Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene, Stay Decision, Reconsideration

8/2/2019 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene, Stay Decision, Reconsideration

1/30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

1

MARK AHLQUIST, as next fr iend, parentand guardian of JESSICA AHLQUIST, aminor,Plaint i f f , MAR 0 7 2012v. C.A. No. 11-138LCITY OF CRANSTON, by and throughRobert F. Strom, in his capaci ty asDirector of Finance, and by and throughthe School Committee of the City ofCranston, and SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THECITY OF CRANSTON, by and through AndreaIannazzi , in her capaci ty as Chair of theSchool Committee of the City of Cranston,Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFMOTION TO INTERVENE

MOTION TO STAY DECISION ANDMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Now comes the intervening pet i t ioners and moves th is Honorablecourt to allow the part ies to intervene, with these pleadings to , Stayi t s decision unt i l such time as a l l the issues are resolved, andconsider the pet i t ioners issues, and reconsider i t s decision based onthe potent ia l viola t ion of the r ights of a l l ci t izen of the State ofRhode Island.

MOTION TO INTERVENEPet i t ioners claim they ca n meet the requirements to intervene and

that : uApplication of framework for intervention as of r ight to diversfactual circumstances on individual cases requires hol is t ic , ra therthan reduct ionis t , approach." PSC of New Hampshire v . Patch, 136 F.3d197 1st Cir . {1998} The four preconditions for intervention as a r ight

Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 38 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 605


2/30

are, (1) timely application, (2) demonstrated in teres t re la t ing toproperty or transactions that form the basis of the ongoing action,{3) sat i sfactory showing tha t deposition of act ion threatens to createpract ical impairment or impediment to i t s ab i l i ty to protect tha tin te res t , and (4) sat i sfactory showing tha t exist ing part iesinadequately represent i t s in teres t .

1 . Timely Appl icat ion

As the issue of timely application and sat isfactoryrepresentat ion are inseparable in th is ins tan t matter , pet i t ioner wil laddress them together. Elected government of f ic ia l s have fa i led toprotect the Consti tut ional r ights of the students and ci t izens ofRhode Island. Pet i t ioners have not attempted to join sooner as some ofthese issues were addressed by students and ci t izens al ike a t thehearings, hence prudence dicta ted tha t the School board would ra isethese issues as a Pet i t ion of about 4,000 signatures was presented andbelieved the i r tax dol lars would be used to protect the i r r ights . Infact the video provided to the school board on our country 's history,a copy of the New England Primer, and references to the Aitken Act andnumerous quotes from our founders and the Rhode Island Const i tut ion 'sPreamble were the reason members of the school committee voted toleave the banner in tac t . As th is Honorable court made no mention ofthese i ssues of fact and law, nor those hereinaf ter , one can onlyassume they were not raised, or escaped the cour t ' s at tent ion .Moreover as the School committee has chosen to abandon the appealprocess the ci t izens of the s ta te and students r ight to appeal or

2Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 38 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 606


3/30

request reconsiderat ion on the issues not ra ised adequately, areabsent or are severely prejudiced to the ci t izens of the Sta te .Cranston c i t izens ' outcry s t i l l can be heard across the s ta te toappeal.

2.PETITIONERS HAVE INTEREST IN THIS ACTION

3

Three of the pet i t ioners Christ ian Frangos, a Sophomore, Olivia;E'rangos a freshman, and Jared McMullen a Senior, are students a tcranston West. Jared McMullen i s 18 years old hence needs noparenta l consent. Carolyn Masagno, i s the mother of Christian andOlivia and also a 1981 Cranston West graduate. Lori McClain i s thes i s t e r of Carolyn an d also a graduate of the Class of 1979. Allpart ies are deeply offended an d some outraged tha t the banner may becoming down an d that Ahlquist never went to the administrat ion in anattempt to rec t i fy the problem. In fact the ACLU sought her out ,cost ing the i r school One hundred and seventy five thousand dollars($175,000) to further support the Atheist agenda of the ACLU andor igina l par t ies . Peti t ioner Michael Motaranni was one of the classof 1963 who made, raised funds for, and or donated the very Bannerto Cranston West as the f i r s t graduating class . The remainingpet i t ioner, Ronald L'Heureux, is a resident of the State of RhodeIs land and presented material to the Cranston board which compelledthem to leave it up as a matter of law. Because of the f inancia lburden the Board re luctant ly decided to abandon the appeal orreconsiderat ion. I t would be a travesty of jus t ice to put form oversubstance and the l e t t e r of the law over the sp i r i t not allowing



4/30

4

fu l l redress i f the Atheist , Jessica and Mark Ahlquis t ' s standing isallowed to prevai l the same reasoning must apply equally to a l lstudents of Cranston West past and present. Standing i s stronger inl ight of the fact they are losing a his tor ica l pledge g i f t to theschool with the moral foundation of our country.

The Firs t Circui t in Freedom from Religion v . Hannover, 626 F. 3rct1 (1st Cir. 2010} allowed similar ly si tuated students an d the Nightsof Columbus to intervene. I t i s clear therefore tha t standing cannotbe denied without dismissing the whole case in t o t a l for lack ofstanding of Ahlquist , which pet i t ioners reserve the r ight to argueon appeal. I t is a great travesty that just ice has come down tomoney. The sole reason for not appealing the case was the costs tothe schools. The ACLU is privy of this hence i s t rying to extractexorbitant fees to int imidate and fur ther promote Atheism.

