News Intelligence Analysis
Has Judge Alito Violated His Oath of Office?
Is There a Legal Tie-in Between Abortion and
Corporate Power in the
By Katherine Yurica.
November 11, 2005
[Yurica Report Editor's Note: This article was updated on November 14, 2005 to include a direct quote from Judge Alito and to clarify the wording of the accompanying paragraph. We encourage our readers to download Judge Alito's essay, "Documents and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. in a large PDF file. 56 pages.]
I. The Case and a Judges Oath of Office Woburn
In 1995 Jonathan Harr published his legal thriller, A Civil Action, which quickly shot up to bestseller status as readers agreed with John Grishams statement on the book: He found it to be the most compelling chronicle of litigation he had ever read. However, this was not a Grisham thriller, the events in the book were real. In 1999, John Travolta played the part of Jan Schlichtmann, the courageous lawyer who took on the Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace companies for allegedly dumping poisonous chemicals into the drinking water of a small
town. If you read the book or saw the movie, the Massachusetts case is almost impossible to forget. A map at the beginning of the book shows where the children who died of leukemia lived, where the companies owned by Beatrice and the W. R. Grace Co. had their plants, and where the towns water wells were located. Woburn
Judge Skinner, the judge who heard the
case, repeatedly favored the corporations and their lawyers. Jan Schlichtmann found himself behind the eight ball over and over throughout the progress of the trial. While it is true that W. R. Grace eventually settled with the plaintiffs, they did so without making a full disclosure and without any expression of atonement, and the settlement was small when one considers the deaths of the children. Woburn
The issue facing the Senate and the American people on whether or not to approve the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito has in fact less to do with Roe v. Wade and a great deal more to do with the fact that according to a New York Times article by Stephen Labaton, Alito favors corporations over injured citizens who file claims against them. Labaton says Alito is known for his favoritism, and large corporate interests will be spending millions of dollars to back him. Perhaps Americans and members of the Senate should re-read A Civil Action, for we really are facing an issue of favoritism for the mighty against individual American citizens. And there are grave consequences for our nation should legal favoritism of corporations increase. The reality is that corporations never die! But citizens do. The question then becomes, how many Americans have to die so that an everlasting corporate entity known in this one instance as the W. R. Grace company, can live? And make no mistake it will live beyond all our life spans.
So with eternal existence granted to them by the states that gave birth to them, and with judges who favor themover humans
s legal system is being tested in ways that mean we as a people must enforce the oath of office of the judges. America
A question that should be raised is this, has the W. R. Grace company changed its tactics since A Civil Action was first published? According to Labatons article the answer is no. Judge Alito sided with W.R. Grace in Grace v. E.P.A., and United States v. Allegheny Ludlam, two companies who were seeking to overturn fines and remedial actions ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency.
II. How Does the Oath Compare to the Biblical Legal Tradition?
The oath of office for a Supreme Court Justice requires a judge to swear or affirm that he will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and...faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon... the office.
It is a fact that this oath of office originated from the Mosaic law in the Bible. In my book, Bloodguilty Churches, I made the following observations in the section titled The Development of the Biblical Justice System :
Just as we saw that the God of the Bible has taken a special interest in public health and safety laws, inspiring the code against pollution, the Bible has a very special interest in justice. The Bible contains the rules of evidence and the code of behavior for judges.
The system of jurisprudence in ancient Israel began as follows:
You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.
You shall not misinterpret or misapply judgment; you shall not be partial, or take a bribe; for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous. (Deuteronomy 16:18-19. Amplified.)
Keep far from a false matter; and [be very careful] not to condemn to death the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify and acquit the wicked. (Exodus 23:7. Amplified)
Today, justices of the Supreme Court take an oath based essentially on the following biblical edict:
You shall do no injustice in judging a case; you shall not be partial to the poor or show a preference for the mighty, but in righteousness and according to the merits of the case judge your neighbors. (Leviticus 19:15. Amplified Version) [Emphasis added.]
