No pain, no gain. Exercising the First Amendment.

It's stated in the header why this blog. The overarching motivation is spiritual outreach. To help fellow (true) Christians discern false ones. So, the First Amendment freedom to exercise religion.

As the end of the End Times approach, there are going to be a LOT more false christians around. In fact, they will become the majority and will murder the minority. And so the murderers will believe they are the true believers because their god allowed them to remove their adversaries. In a way, it's already started as those on the Left strive silence those on the Right using the world's legal system. (Look for a uniting of false christians with radical Muslims and radicalized Jews in the future.)

But as the Apostle Paul said, that's the fate of true believers. "... we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." (Romans 8:36.) Such is life when you're a living sacrifice. We know we're blessed when people falsely say all kinds of evil against us because of our faith. So, while, admittedly it hurts a bit, we try to consider it a "momentary trouble." It goes with the territory.

But maybe you're wondering if this blog is written in retaliation?

We hope not. For that would be sin. In the Bible, the Apostle Paul said, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." Romans 12:19

Can you write about someone without the spirit of retaliation? Sure, God does it in the Bible all the time. See 1 Timothy 1:19-20 where the Apostle Paul names names. (Gasp!) And of course, you know He named Jezebel.

But you know what? There will come a time when everything is laid bare and we will all have to give an account to God. So everything about you is going to be known someday by everybody. For some who have shipwrecked their faith, that time might come sooner rather than later.

But in addition to the First Amendment freedom to exercise our religion, our blogger does this exercise as a good American. To exercise your First Amendment freedom of speech. Which clearly is under attack . . . by our fellow "americans." Even judges.

So "Use it or lose it," as is said.

Have you noticed how those who have nothing to fear don't try to silence their opponents? As with the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists? Or by getting Injunctions Against Harassment to shut you up?

Interestingly there was a similar situation in Quartzsite (Arizona) recently where a Denise Florian, a public official, sought and obtained an Injunction to shut up Jennifer Jones. Search the web for "Denise Florian." She's left some colorful voice mails around. (Warning: Language.)

According to reports, Florian made it clear to the judge that she wanted Jones to stop publishing stuff about her. (As here on this blog?) Florian consider that "harassment." And so misused harassment law to harass.

Fortunately, even though Judge Larry King did not comply with the law and granted the Injunction, he did not go so far as to tell Jones she didn't have a First Amendment right to free speech.

But we will admit that, in a bit of irony, if cheating judge Mary Hamm hadn't told our blogger he didn't have a First Amendment right to free speech, we might not be here today. For that was one of the spiritual signs our blogger took as guidance.

Likewise, if the late Melody Bodine hadn't sought an Injunction Against Harassment against our blogger, we certainly wouldn't be here today. So, if you will, she started this blog.

Then she did it again in her latest incarnation as Melody Thomas-Morgan. We're forced to conclude that, in a perverse sort of way, she must enjoy the attention.

So, as long as our blogger is told he doesn't have a right to Free Speech, he hopes to continue to fight for your rights. After all, like Jennifer Jones, you could be next. All it takes is a colorful woman who has a lot to hide.

Women get away with murder

Well, it wasn't murder in this case. It was pepper spraying. That is, assault. Felony assault.

But no charges.

Why not? It was a woman who did it, doncha know. All they gotta do is cry and men feel sorry for them. And they can get away with a lot. (Just ask "Officer" Dan Murray of the Prescott Police Department. (But he's not really a police officer.))

---

So, do you remember the news reports from "Black Friday?" Some lady shot a crowd of shoppers with pepper spray. It was reported that she was a "competitive shopper" who used the pepper spray to gain an advantage. Authorities were going through receipts in an effort to find her through her purchase of an X-box.

There was so much press, that she turned herself in. And admitted she attacked shoppers.

But then, the cops let her go saying she was acting in self defense!

Yeah, right.

Did they ask the victims what they wanted? Did she buy an X-box or did she leave the store since she was in "fear for her life." That wasn't reported. Nor do we have the time or resources to pull the DR from the LAPD. So we'll speculate.

We suspect someone at Police HQ decided to give this woman, a Latina, a break, in the spirit of the season. A nice gesture . . . but you need to see what the victims, including little children, want first.

Wouldn't that be equal justice under the law? No favoritism or partiality? (God hates partiality.)

Maybe our blogger is more realisitc about this. Once, while evangelizing in front of the Mormon Visitor Center in Mesa (Arizona), a twenty something woman pointed a can of pepper spray at a Christian brother's face, point blank, and said, "If you say anything about the Bible, I'll spray you."

And we bet she felt self-righteous. Was probably in fear for her life, doncha know. (Words are so dangerous.)

This was the day before cell phones. So she got away.

But what do you think the Mesa cops would have done if someone had detained her. After all, all she has to do is start screaming bloody murder. And then she can get away with murder.

We're not looking forward to it, but things will be different once the radical Muslims take over.

Woman shoots children, kills self

A headline from the Drudgereport.


Here's the full story.

It happens.

People knew this woman. May even have seen this coming. The story reports, "She had issues."

Question: What would YOU do if you saw this coming? You can't stop a woman from shooting her own children. But maybe, if you warn others, you can minimize the damage she might do to others in her rage.

No one wants to think it will happen to someone they know. From the story, "This is the kind of thing you hear of happening in other places, but not in our quiet home town."

Calling Judge Jones

More political correctness run amok.

The headline is "Boy suspended after calling teacher 'cute'."

A 9-year-old boy North Carolina boy was suspended for calling a teacher “cute,” WSOCTV.com reports.

The boy’s mother, Chiquita Lockett, said the principal of Brookside Elementary in Gastonia called her after the incident to say the comment was a form of “sexual harassment.”

Sigh. Is there no common sense anymore?

Hey, it could be worse. The school could have gone to Yavapai Superior Court Judge Kenton D. Jones and had his 2nd Amendments rights revoked.

Well, at least there's a somewhat happy ending in the story. There, unlike here, the school apologized.

High-schooler "Harasses" Gov. Brownback

Our blogger is reluctant to share this link because he doesn't condone the language used in the story. But free speech is free speech. Did you hear about the high-schooler Emma Sullivan who tweeted some disparaging remarks about Gov. Brownback?

So Miss Sullivan was called to the principal's office and told to apologize.

What? Did Gov. Brownback seek an Injunction against Harassment? And who does the principal think he is? Judge Kenton Jones?

See, this is the mindset of those on the Left. They'll tell you that you have a First Amendment right to free speech. But what they really mean is that THEY have the right to free speech. They can even cuss in your face. But if you say anything they don't like, they'll tell you it's wrong. (Or run and get an Injunction Against Harassment against you.) Remember the DemocRATS telling the Republicans about devise speech and then immediately turning around saying "Let’s take these sons of bitches out"?

Indeed, that's what cheating Judge Mary Hamm did with our blogger. If you read Melody Thomas-Morgan's petition for an Injunction against our blogger, she quotes, out of context, that Judge Hamm said our blogger was "dangerous."

Here's the full context, quoting from the court transcript. In fact, what the cheating judge said was that the First Amendment is dangerous.

See, our blogger had sent letters to the late Mrs. Bodine's pastor and future son-in-law, warning them, in part, about the late Mrs. Bodine. Gasp! Not legally "acts directed at a person"—nor ever entered into evidence—but who cares about the law when you're a cheating judge anyway? Judge Mary Hamm said writing such letters was "dangerous."

We agree. The First (and Second) Amendment is(are) "dangerous." To tyrants.

