First, let us remind ourselves that the The Rule Of Law comes from political power which comes from the barrel of a gun. In essence, the rule of law is accomplished by violence, if necessary.

As a militant atheist, I find it astonishing that judges are allowed to be religious in any sense. Religion is just a big pile of steaming bullshit and has no basis in truth.

Every judge and DA in our judiciary has that has a strong religious background and hides it, seriously erodes the confidence we should have in the courts and the judiciary.

What exactly is the difference between being a member of the catholic church with its bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, pedophelia and sheer ignorance and being a member of the KKK? Only size.

Truth is not a democracy. Why would a religious judge like David W. Cunis dare to make the following statement:

The burden of proof rests exclusively with the Commonwealth to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden. The burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The belief in the supernatural is a direct contradiction of the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore religion is a direct contradiction to the definition of being a judge

What exactly does the burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt really mean? I am stunned that a devout orthodox catholic idiot like David W. Cunis would make such a statement. He believes beyond a reasonable doubt that his imaginary three-headed sky fairy friend actually exists and is as hard and tangible to him as a rock in his back yard.

We actually allow such moronic people to be employed at $160,000 a year as judges in our judiciary?

I challenge any idiot judge who believes in a God or devil to show me a shred of evidence of these creatures, never mind evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judges need to remain unbiased and impartial in any case they preside over, and should recuse themselves from a case when they believe themselves incapable of remaining neutral, to remove any chance of impartiality or bias. Impartial legal decision-making actually favours all parties; otherwise legal findings could alter significantly depending on the religious bent of the judge. Whichever side of the court people find themselves on, the absence of religious-based reasoning ensures fairness and equality.

What happens in a case when a defendant is a militant atheist with a web site that has had over a million hits in the community, and the defendant chooses a bench trial with a fanatical religious judge like David W. Cunis, who is a closeted devout orthodox catholic, expecting fairness, but after a decision is rendered, the atheist discovers the religion of the judge. He should have recused himself. Had the judge's religion been documented and the judge had stated it to the defendant, this defendant would have sought another judge. In essence, by hiding his religion, David W. Cunis can claim that he never knew anything about the defendant's atheism. He wishes to remain in the secret catholic society in our judiciary.

If you possess evidence that any Massachusetts judge has strong religious beliefs, please send me his/her name and a pointer of such evidence.

An impartial judiciary is crucial for ensuring fairness and justice in the application of the law. Judicial decisions free of religious-based reasoning ensure that the state does not support one religion over another, or impose religious beliefs on those who may not share them. Thus it actually upholds, rather than infringes, freedom of religion."

Judges are supposed to do nothing that they cannot justify in legal principle, and to appeal only to principles they undertake to respect in other contexts.

Religion, and it's relationship to judges attitudes, comes up in the judicial nomination and confirmation process. Each judge confirmed should be labeled with a religiosity index between zero and ten. A religiosity index of ten indicates a devout and orthodox stance on his/her religion. In my humble opinion, as a militant atheist, a religiosity index greater than zero is grounds for disqualification. Every judge should be branded with their religion on their forehead where everybody can see their religious bigotry and biases.

The problem with religion is that it does not have to be apparent in any legal discussions. It is a mental virus in each person that is so infected with it and it poisons every thought of those infected. It is clear that some, are less infected, such as agnostics and atheists.

In cases involving government affairs, judges should be the guarantors of public secularism and outside the government, the guardians of religious liberty.

Like many other Americans, judges can have deep seated religious convictions. Most of the time, their religious beliefs do not interfere with their job performance.

One might expect judges, as professionals deciding a large number of cases, to be able to ignore extralegal factors, such as their religious beliefs, yet two aspects of judges religion suggest that it is a significant concern and at least as likely to influence their decisions as jurors decision. First, judges are solidarity decision makers, so any influence of a judge's religion would not be diluted by countervailing religious (or non-religious) influences as it would for one juror or among many.

In religious freedom cases, the single most prominent, salient and consistent influence on judicial decision making was religion - religion in terms of affiliation of the claimant, the background of the judge, and the demographics of the community.

Judging is often portrayed as a dispassionate exercise based on facts and legal precedent, but empirical scholarship on judges shows that psychological, attitudunal and background factors play a part in the process as well. On the whole, there appear to be systematic differences in judges decision making as a function of their religion.

Any judge that is infected with religion is terrified of disclosing that religion because they know (beyond a reasonable doubt) they would be ridiculed for their beliefs.


Every judge has a web page but none want to post their pictures on their web page. We should be so lucky that these judges actually posts their names, although I am somewhat confused as to how they become Honorable as judges, since they were less than honorable before being appointed. Do you understand the term Honorable anyway?

If we had a composite view of their pictures, we would note that they are mostly lily white as a group. They are also seem a tad shy about posting their home address, email address and phone numbers. Not a single judge, DA or any court official ever posts their religion on a web site. Why are they shy about their beliefs? Here's a good reason.

Every judge who has strong religious beliefs, like David W. Cunis and does not disclose these beliefs to defendants makes two statements about themselves:

  1. they are fucking little pussies who are afraid of their strongly held beliefs by masking their religiosity, and

  2. they are deliberately skewing any judicial decision made against those defendants.

Any individual who has very strongly held, but unveriable religious beliefs should be disqualified as a judge. Deliberately hiding these beliefs as a judge, should be criminal.


Excerpts from:
http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr45-4/CR45-4Bornstein.pdf
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-role-religion-law.html

Lawyers are there to argue the points of law in case the supposedly knowledgable judges has conveniently forgotten the law and the concept of justice and they exercise their judicial religious biases on public atheists.

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com