3 . INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION TO PROTECT INTERESTS

As sta ted above an d seen here inaf ter , the defendants fa i led tora ise disposi t ive issues that i f raised would have changed theoutcome of the case seen here inaf ter . In fac t , this motion waspresented to counsel an d Mayor Fung pr ior to i t s f i l ing asking themto f i le for reconsiderat ion speci f ical ly on the Rhode IslandConst i tut ion an d Hanover, supra that s ta tes: ~ T h i s is in par tbecause the Const i tut ion does not ' require complete separat ion ofchurch and s t a t e . ' Lynch, 465 U.S. a t 673,104 S. Ct. 1355. They havedeclined to defend, which lends i t s e l f to inadequate representation.



5/30

5

I t seems pr ior courts using court-created tes ts t ransgressedthe i r authori ty, the t ex t of the Consti tut ion, or were not privy tothe Aitken act of 1872 authorizing the use of bibles in a l l schoolsin America to maintain our moral foundation, ra is ing numerous issuesnot raised l ike Artic le I section I I I of The R.I Consti tut ion.1. "Heavenly Father", "Amen", or "Under God" is not an establishment

of re l igion under the establishment clause and Hanover.2. That the courts lacked jurisdic t ion in l ight of the Aitken Act,

and that the Supreme Court in Everson and a l l other decisionsaf te r 1947 with a court-created t e s t may have t ransgressed theseparat ion of powers and that the courts lacked jurisdic t ion toabrogate the Rhode Island Const i tut ion as it would require athree judge panel.

3. That repealing a section of the Rhode Island Consti tut ion, thecourts may t ransgress the lOth Amendment an d the sovereign r ightof the people of the State of Rhode Island an d a l l 50 States .

4. That in numerous cases ci ted in i t s decision the law of sta tu toryconstruct ion was abandoned 1 an d the intent of the framers wast ransgressed by improperly applying the 14th amendment as itre la tes to the 1s t Amendment to reach an erroneous decision usingcourt-created t e s t s .

5. That the federal court ' s six ty six years of systematicallyremoving Chris t iani ty from a l l public places in contravention ofthe Aitken Act of Congress and the true meaning of the Firs tAmendment, to protect our Godly Foundation clear ly found in thewritings of the founders and even court decisions defining



6/30

6

re l igion here inaf ter , es tabl ishes Atheism and/or "non re l igion"as the rel ig ion of choice, may const i tute judic ia l l eg is la t ion ,and viola t ing separat ion of powers, the establishment and freeexercise clause of the Fi r s t Amendment in ter al ia ..THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PLEDGE POLICIES "HEAVENLY

FATHER" AND ".AMEN" SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE TEXT OF THE FIRSTAMENDMENT, NOT JUDICIALLY-FABRICATED TESTS.

A court correct ly ruled in that the reci ta t ion of the Pledge inthe New Hampshire public schools as provided by New Hampshire sta tutesdoes not const i tute an establishment of rel ig ion. Freedom FromReligion Foundation vs . Hanover, Nol:07-cv-356. However, in reachingthat correct resul t , instead of using the words of the EstablishmentClause, the dis t r ic t court incorrect ly based i t s ruling on variouscourt-created tes ts ra ther than on the pla in meaning of the Firs tAmendment. The Fi r s t Circui t in Hanover, supra made it clear themention of a "ceremonial deism" "under God" or in th is case,"Heavenly Father" an d "Amen" do not run afoul of the establishmentclause. Both are Moral pledges, which it seems th is court did notconsider .

A. The Const i tut ion i s the "Supreme Law o f the Land."The Const i tut ion i t s e l f an d a l l federal laws pursuant thereto are

the "supreme Law of the Land." U.S. Const. ar t . VI. All judges takethe i r oaths of off ice to support the Consti tut ion i t s e l f - not aperson, off ice , government body, or judic ial opinion. Pet i t ioner ,respectfully submits that this Consti tut ion an d the solemn oath



7/30

thereto should control , above a l l other competing powers andinfluences, including the decisions of federal courts .

As Chief Just ice John Marshall observed, the very purpose of awritten const i tut ion is to ensure that government of f ic ia l s , includingjudges, do not depart from the document's fundamental principles .

~ [ I ] t is apparent that the framers of the const i tut ion contemplatedthat instrument, as a rule of government of courts . . . . Whyotherwise does it di rec t the judges to take an oath to support i t?nMarbury v . Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 179-80 (1803).

James Madison ins i s ted tha t ~ [ a ] s a guide in expounding an dapplying the provisions of the Const i tut ion . . the legit imatemeanings of the Instrument must be derived from the t ex t i t se l f .nJames Madison, Letter to Thomas Ritchie , September 15, 1821, in 3Letters and Other Writings o f James Madison 228 (Phi l ip R. Fendal l ,ed . , 1865) . Chief Just ice Marshall confirmed tha t th is was the propermethod of in terpretat ion:

As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ

7

the words which most di rec t ly an d aptly express the ideas they intendto convey, the enlightened pat r io t s who framed our const i tut ion, andthe people who adopted i t , must be understood to have employed wordsin the i r natural sense, and to have intended what they have sa id.Gibbons v . Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 , 188 (1824) .

Thus, ~ [ i ] n expounding the Const i tut ion ... , every word musthave i t s due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident fromthe whole instrument, that no word was unnecessari ly used, orneedlessly added.n Holmes v . Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540, 570-71(1840).

By adhering to court-created tes ts ra ther than the legal t ex t incases involving the Establishment Clause, federal j.udges turn



8/30

8

const i tut ional decision making on i t s head, abandon the i r duty todecide cases "agreeably to the const i tu t ion ," and instead mechanicallydecide cases agreeably to judic ia l precedent. Marbury, 5 U.S. a t 180;see also, U.S. Const. ar t . VI. Reliance upon precedents such as Lemonv. Kurtzman and Lee v . Weisman is a poor and improper subst i tu te forthe concise language of the Establishment Clause, because attemptingto draw a clear legal l ine without the "straight-edge" of theConsti tut ion is simply impossible.James Madison observed in Federal i s t No. 62 that :

[ i ] t wil l be of l i t t l e avai l to the people, that the laws are made bymen of the i r own choice, i f the laws be so voluminous tha t theycannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; i fthey be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergosuch incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law i s today,can guess what it wil l be tomorrow.

