Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Text of the bill introduced in Congress in coordination with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ADERHOLT introduced the following bill

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2004”.

TITLE I—JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—

(1) Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

Ҥ1260. Matters not reviewable
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
“1260. Matters not reviewable.”

(b) APPLICABILITY. Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.

(1) Chapter 85 of title 28, United State Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following new section:
“1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title”.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.”

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE II—INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law.

TITLE III—ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State Court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of:

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

The Honorable William Pryor?

Note: The message below came from a friend who commented on remarks I made about Bill Pryor’s treachery. My response follows.

Daniel,

I think you’ve got Bill Pryor wrong. A quick glance at Romans 13:1-4 reveals that God places individuals in governing positions and requires us to be subject to the authority of those offices. If we only follow those officials when we agree with them, then we are not submitting ourselves to their authority. Thus, we are disobeying God’s command.

I respect Justice Moore and the points he made. However, Justice Moore did not obey God’s command to Christians in Romans 13. After he lost the initial case regarding his display, he should have removed the display pending the hearing of his appeal. This is proper judicial behavior. If Moore had won his appeal, then he could have restored the display. If not, then Moore would have had to make the decision about to go obeying God in a way that brings the most glory to Him.

Actually, if Justice Moore had won his appeal, he probably would have still been removed from office. The rule is, an order must be obeyed until an appeal or stay removes the order. Disobeying an order that is ultimately overturned is still an offense against the law.

If Justice Moore did not in good conscience feel that he could have obeyed God’s command in Romans 13 while still displaying his monument, then he should have resigned his office. God calls us to live a quiet, peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Justice Moore could have been much effective in bringing attention to this matter and glory to God if he had resigned in protest and led the movement as a private citizen.

Bill Pryor demonstrated a willingness to humble himself before God and follow the rule of law–even when it cost him. Pryor did not prosecute Moore in order to gain brownie points with Senate Democrats. Pryor’s too smart to think that he would be cut any slack from them regardless of what he did. Pryor knew that prosecuting Moore would not make him any more popular at home, either. He could have refused to get into the mess and found himself elected governor or senator in a couple of years. Instead, he took his duty to God and the governing authorities seriously even to his own hurt.

Be careful before you impugn the reputation of a man or woman who is doing his or her best to understand God’s commands for us and how to apply those commands in an evil world. If it should prove out (when we all stand before God and ask His supreme opinion) that either or both of these men are right or wrong, we should not be in a position of being forced to recant our harsh words against them–regardless of that outcome.

I hope I’m not being too heavy. I follow these events closely through your list. Sometimes, though, I think that we may be doing a disservice by attacking a Christian so harshly–even if we are absolutely convinced he is wrong. Jesus commanded us to love one another as an example before a world that’s going to Hell. If we fight each other so harshly over disagreements such as this, how will the world ever see the love of God?

Feel free to disagree with me. If we can’t settle it here, we’ll just let our Big Brother settle it for us later.

Sincerely,
Concerned

Dearest Concerned,

We should certainly obey the word of the Lord. Yes, Romans 13:1-4 is a command to “be subject unto the higher powers.” However, to consider the Alabama Ten Commandments issue simply as a case of disobedience due to disagreement is a grave mistake and unjust trivialization.

If we must obey God’s commands, we must obey them in all things. Christ demands obedience and submission to him. By appealing to Romans 13 as the basis for the authority of those who govern, you are, in fact, proving Judge Moore’s point: all authority to govern comes from the hand of the Lord.

And this is the issue. This is not about a piece of stone in some building. Had Judge Moore been prohibited by law from placing the monument in the building, perhaps it would be about the monument. But, as I’m sure you are aware, no law prohibited the monument then and no law does so now.

See, this is about whether any court, any executive, or any legislature has any authority without God. As you’ve so plainly stated, they do not. Judge Moore realizes this. He went about the business of acknowledging the authority of God. He knows that, if we remove from our society the acknowledgement of God as the moral judge superior to our own sinful human desires, we will not long remain an ordered society and we will certainly not remain a just society.

There being no law to compel Judge Moore to remove the monument and there being no law to compel him to not acknowledge God, he was justified in his course of action. In fact, even if there had been a law prohibiting the acknowledgement of God, he still should have done so. No government exists without the authority of God and every government owes God recognition and submission.

