|
|
|
| Home
Charter to be published soon
Phone: (757) 850-1245 P.O. Box 4096
Web Master
INTERNET SERVICES
|
By H. Lance Freeman Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 - Thursday’s criminal hearing in the Circuit Court of Hampton, Virginia, might have seemed uneventful to a casual observer. A lawyer and his client approached the bench and were welcomed quite cordially by the presiding judge. He voiced his delight that the lawyer for the defense had come to visit his courtroom and then gave an effusive smile in greeting the defendant. The prosecutor and police officer to the left of the judge where given secondary consideration. Judge Learner mentioned to the prosecutor, the Hampton City Attorney, that the defense had submitted a written motion for dismissal. In the motion was a request to have the ruling be given in writing declaring the basis in law for the dismissal. The lawyer then told the judge that he had three exhibits that he wanted entered for the record as attachments to the motion, as he turned to the prosecutor lending an opportunity for objection. She initially displayed the posture of an objector in a knee-jerk fashion but was quickly elevated by reason and the disarming charm of the humble lawyer for the defense. She conveyed no objection. There was a little wrangling over how to proceed, as the prosecution stated that she had not had time to go over the defense motion and documents. With a happy countenance, the judge suggested that the City Attorney draft their position on the matter and that the trial be rescheduled for March 11, 2004. Then the judge turned to the lawyer and with a happy smile and said, “You never know. Sometimes these things just go away.” Upon leaving the courtroom, the lawyer, the defendant, and her husband, were met in the foyer by a reporter. Someone who was familiar with this particular court might have noticed subtle peculiarities of the day’s events. Before the judge walked in, the prosecutor approached the police officer displaying a case file related to his appearance. In a seeming effort to apologize to the officer for the waste of his time, the prosecutor rolled her eyes, and shook her head, conveying disdain for the defendant and her defense. It gave the observer the impression that the defendant was presumed guilty, and her defense considered frivolous. Judge Learner’s arrival was somewhat unusual. The misdemeanor cases before him were not his usual forte. Secondly, he is known somewhat for being one on the more stern judges in the Hampton Circuit. Yet, this day, it seemed as though it might have been one of the happiest days of the judge’s life. What the casual or more familiar observer would not know is that the case regards a conflict in law between the daily operations of a government bureaucracy and the law of the land. The lawyer for the defense has national fame and has litigated many cases regarding fundamental liberties. He had founded two well-known law schools, one of them nearby, overcoming great opposition and controversy in both instances. The defendant is a wife and mother who’s aim in life is to be faithful to God, her husband, her children, and to the ministries that God has given her. Her husband is presently fighting a case, related to his wife’s situation, that has been ongoing for many years in federal courts. The husband is convinced that the Bible prohibits him and his household from participating in Social Security and identifying with its record account numbers. He believes it fulfills the prophesied elements of the Number of the Beast referred to in Revelation, beginning in chapter 13. The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles says he will not accept an application for a license to drive unless the defendant acknowledges a Social Security Number as her unique identifier. In the Defendant’s motion for dismissal, the following rule of law was cited: - Citizen's right to travel upon public highways and transport his property thereon in ordinary course of life and business is common right. The right of a citizen so to do is that which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire property, and to pursue happiness and safety. Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604 (Sept. 12, 1930). The fundamental law cited was: - No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. Va. Const. Art 1, §16. Around the nation, various states have succumbed to the new view of the establishment clause of the federal constitution. No longer must government prove with strict scrutiny that an intrusion upon religious practice can only be justified by the most compelling reason to protect the health, safety and morals of its citizenry. Religion can now be burdened at the whim of the magistrate based upon his rationale of what he deems most convenient for society. In Virginia, where the liberty of America was birthed upon Biblical foundations, there is the last vestige of hope that the land can remain free. Its bill of rights, and its 1786 Act for Religious Freedom, articulate the principles of liberty explicitly, unlike the other of the several states of this American Union. Thursday’s quiet hearing ought to be sounded like a bell to ring out across the nation. Wake up America. It is the land of the free only as long as it is the home of the brave. “And He said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that thirsts of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Link to related article "What's
the Real Crime?"
|