You have Accessed a document that is part of the cover web page on a religious opposition to the NYS Seatbelt law, Nassau County, New York.   To access main page, click the icon at the left.


Rev. Allan Cronshaw Jr.

480 Maitland St

East Meadow, NY 11554


June 20th, 2006





Judge John A. Moriarity

Nassau County Traffic Court

16 Cooper Street

Hempstead, NY 11550


Re: Summons # LM 761596-3 and LM 761597-4


Dear Judge Moriarity:

After doing some research into the issue of seatbelts, I have come to realize that the Federal Government has attempted to force the states to enact seatbelt laws by virtue of withholding highway dollars, and direct legislation.   And thus, it appears that both finances and the politics of the issue is the paramount obstacle in these proceedings.   With respect to my motion to dismiss, the prosecuting attorney Marybeth Malloy has failed to respond to my original motion dated the 21st day of June, 2004 (see ), requesting a dismissal of the above summons for not wearing a seatbelt on First Amendment Religious grounds.  With the prosecuting attorney in default, the court on its own volition, denied the motion without stating a reason.  I fully understand the politics of both federal dollars, as well as the money procured through the process of writing summons.   And unless the court has a solution to the denial of Constitutionally protected rights, then it appears that the only due process remedy is to remove the cause of action to US District Court in order for the issues to be properly answered and heard.   I will of course attempt to subpoena you as a witness.

In the Constitutional balance of power, the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of insuring the established laws are properly adjudicated -- with the highest obligation and duty of the court is to maintain Constitutional integrity.   In the past, legislatures have enacted an uncountable number of laws that were declared unconstitutional by the courts, because they denied the people’s fundamental Constitutional Rights.   And every judge is sworn and obligated to protect the Constitutional mandate within the required ruling of the Court that "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).  That neither the prosecuting attorney, or the court, has an argument as to why this matter should not be dismissed because it is Constitutionally defective, is the reason why no position has been offered in support of the law.    The only answer is that the government thinks it has the absolute right to control other people’s lives, regardless of the legality, the circumstances, or your obligation to both the people and the Constitution.   The position of both the seatbelt law and the ruling of this court is that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and the law is what you say it is.  

Under the Law of the Land that I defended as a Vietnam veteran, it is the requirement of the judiciary at every level to hold certain Constitutional principles above all infringement, as very clearly ruled by the Court that "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as Legal Principles to be applied by the courts" (West Virginia State Board of Education vs Burnette 319  US 624, 638, [1943]).  Now, if this Constitutional requirement has been rescinded in the ensuing years -- and the UnAlienable Rights of the First Amendment has been annulled, then the whole reasoning of my argument that was set before the court is defective.    If the state has been imbued with the spiritual insight and power to determine which religious beliefs are established as being valid, and which are not afforded Constitutional protection, then I can understand the foundation of your ruling in absence of any opposing arguments by the prosecuting attorney in defense of the Constitutionality of the law.    After all, 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 for bearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society."  And neither the prosecuting attorney, or the court, has offered even one tangible statement as to why my stated religious convictions should not be afforded Constitutional protection because they would be “…inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society" -- which, if the Constitution is still the Highest Law of the Nation that every court is required to observe with absolute impunity, without offering justifiable cause to deny my motion, it would appear that this court is holding its rulings above both that of the Supreme Court, as well as Constitutional Mandates.   When the shoe is on the other foot, and a law breaker is brought before the court, they are called lawless and criminals.   But when government officials and sworn officers of the court ignore the laws, they continue in their position regardless of their actions.   I have already demonstrated this to be true with respect to the fraud openly committed by the Hempstead District Attorney’s Office (see ).  

What is the Constitutional Issue?  The Court has ruled that it is "no business of the courts... or for any secular authority, to say what is a religious practice or activity" (Fowler vs. Rhode Island 345 U.S. 67 [1953]).  Because, in the reasoning of the Court, the "objective truth of a person's religious beliefs, be it in a judicial form or otherwise, in essence puts the individual on trial for heresy" (See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64, S.Ct. 882 (1944).  In Thomas v Review Board 450 U.S. 707, (1981), Chief Justice Burger admonished: "Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs... One can, of course, imagine an asserted claim so bazaar so clearly non-religious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the free exercise clause: but that is not the case here, and the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all members of a religious sect.  The court's are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation."  In Allanson v. Clinton Central School District (84-CV-174), Judge Roger J. Miner of the Northern District of New York stated: "The resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular beliefs or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection".   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 us 707, 718 (1981) accord, Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 us 205, 215 (1972); Sherbert vs Verner, 374 US 393, 406 (1963).   And in order to move forward in this matter and maintain the Constitutional integrity of the court -- from which it derives it legality -- either the prosecuting attorney or the court must offer an example of how my purported religious beliefs are not entitled to First Amendment protection because my not wearing a seatbelt would be “…inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society" -- which equates the fact that it must be demonstrated in opposition to my motion to dismiss, how my not wearing a seat belt would endanger the lives of other drives, or pedestrians.