Disobeying an illegal order is not illegal. The federal judge’s order had no basis in law. In fact, the plaintiffs alleged that Judge Moore had violated the First Amendment by installing the monument. The federal judge agreed with the plaintiffs. A simple reading of the First Amendment shows that the court’s conclusion was not based on the words of the First Amendment. In fact, the judge’s order that the monument be removed was designed to prevent Judge Moore from doing that which he had lawful authority to do. And, of course, as a constitutional officer of the state of Alabama, he had a legal and moral obligation to acknowledge God. We can’t at once say that the acknowledgement of God is illegal but that the obligation to do so is legal.

The federal judge said that he could not define the word “religion.” But, he also said Judge Moore had illegally established religion. Does that make sense? If I don’t know what a thing is, how can I recognize it when I see it?

The court said it would delay its order to remove the monument while appeals were ongoing. However, even though the appeals process had not been exhausted–the U.S. Supreme Court had yet to render its decision as to whether it would hear Judge Moore’s appeal (a decision that wasn’t given until more than a month later), the federal district court actually terminated the stay of its order and said that the monument should be removed.

You can understand, then, how resigning from office was not an issue or an option for Judge Moore. In fact, he did act in accord with Romans 13. He was living a quiet and peaceable life and was certainly acting godly and honestly. Had he resigned his office, he would have failed in his duty to honor God–a duty that is both religious and civic; it is codified both in Romans 13 and the Alabama Constitution of 1901.

Leading the movement as a private citizen would not have satisfied his Christian responsibility as a public servant. He would have taken the coward’s way out. It was his duty to stand between the tyranny of a federal judge and his cohorts and the liberties of the people as protected by both the federal and state constitutions. Had he simply bowed in obeisance to the ungodly ruling of a federal judge, he would have failed to uphold his responsibility to the people of Alabama, the constitution of our state, and the admonition of Romans 13. This Pauline passage enumerates both the responsibility of the individual and of the state. No government has the right to do that which God has prohibited.

Reflect on the history of the Protestant Reformation. When the Holy Roman Emperor was ready to effect the will of those who wanted to deprive Martin Luther of his life and liberty, the princes of Europe interposed themselves between the greater power of the emperor and the rights of the people. I wonder if the pattern of blind obedience to human rulers that you suggest Judge Moore should have followed would also mean that the German church and citizenry were justified in submission to Adolph Hitler. No, you know as well as I that men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were justified in opposing the evil of the German state. It is the Scripture that gives the moral authority for us to oppose evil in high places. Rulers are to minister good and “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:4). Instead, in this case, those in authority chose to persecute the one doing good.

This is the case against Bill Pryor. He chose to stand in opposition to God. He chose to persecute those who were doing their duty to both God and man. He chose to execute wrath upon the one who was doing good.

No, Mr. Pryor did not humble himself and follow the rule of law. Instead, he followed the path of tyrants and the ungodly. Had he been truly interested in honoring God and doing good and obeying Romans 13, he would have refused to prosecute Judge Moore and he would not have sought publicity so he could try to destroy the reputation of Judge Moore. Neither would Mr. Pryor have prejudiced the Court of the Judiciary by giving the governor an advisory opinion, saying that it was okay for two judges whose terms had already expired to stay on the court to hear Judge Moore’s case. He essentially hand picked two of the judges for the court that he stood before to prosecute Judge Moore.

I was in that courtroom. I saw and heard Bill Pryor say that Judge Moore was unrepentant. I witnessed him tell the court that Judge Moore was unfit for office because he had acknowledged God even when told he shouldn’t. See, there is one thing that both Judge Moore, the federal district judge Myron Thompson, and Bill Pryor agree about: this case was about whether the state may acknowledge God. Pryor stood and asked Judge Moore if he would continue to acknowledge God if returned to his position as chief justice. Of course, Judge Moore answered in the affirmative. And Mr. Pryor asked the court to remove Judge Moore from office.

This is a battle between light and darkness, good and evil. Mr. Pryor chose to stand on the side of those who oppose God. We both know that all we do in this world will be rewarded in the next. Judge Moore fears God more than men. He, like St. Paul, is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for he knows the power of God (Romans 1:16). A man is either justified or condemned by his own words (Matthew 12:35-37).

