Gelfuso v Suttell Complaint

8/9/2019 Gelfuso v Suttell Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gelfuso-v-suttell-complaint 1/8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE S L ~

H R

-

L

P

:

5q

NICHOLASS GELFUSO

Plaintiff

v.

PAUL SUTTELL

JOSEPH BAXTER

Defendants

:; :: I S

T

ICT C0

UK

T

Dl::

I

\iC fJ

F RH00

S l Ali Q

C.A. No.:

CA15 8 6 ~

COMPLAINT

1.

PlaintiffNICHOLAS GELFUSO is a citizen of the United States and the State of Rhode

Island an an attorney practicing in the Rhode Island Courts.

2. Defendant Paul Suttell is a citizen of Rhode Island and is being sued for actions taken in his

role as Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

3. Defendant Joseph Baxter is a citizen ofRhode Island and is being sued for actions taken in his

role as an administrator of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (civil

rights), the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.

C.

§§ 2201 and 2202.

5.

Venue is proper in the District of Rhode Island pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1391(b).

THE

INSCRIPTION

6.

Inscribed above the bench of the Rhode Island Supreme Court are the words Non Sub

Homine Sed Sub Deo

Et

Lege ( the inscription or the quotation ).

7.

On

information and belief, this is a phrase which translates as Not under man, but under God

and law.

8.

Plaintiff considers this inscription as conveying a government endorsement

of

religion and a

1

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1



particular religious viewpoint with which Plaintiff does not agree.

9 On

information and belief, these words were inscribed during the construction

of

the

Providence County Courthouse between 1928 and 1933.

10.

On

information and belief, the inscription is conspicuously placed such that it can

be

viewed

by anyone present in the courtroom.

11.

On

information and belief defendant Paul Suttell is the author of a publication entitled

"About the Supreme Court" which can be found in print and

on

the Rhode Island Supreme Court

web site at www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt PDF AboutTheSupremeCourt.pdf ("the

publication").

12. The publication begins with an introductory letter from which states:

"Dear fellow citizen,

Founded by Roger Williams in 1636 as a haven

of

religious freedom, Rhode Island has a rich

history and lasting tradition

of

equal justice for all. Williams was one of the earliest advocates

for complete separation of church and state, a doctrine that provided the foundation of our

American system

of

government today. Long before he sailed to the Colonies, Williams as a

young man came to the attention

of

Lord Edward Coke, a brilliant lawyer and

hief

Justice

of

England. Lord Coke took an interest in Williams' education, steering him toward distinguished

schools that included Cambridge University. Today, high above the Rhode Island Supreme Court

bench are inscribed Lord Coke's words to the King of

England,

Non Sub Homine Sed Sub Deo t

Lege

or ''Not under man but under God and law." The story behind this quotation can be found

in these pages. Its spirit is tightly woven into the fabric

of

Rhode Island justice. Only through

law and its fair application are we a free,

just

and secure people.

Yours sincerely,

Paul

A

Suttell

hief

Justice

of

Rhode Island"

13. Purporting to describe the history

of

the quotation, the publication further states:

"This plJrase was spoken in an exchange between Lord Edward Coke, Chief Justice

of

the

English Court

of

Common Pleas, and King James I

of

England in the early 17th century. Lord

Coke had angered the king by issuing writs

of

prohibition against the Ecclesiastical Church

2




Courts such as the Court

of

Star Chamber and the Court

of

High Commission. The king ordered

all

of

the judges in England to appear before him to discuss the writs. The judges felt that the

writs were necessary to prevent the Church from deciding civil

or

secular cases. The king in

exasperation asked the group in Latin,

Do

you contend the king is subject to the law? This

notion was so radical at that time that all the judges simply fell to their knees. Lord Coke,

however, raised his head and answered, ' 'Non sub homine sed sub deo

et

lege, indicating that

the king was subject to God and to the law. As we would say today, no man, not even a

judge or

king, is above the law. Lord Coke, incidentally, was a patron and mentor for American

theologian and dissident Roger Williams, founder

of

Rhode Island, and assisted with his

education. American patriots John Adams and Patrick Henry argued from Coke treatises to

support their revolutionary positions against England

in

the 1770. (Page 10)

14.

On

information and belief, the publication's portrayal

of

the circumstances surrounding the

quotation provides a pretext for the continued display

of

the religious inscription, as more fully

set forth below.

THE SPIRIT

OF THE

QUOTATION

15. Though the publication portrays Lord Coke as a defender

of

freedom and equality defying a

tyrannical king, Coke had actually been a persecutor

of

religious and political dissidents

in

England who had supported the ecclesiastical court

of

the High Commission and its counterpart

the Star Chamber.

16. While Coke had mentored Roger Williams as a youth, Roger Williams later denounced

Coke's views regarding religious persecution, the separation

of

church and state, and the Church

of

England, which eventually led to his own religious persecution and the founding

of

Rhode

Island.

17. Coke was known to employ manipulative and deceitful litigation tactics against perceived

dissidents as he famously demonstrated

in

the prosecutions

of

Sir Walter Raleigh and Guy

Fawkes during which he used confessions extracted

by

torture as well as inflammatory religious

rhetoric to secure convictions.

3




18

Coke was also lmown in England for an incident in which he arranged to marry his teenage

daughter to an older relative

of

a male favorite

of

the King in exchange for political support

after Coke had been removed from the bench.

