EZEKIEL
and YHWH’s
Judgment
for the
Good News
PEOPLE
VOLUME XXVI
Law and Justice
EZEKIEL and YHWH’s
Judgment for the
Good News People
Volume XXVI--Law and Justice
by
an unworthy servant
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
(John 8:32)
Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.AgeEnd.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.
Contents
Volume XXVI--Law and Justice
CHAPTER PAGE
- Cover Page 1
- Title Page 2
- Contents 3
- Publisher’s Preface 5
Part ZZZ--Christian Injustice
393 A Story from Yisrael 6
394 Christian Justice System 14
395 More Christian Injustice 19
396 Lawyers 24
397 Lack of Honor and Integrity in Justice 37
Part AAAA--Government Corruption
398 The Unjust Justice Department 47
399 The Justice-Media Link 50
400 More Government Corruption 55
401 Federal Law Enforcement 63
Part BBBB--Christians Disobey Christian Laws
402 Christians and Their Own Laws I 68
403 Christians and Their Own Laws II 79
404 Christians and Their Own Laws III 92
405 Christians and Their Own Laws IV 98
406 Christians and Their Own Laws V 110
407 The Modern Philosophy of Law 123
Part CCCC--Christian Hypocrites
408 A Christian World of Hypocrisy I 133
409 A Christian World of Hypocrisy II 145
410 A Christian World of Hypocrisy III 156
411 Gross Ignorance 161
SHEERIT YISRAEL
PO Box 473
Calder, Idaho 83808, USA
Publisher’s Preface
Greetings! The following presentation is volume twenty-six of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.AgeEnd.com web site.
This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.
Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!
The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).
For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.
With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!
an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE
Chapter 393--A Story from Yisrael
A Revisit to a Story From the House of Yisrael
For an excellent illustration on the incredible confusion and rebellion in the generic classification and analysis of Israelites and the police state that they have now allowed to develop (as described in prior chapters), one of the most profound and serious mitzwah in the Scriptures says that one must never afflict a widow woman and/or orphan children (Ex 22:22; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 24:17-19; 26:12-13; 27:19; Jas 1:27).
Truly, it is a very evil and wicked person who would dare hurt a widow woman and fatherless kids (Job 24:21).
Also, the US Constitution outlines some laws which are relevant (as will be described in some detail in later chapters herein on the decision of Christians to ignore their own laws, as well as those of The ELOHIM)--like laws that say people are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; that people are not to be denied life, liberty and property without due process of law; that private property shall not be taken without just compensation; that persons in a suit at common law shall have a right to jury trial (with the jury trying all facts and the law); that an accused is entitled to a quick/speedy jury trial (before his peers); and that excessive bail shall not be required.
So there was a couple named McGuckin with six kids, living in Garfield Bay, North Idaho (cited earlier). Per a Jun 18, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 3) story on “Federal Child Swiping a Profitable Endeavor” by Tony Blizzard, the tragedy of this family was cited.
Michael, the 61 years old husband, was in poor health with multiple sclerosis. He lost his sawmill business and faced troubled times. Thereupon, he could not pay the excessive 1998 taxes of $8,700 on the family’s 40-acre farm and house (which just happened to be located in Bonner County, near Beaver Lake, and worth up to $500,000). Accordingly, the county seized the property for the taxes on May 25, 1999.
However, there was a provision in the law which allowed people like the McGuckins to pay the back taxes within three years and nullify the tax sale (evidently, by May 25, 2001). In August 2000, the county sold the property for $50,000 to a fat cat in New Jersey with alleged local connections. Obviously, in May 2001, there was pressure on to allow the chosen, privileged and connected buyer to take possession.
The Man Died
On May 12, 2001, the ill Michael McGuckin died of multiple sclerosis--leaving behind his 46 year-old widow JoAnn (who, herself, has a heart condition) and six children, ages eight to 16. With Mike gone, JoAnn was faced with no money and a pile of debts.
The family had been self reliant and actually home schooled their kids (which, of course, made them enemies of the state). Thus, the widow was reluctant to go to the county for financial help (though she finally did so, in order to get her husband buried). She and/or her husband earlier had contacted the county about the taxes due and offered to deed part of the land to the county in payment of the taxes.
But the supposedly “loving, compassionate” county officials said “no” to this offer. Being indigent and being opposed to taking welfare, the widow finally struggled to fill out the forms to have the man buried by the county. Two weeks after the death of her husband, the funeral was set and Michael was buried.
The Entrance of Conspiracy?
In the meantime, the county prosecutor and child protection people entered into evidence of a prima facie conspiracy (possibly with other county officials, the NJ buyer and/or a local land developer/speculator, who was buying up much of the nearby land) to throw the widow in jail--so that her property could be more easily stolen.
After all, it would have been a difficult process for this cabal of alleged conspirators to steal the property from a widow and six orphans and evict them two weeks after the husband/father died. But with her in jail and past the three years deadline, the alleged conspirators could easily and quickly take possession and make a killing in profits.
So these concerned county officials ordered the local Sheriff to arrest the woman on the day of the funeral. The pretext for this arrest was that she was criminally negligent in taking care of her kids. Apparently, an older girl had had a squabble with her parents and left home to enter the Navy earlier.
Reportedly, this teen-age girl made some accusations against her father and mother when she left home (to the tune that the mother did not keep a clean house and that she did not properly attend to her kids. Conversely, the mother was to later claim that she did the best she could with a dying husband, no money and many problems).
Big Brother Moves In
Consequently, the prosecutor and child protection people used these old allegations to support their prima facie conspiracy to place Mrs McGuckin in jail and her kids in a foster home. This would allow the NJ people to take possession of the property with no further delay. For sure, if the Sheriff tried to evict her and her orphaned kids two weeks after the death of her husband, it would have been a nasty process.
