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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLA~ HAR - L1 P 2: 5 q
NICHOLASS.GELFUSO
Plaintiff

! : :; :: I STiZ ICT C0 UK T
Dl::, I !\i CT fJ F RH00 ~ IS l Ali Q

v.

C.A. No.:

PAUL SUTTELL
JOSEPH BAXTER
Defendants

CA15-

086~

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 of Rhode 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

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2

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!PDFIAboutTheSupremeCourt. 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 Chief 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 Et
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
Chief 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

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4

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. And 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

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5

contended should be heard in the common law courts such as his own.
24. As Chief Justice, 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 himself 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 De jure to deliver justice to all his Subjects; And for this, that he himself

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6

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 of his 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; And that the Law was the
Golden metwand and measure to try 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,
Quod 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 ofEngland by 13th Century
jurist 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

Case 1:15-cv-00086-S-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/04/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7

34. King James had promoted this idea as a religious justification for his actions and authority,
and Coke was similarly using Bracton's quotation as a religious justification for his actions and
authority in a time and place in which church and state were closely interwoven, and the spirit of
the quotation represents the arbitrary exercise of authority and abuse of power under the guise of
religion.
35. The spirit of the quotation is contrary to the founding principles of the State of Rhode Island,
and the display of the religious inscription as well as the publication constitutes the endorsement
of a religious viewpoint with which the Plaintiff disagrees.

COUNT I (42 U.S.C. 1983, First Amendment)

36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as if restated in full.
37. By installing, maintaining, and displaying the Inscription as well as the Publication,
defendants have deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Plaintiff has been harmed thereby.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the plaintiff the
following relief:
A. A declaratory judgment declaring that the maintenance and display of the Inscription and
Publication by the defendants has deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S. C. 1983.
B. A preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from displaying the Inscription and
distributing the Publication.
C. A permanent injunction directing the defendants to remove the Inscription and cease
distribution of the Publication.

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

D. Costs and expenses as authorized by law.

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

~
Nicholas S. Gelfuso #7913
131 Clay St
Central Falls, RI 02863
401-481-9313
gelfusolaw@gmail.com