What follows is a synopsis of Newdow v. Roberts, a federal lawsuit (http://www.ffrf.org/legal/warrenComplaint.pdf) filed by physician and lawyer Michael Newdow against the Honorable John Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court et. al., claiming violations of the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America during the January 20, 2009 Inauguration of the President of the United States of America. 

Causes of Action

Newdow v Roberts Count 1: "THE ALTERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO BE PERPETRATED BY DEFENDANT ROBERTS WITH NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER, VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE."

Newdow v Roberts Count 2: "GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED INVOCATIONS TO GOD AND BENEDICTIONS IN THE NAME OF GOD, PROVIDED AT THE INAUGURATION OF THE PRESIDENT BY GOVERNMENT-INVITED CLERGY, VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE"

Newdow v Roberts Count 3: "THE ALTERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE, TO BE PERPETRATED BY DEFENDANT ROBERTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED, CLERGY-LED INVOCATION AND BENEDICTION, TO BE PERPETRATED BY THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS, VIOLATE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE"

Newdow v Roberts Count 4: "THE ALTERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE, TO BE PERPETRATED BY DEFENDANT ROBERTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED, CLERGY-LED INVOCATION AND BENEDICTION, TO BE PERPETRATED BY THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS, VIOLATE RFRA"

*RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Newdow v Roberts Count 5: "THE ALTERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE, TO BE PERPETRATED BY DEFENDANT ROBERTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED, CLERGY-LED INVOCATION AND BENEDICTION, TO BE PERPETRATED BY THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS, VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT"

Newdow v Roberts Count 6: "THE ALTERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE, TO BE PERPETRATED BY DEFENDANT ROBERTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED, CLERGY-LED INVOCATION AND BENEDICTION, TO BE PERPETRATED BY THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS, ARE VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY"

Prayer [sic] for Relief  

"I. To declare that unauthorized addition of “so help me God” to the constitutionally prescribed presidential oath of office by the individual administering that oath to the President violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. (Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA));"

"II. To declare that the government-sponsored use of any clergy (much less an openly Christian clergy) at a presidential inauguration violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. (Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA));"

"III. To enjoin Defendant Roberts, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity, from

altering the constitutionally-prescribed text of the presidential oath of office while administering that oath to the President-elect at the January 20, 2009 inauguration, as well as at any future presidential inauguration;"

"IV. To enjoin the remaining Defendants – and/or similarly situated government officials – from utilizing any clergy to engage in any religious acts at the January 20, 2009 inauguration, as well as at any future presidential inauguration;"

"V. In the alternative, to enjoin these Defendants – and/or similarly situated government officials – from utilizing clergy to engage in overtly Christian religious acts at the January 20, 2009 inauguration, as well as at any future presidential inauguration;"

"VI. To allow Plaintiffs to recover costs, expert witness fees, attorney fees, etc. as may be allowed by law; and"

"VII. To provide such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper."

To join the Reverend Dr. Newdow as a plaintiff in this case as an individual or organization please visit http://1000plaintiffsfornewdowvroberts.blogspot.com/ before February 22, 2009.  Thank you.