Indeed, as you mention, the Bible does say that the world will know we are Christ’s disciples by the love we have for one another (John 13:35). How can that love be seen when Mr. Pryor condemns a follower of Christ because that man refuses to deny Christ? Instead of showing love to his brother and, thereby, bringing honor to the name of Christ, Pryor brought a reproach against the name of our Savior. If we deny Christ before men, he will deny us before the Father (Matthew 10:32-33).

In our time, men “hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly” (Amos 5:10). “But, let judgement run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). And, we read in 1 Peter (4:11-19) that judgement should begin at the house of God:

(11) If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

(12) Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. (14) If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. (15) But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. (16) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (17) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (18) And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (19) Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

So, friend, “here I stand: I can do no other.” I will not deny Christ before men–even before men who call themselves by Christ’s name but seek to destroy his children. I won’t close my eyes and hope it all works out in the end when we stand before God. I know my duty and I must do it now.

I will not walk in the counsel of the ungodly–instead, I will delight in the law of the Lord (Psalm 1). Those who oppose Christ and his commands are not his followers and not my brethren. As for those who simply disagree with me, I will consider them enemies in war, in peace friends.

Yours in the bonds of Truth,
Daniel

Notes from the ethics trial of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore

Following are notes made by Daniel Sparks of the trial of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore before the Court of the Judiciary on charges of ethical misconduct for refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state Judicial Building. Attorney General Bill Pryor prosecuted the Chief Justice.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

9:10 a.m.: Chief Justice Roy Moore enters the courtroom and sits at the defense table. He places books and papers on the table, including his Bible.

9:17 a.m.: Supreme Court Chief Marshal announces that, at counsel request, the proceedings will not start until 9:30.

9:33 a.m.: Court proceedings begin.

Attorney of Chief Justice Moore asks Chief Judge William Thompson if opening in prayer would be appropriate. “Absolutely,” says Judge Thompson. He leads in prayer, asking God to “bless this court.”

Judges and attorneys introduce themselves, stating their names, positions, and hometowns.

State prosecutors: Bill Pryor (Attorney General), Gibbs (Assistant Attorney General), Davis (Chief Assistant Attorney General), Atwood (Assistant Attorney General).

Defense attorneys: Jones, Butts, Wilson.

Charges are read. Allegation of violations of Canons of Judicial Ethics number 1, 2, 2a, and 2b.

Affirmation of pre-trial stipulations of parties, concerning admission of evidence.

Defense attorneys object to four exhibits.

Prosecutors do not object to Defense exhibits.

9:52 a.m.: Opening arguments begin.

Pryor begins opening arguments for State. Says State presentation will be brief. Says court must find Chief Justice guilty of violation of Canons of Judicial Ethics. Says court must remove Chief Justice from office. Says Chief Justice has exhibited “totally unrepentant behavior.”

Wilson makes opening arguments for Defense. Says Chief Justice campaigned for office on platform of restoring moral foundation of law. Says no one, “unless they were in a coma,” were surprised that Chief Justice placed Ten Commandments in the Judicial Building.

10:03 a.m.: State proceeds with case.

State wants to play two video taped speeches by Chief Justice.

Defense objects to playing of videos. Says both videos were taped from television broadcasts. Says there are television commentary and captions on the tapes that are not part of the Chief Justice’s speech. Says the two speeches in question have already been admitted as evidence in written form.

Thompson overrules objection of Defense. Says this was decided in pre-trial proceedings. Says that the judges will ignore the captions and not consider them.

10:35 a.m.: State rests. Presents no evidence other than the videos.

Defense makes immediate motion for acquittal based on lack of evidence by the State.

Thompson says court will consider motion during recess.

10:40 a.m.: Court recesses until 11:00 a.m.

11:07 a.m.: Court resumes.

Thompson announces that the defense motion for acquittal is unanimously denied by the judges.

Defense proceeds with case.

Calls Chief Justice as witness.

Defense attorney objects to placement of witness. Says that having the witness sit at a table facing the nine judges, with his back to the prosecutors/accusers is a highly unusual setting for a courtroom proceeding.

Thompson says that the table is used because of sound difficulties with the witness stand. Says that sound technicians checked the setup before the trial proceedings began and were unable to use any other configuration.

