Thursday, December 28, 2017
Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada Hearing: Argued January 19, 2004 Judgment: June 30, 2004 Full case name Moïse Amselem, Gladys Bouhadana, Antal Klein and Gabriel Fonfeder v Syndicat Northcrest; League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada v Syndicat Northcrest Citations  2 S.C.R. 551; 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII); (2004), 241 D.L.R. (4th) 1; (2004), 121 C.R.R. (2d) 189 Prior history Judgment for Syndicat Northcrest in the Court of Appeal for Quebec. Holding Succahs may be built if connected to the religious beliefs of individuals; conflicting property and security rights were marginally impaired and thus do not outweigh freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Court Membership Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish Reasons given Majority Iacobucci J., joined by McLachlin, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ. Dissent Bastarache J., joined by LeBel and Deschamps JJ. Dissent Binnie J. Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem  2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority. Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Dissent 3.1 Bastarache 3.2 Binnie 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Background The case arose after Orthodox Jews in Montreal erected succahs on their balconies in a residential building which they owned. Succahs are small dwellings in which Jews live during Succot, a Jewish holiday, in accordance with the Hebrew Bible. However, those who managed the buildings, Syndicat Northcrest, claimed the succahs violated by-laws forbidding structures to be built on the balconies. The Orthodox Jews had not seen this requirement as applying to religious requirements because Christmas decorations and the like were allowed. Syndicat Northcrest denied all requests that succahs be built, except one to be shared but this did not however meet minimal Jewish Halachic requirements. Consequently, an injunction by Syndicat Northcrest was filed against further succahs. While there was no government action responsible for violating a right, the Quebec Charter is of relevance to personal disputes. As Justice Michel Bastarache wrote, "the first paragraph of s. 9.1 [of the Quebec Charter], insofar as it does not require that the infringement of a right or freedom result from the application of the law, applies only to private law relationships, that is, to infringements of the rights and freedoms of private individuals by other private individuals." Bastarache noted this is what occurred in a previous case, Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc (1998). Decision The majority decision was written by Justice Frank Iacobucci. He examined whether the by-laws violated the freedom of religion of the Orthodox Jews, and whether Syndicat Northcrest's opposition to the succahs was protected by rights to enjoy property under the Quebec Charter. Iacobucci first attempted to define freedom of religion, and started by giving a legal definition for religion. He decided that religion is a thorough set of beliefs regarding a higher power, tied with a person's view of him or herself and his/her needs to realize spiritual completeness. Iacobucci went on to note that in past freedom of religion cases, such as R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), the Supreme Court has advocated giving freedom of religion a large and liberal definition emphasizing individual rights. In Big M, it was noted there should be respect for religious diversity and no coercion to do something in violation of one's religion. A journal article was then cited to establish this precedent favoured an individual's view of religion to an organized church's. Thus, anyone who claims rights to freedom of religion does not need to demonstrate that they were denied rights to worship in accordance with the manner required by a religious authority. Following R v Edwards Books Ltd and R v Jones, it was enough to demonstrate an individual religious belief. These arguments were reinforced by a desire that secular governments and courts should not judge which religious practices are needed and which are not; this was to make legal decisions regarding moral beliefs. Still, practices required by a religious authority are also protected; what matters is that the practice is connected to a religious belief. To determine whether an individual belief is sincere, the Court noted US case law, which advocated a minimally intrusive evaluation of an individual's beliefs. Courts must only determine that a belief is not feigned and religious claims are made in good faith. It