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.