Defense attorney repeats objection. Says that witness stand is normally used and has no sound problems. Asks for sound technicians to be called back to correct problem.

Thompson states that the sound technicians are no longer present.

Defense attorney repeats objection. Says that the Judicial Building normally employs such technicians who could be called to check the configuration.

Thompson states that the witness stand will not be used but that the table and witness’ microphone may be moved somewhat in order to accommodate the witness.

Defense attorney repeats objection and asks that it be entered on the record. Asks if court really wishes to overrule this objection and have the Chief Justice face the judges with his back to his accusers, similar to an inquisition.

Chief Justice comes to table to testify. He moves the table and chair around so that it diagonally faces the prosecutors.

Defense questions Chief Justice.

12:01 p.m.: Court recesses for lunch until 1:30 p.m.

1:32 p.m.: Court resumes.

1:34 p.m.: Pryor begins cross-examination of Chief Justice.

Asks if Chief Justice will continue to acknowledge God if he is returned to the bench. Chief Justice says he will continue to acknowledge God just as the court did when it opened the trial proceedings with prayer.

From the Attorney General’s own mouth: Bill Pryor questions Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Q: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?

A: That’s right.

Q: No matter what any official says?

A: Absolutely. Without–let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgement of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the constitution of Alabama. It says so in the first amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read. So–

Q: The only point I’m trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn’t that right?

A: Well, I’ll do the same thing this court did with starting a prayer; that’s an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, “So help me God.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opened with, “God save the State and this Honorable Court.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. In my opinion, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source–a moral source of law. I think you must.

Trial

Cartoon from www.visionforum.com . Used with permission.

1:47 p.m.: Cross-examination completed.

Defense has no redirect.

Judge Vowell questions the Chief Justice. Asks Chief Justice whether he would follow the injunction of the federal district court, if he were returned to the bench.

Chief Justice replies that the order was to remove the monument, that the monument has already been removed; thus, he cannot do what has already been done.

Vowell asks what the Chief Justice would do with the monument.

Chief Justice replies that he has not completely thought through the idea of what he would do with the monument but that he certainly would not leave it in a closet hidden from view.

1:50 p.m.: Defense rests.

1:52 p.m.: State (Assistant Attorney General) begins closing arguments.

Says that Chief Justice made a “public statement that he would not follow the law.” Says that the Chief Justice should be found guilty because he has refused “to comply with the law.” Says that, “in order to comply with the law … he [the Chief Justice] had no choice but to obey the order.”

2:06 p.m.: State ends closing arguments.

Defense attorney Butts gives excellent summary in closing argument.

2:37 p.m.: Defense completes closing arguments.

Pryor begins closing argument.

Calls for conviction of Chief Justice and removal from office. Calls the Chief Justice “unrepentant.”

2:44 p.m.: Pryor ends closing argument.

Thompson says that the court will recess and will “attempt to give sufficient notice” of ruling of the court.

2:45 p.m.: Court recesses.

Thursday, November 13, 2003

11:17 a.m.: Judges enter courtroom. Thompson announces he will read a synopsis of the judgement and that the actual judgement will be available to the media immediately after the court adjourns.

Thompson reads the charges.

Thompson reads the judgement.

“All the members of this court” find that the Chief Justice “willfully and publicly disobeyed a federal court order.” “In defying that court order, the Chief Justice placed himself above the law.” The court finds, by unanimous decision, that the Chief Justice violated canons 1, 2, 2a, and 2b. The Chief Justice has “maintained his defiance” and “showed no signs of contrition.” The court orders, by unanimous decision, that the Chief Justice is to be removed from office. This has been a “difficult decision” but there was “no other viable alternative” than to remove the Chief Justice from the bench.

11:23 a.m.: Court adjourns.

Photos: Red Mass

On October 10, 2003, the Red Mass was held at St. Matthew’s Cathedral (Roman Catholic) on Rhode Island Avenue. U.S. Supreme Court justices attended, as well as other government leaders. Ten Commandments supporters were present, both in the service, and on the sidewalks in front of the church. The supporters held signs of the Ten Commandments to remind the Supreme Court justices of the Law of God and to encourage them to hear Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s appeal of his Ten Commandments monument case.

Read the report of this event.

