The online version of this document can be found at:
The issue of religion in our courts was brought to my attention when I, Harold J. Wolfe, a public atheist placed my trust in judgement on Judge David W. Cunis who I thought was a secular judge and then discovered to my horror that I was in the Holy Inquisition .
Keep in mind, I was a public atheist, not a closet atheist . This is a relatively new phenomenom.
As a committee whose task is to select the most qualified judges in Massachusetts, any member of the Governor's Council who is religious is poisoning the court's well waters.
I am glad to see the Governor's Council is trying to weed out those judicial candidates who strongly support civil forfeitures .
How about weeding out candidates who strongly support the farce of religion. At minimum, their religiosity index should be well documented somewhere on a public web site. If this seems offensive, I might suggest a small tattoo on their forehead indicating their religion of choice. The letter "A" for atheist is what I would seek.
Given the First Amendment's separation of church and state, what guidelines are there in any documents specifying how to keep religion out of the courts?
Given that religion is a mental virus that cannot be seen in an individual candidate for the judiciary, how might you screen candidates who are strongly religious and thus may exercise their religious bigotry behind the laws.
The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.
According to the Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2-C, a judge may not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
invidious: unpleasant and likely to cause bad feelings in other people
A judge must be faithful to the law and maintain professional conduct in it.
I was wondering if being a devout orthodox catholic, like judge David W. Cunis , getting baptized, going to confession, receiving Communion, praying the Rosarie, going to a catholic church every Sunday that has never had any gays, women, muslims or Hindus in their ranks of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals or Popes, tithing every Sunday and eating the flesh of and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ (but not Allah) may be within the realm of good judicial conduct?
Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge's impartiality is impaired.
This concept of invidiousness applies particularly to any and all members of the Massachusetts judiciary that are catholics and muslims. It becomes even worse, if they make any effort to hide their religious bigotry. It must be made public knowledge.
Does religion carry any weight in your consideration of judicial candidates?
Given that we are "supposed" to have secular courts, does the
Governor's Council ever ask any questions on the religiosity
of judicial candidates.
I believe you should have a standard set of questions on religion for all judicial candidates that should be also be answered by any and all members of the Governor's Council.
Such questions should and must be added to your current questionaire that you require candidates to fill out. Each judicial candidate should have a religiosity index between 1 and 10 (1 - not religious, 10 - devout/orthodox religious) on their resume as determined by the Governor's Council.
How many members of the Governor's Council are religious and what is the breakdown by religion? Already, you can see how religion poisons the well waters of the judiciary.
If a judicial candidate came to you wearing a crucifix, star of David, a clerical collar, jewish beanie, KKK cone hat or some other religious head dress or SS uniform, would you ask any questions on their beliefs? What stops you from asking a lot of religion questions of candidates who wear no such items?
Does the Governor's Council research the judicial candidates thru any postings of them on the World Wide Web?
Judge David W. Cunis once told me
How can you select candidates who believe in fictitious sky creatures unless you all have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of these mighty invisible sky creatures?
Why do the courts still use an oath to swear in defendants that include the word God? Judge Douglas Stoddart's court used it on December 8, 2014.
Whenever any of you cretins can provide me with evidence of your imaginary creatures that you support, I'll develop some more respect for the Governor's Council and the entire Massachusetts Judiciary.
When any judge like David W. Cunis enters the courtroom, the marshal will order you to stand, ask him, "Why? What law requires this?" He will not be able to recite such a law because these is none. But odds are that he will ask you to leave the court. Indeed the judge may order you to do so.
Ask "Why?, again. You have the First Amendment right to court proceedings; no legal duty requires you to stand when the judge enters. If this first symbolic step were taken in every courtroom throughout the country, it would be as symbolic a gesture as dumping tea in Boston Harbor. Do you care enough about your liberty to take this small step? There is also no legal requirement to prevent you from reading a book in court.
A request by judge like David W. Cunis to leave the courtroom is merely an imperial judge who likes to pound his judicial breasts like a drummer on a soggy drum. Perhaps, a judge like David W. Cunis would probably prefer that we kneel down to him as he kneels to his false three headed god .
This order by the marshal to stand up when the judge enters shows the obvious disregard of the law and the U.S Constitution by our Framingham District Court judges, our Middlesex DA (Marian Ryan and her corrupt minions) and the defense lawyers.
A recurring threat inherent in human nature is the temptations of power.
I am quite willing to testify before the Governor's Council on the subject of religion.
I would be thrilled if I could ask each member of the council about their own religion and watch as they cringe in fear.
It would be even better if I could video tape it.
If the court insists on using this mythical creature called God, then we should hold a public trial in the Massachusetts Supreme Court where it can shown to the entire Commonwealth that this creature God exists, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is this not an unreasonable offer for the great, wise and honorable judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court?
If not, you people may be full of something other than wisdom, and honor. And a tad hypocritical on the side.
If you can't prove that God exists, how about simplifying the proof to showing us one talking serpent . I imagine that such a serpent could conceivably homeschool your kids.
Our courts are distinctly not secular, but more medieval in nature.
These are the esoteric beliefs of a typical Christian or Muslim.
Are these supposed to make us believe we have secular courts?
Are we supposed to even have a shred of respect of any judiciary that supports these beliefs? I think not!
|Send comments to: email@example.com|