 536 U.S. 639, 713 n.24 (2002) (quoting the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pentateuch, and the Koran). 205 482 U.S. 342, 345 (1987). “Jumu’ah is commanded by the Koran and must be held every Friday after the sun reaches its zenith and before the Asr, or afternoon prayer. See Koran 62:9-10; Brief for Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin et al. as Amici Curiae 18-31.” Id. 206 403 U.S. 698, 708 n.2, 709 (1971) (quoting the Koran 61:10-13 to define “jihad as an injunction to the believers to war against non-believers”). 207 403 U.S. 602, 630-31 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). “The advantages of sectarian education relate solely to religious or doctrinal matters. They give the church the opportunity to indoctrinate its creed delicately and indirectly, or massively through doctrinal courses. Many nations follow that course: Moslem nations teach the Koran in their schools . . . .” Id. 208 Zelman, 536 U.S at 713 n.24. 209 490 U.S. at 709. 210 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 211 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 212 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 65 affirms the privileged status that Christianity enjoys in the United States. It is a constant reminder of the composition of the judiciary and the lack of diversity that contributes to the ongoing proliferation of the use of biblical references by the courts. CONCLUSION Language analysts recognize that the Bible had a substantial impact on standard English language.213 Many biblical passages, having been read at home and in church for generations, entered the popular linguistic milieu of the majority of Americans. However, not all of them became independent lexical units: A usage has to have achieved some degree of linguistic autonomy; it must be capable of being meaningful outside of its original biblical context, usable by English speakers who do not read (or even know) the Bible as well as those who do. (The same point applies to expressions derived from Shakespeare or any other author.) . . . A usage that does not meet this criterion is really only a quotation.214 One of the standard English expressions derived from the King James version of St. Matthew’s Gospel is, “No man can serve two masters.”215 However, courts continue to quote the Bible when referring to this expression. The variety of ways in which courts use biblical passages from Matthew and Luke is impressive.216 If the biblical passage that “no man can serve two masters” is part of folk wisdom, there would seem to be no need to quote the Bible. If, on the other hand, it is important to cite the ultimate source of this proverb, referencing the Bible seems logical. While this biblical quotation and citation to Matthew or Luke by courts may be trivial, the continuous use of the Bible by judges to support their arguments in written opinions is unjustified and should be barred. The Bible contains many passages as simple as the one above, but the scope of their impact on decision-making is impermissibly broad, including such decisions as life or death in capital cases. The arbitrariness of judicial choice to use some biblical passages as traditional folk expressions and to quote others as authoritative sources 213 CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 274. See also Ashburn, supra note 2, at 343-47 (citing examples of courts using aphorisms from Jewish law). 214 CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 276. “The King James Bible . . . has contributed far more to English in the way of idiomatic or quasi-proverbial expressions than any other literary source. . . . Matthew’s Gospel alone, for example, yields over forty locutions which, directly or indirectly, are part of Modern English.” Id. 215 Id. at 277. 216 See infra Appendix. 66 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 is analogous to the arbitrariness in which some biblical passages entered the everyday speech.217 Additionally, the use of the same biblical passage as a folk expression by some courts and as a biblical quote by the others creates a sense of arbitrariness and subjectivity, bringing into question judicial impartiality. The use of religious references in judicial decision-making is not rare and cannot be underestimated. The numerous ways in which the Bible finds its way into judicial opinions are a direct result of judges’ willingness to disregard the rules of judicial conduct and apparent constitutional violations stemming from such misuse. Since there is no bright line between a common expression such as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”218 and the biblical mandate “[i]f anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death,”219 courts should never use either text, especially not during a sentencing phase. Courts should be prohibited from using religious references in judicial decision-making because any reliance on extralegal sources of authority is contrary to the basic principles of the American justice system. Using religious references in judicial opinions is an impermissible exercise of a privilege that coerces the minority to accept the norms of the majority. Whether disguised as morals, proverbs, principles, tradition, or history, religious references undermine judicial integrity and impartiality. Long ago, Justice Holmes expressed one of the most creative ideas in respect to delineating morality and law. Although his idea may sound radical today to moderate and conservative proponents of the use of religion in decision-making, it is one that should resonate with any person who is genuinely concerned with the American justice system: For my own part, I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether, and other words adopted which should convey legal ideas uncolored by anything outside the law.220 217 See CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 278. What is really intriguing, of course, is why some expressions entered English in this way, and others did not. Why did such similes as wise as serpents or harmless as doves ([Matthew] 10:16) not become everyday phrases? As always, when we consider lexical innovation, the bigger puzzle is to explain why so many apparently vivid or useful items did not appeal. Id. See also BARTH D. EHRMAN, MISQUOTING JESUS: THE STORY BEHIND WHO CHANGED THE BIBLE AND WHY (2005) (discussing intentional and accidental alterations of the Bible made by translators throughout history). 