must be asked whether an individual's testimony can be believed, and how one belief fits in with others held by the individual. In this, the Supreme Court added that courts should tolerate a change in beliefs; the individual's beliefs held in the past are not relevant to those claimed in the present. Next, the court will determine whether a sufficiently large violation of freedom of religion has occurred to raise challenges under the Quebec and Canadian Charters. The gravity of the violations will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, in this case the Supreme Court noted freedom of religion should not work to deny the rights of others. Turning back to this case, the Supreme Court observed Syndicat Northcrest had argued freedom of religion was limited here by rights to enjoy property and to personal security. However, the Court found the rights of the Orthodox Jews had been severely infringed, while Syndicat Northcrest's rights were not significantly affected. Thus, freedom of religion would prevail. The trial judge had found at least one of the Orthodox Jews sincerely believed he needed a succah, while the others seemed not to because they did not have succahs in the past. The Supreme Court rejected the latter finding, because it relied on a study of past practice. The Supreme Court also noted the Jews might have wanted succahs for religious reasons, regardless of whether they were necessary; this also undermined the view that past practices should be studied. The Court then decided the violation of religious freedom was serious because the right to an individual succah was not limited but denied completely. Conversely, Syndicat Northcrest claimed that the succahs limited rights to enjoy property because the succahs could take away from the attractiveness of the building and its financial value. Rights to personal security were claimed because the succahs might block off fire escapes. The Court was unconvinced the property value would drop because of lack of evidence, and the attractiveness of the building for nine days every year was held to be a small issue, especially in the context of the importance of multiculturalism. The Court also noted the Jews had offered to mind fire safety. Regarding the argument that the Jews had waived their rights, Iacobucci noted it was still not certain whether constitutional rights can be waived. If they can, the waiver should be more explicit and done under complete free will. The Jews in this case did not have complete free will in their agreement because they wanted to live in those buildings. Dissent Bastarache A dissent was written by Justice Bastarache. He interpreted past freedom of religion case law as meaning the right protects religious beliefs and practices that result from those beliefs. Beliefs can be discovered through religious rules; these distinguish religion from personal activities. Thus, a belief is not held individually but is shared. This provided an objective approach to freedom of religion. Expert testimony would be a great help in finding whether a belief is religious. Next, the sincerity of the individual is studied, in a non-intrusive way. Bastarache felt for most of the Jews in this case, the religion required eating in a succah, but an individual succah was not needed. While Bastarache noted one Jew might have a right to an individual succah, this needed to be balanced against "proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec", as required by the Quebec Charter. The property and safety rights thus entered consideration. Bastarache wrote that "it is difficult to imagine how granting a right of way in emergency situations, which is essential to the safety of all the occupants of the co-owned property, could fail to justify the prohibition against setting up succahs, especially in light of the compromise proposed by the respondent." Binnie Justice Ian Binnie also wrote a dissent. He observed the oddness of the situation, namely that a right was being claimed against other owners of the building and not a government. The owners had made agreements that would prohibit the succahs. Binnie emphasized the importance of this agreement or contract. See also List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court) History of the Jews in Canada Status of religious freedom in Canada Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys References Jump up ^ Para. 152. Jump up ^ Para. 39. Jump up ^ Para. 40. Jump up ^ Para. 42. Jump up ^ Para. 43-44. Jump up ^ Para. 50. Jump up ^ Para. 47. Jump up ^ Para. 52. Jump up ^ Para. 53. Jump up ^ Para. 57-50. Jump up ^ Para. 62. Jump up ^ Para. 74. Jump up ^ Para. 98. Jump up ^ Para. 179.