THE PLEDGE STATUTES, AND POLICIES "HEAVENLY FATHER"OR "AMEN" ARE NOT LAWS ":RESPECTING AN ESTABLI$HMENT OF

RELIGION."The Firs t Amendment provides, in relevant part , "Congress sha l l

ma.ke no law respecting an establishment of re l igion, or prohibi t ingthe free exercise thereof ." U.S. Const. Amend I . The words "heavenlyfather", "Amen" "under God" do not violate the Establishment Clausebecause they do not "respec t , , i .e . ,concern or re la te to , "anestablishment of re l igion." The acknowledgment of God is not anestablishment of re l igion. President George Washington, who chairedthe Consti tut ional Convention and served as President while the Bi l lof Rights was being considered, declared in his October 3, 1789National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation, "Whereas it i s the duty ofa l l nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His



9/30

wil l , to be grateful for h is benef i ts , and humbly to implore Hisprotection and favor .... "[emphasis added]. President Abraham Lincoln 's March 30 , 1863~ r o c l a m a t i o n Appointing a National Fast Day explained the basis forthe Proclamation:. . . [T]the Senate of the United States , devoutly recognizing theSupreme Authority an d ju s t Government of Almighty God, in a l l theaffa i rs of men an d of nat ions, has, by a resolution, requested thePresident to designate and se t apart a day for National prayer andhumiliation: . . . [ I ] t is the duty of nations as well as of men, to ownthe i r dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess the i rsins an d t ransgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope thatgenuine repentance wil l lead to mercy an d pardon; and to recognizethe sublime t ruth, announced in the Holy Scriptures an d proven by a l lhistory, tha t those nations only are blessed whose God i s the Lord:

11The recognition of re l igion in these ear ly public pronouncementsi s important, unless we are to presume the 'founders of the UnitedStates [were] unable to understand the i r own handiwork. '" Myers v .Loudoun County Public Schools( 418 F.3d 395, 404 (4th Cir. 2005)(quoting Sher.man v . Cmty Consol . Soh. Dis t . 21 , 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7thCir. 1992)).

A. The Definit ion o f "Rel.i.gion"I t seems axiomatic tha t the courts cannot determine what is or i s

not an establishment of re l igion, without defining the term ~ r e l i g i o n " i t se l f . And yet, in the cour ts ' myriad establishment clause rul ings,the courts have conspicuously ski r ted the i r obligation to definere l igion. Without that defin i t ion , determining whether an actionconst i tutes an establishment of re l igion is impossible. The ReligionClauses of the Firs t Amendment require that re l igions be t reatedfa i r ly , but our United States was never intended to be "neutra l"



10/30

10

toward re l igion as seen herein, or as th is court asser t s . The ideatha t re l igion and law are ent i re ly separate spheres i s unworkable andut ter ly foreign to the thinking of the Framers of the Consti tut ion,who intended an ins t i tu t ional separat ion of church from s ta te but nota separat ion of law and government from re l igious morals and values.Arlin M. Adams and Charles J. Emmerich, A Nation Dedicated toRel ig ious Liberty: The Const i tut ional Heritage o f the Religion Clauses( Univers i ty o f Pennsylvania Press , 1999) 51-SSf f . From i t s inceptionin 17891 to the present , Congress has opened i t s sessions with prayer,a plainly rel ig ious exercise; yet those who drafted the Firs tAmendment never considered such prayers to be a "rel igion" because theprayers do notmandate the duties that members ofCongress owe to Godor dictate how thoseduties should be carried out. See Marsh v . Chambers , 4 6 3 u . s . 7 83, 7 88-7 8 9(1983).

The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, ThomasJefferson, observed that , "No nation has ever exis ted or been governedwithout re l igion. Nor can be." Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Ethan Al len ,quoted in James Hutson, Religion and the Founding o f the AmericanRepublic 96 (1998). The Declaration of Independence i t s e l f res t sAmerica's r ight to independence squarely on "the Laws of Nature and ofNature 's God" and sta tes that "a l l Men are created equal" and are

,"endowed by the i r Creator with cer ta in unalienable RightsDeclaration o f Independence para. 2 (1776) (emphasis added). LikeJefferson, George Washington declared tha t , "While jus t governmentprotects a l l in the i r rel ig ious r ights , t rue re l igion affords to1 Passing the Aitken act seven years prior.



11/30

government i t s surest support ." The Writings o f George Washington 432,vo l . XXX (1932). These facts are i rrefutable in l ight of the quotesfrom our founders found here inaf ter an d an ac t of congress to ensure' ' i ts surest support" by the ci t izens of America. The Senate Judiciarycommittee in 1853, address the issue of "an establishment ofReligion. " 2

