You have Accessed the moving Motion and Affidavit that was filed with the court.   To access the cover web page that offers a more in depth explanation, click the icon at the left.

 

 

 

     Superior Court – State Of North Carolina

Graham, County Of Alamance

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

The People Of The State Of North Carolina

Alamance County Superior Court                                     NOTICE OF MOTION

 Petitioner                                                                    AND AFFIDAVIT

                                                                                     ON APPEAL

- Against -

                                                                                                          SUMMONS NO 5783353-X

Allan Cronshaw Jr.                                                                       FILE NO 11IFS004901

Defendant

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

TO THE JUDGES OF ALAMANCE SUPEROR COURT


 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on the within motion and affidavit of ALLAN CRONSHAW JR., affirmed and witnessed to on the 14th day of September, 2011, and upon all the proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned Motion and Affidavit to reverse the lower court ruling will move this court at the courthouse located at the County Courthouse in Graham, Superior Court Alamance County 27253, on the 19th day of September, 2011, at 10:00 o’clock in the forenoon of that day.

  1. (1)    This case is not about a seat belt. THIS CASE IS ABOUT A LAW THAT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

  2. (2)    Because no court reporter was present at the original trial -- wherein, important relevant testimony was presented -- THIS CASE IS ALSO NOW ABOUT THE DENIAL OF A PROPER APPEAL.

  3. (3)    Because no Findings and Order was issued by the trial judge, THIS CASE WHICH INHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION FURTHER INHIBITS THE ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THE CASE TO THE US DISTRICT COURT ON THE DENIAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.

  4. (4)    On August 24th, 2011, the above case was heard before Alamance County Chief Judge James K. Roberson -- who, without issuing an Order and Findings -- ruled against the Constitutional Protection of Religion because the law requiring the wearing of a seat belt was portrayed as a "Public Safety" provision enacted by the legislature.   And while Judge Roberson politely acknowledged that (1) the law could be construed as being contrary to the Constitutional mandate barring the government from making a provision inhibiting the free exercise of religion;  (2) and Judge Roberson further noted the contrary provisions of the law with respect to both existing exemptions that are not protected by the First Amendment;  (3) as well as the lack of uniformity of application across vehicle types (see Existing Exemptions To The Law -- Active Links at http://Ebionite.com/NC_SuperiorCourt.htm , the case was then sent to the Alamance County Superior Court in Graham, North Carolina on appeal.

  5. (5)    Existing Exemptions Of Law: Of interest is the fact that there are already exemptions that exist within the construct of the law, which include “Persons with a certified phobia of seat belts; Persons tending to a child's personal needs; Situations where all seating positions equipped with seat belts are occupied”   If these exemptions already exist that are not Constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, then they cannot be seen as a higher order than the practice of one's religion.   Further, with respect to the safeguarding of the physical self, it is of further note that North Carolina law permits people not only to ride in the open bed of a pick-up truck, but also permits children under the age of twelve “If an adult is present in the bed or cargo area of the vehicle and is supervising the child” .

  6. (6) Public Safety? Does the North Carolina seat belt law qualify as a Public Safety Statute that overrides the Constitutional Protection of the Free Exercise of Religion?   Or is the law an attempt by the state to legislate personal safety of the individual regardless of Constitutional muster?   The fact that there already exists exemptions and applications of the law that are not Constitutionally Protected, demonstrates that the ruling of the court is itself UnConstitutional.   And that both the ruling of the court, as well as the law itself, totally fails to demonstrate that it is based upon public safety -- but rather, an attempt on the part of the state to legislate personal safety from the perspective of what the defendants portray as an Atheist mindset and paradigm of thinking that (1) totally rejects the Bible; (2) rejects the foundation of religious knowledge set forth by the extensive testimony of defendants Allan Cronshaw and Emmanuel Pohoreski (see exhibit #1 of Original Motion) who has personally known Allan Cronshaw over the course of countless lifetimes spanning thousands of years (see A Soul-Perspective); which accounts are contrary to the Atheist paradigm of thought upon which the North Carolina law is based, are supported by the findings of modern physicists (see From A Scientific Perspective and the above subheading Science Proves Religion); (3) both the ruling of the court and the law has no force of law -- i.e., "Any law opposed to the Constitution of the United States is as if it were no law at all!" (16 A.M. Jur. 2nd p.177). 