They're so "dangerous" that the Founding Fathers thought it wise to protect these rights. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court and even the Ninth Circuit still uphold our right to free speech, even if offensive to some.

From our bloggers federal lawsuit against Judge Kenton Jones,

In March 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." (Quoting Justice Roberts in Snyder v. Phelps, et al. 562 U. S. ____ (2011)) The case cited involved religious free speech. (The infamous Westboro Baptist church.)

27. Similarly, in mid-July 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed a criminal conviction of a man who blogged about 50 caliber bullets and a presidential candidate. Ostensibly real, serious "death threats." But as Chief Judge Kozinski wrote, "Taking the two message board postings in the context of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Bagdasarian had the subjective intent to threaten a presidential candidate . . . given any reasonable construction of the words in his postings, those statements do not constitute a “true threat,” and they are therefore protected speech under the First Amendment." United States v. Bagdasarian, 2011 WL 2803583 (9th Cir. July 19, 2011)

28. Taking the blog That Woman Jezebel in the context of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, given any reasonable construction of the words in the postings, the statements in the blog do not constitute a “true threat,” and they are therefore protected speech.

29. It is not necessary for the court to make this determination, for ironically, while crafting this complaint, I received a Cease & Desist letter from Thomas-Morgan's attorney. In the letter (Exhibit 3), Thomas-Morgan, through her attorney, acknowledges the blog is First Amendment protected speech, stating ". . . you certainly have the right to blog about your various fixations with Ms. Thomas-Morgan . . . "

30. And earlier, in her petition, she consistently puts the word "death" in quotes, making it clear that even she understands the word is not to be taken literally and knows there is no true threat.

31. Considering the popularity of blogging and micro-blogging (i.e., Twitter) in American society, it is in the public interest for this court to rule that blogging is protected speech and cannot be considered harassment.

So high-schooler Emma Sullivan was within her rights to tweet her comments about her Governor. The only good thing from the story is that Gov. Brownback's office apologized for overreacting.

We don't expect the late Melody Bodine will ever apologize. She's dead. Likewise, we don't hold any hope for Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan.

Double-minded woman

In the Bible, God talks about the "double-minded" man. (James 1:6-8) God says the double-minded man will not think he will receive ANYTHING from the Lord. He is unstable in all he does.

Same applies to double-minded women.

Which reminds us. In her petition for an Injunction Against Harassment against our blogger, Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan listed the father's oldest son, William, as a "victim." (Even though there have never been any acts directed at the children . . . let alone anyone.) Hey, she got away with it the first time. Why not try again?)

At first, our blogger thought this was an oversight by Judge Kenton D. Jones. For our blogger thought that William was over 18 years old at the time of petition. And, once 18, he cannot be listed on a parent's Injunction. If he is being harassed, he needs to get his own Injunction.

Turns out, he is over 18.

But see, our blogger attended a few hearings last fall and winter, where Miss Thomas-Morgan was being prosecuted by her first husband for contempt of court. At issue was that she refused to tell William that he was supposed to go to dad's house on dad's visitation days. (Divorced women do this a lot. Remember how Kim Basigner faced contempt for not allowing visitation?)

Miss Thomas-Morgan was adamant that because William was almost 18 (and this was in the fall and winter, remember), he was not as obligated to obey visitation orders as he might be if he were younger. Therefore, she didn't have to tell him to go visit dad.

The court (Judge Hess) agreed and said there was some smearing of the rules as a minor child approached the age of majority. If our blogger recalls correctly, there was even something to that effect in the Yavapai County Guidelines.

But in the spring, when it came time to put William on an Injunction Against Harassment, Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan thought he wasn't quite old enough to think for himself. She petitioned for the Injunction just weeks before William turned 18!

What a hypocrite.

That's worse than unstable. There is only one thing she will receive from the Lord. And He will work that out in His own good time.

The sin of malicious prosecution

This is the third, and last, Sunday post on the story in the Bible about the woman caught in adultery. (Not meant to be a "trinity" of postings, but kinda spiritual, doncha' think?)

If you've been following along, you'll recall that Prescott attorney Jay R. Eaton specifically asked for this in his Cease & Desist letter to our blogger. (Does anyone have a link for the law firm of O'Leary Eaton, P.L.L.C.? We can't find one.)

At issue was Mr. Eaton's incorrect understanding of Jesus' instructions to the lawyers and Pharisees of Jesus' day who tried to trap Jesus with a legal question.

Not much has changed with lawyers today, has it? This is one reason our blogger believes the Bible. It rings so true when it comes to reporting the hearts of unsaved man. So were we, until we repented and were born again.

Most people, even those who don't read the Bible, know a bit of the story about the woman caught in adultery. But, as is often said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So that you know the whole (short) story, here it is:

. . . but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Typically, at this point, everyone wonders what it was Jesus wrote on the ground. But don't lose focus, focusing on the minutia. It doesn't matter what Jesus wrote. (Or God would have told us.) We can speculate, and later we will, but first, there are serious sin issues in the facts we have before us.

Now, unless you've read the Bible for yourself, you might not catch one of the glaring (legal) errors of the lawyers and the Pharisees here when they brought the woman caught in adultery. Actually, it's a common sense thing. You don't have to know Old Testament law to spot the error. Can you figure it out? This is a case of malicious prosecution.

See, in this setting with Jesus, the Jews were still under the Old Testament law. Of sorts. A long time before, they had rejected God as their King and began a slow decay away from a Theocracy. As an expression of God's wrath, they were suffering their punishment under someone else's rule. (As God forewarned.) At the time, they were under the law of Rome. We'll come back to that shortly.

Now, hopefully you know the 10 Commandments. (If you don't, you had better ask yourself if you're really a Christian.) The 7th Commandment is . . . anyone? Bueller?

"You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) And what was the penalty for this?

The law that the lawyers and the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with was probably Leviticus 20:10. "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

So WHERE WAS THE MAN who committed adultery with the woman? As is said, "It takes two to tango."

Also, as a side note, neither God nor Moses said you had to stone them. While that was the punishment prescribed for some violations of the Commandments, it's not the norm for adultery. There is one specific case where stoning for adultery is called for, which involved a virgin pledged to be married. Maybe she was young and naive and smitten by a young lawyer?

Not terribly important - Jesus didn't dispute the sentence with the lawyers and Pharisees. There were other, more important violations of the law to deal with which would make this moot.

Now look, the lawyers and the Pharisees didn't really care about the Mosaic law or Justice and whether the woman had committed adultery or not. As Jesus said, they were hypocrites. Had they had cared about God's law, they would have simply killed the man and the woman pursuant to Moses without bothering Jesus.

No, this was one of their typical traps, as John says in the passage. The whole thing with the woman was a set up. After all, how, exactly, do you catch a woman in the very act of adultery? Don't the catchers have to be tipped off? And what happened to the man committing the very act? Maybe it was one of them? If it wasn't one of them, maybe they paid someone she knew to lure her into sin? This wouldn't be in the class of willful sin as with Brian's wife (if not others).

What was the specific legal trap? Well, as then and now, it was to trap to catch Jesus between "church and state."

You see, on one hand, Jesus, who claimed to be God (and is), was expected to uphold the Mosaic Law. Which, in fact, He did. Ultimately, He told the lawyers and the Pharisees to stone the woman. But if He hadn't, they would say He wasn't God because He failed to uphold His own Law.

On the other hand, now that they were under Roman law, it was illegal for the Jews to execute anyone. That was a power Rome reserved for itself. The Jews acknowledged this when they handed their Messiah over to Pilate to be murdered.

Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. (John 18:31)

Although, whenever it was convenient, the Jews often stoned Christians to death. Again, not much has changed today, except it's christians attacking true Christians. A sign of the end times.

If Jesus told them to execute the woman, they, like Melody Thomas-Morgan, would have run to the authorities telling them Jesus made a death threat. And/or that He was telling the Jews to take the law into their own hands, which would made Jesus guilty of insurrection against Rome. (The penalty being death.)

They thought they had Jesus. Whichever way He ruled, He would be wrong. So this singular case was a sham, distinguished (as lawyers say) as a case of malicious prosecution. As today, the lawyers and Pharisees weren't interested in right or wrong. They were just (mis)using the law for their own purposes. (Did we say how the Bible rings true?) Therefore, it does not set a new precedent that we are never to throw stones or carry out Justice. As we said before, if Mr. Eaton really believed that, then he ought to get out of the legal system and no judge could ever judge someone in court. (And we know a few judges who shouldn't!)

In the end, Jesus told the lawyers and the Pharisees to stone the woman. But it was they who decided to dismiss the charges after He wrote something in the ground.

So what did Jesus write? We don't know. We speculate it could have been the names of the all the women the lawyers and Pharisees had committed adultery with. Or, a favorite theory of ours, since Jesus always used Scripture to battle the devil, He might have quoted the law about stoning both adulterers (above) along with Deuteronomy 19:16-19, the command about what to do with false witnesses. (Oh, if only we obeyed this law today.)

UPDATE: Upon re-reading the prophet Hosea, it may be that the first thing Jesus wrote was Hosea 5:14. "I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes--" Then, the second time He wrote, he may have written the names of the women the lawyers and Pharisees had committed adultery with.

When no one was left, Jesus was within the Law to not condemn the woman to death because elsewhere in Mosaic Law, He (Jesus) required that there be "two or three witnesses" to execute anyone.

Being God, He could have killed her on the spot. As He could kill us when we sin. ("For the wages of sin is death.") But He knew she had been trapped by the same lawyers and Pharisees who tried to trap Him. So He was merciful to her at the time. As the Spirit says in the Book of James, "Mercy triumphs over judgment."

So, in answer to Mr. Eaton: Can we throw stones? Yes. As we explained in our last post, God commanded us to. But you must first test to see if you have clean hands before you cast a stone.

How do you know if your hands are clean? Well, you better not be committing the same sin your executing for, or else you're a hypocrite. Then, test your attitude. While you should be happy that justice is being served, you should be sad it has to be served. As God says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Neither should you.

Finally, Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

We pray that Mr. Eaton heeds Jesus' command. There will be hell to pay if he doesn't. (Oops. Can we say that? Or is that Harassment?)

Famous Amos Harasses

One of our blogger's favorite verses is Amos 5:15. "Love good, hate evil. Maintain justice in the courts" Indeed, the irony is we wouldn't be here today if cheating judges hadn't cheated and maintained justice in the courts.

Anyway, our blogger was reading through the book of Amos again, and it occurred to him that if Amos lived in Prescott, Arizona today he would find himself the victim of an Injunction Against Harassment. Here's the story, with our blogger's editorial comments [in brackets].

Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: [think "Judge Kenton Jones"] "Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. [So a false report to the authorities to shut someone up - to stifle someone's First Amendment right to Free Speech.] For this is what Amos is saying: " 'Jeroboam will die by the sword, and Israel will surely go into exile, away from their native land.' " [Ironically, Amaziah quoted Amos exactly right. How much worse his punishment on Judgment Day, for showed he clearly heard the message, didn't he?]

Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom." [Ah yes, "Shut up" in the name of Law & Order and religion."]

Amos answered Amaziah, "I was neither a prophet nor a prophet's son, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. [Same with our blogger. He was just minding his own business . . .] But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.' [No one call's themselves to be a true prophet. Call it a 'calling.' Frankly, no one wants to be a true prophet. And that's how you can tell when someone is a false prophet. People have this bad habit of shooting the messenger. Forth-telling is not a fun job.] Now then, hear the word of the LORD. You say, " 'Do not prophesy against Israel, and stop preaching against the house of Isaac.' "Therefore this is what the LORD says: " 'Your wife will become a prostitute in the city [gasp! - Can you say that? Well, prostitution is not as bad as adultery when you're starving and doing it to stay alive], and your sons and daughters will fall by the sword. [What? Isn't that a death threat?] Your land will be measured and divided up, and you yourself will die in a pagan country. [Oh no! Another "death threat!" Quick! Run to Judge Kenton Jones and get an Injunction against this guy! We've got to shut him up!] And Israel will certainly go into exile, away from their native land'"

And you know what? Amos was right! The Israelites failed to maintain justice in the courts and all this happened as Amos foretold.

But no one wanted to listen to him. Worse, they wanted him to shut up.

Close your ears if you want, but it won't stop the message. Or listen and repent. It's your choice.

On throwing stones

So, last Sunday we set the stage for why Jesus' statement "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" can't mean that we should never accuse anyone of sin because, truly, none of us is sinless. Madonna once tried to justify her sin, or at least escape being accused of sin, by invoking this verse once.

Did you do your homework as we asked? Did you search for Bible verses about rebuking or calling out sin? (Our favorite web portal, so far, for finding Bible passages is Bible Study Tools. Please leave a comment if you know of a better site.)

Let's begin by quoting a few verses, from both the Old and New Testament, which make it crystal clear that we ARE to rebuke others for sin. (At least "others" who claim to be believers.") These verses would make no sense if we could only rebuke if we ourselves were sinless first.

We acknowledge that one is supposed to check for logs in their own eye before attempting to "help" a brother. That is a check for hypocrisy. We will see how this applies to the lawyers and the Pharisees in Jesus' day when they accused the woman caught in adultery. Another hint to help you understand what Jesus meant when He told them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her ."

From the Old Testament: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt." Leviticus 19:17 This is a command.

Strictly speaking, absent a similar verse in the New Testament, this is a command for Jews only. But, as we'll see, God echos it for Christians too. (We not Dispensationalist, be we believe in Dispensations.)

Note that, in addition to being commanded to do it, rebuking is supposed to be an act of love. ("Do not hate . . . ")

That's clear from Proverbs 27:5 "Better is open rebuke than hidden love."

That is, if you really love someone and see them sinning, you won't be "polite" and keep your mouth shut. In fact, if you keep your mouth shut, we call that "enabling." No, the loving thing to do is to confront the sinner. The prophets of old, and even the Apostles of new, often rebuked their listeners. (Unfortunately, with "shoot the messenger" results.)

In fact, jumping to the New Testament for a moment (you know, it's the same God who wrote the Old and New Testament), we read in Hebrews Chapter 12 that even God disciplines those He loves. If you're not disciplined, then you're a bastard child (some translations), not a legitimate child of God. In fact, isn't about 80% of the Bible rebuking?

The focus of the cite above is to prove that rebuking for sin should be a sign of love - as when parent's rebuke (spank) their children. It doesn't say that only a sinless God can rebuke, any more than God says you have to be a sinless parent to spank your children. More typically, God leaves it for us in the world to accomplish His will, and that included "casting stones."

Here is just one example in the Bible of the Israelites stoning someone to death.

Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him."

If you know anything about the Israelites, they can hardly be said to be "without sin." Yet, God clearly commands them to stone the man to death.

Yikes! Why stone anyone to death anyway? Doesn't that sound harsh, like something only radical Muslims do today?

