After reading this article, please join us in sending this email to the Minister of Justice of Latvia to request him to investigate this rogue agent, support the Religious Liberty Rights of Latvians and follow the Latvian Constitution. Thank you, KrisAnne~
Please copy and paste and send the following email to these people:
Minister of Justice Janis Bordans,
I am writing to request that you investigate into the practices and actions of Prosecutor General, Juris Stukāns. By evidence of his own report, his actions against New Generation Church is based in extreme bias, prejudice, and violation of the Latvian Constitution. Prosecutor General Stukāns’ actions are violating the rights of the people of New Generation Church, specifically sections 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101 by requesting fines and sanctions against the people of New Generation Church without any proof of violation and denying the people of New General Church “equal protection before the law.”
Although I am not in Latvia, I am concerned about the questionable motives of Prosecutor General Stukāns and I hope that you, as Minister of Justice, will consider the rights of the people of Latvia and the future of Latvian Constitution and stop this unlawful persecution of the people of New Generation Church, by this rogue agent of government.
Thank you for your time.Latvian Prosecutor General Persecutes Christian Church Contrary to Latvian ConstitutionBy KrisAnne Hall, JDJanuary 6, 2022
The Latvian Constitution makes guarantees of certain human rights, to include the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” The Latvian Constitution even codifies, in section 99, that separation of church and state is a fundamental right. All of that is true in Latvia, unless a certain prosecutor general happens to disagree with your Christian beliefs, then your rights as a Latvian become subject to arbitrary and discriminatory attacks and threats of fines and permanent shutdowns. This is the current experience of New Generation Church, its pastor Alexei Ledyaev and several thousand members nationwide.
On November 10, 2021 Latvian Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, filed a petition against New Generation Church, its pastor and members for refusing to comply with mandates that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and for criticizing government. Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s disregard for fundamental human rights is rivaled only by his disregard for facts.
The Latvian people have written their Constitution to consent to a limited government authority which is established to protect and defend the fundamental human rights of every Latvian. Among those fundamental human rights are freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
The Latvian Constitution, section 93 establishes that the government of Latvia must protect “everyone’s” right to life. Section 96 puts the Latvian government on notice that “everyone” has an “inviolable” right to their private life, home, and correspondence. This right would have to extend to verbal as well as written correspondences, otherwise the right itself would be nullified. This understanding of the extensive nature of the inviolable right to all correspondence agrees with section 100 of Chapter VII of the Latvian Constitution: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep, and distribute information and to express his or her views.” All should recognize that people ought to speak well of their governments, when they deserve to be spoken well of: but to remain silent in the presence of an abuse of power is only the right and joy of tyrants. A free people will know they are free by their freeness of speech. Section 100 of the Latvian Constitution specifically says, “Censorship is prohibited.” Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns inclusion of accusations against the church for “criticizing government” serves as proof of the lawless violate nature of the Petition.
Contrary to the claims of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition, it is not New Generation Church that is violating the law; it is Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns who is violating the law of the Latvian Constitution, violating his duty to the people, and operating in direct and explicit violation of the rights of the People of New Generation Church.
The Latvian people have also declared that all Latvians “shall be equal before the law” and have the “right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court” being “presumed innocent” until proven guilty. Sections 94 and 95 state:
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one may be deprived of or have their liberty restricted, otherwise than in accordance with law. The State shall protect human honour and dignity.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns implies that the exercise of one’s religious beliefs are not an essential service to life. However, all of history and humanity contrasts with this assertion. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead gave a truly relevant and powerful explanation of the fundamental nature of religious liberty and the essential right to practice that religion.
Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs. This enables them to live in harmony. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society… This freedom is not confined to freedom to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one's beliefs. Without this, freedom of religion would be emasculated.
James Madison, author of the American Constitution and advocate for the defense of the Natural Rights of the people, stated this in his essay on the inherent rights of all humanity:
Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
When we understand the principles both Lord Nicholls and James Madison describe, we must conclude that one’s religious beliefs and their practice are vital elements of “Human Dignity” and “Life,” making Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s declarations a violation of Latvian Constitution, written specifically to protect such fundamental rights. Although Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns may argue that the Latvian Constitution establishes that certain rights “may be subject to restrictions,” a baseless and arbitrary order to cease and desist the entire operation of the churches of thousands of people is not a restriction, it is an obliteration.
