Hello everyone, To get into the subject , just a reminder of an important Supreme Court Case which concerned the ...famous "JIMMY WAGGART "! Please keep in mind that the final Court decision was given on January 17, 1990 i.e. more than 13 years ago! The link for the complete file is : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/493/378.html Here below just some parts of it: U.S. Supreme Court SWAGGART MINISTRIES v. CAL. BD. OF EQUALIZATION, 493 U.S. 378 (1990) 493 U.S. 378 JIMMY SWAGGART MINISTRIES v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. 88-1374.
Argued October 31, 1989
Decided January 17, 1990 California law requires retailers to pay a 6% sales tax on in-state sales of tangible personal property and to collect from state residents a 6% use tax on such property purchased outside the State. During the tax period in question, appellant religious organization, which is incorporated in Louisiana, sold a variety of religious materials at "evangelistic crusades" within California and made mail-order sales of other such materials to California residents. Appellee State Board of Equalization (Board) audited appellant and advised it that it should register as a seller as required by state law and report and pay sales and use taxes on the aforementioned sales. Appellant paid the taxes and the Board ruled against it on its petitions for redetermination and refund, rejecting its contention that the tax on religious materials violated the First Amendment. The state trial court entered judgment for the Board in appellant's refund suit, the State Court of Appeal affirmed, and the State Supreme Court denied discretionary review. Held: 1. California's imposition of sales and use tax liability on appellant's sales of religious materials does not contravene the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Pp. 384-397. (a) The collection and payment of the tax imposes no constitutionally significant burden on appellant's religious practices or beliefs under the Free Exercise Clause, which accordingly does not require the State to grant appellant a tax exemption. Appellant misreads Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , and Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 , which, although holding flat license taxes on commercial sales unconstitutional with regard to the evangelical distribution of religious materials, nevertheless specifically stated that religious activity may constitutionally be subjected to a generally applicable income or property tax akin to the California tax at issue. Those cases apply only where a flat license tax operates as a prior restraint on the free exercise of religious belief. As such, they do not invalidate California's generally applicable sales and use tax, which is not a flat tax, represents only a small fraction of any sale, and applies neutrally to all relevant sales regardless of the nature of the seller or purchaser, so that there is no danger that [493 U.S. 378, 379] appellant's religious activity is being singled out for special and burdensome treatment. Moreover, the concern in Murdock and Follett that flat license taxes operate as a precondition to the exercise of evangelistic activity is not present here, because the statutory registration requirement and the tax itself do not act as prior restraints - no fee is charged for registering, the tax is due regardless of preregistration, and the tax is not imposed as a precondition of disseminating the message. End of quote Quote : (b) Application of the California tax to appellant's sale of religious materials does not violate the Establishment Clause by fostering an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. The evidence of administrative entanglement is thin, since the Court of Appeal expressly found that, in light of appellant's sophisticated accounting staff and computerized accounting methods, the record did not support its assertion that the collection and payment of the tax impose severe accounting burdens on it. Moreover, although collection and payment will require some contact between appellant and the State, generally applicable administrative and recordkeeping burdens may be imposed on religious organizations without running afoul of the Clause. See, e. g., Hernandez, supra, at 696-697. The fact that appellant must bear the cost of collecting and remitting the tax - even if the financial burden may vary from religion to religion - does not enmesh the government in religious affairs, since the statutory scheme requires neither the involvement of state employees in, nor on-site continuing inspection of, appellant's day-to-day operations. Most significantly, the imposition of the tax without an exemption for appellant does not require the State to inquire into the religious content of the items sold or the religious motivation for selling or purchasing them, since they are subject to the tax regardless of content or motive. Pp. 392-397. [493 U.S. 378, 380] 2. The merits of appellant's Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claim are not properly before, and will not be reached by, this Court, since both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the claim was procedurally barred because it was not presented to the Board as required by state law. See, e. g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 -1042. Appellant has failed to substantiate any claim that the California courts in general apply the procedural bar rule and a pertinent exception in an irregular, arbitrary, or inconsistent manner. Pp. 397-399. 