Well, like any punishment, lawyers and Pharisees (judges) can often abuse their authority. (Hint for the problem in this instant matter with the woman caught in adultery.) Truthfully, you've probably abused your authority as a parent once or twice, disciplining your children in anger. That is, with the wrong motive.

But, if you've been paying attention, you know God's motive behind stoning to death. He says it several times in the Old Testament. It has to do with love. From Dueteronomy 21:21,

Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.

Consistent with God's love and desire to purge evil, consider what your attitude toward correction should be. Quoting one of our blogger's favorite verses: "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me My head will not refuse it." This shows the humility of someone truly saved. They accept correction. We saw this in our jump ahead to Hebrews 12, above. There God states the obvious:

Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

By way of contrast, if you consistently shun rebuke, you're not a child of God. As when one seeks an Injunction Against Harassment to avoid spiritual rebuke, as did the late Melody Bodine and now Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan. God says in the Bible that's the sign of a fool. Proverbs 9:8 seems on point here.

Now, in the New Testament, we have the example of the Apostle Paul rebuking the Apostle Peter—in public!—for Peter's sin. (See Galatians 2:11-14.) But Paul didn't think he was sinless.

There's nothing in the Bible about Peter running to Judge Kenton Jones to get an Injunction Against Harassment. When Paul "struck" him, Peter accepted the rebuke, abiding by Psalm 141:5, above.

Now, here's a command for true believers: "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." Galatians 6:1 From other verses we know you start out gently, but if the "someone" is rebellious and will not be corrected gently, well then you elevate the harshness of the rebuke.

And here is Paul's command to Timothy: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction."

Nothing about being without sin here.

There are more proof texts, but we'll end with this one which seems especially apropos. This the Apostle Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth, which we believe is appropriate for the Corinthians at the First Baptist Church of Prescott too. From 1 Corinthians 5:1-5,

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

So here the Apostle Paul commanding the believers at the church in Corinth (who, if you know anything about the Corinthians, could hardly be said to be "without sin,") to publicly cast the sinner out of their church - the New Testament equivalent of stoning. (Although, consistent with the New Testament economy, there is an opportunity to confess the sin and be restored, which the man above apparently did later.)

So are we agreed that Jesus was not saying that only people without sin can rebuke others for sin? If you're not doing it out of malice but rather in love, then you are commanded to point out someone's sin.

Next time we'll see what Jesus was talking about in John 8:7 when he told the teachers of the law and the Pharisees "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." We'll see it all has to do with "malicious prosecution," a problem still with us today with the Pharisees.

On the woman caught in adultery

In his formal Cease & Desist letter to our blogger, Prescott attorney Jay R. Eaton formally asked for a post about John 8:7 and how our blogger "might somehow be exempt from this scripture."

That presumes Mr. Eaton knows what John 8:7 means and that our blogger is guilty of violating its meaning. Clearly, as we'll see, Mr. Eaton doesn't know what the verse means. (But he's in 'good' company. Madonna shares his understanding.)

And ironically, by his implied accusation against our blogger, if Mr. Eaton really believes what he implies, then he shows himself to be a hypocrite!

Now, the last half of John 8:7 is where Jesus tells the lawyers—ironically like Mr. Eaton—and the Pharisees, both who hated Jesus and His followers, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (This was where both wanted to stone a woman {but not the man} caught in adultery.)

Taken out of context, it sounds like Jesus is saying we should never punish anyone for sin because, truly, none of us is without sin. Any by implication, per Mr. Eaton, that we should never even accuse someone of sin. (Jesus never said that.) Which is Mr. Eaton's implication about our blogger, that our blogger is in sin for violating John 8:7 but "exempt."

Is that what Jesus is teaching here? That we should never accuse anyone of sin because we are sinners ourselves? Let's see.

First, just as you don't like to be quoted out of context, neither does God. So let's step back a moment and consider what the passage is about, to get some background.

The passage is a story you all probably know in passing. It's the story about the woman caught in adultery.

Which is ironic. And maybe telling. The woman caught in adultery? Is that what the late Melody Bodine's, and now the current Melody Thomas-Morgan's, harassing Injunctions Against Harassment are all about? (The late Mrs. Bodine mentioned adultery in court during when she got her first Injunction.)

Is Melody Thomas-Morgan's attorney confirming that the late Melody Bodine committed adultery on a wild, devil may care excursion to Scottsdale? Well why not just say so and get it over with? Hey, if no one can cast the first stone, then what's the big deal? I'm sure the good saints at the First Baptist Church of Prescott would give Melody a pass, just as they've given her a pass on everything else.)

As far as we know, no one has asked her, nor has she confirmed or denied. (We wonder if her former attorney, now Judge, Cele Hancock knows? It probably would have come up in preparation for the deposition during her divorce.)

But there's a lot more to the story than simple adultery, which we will develop later. (We hinted at it above. Who is missing from the picture of the woman caught in adultery? Hint: Read Leviticus 20:10. And think about how our legal system today is often misused for personal gain. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.)

But before we get too far into context, for completeness, we point out that this passage may not be Scripture. The story is not in the earliest Biblical manuscripts. And so, as attorneys often say, this may be assuming facts not entered into evidence. So there may not be any need to explain John 8:7, for it may not be something Jesus really said, making Mr. Eaton's accusation moot.

Nevertheless, when you understand the verse, we don't see anything that violates Scripture and, personally, we believe it is historically correct and fits in perfectly with the rest of Scripture. (We admit to not seeing that for many years as a baby Christian. But with study and time, it makes perfect sense now.) So on we go.

Now, this verse, that "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" is one of the few passages of Scripture that unbelievers seem to know. In fact, the slutty, fornicating singer Madonna knew the verse and used Jesus' words to shut down her critics.

That ought to tell you something right there. Do you think Madonna knows the Bible? Do you think Jesus would tell us that no one should call out her sin?

Well, before we tell you what Jesus was talking about in this unique case (as lawyers would say, "distinguished from others,") let's tell you what Jesus was NOT talking about.

Jesus was NOT telling the lawyers and the Pharisees that it was wrong to punish (or to accuse) anyone for (or of) sin. You'd think a lawyer, like Mr. Eaton, would know this. You don't even have to open the Bible. It's common sense.

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but Jesus green lighted the execution. He did NOT say "Do not stone her to death."

Our legal system is always accusing people of sin. And no one thinks that's wrong. But you know that no one in the legal system is without sin. Our blogger has seen cops lose their certification for stealing. But these same cops arrested people for stealing. Our blogger has seen prosecutors accuse people of knowingly violating law. But these same prosecutors knowingly violate law. And do we have to tell you about cheating judges?

In fact, not even Mr. Eaton seems to believe that Jesus was telling us not to accuse anyone of sin. because that's exactly what Mr. Eaton is implying in his C&D letter: that our blogger is in sin for calling out sin! We trust Mr. Eaton would admit that he is not without sin. So even if our blogger is in sin, how can Mr. Eaton accuse him of same?

Or, if he believes it, then Mr. Eaton is a hypocrite, which, Biblically, is more probable. Jesus called the lawyers and Pharisees of His day hypocrites. Read all of Matthew 23. And when you read it, remember that Jesus was angry at them, shouting at the top of His lungs. (Awww. how mean of a loving God.)

Amazing.

Well, we trust that Mr. Eaton will read this post, since he asked for it. (Hopefully he will not run to Judge Kenton Jones and ask for an Injunction Against Harassment as his client, Melody Thomas-Morgan did.)