218 Leviticus 24:20 (New International). 219 Leviticus 24:17 (New International). 220 Holmes, The Path of the Law, supra note 128, at 464. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 67 APPENDIX CASES USING “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”221 “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Matthew 6:24 (New International). “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Luke 16:13 (New International). Terms Used by Courts to Refer to “No Man Can Serve Two Masters” Admonition Familiar scriptural quotation Ancient admonition Fundamental law Ancient axiom Fundamental rule Ancient injunction Fundamental truth Ancient maxim Fundamental proposition Ancient principle General rule Ancient truth General principle Authority of Holy Writ Good Authority Authoritative declaration Gospel Axiom Hallowed petition Biblical admonition High authority Biblical advice Highest Authority has said Biblical expression Infallible declaration Biblical doctrine Biblical mandate Infallible truth Biblical quote Injunction Biblical teaching Jesus said Christ said Law for two thousand years Christian morality Legal maxim Centuries-old scriptural passage Maxim Common experience Moral maxim Declaration Moral rule Divine declaration Old adage Divine injunction Old as Holy Writ Divine precept Old principle Doctrine of the Holy Writ Old proverb Divine saying Philosophy Eternal truth Philosophy of the Galilean Expression Phrase from the Bible Fact Principle 221 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006 using a sesarch phrase “can serve two masters.” 68 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Proposition of the Highest and best Scriptural references authority Scriptural teaching Proverb Statement Public policy rule Theory Quoted from the Bible Truth Rule Truth of the biblical admonition Rule of the moral law Truth of the Scriptural injunction Rule of law Unanimous verdict of mankind Saying Universal moral rule Scriptural maxim Utterance of the divine Nazarene Scriptural pronouncement Very high authority has said Scriptural quotation Wisdom of the ages SUPREME COURT CASES NLRB v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 511 U.S. 571, 595 n.14 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“No man can serve two masters. If you are negotiating a contract, a lawyer does not represent both clients. That is all that is involved here.”) Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 197 n.50 (1963) (Justice Goldberg quoting from United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 550 n.14 (1961)) United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 550 n.14 (1961) (Warren, J.) (“The reason of the rule inhibiting a party who occupies confidential and fiduciary relations toward another from assuming antagonistic positions to his principal in matters involving the subject matter of the trust is sometimes said to rest in a sound public policy, but it also is justified in a recognition of the authoritative declaration that no man can serve two masters; and considering that human nature must be dealt with, the rule does not stop with actual violations of such trust relations, but includes within its purpose the removal of any temptation to violate them.” (quoting Mich. Steel Box Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 (1914))) Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Withers, 177 U.S. 260, 269 (1900) (Brown, J.) (“But if the insured is to be now bound as having thus contracted, there must be mutuality in the contract. No man can serve two masters.”) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 69 CITING TO MATTHEW Federal Court Cases Freund v. Butterworth, 117 F.3d 1543, 1572 n.67 (11th Cir. 1997) United States v. Mett, 65 F.3d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir. 1995) Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85, 100-01 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Chapman v. Klemick, 3 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1993) Sanjour v. EPA, 984 F.2d 434, 447 (D.C. Cir. 1993) United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 1989) United States v. Gambino, 864 F.2d 1064, 1074-1075 n.1 (3d Cir. 1988) U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Louis A. Roser Co., 585 F.2d 932, 938 n.5 (8th Cir. 1978) Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384, 1386 (2d Cir. 1976) Phelan v. Middle States Oil Corp., 220 F.2d 593, 619 (2d Cir. 1955) Armstrong Cleaners, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 364 F.Supp. 2d 797, 815 (S.D. Ind. 2005) Rocchigiani v. World Boxing Counsel, 82 F.Supp. 2d 182, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Union Ins. Co. v. Knife Co., 902 F. Supp. 877, 881 (W.D. Ark. 1995) ESM Gov’t. Sec., Inc. v. ESM Group, Inc. 66 B.R. 82, 84 (S.D. Fla. 1986) United States v. Bergmann, 47 F. Supp. 765, 767 (S.D. Cal. 1942) In re BH & P, Inc., 103 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1989) In re Tampa Chain Co., 35 B.R. 568, 579 n.10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983) United States v. Short, 50 M.J. 370, 374 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (phrase from the Bible) 70 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 United States v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 40, 44-45 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) Kamean v. Local 363, 109 F.R.D. 391, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) United States v. Agosto, 528 F. Supp. 1300, 1310 (D. Minn. 1981) United States v. Garafola, 428 F. Supp. 620, 621 (D.N.J. 1977) (Biblical teaching) Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 249 F. Supp. 33, 38 n.2 (D.S.C. 1966) United States v. Kawakita, 96 F. Supp. 824, 836 (S.D. Cal. 1950) State Court Cases Office of Consumer Counsel v. Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util. Control, No. CV020513718S, 2002 WL 31319517, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 2002) Wis. Patients Comp. Fund v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 620 N.W.2d 457, 461-62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 998 P.2d 856, 877 (Wash. 2000) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Traver, 980 S.W.2d 625, 634 (Tex. 1998) In re Estate of Koch, 849 P.2d 977, 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993) Geauga County Bar Ass’n. v. Psenicka, 577 N.E.2d 1074, 1074 (Ohio 1991) Friends of La Vina v. County of L.A., 284 Cal. Rptr. 171, 178 n.1 (Ct. App. 1991) (Gates, Acting P.J., dissenting) Ex parte Weaver, 570 So.2d 675, 682 (Ala. 1990) J.K. & Susie L. Wadley Research Inst. & Blood Bank v. Morris, 776 S.W.2d 271, 284 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989) People v. Williams, 538 N.E.2d 564, 569 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (admonition) Collins v. Citizens & S. Trust Co., 373 S.E.2d 612, 617 (Ga. 1988) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 71 Swartz v. State, 429 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988) SHV Coal, Inc. v. Cont’l Grain Co., 545 A.2d 917, 921 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) Brickner v. Normandy Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 746 S.W.2d 108, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) Jim Royer Realty, Inc. v. Moreira, 363 S.E.2d 10, 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Hinds County, 445 So.2d 1330, 1356 n.25 (Miss.1984) In re Conduct of Samuels and Weiner, 674 P.2d 1166, 1171 (Or. 1983) Webb v. State, 433 So.2d 496, 499 (Fla. 1983) Ellis v. Flink, 374 So.2d 4, 5 n.4 (Fla. 1979) Conn. Comm’n on Special Revenue v. Conn. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 387 A.2d 533, 537 (Conn. 1978) Harford County v. Tatar, Lininger, Clark & Wood, Inc., 363 A.2d 501, 505 (Md. 1976) In re Runals’ Estate, 328 N.Y.S.2d 966, 978 (Sur. Ct. 1972) Onorato v. Wissahickon Park, Inc., 244 A.2d 22, 25 (Pa. 1968) Spratlin, Harrington & Thomas, Inc. v. Hawn, 156 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967) (Biblical expression) State v. 62.96247 Acres of Land, More or Less, in New Castle, 193 A.2d 799, 806 n.7 (Del. Super. Ct. 1963) State v. Brewer, 129 S.E.2d 262, 277 (N.C. 1963) Martin v. Hieken, 340 S.W.2d 161,165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) Hughes v. Robbins, 164 N.E.2d 469, 473 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1959) (“It has been well written that ‘no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) 72 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Powers v. Johnson, 306 S.W.2d 616, 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957) Fruchtl v. Foley, 84 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla. 1956) (admonition) Lexington Insulation Co. v. Davidson County, 90 S.E.2d 496, 498 (N.C. 1955) City of Miami v. Benson, 63 So.2d 916, 920 (Fla. 1953) Ridgway v. Super. Ct. of Yavapai, 245 P.2d 268, 271 (Ariz. 1952) Safeway Stores v. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, 234 P.2d 678, 682 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951) State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, 99 N.E.2d 839, 845 (Ind. 1951) Bossler v. Wilson, 65 Pa. D. & C. 164, 171 (Phila. Mun. Ct. 1949) City of Jackson v. McLeod, 24 So.2d 319, 325 (Miss. 1946) (“The public interest requires the undivided loyalty of police officers to the public service and we were told long ago by One whose judgment was infallible that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) Barr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 200 So. 240, 244 (Fla. 1941) Century Indem. Co. v. Carnes, 138 S.W.2d 555, 560 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940) Moffett Bros. P’ship Estate v. Moffett, 137 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo. 1939) Caudle v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 182 So. 461, 464 (Ala. 1938) Whitlow v. Patterson, 112 S.W.2d 35, 41 (Ark. 1937) (“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”) Hood ex rel. N.C. Bank & Trust v. N.C. Bank & Trust, 184 S.E. 51, 62 (N.C. 1936) Olson v. Gaddis Inv. Co., 39 P.2d 744, 747 (Utah 1935) City of Leesburg v. Ware, 153 So. 87, 89 (Fla. 1934) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 73 State ex rel. Union Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 62 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo. 1933) Harris v. United Serv. Co., 32 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Ark. 1930) (general principle) Robson v. Hahn, 277 P. 507, 508 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1929) Schwartzman v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. of Liverpool, Eng., 2 S.W.2d 593, 602 (Mo. 1927) Castellanos v. Castro, 289 S.W. 104, 105 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926) (“It was said by the Great Teacher that ‘no man can serve two masters . . . .’”) Rezos v. Zahm & Nagel Co., 246 P. 564, 565 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1926) Carolina Bagging Co. v. Byrd, 116 S.E. 90, 92 (N.C. 1923) Hume v. Baggett & Baggett, 221 S.W. 1002, 1003 (Tex. Civ. App. 1920) (“This rule of law not only rests on an understanding of human nature but on the utterance of the Divine Nazarene, when he said: ‘No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’”) Murray v. Lizotte, 77 A. 231, 238 (R.I. 1910) (“No matter how high his motives or how honorable his intention, ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’”) Shamokin Mfg. Co. v. Ohio German Fire Ins. Co., 39 Pa. Super. 