16/07/2025
Dear Clerk:
I write to formally contest your office’s vague and legally unsupported response dated July 03, 2025 which stated that the Court is “unable to assist” in the matter I presented. I must also place on the record a phone conversation I had with Clerk of your office on July 14, 2025, in which I informed her that I intended to file a writ of certiorari. She informed me that I would be required to pay the Supreme Court filing fee.
I explained that payment of this fee violates my sincerely held religious beliefs and that I was seeking a religious accommodation under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. I told her that all of my legal indebtedness has been divinely canceled, and I cannot, in obedience to my faith, enter into any form of legal debt transaction to access justice in a court of law.
As it is written:
“Having canceled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” — Colossians 2:14 (ESV)
The act of paying a filing fee, in this spiritual context, would constitute an affirmation of legal debt, which I sincerely believe was abolished by God through Christ. Forcing me to pay this fee or be denied access to the Court creates a substantial burden on my religious exercise, squarely triggering RFRA’s protections.
Legal and Constitutional Violations
Your office’s refusal to docket or process my filing without citing legal authority violates the following:
• RFRA (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1): Your refusal to accommodate my religiously based objection to the fee and to the formatting of my petition imposes a substantial burden on my religious exercise. The Supreme Court held in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014), that when a governmental policy forces someone to choose between their religion and receiving a public benefit, it triggers strict scrutiny. The benefit here is access to the judicial process a fundamental right.
• First Amendment – Free Exercise Clause & Petition Clause: Denying my filing or access to the Court based on my religious practice or viewpoint violates both religious freedom and the right to petition for redress of grievances (Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
• Equal Protection Clause: The government must not treat religious expression less favorably than secular exceptions (Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000). If the Court grants in forma pauperis status to secular indigent parties, it must also accommodate religious-based objections to fees.
• Due Process & Vagueness Doctrine: Your refusal to cite a rule or authority for rejection violates City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), and Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), by denying me notice and opportunity to respond to a meaningful standard.
• Supreme Court Rule 1.1: Rule 1.1 states that rules must not “impair the substantive rights of any party.” Enforcing procedural format or filing fees in a way that violates faith-based rights directly contravenes this rule.
• In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989): Clerks have no discretionary authority to reject filings absent a clear and unambiguous procedural rule. None has been cited.
Clerk’s Legal Duty to Accommodate Under RFRA
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act imposes a non-discretionary duty on government officials including court clerks to:
1. Avoid substantially burdening religious exercise unless they can prove:
o A compelling governmental interest, and
o That the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
2. Engage in individualized assessment to consider whether a reasonable accommodation is possible.
“The Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” — 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)
Your office has failed to provide either a legal rationale or a factual explanation for its refusal to accommodate my sincerely held beliefs regarding formatting and payment.
This letter serves as:
• A final demand for religious accommodation under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb;
• A formal objection to your office’s unconstitutional refusal to docket my submission;
• Judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201 of ongoing violations of law;
• A formal notice of spoliation: You are hereby directed to preserve all internal communications, call logs, emails, memos, and instructions related to this matter. Destruction of any such evidence will trigger sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) and adverse inference instructions;
• Pre-filing notice of imminent legal action, including:
a) Judicial misconduct complaint (28 U.S.C. § 351);
b) Petition for writ of mandamus (28 U.S.C. § 1361);
c) Civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. DOCUMENTED VIOLATIONS
A. July 14, 2025 – Phone Call with Lisa Nesbitt
During a recorded call (transcript available upon request), I spoke with Ms. Lisa Nesbitt regarding my intent to file a writ of certiorari. She insisted I pay the $300 filing fee despite my explanation that:
• Payment violates my sincerely held religious beliefs under Colossians 2:14 (“Having canceled the record of debt…”);
• RFRA requires a religious accommodation (Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015));
• The Court routinely grants in forma pauperis status;
• Cotton v. Todd, 1998 WL 380507 (10th Cir.), affirms courts must accommodate religious objections to fees.