In the meantime, the Sheriff refused to arrest her on the day of the funeral. So he left her alone for another week before sending out deputies to arrest and jail her. In order to make the arrest, the “concerned” law enforcement people enticed her to come out of her house--ostensibly, in order for them to help her fill out some forms so that she could get social security (from her dead husband and for the kids).
Being a new widow and down and out, the poor woman came out of doors and was immediately arrested and whisked off to the county jail. The local female magistrate ordered the woman held under a $100,000 bond.
With the arrest of the woman, the Sheriff (per the arbitrary demands of the child protection people) tried to take the children in custody--so that they could be sent to foster homes. However, the children refused to surrender and held out for five days. Finally, intermediaries persuaded the kids to give up to the (loving/kind?) officers, while their mother was socked away in the county jail.
The evil, controlled, national media picked upon the story and gave it some coverage--with a painted picture that the woman was evil, that the man died from malnutrition, that the kids had to eat soup made from pond lilies and that the kids actually had guns (which are still legal in the US) and some dogs (which many Americans own) to use against the “loving and compassionate” law enforcement people.
The leftist Jun 11, 2001, “Newsweek” (p. 18-19) called the woman mentally ill and described her home as a bunker with guns and snarling hounds. “Newsweek also called the Sheriff’s seizure of the kids a “rescue.” The deceitful and evil Spokane “Spokesman-Review” of Jun 4, 2001 (p. 1), said that the standoff with the kids for five days was “marked by wild dogs, stockpiled weapons and hungry, frantic children.”
The Rusty Humphrys’ “Saturday Night Live” program devoted its effort on Jun 2, 2001, to a report on this event. Naturally, Humphrys reported the controlled media spin that the kids pulled a gun and turned the bad dogs loose on the “loving” Sheriff.
Distortions and Lies
The only problem with all of this hype, coming from the controlled media, is that it was almost all lies and deception. There was virtually no truth in any of the reports. They had twisted, lied, deceived and spun the true story into a story of hate--primarily against the widow. And why would the controlled media (controlled by a handful of super rich plutocrats) be so anxious to paint a picture of lies and deception?
The reason is obvious. These big boys have an agenda for world government. This agenda envisions a dictatorial, totalitarian state which completely controls all thoughts and thinking of all of its zombiized subjects (as envisioned in George Orwell’s “1984”). Therefore, people now must be taught to never oppose the state in any of its undertakings. We all must submit!
Last, there is a plank in the Communist plan--calling for a division between children and their parents. The goal of Socialists have for ages been the separation of children from parents and the placing of children under the state to be raised as zombiized subjects of the state. This is one of the reasons for the focus upon outcome based education and child protection services, as discussed earlier.
True, there were some dogs at the McGuckin house. But most of them were pups from a female mother. Also, in truth, the house did have two guns in it (which are perfectly legal by the US Constitution). But never did any of the kids handle, display or brandish the guns at the arresting Sheriff, despite the controlled media lies.
The children were taken to a local hospital and found to be well fed and in good health. Even the dogs were found to be in good health. There was food in the house--as the woman had been receiving some free food from the local county food distribution program. The arrested kids were soon to become wards of the big Brother state and shipped off to a foster home.
More Fall Out
The child protection thugs would get a new case to bolster their case load (so that they could get more state money and hire more employees). The state would use taxpayer funds to pay for a foster home for the kids--which would allow the evil child protection people to come in and begin brainwashing the children on the evils of their mother.
With the child protection lies (from the trained, professional, child protection psychologists and bureaucrats), the small children could be sufficiently brainwashed and deceived to come to hate their mother and preclude all possibilities of ever being reconciled and back together with her as a family.
Many of these child protection people in the US states appear to be butch lesbians--which only goes on to add to the dilemma and sickness of the whole child kidnapping practice, as discussed in former chapters. In this system, everybody in the know seems to be happy. The only losers were/are the hurting widow and orphans.
Days later, the (supposedly fair and impartial) judge said that she would release the poor widow from jail, if the widow would agree to stay away from her kids. But the widow said no.
So she stayed in jail (eventually, she gave in and agreed to the demands of Big Brother and was released. As a side point, the demands and the agreement were all made as secret stipulations and have never been made public. So no one knows for sure what the facts are).
Per the media spin and the local Bonner County officials, there was never an issue over due process of law, indictment by a grand jury, trial by jury, excessive bail, justice, fair play, etc.
Christian Preacher Barley, Revisited
And by all means, no one gave a squat about the Torah and YHWH’s Words about afflicting widows and orphans. In an injustice like this, one must ask where was the Bonner County Christian preachers? Or did they care one way or the other? Thus, the Scriptures were trodden upon by evil Christians (even including Dave Barley, the local Christian Identity preacher in Sandpoint).
In his Sep-Oct 2001 “America’s Promise newsletter” (p. 7-8), Christian leader Barley gave an update on the case. He said that he had talked to some private persons who knew the woman. Allegedly, these gossipers told him that she maintained a “messy, polluted, unhealthy home,” to apparently include having a mouse problem and some bugs (Barley didn’t say what kind of bugs--cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes or what).
He then added that she was a recluse who did not “allow family, friends, nor any church to be involved in any way in her or her families’ life because she was an overly paranoid schizophrenic, who did not trust hardly anyone... Biblically, an individual is not above the community/church. The local body does have the right to intervene...”
The Confused Barley
Obviously, sun worship leader Barley simply does not understand the Word. He is totally lost in trying to tell anyone anything--in terms of the Book. After all, throughout the Word, YHWH is always the defender of widow women and fatherless children. Too, there is the question of lashon hara (the evil tongue) in spreading gossip. On judgment day, the evil Barley will have some tall explaining to do when he is judged.
In all of his gossiping (lashon hara) and harsh judgment placed upon the helpless woman, sun worship leader Barley failed to mention that up until a few days before her arrest, the poor woman had had a husband at home (though he was extremely ill, he was the head of the household and in charge of her life). How much blame should be placed upon him? Or should it all be placed upon her?