 Denial Of Rights For 30 Years -- Religion Of The State: By virtue of affiliation, the State of New York only holds faith-based religions as being valid, while rejecting the tenets of a spiritually-based religion.  In government schools, the doctrinal position of faith-based religion is supported, while the positions of spiritually-based religions are not only censored, but portrayed to be heretics.   As an Ebionite, many school textbooks and other documents define me as a heretic -- and yet, modern archeological discoveries have demonstrated conclusively that the opposite is true.   Yet, in practice, holidays of pagan origin such as Christmas which is endorsed by the state, is the celebration of the birth of the god of the mainstream faith-based Churches.  Throughout the year the state regularly endorses faith-based ceremonies, prayer, and numerous accommodations.   Yet, for almost thirty (30) years the state has denied and imposed restrictions upon my own and my families practices of religion, because they are spiritually based

A spiritually based religions is one that attunes the mind and life of the adherent to the Infinite -- and does not sit back and observe the Light from a distance in the manner of faith-based -- but strives to intimately engage that inner Beacon of Light.     Where faith-based religion is often a group, and is usually church-based, spiritual religion is One on One, and very demanding.   This is seen in the words: “It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me” (John 6:45 NIV).   But in order to be taught directly by God, the disciple must be willing to live and embrace the Instructional Truth that they receive, in word, thought, desire and deed.   Faith-based religions which serve the multitudes, are not prepared to live this life.   In fact, they attract large numbers of believers by maintaining doctrines of belief that proclaim that it is not necessary to live in accord with a spiritual mindset and lifestyle, because believers are saved by virtue of their faith -- apart from their actions.  .  

The Bible itself declares that faith-based religion which is supported by the state as part of the culture of the greater population, is blind to the higher reality of soul and spirit.   To the degree that the man who is known as the Apostle Paul warns that faith-based believers will look upon the Mysteries of God and the Kingdom as “foolishness” ( 1 Cor 2:14 see ).   Believers of the simple faith are yet too immature to “…be taught by God”-- and it is therefore impossible for them to receive the Knowledge of the Mysteries of God and the Kingdom, and obtain the Divine Gnosis or Spiritual Experiential Knowledge.   Why?  Because they are yet immature in their understanding.   In the words of the Apostle Paul to the faith-based believers: “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able” (1 Cor 3:1-2 NKJ).  Paul stated that the believer has to become mature and perfected, in order to “…be taught by God

Our Constitutional form of Government was orchestrated by Deists and Masons who understood the necessity of baring intrusion into the life and thinking of the few who were spiritual Disciples of TheWay.   And this necessary Constitutional mandate is embolden in the requirement baring government from intervening in the life of the spiritual Disciple, unless their alleged religious convictions are “…inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society".   And this is why the Rule of Law with which all courts are bound, is manifest in the words: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as Legal Principles to be applied by the courts" (West Virginia State Board of Education vs Burnette 319  US 624, 638, [1943]). 

Where the tenets of faith-based entry-level religious teachings and doctrines make very little demand in the way of requirements, in their entry-level mindset, there is a great amount of biblical teachings that they ignore and attempt to explain away.   The Spiritual Disciple is Commanded to "…take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor 10:5 NIV) -- "…bridle the whole body" (James 3:2 KJV) -- "…beat my body and make it my slave..." (1 Cor 9:27 NIV) -- "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment"(Matt 12:36 KJV) -- "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature" (Col 3:5 NIV). To the degree that Paul warned: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom 8:13 KJV) -- see for other quotations.   And while these concepts have little in common with the doctrines of the faith-based churches, they become foundational requirements for the Spiritual Disciple who must be found worthy to “…be taught by God”-- and receive the Knowledge of the Mysteries of God and the Kingdom, and obtain the Divine Gnosis or Spiritual Experiential Knowledge.         