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE OF POSITION] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
Note that under this oath a judge cannot be pro big business or anti the small guy. This prohibition is one that Mr. Bush and Republicans in congress brush aside, often scornfully. Although the oath seems weak, a study of a judges decisions ought to reveal whether or not such a bias exists and its presence must disqualify that judge from his office. (This is why Mr. Bush is most apt to nominate candidates without a judicial record because they havent served as judges in the past.) [Emphasis added]
.The prophet Jeremiah returns to the overwhelming theme of biblical justice:
Execute justice and righteousness, and deliver out of the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. (Jeremiah 22:3. Amplified)
The last question to address is this: What happens if justice is perverted? The answer is found in Deuteronomy:
Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to the sojourner or the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. All the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:19. Amplified.)
III. Is A Corporation A Person?
One might be tempted to argue that a corporation is not a person and therefore the scripture as well as the oath of office could not possibly be referring to such an organization and therefore there is no justification for a comparison between an individual and a corporation in a court of law. But that reasoning would be overlooking the fact the laws governing this country have for more than a century identified a corporation as an artificial person. (See for example the U.S. Bankruptcy Act of 1898, which specifically stated that the word persons shall include corporations, partnerships and women 11 U.S.C.A. §1.) And thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, in 1886 the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a natural person.
Therefore both the oath of office and the biblical injunction, must of necessity be interpreted to mean that a judge may not favor the mightythe richer, the stronger, the more powerful corporation over a single human being in court who is opposing that corporate entity or defending against the corporations complaint.
If it can be shown that Judge Alito favors big business over individuals, he has violated his oath of office. Judge Alito must have criteria that he applies to offset the inherent greater respect or advantage that artificial corporate persons may have. He should be asked, if he has criteria that equalize the corporate persons appearing in court before him that equate the might of say a W. R. Grace company with a single housewife or a single child who may be a plaintiff against the corporate person. He should be able to tell the Senate what his rules of equalization are. In other wordsthe public is entitled to know by what criteria Judge Alito equalizes an elephant against a bunny rabbit (especially if the elephant has an apparent advantage such as costly high powered lawyers at its disposal).
- If the bunny rabbit has limited money to prosecute a case, does the judge require equal spending for legal counsel?
- Does the court have the power to equalize the financial burden of the suit? Should the court exercise this power?
- Or should the bunny rabbit always come to the bar with a disadvantage in professional skills?
- If so, why does that not violate the judges oath?
- If the nominee judge does not have criteria, how does he insure to his own satisfaction that he is not prejudiced against a child or prejudiced in favor of the corporate person?
- Is there an objective test that can be applied to any justices' decisions to reveal bias in his or her decision?
Wouldnt it be a fine way of equalizing power in the court room for the judge to say to the Elephant Corporate Person, I have reviewed the budget of the plaintiff, Tommy Bunny and he has exactly $150 to finance his suit; therefore, I am limiting you, Elephant Corporate Person to spending the same amount on your defense? Does that not fulfill his oath?
Of course if Tommy Bunny cant find anyone to represent him in court for his $150, he may have to file in propria persona (in ones own proper cause), but alas, the law prohibits the Elephant from representing himself, so what does the court do to even the table in that situation? Judge Alito should be asked that question and perhaps asked how many times he has appointed counsel for a penurious plaintiff? And if he has, did he take pains to equalize the skills of the professionals by choosing same level to same level? (Its just a thought!) It is after all required by his oath! Of course, if it were a criminal case, and our little defendant could not afford a lawyer, who would the court appoint? What is the judges criterion for appointing a lawyer in order to equalize the might and talent of the U.S. Department of Justice against poor Tommy Bunnys ability to execute his defense?
IV. Why Some Corporations Desire to Be a Real Person.
Why would an organization desire to be a real person? Of course, the answer is this: they want more power. Ive heard talk that corporations are seeking the civil right to freedom of speech. Tobacco companies wanted advertising to be considered freedom of speech so they could go on selling cigarettes to minors and spread cancer as their legacy to
! But many Elephants are coveting a truly great mammoth breakthrough! They want to make themselves immune to prosecution in criminal cases! I mean, doesnt that equalize everything? You see, the way the Justice Department and or plaintiffs manage to prove their cases against corporations, is the prosecutors have the power to subpoena the Elephants business records! Aha, the Elephant acknowledges, But that is to force me to incriminate my own precious sacred everlasting, little self! So the Elephant is lunging about to find a way to obtain all the rights of a real citizen and that would include the famous Fifth Amendments prohibition against incriminating oneself. There you have it. The Elephant does not think it right! Whats the matter with that? The implication is Elephants could never be prosecuted ever again for their wrong doing! It means they want no threat of jail for those who arent close personal friends to the other Elephant in the White House (George W. Bush)! Can you blame them? Theyre just seeking equality (between Elephants). ( For a quick digression: Judge Alito would extend the government's right to seek self-incriminating evidence from everyone--individual citizens as well as corporations. He believes the issue should be legislated by Congress. See his 1986 essay, Documents and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination [at p. 78] to examine how narrowly he interprets the Constitutional language and imagine how radical a change his opinion could make in U.S. law. America
"The individuals who framed, adopted, and ratified the fifth amendment left no clear evidence that they ever considered the application of the privilege to subpoenas for documents. To be sure, the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Consitution-- 'No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself'--is perhaps most naturally read to apply only to oral testimony."