 

 

Ten Commandments monument

Six arrested for the rule of law

On Sunday, October 5, 2003, I walked a block from my hotel in Washington, D.C. to St. Matthew’s Cathedral on Rhode Island Avenue. A 10 a.m. service was scheduled at the church, where the Red Mass would be celebrated–a service held prior to the beginning of a new session of the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court justices normally attend.

Daniel Sparks is arrested.

Daniel Sparks is arrested by federal marshals for holding a Ten Commandments sign.

I was walking with two ladies with whom I had been travelling on the Spirit of Montgomery Save the Commandments caravan from Montgomery, Alabama to Washington, D.C. When we approached the block where St. Matthew’s is located, we crossed the street behind police barricades that had been set up to block vehicle traffic on the street immediately in front of the church. Police officers told us to walk up the sidewalk nearest the church, which we did. There was a police line on the edge of the sidewalk on the far side of the street from the church.

We arrived in front of the church within a few seconds and I greeted a pastor who had been travelling with us. He stated that he was going in the church for the service but that others of our group were down at the far end of the sidewalk, outside of the police line, and that the police would not let them come inside the line if they were carrying signs with the Ten Commandments printed on them.

I spoke with others who were entering the church or passing by on the sidewalk. There were, in my estimation, in excess of a thousand people standing on the steps of the church or on the sidewalk in front of the church, all who were apparently waiting to enter the church for the service. There were also numerous others who were freely walking the sidewalks, whether they were simply passing down the sidewalk, coming to join the throng entering the church, or observing the crowd. Across the street, on the sidewalk opposite the church, were three or four television cameras and crews, as well as a couple of wandering news photographers.

After speaking with various people in front of the church, I crossed the street. There, I approached the police line, from inside the line, and spoke to a man standing outside of the line. He informed me that the police had instructed him not to come inside the line because he was holding a pole with a U.S. flag and a cross on it. There were several law enforcement officers who saw me inside the police line and who saw me speaking with this man outside of the line. These officers were located at various places: on the steps of the church, on the sidewalk in front of the church, on the street in front of the church, on the sidewalk across the street from the church, and standing at the far end of the block next to the police tape. One or more of these officers in each of these areas observed my free movement within the police line. At no point was I asked to leave the area.

After speaking to the man with the flag, I walked a few steps down the sidewalk to where the media personnel were located. I stood a few feet from them, observing the crowd. Two of my fellow Alabama citizens, Matt and Alicia Carden, who had been travelling with the caravan, walked up and stood beside me and we began talking. At that time, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, one of the caravan organizers, walked up and stood immediately beside the television crews. He was holding a sign with the Ten Commandments printed on it. The Cardens and I walked over and stood beside the Rev. Mahoney.

Within a few seconds, federal marshals wearing business attire approached the Rev. Mahoney. The marshals told the Rev. Mahoney that he could not stand there with the sign. The Rev. Mahoney replied that he was going to stand there and that the marshals could arrest him if they had to. The marshals took the Rev. Mahoney by the arms and began leading him toward the far end of the block, where the other people with signs were standing. When the Rev. Mahoney tried to go down on his knees, the marshals dragged him outside of the police line–which had, by that time, been extended across the entire end of the street–and released him.

The Rev. Mahoney immediately turned around, ducked under the police tape, and walked down the same sidewalk toward the area where he had previously been standing. He stopped about twenty feet away from the previous point and stood with the Ten Commandments sign. Mr. Carden then went over to the police line and took a Ten Commandments sign from one of the people there. He then came over and stood beside the Rev. Mahoney. The federal marshals grasped the Rev. Mahoney’s hand and handcuffed him, causing him to drop his sign. They also seized Mr. Carden, causing him to drop his sign near one of the police cars. Mrs. Carden picked up the sign that the Rev. Mahoney had dropped. The marshals seized Mrs. Carden, causing her to drop the sign. The Rev. Mahoney called to Troy Newman, another member of our group, to take pictures of the arrests.