THE AITKEN ACT OF 1782

I t i s a well-established law tha t there are three branchesof government and the i r powers or lack thereof are expresslydel ineated in the United State Const i tut ion in Artic les I - I I I .Artic le I I I . Section 2 s ta tes : "The judic ia l power sha l l extend to a l lcases in law and equity, aris ing under th is Const i tut ion and the lawsof the United States ." Nowhere in Art ic le I I I i s found the author i tyto circumvent or repeal an Act of Congress no matter how long it hasremained. In fac t courts have upheld other sta tues supporting fa i thbased words. The Ninth Circui t in Newdow v.Rio Linda se t forth thepurposes of the 1954 act of Congress adding the words "under God" tothe Pledge, an d then se t forth the 2002 Act, Publ. L. No. 107-291, 116Stat . 2057 a t 260 (codif ied as amended in 4 U.S.C. 4 , 36 U.S.C. 2 The clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? I t referred, without doubt,to that establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining whatthat establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, atthe public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive politicalrights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religiousobservances.... They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the Englishchurch presented, or anything like it. But ... they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotionby the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armiesand navies forth to do battle for thei r country without any national recognition of that God on whom success orfailure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public actionof the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of "atheistical apathy." Not so had the battles of therevolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted. On the contrary, all hadbeen done with a continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and an habitual reliance upon His protectionof the righteous cause which they commendedto His care.



12/30

'12

3,02) (effective November 13, 2002) which clar i f ied the congressionalin tent in 1954.

LAW OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

In in terpre t ing the Consti tut ion and laws the courts must follownot only the i r oath (see p.5 infra . ) but the laws of sta tu toryconstruction as best se t forth by one of our Founding Fathers Just iceJames Wilson.3

"The f i r s t and governing maxim in the in terpretat ion of a s ta tu te isto discover the meaning of those who make i t . " Commissioner o f~ d u c a t i o n v. School Committee o f Leyden; N.E. 2nd 266(Sup. Ct. Mass.1971, cer t . denied 404 U.S. 849.) Wilson was one of only 6 signers ofthe Declaration and Const i tut ion an d a U.S. Supreme Court Just ice .Looking to Everson or Lemon's court-created t e s t 213 Years af te r thefac t does violence to the law of s tatutory Construction the oathoff ice an d our founder 's intent .

The Aitken Ac t was passed on September 12, 1782 af te r congressformed a committee l ike they s t i l l do today when the b i l l or pet i t ionwas presented.4 The Actual Const i tut ion was ra t i f ied by a l l thir teen

3james Wilson (1742-1798) was distinguished Founder; he was not only six who signed both the Declaration ofIndependence and the Constitution he was the second most active member of the Conditional Convention,Speaking 168 times on the floor on the Convention; he was a law professor; he was nominated by PresidentGeorge Washington as an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme court; and in 1792 he was co-author ofAmerica's first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Wilson was very aware of the passing of the Aitken act.

4 The petition reads: That in every well regulated Government in Chrfstendom The Sacred Books of the Old andNew Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the SovereignPowers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith mightsuffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but thiswork is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglectspiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your



13/30

13

original s ta tes by 1788, (except R.I . (1790)) only s ix years l a ter . 5I t is therefore unreasonable to conclude tha t this was not theoriginal in tent of the founders yet again th is Honorable courts wasnot asked to weigh in on the issue of sta tu tory construct ion andoriginal in tent or rewrit ing history.G

COURT LACKED JURISDICTION IN LIGHT OF THE AITKEN ACT,

This issue needs l i t t l e discussion at th is juncture as thepet i t ioners believe this Honorable court would have come to adifferent conclusion, i f the defendants argued these issues to supportthe i r other arguments. And i f the court did not agree a l l issues wouldbe ripe for appeal. Because the School committee has bai led out

Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerablie progress in a neatEdition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible toIssue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matterinto serious consideration ...

..... Whereupon,RESOLVED,

By the UNITED STATES in CONGRESS assembled:September 12th, 1782

THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undert13king of Mr. Aitken, assubservient to the interest of religion,[Christianity] as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country,and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommendthis edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish thisRecommendation in the manner he shall think proper.

5 On February 21, 1787, congress adopted a resolution in favor of a convention to devise provisions to render theConstitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union. Subsequently all of the originalsates except RI appointed delegates to the convention. The convention convened on May 25, 1787, congressordered the Constitution submitted to conventions of the people of the various states.6 The court noted the dissent's argument that Congress cannot rewrite legislative history by subsequent legislation.But the court said at Newdow 2004, 542 U.S. 39 12-13, This principle applies when Congress is trying to rewritehistory, not when Congress is trying to clarify our misunderstanding of its own purpose in enacting a statute... [V]irtually all of the members of Congress agreed we had misinterpreted the purpose of the words "under God."The courts are equally bound not to rewrite judicial history or original intent.



14/30

14

despite overwhelming public support for an appeal, the wil l of ~ w e ThePeople" will not prevai l unless your Honor grants in tervent ion .

COURT'S DECISIONS TRANSGRESS LAW OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

The defendants, though given a l l the history, never raised theissue that a l l the federal courts decisions af te r 1947 seem to violatethe laws of s tatutory construct ion hence, violate the 5th Amendment'sr ight to due process, and equal protection of law and Equity.

Aside from Wilson quoted above, our congressional records, andhistory bear out the fact that our history has been grossly neglectedignored or rewrit ted in the past Sixty s ix years circumventing theor iginal in tent of our founders and doing violence to the Firs tAmendment. Our or iginal Chief Just ice of the Supreme Court is in amuch bet te r posi t ion to know our founders in tent than a Supreme Courttwo hundred and eleven years {211) l a te r . Note only two years {2)a f t e r the Aitken act was passed John Jay wrote:

"The bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happyin this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by itspercepts." John Jay Original Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court , The Winning of thePeace (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1908), Vol. II. P. 709 4/8/1784."[O]nly one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christiandispensation.'' Correspondences andpublic papers ofJohn Jay Henry P. Johnson, editor (NewYork: G. P. Putman's Sons, 1893) VoL IV,p. 52 To Murry 81221179'4. See also writings ofFisherAmes 1755-1801 drafter of1stAmendment concern over other books pushing outserious study of he Aitken bible in public schools.Samuel Adams sta ted Twenty {20) years af te r Aitken Act:"Let .. statemen and patriots unite their endeavor to renovate the age by .. educating their littleboys and girls . [and] leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of he