Nevertheless, the powers of the Elephant corporations have been enhanced fifty times over since the famous Fourteenth Amendment was hijacked to mean that Elephant corporations have most of the rights of a citizen of the
and moreover, this gift may not be abridged by any of the states! Dont be surprised if Mr. Bush or Tom DeLay asks congress for a bill that makes every Elephant corporation in U.S. , a America citizen, with of course the right to vote! And dont be surprised if Judge Alito is asked to decide the case that stems from it! (After all, every Elephant corporation already has the right to marry, have kids, and even marry members of the same sexsince every last one of them is a macho male! (Not a female among them except of course in the office get togethers! But that is getting back into Bunny territory.) U.S.
V. Is There Any Connection Between Corporate
Support of the Anti-Abortion Issue and the Corporations
Desire to Become
Well yes! Significantly, Blacks Law Dictionary tells us that an unborn child is not a person. In fact an unborn is called a child en ventre sa mere (in its mothers womb). The law in this country has never regarded an unborn child as a person. (This is of course in keeping with the Mosaic law, which I will discuss in a minute or two.)
So whats the problem? Think about it: If an unborn is not a person, how can the courts and the Elephant corporations ever justify making a real live fat, ugly abstract entitya citizen of the
? Clearly, they cannot. So it is efficacious to scream wildly about the horrible condition of our law in denying personhood to a zygote! But of course, we must never call it a zygote, nothing less will do than snowflake baby! (Mr. Bushs term for a petrie dish cell.) Now lets get down to business! United States of America
The following is a quote from Bloodguilty Churches by yours truly that summarizes the biblical position on miscarriages and abortions. This information is necessary in order to see how ludicrous the churches, corporations and the office of the president are on this topic! First of all, a definition is necessary. The difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, according to Websters Third New International Dictionary is that while both are defined as the expulsion of a human fetus, a miscarriage is the expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable, usually between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation and an abortion is the expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable during the first 12 weeks of gestation. Okay, with that in mind let me quote several pertinent passages from my book:
Civil Torts: There was an obvious problem with the eye for an eye law as it was stated. It did not deal with an injury inflicted by a man upon a woman where the man lacked a corresponding bodily part. For example, if a man was swinging his sword around and cut a womans breast offhe had no comparable part on his body that could be severed to fulfill the eye for an eye law. What to do? It appears the Bible took the first step toward pecuniary compensation. Exodus describes a new case: Two men were fighting and one of them injured a pregnant woman in the scuffle, causing a miscarriage. The law said the defendant was required to pay whatever amount was demanded by the womans husband after assessment by the judges. [Exodus: ] (Do note that the Bible does not equate the loss of the fetus to be a death of a person. For if the fetus had been considered a person, the defendant, who caused the miscarriage, would have been put to death or suffered another punishment if his act was unintentional. More on this below.)
To understand the biblical view of abortions, one must examine miscarriages and how the Bible treated them. In fact, the Bible makes no distinction between a woman who miscarried and a woman who was having her regular menstrual period: she was unclean until all the bleeding stopped in either case. In this respect, an abortion or miscarriage was equal to a womans menstrual period and the fetus was not ever considered a person. There are three passages that demonstrate this point: First a womans monthly menstrual cycle is described: And if a woman has a discharge, her [regular] discharge of blood of her body, she shall be in her impurity or separation for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Leviticus 15: 19.
