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 |
You know, I'm not that fond of those particular words, myself.
"Let SCOTUS put this to rest, once and hopefully, for all time.
This is not a trivial issue. If the court allows it to go forward, it opens the door to others filing suits "on behalf of " your child without your permission!
But not without publicly chastising the 9th Circuit for ineptitude. Is this something that came to light since the 9th conjured up its incantation?
The U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid an endorsement of religion - it forbids an establishment of religion.
Why did Lazaro Gonzalez come to mind when I read this?
How about something more Jeffersonian, something from the Spirit of 1776, like,
"Under Our Creator""
True enough, but...
1. Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the reiligious education of his daughter. Doe v. Madison, 1999 and others.
2. The case is Michael Newdow vs. U.S. Congress, not Newdow's daughter vs. U.S. Congress.
The fact that his daughter and his daughter's mother claim no injury does not mean that Newdow cannot claim injury to his daughter.
Newdow claims his daughter was "injured" simply by being exposed to the pledge in a state-run school. He doesn't claim that his daughter doesn't want to say the pledge.
To illustrate, let's say that the school was teaching sex education in the elementary school, and that Newdow's daughter and his daughter's mother both had no problem with that. Newdow could still claim that the sex education "injured" his daughter. He has the right to say that in his opinion, his daughter is being injured.
The issues of standing and injury have all been addressed. Newdow absolutely has the right to file this lawsuit.
When someone says "the daughter's not complaining" therefore Newdow lied when he says his daughter was "injured" don't understand that, in Newdow's opinion, his daughter is "injured" whether she says so or not, therefore he did not lie.
you can read the facts of the case here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
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.