553, 556 (Super. Ct. 1908) (“It involves a question whether the same person may be an agent in a private transaction for both parties, without the consent of both, so as to entitle him to compensation from both or either. We have the authority of Holy Writ for saying that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’ All human experience sanctions the undoubted truth and purity of this philosophy, and it is received as a cardinal principle in every system of enlightened jurisprudence.“) U.S. Tel. Co. v. Middlepoint Home Tel. Co., 19 Ohio Dec. 202, 208 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1908) (“It is as true today as when first spoken in the 74 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 parable, and has become a fundamental rule that ‘No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) Gann v. Zettler, 60 S.E. 283, 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908) (Powell, J.) (“It is recorded of Him ‘who spake as never man spoke’ that, ‘seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set his disciples came unto him; and he opened his mouth and taught them; saying: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”’ So, also, is our law. Whoso, having undertaken the service of his master, counsels with another and agrees also to serve him in those same things wherewith he has been trusted, cannot claim the reward promised by his master unless he makes it plain that he has not acted privily, but that his master was consenting thereto.” (internal citations omitted)) City of Philadelphia v. Durham, No. 1, 1907 WL 3343, at *13 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 30, 1907) (“We have the authority of Holy Writ for saying that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’ All human experience sanctions the undoubted truth and purity of this philosophy, and it is received as a cardinal principle in every system of enlightened jurisprudence.”) McDowell v. First Nat’l Bank of Sutton, 102 N.W. 615, 617 (Neb. 1905) Nat’l Tube Co. v. Eastern Tube Co., 13 Ohio Cir. Dec. 468 (Cir. Ct. 1902) Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Evans, 53 S.W. 1104, 1105 (Tenn. Ct. Ch. App. 1899) Moore v. Grow, 1 Pa. Super. 125, 127 (Super. Ct. 1896) Northrup v. Phillips, 99 Ill. 449, 454 (1881) Dickson v. People ex rel. Brown, 17 Ill. 191, 193 (1855) CITING TO LUKE State Court Cases Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon, 617 S.E.2d 40, 60 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 75 Barefield v. DPIC Cos., 600 S.E.2d 256, 281 (W. Va. 2004) Rose ex rel. Rose v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 599 S.E.2d 673, 688 (W. Va. 2004) People v. Graham, 794 N.E.2d 231, 236 (Ill. 2003) Myer v. Preferred Credit, Inc., 117 Ohio Misc. 2d 8, 24 (Ct. Com. Pl. 2001) State v. Reddick, 534 S.E.2d 473, 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) Brooks v. Zebre, 792 P.2d 196, 200 (Wyo. 1990) Watkins v. Floyd, 492 S.W.2d 865, 870 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) Wise v. S. Pac. Co., 77 Cal. Rptr. 156, 160 (Ct. App. 1969) Pac. Indem. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 81 P.2d 572, 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938) Smith v. Harvey-Given Co., 185 S.E. 793, 796 (Ga. 1936) Jordan v. Austin Sec. Co., 51 P.2d 38, 58 (Kan. 1935) State v. Gautier, 147 So. 240, 246 (Fla. 1933) Never Fail Land Co. v. Cole, 149 S.E. 585, 588 (N.C. 1929) Patterson v. De Haven, 263 P. 568, 572 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) Chippewa Power Co. v. R.R. Comm’n of Wis., 205 N.W. 900, 902 (Wis. 1925) Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 119 S.E. 315, 317 (Ga. 1923) Pagel v. Creasy, 6 Ohio App. 199, 206 (Ct. App. 1916) McCudden v. Brockmeyer, 26 Ohio Dec. 432, 436 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1915) Carr v. Ubsdell, 71 S.W. 112, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902) Bell v. McConnell, 37 Ohio St. 396, 399 (1881) 76 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 NO QUOTATION MARKS Federal Court Cases United States v. Freyer, 333 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (no lawyer can serve two masters) United States v. Levine, 794 F.2d 1203, 1205 (7th Cir. 1986) Ottawa Tribe v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 373, 379 (Ct. Cl. 1964) (gospel) Speeter v. United States, 42 F.2d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 1930) (old principle) Parkerson v. Borst, 264 F. 761, 765 (5th Cir. 1920) (scriptural maxim) United States v. Krafft, 249 F. 919, 928 (3d Cir. 1918) Curved Electrotype Plate Co. of N.Y. v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 258, 272 (Ct. Cl. 1915) (authoritative declaration) Crites, Inc., v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 134 F.2d 925, 927 (6th Cir. 1943) (principle) Rankin v. United States, 98 Ct. Cl. 357, 367 (Ct. Cl. 1943) (authoritative declaration) Mich. Steel Box Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 (Cl. Ct. 1914) (authoritative declaration) Bramhall v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 51, 59 (Cl. Ct. 1868) Klein v. Miller, No. Civ.A.SA-02-CA-687FB, 2004 WL 