We hope Mr. Eaton will repent and confess his sin and come to know Jesus and His words. (We wonder if he's Catholic? Or maybe he attends The First Baptist Church of Prescott? Hmmm... anyone know the latter? That would be an Ethics violation, a conflict of interest, wouldn't it?)

In the meantime, why not read the Bible for yourself to see if you can find instances where God clearly commands "sinners" to stone others for sin. Even in the New Testament we are commanded to call out sin and punish for it.

We'll plan to pick up this discussion later and show you what God says.

Melody v. Michelle on Ephesians 5:24. Mel wins!

A reminder for our blogger to report about something incorrect Michelle Bachman recently said. (Although she had it right at one time.)

Can you guess the pull quote?

Objecting to the C&D letter

Here's a letter our blogger just sent to Mr. Jay R. Eaton, Miss Thomas-Morgan's attorney, regarding the Cease & Desist letter.

October 20, 2011

Jay R. Eaton
O'leary Eaton, P.L.L.C.
115 N. Grove Avenue
Prescott, AZ 86301


Greetings Mr. Eaton:

Thank you very much for your C&D letter of September 16, 2011. (Courtesy copy enclosed.) It was quite a help at an opportune time.

At this point in time, I represent myself in this instant matter. A request for nominal documentation, please.

You allege in your letter that I am intentionally harming Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan's "right to earn a living" and that a specific blog entry on the blog That Woman Jezebel "constitutes tortious interference with her business relationships."

It occurs to me that this may be putting the cart before the horse. Or as you lawyers say, assuming facts not entered into evidence. Naturally, I object.

Before any discussion about my intentions (which you have already acknowledged are spiritual) and before any discussion about interfering with business relationships, is there any evidence to establish for a fact that Miss Thomas-Morgan is actually running a legitimate business?

In your C&D letter you refer to Miss Thomas-Morgan's business venture, "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors," and to her "senior care business" at the LinkedIn.com website. Aside from that, you do not reference any specifics pertaining to a business. According to your letter, you are simply representing a private individual, not a business.

As you know, and as TV comedian Craig Ferguson constantly jokes, anyone can post anything on the Internet. Doesn't make it true. Just because your client posts on LinkedIn.com that she's running a business, that does not make it true.

While I have not done an exhaustive background check, I have done some checking in good faith. Aside from one posting on LinkedIn.com (and ONLY a posting on LinkedIn.com), I cannot find any information proving there is a business called "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors." I cannot find a Yellow Page listing for her "business," as I can for yours. In fact, your client does not even supply a phone number on the LinkedIn.com website for "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors." (Screen shot attached.) Thus, it appears a critical element to running a going concern is lacking.

Is there any evidence that "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors" is actually a going concern? I trust that you would have performed due diligence before representing your client and representing to me that she runs a legitimate business. Therefore, I trust you already have copies of the necessary paperwork in your file.

Therefore, please send me copies of all your evidence that Miss Thomas-Morgan is actually running a senior care business venture. I would like copies of her business license, bond information, liability insurance and whatever other paperwork is required by various government agencies to run a "senior care business."

I presume from your letter that Miss Thomas-Morgan is a sole-proprietorship. In that case, per the IRS, I would like copies of her IRS Schedule C (Profit & Loss) paperwork or her IRS Schedule C-EZ (net profit from business) paperwork, her IRS 1040-ES (Estimated Tax) paperwork, her IRS 941, 943 & 944 forms (Social security and Medicare taxes and income tax withholding), etc. to show the business's revenue and income stream to establish a baseline. If she is a contractor, then, in addition to the above, I request copies of her 1099's. (Feel free to redact personal information such as SSN. But not EIN.)

This material would have to be provided as discovery material anyway if we go to trial, so I trust it is not a hardship to send me copies at this time, in good faith, so as to avoid the need for future, messy litigation.

Please send the material to me within ten business days. If I do not hear from you in that time, I will be forced to conclude that your client is perpetrating a fraud and, as a consequence, that your C&D letter is null and void.


I look forward to hearing from you.

It could happen to you

Here are the documents our blogger was served with, unlawfully revoking his Second Amendment rights, all because of one crazy lady's ex parte (that is, one sided) petition.

Click on the images for full size images.

Thanks to Mike Broomhead (KFYI Radio)

KFYI radio's afternoon drive-time talk show host Mike Broomhead covers our blogger's story. (End of second hour, Thursday, October 6, 2011.)

Click here for the audio. About 9 minutes.

In the meantime, you can read the original complaint over at Michael's Law.

There, as well as here you can read some of the documented silly things someone can say in a petition, in your absence to a court that will get your gun rights revoked!

Karate Kid?

Here's another ridiculous accusation Miss Thomas-Morgan makes in her petition against harassment. "In the past, Mr. Palmer, when visiting our home (pre-[Divorce]), would oftentimes warn me not to make any fast moves around him, because he might 'accidentally' go into marital arts mode and do a quick chop to my neck and kill me."

Unbelievable. Literally. (Judge Jones, did you believe this?) This fantasy has its origin from a funny story from about ten years ago. (By law, you can only cite incidents a year old.) Look, even if Mr. Palmer said he might accidentally karate chop someone, exactly how is that harassment? It's not "an act directed at a person." And if this story were true, why would the late Mrs. Bodine invite him back numerous times, ask him to house sit, etc. ? Why would she let her oldest son go on a evening missionary journey with our blogger? And if he was so dangerous, why would she let him teach her daughter some martial art moves, training her what to do if someone grabbed her hair from behind. (That's how it's going to happen, ladies.)

We suppose our blogger should be flattered that Thomas-Morgan thinks his martial arts skill are so refined. At one time, they were fairly good, but, truth is, even before the punch to the eye by an angry Mormon gal on Christmas Eve 2005 (which almost blinded him), our blogger stopped training long ago. Look how unskilled he is in this attack on him in 2005! Totally flat footed instead of in a stable stance.

In any event, here's the real story: In happier times, when the Bodines were the Bodines and we enjoyed each others fellowship around the dinner table, their youngest, Johnny (six years old?), who was fascinated with a baton our blogger usually wore, sneaked around the table and, coming up from behind our blogger, touched the top of the baton.

Now, any of you who are police officers or any who carry have probably been trained with a reflex reaction to stop anyone from grabbing your weapon. (Gun takeaway training.) So, to our blogger's surprise, the muscle memory from training kicked in and, quite reflexively, his right elbow shot up in preparation for a rear elbow strike.

But he didn't strike because part of his training was also to look at your target before you strike. So it was a balk.

That brought out the story of how our blogger had just finished a training session about how to fend off someone coming up from behind you. He was at a Walgreen's, waiting in line at the cashier, when a friend came up and tapped him on the shoulder. Still in "training mode," our blogger's arm came up to sweep away the tap and his left loaded in preparation to throw a cross. But, as always, he looked before following through. His friend laughed and said, "Wow, I'm never going to do that again," and we all had a good laugh around the dinner table.

He never told Thomas-Morgan he might do a quick chop to her neck and kill her. Aside from being a ridiculous thing to say, and almost impossible to do, the style of self-defense our blogger took, Reality Defense Training, does not teach karate chops. (Probably because they don't work in real life situations. RDT teaches closed fist punches and open hand strikes.)

Hey, Bodine children. YOU were there that evening Johnny touched the baton. YOU know the truth. Your mom is delusional. She's paranoid. She's lying and in sin. She needs help.

Will you help her?

If you're afraid of her, then you've proved there's a problem. You shouldn't be afraid of your own mom. Speak the truth to her in love. It's the only antidote you have for her condition.