Actually, if the woman did act a little peculiar, she assuredly had a lot of reasons for it. For years, her husband was sick and dying. She had to take care of him and the house full of children. Since he was not working, they had no income and it was up to her to try to feed and provide for the family. The oldest girl could have helped her mother greatly. Instead, she abandoned her family and joined the Navy.
In the meantime, the excessive taxes were due on the property. The county could have accepted the trade offer the family made. Or for that matter, it was even in the county’s power to forgive the taxes. But the county big shots were more interested in profits and gain and not in helping a sick, dying man and/or a poor helpless widow woman with a house-full of kids.
To top it all off, the self reliant family was opposed to taking welfare. Manifestly, that poor woman had her hands full. And even if she did go to one of the sun worship churches, they would have done nothing for her. With the death of her husband, any of the churches could have helped her. But they didn’t! She didn’t have to be a church member in order for them to give her some money, food or bury her husband.
Surely, they could have contacted county officials and intervened on her behalf. And where was the gossiping Barley when this family was sinking? Did Barley help (or did he just come along later to gossip)? Truly, if she had of went to some Christian Church for help, her plight on judgment day would be far worse. She would have likely picked up a Christian demon and would have become even more peculiar (and in real sin).
The point is that sun worshipper Barley simply knows not what he is talking about. Or at least, he knows little or nothing about the Scriptures and truth. With people like Barley running the Christian Identity movement, its future is clear. It will go down the tubes. And someday, the uninformed and gossiping Barley will meet his fate (punishment) from the same evil system that destroyed the McGuckin woman.
Actually, this case was not unique in the US, as noted in prior chapters. Oppressive, government crimes like this one routinely happen across America.
YHWH Cares
But the preachers and government and fat cat workers of evil should have awakened long enough to read what The ELOHIM says on this matter. For example, in Exodus 22:22-24, YHWH declares that if that widow and those kids cry out to Him, He will hear and He will kill those men and turn their wives and children into widows and orphans. He is The Avenger of widows and orphans (Ps 68:5; 146:9).
The Dec 16, 2001, “Coeur d’Alene Press” paper (p. A7) had a follow-up story on Mrs McGuckin which noted that she lives in a small, single, motel room and spends her time praying, writing in her journal and meeting with her lawyers and doctors. Apparently, she is a Roman Catholic as she gets to see her children at Sunday services at a local Roman Catholic Church.
With this background, there is always a question about whether The MOST HIGH will hear and listen to the prayers and petitions of people who are in sin and transgressions. In this vein, it’s hard to fathom that He would even listen to the prayers of a pagan Christian. With her link to pagan sun worship, one must wonder whether her prayers to the sun god will accomplish anything immediately or not.
This writer is suspicious that The MOST HIGH is not bound in His Word to hear her prayers and take prompt vengeance upon the evil people who have hurt her and her orphan children (though He is aware of the problem and may address it later in time).
While He may or may not listen to her prayers, we can be sure that The HIGHEST has been upset with the gross sin and wickedness of the local sun worshipping Christians who perpetuated this evil upon a widow woman and orphan children. Who this woman prays to and worships will not alter the fact that the local sun worshipping Christians treated her grossly wrong and very contrary to the Scriptures.
Manifestly, YHWH is the defender of helpless widow women and orphan children. While He may have no obligation, Scripturally, to immediately answer the prayers of this widow woman, surely He has taken note of everything that has happened to her. At some point in time, He will very likely act against the evil people of Bonner County.
In any case, whether YHWH acts at once or later, He will surely act in time and punish those evil Christian sun worshippers for how they have afflicted and hurt innocent widow women and children. Those pagan sun worshipping Christians are simply not going to get away with this wickedness. They will have a price to pay for their sins. Sin always brings a pay-back!
Some History
Interestingly, in the ancient Houses of Yisrael and Yehudah, the evil people oppressed widows and orphans (Isa 1:17-23; 9:17; 10:2; Jer 7:6; 22:3). And sure enough, YHWH was The Avenger who had those men killed and their widows and orphans shipped off into slavery and captivity. In the age end, the same thing is prophesied for the House of Yisrael (Ezek 22:7, 25; Zech 7:10-14; Mal 3:5).
Prophetically, in the age end, evil men will once more oppress helpless widows and orphaned children (as has happened in Idaho and really across modern America). Will YHWH hear their cries? Or will He execute judgment upon the sinning leaders (religious, political, etc) of the House of Yisrael. For sure, these wretched injustices across Christian America invite a coming judgment--and soon!
If this injustice happened to an Ultra Orthodox Jewish family in Israel (or even, in the US), the Ultra Orthodox Jews would assemble in mass to protest, raise “Hades” and demand restitution for the woman and children. They would never stand by and do nothing. But apathetic, evil Christians simply don’t care and won’t do anything.
The Word must have had US laws and enforcement and justice in mind when it said-- “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter... Who justify and acquit the guilty for a bribe, and take away the rights of the innocent...” (Isa 5:20-23, “Amplified Bible”).
Some More History
A former chapter discussed at some length the incredible apathy and don’t care problems in modern Ephraim America. Of course, the dilemma with sun worshipping Christian Americans started from the very beginnings of this nation in 1788. As outlined earlier, George Washington mistakenly allowed Amalekite bankers to have power (led by Alexander Hamilton or Levine).
True, Andy Jackson came along in 1828 and ran them out of Washington. But they were ever around, waiting for a comeback. From Abraham Lincoln and on forward, Americans never bothered to exercise any control over immigration and naturalization of citizens. Anybody and everybody came and they were welcomed with open arms (up until Warren Harding and the Quotas act of the early 1920s).