1118725, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2004) (biblical advice) Costa v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, 845 F. Supp. 64, 69 (D.R.I. 1994) (biblical advice) Overfield v. Pennroad Corp., 42 F. Supp. 586, 608 (E.D. Pa. 1941) In re Int’l Match Corp., 20 F. Supp. 420, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1937) (truth of the biblical admonition) John Conlon Coal Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y., 16 F. Supp. 93, 95 (M.D. Pa. 1936) (principle) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 77 Marshall v. Lovell, 11 F.2d 632, 639 (D. Minn. 1926) Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of S.F., 281 F. 222, 228 (D. Or. 1922) Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of S.F., 277 F. 430, 432 (D. Or. 1921) Brown v. Pa. Canal Co, 229 F. 444, 452 (E.D. Pa. 1916) In re Va. Hardwood Mfg. Co., 139 F. 209, 218 (W.D. Ark. 1905) Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Winona & Sw. Ry. Co., 59 F. 957, 961 (C.C.D. Minn. 1893) Putnam v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 4 F. 753, 760 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1880) In re Tinley Plaza Assocs., 142 B.R. 272, 279 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.1992) In re Huddleston, 120 B.R. 399, 401 (Bankr. E.D. Tex.1990) United States v. Hubbard, 43 C.M.R. 322, 325 (C.M.A. 1971) (truth of the Scriptural injunction) Midwest Farmers v. United States, 64 F. Supp. 91, 102 (D. Minn. 1945) State Court Cases People v. Hardin, 840 N.E.2d 1205, 1212 (Ill. 2005) Coronado v. Schoenmann Produce Co., 99 S.W.3d 741, 753-55 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003) State ex rel. S.G., 814 A.2d 612, 616 (N.J. 2003) Barrett v. Union Twp. Comm., 553 A.2d 62, 65 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989) (moral rule) Siegman v. Bd. of Educ., 477 N.E. 2d 241, 243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) Copple v. City of Lincoln, 274 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Neb. 1979) Pa. Labor Relations Bd. v. E. Lancaster County Sch. Dist., 1973 WL 16227, at *3 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. May 18, 1973) (fundamental truth) 78 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 City of Montgomery v. Brendle Fire Equip., Inc., 279 So.2d 480, 486 (Ala. 1973) Procidano v. Mautner, 335 N.Y.S.2d 17, 24 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1972) St. Paul at Chase Corp. v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co., 278 A.2d 12, 25 (Md. 1971) Bd. of Educ. v. Wilton, 273 A.2d 44, 50 (N.J. 1971) Caddie v. Warden, Md. Correctional Inst., 238 A.2d 129, 129 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1968) (theory) Hasbrouck v. Rymkevitch, 268 N.Y.S.2d 604, 606 (App. Div. 1966) Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 176 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. 1962) Van Dyke v. White, 349 P.2d 430, 437 (Wash. 1960) Md. Credit Finance Corp. v. Hagerty, 139 A.2d 230, 233 (Md. 1958) Jedwabny v. Phila. Transp. Co., 135 A.2d 252, 255 (Pa. 1957) (scriptural references) Coble v. Econ. Forms Corp. 304 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957) Aldom v. Borough of Roseland, 127 A.2d 190, 194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956) (moral rule) Jersey City v. Hague, 115 A.2d 8, 13 (N.J. 1955) Henshie v. McPherson & Citizens State Bank, 280 P.2d 937, 947 (Kan. 1955) In re Ridgely, 106 A.2d 527, 530 (Del. 1954) (injunction) Cornale v. Stewart Stamping Corp., 129 N.Y.S.2d 808, 814 (Sup. Ct. 1954) Shernoff v. Schimel, 112 N.Y.S.2d 333, 347 (Sup. Ct. 1952) Klein v. Twentieth Century-Fox Int’l Corp., 108 N.Y.S.2d 767, 768 (Sup. Ct. 1951) (fact) State ex inf. Taylor v. Cumpton, 240 S.W.2d 877, 884-85 (Mo. 1951) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 79 Petition of Topham, 58 Pa. D. & C. 649, 654 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1947) Nagel v. Todd, 45 A.2d 326, 328 (Md. 1946) City of Lincoln v. First Nat’l Bank of Lincoln, 19 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Neb. 1945) (moral rule) Alabama State Fed’n of Labor v. McAdory, 18 So.2d 810, 829 (Ala. 1944) Phillips v. Phillips, 13 So.2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1943) Almon v. Am. Carloading Corp., 38 N.E.2d 362, 363-64 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941) (rule of law) Cowan v. Hamilton Nat’l Bank, 146 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tenn. 1941) Jarrett v. French & Co., 3 N.Y.S.2d 227, 228 (App. Div. 1938) (theory) Valley & Siletz R.R. Co. v. Thomas, 48 P.2d 358, 383 (Or. 1935) Beatty v. Employers’ Liab. Assurance Corp., 168 A. 919, 924 (Vt. 1933) Greenfield v. Bausch, 263 N.Y.S. 19, 21 (App. Div. 1933) (fact) Elco Shoe Mfrs. v. Sisk, 183 N.E. 191, 191-92 (N.Y. 1932) Kane v. McClenachan, 159 A. 61, 64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932) Pac. Fin. Corp. v. City of Lynwood, 300 P. 50, 53 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1931) (principle) New England Oil Ref. Co. v. Can. Mex. Oil Co., 174 N.E. 330, 337 (Mass. 1931) Terrell v. Town of Tempe, 274 P. 786, 788 (Ariz. 1929) Lucas Realty Co. v. Franks, 6 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Ky. 1928) Eastham v. Stumbo, 279 S.W. 1109, 1110 (Ky. 1926) C.M. Condon & Co. v. Richardson, 232 P. 1070, 1071 (Kan. 1925) De Crette v. Mohler, 127 A. 639, 642 (Md. 1925) 80 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Smith v. Ward, 197 N.W. 684, 685 (S.D. 1924) Williams v. Bolling, 121 S.E. 270, 273 (Va. 1923) Grady v. Pink Hill Bank & Trust Co., 113 S.E. 667, 669 (N.C. 1922) In re Moses, 195 N.Y.S. 358, 360 (App. Div. 1922) (old as Holy Writ) Meeks v. Fink, 89 So. 543, 544 (Fla. 1921) Wilson v. S. Pac. Land Co., 46 Cal. App. 738, 745 (Ct. App. 1920) Clarksburg Light & Heat Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 100 S.E. 551, 555 (W. Va. 1919) State v. Nichols, 166 N.W. 813, 813 (N.D. 1918) Southampton Twp. v. Johnson, No. 3, 1916 WL 4261, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 17, 1916) Schenectady Illuminating Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 151 N.Y.S. 830, 831 (Sup. Ct. 1914) Hirsh v. Twyford, 139 P. 313, 316 (Okla. 1913) Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 142 N.W. 847, 852 (S.D. 1913) (fundamental proposition) City of Minneapolis v. Canterbury, 142 N.W. 812, 814 (Minn. 1913) Hill v. Whiteside, 85 A. 425, 425 (Pa. 1912) Bell v. Riggs, 127 P. 427, 430 (Okla. 1912) (high authority) Langford v. Issenhuth, 134 N.W. 889, 894 (S.D. 1912) (fundamental law) Salene v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co. of Sioux Falls, 116 P. 1114, 1115 (Or. 1911) (principle) Cobe v. Coughlin Hardware Co., 112 P. 115, 117 (Kan. 1910) Mitchell v. Schreiner, 1910 WL 4143, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1910) (quoted from the Bible) Lightcap v. Nicola, 34 Pa. Super. 189, 202 (Super. Ct. 1907) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 81 Harper v. Fidler, 78 S.W. 1034, 1035 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904) (authoritative declaration) Hier v. Miller, 75 P. 77, 77 (Kan. 1904) Edwards v. Home Ins. Co., 73 S.W. 881, 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902) In re Reifschneider, 69 N.Y.S. 1069, 1074 (App. Div. 1901) Murphy v. Indep. Order of Sons & Daughters of Jacob of Am., 27 So. 624, 625 (Miss. 1900) McFarland v. Gordon, 41 A. 507, 508 (Vt. 1898) Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Hardy, 34 A. 986, 987 (N.J. 1896) Shepard v. Hill, 34 P. 159, 160 (Wash. 1893) State v. Hastings, 55 N.W. 774, 789 (Neb. 1893) Huggins Cracker & Candy Co. v. People’s Ins. Co., 41 Mo. App. 530, 541 (1890) (authoritative declaration) Whited v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y. 415, 420 (1879) Roll v. Riddle, 5 Ohio Dec. Reprint 232, 655 (Super. Ct. 1874) Ex rel. Dawson, 39 Ala. 367, 404 (1864) In re Miller, 30 Pa. 478, 494 (1858) Laight St. Baptist Church v. Noe, 12 How. Pr. 497, 497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1855) Buckles v. Lafferty’s Legatees, 41 Va. (2 Rob.) 292, 302 (1843) Gayden v. Gayden, 1842 WL 2414, at *5 (S.C. Ct. App. Eq. 1842) (eternal truth) State v. Hunt, 20 S.C.L. (2 Hill) 1, 64 (Ct. App. 1834) Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 361, 371 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1826) Carter v. Harris, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 199, 204 (1826) (principle) McAllister v. Marshall, 6 Binn. 338, 350 (Pa. 1814) 82 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 QUOTATION MARKS WITHOUT CITATION Federal Court Cases United States v. Bowens, 108 F. App’x 945, 971 (5th Cir. 2004) Berwind Corp. v. Fyfe, No. 89-55880, 1990 WL 208794, at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir. 1978) Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 233 (2d Cir. 1977) Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Mitchell, 190 F.2d 308, 308 (5th Cir. 1951) (scriptural pronouncement) Va. Ferry Corp. v. NLRB, 101 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir. 1939) (high authority) Turner v. Kirkwood, 49 F.2d 590, 594 (10th Cir. 1931) (infallible truth and divine saying) Crawford v. United States, 30 App. D.C. 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 1907) Olcott v. Rice, 69 F. 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1895) (truth) McGlothlin v. Connors, 142 F.R.D. 626, 635 (W.D. Va. 1992) (biblical admonition) Schwartz v. O’Grady, No. 86 CIV. 4243, 1990 WL 156274, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1990) SEC v. Commonwealth Sec. Investors, Inc., No. 2161, 1970 WL 202, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 1970) (Biblical quote) Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Keyes, 46 F. Supp. 181, 185 (W.D. Ky. 1933) (Jesus said) United States v. Walter, 291 F. 662, 663 (S.D. Fla. 1921) United States v. Del. & Hudson Co, 164 F. 215, 258 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1908) United States v. Booth, 148 F. 112, 116 (C.C.D. Or. 1906) (principle) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 83 Symmes v. Union Trust Co. of N.Y., 60 F. 830, 864 (C.C.D. Nev. 1894) United States v. Sippel, 8 C.M.R. 698, 745 (C.M.R. 1953) (principle) In re Grand Jury Investigation, 436 F. Supp. 818, 821 (W.D. Pa. 1977) (ancient axiom) Dobbins v. Local 212, 292 F. Supp. 413, 451 n. 19 (S.D. Ohio 1968) In re W.T. Byrns, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 442, 445 (E.D. Va. 1966) Shapiro v. Stahl, 195 F. Supp. 822, 825 (M.D. Pa. 1961) (infallible declaration) Livingston v. Shreveport-Texas League Baseball Corp., 128 F. Supp. 191, 199 (W.D. La. 1955) (axiom) State Court Cases People v. Woidtke, 729 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) Winmark Ltd. P’ship v. Miles & Stockbridge, 674 A.2d 73, 87 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996) Friendship Heights Citizens Comm. v. Barlow, 329 A.2d 122, 125 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974) Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 917 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Ky. 1996) Md. Metals, Inc. v. Metzner, 382 A.2d 564, 568 (Md. 1978) In re Brown, 559 P.2d 884, 889 (Or. 1977) Drenning v. Kuebel, Inc., 327 So. 2d 571, 575 (La. Ct. App. 1976) In re Boivin, 533 P.2d 171, 174 (Or. 1975) Commonwealth v. Shank, 54 Pa. D. & C.2d 602, 605 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971) Elizabeth Fire Officers Ass’n v. City of Elizabeth, 274 A.2d 817, 819 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971) Warminster Twp. Appeal, 56 Pa. D. & C.2d 