15/30

Christian system. Samuel Adams. On the Important Subject ofGovernment (Boston: AdamsandRhoades, 1802),pp.9-10.Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress point out ten(10) years BEFORE Aitken Act on i t s moral importance:

"[T]he Bible .. .. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all notions and .. . [is] anecessary part of a polite education." Henry Laurens, President of Continental Congress.Papers of Henry Laurens, Vol. VITI, pp. 426-427,8/19/1772.Here i s President John Quincy Adams, opinion of not having knowledgeof moral history of the bible Sixty eight (68) years af te r the AitkenAct:

15

~ ' T o a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, butaltogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible... 'it is not somuch praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it"' John QuincyAdams, Letters ofAdams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings(Aurn: James M. Alden,1850), p. 34.John Witherspoon makes it clear what the founder chose as a moralfoundation Sixty eight (68) years a f t e r the Aitken Act:

"[T]he Christian religion is superior to every other ... But there is one only an excellence in theChrist ian morals, but a manifest superior in them to those which are derived from any othersource. John Witherspoon, Signer of Declaration. Works (1815) Vol. VITI. Pp. 33,38 "Onthe truth of the Chris tian Religion," Lecture IV.Charles Carrol l supports a l l the above founders' sentiments on ourmoral foundation eighteen (18) years af te r the Aitken Act:

"[W]ithout morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decryingthe Christian religion, who's morality is so sublime and pure ... are undermining the solidfoundation ofmorals, the best security for the duration of free governments." Charles Carroll,Signer of Declaration. Letter to James McHenry Nov. 4, 1800.Daniel Webster another founder and great statesman concurs on themorals of Christ iani ty sixty two (62) years af te r the Aitken Act:



16/30

16

"[T]he Christian religion its general principles must ever be regarded among us as the foundationof civil society." Daniel Webster: Webster's Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministryand in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court ofthe United States. Feb. 10, 1844.Supreme Court Jus t ice Story l ikewise consents with the above foundersSeventy two (72) years a f t e r the A.1tken Act:

"The Bible itself[is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world."Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence. A FamiliarExposition of he Constitution of he United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854)p.269Story went on to explain what the original in ten t of the f i r s tamendment Eighty nine years (89) a f t e r the Aitken Act:

"The real objective of the [First A ]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance,Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity[athisem], by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude allrivalry among Christian sects." (Story, Commentaries, Vol. III , p. 728, 1871)And i f you s t i l l have any doubt about our founder Original in ten t ,George Washington s ta tes three (3) years before the Aitken Act:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of JesusChrist.. .. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." Washington,Writings (1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12,1779.Listen, in the words of one our re l igious founding FathersBen Franklin for ty three years (43) years before the Aitken Act.To say th is was not the in ten t of the founders to i n s t i l l thesemorals in l igh t of th is , i s to turn a blind eye to the t ru th:

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion ..and the excellency of he Christian religion above all others, ancient and modern. BenjaminFranklin. Proposals Relating to the Education ofYouth in Pennsylvaina (Philadelphia, 1739),p.22



17/30

17

The house Judiciary Committee succinct ly opines our founder 'sin ten t eighty two (82) years a f te r the Aitken Act yet th i s cour thas thus fa r declined to uphold s ta tutory construct ion law:

Christianity ... Was the religion of he founders of he republic, and they expected it to remainthe religion of heir descendants." Bouse Judiciary Committee B.F. Morris, The ChristianLife and Character of he Civil Institutions of he United States (Philadelphia: George W.Childs, 1864), p.323Another Founding Father of our country and the medicalprofession understood what th is systematic sani t iz ing ofChr is t ian morals out of society would lead to hence said seventytwo (72) years af t e r the Aitken Act:I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism .... It is onlynecessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corruptedpolitical and religious institutions in the world. Benjamin Rush, Signer of Declaration. Rush,Letters, Vol. II pp. 820-821, to Thomas Jefferson on August 22, 1800.

I find it strange indeed tha t an organization tha t claims tostand for c iv i l l ibe r t i es , jus t ice , and fa i r play, is the primarycause of the systematic undermining of our Founders intent usingcourt-created tes ts pushing the i r re l igion of atheism. 7 This i s wil l fu land del iberate ac t done by rewrit ing history. 8 The ACLU was made privy

7 Roger Baldwin, the ACLU's Founder, notoriously said of himself, "I am for socialism, disarmamentand ultimately for abolishin9 the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek socialownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who producewealth. Communism is the goal."(Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of th e AmericanCivil Liberties Union: A Portrait [Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1976] p. 192 Hence, they are infact pushing their religious belief to subvert a nation founded on biblical principles. The courts can nolonger fall prey to this ruse without violating their fiduciary responsibility under Article III.8 The court noted the dissent's argument that Congress cannot rewrite legislative history bysubsequent legislation. But the court said in Rio Linda at 3912-13, This principle applies whenCongress is trying to rewrite history, not when Congress is trying to clarify our misunderstanding of itsown purpose in enacting a statute .... V]irtually all of the members of Congress agreed we hadmisinterpreted the purpose of the words "under God." The saying what is good for the goose is goodfor the gander must be applied EQUALLY the both branches of government.