204 Cal. App. 3d 1269, 250 Cal. Rptr. 891, affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Michael W. McConnell argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Charles R. Ajalat, Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., and Jesse H. Choper. Richard E. Nielsen, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy Attorney General. * end of quote .- Now please take note of the various ' Briefs of amici curiae' : Quote: [ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Association for Public Justice by Bradley P. Jacob; for the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability et al. by Samuel E. Ericsson, Michael J. Woodruff, and Forest D. Montgomery; for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc., by David M. Liberman, Robert C. Moest, and Barry A. Fisher; for the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S. A. by Douglas Laycock; and for the National Taxpayers Union by Gale A. Norton. Steven R. Shapiro filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Benna Ruth Solomon and Charles Rothfeld; and for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., by James M. McCabe and Donald T. Ridley. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit a State from imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the distribution of religious materials by a religious organization. [493 U.S. 378, 381] I California's Sales and Use Tax Law requires retailers to pay a sales tax "[f]or the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail." Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6051 (West 1987). A "sale" includes any transfer of title or possession of tangible personal property for consideration. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6006(a) (West Supp. 1989). End of Quote Quote : This outreach is to be performed "by all available means, both at home and in foreign lands," and "shall specifically include evangelistic crusades; missionary endeavors; radio broadcasting (as owner, broadcaster, and placement agency); television broadcasting (both as owner and broadcaster); and audio production and reproduction of music; audio production and reproduction [493 U.S. 378, 382] of preaching; audio production and reproduction of teaching; writing, printing and publishing; and, any and all other individual or mass media methods that presently exist or may be devised in the future to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ." Id., at 107-108. end of quote ......... Quote: In 1980, appellee Board of Equalization of the State of California (Board) informed appellant that religious materials were not exempt from the sales tax and requested appellant to register as a seller to facilitate reporting and payment of the tax. See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6066-6074 (West 1987 and Supp. 1989) (tax registration requirements). Appellant responded that it was exempt from such taxes under the First Amendment. In 1981, the Board audited appellant and advised appellant that it should register as a seller and report and pay sales tax on all sales made at its [493 U.S. 378, 383] California crusades. The Board also opined that appellant had a sufficient nexus with the State of California to require appellant to collect and report use tax on its mail-order sales to California purchasers. Based on the Board's review of appellant's records, the parties stipulated "that [appellant] sold for use in California tangible personal property for the period April 1, 1974, through December 31, 1981, measured by payment to [appellant] of $1,702,942.00 for mail order sales from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and $240,560.00 for crusade merchandise sales in California." App. 58. These figures represented the sales and use in California of merchandise with specific religious content - Bibles, Bible study manuals, printed sermons and collections of sermons, audiocassette tapes of sermons, religious books and pamphlets, and religious music in the form of songbooks, tapes, and records. See App. to Juris. Statement B-1 to B-3. Based on the sales figures for appellant's religious materials, the Board notified appellant that it owed sales and use taxes of $118,294.54, plus interest of $36,021.11, and a penalty of $11,829.45, for a total amount due of $166,145.10. App. 8. Appellant did not contest the Board's assessment of tax liability for the sale and use of certain nonreligious merchandise, including such items as "T-shirts with JSM logo, mugs, bowls, plates, replicas of crown of thorns, ark of the covenant, Roman coin, candlesticks, Bible stand, pen and pencil sets, prints of religious scenes, bud vase, and communion cups." Id., at 59-60. Appellant filed a petition for redetermination with the Board, reiterating its view that the tax on religious materials violated the First Amendment. Following a hearing and an appeal to the Board, the Board deleted the penalty but otherwise redetermined the matter without adjustment in the amount of $118,294.54 in taxes owing, plus $65,043.55 in interest. Pursuant to state procedural law, appellant paid the amount and filed a petition for redetermination and refund with the Board. See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6902 [493 U.S. 378, 384] (West 1987). The Board denied appellant's petition, and appellant brought suit in state court, seeking a refund of the tax paid. end of quote.