Where faith-based religious tenets are entry-level -- and often in harmony with the existing culture and political ideology -- the requirements of a spiritually-based religion is very demanding and refining of the carnal mind and lifestyle.   To "Pray without ceasing" (1Thes 5:17 KJV) -- and "…take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor 10:5 NIV) -- the Disciple must become ultra-discerning in every aspect of their life.   A Disciple does not celebrate Christmas -- because its origination is as the birth of the Pagan sun-god.    A Disciple does not celebrate Easter -- it is the name of the Pagan goddess of spring Ishtar, and is in denial of what Jesus taught (see ).   A Disciple does not send his children to government schools to be indoctrinated into the thinking of the people of this world.   And as a Disciple begins to manifest and  receive the Higher Gnosis/Knowledge of the Mysteries of God that the people of the simple-faith look upon as “foolishness”, greater Spiritual Knowledge is received that must be lived.   And there comes a time when the Disciple recognizes that there are no accidents -- no unknown Acts of God -- and that everything has a pre-existing cause -- including the life that the people are living.  

The fourth century hostile take-over of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine -- where he murdered the Ebionites and Spiritual (Gnostic/Knowledge-based) Christians (see ) -- and edited the scriptures from which modern Bible translations are made, to make them support the doctrines of Pagan Rome (see ) -- had the effect of casting the world into the Dark Ages.   In the same way that the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statutes in Afghanistan, the Roman Government-Church destroyed libraries of wisdom and knowledge, and all dissenting voices were immediately silenced.   And while in the present, the Church itself is in the process of struggling to overcome the manmade Pagan doctrines that were forced upon the Church with the threat of death, science has begun to emerge from the abyss of ignorance, and the scientist has begun to prove the long rejected vision of the Spiritual Disciple who uses the intuitive vision of the Mystic to see beyond the natural barrier of this physical realm.    Science has not only proven the intuitive vision of the Mystic (see ) -- and the fact that all events that transpire in this physical realm are initiated from an Etheric realm that is beyond the perception of the carnal mind of organic man -- but the scientists themselves have begun to seek greater depth of their own spiritual being (see Spirituality soars among scientists, study says ).   Many insightful scientists have begun to recognize that all religion is an elementary entry-level path preparing the seeker to embrace the reality of spirituality -- and since true spirituality is a purely inner path of expansion of mind, consciousness and being beyond the 10% organic limitations of the natural mind of nature-man, the original vision of our Constitutional framers will become of the utmost importance in giving birth to man’s ultimate destiny.   That mainstream religion has yet to awaken to this inner reality of higher soul and spiritual being, is because of their own soul-immaturity.

The allegorical symbolism of many of our founding aspects of our Nation and it’s Constitution, is the work of highly enlightened men and women who were Deists and members of various Masonic orders.   They understood that if peace and good order was to be brought about in the lives of men and women, then certain conditions must exists which will enable those who see the quagmire of carnal man, to evolve their thinking beyond organic limitations of the body-vessel.   And in the same way that the First Amendment protects the people from infringement of government defined religion and the limited doctrines of manmade churches, this same First Amendment protects the people from infringement of their God-Given Rights by the secular minded people who presently hold the reigns of power in our government.  From a Constitutional perspective, my UnAlienable God-Given Rights include the "Freedom from governmental interference in exercise of intellect, in formation of opinions, in the expression of them, and in action or inaction dictated by government" (People v. Wood, 272 N.Y.S. 258, 151 Misc. 66).  Since I also possess "The right to acquire useful knowledge" (Rosenblum v. Rosenblum, 42 N.Y.S.2d 626, 630, 181 Misc. 78) -- and the "Right to pursue chosen calling" (People v. Cohen, 8 N.Y.S.2d 70, 72, 255 App.Div. 485) -- my Absolute Rights Under Constitutional LIBERTIES:  "The power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons" (Booth v. Illinois, 22 S.Ct 425, 184 U.S. 425, 46 L.Ed. 623).

In the above noted article entitled Science Proves Religion ( ), it is recognized by the modern scientist that our culture and much of our academic and political community is being strangled by what they portray as “fossilized” thinking that is threatening to self-destruct our culture and society.   And while I would agree that the vast majority of people whose thinking has been imbued with the outmoded archaic thinking of man’s superstitious past should wear a seatbelt -- i.e., their spiritual disenfranchisement making them a danger to themselves -- the state has no compelling interest in its attempt to deny me the personal freedom to pursue the path of Spiritual Knowledge/Gnosis, and live in accordance with this Wisdom.    An important part of this “fossilized” thinking that man must free himself from the shackles of, is that events and conditions in this physical realm are initiated by accidents or unknown forces.   All events and conditions in this life are the result of pre-existing causes that are initiated by an Etheric reality that the mind of man is able to perceive if he is willing to overcome his organic limitations, and utilize those areas of mind that are naturally dormant because they are not supported by the body-vessel of the elementary religious doctrines and the spiritually disenfranchised philosophies of carnal man. 

