Download | Duration: 00:07:44

  Renegade Michigan Courts demand abandonment of religion and modesty as a prerequisite to civil due process.

This seven minute segment of David Alan Carmichael's Faith & Freedom radio show on the Eagle 104.3 FM discusses issues relating to whether or not the law does or ought to require a woman to unveil herself in order for the judge to determine whether she is telling the truth.  The article, "Veil Justice" is included here below:  A cleaner version of the radio show segment is at
www.faithfreedoms.org/audio/podcasts/wifl26aug2009carmichael4.mp3

Veil Justice

David Alan Carmichael, August 27, 2009

A Muslim woman in Michigan recently had her Small Claims Court  case dismissed when she would not expose herself to the satisfaction of a Judge.  Her religion prohibits her from exposing her beauty to any man other than her husband.  Therefore, she refused to remove her facial veil upon the male judge’s demand.  The judge said he needed to see her face to determine if  she was telling the truth.  She told the judge that she could only unveil for a woman judge.  The judge said there was no woman judge available and he dismissed her claim because she refused to remove her veil.  Is the judge’s demand reasonable, or just?

In reaction to the controversy, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a rule that allows for, "reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses" to "ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person."  

The Michigan Supreme Court did not issue guidance for judges to determine which facial expressions validate testimony.  There is no standard to train or qualify a judge to accurately assess facial expressions.  There is no rule about recording facial expressions to enable an appeals court  to objectively review demeanor.  Is not the witness’ testimony of their identity and of the facts of the case prefaced by an oath in open court?  Is it the practice of the court to presume the witness’ testimony and identity are false until proven otherwise?  Appeals courts presume testimonies given under oath to be true, even though it comes to them in written form. 

Constitutionally, the Court has been given judicial power to render judgments according to the law, not according to the judge’s perception.  The common and civil laws provide for oaths and affirmations, or acknowledgements under the penalty of perjury to authenticate testimony.  Biblically, the revealed law says “Before two or more witnesses, let every word be established.”  Neither the common law, the positive law, nor the revealed law provide for the qualification of testimony to be established by facial expressions.  Once the oath is given, by someone who believes in after-life judgment and retribution, scrutiny of the testator’s conscience is outside the jurisdiction of the Court.  Unless the opposing party submits a claim of perjury against the testator, along with prima facie evidence, the testator’s truthfulness is to be presumed. 

The qualification of the testimony by oaths, affirmations, or acknowlegments under the penalty of perjury, enable the Court to take every piece of evidence and testimony at face value.  The judge’s fallable perceptions are then less likely to influence the court to make arbitrary decisions.

Men, being evil, do not have the capacity to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart.  An oath appealing to Almighty God as judge relieves the court of that burden.  If the veiled woman appears and testifies under oath, conditioning due process on the abandonment of religion and modesty is not reasonable because it is not just.