B. Unlawful Rejection of My Petition
Your office previously rejected my filing without citing:
• A rule (In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989);
• Any authority consistent with Supreme Court Rule 1.1;
• Any RFRA defense (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014));
• The First Amendment right to petition (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
This rejection imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, with no compelling justification.
Federal courts have long recognized the obligation to waive or adjust fees as a form of religious accommodation. (See Cotton v. Todd, No. 97-3158, 1998 WL 380507 (10th Cir. July 8, 1998). While not Supreme Court precedent, it reflects federal courts’ willingness to accommodate economic barriers to religious practice.
II. LEGAL AUTHORITY COMPELLING ACCOMMODATION
A. RFRA Requirements
Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b):
• Government must avoid burdening religious exercise unless:
o It furthers a compelling interest;
o It uses the least restrictive means;
• Requires individualized review (Fulton v. Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021);
• Applies to judicial officers (Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
B. Constitutional Violations
• Free Exercise – Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)
• Petition Clause – Borough of Duryea, 564 U.S. 379 (2011)
• Equal Protection – Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S. 449 (2017)
• Due Process – Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)
• Ninth Amendment – Rights of conscience and obedience to God are unenumerated but retained
Willful deprivation of rights under color of law violates 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal statute. This notice removes any claim to qualified immunity by Clerk personnel.
C. Ninth Amendment – Protection of Unenumerated Rights
The Ninth Amendment states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
My religious conviction that I cannot submit to legal indebtedness or government currency systems to access divine justice is not specifically enumerated, but it is precisely the kind of natural, moral, and spiritual liberty the Ninth Amendment was ratified to protect.
The government cannot dismiss or override a fundamental religious obligation simply because it is not spelled out in statute. My refusal to pay a filing fee based on my duty to obey God over Caesar is a protected liberty interest under the Ninth Amendment. This right rooted in conscience, scripture, and divine obedience cannot be abridged by court policy or procedure.
The Supreme Court has long held that liberty includes freedom of personal conscience and moral autonomy, even in matters where no specific clause governs. (See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
III. PREEMPTIVE REBUTTALS
A. “Administrative Burden” – REJECTED
• Cost-based arguments are invalid under RFRA (Hobby Lobby);
• Fee waivers are routine.
B. “Formatting Violation” – REJECTED
• My formatting is religious speech under Rosenberger v. Rector, 515 U.S. 819 (1995);
• Rule 1.1 prohibits impairing substantive rights.
My formatting is not decorative it is religious speech and expression, and thus substantive, not procedural. As the Supreme Court held in Rosenberger v. Rector, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), the government may not suppress religious content or religious formats under the guise of neutrality.
Even where the Clerk has limited discretion, that authority must be applied in a manner consistent with constitutional and statutory rights. Procedural discretion cannot override RFRA, the First Amendment, or Supreme Court Rule 1.1 (Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
The Clerk's adherence to 'standard procedure' is no justification for their actions, as it is evident that these procedures are fundamentally flawed and demand immediate reevaluation.
C. “Clerk Discretion” – REJECTED
• Clerks have no discretion to reject faith-based filings (In re McDonald);
• Under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), clerks must perform ministerial duties where rights are at stake.
Furthermore, all Supreme Court personnel, including the Clerk’s Office, swear an oath under 5 U.S.C. § 3331 to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Refusing to process a religious accommodation or access-to-court request is a direct dereliction of this duty and exposes your office to administrative, civil, and oversight consequences.
RFRA applies to all branches of government, including judicial and administrative officers. In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the Supreme Court confirmed RFRA’s applicability to judicial proceedings. Thus, your office cannot exempt itself from RFRA’s requirements.
Under Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991), individual federal officers including those in the Clerk’s Office may be held personally liable for constitutional and statutory violations committed under color of law.
IV. RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS
A. Scriptural Mandates
• Mark 12:17: “Render to Caesar… and to God the things that are God’s.”