18/30

of a l l th is as far back as January 1, 2012. Maybe tha t explains whythey want the banner down quickly. To equate a l l tha t may be deemed"rel ig ious" with "rel igion" would eradicate every vestige of thesacred from the public square. Thish is the ACLU's intent , but theSupreme Court as recently as l a s t year sta ted tha t such conflation i serroneous:"Simply having rel ig ious content or promoting a message consis tentwith rel ig ious doctrine does not run afoul of the EstablishmentClause." Van Orden v. Perry, 545 u.s. a t 678 {emphasis added).Note Noah Webster:

18

''[T}he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles.. . andto this we owe our free constitutions of goveniment. Noah Webster, History, p.300.John Adams fur ther supports Noah Webster th i r ty one years (31)af ter the Aitken Act.John Adams concludes the reason we enjoy our independence. "The general principles on whichthe fathers achieved independence were .... The general principles of Christianity .." John

Adams, Words, VoL Xpp.45-46 to Thomas Jefferson, June 28,1813.

Finally the ruse the ACLU re l ies on as seen above re l iesupon the courts using court-created t e s t s , abandoning the ru lesof s ta tutory construct ion, rewri t ing his tory, t ransgressing theseparat ion of powers, pretending the Aitken Acts does not exis t 9 ,and dis tor t ing Thomas Jefferson 's l e t t e r to the church inDanbury tha t could never be supported by a cursory assessment ofJefferson 's posit ion on our moral foundation. After a l l , the manwho s tar ted the f i r s t mega church in America, in the U.S.9 This Honorable court. may very wel l have no t been privy to it and i t is not the courts responsibility to correctlyplead a case. It is their role to see justice done, and pertinent questions of law and fact answered and allow thepeople to Appeal if they so choose.



19/30

19

Capitol could hardly countenance the s t ra ined reading of h isl e t t e r to the Danbury church or the removal of a l l moral mattersfrom the public domain. This logic seems to put the 1StAmendment upside down. Jefferson clear ly s ta ted th i r ty four(34) years af t e r the Aitken Act was passed:

Q'lam a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of he doctrines of esus. " Thomas Jefferson,The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor {Washington, DC: ThomasJefferson Memoria/Association, 1904), Vol XIV,p. 385, to Charles Thompson, January 9,1816

Roger Williams also made a statement about separat ion andkeeping the government out of the church. He wanted to pro tec tthe ~ f l o w e r s of the church from the thorns of the world" 10 Asseen in th is ins tant matter the br ie rs , brambles and thorns ofthe ACLU's atheism are using the government as a tool toaccomplish what our Founders feared. Our U.S. Consti tution wasmeant to res tra in the power and scope of the Federal Governmentspower, which now the ACLU wields, cutt ing out a l l morals fromour society a t every opportuni ty, and ext racts tax payers 'dol lars to do so.

THE COURT'S DECISION IN REMOVING A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT VIOLATESTHE EXPRESSED INTENT OF THE RHODE ISLAND CONST:ITUTION

10 His first major work, A Key into the Language of America (London 1643), a text on the various Indianlanguages that Williams hoped would enable Christian missionaries to convert the Indians to Christ, appealed tothe European fascination with American Indians and was quite successful. But his best known work was TheBloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience (London 1644) in which he used Biblical reasoning to arguefor a "wall of separation" between the garden of the church and the thorns of the world and insisted that the statemust tolerate all Christian denominations, and beliefs.



20/30

20

Defendants fa i led to ra i se the issue tha t our RIConsti tut ion i s prohibi t ive of th is cour t ' s decision 11 Our veryConsti tut ion acknowledges Almighty God as did a l l our foundersquoted hereinbefore . I f th is decision i s allowed to stand,simply s ta ted we wil l not be allowed to ~ s e c u r e and to t ransmitthe same, unimpaired, to succeeding generat ions", the s t a t e ' ssovereign r ights under the 10th Amendment have also beenunknowingly removed from the people of the Sta te of RhodeIsland. I f intervention i s not allowed, the ACLU wil l have morearrows in i t s quiver to shoot down what i s l e f t of our moralsand foundation of our country bringing us another step closer tothe i r founders Roger Baldwin's original in ten t , (n .7. infra)communism and atheism in America using our Court system toachieve the i r objective. Moreover, th i s decision appears tot ransgress a l l the preambles of the 50 States . 12

11 PREAMBLE

We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, gratefui to Almighty God for the civil andreligious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavorsto secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish thisConstitution of government.

12 Alabama 1901, PreambleWe the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the followingConstitution .Alaska 1956, PreambleWe, the people ofAlaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.Ari:l:ona 1911, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ..Arkansas 1874, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own fonn of government...California 1879, PreambleWe, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...



21/30

Colorado 1876, PreambleWe, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ..Connecticut 1818, Preamble.The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.Delaware 1897, Preamble

21

Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates oftheir consciences.Florida 1885, PreambleWe, the people of the State ofFlorida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution ..Georgia 1777, PreambleWe, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ..Hawaii 1959, PreambleWe, the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.Idaho 1889, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.Illinois 1870, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so longpermitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.Indiana 1851, PreambleWe, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.Iowa 1857, PreambleWe, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependenceon Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.Kansas 1859, PreambleWe, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.Kentucky 1891, PreambleWe, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties .Louisiana 1921, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.Maine 1820, PreambleWe the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us anopportunity ... And imploring His aid and direction.Maryland 1776, PreambleWe, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ..Massachusetts 1780, PreambleWe .. he people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In thecourse of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His directionMichigan 1908, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.Minnesota, 1857, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Minnesota , grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:MissiSsippi 1890, PreambleWe, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.Missouri 1845, PreambleWe, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness -Establish this Constitution ..Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish thisConstitution .Nebraska 1875, PreambleWe, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. Establish this Constitution.Nevada 1864, PreambleWe the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution ..New Hampshire 1792, Part 1.. Art. I. Sec. VEvery individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.New Jersey 1844, PreambleWe, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted usto enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.New Mexico 1911, PreambleWe, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty .New York 1846, PreambleWe, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.North Carolina 1868, PreambleWe the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, andreligious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ..North Dakota 1889, PreambleWe, the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain ...Ohio 1852, PreambleWe the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.



