Chapter 5 - Judge Ruegemer’s Affidavits: Artful Lawyering or Perjury?
[Working Draft, Nov. 1, 2009]

Judge Ruegemer's Affidavit in State of Colorado v. FFRF

B. Judge Ruegemer's affidavit in Books v. City of Elkhart, Ind. (1998)

   Judge Ruegemer's affidavit submitted in Books v. City of Elkhart is virtually identical to his affidavit in FFRF v. State of Colorado. Essentially, only the name of the city was changed.

C. Judge Ruegemer's affidavit in Card v. City of Everett, Wash. (2003)

   “One of the Youth Guidance Committee's primary purposes was to design a well-defined and simple program that would provide youngsters with a common set of values and a common code of conduct.” At 2. “I viewed the Ten Commandments as a code of conduct that such a troubled youngster could benefit from because it would show him a code of conduct to live by and help build in him a sense of morality and character.” At 2. “In my view, if troubled youths were exposed to one of mankind's earliest and long-lasting codes of conduct, those youths might be less inclined to break the law. It was never my intention that this was to be religious instruction of any kind. Rather, I wanted to show these youngsters that there existed such recognized codes [sic] behavior that could help guide them. And that such a code was simply a pattern to follow in our basic relations with others. To that end, I developeed the idea of posting printed copies of the Ten Commandments in each juvenile courtroom in the State of Minnesota and later in juvenile courtrooms throughout the United States and Canada.” At 2-3.

   “At first, the Eagles were reluctant to fund the program because they were worried that the program might seem sectarian.” At 3. “In order to decide on a version of the Ten Commandments that would be on-sectarian, I formed a committee consisting of fellow judges, lawyers, various city officials and clergy of several faiths from the St. Cloud area. At first, there was some debate about the particular order of the commandments, but in order to avoid any potential conflict we determined that the actual commandments should not be numbered. Once this was agreed upon, the committee developed a version of the Ten Commandments which was not identifiable to any particular religious group, and on this basis the Eagles agreed to support such a youth guidance program. This entire process occurred over a period of years.” At 3.

   “The Ten Commandments are not the only images appearing on the monuments. There is also a picture of an eagle grasping an American flag and an all-seeing eye, like the one on the dollar bill. Myself and other members of the committee, with the help of an artist, designed the fact of the monument. We intended it to set forth a code of conduct, not an endorsement of any or one one particular religion at all.” At 4.

D. The Eagles Poster and "omitted" facts tell a different story

   The astute judge recognized that such a program would require funding. He just so happened to be the chief justice and chairman of a youth guidance committee of a major social and patriotic organization. The judge presented his idea to the organization, seeking their financial support. At first the organization was reluctant to fund the program because they were worried that the program might be seen as favoring one religion over another. To avoid the appearance of favoritism, the wise judge formed a committee consisting of fellow judges, lawyers, various city officials and clergy of several faiths from his town and the nearby area to develop a non-sectarian version of the Ten Commandments. (The problem was that the Ten Commandments of Jews, Catholics/Lutherans and Protestants were numbered and worded differently.) The committee attempted to achieve this by not numbering the commandments and use wording that they thought was not identifiable to any particular religious group. It was on this basis the nonprofit organization agreed to support such a youth guidance program. The planning for the Ten Commandments project occurred over a period of years.

   Since the critical time period of the "fable" is the 1940's and 1950's, I think that it is important to reflect back upon that time period in both American and world history. The "fable" started in 1943 -- during the middle of the Second World War. Few religious cases of significance had been brought before the Supreme Court. Of some importance is the fact that 1943 is four years before the First Amendment's guarantee against establishment of religion was "incorporated" against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). However, given that the Free Exercise Clause was incorporated in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), it is likely that Judge Ruegemer was very aware of a potential Establishment Clause problem of the Eagles donating decalogs to cities and states. More particularly, the Ten Commandments Program (i.e., the donating of the decalogs cities and states) didn't start to the mid-1950's, almost eight years after Everson and Judge Ruegemer had established a local committee to rewrite the Ten Commandments to be "non-sectarian," that is, to the satisfactions of Jews, Catholics and Protestants. (More about this scheme later.)

   Also of great significance was the fear of atheism due to the emergence of U.S.S.R. after World War II and the Cold War. Under pressure from the Knights of Columbus and President Eisenhower, "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance (1954) and In God We Trust became the motto of the United States (1956). This period was also marked by "McCarthyism" and the chills of the cold war.

E. Judge Ruegemer's Explanation: Perjury or Artful Lawyering?

   It is with great reluctance that I raise the issue of whether Judge Ruegemer committed perjury in submitting his affidavits in FFRF v. State of Colorado, Books v. City of Elkhart and Card v. City of Everett, but I must because Judge Ruegemer's role was central to the Eagle's Ten Commandments Program and the evidence is overwhelming that he had a religious purpose in flooding courthouses, public parks and schools with Ten Commandments posters and monuments.

The Evidence Strongly Suggests that Judge Ruegemer Lied to the Courts

   The evidence appears to be overwhelming — based on his statements on back of the Eagles poster, other statements of his, the Eagles comic book On Eagles Wings and common sense — is that Judge Ruegemer lied, was grossly deceptive or fudged the truth in both his affidavit in FFRF v. State of Colorado and his declaration in Card v. City of Everett.

   It is simply unfathomable that Judge Ruegemer could truthfully view his exhaustive efforts to distribute Ten Commandment posters or plaques to schools and courthouses and over 150 monoliths to cities and states as not intending to promote religion. Promoting a sacred text of the Christian religions is, in my opinion, by definition promoting religion. It sure isn’t promoting polytheism or nontheism. I further believe that judges who have ruled that cities and states had a secular purpose of accepting and displaying the posters and monoliths violated their judicial oaths to "support and defend the Constitution" [6] failed to do so and should either resign or be impeached.

____________

END NOTES:

4. Hoffman, Sue A., The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, last updated March 6, 2005, available on the Internet at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm.
5. Boston, Rob, Commandments Controversies: A Battle of Biblical Proportions, Church & State (Americans United) July/August 2001, available on the Internet at