In allowing Amalekites from Eastern Europe and Hamites from Southern Europe to come here, it was only a question of time until organized crime would take over. And as the general society continued to miscegenate and amalgamate, everything was on a decline (with the reality that the entropy law was in full effect).
Then the bankers were at last allowed to own the US currency and gold supply with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The incompetent and/or evil Woodrow Wilson quickly paid off his benefactors by signing the act into law. Thus, the nation was for sure doomed to eventual world government when the Amalekites were given custody and control of America’s financial future.
Chapter 394--Christian Justice System
The Courts
A few remarks are needed here on the idea of American justice. Not only do many federal agents go out of their way to obstruct justice (as outlined earlier) and particularly if there is reason to believe that they have acted illegally or improperly, but there are continuing problems for any surviving persons facing a federal trial.
In the first place, the previously cited Jack McLamb says that typically federal prosecutors use the FBI to conduct background checks on potential jurors. With a background profile, the prosecutor is able to manipulate the courts to keep potential jurors off of the stand who might be inclined to side with the victims.
With these background checks, politically incorrect people normally will never even appear on a jury list. A politically incorrect, accused party is just not going to have any politically incorrect jurors. Thus, whatever jury chosen will start off on the side of the government prosecutors.
And most importantly, the judges themselves have been appointed by, are paid by and serve this system. In other words, they are part and parcel of the problem. Of course, some will be honest and try to dispense justice. But too many judges are prostitute judges, just like the prostitute politicians who are only interested in self perpetuation.
Some Examples
In the case of the trial of Yuri Kahl (as described earlier), the fact that a marshal’s bullet was lodged in his gun was never even allowed to be discussed in court by the judge. If this fact could have been brought out, and in the context that the marshals fired first without provocation (which is what Yuri claimed), it might be that Yuri could have had a better chance of defense.
The trial of Montana Freeman LeRoy Schweitzer (also cited earlier) is also quite tragic. It seems that Schweitzer has extensive education on law and legal procedures. He objected to the court appointed attorney. At his first trial in 1997 for tax evasion, he tried to read to the jury the statute which he was accused of violating and the judge would not allow it.
He tried to raise some objections. So the federal judge ordered him chained, bound and gagged during the trial. Quite naturally, he was found guilty on Oct 23, 1997, and the Big Brother judge gave him the maximum sentence possible--27 months in prison, $112,683 in back taxes and $200,000 in fines (“Jubilee” paper, Nov-Dec 1997, p. 1, 5).
Another federal trial of all of the freemen commenced in Montana in mid March 1998 for resisting arrest by federal agents. Again, some of the accused tried to object to the court proceedings. The judge ordered them removed from the courtroom--to be elsewhere bound and to watch the proceedings on closed circuit TV. The (farce) trial went on without their presence.
Naturally, all of them were found guilty and given harsh sentences from some 4 to 22 years (for passing bad checks). This is modern American justice.
At the opening of the unabomber trial in California, the court appointed defense lawyer decided that the accused Ted Kaczynski (similarly mentioned earlier) would be characterized as a nut--a paranoid schizophrenic. Ted objected and wanted the lawyer removed (fired)--so that he could represent himself.
Quite naturally, the judge ignored the defendant’s wishes and ordered the trial to proceed with the unwanted lawyer. To back up the judge’s decision, the feds soon offered an allegation claiming that Kaczynski tried to commit suicide with his missing underwear--which they claimed was flushed down the toilet.
Of course, this widely disseminated fed story was readily accepted by everyone. It effectively proved that indeed Kaczynski was nuts. Actually, this tactic of claiming that politically incorrect people are just nuts is one of the federal government’s practices in dealing with political enemies--as noted in preceding discussions.
Hence, a dishonest judge and/or prosecutor can manipulate evidence and the court process so that even an honest jury may be deceived.
The Jury
And of extreme importance, there is the remaining problem that few juries are even told or allowed to understand that they decide “all issues,” including even the propriety and validity of the law which a person stands accused of.
In this matter of trying the law, the 6th amendment to the US Constitution says that an accused is to have a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions. Even the way this amendment is worded suggests that the jury can try the law or try a defendant for a lesser crime. Apparently, this used to be the common practice in US Courts (Jul 17-Aug 6, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” newspaper, p. 2).
In 1771, John Adams, the later second president of the US, stated that a juror should ignore a judge’s instructions on the law if it violates fundamental principles (Dec 10, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 10).
Lysander Spooner, in 1852, said “In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they can do nothing to protect the people; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law” (ibid, p. 11).
Supreme Court Decisions
Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld this right of the jury to try the law--such as those written by Chief Justice John Jay in 1789; by Justice Samuel Chase in 1796; by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902; by Justice Harlan F. Stone in 1941; and repeated in the 1972 case involving US vs. Dougherty (Dec 1998 “Idaho Observer,” p. 20).
The 1794 US Supreme Court said: “It is presumed that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects (facts and law) are within the (jury’s) power of decision” (Dec 10, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 10-11).
In a 1969 decision (US v. Moylan), the US Court of Appeals stated that “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision” (ibid, p. 10).
The 1972 above noted US Supreme Court case on US v. Dougherty said: “The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by the trial judge...jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury that formerly kings and ministers faced” (ibid, p. 10).
Trying the Law is Established
Therefore, the jury has the right, duty and obligation to “try” the law as well as the accused in a free jury system, as allowed in the US Constitution (Art III and amendments V, VI, VII and IX). Such a jury can ignore an immoral and unjust law and just not convict.
Some twenty state constitutions in the United States have this right of the jury to judge both the law and the facts spelled out (like MD, IN, OR, etc). Importantly, the Maine State Constitution (Art I, Sect 4) spells out this right. The Georgia Constitution specifically says-- “In all criminal cases, the jury shall judge the law as well as the facts.” This condition was a fact of life in the American colonies in the 18th century.