99, 111 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971) 84 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Claughton v. Bear Stearns & Co., 156 A.2d 314, 319-20 (Pa. 1959) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) McCall v. Johns, 294 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956) State v. Haesemeyer, 78 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 1956) (ancient truth) In re Bond & Mortg. Guar. Co., 103 N.E.2d 721, 725 (N.Y. 1952) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Ky. State Fair Bd. v. Fowler, 221 S.W.2d 435, 439 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949) (philosophy) In re Buder, 217 S.W.2d 563, 574 (Mo. 1949) Kurtz v. Steinhart, 60 Pa. D. & C. 345, 360 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1947) (old adage) In re Laegen’s Estate, 43 N.Y.S.2d 924, 926 (Sur. Ct. 1943) Rotzin v. Miller, 277 N.W. 811, 817 (Neb. 1938) (hallowed petition) Int’l Serv. Union Co. v. People ex rel. Wettengel, 70 P.2d 431, 436 (Colo. 1937) Haines v. Biddle, 188 A. 843, 844 (Pa. 1937) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Richter Jewelry Co. v. Schweinert, 169 So. 750, 753 (Fla. 1936) (general rule) Whelan v. Bailey, 36 P.2d 709, 710 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1934) (saying) Bland v. Smith, 33 P.2d 25, 27 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1934) (rule) Clawans v. Ordway Bldg. & Loan Ass’n., 164 A. 267, 283 (N.J. 1933) (wisdom of the ages) Mees v. Grewer, 245 N.W. 813, 815 (N.D. 1932) Hall v. Williams, 50 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Mo. 1932) (ancient maxim) Neb. State Bank of Norfolk v. Sch. Dist. of Pierce, 240 N.W. 570, 571 (Neb. 1932) (good authority) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 85 Wick v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 1930 WL 2386, at *5 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Dec. 29, 1930) Cent. Nat. Bank of Lincoln v. First Nat. Bank, 219 N.W. 894, 895 (Neb. 1928) (philosophy) McDaniel v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 240 Ill. App. 535, 549 (App. Ct. 1926) In re Water Rights in Silvies River, 237 P. 322, 358 (Or. 1925) Shealy v. S. Ry. Co., 120 S.E. 561, 568, 575 (S.C. 1924) Koons v. Richardson, 227 Ill. App. 477, 484 (App. Ct. 1923) (rule of the moral law and expression) Tex. Ref. Co. v. Alexander, 202 S.W. 131, 134 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918) (very high authority has said) Tusant v. Grand Lodge A.O.U.W., 163 N.W. 690, 693 (Iowa 1917) (law) Kirby-Sorge-Felske Co. v. Doty, 157 N.W. 273, 276 (Mich. 1916) (infallible declaration) Peterson v. Lewis, 154 P. 101, 106 (Or. 1915) In re E. Cameron Twp. Auditors’ Report, 1915 WL 3321, at *7 (Pa. Com. Pl. Aug. 11, 1915) (statement) (general principle) In re Krauthoff, 177 S.W. 1112, 1125 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915) (Highest Authority has said) King v. Reed, 141 P. 41, 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Clopton v. Meeves, 133 P. 907, 910 (Idaho 1913) (common experience and unanimous verdict of mankind) Jacobs v. Beyer, 125 N.Y.S. 597, 599 (App. Div. 1910) (rule) Biddle v. Cumberland County, No. 15, 1908 WL 2834, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 20, 1908) Commonwealth ex rel. Kutz v. Witman, 66 A. 986, 987 (Pa. 1907) (statement) 86 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Evans v. Rockett, 32 Pa. Super. 365, 369 (Super. Ct. 1907) (infallible declaration) Commonwealth v. Miller, 1906 WL 3769, at *4 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1906) (expression) Wilkinson v. McCullough, 46 A. 357, 358 (Pa. 1900) (infallible declaration) Leathers v. Canfield, 75 N.W. 612, 616 (Mich. 1898) (infallible declaration) Addison v. Wanamaker, 39 A. 1111, 1111 (Pa. 1898) (proposition of the highest and best authority) Deutsch v. Baxter, 47 P. 405, 405 (Colo. App. 1896) (fact) Wildberger v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 17 So. 282, 283 (Miss. 1895) Finch v. Redding, 26 A. 368, 369-70 (Pa. 1893) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Caswell v. Jones, 26 A. 529, 530 (Vt. 1893) Harkness v. Briscoe, 47 Mo. App. 196, 198 (Ct. App. 1891) (principle) Pearson v. Concord R.R., 62 N.H. 537, 545 (1883) Memphis, Kan. & Colo. Ry. Co. v. Parsons Town Co., 26 Kan. 503, 509 (1881) Haxton v. Harris, 19 Kan. 511, 512 (1878) Draper v. Moore, 1872 WL 6072, at *4 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1872) BIBLICAL MANDATE State Court Cases Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Foster, 528 So.2d 255, 277 (Miss. 1988) (ancient principle) Kirby v. Cruce, 688 S.W.2d 161, 171 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985) (Christian morality) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 87 In re Hershberger, 606 P.2d 623, 627 (Or. 1980) (biblical admonition) Citizens Bank v. C & H Constr. & Paving Co., 600 P.2d 1212, 1217 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Twp. Comm. of Hazlet Twp., Monmouth County v. Morales, 289 A.2d 563, 565 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1972) (moral rule) State v. Goode, 171 N.W.2d 733, 733 (S.D. 1969) (ancient admonition) State ex rel. Londerholm v. Schroeder, 430 P.2d 304, 314 (Kan. 1967) (ancient injunction) Riviera Congress Assocs. v. Yassky, 264 N.Y.S.2d 624, 634 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Schear v. City of Elizabeth, 196 A.2d 774, 778 (N.J. 1964) (universal moral rule) Naftalin v. John Wood Co., 116 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Minn.1962) (truth of the biblical admonition) Dick & Reuteman Co. v. Doherty Realty Co., 114 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Wis. 1962) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 1959) (familiar scriptural quotation) Spadaro