- Quote: The Court of Appeal, however, specifically rejected appellant's claim that the nexus issue raised "important questions of public policy," noting that the issue instead "raise[d] factual questions, the determination of which is not a matter of `public policy' but a matter of evidence." Id., at 1292, 250 Cal. Rptr, at 907. Even if the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of state law in declining to rule on appellant's nexus claim, appellant has failed to substantiate any claim that the California courts in general apply this exception in an irregular, arbitrary, or inconsistent manner. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant's Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause argument is not properly before us. We thus express no opinion on the merits of the claim. The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is affirmed. It is so ordered. [493 U.S. 378, 400] °°° End of Quote To clarify the matter and for a clear understanding of the case, we have to grasp theimplications concerning the meaning of the term : " Amicus Curiae ". Here below, there is the definition of ' Amicus Curiae ' (singular form ) or ' Amici Curiae '( plural form) taken from the " TECH LAW JOURNAL " with link : http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amicus.htm
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. 88-1374.
Argued October 31, 1989
Decided January 17, 1990 California law requires retailers to pay a 6% sales tax on in-state sales of tangible personal property and to collect from state residents a 6% use tax on such property purchased outside the State. During the tax period in question, appellant religious organization, which is incorporated in Louisiana, sold a variety of religious materials at "evangelistic crusades" within California and made mail-order sales of other such materials to California residents. Appellee State Board of Equalization (Board) audited appellant and advised it that it should register as a seller as required by state law and report and pay sales and use taxes on the aforementioned sales. Appellant paid the taxes and the Board ruled against it on its petitions for redetermination and refund, rejecting its contention that the tax on religious materials violated the First Amendment. The state trial court entered judgment for the Board in appellant's refund suit, the State Court of Appeal affirmed, and the State Supreme Court denied discretionary review. Held: 1. California's imposition of sales and use tax liability on appellant's sales of religious materials does not contravene the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Pp. 384-397. (a) The collection and payment of the tax imposes no constitutionally significant burden on appellant's religious practices or beliefs under the Free Exercise Clause, which accordingly does not require the State to grant appellant a tax exemption. Appellant misreads Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , and Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 , which, although holding flat license taxes on commercial sales unconstitutional with regard to the evangelical distribution of religious materials, nevertheless specifically stated that religious activity may constitutionally be subjected to a generally applicable income or property tax akin to the California tax at issue. Those cases apply only where a flat license tax operates as a prior restraint on the free exercise of religious belief. As such, they do not invalidate California's generally applicable sales and use tax, which is not a flat tax, represents only a small fraction of any sale, and applies neutrally to all relevant sales regardless of the nature of the seller or purchaser, so that there is no danger that [493 U.S. 378, 379] appellant's religious activity is being singled out for special and burdensome treatment. Moreover, the concern in Murdock and Follett that flat license taxes operate as a precondition to the exercise of evangelistic activity is not present here, because the statutory registration requirement and the tax itself do not act as prior restraints - no fee is charged for registering, the tax is due regardless of preregistration, and the tax is not imposed as a precondition of disseminating the message. End of quote Quote : (b) Application of the California tax to appellant's sale of religious materials does not violate the Establishment Clause by fostering an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. The evidence of administrative entanglement is thin, since the Court of Appeal expressly found that, in light of appellant's sophisticated accounting staff and computerized accounting methods, the record did not support its assertion that the collection and payment of the tax impose severe accounting burdens on it. Moreover, although collection and payment will