McCollum v. Board of Education was a landmark 1948 SCOTUS case that drove our collection of fictitious gods out of public education. How do we drive fictitious gods out of our courtrooms? Given that religion poisons everything in our society, how should we handle judges that are devout orthodox catholics as an example? What if it is publicly known that you are a militant atheist and you end up facing such a judge on any charge, but he doesn't want you to know that he has such a tremendous religious bias or hatred.

Judge David W. Cunis

To date, judge David W. Cunis has been masquerading himself as an impartial jurist/judge in the Framingham courts but as it turns out, a close friend of David W. Cunis by the name of Domenico Bettinelli posted in his blog, back on November 16, 2006 when David W. Cunis had become a judge that he was a devout orthodox catholic. In essence, this man David W. Cunis is a charlatan.

If David W. Cunis belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, he would be forced to resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife. The entire Massachusetts judiciary openly accepts this bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance within its ranks even if they have yet to find evidence of these fictitious gods that is beyond a reasosnable doubt.

As the First Justice in our Framingham court, Robert V. Greco must have known but he'll play innocent even if he did serve as chairperson of the Committee on Judicial Ethics.

Domenico Bettinelli seems to be employed by the Archdiocese of Boston.

Judge David W. Cunis

David W. Cunis sincerely believes that he is the righteous one in a sea of sinners (a variation of the Jerusalem Syndrone ). What he doesn't know is that sin is an imaginary disease given to you in order to sell you an imaginary cure.

During my trial, judge David W. Cunis stated the following:

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

In the quaint legal community, there exists an ancient saying:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

which translates to The burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies.

I'd like to have judge David W. Cunis prove the existence of his God by that same standard.

The judicial system in Massachusetts may be religiously biased as can be seen by MGL 272, Section 34 and MGL 272, Section 36 not to mention that the court's oath involes the phrase so help me god. In so far as I know, I have never been given any assistance by any fictitious gods or sky creatures.

The Governor's Council is responsible for the selection of judges and the voters are responsible for selecting the Governor's Council, but how many candidates running for the Governor's Council will admit their religious preferences? To date, none! They then select judges based on their own biases and thus we get the biases in the courtroom.

One of the requirements of the courts should be for the judge to announce his religious bigotry so that the defendant can perhaps choose a different judge or a change of venue. One may not discriminate based on religion, unless religion can discriminate against you as was done during the Holy Inquisition and the the Crusades

One has to ask how many religious zealots have infiltrated our judiciary here in Massachusetts. How many catholics, muslims, protestants? The Christian religion , as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Send comments to: