David Alan
Carmichael, Et
al., v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, Et
al.
On October 3, 2008, the
Richmond City Circuit Court denied the government's motion for
dismissal on the Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Cause of action,
Violation of The Virginia Constitution, Art. I, §16 (Freedom of
Religion), and §11 (Due Process).
The government is now scrambling.
They filed a motion for reconsideration, saying, "Virtually every jurisdiction that has
addressed a claim that furnishing one's social security number violates
religious free exercise rights has rejected the argument."
Here is the first portion of
our response to that statement:
"It is
certainly true that
virtually every case since Bowen v. Roy,
476 U.S 693 (1986), has ruled against the person who cannot
associate with the SSN by obligation of religion. The
Bowen v. Roy decision has been taken way
out of context and wrongly applied on a grand scale, starting with Employment Div. v. Smith. Bowen
v. Roy catastrophically redefined the standard of scrutiny for
considerations of when the government’s practices burdened a practice
of
religion in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause. Prior to the Bowen v. Roy &
Smith ‘legitimate interest – reasonable means’
test, the person whose religion was burdened by identification with the
SSN
prevailed. See Calahan
v. Woods,
658 F. 2d 679 (1981); Stevens
v. Berger,
428 F. Supp. 896 (1977) relying upon Sherbert v.
Verner, 374 U.S.
397 (1962)
and Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec.
Div, 450 U.S.
707 (1980).
Our
response to the government is 32 pages long (double space) but it is a
very important read for those who want to know whether we will be able
to turn the tide against the government forcing people to embrace the
SSN as an element of their identity, even when it is contrary to the
people's religion. When you read the points of the argument, you
will see that this is a case that ought to be a "must win" for us based
upon the facts and Virginia law. Of course, whether we are 100%
right as far as the law is concerned, we know that evil men do not
understand justice (Proverbs 28:5). Only the Lord knows what must
happen in this case. Here are links to the Court documents to
date:
Plaintiff 03Nov2008 Response To Motions
& Objections To Preserve Error
3nov2008-plaintiff
response to govt motion to reconsider demurrer(doc)
3nov2008-plaintiff
reply to govt response to the original complaint(doc)
3nov2008-plaintiff
objection to dismissal on sovereign immunity basis(doc)
3nov2008-plaintiff
objection to dismissal on equity suit for lack of proper person
party(doc)
3nov2008-plaintiff
objection to dismissal of declaratory judgment action(doc)
3nov2008-plaintiff
objection to dismissal of claims for monetary damages(doc)
3nov2008-plaintiff
objection to dismissal of son's case because of father litigating for
son
Defendant Motion
24oct2008-va.
government motion to reconsider demurrer and to dismiss the complaint
(pdf)
Court Ruling
3oct2008-Circuit
Court ruling cause of action on Virginia Constitution, Art. I, §16
& §11
Plaintiffs' Motion For Complaint Amendment,
For Temporary Injunction, and Brief In Support
14jun2008carmichael-v-com-injunction-motion.doc
Plaintiffs'
Reply To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, Pleas of Statute of Limitations
and Demurer
10jun2008carmichael_v_commonwealth_replydraft.doc
Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, Plea of The
Statute of Limitations and Demurrer
21may2008defendant_motion_to_dismiss
Carmichael v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, Et. al. - Complaint
28apr_08_carmichael_v_commonwealth_complaint.doc
|
Articles From
Last News
Recent
Articles
Carmichael v. Commonwealth of Va. Oral
Argument Audio
David Alan Carmichael
Talk Radio Broadcast
Now On Video
Current
Action Status
Cases
|