require some contact between appellant and the State, generally applicable administrative and recordkeeping burdens may be imposed on religious organizations without running afoul of the Clause. See, e. g., Hernandez, supra, at 696-697. The fact that appellant must bear the cost of collecting and remitting the tax - even if the financial burden may vary from religion to religion - does not enmesh the government in religious affairs, since the statutory scheme requires neither the involvement of state employees in, nor on-site continuing inspection of, appellant's day-to-day operations. Most significantly, the imposition of the tax without an exemption for appellant does not require the State to inquire into the religious content of the items sold or the religious motivation for selling or purchasing them, since they are subject to the tax regardless of content or motive. Pp. 392-397. [493 U.S. 378, 380] 2. The merits of appellant's Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claim are not properly before, and will not be reached by, this Court, since both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the claim was procedurally barred because it was not presented to the Board as required by state law. See, e. g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 -1042. Appellant has failed to substantiate any claim that the California courts in general apply the procedural bar rule and a pertinent exception in an irregular, arbitrary, or inconsistent manner. Pp. 397-399. 204 Cal. App. 3d 1269, 250 Cal. Rptr. 891, affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Michael W. McConnell argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Charles R. Ajalat, Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., and Jesse H. Choper. Richard E. Nielsen, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy Attorney General. * end of quote .- Now please take note of the various ' Briefs of amici curiae' : Quote: [ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Association for Public Justice by Bradley P. Jacob; for the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability et al. by Samuel E. Ericsson, Michael J. Woodruff, and Forest D. Montgomery; for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc., by David M. Liberman, Robert C. Moest, and Barry A. Fisher; for the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S. A. by Douglas Laycock; and for the National Taxpayers Union by Gale A. Norton. Steven R. Shapiro filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Benna Ruth Solomon and Charles Rothfeld; and for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., by James M. McCabe and Donald T. Ridley. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit a State from imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the distribution of religious materials by a religious organization. [493 U.S. 378, 381] I California's Sales and Use Tax Law requires retailers to pay a sales tax "[f]or the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail." Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6051 (West 1987). A "sale" includes any transfer of title or possession of tangible personal property for consideration. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6006(a) (West Supp. 1989). End of Quote Quote : This outreach is to be performed "by all available means, both at home and in foreign lands," and "shall specifically include evangelistic crusades; missionary endeavors; radio broadcasting (as owner, broadcaster, and placement agency); television broadcasting (both as owner and broadcaster); and audio production and reproduction of music; audio production and reproduction [493 U.S. 378, 382] of preaching; audio production and reproduction of teaching; writing, printing and publishing; and, any and all other individual or mass media methods that presently exist or may be devised in the future to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ." Id., at 107-108. end of quote ......... Quote: In 1980, appellee Board of Equalization of the State of California (Board) informed appellant that religious materials were not exempt from the sales tax and requested appellant to register as a seller to facilitate reporting and payment of the tax. See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6066-6074 (West 1987 and Supp. 1989) (tax registration requirements). Appellant responded that it was exempt from such taxes under the First Amendment. In 1981, the Board audited appellant and advised appellant that it should register as a seller and report and pay sales tax on all sales made at its [493 U.S. 378, 383] California crusades. The Board also opined that appellant had a sufficient nexus with the State of California to require appellant to collect and report use tax on its mail-order sales to California purchasers. Based on the Board's review of appellant's records, the parties stipulated "that [appellant] sold for use in California tangible personal property for the period April 1, 1974, through December 31, 1981, measured by payment to [appellant] of $1,702,942.00 for mail order sales from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and $240,560.00 for crusade merchandise sales in California." App. 58. These figures represented the sales