Roseanne Barr harasses bankers?

Well this story seems kinda Providential.

In the WorldNetDaily story our blogger mused, "I bet if I were Muslim and writing about physical beheading on a blog, no judge would dare touch me with an injunction. Ironic."

So then Roseanne Barr comes along, calling for the beheading of bankers. Actual, physical beheading. Is anyone going to touch her?

Hey, any bankers in Yavapai County: Run to a judge and tell them you're being harassed by Roseanne Barr. Let's see what they'll do.

Welcome WND readers!

Our thanks to Joe Kovacs, World Net Daily reporter extraordinair, for covering our story. (We like reporter Bob Unruh at WND too.)

While you're here, be sure to check out the abridged federal complaint, suing the Justices of the Arizona Supreme court for the right to blog without losing your First and Second Amendment rights. Mr. Kovacs read the full version all the way through—at 3:30 in the morning! And he said it didn't put him to sleep! We'll take that as a compliment. It's a fast, easy, entertaining read.

If you're sufficiently interested, read the PDF version, as it has a bunch of fun footnotes that add a lot of color to the story. You won't believe what some of the judges in the small town of Prescott, Arizona do. (They cheat!)

Finally, if you're a born-again child of God (not everyone is, you know), please pray along the lines of Amos 5:15: "Hate Evil. Love Good. Maintain justice in the courts." Hard to come by in our country. (Poor Dr. Orley Taitz has also concluded we're lawless.) But the Disciple's prayer is: "Thy will be done, on EARTH, as it is in heaven." To that end, we strive.

The battle is the Lord's. We're just foot soldiers.

Amen?

Making the 'breast' of it . . .

Neither Jesus or the Apostle Paul got angry when they were falsely accused and, commensurate with this, our blogger is likewise even tempered when falsely accused. He was told to expect it and was told he would be blessed when people falsely persecute him for the sake of Christ. (See his nonplussed reaction when attacked while evangelizing, for example.)

And, for the most part, neither Jesus or Paul defended themselves from false charges, as when the Jews intimated that Jesus was a bastard child, born out of wedlock. (That was still a sin back in those days, not like today.) But, occasionally, both of them felt it necessary to confront the lies. Not so much to defend themselves, but to set the record straight.

So with that in mind, let's set the record straight. Let's tell the whole truth, instead the half-truths Melody Thomas-Morgan swore before Judge Kenton Jones. (These would be funny if not for Judge Jones signing on.)

In her petition for an Injunction Against Harassment Miss Thomas-Morgan writes, "He [our blogger] told women in our church that women breast feed for sexual pleasure . . . "

Uhhhh . . . even if he really said that, what has this got to do with Harassment?

It's probably a trick she learned from her scumbag divorce lawyer (IMO), who would often slime the opposition with like off-point prejudicial statements, without opposition attorneys objecting for relevance. (It seems to be a popular cheater's trick. Here's a story about a man suing another scumbag divorce lawyer for libel.)

Here's what our blogger really said years about ten years ago. If you have a good memory, you might remember the story. It was before the Internet, but fortunately, others on the net still talk about it. From the website medhelp.org, a comment from oceans3:

does anyone remember back in the early 80's (i think) a woman was breastfeeding and experienced feelings of arousal? she called someone (a lactation consultant or someone in "that dept.") who she thought could help her explain these feelings that were confusing to her. well what happened was, the woman reported her to social services and the breastfeeding mom was arrested.

And from yahoo answers, from sarge927

Several years ago, there was a big to-do about a mother who called a 1-800 help line and asked if it was normal for her to get aroused while breast feeding. Would you believe Child Protective Services tried to take her baby away from her?!?!! OK, so it doesn't happen often, but it doesn't mean the woman is some kind of pervert or deviant if it DOES happen. Breast feeding IS natural, and the vast majority of women say their breasts are "hot spots" when it comes to sexual arousal, so if you do the math, there is at least some chance that a woman will become aroused when breast feeding a baby. So the woman should just accept it, get on with her life, and be VERY QUIET about it since most people will think she's weird.

THIS last is the story our blogger had heard on the news, and is EXACTLY what our blogger was telling the women in church. (In New York State somewhere.) As with the commenters above, our blogger was outraged that anyone would be arrested or have their baby taken away for the natural act of breast feeding. He told the older women in his church this story. He suggested they, in turn, warned the younger women that, if they felt any arousal while breast feeding, they should NOT contact any government agency about it. Rather, as God instructs in the Bible, the younger women should ask the older about it.

Now, Miss Thomas-Morgan adds the snide remark to her sworn statement. Picking it up from "women breast feed for sexual pleasure" she adds, "(personally, never met a one.)" Again, what does this have to do with Harassment? This is silly! Judge Jones, what were you thinking when you signed this? (We hope he bothered to read it, as required by the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure.)

Apparently Miss Thomas-Morgan has never heard of the hormone oxytocin. Here is an excerpt from an article titled "Is breastfeeding a sexual act?" It is adapted from "Breastfeeding a crime?

Is breastfeeding an act of sexual pleasure? Do mother and baby feel something sexually while nursing? To think that the baby would feel something sexually is utter nonsense. Little babies and children don't have any such thoughts or feelings going through their mind. For them the breast is simply a source of food and comfort. Of course nursing feels good to the baby, but that feeling is not sexual, just a general good feeling.

The mother also generally enjoys nursing her child (unless her nipples are sore!). This is largely due to a hormone-like substance called oxytocin which is released as a consequence of nursing and holding the infant, the levels being based on the amount of this kind of contact.

Oxytocin also produces uterine contractions during labor, is strongly involved in mother-child bonding after birth and during breastfeeding relationship, it is released during sexual intercourse, and its blood levels rise also in response to touch, warmth, and remembering a positive relationship. It is released in the brain chiefly in response to social contact, but its release is especially pronounced with skin-to-skin contact.

This hormone has been called the "love hormone" or the "cuddle hormone" or the "bonding hormone". It provides a sense of calm and well being and promotes bonding patterns and creates desire for further contact with the individuals inciting its release. It helps the mother and child to bond together. It is involved in those mothering feelings we experience after giving birth to a child.

Since it is present during sexual intercourse, it also helps men and women to bond together and form lasting relationships. It makes you want to cuddle, touch, be close, be affectionate towards another human being. Without oxytocin, animals don't recognize or remember their partner though they are able to recognize objects. Autistic children (who often have difficulty with social relationships) have lowered levels of this hormone.

This shows God's wisdom in Creation. He made things so that mothers may enjoy breast feeding their babies (a thankless task) and He made it so when the baby teethes, mom knows it's time to wean.

We feel sorry that Miss Thomas-Morgan has never known anyone who has experienced this bonding with her children, as she herself reports (which, by extension, includes the late Melody Bodine), but just because she has never experienced it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As for telling women they shouldn't wear deodorant because it could cause breast cancer, again, you've got to wonder what is going on in Arizona that allows garbage like this in Injunction petitions? What has this got to do with Harassment? (This is a proximate result of there being no sanctions to filing frivolous petitions. In Federal Injunctions, the petitioning party often has to post a bond to cover damages to the other party if a petition is frivolous.)

But, in the spirit of setting the record straight, what our blogger warned (and it's not just for women but for men too. He uses a homeopathic deodorant product himself), there is speculation that the aluminum products in under arm deodorant may present an increased risk for breast cancer.

From the U.K. Daily Mail (with the commensurate British spelling of Aluminum):

A link has been found between aluminium in deodorants and cancer, according to British scientists.