19

When Coke's wife and daughter opposed the marriage and attempted to flee, Coke tracked

them down and used his influence to obtain a warrant and forcibly remove his daughter from the

house.

20. After Coke's wife sought and obtained a ruling against him, Coke wrote to the Duke

of

Buckingham for assistance, explaining:

After my wife, Sir Edmund Withipole and the lady his wife and their confederates, to prevent

this match between Sir John Villiers and my daughter Frances, had conveyed away my dearest

daughter out

of

my house .I by God's wonderful providence finding where she was, together

with my sons and ordinary attendants, did break open two doors and recovered my daughter,

which I did for these causes: First and principally, lest his Majesty should think I was of

confederacy with

my

wife in conveying her away,

or

charge me with want

of

government in my

household in suffering her to be carried away after I had engaged myself to his Majesty for the

furtherance

of

this match. (2) For that I demanded my child

of

Sir Edmund and his wife

and they denied to deliver to me.

nd

yet for this, warrant is given to sue me in his Majesty's

name in the Star Chamber with all expedition, which though I fear not well to defend, yet it will

be a great vexation.

But

I have full cause to bring all the confederates into Star Chamber,

for conveying away my child out

of

my house.

21. Thus, Coke claimed that God helped him fmd his underage daughter so that he could force

her into an unwanted marriage for his own political gain - a plan which had been thwarted by

men until the King intervened in the legal dispute, and which strongly suggests that Coke's

quotation did not mean that he simply sought equality under the law.

22. The details

of

Lord Coke's exchange with King James during which the quotation was made

are recorded by several sources including Coke himself in Prohibitions del Roy

23. After Coke became Chief Justice

of

the Court

of

Common Pleas, he began to issue writs

of

prohibition to the ecclesiastical courts to prevent them from deciding matters which he

4




contended should be heard in the common law courts such as his own.

24. As ChiefJustice, Coke continued to maintain the right of ecclesiastical courts to engage in

persecution of strictly religious matters, but also had asserted that if there there was a question

regarding whether a particular case belonged

in an

ecclesiastical court the question should be

decided by his common law courts, thereby unilaterally increasing the powers of his own court.

25. Thus, according to Coke's account found in

Prohibitions del Roy

the discussion with King

James began with a question

of

who should decide what matters the Ecclesiastical Judges had

jurisdiction over and expanded into a discussion about King James' general ability to take

matters out

of

courts and decide

them himself-

similar to what Coke was doing with his writs of

prohibition.

26. During the discussion King James maintained that he could remove cases from the courts and

decide them himself since the judges were merely his delegates and that it was his duty to protect

the law and his subjects from them since the common law judges tended to twist the law to suit

their purposes and prejudices.

27.

Prohibitions

records that Coke told the King that it would be be contrary to the laws and

customs of England for the king to decide cases h imself and

he

would essentially be violating the

due process rights of his subjects who would have no appeal or legal recourse against the king

since the king was immune from suit.

28. Coke's arguments were an example

of

what James had been concerned about, since according

to his

Reports

Coke had

just

decided

in

another case that judges were immune from suit even for

corrupt acts precisely because they were only to make an account to God and King, and that

the

King himself is e jure to deliver justice to all his Subjects;

And

for this, that he himself

5




cannot do it to all persons, he delegates his power to his Judges[.]

29.

Prohibitions

indicates that after Coke's explanation, the following exchange occurred:

Then the King said, that he thought the Law was founded upon reason, and that he and others

had reason, as well as the Judges: To which it was answered by me, that true it was, that God had

endowed his Majesty with excellent Science, and great endowments

of

nature; but his Majesty

was not learned in the Lawes

of

his Realm

of

England, and causes which concern the life, or

inheritance, or goods,

or

fortunes ofhis Subjects; they are not to

be

decided by naturall reason

but by the artificiall reason and judgment

of

Law, which Law is an act which requires long study

and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance

of

it;

nd

that the Law was the

Golden metwand and measure to t y the Causes of the Subjects; and which protected his Majesty

in safety and peace: With which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be

under the Law, which was Treason to affirm, as he said; To which I said, that Bracton saith,

uod Rex

non debet esse sub homine,

sed

sub Deo

et

Lege.

30. While Coke's version ends there, it is elsewhere recorded that James fell into that high

indignation as the like was never knowne in

him

and threatened to strike Coke, whereupon

Coke proceeded to fall flat

on

all fower and beg the King's pardon which was reluctantly

granted after Robert Cecil also knelt and pleaded

on

his

behalf

31. Coke's reported speech was in actuality a thinly veiled series

of

insults directed at the King's

background, religious beliefs, and scholarly abilities culminating in a religious quotation.

32. This quotation came from the treatise On the Laws

and

Customs

of

England by

3th

Century

juris t Henry Bracton and can be found in a section entitled the King Has

No

Equal in which

Bracton explains that the King should not be under man, but instead only under God and law

based

on

religious principles.

33. Coke's quotation was also another example

of

Coke twisting the law to reach a desired result,

as Bracton's passage also noted that no one could presume to question the king's acts nor

contravene them and that it specifically referred to established laws, when the very issue under

discussion was Coke's questioning and direct contravention

of

the king's acts in an area where

the law was unclear.

6






D. Costs and expenses as authorized by law.

E. Such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

8

icholas

S

Gelfuso 7913

131

Clay St

Central Falls, RI 02863

401-481-9313

[email protected]


Documents

Gelfuso v Suttell Complaint