and use in California of merchandise with specific religious content - Bibles, Bible study manuals, printed sermons and collections of sermons, audiocassette tapes of sermons, religious books and pamphlets, and religious music in the form of songbooks, tapes, and records. See App. to Juris. Statement B-1 to B-3. Based on the sales figures for appellant's religious materials, the Board notified appellant that it owed sales and use taxes of $118,294.54, plus interest of $36,021.11, and a penalty of $11,829.45, for a total amount due of $166,145.10. App. 8. Appellant did not contest the Board's assessment of tax liability for the sale and use of certain nonreligious merchandise, including such items as "T-shirts with JSM logo, mugs, bowls, plates, replicas of crown of thorns, ark of the covenant, Roman coin, candlesticks, Bible stand, pen and pencil sets, prints of religious scenes, bud vase, and communion cups." Id., at 59-60. Appellant filed a petition for redetermination with the Board, reiterating its view that the tax on religious materials violated the First Amendment. Following a hearing and an appeal to the Board, the Board deleted the penalty but otherwise redetermined the matter without adjustment in the amount of $118,294.54 in taxes owing, plus $65,043.55 in interest. Pursuant to state procedural law, appellant paid the amount and filed a petition for redetermination and refund with the Board. See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. 6902 [493 U.S. 378, 384] (West 1987). The Board denied appellant's petition, and appellant brought suit in state court, seeking a refund of the tax paid. end of quote.- Quote: The Court of Appeal, however, specifically rejected appellant's claim that the nexus issue raised "important questions of public policy," noting that the issue instead "raise[d] factual questions, the determination of which is not a matter of `public policy' but a matter of evidence." Id., at 1292, 250 Cal. Rptr, at 907. Even if the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of state law in declining to rule on appellant's nexus claim, appellant has failed to substantiate any claim that the California courts in general apply this exception in an irregular, arbitrary, or inconsistent manner. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant's Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause argument is not properly before us. We thus express no opinion on the merits of the claim. The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is affirmed. It is so ordered. [493 U.S. 378, 400] °°° End of Quote To clarify the matter and for a clear understanding of the case, we have to grasp theimplications concerning the meaning of the term : " Amicus Curiae ". Here below, there is the definition of ' Amicus Curiae ' (singular form ) or ' Amici Curiae '( plural form) taken from the " TECH LAW JOURNAL " with link : http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amicus.htm
*** Amicus Curiae Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case. "... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89. Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court's decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case. Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to "lobby" the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members. "An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored." Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S. "FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons." Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Many of us know the reason behind the many " Briefs of amici curiae" As a matter of fact, that specific case dealt with: "... the question whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit a State from imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the distribution of religious materials by a religious organization" .- Of course, the " Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., by James M. McCabe and Donald T. Ridley. was very, very interested in the outcome. Infact due to the judgement in that case, the " Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc." the offering of literature changed from this way : *** km 1/90 p. 1 Be Alert to Offer Bible Literature ***FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE3 During January and February we will be offering a variety of 192-page books on a contribution of 50¢ each. The books to be offered include any 192-page book published prior to 1980 except Family Life, Great Teacher, This Life, Truth, and Youth. Congregations that do not have these books in stock may offer the Worldwide Security book for a contribution of $1.00. to this ‘new’ way : : *** km 5/90 p. 7 Use Our Literature Wisely ***THE COMPLETE-DONATION ARRANGEMENT2 At the end of February 1990, it was explained that magazines and literature will be provided to publishers and to the interested public on a complete donation basis, that is, without asking or suggesting that a specific contribution be made as a precondition to receiving an item. When literature is offered, voluntary donations will be accepted to support the worldwide work of publishing the good news. We have faith that Jehovah will bless this arrangement.—Compare Matthew 6:33.