Tests found that women who used deodorants had deposits of aluminium in their outer breasts. The samples were taken from women who had undergone a mastectomy for breast cancer.

Aluminium is not normally found in the human body and scientists are reasonably convinced the presence of the metal means it is being absorbed from anti-perspirant sprays or roll ons. Most deodorants contain aluminium salts, because the metal is effective at stopping skin sweating.

Hmmm... we wonder if the U.K. Mail is harassing Thomas-Morgan by promulgating this report?

Well, maybe more than you wanted to know. But what we really see here is that our blogger is a caring man, somewhat well-informed, who wants to save his fellow man (and woman) from harm.

And we see how silly Arizona is when it comes to petitions for Harassment and how judges are not exercising any discretion at all.

Our Sincerest Apologies

The timing on this couldn't have been any better and this should help our blogger with his latest federal civil rights lawsuit. (Thanks, Lord!) Our blogger just received a cease and desist letter from Melody Thomas-Morgan about this blog! (Although, technically, the blog is focused on the late Melody Bodine.)

Ironically, when our blogger sent the late Mrs. Bodine a cease and desist letter years ago, asking her to stop spreading slander about him, Prescott JP Judge Arthur Markham considered that "harassment!"

We presume it's okay to make this cease and desist letter public since 1) if Miss Thomas-Morgan sues our blogger, her attorney will put this letter in the public record anyway, and 2) as above, if the Lord wills, the letter will be in the pubic record in a few days in federal court. [UPDATE: Done.] So click on the images below to read the full size images. Note the end of page 2, where the attorney goes into religion.

In short, the good news is, Miss Thomas-Morgan's attorney acknowledges the First Amendment right of bloggers: "While you certainly have the right to blog about your various fixations with Ms. Thomas-Morgan . . . " Uh, so then, that's protected speech. How then can a court give Miss Thomas-Morgan an Injunction Against Harassment for what her own attorney acknowledges is protected speech?

Look, if this blog contained any untruthful information—and, to the best of our knowledge (a cute CYA line our blogger learned from observing the late Melody Bodine in court), it does not—then that could be considered libelous. (If done intentionally and with malice, as opposed to mistake.) In that event, there are civil remedies for libel.

But note that not even Miss Thomas-Morgan's attorney, Mr. Jay R. Eaton, says this blog contains untruthful or even erroneous information. He just wants certain things removed, claiming they "may" harm Miss Thomas-Morgan's business. (Hmmm.... we think the The Ripoff Report website has thoroughly adjudicated that argument in Arizona. You should see the arguably harmful stuff posted there.)

Well, even though our blogger has been determined indigent (IFP) by the federal courts, which makes a suit by Miss Thomas-Morgan extremely unprofitable and pointless (gonna be impossible to get attorney fees), to try to make peace with everyone (per Hebrews 12:14) we make a good faith effort to comply with Mr. Jay Eaton's request to "remove all references in [this] blog to [Miss] Thomas-Morgan's business and all accusations which imply [Miss] Thomas (sic) is a danger to any human being in her care. Additionally, remove all links to [Miss] Thomas-Morgan's LinkedIn.com profile." (I suppose we should be flattered that they think anyone but Miss Thomas-Morgan reads this blog! The stats are near zero!)

So we've spent the time reviewing this blog to remove said links. We only found one. (It would have helped if they had been diligent to copy the various pages and circled what they wanted redacted. But we have done our best to accommodate.)

While our blogger, like the prophet Ezekiel in the Bible, would be remiss if he didn't warn you of what he foresees (because God will hold him accountable if he doesn't warn you. Per Ezekiel 33:

When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood . . . Ohhh... can we talk about blood and death on a blog?)

he will leave it at this: He hopes that if you were going to entrust your elderly mother or father in anyone's care, you would perform due diligence and would want references first. For example, you should ask to see a business license, bonding and insurance paperwork, any other State credentials if needed, etc. And he suggests you ask the potential caregiver for personal references. Like, maybe you should ask to speak to her own father-in-law as a reference, to see how she cared for him? There's a Biblical principle here, regarding elders in the church: If she does not know how to manage her own family, how can she take care of yours? That's good advice in general, is it not?

And let us say, as sincerely as we can, that although we've never met Miss Thomas-Morgan, nor ever spoken with Miss Thomas-Morgan, and so have never known Miss Thomas-Morgan, perhaps she's changed since the last our blogger saw her while he watched in court. (January 2011 while she was testifying in a motion to hold her in contempt.) We would like to believe she is not at all "senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" like the foolish described in Romans 1:31 and would like to believe she is a trustworthy woman.

And last, in his official cease and desist letter, Mr. Jay R. Eaton, attorney-at-law, asks our blogger to comment on John 8:7. Wow. That's the same line Madonna used to justify her sins!

(Hmmmm... so he acknowledges this is all about religion. Going to be hard to broach First Amendment Exercise of Religion into a court of law, isn't it?)

I'm surprised Mr. Eaton didn't rip the only other verse from the Bible out of context most unbelievers know. (Matthew 7:1 )

But when our blogger has the time, he will gladly explain the meaning of John 8:7. Like most of the Bible, it's actually not that hard to understand when you read it in context.

Let's make a Federal Case out of it!

Well, our blogger was just served with an Injunction Against Harassment! Solely because of this blog! Any attorneys for freedom want to help? It seems a Federal Injunction to quash this Injunction is in order. Not only for First Amendment reasons, but also Second Amendment reasons.

This is a quintessential First Amendment issue in two parts. Not only is the Yavapai County Superior Court (namely, Judge Kenton D. Jones) violating the First Amendment right to free speech by issuing an Injunction based on a blog, Judge Jones is violating the First Amendment right to exercise of religion. Clearly there is an obvious spiritual nature to this blog and issuing Injunctions because one exercises their religion is a very dangerous precedent.

Ironically, our blogger was partially responsible for Judge Jones becoming a judge. For Jones was assigned the bench after former judge hinson resigned (not "retired") after our blogger filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against former judge hinson.

The Injunction was sought by one Melody Thomas-Morgan. (Who she incorrectly lists as "Melody Thomas-Morgan Bodine.)

This is the same trick she pulled on the Prescott Police. She told the cops her maiden name was "Thomas-Morgan" so as to make trouble for someone. Obviously she knew her maiden name. (It's Eells.) Her ex-husband was so concerned, he wrote the Chief of Police, telling him his ex- had falsified the report. In court, she changed her story a couple times, eventually blaming the cops for the error. (Search the trial transcript for "maiden name.")

After the fraud, our blogger asked the good cops in the Prescott police department to charge the late Mrs. Bodine with falsifying a police report, a misdemeanor in Arizona. But you see, the cops there are her friend.

So, as King Solomon said, "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong." Like Jezebel in the Bible, she continues on her merry way, undeterred.

Her own attorney said in divorce court that she was a little crazy, suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and it appears from her wild accusations, she is still touched. What's amazing is that Judge Jones signed on. You need to know that an Injunction is for a series of acts "directed at a person." Hey, Miss Thomas-Morgan, if you don't like what's here, don't read it! No one is harassing you.

While, thankfully, the Injunction does not prohibit our blogger from continuing to blog, it does unlawfully prohibit our blogger from possessing weapons.

He doesn't really care about the no contact prohibitions, since even the late Melody Bodine admitted he's never had contact with her after she filed papers against her husband. (Although there is the same legal issue that JP Judge Markham violated, and that's interfering with Father's visitation rights.