• Colossians 3:17: “Do all in the name of the Lord…”
• Colossians 2:14: “He canceled the record of debt…”
• Acts 5:29, Exodus 23:6, Luke 11:46, Isaiah 10:1
B. Sincerity & Seeger Factors
• My belief passes the U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) test:
a) Consistency over time;
b) Theological basis;
c) No less restrictive means exist (Holt v. Hobbs);
V. FINAL DEMANDS – RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS
You must provide:
1. Signed religious accommodation waiving all filing fees;
2. Written certification that:
o No rule prohibits my formatting;
o RFRA, the First, and Ninth Amendments apply;
o The Clerk accepts liability under Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. (2020);
3. Signed oath compliance statement, certifying:
o Adherence to 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (oath of office);
o Compliance with Canon 3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
o Understanding of personal liability under Tanvir;
4. Docket number and certificate of service.
If your office declines to comply, I demand a signed certification from the Clerk affirming that:
• The rejection is constitutionally authorized;
• RFRA and the First Amendment do not apply;
• No reasonable religious accommodation is possible;
• The Clerk accepts full accountability under Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. (2020) for all consequences resulting from this denial.
VI. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
1. Judicial Misconduct Complaint – 28 U.S.C. § 351
2. Mandamus Petition – Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, In re Bluewater
3. Emergency Injunction – 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Ex parte Young)
4. Civil Rights Lawsuit – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
o Tanzin v. Tanvir: Individual clerks may be personally liable for RFRA violations, including damages, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief.
5. FOIA Request Will Be Filed Simultaneously for:
o All internal communications regarding this matter;
o Fee waiver approval and denial statistics;
o Clerk training materials on RFRA compliance.
VII. CONCLUSION
“The right to petition is one of the most precious liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002)
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement to pay money to petition the government or access justice. The First Amendment guarantees unconditional access to redress, not a toll booth for liberty.
The Court’s demand that I pay money created by the government (Caesar) in order to access justice while knowing I assert a spiritual commandment not to participate in such transactions is a direct burden on my religious exercise.
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” — Mark 12:17
What belongs to God is my obedience, conscience, and religious expression including how I present my petitions and how I honor His command to reject indebtedness (Colossians 2:14). The government is Caesar, but my formatting, faith, and refusal to pay a filing fee are not Caesar’s to command. They belong to God.
To force me to pay Caesar for the right to speak before the highest court in the land is a violation of both Scripture and the Constitution. My access to justice cannot be bought, and it cannot be conditioned on disobedience to my Lord.
“He canceled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” — Colossians 2:14
“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees…” — Isaiah 10:1
This is not a symbolic stand. It is a lawful, spiritual, and constitutional assertion of rights that must not be denied. The Court cannot lawfully or morally reject this.
Ninth Amendment Protection
The Constitution does not exhaustively list all human rights. Under the Ninth Amendment, I retain spiritual and moral rights not specifically enumerated including the right to practice my faith without submitting to Caesar’s financial system. The government may not deny justice simply because a person exercises a right rooted in divine authority rather than statutory law. My refusal to enter into legal indebtedness, and my formatting of this petition, are both protected by the rights retained by the people, even if not spelled out in Article I or the Bill of Rights.
the 9th Amendment Says:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This means that not all rights are listed, and the government cannot infringe on rights just because they're not written down explicitly in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment protects natural, moral, spiritual, and God-given rights like religious conscience, obedience to scripture, and faith-based abstention from government financial systems (like debt or fiat currency).
How It Applies To My Case:
my refusal to pay the Supreme Court filing fee isn’t just a financial objection. It’s a moral, spiritual, and scripturally grounded act and that kind of personal liberty is exactly what the 9th Amendment was designed to protect.
Even if no specific constitutional clause says I may refuse to pay a filing fee based on a spiritual duty to reject Caesar’s currency, the 9th Amendment protects that right. The government cannot require a citizen to violate an unwritten but fundamental spiritual conviction simply because it isn't listed in the First or Fifth Amendment.
By copy of this letter, I place all recipients on notice of my intent to preserve all legal and equitable remedies and request full compliance within ten (10) business days.
Respectfully,