  7. (7)    The compelling authority of the state of North Carolina public safety laws are enacted upon the premise that said statutes are designed to protect the people against the actions of others.   As an example: The states DWI laws which rightfully impose restrictions upon the individual are based upon the proven fact that an impaired driver is a menace and danger to other people.   And thus, as the protectors of the general population, the compelling interest and authority of the state is proper and Constitutionally correct.   But the fact that no such compelling interest and authority exists in the case of the seat belt provision -- a provision which cannot cite even one instance where a person not wearing a seat belt presented a danger to the people of North Carolina -- must be seen as an attempt to legislatively intervene into the personal lives of the individual in an attempt to protect the individual from himself.   Thus, there is no compelling interest that can be construed as being an issue of Public Safety that overrides the First Amendment protections.  

  8. (8)     Existing Religious Exemptions: While the above example of driving while impaired is an example of public safety because of the danger to other people, the existing religious exemptions of the North Carolina laws on mandatory inoculations and even a total rejection of medical intervention, provides the necessary Constitutional framework of these statutes.   Originally, all states required mandatory inoculation -- but one by one, each state was forced to enact religious exemptions.   Yet -- unlike the seat belt law wherein a person not wearing a seat belt imposes absolutely no danger to others -- this is not the case in the example of the mandatory inoculation laws.   In some states if there is an outbreak of a communicable disease in school, those children who have not been inoculated due to religious belief, are not permitted to attend school during the outbreak because of concern that they will further spread the disease even to those children who have been inoculated.   Thus, even though there is reason to suggest that a child who is exempt from the mandatory inoculation laws on religious grounds pose a public safety health threat to the wellbeing of other children, the laws of every state, including North Carolina, all observe these exemptions based upon the practice of religion.   And again, THERE IS NO CASE ON RECORD WHERE A PERSON NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT HAS IN ANY MANNER POSED A RISK TO ANOTHER PERSON -- AND THEREFORE THE CONCERN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY CANNOT OVERRIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.    

  9. (9)    A further example was the striking down of the original North Carolina Compulsory Education Law that prohibited a parent from schooling their children at home.   In Delconte v. State of North Carolina, rendered in 1985, Calvin R. Criner, State Coordinator of the Office of Nonpublic Education, who relying "...upon an opinion of the Attorney General that home instruction did not fulfill the requirements of an approved nonpublic school, responded on 4 September 1981 that the Hallelujah School could not be acknowledged as a nonpublic school 'within the meaning of the law'" (see Delconte v. State of North Carolina) -- quoting the ruling: "The Delcontes are deeply religious, fundamentalist Christians and hold religious services in their home on a regular basis. They believe the Bible is authoritative and obliges them to teach their children at home."   While the original trial court sided with the Delconte family, their decision was reversed on appeal where the Court of Appeals concluded that: (1) Delconte’s home instruction does not constitute a qualified nonpublic school. (2) The compulsory school attendance statutes prohibit home instruction. (3) This prohibition does not violate Delconte’s constitutionally protected freedoms.

  10. (10)    Among other citings, in reversing  Delconte v. State of North Carolina the North Carolina Supreme Court applied the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that had already ruled against educational systems that "gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of" the child's religious beliefs (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 219, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1535 [1972]) -- which was further affirmed in the ruling that "The essence of law that has been set and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order... can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion" (Thomas vs Review Board 450 U.S. 707, 718 [1981] accord, Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 [1972]; Sherbert vs Verner, 374 U.S. 393, 406 [1963]).   Unless the Alamance County District Attorney can demonstrate that as a Public Safety Statute, my refusal to wear a seat belt on religious grounds constitutes a hazard to the people of the state, then the same Constitutional Religious Exemptions that have been extended to the Compulsory Immunization and Education Statutes, must also be affirmed in the seat belt law -- especially in view of the fact that exemptions presently exist that are not Constitutionally Protected.   

  11. (11)    Therefore, the Alamance County District Attorney would be required to demonstrate that my not wearing a seat belt would impose a hazard to the people of North Carolina.   This condition of my religious objection to wearing a seat belt would have to demonstrate a parallel to that of driving a car without breaks or without proper steering which would constitute a hazard to the public.   It is not enough that the state is moved to impose itself in my personal protection.   As explored in the above subheading entitled The Question Presented To The Court, Black's Law Dictionary defines Religious Freedom as: "Within Constitution embraces not only the right to worship GOD according to the dictates of one's conscience, but also the right to do, or forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society."   So, the ONLY question set before this court must be limited to whether my refusal to wear a seat belt is inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society” in presenting a hazard to others.   