There are also the overly broad restrictions that our blogger cannot be in the Yavapai County Courthouse or the First Apostate Church of Prescott. Seems like a "Freedom of Association" issue here. What, our blogger can't even watch the trials of James Ray or Stephen DeMocker, both high profile cases in Prescott?

As even the late Mrs. Melody Bodine said in her first Injunction trial, our blogger stopped having contact with her after she filed papers against her husband.) There is no law in Arizona that gives a court the ability to deprive a citizen ownership of weapons under a civil Injunction. That deprivation is only allowed under a criminal Order of Protection. (via Brady, for domestic partners only.) See the post about Judge Slaughter and her similar illegal Injunction against Michael Roth of Quartszite.

At least Judge Slaughter had the good sense to vacate her Injunction before Roth challenged her.

Here is Miss Thomas-Morgan's petition. (Click to enlarge.) A rebuttal will be posted shortly to answer her libelous statements. But even if her allegations were true (they are not), the Ninth Circuit recently upheld that even the most egregious free speech on the Internet, threatening to kill a presidential candidate, is protected speech, as previously reported here. If the Ninth overturned a criminal conviction for speech so egregious, Judge Jones cannot issue a civil Injunction for much less egregious speech. Again, apparently a Federal Injunction is necessary to get the good judge's attention.

More worrisome is Miss Thomas-Morgan's statement that she was advised by the Prescott Police Department and the Prescott City Prosecutor that she seek the Injunction. ( Our blogger is already suing the Prescott Prosecutor, Glenn Savona. Isn't giving legal advice a violation of ethics? Wow, this is sounding like a conspiracy to deprive a Christian man of his civil rights.

UPDATE: The petition for the TRO has been filed. Any strong 2nd Amendment attorneys want to take it from here? Please leave a comment with your contact information. It will not be posted.

God hates divorce. Others love it.

In the Bible, God says, "I hate divorce." So wouldn't you think those who are his children would hate divorce too?

So then why was the late Melody Anne Bodine smiling and hugging her divorce attorney when she finally got her divorce?

Hint: Not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord!" will enter the kingdom of heaven. And this is how we can tell who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are.

Seems the good saints at the First Baptist Church of Prescott were happy too. After all, they "supported her" . . . in her sin.

Perverse Times

I tripped across a story a few months ago from the Financial Times, titled "Recovery prompts US divorce rebound." One line of the two lines story has an interesting editorial comment when it says, "In a perverse sign of the economic recovery, the US divorce rate, which dipped in the recession, has bounced back, lawyers and matrimonial experts say."

I read that to mean that when the economy is bad, wives are willing to stay with their husbands. But when the economy gets better, they are willing to leave their husbands. I presume that's because they can leech off their husbands in a recovering economy (to "protect myself financially" as the late Melody Bodine said in court). Whereas there's no point in leaving when there's no pay off.

Mom obsesses about money, murders son. Will history repeat itself?

There's a story in the news today about a Mom who murdered her son and then killed herself as she struggled with debt. (i.e., money) Given an earlier post of mine about the late Melody Bodine's obsession with money, it seemed I should comment. Who knows... the current story might be an omen.

What would you do if you saw this murder coming? Hmmm? While you can't stop someone from killing themselves, would you try to stop them from killing others?

Same question with Andre Yates. Remember her? She was the one who drowned her five children in a bathtub. In her case there seemed to be clear warning signs. According to a media report

Andrea and Rusty had met when they were both 25. Rusty had seen her swimming in a pool of his apartment complex and had decided he was interested in her. She introduced herself to him and they dated for three years. In 1993, they were married and a year later had Noah. They planned on having as many children as came along, whatever God wanted for them, and told friends they expected six.

Yet soon after Noah was born, Andrea began to have violent visions: she saw someone being stabbed. She thought she heard Satan speak to her. However, she and her husband had idealistic, Bible-inspired notions about family and motherhood, so she kept her tormenting secrets to herself. She didn't realize how much mental illness there was in her own family, from depression to bipolar disorder—which can contribute to postpartum psychosis. In her initial stages, she remained undiagnosed and untreated. She kept her secrets from everyone.

This is ominously parallel to Mrs. Bodine's background. She and her husband also planned to have as many children as God would allow and ended up with seven. They had Bible-inspired notions about family and motherhood. (Is "idealistic" a pejorative? The fact is, it was idyllic under Mr. Bodine's headship.) While I never met Melody's mom, I have heard that she was an angry woman. I don't believe in "mental illness" per se, believing it's demonic possession instead. If that's the case, then God talks about generational curses and it seems the late Mrs. Bodine fell victim to that curse. Through no fault of her own, as soon as she would become pregnant, she would become bedridden. Only now do I wonder how mentally depressing that must have been. If it was, and/or if she heard voices, she kept her secrets from everyone.

Sometime coincident to when her mother died, I (and others) who had known Mrs. Bodine for a long time had noticed a white to black change in her. She had become very, very dark, angry and hateful. Her husband was forced to confront her in love, telling her she had "an evil, malignant heart, that she had sinister and ghoulish speculations, that her thoughts were like black India ink on a white table cloth." (Quoting Mrs. Bodine at trial.)

So what do you do when you see this pattern repeating? Do you warn others about what you see, so they can keep watch because trouble may be afoot? Or do you keep quiet until it's too late and be like everyone else who said "I knew something like this would happen"?

You can't go to the police, for no crime has yet occurred. If you warn others who might be victimized and an Andrea Yates or Mrs. Bodine hears about it, you're a pariah. (Although if your children were possible victims, you would have no problem warning your children to stay away. You might even warn your neighbor kids about your suspicions too.) Even if you're right, and a woman ends up killing some children one day, you'll never really be "right." People are funny that way and would rather be in denial.

But if you keep quiet and your suspicions are eventually fulfilled, then God says blood will be on your hands. (Figuratively speaking for those of you who insist on taking what I say literally.)

Given what God says, I think it best to warn potential victims when your observations are affirmed by others. Are you willing to get involved? Make that sacrifice? Demonstrate love?

Now, you don't have to tell everyone your suspicions. You can be subtle and tell only those in authority, who can do something about the problem. Which is what I did with the late Mrs. Bodine. I wrote to warn the so-called pastor of the First Baptist Church of Prescott, Arizona, Chris Inman. At the time, Mrs. Bodine was working for the church's school (if that is theologically possible) and I was worried she might go on a rage and murder the children there, just as Andrea Yates murdered her children.

In Mrs. Bodine's case, others who had known her for a long time had also written others in "authority" at First Baptist about the change in her. So again, I wasn't the only one who saw a problem here.

You may not believe in demonic possession, but surely a christian church like First Baptist would. So I warned Mr. Inman of my concern. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't do anything except share my letter with Mrs. Bodine to use at trail against me. (Thanks, Chris. Wolf, wolf?)

Fortunately, nothing dire happened to the children at the church's school. (That we know of.) Who knows? Maybe the fact that I said something prevented the act from ever occurring? (As when you stare down someone acting suspicious around a car. Maybe you prevented a car jacking? How would you know?) As far as I know, she no longer works at the school. So, except for her own children (and grandchild), that danger seems passed.

Unfortunately, in her new incarnation as [text and link deleted as a courtesy to cease and desist letter] and the alarm bells are going off again. I'll plan to post a warning about that soon.

So, what would you do if saw Andrea Yates parallels in a long time friend? Would you speak up or remain silent? The demons (and cheating judge hamm) hope you'll keep silent.

"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."