v. Palmisano, 109 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (biblical mandate) Raymond v. Bartlett, 175 P.2d 288, 289 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1946) (biblical doctrine) Higginbotham v. Pub. Belt R.R. Comm’n, 181 So. 65, 71 (La. Ct. App. 1938) (biblical doctrine) In re Flavin’s Guardianship, 18 N.E.2d 514, 518 (Ohio Ct. App. 1938) (law for two thousand years) Adams v. Hearn, 178 A. 606, 611 (Md. 1935) (divine injunction) Stubbs v. Fla. State Finance Co., 159 So. 527, 528 (Fla. 1935) (familiar scriptural quotation) 88 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Mangels v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Balt., 173 A. 191, 197 (Md. 1934) (divine precept) State v. Williams, 68 S.E. 900, 902 (N.C. 1910) (scriptural teaching) Hamilton v. Allen, 125 N.W. 610, 612 (Neb. 1910) (philosophy of the Galilean and declaration) Beasley v. Swinton, 24 S.E. 313, 322 (S.C. 1896) (Christ said) Funk v. Washington Twp., No. 196, 1893 WL 2925, at *4 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. July 15, 1893) (authority of Holy Writ) Pa. R.R. Co. v. Flanigan, 4 A. 364, 367 (Pa. 1886) (authority of Holy Writ) Everhart v. Searle, 71 Pa. 256, 259 (1872) (authority of Holy Writ and principle) Scheible v. Bacho, 41 Ala. 423, 450 (1868) (Divine declaration) Herman v. Martineau, 1 Wis. 151, 158 (1853) (doctrine of Holy Writ) PRINCIPLE OR PROPOSITION State Court Cases People v. Dobrino, 592 N.E.2d 391, 401 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) People v. Arnold, 577 N.E.2d 1355, 1362 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) Fed’n of State Cultural & Educ. Prof’l v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 147, 150 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988) People v. Spreitzer, 525 N.E.2d 30, 34 (Ill. 1988) State v. Basham, 170 N.W.2d 238, 255 (S.D. 1969) (principle) Batson v. Strehlow, 59 Cal. Rptr. 195, 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) Holmes v. McKey, 383 P.2d 655, 664 (Okla. 1963) In re Guardianship of Angell, 167 N.E.2d 711, 713 (Ill. App. Ct. 1960) Battle v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 168 N.E.2d 915, 918 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 89 Fred Tuke & Son v. Burkhardt, 156 N.E.2d 490, 491 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1958) State v. Hambrick, 196 P.2d 661, 667 (Wyo. 1948) Callahan v. Jones, 93 P.2d 326, 330 (Wash. 1939) Gallin v. Nat’l City Bank of N.Y., 273 N.Y.S. 87, 101 (Sup. Ct. 1934) Rossi v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J., 165 A. 16, 18 (Pa. 1932) Garibaldi Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Atlantic City v. Garibaldi, 162 A. 419, 423 (N.J. Ch. 1932) Swearingen v. Moore, 280 P. 295, 299 (Okla. 1929) Johnson ex rel. McCarter v. Nippert, 144 A. 404, 406 (Pa. 1928) Adams v. Kennard, 253 P. 1048, 1049 (Or. 1927) Quell v. Boyajian, 90 Pa. Super. 386, 389 (Super. Ct. 1926) (ancient principle) Murray v. Stuart, 247 P. 187, 188 (Colo. 1926) (ancient principle) W.R. Pickering Lumber Co. v. Sherritt, 233 P. 179, 180 (Okla. 1924) Rowe v. Freeman, 172 P. 508, 511 (Or. 1918) Livermore Falls Trust & Banking Co. v. Riley, 78 A. 980, 981 (Me. 1911) Wolford v. Upper Salford Twp. Sch. Dist., 46 Pa. Super. 1, 4 (Super. Ct. 1910) Clark v. Hubbard, 44 Pa. Super. 37, 42 (Super. Ct. 1910) (public policy rule) Edwards v. Meyers, 76 A. 510, 511 (Pa. 1910) Marshall v. Reed, 32 Pa. Super. 60, 61 (Super. Ct. 1906) (declaration and general principle) Maxwell v. West, No. 603, 1900 WL 4333, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Feb. 3, 1900) 90 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Cincinnati, H. & D. R.R. Co. v. Morris, 10 Ohio C.C. 502, 520 (Cir. Ct. 1895) Rice v. Davis, 20 A. 513, 514 (Pa. 1890) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Bensley v. Moon, 7 Ill. App. 415, 421 (App. Ct. 1880) Bassett v. Monte Christo Gold & Silver Min. Co., 15 Nev. 293, 299 (1880) (general principle) Eur. & N. Am. Ry. Co. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277, 277 (1871) Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R.R. Co., 52 Barb. 173, 173 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1868) PROVERB OR MAXIM State Court Cases In re Estate of Shano, 869 P.2d 1203, 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) Plaquemines Parish Com’n Council v. Delta Dev. Co., 502 So.2d 1034, 1040 (La. 1987) Alexander v. Super. Ct., 685 P.2d 1309, 1315 (Ariz. 1984) Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1052 v. Pub. Employment Relations, 630 P.2d 470, 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) In re Adkins’ Estate, 319 P.2d 512, 515 (Mont. 1957) (old proverb) Shell Oil Co. v. Bd. of County Com’rs, 231 P.2d 220, 224 (Kan. 1951) (maxim) Engle v. Dist. Ct., 85 P.2d 627, 629 (Utah 1938) In re Union Real Estate Inv. Co. First Mortgage 6% Gold Bonds Due July 1, 1941, 1 A.2d 662, 666 (Pa. 1938) Howard v. Potts, 233 N.W. 909, 912 (S.D. 1930) (moral maxim) Horan v. Varian, 265 P. 263, 267 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) Cameron v. White, 262 P. 664, 668 (Okla. 1927) Salata v. Dylewski, 207 N.W. 895, 896 (Mich. 1926) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 91 Farnsworth v. Hatch, 151 P. 537, 541 (Utah 1915) In re Ramsey, 123 N.W. 726, 728 (S.D. 1909) (moral maxim) Casey v. Donovan, 65 Mo. App. 521, 529 (Ct. App. 1896) Burke v. Bours, 32 P. 980, 981 (Cal. 1893) Piatt v. Longworth’s Devisees, 27 Ohio St. 159, 195 (1875) (legal maxim)https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=clr City University of New York Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 ...
Translation It takes the average person about 90 days to ingest the full 60 gram treatment. I suggest that people start with three doses pe...