The “Spotlight” paper of Mar 20, 2000, had an article by Tom Stahl on “Citizens Must Claim Rights: Founders Gave Juries the Right to Determine the Law” (p. 16-17) which quoted legal historian Lawrence Friedman, who said: “In American legal theory, jury power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases.
“This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh.” Above all else, jury nullification is manifestly part and parcel of those rights retained by the people in the ninth amendment to the US Constitution. While trial juries have enormous power in dispensing justice and deciding upon right and wrong, grand juries are even more powerful.
Many people suppose that grand juries work for prosecutors. But the truth is that grand juries are sovereign in their power. They simply don’t have to indict accused people. And by all means, they can indict government officials who obstruct justice and assume illegal powers. If some grand juries started indicting federal judges, US attorneys and government leaders, things would quickly change.
A Lost Reality
Significantly, judges generally go out of their way to hide the truth of jury power, whenever they instruct and dictate to uninformed juries. If the right of the jury to judge both facts and law is brought up, many judges become angry, wishing to reserve to themselves all questions over law.
As Charles Key (previously quoted herein) outlines in his video on “Fraud and Corruption in American Courts,” most prosecutors and judges work hand in hand to keep people off of the jury who might be independent and judge the law.
Key says that these forces work together by questioning potential jurors about their attitude toward the law (whether they will accept the law, as dictated by the judge, and apply it in all cases, notwithstanding their consciences and their feelings about the validity of the law). Any juror who dares say that he will be independent and judge the law will be routinely dismissed by almost all judges/prosecutors.
This subtle, deceitful and unconstitutional practice by judges and prosecutors works out to mean that the assembled jury will almost always be dedicated to accepting the right of the law and never exercising any power to judge the law, as is the basis of the whole jury system. In these cases, if the law is bad, jurors will still convict.
In his presentation of the historical development of the right of jurors to judge the law, Key cited an ancient case in England where a jury was held in detention by the King until it decided to rule in support of the law. In the US, it used to be illegal to harbor a run-away slave. But most US juries would never convict any person so charged--on the basis of conscience.
While most judges and prosecutors are more than anxious to keep honest and informed jurors off of juries, an interesting “possible” contrasting position surfaced in a jury in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Oct 14, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a story about the attitude of local Judge David Buter, in a case involving a Grand Rapids police action.
In the case before the court, a woman named Lori Blumke was called for jury duty. In questioning, Lori honestly said that she could not be impartial in the case because she had been treated rudely by the local police in the past and she didn’t care for them. The judge didn’t like her candor and ordered her to perform 24 hours of community service picking up trash, along with convicts.
The point is that judges have great power to do about whatever they want to do in their courtrooms. And if a potential juror speaks the wrong words, the juror could be in serious trouble with the judge. Somehow, this perversion is just not right.
A Basic Right
Anyway, a jury has the right to determine the law as well as the facts in a case. A good sample of how important this right could have been surfaced in the jury trial in October 1997 of an Au Pair British girl (nanny or baby-sitter) in Massachusetts, accused of killing a small child in her care (by shaking it).
There was no evidence whatsoever of malice or premeditation involved suggesting that she intentionally wanted to hurt the child (even if she did carelessly shake it). Nevertheless, the prosecutor chose to try her for murder with no option of manslaughter, as would logically apply, and while also withholding important evidence on the case, as will be established in later commentary herein.
The jury brought in the murder verdict, evidently because it had no choice. If the jury would have determined the law, they could have found the girl innocent of murder (but perhaps guilty of manslaughter, as was the option open to and exercised by the judge) to show the irresponsible action of the prosecutor and the inapplicability of the law involved.
Chapter 395--More Christian Injustice
Unequal Punishment
One of the very sickening unjust processes of the American judicial system is the practice of courts to render different scales of punishment to different guilty parties--depending upon the wishes and discretion of the prosecutors and judges.
The previously quoted Charles Key addressed this issue briefly in his video on “Fraud and Corruption in American Courts.” Key made note of the fact that in American courts people who plead guilty receive less punishment than those who are convicted after pleading innocent. Of course, this is not the Scriptural way. In the Book, there is one prescribed punishment for one wrong and not different punishments for the same sin.
Charles Key noted that the Congress (and obviously, some state legislatures) have, in some instances, attempted to standardize prescribed punishments for law violations. But in those cases, the prosecutors still use discretionary powers by altering or modifying the chargers for the level of punishment the prosecutor wants imposed.
Although not mentioned by Key, it is a fact that prosecutors and the courts will allow certain defendants to plea bargain and either beat a rap or receive little punishment if the defendant will squeal on the wrong-doing of some other party.
It is very common to find that the courts will reduce sentences or even release people from jail if they will inform on other people (this practice was cited earlier and will be described in the following comments in the vein of how the courts coerce, force, induce and use people to spy upon or inform upon other people--often with the payment of monetary rewards or the alteration of justice).
The deplorable reality of sentence enhancement will be addressed in a later chapter herein (where judges merely enhance or increase a sentence upon a convicted party, based upon other unproven allegations). This pathetic practice has now become a part of American justice.
One More
One more word on court trials is needed and particularly at the federal level. There is supposed to be a prevailing attitude in court and among the judges and juries that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
In other words, it is the prosecutor’s job to prove the guilt and not the task of the accused to prove his innocence. Too often, courts are conducted on the premise that accused persons are guilty, unless they prove their innocence (as with Yuri Kahl and the Waco survivors).
Another Common Practice
Among the many practices followed in today’s Christian, sun worship society, perhaps one of the most evil practices of all surfaces when prosecutors (working for the government with all of its money and resources) bribe, payoff, intimidate, threaten, coerce and force people to testify against accused persons Big Brother wants to put away (as touched upon above and in previous commentary).