Secondly, a miscarriage or anything that causes bleeding is dealt with at Leviticus 15: 25: And if a woman has an issue of blood many days not in the time of her separation, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her [regular] impurity, all the days of the issue of her uncleanness she shall be as in the days of her impurity; she shall be unclean. The Bible makes no distinction between the aborted fetus and the discharged blood--both make her unclean.
Thirdly, the woman cannot have intercourse during her regular menstrual period or during the period of bleeding surrounding an abortion. Also you shall not have intercourse with a woman during her [menstrual period or similar] uncleanness. Leviticus 18: 19 (Amplified.)
By reviewing the law regarding punishment, we can see this even more clearly. As I discussed above, the eye for an eye law got into trouble because of the physical differences between men and women. If a woman was injured in a part not shared by a manthe remedy had to be pecuniary. But what would happen if the biblical example in the second paragraph given above was between two pregnant women? What if one pregnant woman injured the other in some way that caused the victim to have a miscarriage? Under those circumstances the eye for an eye law would come back into play. The defendant would have to undergo an abortion in the same way she inflicted the abortion on the injured woman. Significantly, Hosea 9:14 describes abortions as a punishment: Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
The real topping to this issue that reveals the hypocrisy of the churches is the fact they have never believed a miscarried fetus is a sentient human, else they would have held funerals for them.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows; he shall be surely punished, according as the womans husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follows, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Emphasis added.)
The key word here is mischief what does it mean? The obsolete but first meaning according to Websters Third New International Dictionary, is calamity: misfortune as in Shakespeare: to mourn a mischief that is past and gone is the next way to draw new mischief on. The second meaning is this: a specific injury or damage caused by a person or other agency. The 2 b definition reads: harm, evil or damage that results from a particular agency or cause.
What this is saying is that the loss of the fetus was not mischiefnot a serious problem equivalent to the loss of a life. The scripture is saying that if the woman then diesthats mischief followingthen the person who injured herwill be put to death!
So from this we can conclude that the whole hullabaloo about abortion is biblically a phony issue. Who does it serve? Elephant churches who want political power for one! But how about this: Elephant corporations who want to become human like they are trying to make the fetus! In other words, they will claim a Fourteenth Amendment right to personhood and citizenship on the precedent of a thing like a zygote achieving personhood! Get it? You know how their minds work! Theyve been arguing against gay marriages on the grounds that true marriages will be hurt or that the next stage will be man and beast marriages! So with bright bulbs like this directing corporate Elephantsnaturally, it means to them get the zygote citizenship and well be able to claim the right to vote as well as the right to be immune from prosecution! I mean after all, who ever heard of a snowflake baby being put on trial!
Thats all for now folks!
Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the
Code United States
 Bloodguilty Churches: Why Bushs Agenda Is Immoral and an Abomination to God, by Katherine Yurica is available for purchase in paperback from Amazon.com at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970194749/yuricareportc-20/102-8315377-3052967?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
It is also available free of charge at:
 Websters Third New International Dictionary defines the word Mighty in its first meaning as follows: 1 a: Having or wielding great power or authority: strong in material resources or social position: powerful. 2: great or imposing in size, amount, extent, or degree.
 Even slaves were considered persons in so far, as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men (State v. Thackam, 1 Bay, S.C. 358.) An Indian was a person, U.S. v. Crook, 5 Dill. 459, Fed. Cas. No. 14,891.
Send a letter
to the editor
about this article
Battle for the Judiciary Directory
Don't Miss the two documents
The Released Time Cases Revisited: A Study of
Group Decisionmaking by the Supreme Court",
Documents and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination"
A Conservative On Alito
By: Dales · Section: SCOTUS
Nov 2nd, 2005:When trying to discern what
sort of Supreme Court Justice a nominee
might make, I put particular stock in their
writings outside of the realm of court opinions
and legal briefs. A lower court Justice is bound
to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court;
how a particular Justice performs this task may
or may not demonstrate how the Justice would
steer the Supreme Court on a particular matter.
Another Conservative Analyzes Alito:
Scalito and the Founding Fathers:
why he supports original intent and
why this threatens Roe
by Grenfell Hunt
There's no question but the party of the elephants
is feeling very good right now about the future Mr Justice
Alito. After the searing weeks of the Miers affair, the
party is all but fully re-united and proud once again
of their president. Whatever one might think of their
judicial philosophies, there's no question but that
John Roberts and Samuel Alito are two consummately
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2005 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.