Motions hearing Wednesday
Thanks again to all for the continued prayers and support.
Tomorrow is the "motions hearing", and the first real court appearance.
Multiple 'Motions to Dismiss" are in place. The most important of these, in my opinion, is the one that essentially says that the "Domestic Violence" and "Harassment" statutes, as attempting to be enforced, are clear violations of the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment, as well as the similar guarantee of religious freedom under the Colorado constitution. There is much supporting case law which shows that the legal issue under consideration SHOULD be (among others):
- Defendant's actions, as alleged, amount to an exercise of his right to free speech, and exercise of religious freedom...
- The alleged
harassment consisted almost entirely of an ongoing exchange of emails, dealing with religious beliefs -- a
voluntary exchange.
- There is a difference between (to put this element in terms that a Bible-believer would understand) using Scripture to "
reprove, correct, and instruct in righteousness" and
harassment. I believe that most here would also know that for a husband to do any LESS for his wife than honor his Covenant before God is to fail to cover her. We are commanded, in fact, to "wash" them, "by the water of the Word".
- A summary of US Supreme Court actions is presented, consistent with previous analysis by the US Attorney General, which presents a number of considerations. Many of these are violated by this action, and the statute as applied. Among these is whether the action taken (attempted imprisonment, after having already destroyed the marriage, and utterly preventing ANY communication) is the "least religion-restricting alternative".
- "Free exercise" refers to ACTIONS and not only to beliefs.
(US v Cruikshank)
- This quote, from the
Virginia Declaration of Rights
That religion, or the duty we have to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conscience, not force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.
- "Specifically, what the state is attempting to do in prosecuting Defendant for his exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs, is just what the state is forbidden from doing."
- It is the INTENTION of a pastor or preacher who communicates with a parishioner
cause serious enough emotional distress to induce changes in the behavior of the parishioner!...In the instant case, the real question is "at what moment in time should the requests to stop preaching have been honored?" If the preaching continued after that moment, the state MAY step in and take action to protect the public peace safety, and order, or to protect the religious liberty of the complaining witness, but the state's actions in so doing must be the
least religion-restrictive alternative.
(Here, I add that those who understand what the Bible says about marriage will also know that the duty and authority of a Covenant head of house extend even beyond that of a pastor.)
"What would otherwise be (arguably) illegal, in the context of religious freedom, is not only legal, but is highly protected." (many case law citations follow)
- "As applied, the statute is
unconstitutionally void for vagueness. It
appears to make it a felony to say anything, repeatedly, that makes another reasonably suffer serious emotional distress. (Examples are given of necessary speech which may cause the hearer distress)...A law is not constitutional because it is only applied in constitutional ways by a good prosecutor."
- "Complaining witness repeatedly RESPONDED to the emails upon which prosecution is based," not only by email but by phone.
- "...laws which are neutral towards religion, such as stalking laws, can coerce a person to violate his religious conscience or intrude upon the activities and beliefs of religious institutions just as effectively as laws aimed at religion specifically." (
Anderson v. Celebrezze, Wisconsin v Yoder)
-
"Assuming for the moment that no one will question that Defendant has sincerely-held religious beliefs, how has the state prohibited the free exercise of that belief? Not only is the state prosecuting Defendant for his past exercise of his sincerely-held religious beliefs, the state is also chilling the exercise of similar matters of faith by others who share Defendant's religious beliefs".
- "Does the state action forbid or prevent the free exercise of Defendant's religious beliefs? Does the criminal prosecution of Defendant result in a sincere belief that his ability to perform his religious duty is threatened? It is hard to imagine something which would more clearly threaten Defendants ability to perform his religious duty than to have the state criminally prosecute him for exercising his religion! (
Religious Liberty..., supra, at p. 58.
Wooley v. Maynard)
- "The application of the statute in the instant case is unconstitutional as applied. It is overly broad and vague. These concepts of constitutionality are all based upon a due process notice principle. In the instant case, the conduct was so clearly in the mind of the Defendant, preaching and religious teaching, as he was religiously, belief obligated to
do, he had no way to see that his behavior was prohibited by the law which he is charged with violating. Thus, the application of the statute in the instant case deprives the Defendant of due process under both the State and the Federal Constitutions, as being overly broad and vague in its application..."
- "When a challenged law threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected behavior, as it does in the instant case, a greater degree of specificity is required than when law does not implicate constitutionally protected liberties. (
People v. Gross)
(And, as I've noted before, such arguments are a resource available to anyone else who should ever find themselves subject to similar persecution as well. It is important that His people share 'knowlege', without which we may be destroyed, just as Hosea warned.)
Many of you here know, and have seen, that my long-held position on matters of both Law and Scripture has been consistent in this one regard. God
Wrote His Word for us for a reason. When our Savior was challenged by Satan, He responded by repeatedly referring to what "
is Written". Our own Founders and many subsequent jurists have made the same point: The Supreme Law is WRITTEN DOWN for a reason!
I have long been concerned that a nation which has "forgotten God" is a "nation of men, not of Law".
I appreciate as well the many private communications and comments I have received from my brothers and sisters here. While all marriages consist of times of chastening, of learning, and of repentance, I have come to conclude that God has another purpose for me here as well. Part of that consists of the ministries of apostle, and of prophet, in the sense that He sometimes asks us to walk out His warning for His people.
If nothing else, I see that what is happening here is similar to the charge to the "watchman on the wall" (Eze 3:17, and chapter 33).
While obviously I continue to pray that these charges will be dropped and even that my house eventually be restored, I recognize that what is most important is that His will be done. I will continue to pray for the leading of His spirit, and that all those with "ears to hear" will hear.
In His Name,
Mark