In the context of sun worship justice, this has to be one of the most vile and corrupt practices to be a part and parcel of a so-called justice system. What it amounts to is that if there are persons whom Big Brother opposes (usually politically incorrect people), government prosecutors will pull out all of the stops to obtain a witness against them.
They are prepared to pay huge sums of money as bribes to get someone to come into court and testify against an accused individual. Sometimes, they don’t have to make bribery payments because they can dig up something in various peoples’ lives to place them under threat of indictment and prosecution.
Facing this open and powerful intimidation, many people will quickly agree to go into court and testify against their own close relatives and best friends, simply to avoid going to jail themselves.
This whole practice in the modern, Christian, sun worship civilization has to be one of the most vile and despicable practices in the history of man’s supposed acts of justice and fair play. This study assessed its prevalence in former chapters in the context of a brother testifying against a brother, as is now the common American justice mode (i.e. the Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh cases and others).
The act of paying bribes to witnesses to testify against politically incorrect people was upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It echoes the way dictatorial governments have historically paid or coerced witnesses to testify against enemies of the state. It is inconceivable that this state of idiocy and perversion has reached the national acceptance level all across the United States. But it has!
It Is Routine Today
Today, in the early 21st century, prosecutors willingly and regularly make pay-offs and bribes (either in money or other benefits) to get people to squeal or inform on others (usually relatives, friends and acquaintances).
Many alleged criminals are captured, not because of expert police work; but rather, because of the promises of rewards, pay-offs and bribes. Regularly, huge monetary rewards are offered for information, sometimes even in the millions of dollars (as noted in other comments herein, in terms of the Ted Kaczynski and Jay Merrill cases).
And by all means, prosecutors regularly offer reduced sentences and/or early releases from prison to persons who will willingly squeal or give information (true or false) on cohorts. This whole system represents a total perversion of justice.
Why is it possible that a convicted criminal, guilty of a particular crime, be allowed to go free or beat the rap if he will simply testify against someone else (either in truth or in lies)? Yet, the US justice system regularly follows this practice. It will make pay-offs, bribes, benefits, etc to convicted criminals for testimony against someone else.
Of course, such ideas of justice are simply unheard of in the Scriptures. In the Book, the convicted person is never granted a reprieve if he will simply testify against someone else. In the Book, there are no rewards or pay-offs for people who squeal on or provide information on other persons accused of wrong-doing. In the Book, all convicted criminals pay the full price as established by law (in the Torah).
Tragically, the perverted, warped, Christian society uses all kinds of dishonorable gadgets, gestures and methods of allowing some persons to get off scot-free for a certain law violation while someone else will pay the full penalty of the law. Clearly, this practice is grossly unfair and discriminatory. It is stupid, evil and wrong, per the sense of justice, honor and righteousness (certainly, per the Scriptures).
As Paul Craig Roberts correctly wrote-- “Matthew Hale established the maxim that testimony purchased with reward has no standing in court” (Feb 1999 “Taking Aim,” p. 14).
Secret Evidence?
Another most tragic case of US justice was revealed in a short news report in the March 20, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 2). The US Bill of Rights promises accused people a fast and speedy trial and that accused persons can have a right of jury trial and the privilege of facing their accusers.
It seems that one Dr Mazen al-Naijar, apparently an Arab American, has been incarcerated in Tampa, Florida now for over 1,000 days. It appears that the doctor and some 20 other Arabs are in trouble with US authorities on the basis of secret evidence. Many of these people are facing deportation based upon this secret evidence.
As the story goes, there is a US law which allows the use of secret evidence. The just outlined cases have caused a storm of protests in Washington. There is even talk in Congress of repealing this secret evidence law (now coming out in HR 2121).
Despite the concern over the allowance and use of secret evidence against accused people, the practice continues full blast and especially since September 11, 2001, and the New York and Washington, DC terrorist attacks.
An April 1, 2002, report in the “American Free Press” (p. 15), by Christopher Bollyn, said that the US Justice Department had accumulated secret evidence against a local Muslim charity in Chicago. Per Bollyn, this evidence will be used against the charity in a court case.
The post 9-11 USA Patriot Act (“The Uniting and Strengthening of America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” to be discussed in a later chapter) “enables the FBI to spy on Americans for ‘intelligence’ purposes, as opposed to investigating criminal activity. The authorities are not required to show probable cause to make arrests and with only a ‘preponderance of evidence’ can confiscate property. Secret evidence can be used to do both” (ibid, p. 15).
Actually, this idea of using secret evidence and secret witnesses is inconceivable, but it has become par for the course in America. Other chapters herein have or will address the extent of such methods now in place from an executive order signed by GWB to allow US military tribunals to try captured Muslims over alleged terrorism.
Acceptability of Perjury
While it should not take much perception to understand that the American judicial system is in deep trouble, many sun worshipping Christians still seem to believe that everything is all right and that US citizens can get a fair shake in court. But the 1998 Slick Clinton scandals were beginning to wake up a lot of otherwise lethargic and indifferent people that things were not exactly like they should be in modern America.
Concern is now being expressed over the fact that Slick had been not only guilty of lying to the American public for years, but that he had assuredly committed perjury in a US court. This is a most profound development that the President of the United States would actually commit perjury.
Douglas Cox, a lawyer who worked in Ronald Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel a few years ago, has come forward to offer some comments on the status of the US justice system with the continuing Clinton lies and courtroom perjury.
Cox wrote “Some may argue that perjury prosecutions arising out of civil cases are comparatively rare, as indeed they are. But the entire justice system is predicated on the theory that witnesses tell the truth. Permitting a culture of lying to take root in the justice system would ultimately destroy the system” (“Wall Street Journal,” Feb 2,1998). The perception by this lawyer is most revealing at the present time.
Yes, the whole US court and justice system is now in jeopardy because the nation has closed its eyes and allowed its primary leader to commit perjury, lie, cheat, steal and possibly murder with no accountability or reckoning.