22/30

22

The pet i t ioners are of the opinion tha t a decis ion of th i smagnitude must be made by a three judge panel as it i s s imilarto repeal ing s ta te s ta tutory law and i s effect ively promotingthe re l igion of atheism in t ransgress ion of the t rue in tent ofthe 1 s t Amendment se t forth by the founders aforementioned. Thebook used in our Schools for over two hundred years ends in aprayer from "Reverend and Venerable Mr. NaTHANIEL CLAP, o fNewport on Rhode Ijland; h is Advice to children.n (Last page NewE n g ~ a n d Primer 1777)(Five years before Aitken act) I t i s a morallesson l ike the Banner "parents to obey them". Though th i s bookOklahoma 1907, PreambleInvoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of iberty, establish thisOregon 1857, Bill ofRights, Article I Section 2.All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciencesPennsylvania 1776, PreambleWe, the people of Pennsylvania , gratefulto Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking Hisguidance ..Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so longpermitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ...South Carolina, 1778, PreambleWe, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.South Dakota 1889, PreambleWe, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties.Tennessee 1796, Art. Xl.lll.That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ..Texas 1845, PreambleWe the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.Utah 1896, PreambleGrateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.Vermont 1777, PreambleWhereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which theAuthor of Existence has bestowed on man.Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVIReligion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practiceChristian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each otherWashington 1889, PreambleWe the People of the State of Washington , grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain thisConstitutionWest Virginia 1872, PreambleSince through Divine Providencewe enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginiareaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ....Wisconsin 1848, PreambleWe, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...Wyoming 1890, PreambleWe, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution ..



23/30

23

was presented to the defendants, they never raised it or theRhode Is land Constitutional r ight to " transmit the sameunimpaired to succeeding generat ions." Without reconsiderat ionor th is court allowing intervention to appeal the words of thesupreme law of Rhode Is land become meaningless.

THE. COURTS SYSTEMATIC REMOVAL OF ALL HISTOaY OF OURCOUNTRY'S CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION AND MORALS AND SUPPORTING "NON

RELIGION" IS REMOVING ONE RELIGION AND ESTABLISHING TBE RELIGIONOF THE ATHEISM OR "NON RELIGION. "

The correct meaning of the establishment clause of the 1stAmendment was consistent with res t ra in ing the federalgovernment, not making a referee over free speech in publicschools, and reducing "amen" to a derogatory four l e t t e r wordthat must be s tr icken o ff the walls of every school from sea toshining sea because an a the is t i s offended by the t ru th of ourfoundation? Can th i s be happening in America?

"The recognit ion of re l ig ion in these ear ly publicpronouncements i s important, unless we are to presume the' founders of the United States [were] unable to understand t he i rown handiwork. '" Myers v . Loudoun County Publ ic Schools , 418F.3d 395, 404 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sher.man v . Cmty Consol .Sch. Dis t . 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992}). The SupremeCourt has noted that "re l igion has been closely identif ied withour history and government." School Dis t . o f Abington T];>., Pa.



24/30

24

v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213 (1963). In fact , " [ t ]here i s anunbroken his tory of of f i c i a l acknowledgment by a l l threebranches of government of the ro le of re l igion in American l i fefrom a t leas t 1789." Lynch, 465 U.S. a t 674 (emphasis added);see, e .g . , Van Orden, 545 U.S. 686-90 (2005) ( l i s t ing numerousexamples of the "r ich American t rad i t ion" of the federal

government acknowledging God). See also , Newdow 2004, 542 U.S.1, 26 (noting tha t "of f i c i a l acknowledgments of re l ig ion ' s ro lein our Nation 's his tory abound," and providing examples)(Rehnquist, C.J . , concurring in part and concurring in thej. udgmen t) .

Understood with th is background, the fact tha t "HeavenlyFather", "Under God" or "Amen" contains two words acknowledgingGod's vi ta l ro le in the l i fe of th is nation i s not the leas t b itsurpr is ing, nor does it contradict the Establishment Clause.

God forbid each State post the i r preambles on the walls ofthe i r schools. However, as seen in the Judge Roy Moore case,with the Ten Commandments, prayer in schools, 13 the at tacks totake God out of the pledge of allegiance in Massachusetts, 14 andremoving the bible from schools in t ransgress ion of the Aitkenact , the ACLU by brute force of the federal government has

13 Engel v. V i t < ; ~ l e , 370 U.S. 435; Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 58814 Freedom From Region v. Hanover School District, 2008WL 3287225 (D.N.H.)



25/30

25

repealed the i r s ta tes ' r ights under the roth Amendments, i ssystematically destroying our moral foundation. Note theyrefused to allow ' 'Heavenly Father" and "Amen" to be removed byCranston schools, as the moral message runs contrary to atheism.The ACLU and groups l ike Freedom from Religion Foundation havebeen tyrants , bringing the tyranny complained of by our Pastorforefathers in the Declaration o f rndependence. 15 Note theDeclaration proclaims everything aforesaid about our foundationbeing the word of God:

"Resolved, tha t we do hereby declared ourselves a free andindependent people; are, and of a r ight ought to be, a sovereignand self-governing Association, under control of no power otherthan tha t of our God and the general government .."I t i s important to note the general governments as our

framers intended and i r refutably seen above, were to besubservient to God's moral principles se t forth in the bible notto force a be l ie f system upon anyone. After a l l God i smentioned four times in the Declaration i t s e l f . 16 Shall thereading of that noble document in school be the next t a rge t ofthe ACLU? Note the complaints against Great Britain for i t sabsolute tyranny the Declaration of Independence:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.15 29 of the founding fathers t hat signed the declaration held seminary degrees or were pastors and the Britishrightfully blamed the pastors for that Declaration of Independence. 16 (T]he Laws of Nature and of Nature's God .. [A]II Men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights .. fA]ppealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions ..[W] ith a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence ..