Does the State of New York have a compelling interest in whether I wear a seatbelt?   Unless it can be proven that my not wearing a seatbelt will harm a pedestrian or other motorist, or is “…inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society" -- then the State of New York has absolutely no compelling interest whatsoever.   Moreover, the federal government is limited to interstate commerce and the defense of our nation, and has no authority or compelling interest in pressuring the state to enact seatbelt laws -- especially when these laws do not contain a religious exemption for those whose religious beliefs are not faith-based.  

If the government attempts to say that they have a compelling interest that overrides both my religious freedom, as well as my right to privacy, this would in effect open a Constitutional Pandora’s box.   This same alleged compelling interest could then be used by one group to control the lives of others.  The case could easily be made that would give license to the Church to compel people to attend religious services.   And when it is recognized that Science has already proven the validity of religion over the secular-atheist perception upon which the seatbelt law is based (see ), if my rights are violated because of the States concern for my welfare, then there is an emerging scientific wisdom evolving that would require all people to embrace a more spiritual path in life -- for their own wellbeing.   So what is at stake here, is in fact the very core issues of the validity of our Constitutional form of government and the liberty to live in accord with our own dictates.   Further, as detailed in my letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton (see ), the right to privacy upon which Roe v Wade is based, is founded upon these same liberties and freedoms from government restraint which have been presently set before this court in the ensuing matter of whether secular government has the right to intrude in my life, and override my freedom of personal choice.   And when you factor in the statistics that there are 1.18 traffic fatalities for every 100 million vehicle driven miles in the State of New York, the claim of the state that they have a compelling interest in this matter is absolute insanity.    

All pertinent case law on the subject affirms my right to reject any perceived compelling interest by the state unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the claim of my religious right would be detrimental to other drivers who use the highways.   If I was dying, I have the right to reject medical care.   When my daughter was born seventeen years ago, I would not permit a PK test to be performed upon her on religious grounds, even though this test was required by NYS law.   Recently when my grandson was born in a Brooklyn hospital, this same PK test which is required by NYS law, was not performed by virtue of a letter which claimed a religious exemption.   And with respect to all matters at law, I am an Ordained Clergy (see and ).    

With the sincere claim of a First Amendment religious exemption, the matter is no longer whether seatbelts were in use in the vehicle I was driving, but whether my not wearing a seatbelt infringed upon the rights and/or wellbeing of others.   And unless the County Attorney can demonstrate that my claimed religious exemption poses a risk to others outside of my vehicle, then the court has no other alternative but to dismiss the cause of action against me.   And if either the County Attorney fails to demonstrate the compelling interest of the state that would be of a higher order than my First Amendment religious right, or the Nassau County Traffic Court ignores both the Constitutional mandate of legal precedent and case law, and proceeds to prosecute this cause of action against me, then the proper cause of action would be to pursue the matter in US District Court.   And this could have the effect of declaring the whole of the NYS Seatbelt law unconstitutional.  

From a secular perspective, it is easy to confuse the tenets of a system of faith-based religion which is common today in the Christian world, versus a Spiritual-based system of religion as founded in the original pre-Nicene teaching of the Ebionites who lived in accord with the Nazirene Vow.   And while you will find the essential differences presented on the web site at , where faith-based religion can said to be institutional, in a purely Spiritual religion, the body and mind of the disciple/believer is the Living Temple or Church.   So the practice of religion in a purely Spiritual religion, become the thoughts, mindset and lifestyle of the disciple, as presented on the Ebionite and other associated web sites, and especially on the Gate of Eden web site at .   In a Spiritual religion, the disciple thinks and lives in such a manner that permits the flow of Spiritual Knowledge which has traditionally been called Gnosis in Greek, to enlighten his understanding of what the Bible calls the Mysteries of God that are beyond the comprehension of the natural mind of man.   And as I demonstrate in the affidavit of my motion, from a higher perspective, there is no such thing as accidents – and this has been confirmed by modern Quantum Physics (see Science Proves Religion @ ).   Which means that if the state requires me to embrace their fossilized mindset upon which the whole concept of accidents are based, and deny the Spiritual Knowledge which has been revealed to me in the practice of my Spiritually based religious tenets, then this requirement would be tantamount to impelling me to worship the doctrines of the state (emperor) – and placing the secular philosophy of the state over the tenets of my own religious teachings and convictions.   From a Constitutional perspective, this is totally unacceptable!!!      

If this court, Marybeth Malloy, or the Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen M. Rice cannot demonstrate the compelling interest of the state, and either respond to my motion papers, or dismiss the causes of actions against me, then I believe that this court is acknowledging the need to remove the matter to US District Court..





The Rev. Allan Cronshaw Jr.




Cc:       Marybeth Malloy, Traffic Prosecutor, NCTPVA

            Kathleen Rice, Nassau County District Attorney

            Thomas R. Suozzi, Nassau County Executive