Saturday, December 9, 2017
Reasons Why Marijuana Users Are Safe Drivers
Sunday, September 17, 2017
minister Nancy Jean on the sixth day of August in the year of our Lord two thousand and fourteen completed a Historical Private Agreement Established and Confirmed Thank you to each private man and woman acting as the defacto government and police in the province of Ontario. Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. Tetelestai! View the agreement and witness to my sincere purpose:
The Office of the Person The Official State Office Known As “PERSON" What happens when Attorners, Members of the B.A.R. hold positions in State Legislature? Every State House has an Office filled with B.A.R. Attorneys who serve the B.A.R. DEBT Collectors for the Bankruptcy under the International Monetary Fund - I.M.F. not the people. Here’s a description of part of the fraud they perpetrate by wording all the Bills and Resolutions for the Commercial Codes and Statutes they create. This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life. The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425. One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt. In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit: (1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa. (2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter. (3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. Note however, the definitions statute does not list man or woman -- therefore they are excluded from all the statutes! Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples : 1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person … 2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person … 3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person … 4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person … 5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person … Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character. So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE OF… statutes and laws? There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in their 13th and 14th Amendments of the de facto U.S. on D.C. as of 1871, not to be mistaken for the Constitution of 1787-89. 13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution. The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator. The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU. Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office. They have created the office of “person." The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls.” A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears.” The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask. A resident is another STATE office holder. All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person." Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons. Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons. Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons. An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs. If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows: Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on. Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own. The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE. "Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes. If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows: Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on. Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own. The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE. "Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes. A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People. When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?” Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE “person." Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947). The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.” U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained: "A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907). The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker. A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. "No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440. There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE. One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them. You are not a "person" subject to their laws. If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him: I have no need to answer you in this matter. It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges. It is none of your business whether I want counsel. The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do. I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you. You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein. The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you. The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power. When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905). Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them. Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way.” Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited. Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government. Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE. Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact. Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone. Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found : "We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts. A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally. Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again. This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control. ~~~~~ The “14th Amendment U.S. citizenship status” The Denizen - Inhabitant - Occupant - Foreigner - Resident - Alien A foreigner allowed certain rights in the adopted country. An inhabitant of a place, or one who dwells in a place, whether local, regional or national. A person with rights between those of a citizen and a resident alien. Free Negro, a non-slave black person in the United States, prior to the abolition of slavery. Unassimilated Native American considered a citizen of a tribal domestic nation but not of the United States or any state. The de facto U.S. Corporation on D.C. created a “citizenship” for the freed “black” slaves because they were never considered to be people, as were the “whites.” Citizenship was unequivocally granted to African Americans in 1868 with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it would be almost another 100 years before African Americans were accorded full protection under the law and discrimination outlawed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well. However, free blacks were accorded a quasi-citizenship in some northern states, being allowed to vote and hold property, but this gradually diminished after 1800. And contrary to what some might believe, free blacks endured significant racial discrimination in the North.If there was ever any doubt as to whether or not African Americans were entitled to citizenship, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights. That decision, however, only fueled