Letter To Court Clerk - March 7th, 2006

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.

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

I hereby request a continuance in the above matter which is scheduled to appear on your court calendar on February 10^th, 2006, at 10:30 am in the forenoon (see enclosed Notice of Appearance).

With respect to the above summons for not wearing a seatbelt, a motion was duly filed with this court on the 21^st Day of June, 2004, wherein the court was moved to dismiss the cause of action based upon a Constitutionally protected religious exemption. To date, I have not yet received a reply from the County Attorney’s Office, in order that I might proceed with my defense in this matter. The return date of the motion was the 16^th day of July, 2004, and the moving papers of the motion can be viewed online at http://ebionite.com/seatbeltmotion.htm . All other documents in this matter can be viewed online at http://ebionite.com/seatbelt.htm . I have myself requested clarification from the Office of the Nassau County District Attorney, as per my previous letter to Kathleen M. Rice (see http://ebionite.com/seatbelt_rice.htm ), I am also sending her a copy of this subsequent letter, as well as Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, so they are well on notice that they have not yet responded to the issues raised in this matter. And because of its implications against the matter of Roe v Wade (see http://ebionite.com/seatbelt_hillaryclinton.htm ), I am also providing notice of this matter to Gov. Mike Rounds, South Dakota, because this case is merely one example of the bogus claim to a Constitutional Right to Privacy which Roe v Wade is based upon.

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" If this is untrue, or the County Attorney can demonstrate where the practice of my religion as it pertains to not wearing a seatbelt is ”… inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society”, then I would be glad to pay my fine. And in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court on this issue – 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) – it would appear that the summons the police officer wrote, as well as the court hearing, is mute, unless the County Attorney can first demonstrate that my religious beliefs do not warrant Constitutional protection.

Religion Of The State Of New York: This matter before the court proves that the State has a symbiotically endorsed one religion over another, by virtue of its alliance with one sect of Christianity over other sects the tenets of which the state suppresses and denies fundamental Constitutional Rights. The issue is very simple: Over the course of the first three centuries of our Common Era, there were basically three primary groups who followed the teachings of Jesus. The original Jewish believers were known as Ebionites (see http://Ebionite.com ). On the Gentile side there was what is portrayed as Spiritual-based (aka Gnostic) Christians, and the faith-based Christians who are basically the ones who survive today. I say survive, because secular governments have always rejected the spiritually-based sects -- as the State of New York continues to do today -- and both the Ebionites and the Spiritually-based Christians were murdered in the fourth century when the faith-based Christians entered into an alliance with the Roman Emperor Constantine. And what the State of New York is doing in this matter, is denying equal protection under the law, because it has an alliance with the faith-based sect -- thus, constituting the adoption of one religion over another.

Roe v Wade: Is There A Right To Privacy? It has long been suggested by many legal scholars that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution -- and that this right to privacy was manufactured by the pro-abortion movement. Who is correct? The true test of who is correct can only be measured by the universal acknowledgement of this alleged Constitutional Right. There is of course nothing in the Constitution that affirms a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy and end the life of her unborn child. So the ruling in Roe v Wade was based upon a Constitutional Right of Privacy from government intrusion. But, if it can be demonstrated that the supposed right to privacy only exists in the matter of a woman’s right to have an abortion -- and this right to privacy is not uniformly protected with respect to all unwarranted intrusion of government into the lives of individuals -- then the legal scholars who claim that this right to privacy was manufactured by the liberal pro-abortion movement can be substantiated as valid. The Constitution requires uniformity of application and equality of rights and protections in all of its concepts and prohibitions. If the government has a right to deny my religious rights and without a compelling interest, intrude in my life, then the ruling of Roe v Wade is bogus.

If it is the intention of the Nassau County Traffic Court to ignore the Constitutional issue that has been set before the court in my moving papers of my Motion, then it is my intention to either remove the case to US District Court, or seek counsel to initiate a civil rights cause of action against the County of Nassau and/or New York State. If I seek a civil rights action, said action could have the effect of declaring the NYS Seatbelt law unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, the court decides instead to acknowledge my religious exemption, then the law as written would remain in effect. Which means that in order for me to proceed in my defense, it is imperative that the County Attorney respond to my above noted motion.

From a Constitutional perspective: Once a First Amendment religious exemption is claimed, it would be similar to invoking the Miranda Rule. In order to proceed, the County Attorney must demonstrate that the government has a compelling interest in the matter at law, by virtue of the fact that the exercise of my religious right or exemption would negatively impact the rights of others. Thus, the issue at law is no longer whether I was wearing a seatbelt, but whether the practice of my religious convictions as expressed in my not wearing a seatbelt endangers the lives and wellbeing of other drivers. If the County Attorney cannot demonstrate that my not wearing a seatbelt poses a hazard to others, then the court must rule that I have a right to a religious exemption.

This Constitutionally protected legal position has in fact been supported by precedent and case law on the subject. As an example: The original NYS Immunization law did not contain a religious exemption, until the law was opposed on religious grounds. Initially, an exemption had to be attained by securing a written letter from a clergy that immunizations are against the religious beliefs of the sect in question. But this requirement was further ruled unconstitutional. Quoting the moving papers of the above noted motion: In Allanson v. Clinton Central School District (84-CV-174) which was brought on because the Allanson family refused on religious grounds to inoculate their children, 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". In the above matter, the New York State immunization law had already been declared unconstitutional because it did not contain a religious exemption, and Judge Miner declared the New York law further unconstitutional because it failed to contain a personal religious exemption -- i.e., requiring a note from a clergy. And while I am an Ordained Clergy and leader of the world-wide Ebionite Nazirene Restoration Movement (see http://Ebionite.com ), the question at law has already been settled in Thomas v Review Board 450 U.S. 707, (1981), where 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 courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation…. 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])

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 http://mystic.nazirene.org/evangel_ord.htm and http://mystic.nazirene.org/ULC.htm ).

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 http://Ebionite.com , 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 http://GateOfEden.com . 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 @ http://UnityOfMind.org ). 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!!!

In order to facilitate the above matter which the legal issues, statutes and case law precedents have been thus far ignored, please find enclosed a letter to Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen M. Rice