Seeing that the Ten Commandments sign was lying on the street, being trampled by the boots of federal marshals wearing tactical equipment and carrying assault rifles, I reached down and picked up the sign. I held the sign above my head. During this time, the marshals were handcuffing the Cardens. One of the marshals pointed toward me and said three or four times, “We need to get this one.” After the Rev. Mahoney and the Cardens had been handcuffed and lined up against the rear of one of the police cars, one of the marshals approached me. The marshal said, “Sir, put down the sign.” I replied, “No, sir.” He then grasped my left arm and twisted it behind my back, then grasped my right arm, doing the same, which caused me to drop the sign. He then handcuffed me and pushed me against the side of police car, next to the others who had been arrested.

The marshals then had us sit down on the curb, with our feet in the street. Mr. Newman, who was standing approximately ten feet or more away from the officers and us, was approached by one of the officers, who seized him. Another officer took Mr. Newman’s camera and handcuffed him. The marshals had Mr. Newman sit on the curb beside us.

The Rev. Donald Ely, another of our group, came from inside the church, where he had been sitting, waiting for the service to begin. He walked over to us and stood, asking what was going on. The marshals told the Rev. Ely to go outside of the police line. He stated that he wanted to stand there with us. The marshals again told him to go outside of the line, that they did not want to arrest him because he had done nothing wrong. The Rev. Ely affirmed that he had done nothing wrong and insisted that the others of us had done nothing wrong, either. He asked the marshals what we had done wrong. They refused to answer him and, when he refused to walk away, they handcuffed him and had him sit on the curb beside us.

The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police were present but were not involved in the arrests. The marshals had us placed in police cars belonging to the Metro Police. We were eventually taken to the Second District Headquarters station of the Metro Police. We were required to remove our belts, shoelaces, watches, rings, necklaces, and everything from our pockets. The five men were placed in a large holding cell and Mrs. Carden was placed in a small female holding cell. After approximately one hour, a marshal dressed in business attire came to speak to us. He stated that he had been called out of his church service to come process us. He collected our names and other information. A few minutes later, the same marshal came back to verify some additional information. This time, two other marshals who were in uniform accompanied him.

After we furnished the information to the marshals, we continued to wait in the cell. After several hours, the first marshal returned. He told us that we could each pay $300 each and we would be released. We would have to return the next morning for a hearing to set a trial date. Based on previous experience, the Rev. Mahoney and Mr. Newman stated that this was not appropriate. They insisted that the Washington, D.C. “post and forfeit” arrangement should apply in this incident. The marshal left us. He returned a few minutes later and stated that we could each pay $100 as a post and forfeit and we would be free to leave. The Rev. Mahoney insisted that this was not the usual fine. He also requested that he be released on his own recognizance and have his day in court. The marshal again left and returned a few minutes later. This time, the marshal stated that we were being charged with crossing a police line and that we could each pay $25 post and forfeit and we would be released. We agreed to this, with the exception of the Rev. Mahoney. The Rev. Mahoney and Mr. Newman informed the rest of us that the usual post and forfeit amount is $50.

We were each photographed and fingerprinted. The Rev. Mahoney was allowed to speak to someone over the telephone in order to provide the information necessary for his release. The rest of us were then required to pay our $25 fine. Then, each of us was required to give our thumbprints on paperwork. Shortly thereafter, we were each let out of the cell, given our belongings, and released. We walked around the building and entered the front of the police station, where we called for someone to pick us up.

It is important to note that, although we were charged with crossing a police line, some of us did not cross the line. It is also important to note that hundreds of other people were indiscriminately allowed to come inside the police line. Only those who were holding Ten Commandments signs were forbidden to enter. It is again important to note that I was not arrested until I refused to put down the Ten Commandments sign; at no point was I ever told not to enter the police line, nor was I told to go outside of the police line. Regardless of the actual charges by the police, the arrests resulted from the fact that four of us held Ten Commandments signs–and two of us didn’t do anything more than stand on the sidewalk.

It is also important to note that the executive branch of our federal government has the power to enforce laws; in other words, these federal marshals who arrested us are under the direct jurisdiction of the president. On Monday, October 6, I spoke in person about this abuse of power with Mr. H. Goodloe Sutton, Jr., a staff member of U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), and Ms. Jenny Bottegal DiJames, a staff member of U.S. Representative Bud Cramer (D-Alabama). Both seemed concerned about this issue, but gave no indication as to how the congressmen might respond.

The above information is a true and correct representation of the events described.

Sincerely,
The Rev. Daniel J. Sparks