If the Latvian Constitution declares in section 101 that “every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the work of the State and local government…” which the current government has deemed essential, how can Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns legitimately assert that the exercise of religion, as codified in section 100, is less of a right by declaring freedom of worship non-essential?
Additionally, the facts at hand completely contradict Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accusations. Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accuses New Generation Church of violating the indoor occupancy rules for the COVID-19 orders. The fact is, New Generation Church has gone above and beyond the demands of government for indoor occupancy and has taken extra measures to ensure the cleanliness and safe environment of the church.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns however offers no proof, whatsoever, that New Generation Church is a threat to the community.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns offers no proof that any one person within New Generation Church has become ill or been the cause of further infection in the community because his or her attendance in the church.
As a matter of fact, because certain government facilities and shopping places remain open, it would be impossible to assert that the church was any more of a threat to the health and safety of the community than a government facility or a store. These accusations give the impression that the prosecutor has an axe to grind.
- Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is not providing New Generation Church with “equal protection before the law” as required in section 92 of the Latvian Constitution.
- Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is interfering with the New Generation members’ free exercise of the right to “liberty and security of their person” by denying them their right to due process and equal protection under the law contrary to sections 93 and 94 of the Latvian Constitution.
- Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is violating, not protecting, the “human honour and dignity” as required of him in section 95 of the Latvian Constitution.
- Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is attempting to censor the pastors and members of New Generation Church in direct conflict with section 96 of the Latvian Constitution.
- Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is assaulting the fundamental inviolable rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of the pastors and members of New Generation Church as given to them by God and codified in the Latvian Constitution.
Let it be understood; Constitutions do not grant rights to the people. Constitutions are a covenant by the people that create government for the sole purpose of protecting, defending, and securing the people’s inherent rights. Governments are instituted among the people deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Constitutions are the written declarations of that consent. Listen to this relevant analysis from the Supreme Court of the United States:
The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of its legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Therefore, the act of any single agent of the government contrary to the Constitution is also unjust, unlawful, and void of legitimate authority.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is contrary to multiple provisions of the Constitution of Latvia, therefore this Petition, by all legal, social, and moral justifications, is without legitimate authority. Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is a violation of the rights of the people and the purpose of the power of the Latvian government. To say otherwise is to declare Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns an autonomous agent who is not bound by the supreme law of the land.
If the government and its agents are not limited and defined by the Constitution and the rights of the people are not protected by the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, then one must ask, what is the limit to government power and what is the actual purpose of that declaration within the Latvian Constitution?
When one studies the years of political and social crisis that led to the drafting the Constitution of Latvia and to the adoption of the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, Latvians should resist setting aside these vital protections for any reason. The words of the Supreme Court of the United ought to carry the same power and impact in Latvia as they do in the United States:
The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
The Petition of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is an arbitrary attack of the rights of every Latvian. The question every Latvian will have to ask is: Will the government be confined to the limits of its power as defined in these foundational documents or will the government be allowed to attempt to “emasculate” the church through unjust and discriminatory laws? Latvians must demand equal application of the laws. If it is safe to meet in the store, if it is safe to meet in a government gathering, it must be equally safe, if not safer, to meet in the church.
Now the People of Latvia must make a choice. Do you stand for the inherent and inalienable Rights given to you by God, or do you submit to draconian and violative demands made upon you by government officials that look more like dictators than servants of the people? Do you wish to remain free, or trade away the freedom given to you by those who sacrificed to give it to you? If the Latvian government will not condemn and withdraw the Petition put forward by Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, the people of Latvia must collectively make a public condemnation, to the saving and securing of their own rights. If Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns can be allowed to violate the Latvian Constitution and the most sacred rights of humanity with impunity, then no Latvian is secure in their rights.
Finally, but not least, the people of the world must make a choice. Do we allow our brothers and sisters in other countries have their natural and inviolable rights trampled upon by their government with our silent permission? Make no mistake, silence is consent. If the history of the world does not condemn us for our past silence in the face of government oppression it must embolden us to speak up today.
Learn more about the History of the US Constitution and its proper application at LibertyFirstSociety.com
 Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others  UKHL 15.
 James Madison, Property. National Gazette, March 29, 1792.
 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
 Home Bldg. L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).