known also as : ‘« Simplified Literature Distribution Arrangement “ Starting within the U.S.A. and gradually extending , in the same year - 1990 - to most of the European countries. How surprising then to find out that in the year 2002, in the case dealt finally by the Supreme Court of the United States , Watchtower Bible etc. v. Statton, Ohio et Al. (cfr . http://www.freedomforum.org/fac/2001-02/watchtower_sum.htm )Case Name: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 00-1737 Argument Date: Feb. 26, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Also ( http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1737.htm). A motion for leave to file " Brief Amicus Curiae " and " Brief of Amicus Curiae" was presented by the following organizations: ***Electronic Privacy Information Center, ( Mikal J. Condon))***American Civil Liberties Union, Foundation , (Steven Shapiro )***American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio (Raymond Vasvari)and 14 Legal Scholars "in support of the Watchtower Bible Etc. , Petitioners; But it is not finished, because now the situation is reversed, and a : "Brief of Amicus Curiae" is is presented by the " Independent Baptist Churches of America in support ofPetitioners" !Btw, Exhibit (A) @ , presented to the Supreme Court , lists 28 Baptist Temple/Church/Mission starting with the "Baptist Temple of Franklin (Pennsylvania) andending with the "West Coast Baptist Church, Vista California. Sorry if it is getting long , but the fireworks...are literally coming, in the form of moreorganizations filing for "Brief Amicus Curiae "…they are the following: ***Real Campaignreform. Org, Inc; ***Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; ***Lincoln Institute for Research and Education; ***Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation; ***Gun Owners of America, Inc. ***Education Fund in Support of Petitioners.- Please notice also that under a footnote (2), of the Subheading " Interest of Amici Curiae"it is stated that: (2) "Amici requested and received the written consent of the parties to thefiling of this brief amicus curiae. " Be patient a little longer, because another organization stepped in. Infact a " Motion of the Church Of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints for Leaveto File Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners and Brief Amicus Curiae." What is also interesting is that ' The Church Of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints,is filing the motion " because Respondents ..." i.e. the Village of Statton, Ohio " ...withheld their consent. * The Footnote (*) reads : " ...Petitioners' letter of consent is on file with the Clerkof the Cout." Yes you have guessed by now ...the "Petitioners " are the Watchtower Bible and TractSociety of New York, Inc. and Wellsville , Ohio, Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,Inc. Naturally all these very, very interesting details are hidden to the vast majority of theJW's. For all those interested to see all the informations, here is the list: 1) Syllabus of the Case http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html 2) Opinion (Stevens) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZO.html 3) Concurrence (Breyer) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZC.html 4) Concurrence (Scalia) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZC1.html 5) Dissent (Rehnquist) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZD.html For all the " Briefs Amicus Curiae " filed in this case with the Supreme Court, in supportof the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. here is the list: 1) Independent Baptist Churches of America http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 2) Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.jehovah.to/legal/briefs/Epicbrief.pdf 3) Center for Individual Freedom http://www.jehovah.to/legal/briefs/CIFbrief.pdf 4) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 5) Real CampaignReform.Org. Inc., et Al http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 6)Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 7) Lincoln Institute for Research and Education; http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 8)Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation; http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 9)Gun Owners of America, Inc. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html 10) Education Fund in Support of Petitioners.- http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html For the complete list of " Briefs " see also : http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html From the above link - a very interesting one - you'll also find a great quote: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
A very powerful reminder for all of us ...not forgetting the " Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."! In conclusion the WTBS Inc. did : ***support/share the ideals of the Nazis (1930’s) ; ***support the case of Jimmy Swaggart (1990) ; ***support the ideals of the United Nations (from 1991) ; ***now (2002 –2003 ) Babylon the Great and Co. aresupporting the WTBS Inc. !!! That's the end for now. I do hope that the reading wasn't too heavy. Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas " (Ammonio, Vita d ' Aristotele)
(i just couldn't resist)
And this letter was read to all congregations:
Notice how the Society says that they want to "distinguish" themselves from Babylon the Great? The previous paragraphs leading up to that statement make you believe that "simplification" is key and that Jehovah is behind these "richly blessed...efforts to simplify." Of course, only a thinly-veiled effort is made to explain the reason for this new simplification. Here again, the Society uses code-language by saying, "many have noted that secular authorities..." We all know how they love to use those types of terms. "Some Christians have felt that it would be acceptable to their conscience..." Who are these "some?" Who are these "many?" Why not just come out and explain the true reason for the change? They must be afraid of the R&F researching which "Supreme Court decisions" required this change and then finding out they became a "friend of the court" for Swaggart.