Above the Law
Like other federal officials, the US president is now above the law. He is a monarch. And federal agents, working in their jobs, can no longer be prosecuted for the assault or murder of innocent people.
In these comments of the acceptability of perjury, some qualifications are in order. This current, evil, sun worship society will gladly sit back and allow perjury to persist in “politically correct activities” and among “politically correct people” --like with Slick Clinton.
But rest assured if a politically incorrect person or action was an issue, any instance of alleged perjury would be called one of the greatest of evils and would be fully prosecuted by the full resources of the state.
In other words, hypocrisy is the order of the day in much of American justice. This nation will not get away with this perversion much longer. The ELOHIM’s justice and judgment for sin and wickedness is about to intervene and correct the wickedness, evil and injustice that the American people have allowed to persist.
Chapter 396--Lawyers
The Problem With Lawyers and the US Courts
One of the serious problems in the United States, in terms of its laws and justice, is the matter of the legal profession and how it functions in legal trials and in American courts. It is this system which often (but not always) interferes in the dispensation of justice.
Next to used car dealers, lawyers have some of the worse reputations of all in the American sun worship culture. It’s not to say that all lawyers are automatically liars and crooks with no ethics or integrity at all. There might be a few out there (maybe one or two), who are persons of honor. But there aren’t many for sure. Most are totally greedy, selfish and dishonest.
Perhaps part of the lawyer problem is that many, many, evil Amalek-Edomites are lawyers. And since the run of the mill Amalekites (maybe not all 100% of them, but certainly most of them) are totally depraved and desperately wicked, it stands to reason that they would flock to the legal profession to carry out their deceit.
Next, there is an obvious presence of lawyers all over America. For example, in Washington, DC, there was 1,000 lawyers in 1950, 11,000 in 1975 and 65,000 in the mid 1990s or over 10% of Washington’s 600,000 people (Dec 2000 “Philadelphia Trumpet,” p. 3).
Not only are lawyers profusely all over America, but they have sowed up things so that their services are constantly required to do much of anything in the US. In today’s modern American world, it is impossible to do almost anything involving the law or the local courthouse without a lawyer.
The Sleeping Lawyer
A really good illustration of lawyers in action surfaced in a late Oct 2000 case involving a man named Burdine in Houston, Texas (per a news report on Oct 28, 2000). The man was tried and convicted of murder earlier and given the death sentence. All of this sounds well and good except it turns out that his court appointed lawyer slept in court through much of the trial.
While the presiding judge said nothing to the lawyer and allowed him to sleep, apparently the accused Burdine did nudge and try to wake him up several times. After the conviction, time passed and the man got a new court appointed lawyer, who decided to appeal the case on the premise that the sleeping lawyer was like having no lawyer. The appeal went to the US Appellate Court for a hearing.
As incredible as it turned out to be, the appellate court ruled against a new trial for the reason cited. Never mind that the judge and prosecutor (who are officers of the law, supposedly trying to dispense justice) refused to speak against the sleeping defense attorney during the trial, the appellate court found that the defendant, himself, should have spoken out and complained in court about his sleeping lawyer.
It is unclear whether the accused man was a humble man and was afraid to speak out or not. It could be that he indeed was afraid and certainly that he did not understand that ultimately the court would rule that it was his job to speak (and not the task of the judge and prosecuting attorney).
But in retrospect, the case can be made that maybe the man feared that if he did speak out, it would make his sleeping lawyer mad at him and he would get even less of a defense. After all, pride being what it is, there is a great chance that a person trying to embarrass his court appointed lawyer would ultimately be penalized in some manner by the lawyer.
In other words, the case can be made that the defendant was in a catch 22 situation where he would lose whatever he did. If he remained silent, he would lose. And if he spoke out, he would lose. Surely, the most guilty person of all in that courtroom was the useless judge. Above all else, he had the power and duty to see justice dispensed. He was in a position to criticize the sleeping lawyer.
Lawyers and Paula Jones
Besides the lawyer rip-offs in the tobacco lawsuits of recent years, broached in a previous chapter, recent 1998 news reports were ablaze with the Paula Jones’ lawsuit against President Slick, also mentioned earlier.
This case is a classic demonstration on how the modern, American, sun worship, legal profession functions and particularly in the political arena where many lawyers become politicians (like Slick and his wife).
It seems that when Slick was Governor of Arkansas, he used to use the Arkansas State Police as his personal state pimp agency--with a duty to procure women for him on occasion (which seems to have been fairly often). In a meeting with state employees in Little Rock, Slick saw Ms Jones (a state employee). So he ordered a state trooper to bring her to see him in his hotel room. The trooper obeyed.
Slick was alone and when Paula entered, he told her to sit down. He then approached her and dropped his pants to display his private part, which he fondled as he ordered her to perform oral sex on it. She refused, but saw enough of his organ to recognize that there was something wrong with it with its distinctive abnormal bend. He threatened her, as she immediately left the room.
In time, medical specialists indicated that the bent, deformed description fits a particular disease that some men have called “Peyronie’s disease.” Among his many other problems, it would seem that Bill has Peyronie’s disease. No wonder he has always refused to allow his medical records to be made public!
Later, Paula believed that she was discriminated against in her employment because of her refusal to Slick and because her name was ruined with reports from the state trooper of this supposed sex link to Clinton. Thereupon, she sued Slick asking for an apology plus $700,000 in damages.
Jones said that any money won from him would go to charity, after paying off her lawyers. In other words, her only possible personal gain or benefit would be an apology to restore her damaged character. Naturally, Slick tied the case up in court with his attorney Uncle Bob Bennett. He claimed that he could not be sued like other people and the suit would have to wait until he finished his presidency.
