- 8 -
required to appear before the Court. Nevertheless, the attorney
was not present at the hearing.
On this record, we find that Rules 24 and 200 did not place
a substantial burden on petitioners’ exercise of religion. Those
Rules did not put substantial pressure on petitioners to modify
their behavior and to violate their beliefs. At most,
petitioners claim only that they may have been inconvenienced in
their search for an attorney who shares their religious beliefs.5
Rules 24 and 200 did not at any time interfere with petitioners’
observance of their religion. Moreover, none of petitioners’
constitutional rights have been violated. Petitioners
represented themselves pro sese before the Court. They had the
benefit of the advice of their religious adviser, and they had
ample opportunity to have their case heard. See Cupp v.
Commissioner, supra; Ruggere v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 979, 989
(1982).
Rules 24 and 200 do not violate RFRA’s substantial burden
test. Nevertheless, even if we were to determine that Rules 24
and 200 did substantially burden petitioners’ free exercise of
5 Petitioners are members of both the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints and the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal
Sovereignty. Petitioners have presented no evidence suggesting
that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
a large and prominent religious denomination, are not represented
in the bar of this Court. Petitioners have introduced into
evidence the Testament of Sovereignty with respect to beliefs of
the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, but have
failed to show how Rules 24 and 200 interfere with their exercise
of religion as described therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011