26/30

26

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of arge districts ofpeople, unlessthose people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimableto them and formidable to tyrants only.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishingJudiciary powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of heir offices, and the amountand payment of their salaries.

The point here i s tha t the courts are no longer doing thewil l of the people, abiding by the i r oath, following wellestablished procedural laws of s ta tutory construct ion, or theAitken Acts of Congress, respect ing s t a t e ' s r ights and theSta te ' s Consti tut ions using court-created t e s t s to arr ive wherewe are now.

With a t o t a l of one hundred and th i r ty two (132) years ofthe c lear of concise in tent of our founders, only scratching thesurface herein, along with another ninety three (93) years ofcompliance to the Const i tut ion as intended, it i s d i f f i cu l t tofathom how we have got so fa r af ie ld . Look a t what our countryi s becoming without a firm moral foot ing our founders intended.This gradual few degrees off course has now become the mightysword of the ACLU and small groups of Atheists in our country todel iberately chipping away a t our moral foundation for s ixtyf ive years. Quietly they extinguish m oral i ty from our his toryand from the hal l s of our schools one small section a t a timeand rewri te our his tory in our text books.



27/30

John Adams made it clear the ACLU's mission i s to destroyAmerica:

27

'' [W] e have no government armed with power capable of contendingwith human passions unbridled by morality and re l ig ion .. OurConsti tut ion was made only for a moral and re l igious people. I ti s wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Emphasisadded) (John Adams, Works, Voi. Ix , p.229, October 11, 1798)

The U.S. Supreme court has ruled tha t Atheism i s a re l ig ionand was acknowledged by th is court on Page 26 i t s decision andorder in the ALQUIST case. McCrea;y County,Kentugy v. ACLU, 545u.s. 844,860 (2005) Hence, the f ina l quest ions become:

Did th is court in following others court-created t e s t s ,mis-apply the Fourteenth amendment inconsis tent our foundersin tent 17 , s t r ip the Sta te of t he i r sovereign r igh ts , repeal the i rSta te const i tu t ions, rewri te our founding moral his tory from ourschools, t e l l the people of America when they can, or cannotpray or display only support "non re l igion", and now establ ishAtheism and /o r "non re l igion" as the National Religion? No:17 "Original Intent, and irrefutable history from as far back as 1876 where the U.S. Supreme court twice stated theFederal Courts lack of Jurisdiction: "The Rule adopted by.the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the[Fourteenth Amendment] .. makes it inapplicable to the religious liberty or any other right of the citizen asdetermined by the state of which he is resident. The Court in the case of Paul vs. Virgina (8 Wallace, p. 168), andof the New Orleans Slaughter-house (16 Wallace, p36), laid down the principle ... There is nothing in the last threeamendments to the Constitution that reaches the question of religion, and nothing anywhere else in this instrumentthat places the state under the slightest restraint with reference to this subject; and hence it is true, as remarkedby Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution (section 1879), that 'the whole power over thesubject of religion is left exclusively to the state government, to be acted upon according to their senseof justice and the state constitutions. (Emphasis added) samuel T. Spear, Religion and the State(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1876), p.224. Four Years after the Aitken act passed Congress.



28/30

28

The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what itoften calls "non religion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of EstablishmentClause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutralitybetween religion and religion, and between religion and "non religion." I d. at *10 (internalquotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86L.Ed.2d 29 (1985). Since only "non religion' is in the public schools the neutrality of governmentis being violated

Finally I leave you with what our Founding Father ofJurisprudence Supreme Court jus t i ce Story and George Washingtonhave to say about the ACLU and it manipulation of the law:

"The real objective of the [First A ]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance,Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [atheism], by prostrating Christianity; but to excludeall rivalry among Christian sects." (Story, Commentaries, Vol. lll, p. 728, 1871). "In vain would that man claim the tribute ofpatriotism, who should labor to subvert these greatpillars .. [w]hatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education .. reason andexperience both forbid us to expect that nation morality can prevail in exclusion of religiousprinciple." (Washington, Address, pp.22-23)

WHERERFORE, inasmuch as the defendants have abandoned theseconst i tut ional r ights on the side of the road due to purelyf inancia l matters, to the detriment of a l l the good ci t izens ofthe Sta te of Rhode Is land tha t l i t e ra l ly screamed APPEAL, yourpet i t ioners pray tha t th is Honorablecourt wil l grantintervention, reconsider i t s decision and Stay any removal ofthe morals of the Banner un t i l such time as a l l these issues canbe resolved.

Respectfully submitted,



29/30

Christ ian Frangos and Olivia Frangos2330 Cranston St.Cranston, RI 02920

213 Waterman Ave.North Providence RI 02911/ Y ( ) J ; : ) - ( p ~ ft.) ~ ~ N o f f h c C r a n s t o ~ R I .

./2 1 4 . 4 ~ ' ) j , / ~ Michael Notaaanni,Cranston, RI

Lori McClain "'23 Nicholas AveGroton Ct. 06340



30/30

Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 38-1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 634

Documents

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene, Stay Decision, Reconsideration