the fire. While the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did free the slaves in Southern states and many fought in the Union Army, it was the Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1864 that outlawed slavery throughout the United States; it did not, however, confer rights of citizenship. Following the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the “14th Amendment,” ratified in 1868, did grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, but it did not end racial discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was intended to end segregation but was rarely enforced; and in 1883 the Act was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that state governments had no power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals and organizations, paving the way for Jim Crow laws and confining African Americans to the status of second-class citizens. Many of the provisions set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later restored in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The “14th Amendment” was enacted to Grant Slaves Citizenship, or for illegals running to the border to have that baby in America. What was the intent of the Amendment? Restore Blacks to full citizenship that the original Constitution denied them or to all Hispanics to run for the border when they are 8 1/2 months pregnant to achieve citizenship for their baby? If people would actually look at the case decisions both the prevailing and the descending opinions, Americans would understand the law and it’s original intent. In 1865–1866, southern states and localities enacted black Codes to regulate the status and conduct of the newly freed slaves. The codes deprived blacks of many basic rights accorded to whites, including full rights to own property, to testify in court in cases in which whites were parties, to make contracts, to travel, to preach, to assemble, to speak, and to bear arms. To Republicans, the Black Codes were only the latest southern attack on individual rights. Before the war, southern states had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to protect the institution of slavery. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833 that guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not limit the states (Barron v. Baltimore), many Republicans thought state officials were obligated to respect those guarantees. The Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857) had held that blacks, including free blacks, were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore were entitled to none of the rights and privileges it secured. Republicans also rejected Scott and thought the newly freed slaves should be citizens entitled to all the rights of citizens (See Citizenship). The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1 made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Section 2 reduced the representation of any state that deprived a part of its male population of the right to vote, an indirect attempt to protect the voting rights of blacks. Other sections protected the federal war debt, prohibited payment of the Confederate debt, and disabled from holding office those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution but who had engaged in rebellion. Section 5 empowered Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the preceding sections.15 The first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect came in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), in which the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law. The Court limited the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States referred to in the amendment to relatively narrow rights such as protection on the high seas and the right to travel to and from the nation’s capital. The Slaughterhouse Cases drastically curtailed the protection afforded by the amendment against state violations of fundamental guarantees of liberty. One reason for the majority’s narrow construction of the amendment was its fear that a more expansive reading would threaten the basic functions of state governments, both by federal judicial action and through enforcement by federal statutes that might displace large areas of state law (See Federalism). “the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law.” Here the de facto U.S. Corporation and their slave running Crown Bankster owners and their Crown B.A.R. Attorners demonstrate clearly that U.S. citizens status was purely a creation of their Corporate fiction, therefore within their control. They can control only that which they create. Observe, U.S. citizens are a new type of property attorned to a new owner. “Freed” “Black” Slaves remain as slaves, with very limited privileges; “Civil Rights.” Contrary to the expectations of some of the amendment’s framers, the Supreme Court held that it did not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1833) to require states and local governments to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court also held that because the amendment provided that “no state shall” deprive persons of the rights it guaranteed, Congressional legislation protecting blacks and Republicans from Ku Klux Klan violence exceeded the power of the federal government. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court nullified provisions of the 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. It held that the amendment reached only state action, not purely private action. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that state-mandated racial segregation of railway cars did not violate the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (See Segregation, De Jure). In 1908 it upheld a state statute requiring segregation of private colleges (Berea College v. Kentucky). Justice John Marshall Harlan registered eloquent but lonely dissents to the Court’s decisions sanctioning stateimposed segregation. The Court also held, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and Minor v. Happersett (1875), respectively, that the amendment did not protect the right of women to practice law or to vote. Whites had the right to expatriate to escape the construct created to absorb all U.S. “persons” and this is demonstrated in the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, only one day before the official date for the U.S. Corporate “14th Amendment” on Sunday, July 28, 1868. In applying the international rules of the law of nations: The persons who are participating in the Fourteenth Amendment system are in rebellion; not the ones that claim de jure status/nationality—one reason being the amendment was not lawfully ratified, see Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pp 15641-15646. The premise of expatriation, or terminating the national of the United States status, is valid due to the contrived Fourteenth Amendment. LB Bork, Illinois national So to denounce any and all alleged contracts, presumed or otherwise, by choice or default, an oath purgatory and Declaration should be based upon the following: One day before the horrific U.S. “14th Amendment” - Never Lawfully Ratified, became a spectacle or thumb in the eye of the Union of States, only to diminish the status of all our people, and to enslave them as DEBTORS in perpetuity, hence forhth known as the U.S. citizen, eventually cast as the Enemy of the State, So be it, July 27, 1868 The Expatriation Act is legally referenced as Public Law, 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224 (1868), and is as follows: Article 15. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. This is a principle of the United Nations and declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. See Title 8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. The Right of Expatriation Declared CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. PREAMBLE. RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN FOREIGN STATES. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed. SECTION I. Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. SECTION II. Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances. SECTION III. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868 You must understand that the several States are foreign to the United States. A good example of this can be found in Title 22 of the United States Code: • FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE. Title 22 USC § 2659. State statutes to be procured. The Secretary of State shall procure from time to time such of the statutes of the several States as may not be in his office. ERGO: The several states are “foreign” to the United States; hence, foreign state as used in the preamble of this act can be easily construed to mean the several states; and in the other sections can mean any foreign state in the world. Note that the exslaves are protected by the United States and carry United States nationality; the United States can, and has gone, into the several States of the Union and protected them. ~~~~~ The 21st Century U.S. person - The Enemy of the State Today, in the days of the year 2017, well beyond 1868, the tragic error in maintaining the inferior status of subject or U.S. citizen, in these advanced times of financial disaster, is the truest form of political suicide. It’s soon to be five years beyond the One Hundred Year mark of full enslavement of the American people by the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bank Conglomerate owned, fully metastasized malignancy, the Creature of Jeckyl Island, the Jesuit run FEDERAL RESERVE. The totality of ruination perpetrated by these Banksters and their B.A.R. Attorners stands as a monument to glorify the Saturnalia celebration of death to all. The Satanic Jesuits loathe the notion of freedom and independence for mankind. Their gluttony is as perverse as there is. These Banksters and their puppet Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and control the lives of all American citizens/U.S. citizens.“ This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. U.S. has been in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 63 years without most of the population knowing it. According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b) (Now found in Title 50), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”. On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effectremedies of uniform national application”. This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution. Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency. 12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes". This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It was here that every American citizen/U.S. citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration. According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, U.S. citizens have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens/U.S. citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain. This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know why U.S. citizens no longer receive allodial freehold title to land. As enemies, U.S. citizens, property is no longer Theirs to have. The only way U.S. citizens can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. All these Emergency Powers as amended by F.D.R. was initiated by the Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE. In doing so, they also stole all the gold. On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and "the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6”. Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system. He did so with Proclamation 2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans. Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a national bank emergency whereas; "All Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed”. Roosevelt, in the most repugnant act, did exactly as the unlawful, Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE instructed him. He acted so as to preevent U.S. citizens from getting their own gold, but since U.S. citizens are really slaves, he went on to order they all turn in their gold, therefore robbing them for his Jesuit Zionist Bankster Lords. At that time, and yet another artificially created Depression, the ignorant population accepted Roosevelt for multiple terms, turned in their gold, and then went to another world war fomented by the same Banking Cabal. Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the de facto Constitution is automatically abolished. U.S. citizens are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. U.S. citizens are under a system of War Powers. Stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as U.S. citizens are considered enemies of the state. What they have is not theirs under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine. Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's signature because Congress granted him these emergency powers. For over 60 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power and terminate the original proclamation. Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship. State Of Emergency The mission of State Of Emergency is to provide current event news, comments on the news and information on the declared state of emergency continually in effect since March 9, 1933. The citizens of the USA have been codified as the enemy of the Federal Government. The source for the proof of our status as the enemy of the government is found in Congressional Records, Senate Reports and the Federal Register (see page links). The emergency must be ended in order to restore Constitutional law. “…"That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both . . .” “As used in this subdivision, the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership, association or corporation.” "During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed " Documentation by one writer connects the origin of the Trading With the Enemy Act with events of March 27, 1861. "Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order" under the Emergency War Powers Act (12 USC 95 a, b): "Every citizen of the United States is now legally established as an enemy via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1)" which amended the Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91). On March 27, 1861, "seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. law of necessity," meaning that there is "no law." [12 Stat 319 has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties.] All U.S. citizens/persons as amended to the Trading With the Enemy Act, are the Enemies of the State. This is how and why the Police, FBI, and their Admiralty Courts enforce Commercial Bankruptcy Code upon U.S. citizens. When we voluntarily or involuntarily entered their Military Courts of Justice, one will frequently hear the prosecutor or defense lawyer argue that: ‘Your comment or actions are a belligerent response’ [or] ‘You are being combative.’ Key words to inform you that you or someone else, is about to be fleeced! Lawyers will even attempt to provoke you or your witness’s anger in the Court, just so you or they behave belligerently toward them and this is why they do that! Under Regulation 840-10 of the Military Code and sections of the Administrative Procedures Act and the presence of that Military [gold fringed] Flag on display in the Courtroom, instantly creates a state of emergency meaning that, the moment a police officer stopped you in the exercise of your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the police officer became a belligerent! He is armed and you’re not! He displays a military rank and you’re a civilian and he has now delivered you into a Military Court of Justice with the intent to ‘pillage and plunder’ within the Admiralty jurisdiction of that Military Court, which is also known as ‘The Law of Prize and Captured Property,’ as defined under Title 10, sections 7651 to 7681 of the Code of Military Justice, March 25, 1862. As mentioned before, The Reconstruction Act included and changed all state officials into having ‘federal foreign standing.’ The 14th amendment deliberately forced and kept them there and section 2 of the Lieber Code instructs that: ‘A victorious army seizes all money and movable property and holds it in trust,’ and this is exactly what the Corporate United States Government and State Governments did and continue to do because they now perceive themselves to be, ‘a victorious army.’ The corporate Congress; the corporate Military Government and their corporate Military Courts of Justice however discovered that they could not gain access to those Public Trusts deposited into the Federal Reserve System, which they had created using our birth registration forms; social security registration forms, licenses, personal property, deeds, promissory notes, equity and credit, without including our individual persons into the bankruptcy of the United States Treasury of 1933. So they cleverly denied our personal Sovereignty and converted our persons into an appellation, which is a corporate fiction or strawman and identified us by writing our birth names all in capital letters. All of our Licenses and documents now reflect this appellation. Again, these acts against the people are done by Foreign Agents, most of whom are completely maddened and obsessed as criminally insane thieves. They’re behaviour demonstrates no regard for others who wish to live. Their local servants here, meaning Police and other Municipal Agencies are completely uninformed and quite often, belligerent order takers who physically harm those who do know their rights. The following material should explain who and what they Codify and publish about themselves: Title 22 U.S. Code (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section. 22 C.F.R. - Code of Federal Regulations 92.12-92.31 FR Heading "Foreign Relationship" states that an oath is required to take office. Title 8 U.S. Code 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state. Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund. In 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under defini- tion. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people. December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations as Congress relinquished every public office over to the U.N. Local governments, up to the president, fall under U.N. jurisdiction. Congress gave the U.N. the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States. The Pan American treaty of December 26, 1933 (49 STAT 3097) Treaty Series 881 – (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated Congress re- placed Statutes with international law, placing all states under international law. As one can easily see, U.S. is a foreign and hostile Pirate Vessel docked at D.C. Their business to to rape and plunder this land and the people by force if necessary. Barack Obama signed NDAA into effect so that the Military can attack U.S. citizens should they decide and George H.W. Bush signed Noahide Law into effect so under Martial Law, U.S. citizens can be killed and beheaded in FEMA Camps. They have profit to make at it. Every U.S. citizen has a very large Estate, which rightfully belongs to them, not the Banksters or their B.A.R. Attorners. The following information will shed some light on what they do when they drag the U.S. citizen/person/tax slave into mock Military Tribunals: 1099-OID Basic Explanation Of Theory The State did not provide you with a check to pay the charges against you, so they are WITHHOLDING TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS FEDERAL WITHHOLDING so your charges continue on and you report that taxable income on a Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. All taxable income must be reported to the IRS. The Court still shows you owe the taxable income (the bill/bond amount) and that is the detainer they use to hold your body with. One should have a 1040, 1099OID and 1096 filed for the bill or Bond amount. The taxable income withheld needs to be assessed on a Form 1040 to identify whose income they are withholding. Could it be that it´s your income claimed? If a 1040 is not filed, one is at the mercy of the Prosecutor using his public deferral, which is a set-off and that set-off is used to detain one and keep one under the jurisdiction of the court/jail. The only way one can zero the account/issue is to claim the taxable income being charged on the Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. If one does have a 1040, 1099 OID and 1096 filed one has now vouched for claim of Title. Now the State´s [alledged] prosecutor needs to produce his individual Form 1040 tax return to vouch for the claim of title in fact. (He doesn´t have one.) It is the 1040 that is the ´Certificate of Title´ to those who make claim to a ´Title´ to something. If they don´t have that 1040 they are withholding taxable income belonging to the person whose name is on the bill/bond. One needs to ask the Prosecutor if he is making a claim ex-officio or otherwise. The Federal Tax Court is a court of “Record.” The 1040 filing is the "Record" and also the ´Certificate of Title´ to the property in question. "One´s BODY.” And considering that all crime is commercial (27 CFR § 72.11),
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...