US District Court Judge Susan Wright ruled for Slick. The issue had to go to the Supreme Court where it said that he could be sued. After paying Bennett some $2 million in legal fees, Slick decided to offer to pay the Jones lawyers $700,000 in a non-publicized, secret settlement with no apology.
The Jones’ Dilemma
Since the Jones’ lawyers had already charged $800,000 to the case, they wanted Paula to settle without getting the apology she sought. In other words, her lawyers would get their exorbitant fees and she would get nothing. She refused. So the lawyers quit the case and refused to do any more work on it.
She found some other lawyers, who would take the case over with help from a third party--because she and her husband simply didn’t have any money. Truly, they were little people. But the old lawyers filed a lien on her case, allowing them to get the first $800,000 collected. The new lawyers amended the lawsuit to ask for $2 million in order for them to get some money out of it as well.
All along, Paula never wanted anything personally except the apology. All of the money would go to the lawyers or charity. Yet, the attack dog colleagues and hired agents working for Slick (like Bob Bennett, James Carville and others) went on national TV and hollered on and on about Paula Jones wanting money and slandered her to no end.
True, big money was involved in the $2 million paid Slick’s lawyer and the proposed secret settlement of $700,000 to the Jones’ lawyers. But money was no issue for Paula Jones. All she wanted was to have her good name restored in the apology. It was the lawyers on both sides who were to get the money.
After the Supreme Court decision for the case to proceed, the IRS (under Slick) commenced an audit of Jones and her husband (as noted earlier), who evidently made something around $36,000 annually. Slick and his paid agents tried to characterize her as trailer park trash (since she lived in a mobile home park) while the president was a great man of honor and integrity.
By the way, this former practice of Slick, in using the Arkansas State Police as his personal pimp agency, seems to have continued while he was in the White House--although the pimps were then called “facilitators” by the media rather than pimps. There was much evidence that Slick used Secret Service agents as facilitators after he became president. Truly, he is totally corrupt and depraved.
The Outcome
With the green light from the US Supreme Court, the Jones case was supposedly ready to proceed in Arkansas in May 1998. But it soon became apparent that legitimate questions could be raised about her honor, the judge.
Very quickly, Judge Wright began issuing a series of judicial decisions, all of which favored Slick. In the first instance, she ruled that what happened in Washington, DC with Monica Lewinsky and presumably others had no bearing on the case in Arkansas. Wishing to show a pattern in Slick’s conduct, the Jones lawyers appealed this decision.
However, before the appeal was even heard, the judge came forward with another pro Clinton decision by placing a gag order on all of the court proceedings. This clamp meant that all of the derogatory information being dug up by the Jones people would be hid from the general public.
Slick’s lawyers then went into court, claiming that the case should be thrown out as the allegations of facts (which were never disputed in court, but were assumed to be correct) did not constitute sexual harassment--thus, effectively meaning that the poor woman from the trailer park should be denied her day in court. Consequently, Judge Susan threw the case out on Apr 1, 1998, as discussed beforehand.
More on Wright
This consistent series of favorable court rulings for Slick should make even the most stupid of observers be suspicious that something was wrong in the US District Court in Little Rock. And on a closer examination, some amazing facts did surface.
For example, Wright discusses cases with other people on occasion before making her decisions. According to judicial ethics, this is unthinkable. Yet, she does it and has even admitted it. Moreover, in the Whitewater scandal involving then President Slick Clinton, Judge Wright discussed the Susan McDougal trial with former US Senator David Pryor, a close ally of Slick.
The Judge has also acknowledged that she discusses her cases with her husband. It must be important to note that some weeks before her decision to throw the Jones case out, her husband told a reporter that she would not allow President Slick Clinton’s personal life to become a public issue.
Obviously, in the event that the case went to trial, the Jones lawyers would bring up his personal life to show that he had had numerous encounters with women over the years while he has been in public life as Arkansas Attorney General and Governor and as President of the United States.
While Slick was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, some years ago, Susan was one of his students and had had personal contact with him. Though all of the ties never became public, there was an allegation that she cheated on a test, and he let her off the hook. Another allegation floating around was that Slick lost one of her test papers and offered her a free grade B if she would not create any problems over it.
With this prior contact and Clinton’s reputation for women, one can’t be sure of what links Susan has had with Slick (possibly even sexual). From this background, one would have to wonder why Susan could even be sitting on the Bench in the Jones-Clinton case. Judges are supposed to recluse themselves for a conflict of interest when they have had close ties with one of the litigants before the court.
Yet, Wright stayed on the case and ultimately threw the case out of court, as just noted. If the case had no legal basis, why did Susan allow it to go on and on for four years and a trip to the Supreme Court? She could have saved Jones and the US a lot of pain by throwing the case out when it first came before her--without allowing it to drag on and on to make money for the lawyers.
As late as July 1999, when Wright was forced into taking some action against Slick for his perjury in court, she levied the smallest fine possible of about $90,000 to cover the minimum amount of extra expenses by the Jones’ lawyers and herself. Jones’ lawyers actually asked for something around $500,000 to cover their expenses. Apparently, Slick’s lawyers argued for the lesser amount of $90,000. So Wright ruled for Slick.
Most of us committing perjury would have went to jail. But not Slick. The $90,000 was nothing to him since fat cat contributors, like the Hollywood elite or the Chinese, would pay it. Effectively, he was out nothing for committing perjury in a federal court.
Paula Lost Out
Hence, Paula Jones was denied any opportunity of having her good name restored. Later, on Nov 13, 1998, Slick agreed to pay Jones $850,000--which was not even enough to pay her lawyers (and with no apology). Rather than fight probable losing battles with the American judicial system, Jones agreed. Thus, the Jones versus Slick Clinton case came to an end (and Jones effectively lost in the courts).
Actually, this whole turn of events is quite logical because the US judicial system does not presently function to serve poor people or politically incorrect people in the generic sense. Hence, scoundrels like Slick can get away with virtually everything.