The case should **NOT** be dismissed, as someone else will simply file a similar one. No, the case should be ruled against so that the issue will become forever dead.
Posted on 10/21/2003 8:24:43 PM PDT by ranair34
|
Atheist Michael Newdow lied to the court in order to bring a case to declare the Pledge of Allegiance illegal. First, he claimed that his daughter was injured as a result of being forced to say or hear the pledge with the phrase "under God." It was then reported by other news sources, that Newdow's wife and daughter are committed Christians and members of Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel. Now, according to the Associated Press, Michael Newdow never married the child's mother, Sandra Banning, who has sole custody of the daughter in question. According the the AP report (7/12/02), Sandra Banning of Elk Grove, California has never been married to Michael Newdow, the third grader's father, a Sacramento emergency room physician and attorney who represented himself in the now infamous case, which has made a mockery out of the legal system. In her first public comment since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow that the words "unde rGod," inserted by Congress in 1954, make the pledge an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, Banning said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the pledge. . "I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words, 'one nation under God.'" she said. "In our home we are practicing Christians and are active in our church." The San Francisco court based its June 25 ruling in part on Newdow's claim that the girl was "injured" by being forced to listen to others recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District. Since ASSIST News Service first alerted the world to the perjury implications on the part of Newdow in filing this case, legal experts from all over America have logged in and agreed that the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of this case, giving the court grounds to dismiss it or send it to a lower court to weight the allegations. Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit. Legal precedents also allow for cases to be reopened, even at the appellate level, if the legal standing of the plaintiff suddenly becomes an issue. In this case, this should not even be necessary. Contract law states that 'a breach of a contract in part is a breac~ of the contract in whole,' which means that the slightest infraction nullifies the whole contract. I The Newdow case was filed in fraud which makes the ruling itself by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, null and void. There should be no more discussion on this issue. Judge Alfred T. Goodwin can save face and restore his credibility, which has suffered due to Newdow's deception, by stating that the court was misled in that case and throw it out. He will also restore integrity to the law by making this ruling. Perjury charges are necessary. When any action is filed in a court of law, the plaintiff must attest to the truth of his or her allegations under penalty of perjury. This is clearly spelled out. To violate that is a criminal offense. There is also a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 which sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney for filing a case knowing the allegations of the complaint are false. Newdow was his own lawyer in this case. He is a member of the State Bar of California. Therefore he is, in fact, the plaintiffs attorney. This means that not only could he be sanctioned but disbarred. And for the integrity of the law, all of these elements of the law in place must be enforced. If a cause is valid, one does not have to lie in order to further it. Rev. Austin Miles |
The case should **NOT** be dismissed, as someone else will simply file a similar one. No, the case should be ruled against so that the issue will become forever dead.
Because the judge in question obviously wanted to create some law, and this case gave him the opportunity to do so.
The same thing happened in Roe v. Wade. Justice Brennan was ready to legalize abortion, so he arranged to have a bogus case brought before the Supreme Court. Then he primed that idiot Blackmun, whose name was put on the case as presiding justice, telling him what line to take. All that stuff about privacy being in the penumbra of the constitution.
When this is all over with, can we push to make sure this guy is charged with perjury? Please? Pretty please?
The main issue is that he lied to the court under oath and had no standing to bring a lawsuit.
I don't believe that's the point. The father misrepresented his daughters beliefs in order to further his own agenda. This has nothing to do with matters custody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.