 

(12)    IMPORTANT TESTIMONY NOT PRESERVED No Court Reporter was present at the original hearing of record. Having no Court Reporter, infringes upon plaintiff's right of appeal.

  1. (13)    Commencing in the year 325 of our Common Era, the Christian Church came under total government control -- the spiritual Christians were hunted down and murdered because they refused to accept the religious tenets of the emperor -- that sect of the Church which called itself Orthodox, became a puppet to Pagan Rome -- and the religion of what has been portrayed as blind-faith was born. Quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica under the heading, The History of Christian Mysticism, where it reads: Although the essence of mysticism is the sense of contact with the transcendent, mysticism in the history of Christianity should not be understood merely in terms of special ecstatic experiences but as part of a religious process lived out within the context of the Christian community. From this perspective mysticism played a vital part in the early church. Early Christianity was a religion of the spirit that expressed itself in the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness”  With the government take-over of the Church, Spiritual Christianity which was a process and “a religion of the spirit that expressed itself in the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness”, was put to death (see Spiritual Intuitive Development @ http://ebionite.com/seatbelt.htm#SpiritualIntuitiveDevelopment . With the destruction of the Spirit, the Church was reduced to a whitewashed sepulcher.

  2. (14)    The Loss Of Knowledge Of The Laws: If, as presented above, Spiritual Christianity died in the fourth century under the Roman Emperor Constantine, it was the emperor Justinian who cast the Church and the world into the abyss of ignorance in the year 553. Justinian convened the Second Council of Constantinople where the Britannica confirms that the emperor then forced his will upon the Church when he "...banished the pope to Egypt , and afterwards to an island, until he accepted the Council, which he ultimately did" (see http://Ebionite.com/reincarnation.htm ).    After relenting to the will of the emperor, and finely accepting the decree of the emperor after seven months of imprisonment, it is reported that the pope met with an untimely death before he could even return to the Vatican.    And while it is true that most of the modern-day doctrines of the Church was forced upon the Christian world in this same violent manner -- and the vast majority of modern-day believes are all victims of what has come to be known as the Stockholm Syndrome -- the removal of this important original teaching has had such far ranging implications, that it has become impossible for modern believers and critics alike to even begin to get a valid sense of the original Gospel meaning and objectives.    The modern Church is faith-based -- founded upon blind-faith -- because the reader lacks the necessary tools to even get a sense of the very purpose of the original teachings of TheWay.   And this secular imposed intervention where the Christian world was literally forced to succumb to the decree of the emperor, has had the far ranging effect of spiritually castrating the Church.

  3. (15)    What the Bible states is that the lives of each person is orchestrated and scripted by the Laws -- and yet, without an understanding of the Laws that the scriptures states controls all events in this world, the very purpose and meaning of life itself will remain a perpetual enigma -- as will the scriptures.   Jesus himself taught that not even a sparrow can ...fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father” (Matt 10:29 NIV).   And in the very next verse Jesus applies this same reality to man and states that every hair is accounted for -- i.e., "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" -- and yet, the Christian world remains totally ignorant with respect to the workings of the Laws that orchestrate and brings about all events that transpire in this world.

  4. (16)    Atheists, Secular Humanists and Marxist Secular Progressives believe that all events are the result of chance, luck, natural selection or unknown and unavoidable circumstances -- and they reject the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence, and in their narrow and very limited understanding of the Laws, the Forces at work, and even the objectives of life itself -- resulting in the fact that they blindly remain in a state of perpetual denial and ignorance. While Atheists have the right to live in accord with their self-imposed ignorance, Spiritual Christians have a Constitutional Right to live in accord with the higher knowledge and religious teachings that reveals the Factual Truth to the sincere seeker/disciple of TheWay. The Law is that you can never possess any higher level of Truth than you are willing to live in word, thought, desire and deed. Therefore, the worshiping at that Atheist alter of ignorance where one rejects both spiritual and biblical wisdom and knowledge as to the reality of the Laws that control and bring about all events in this world, in order to appease Atheist ignorance and rejection of higher reality, is in and of itself a rejection of God and Divine Providence.

 

 

Dated: September 14th, 2011

 

_______________________________

Allan Cronshaw Jr.

 

Affirmed to me this 14th day of September, 2011

 

 

___________________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC


 

DATED: September 14th, 2011

Graham, NC Yours,


 

To: County District Attorney                                                  Allan Cronshaw Jr.

Pat Nadolski, DA                                                                     PO Box 780

212 West Elm St. Rm 210                                                        Graham, NC 27253

Graham, NC 27253