tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45763030578092087992024-02-22T11:51:56.902-08:00That woman JezebelNot "harassment." Protected speech. U.S. v. Bagdasarian (9th Cir 2011); LaFaro v. Cahill (AZ COA); legislative history of H.B. 2549.<br><br>An unauthorized biography on the life... err, death and death of Mrs. Melody Anne Bodine, 6/25/1982 - 10/28/2009 & 4/21/2009. (Per Jude 1:12, twice dead.)<br><br>Spiritually-and legally-Mrs. Bodine is no longer with us. Spiritually, she never was with us. We now know her "life" was an illusion. Thoughts on her passing to help true Christians discern. concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-69222422553540978452013-01-29T00:40:00.001-08:002013-01-29T00:40:33.729-08:00Women say the "damningest" thingsA book was released last week titled "<a href="http://www.barry-siegel.com/">Manifest Injustice</a>." It's the true story of a convicted murder (Mr. Bill Macumber) and the lawyers who fought for his freedom. It turns out his wife, working with the police (literally) had framed him.<br />
<br />
Remind you of anyone?<br />
<br />
ABC's Nightline <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wife-frame-arizona-cold-case-murders/story?id=11977026">covered the story </a>and our blogger will quote a few choice parts from their story.<br />
<blockquote>
Ron Kempfert spent most of his life believing his father was a murderer. He said<b> it was his mother</b> who often fueled this horrible image of the man he called Dad.<br />
<br />
"He's a murderer, he's a manipulator, he uses people, and that he didn't care about us, only cared about himself," Kempfert said his mother would tell him and his two brothers, Scott and Steve, when they were younger. </blockquote>
Hey, kids - remind you of anyone?<br />
<blockquote>
Ron Kempfert, now 42, had no doubt of his father's conviction, until
he spoke with a prominent Phoenix defense attorney named Larry Hammond
over the phone in 2003, 28 years after his father has been sent to jail.
Hammond runs the Arizona Justice Project, an organization that works to
free prisoners they decide could be innocent.<br />
<br />
"He said
'I don't know how to tell you this, there is no way to tell you this --
we know your father, we think your father is innocent and <b>we're pretty
sure your mom framed him for it,</b>'" Kempfert said of the phone call with
Hammond.</blockquote>
Remind you of anyone?<br />
<blockquote>
After recovering from the initial shock,
Kempfert started to untangle what his mother, Carol, had told him over
the years and slowly the possibility that his father was innocent began
to make sense.<br />
<br />
"<b>I love my mother but I don't like her.
She is not a nice person</b> and I did not make that jump immediately," he
said. "I don't have any doubt anymore that my mom did it -- that my mom
framed my dad for the murders."</blockquote>
Remind you of anyone?<br />
<blockquote>
Kempfert added that he eventually came to believe that his mother had a powerful motive. Around the time she turned her husband into police, <b>Carol and Macumber's marriage was falling apart. </b></blockquote>
Remind you of anyone?<br />
<blockquote>
"<b>It's hard...how do you get across yourself that your mother is capable of this, that she framed your own father...for something he didn't do because she was going to lose what she had?</b>" Kempfert said. </blockquote>
Remind you of anyone?<br />
<blockquote>
Macumber, now 75, said he has done his best to fight off bitterness, but what he is most angry about is<b> his ex-wife's efforts to destroy his relationships with his three sons.</b></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
"Quite frankly the most unforgivable lie she ever told was to her own children, even after I was in prisons he told them their father was a murderer,<b> he didn't love them or care for them</b>, and hadn't made an effort to contact them<b> and that was a terrible lie</b>. I wrote dozens of letters to my children and every one of them came back refused. They never knew I wrote, they never knew I cared, and as a result of that I've lost two of my boys." </blockquote>
Suggestion: If you find yourself believing only one side of a story your mom is telling you, seek out the other side of the story.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/proverbs/18-17.html">The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.</a> Or her. concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-32585077222613440752012-10-31T14:18:00.001-07:002012-10-31T14:34:56.683-07:00A maure woman's take on the First AmendmentWe tripped across a January 2010 <a href="http://www.myspace.com/paigebrowndunham/blog/525378536" title="Wow. Is 'My Space' still around?">blog post</a> from then <a href="http://www.jeffdunham.com/" title="Yes, the famous ventriloquist.">Jeff Dunham</a>'s soon to be ex wife. (It appears Mr. Dunham divorced his wife. From her blog post, it may be that she committed adultery. (Reference to her "mistakes.") Although <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Jeff_Dunham_get_a_divorce">it appears Mr. Dunham wasn't so pure</a> either.)<br />
<br />
According to her post, there were some things said on the Internet that some judges in Arizona might consider "harassment." (Or as <a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/">cheating judge Mary Hamm</a> said, "Dangerous." For exercising the First Amendment.)<br />
<br />
So it's refreshing to read a mature woman's words about being "attacked" publicly on the Internet. Quoting excerpts from her post [with out bloggers comments in brackets]:<br />
<blockquote>
The blog was a discussion on my pending divorce. While I admit it is strange to see your life being discussed that way, I accepted that parts of my life could become public when I married someone in this industry. [As when you divorce your husband and your court records are public.] Although uncomfortable, <b>for the most part what was said in the blog was true.</b> [Same with with blog.] I'm not proud of my mistakes, but I own them and really only Jeff and I know the complete truth. Also, <b>I truly love this country and the generations of men and women who have fought and died to create and sustain it.</b> (I PROUDLY brag that I have a family member who has fought in EVERY major war to form and protect America and the freedoms we have). <b>Since one of the very principles this country was founded on is Freedom of Speech, I must accept that people are free do discuss my mistakes. </b></blockquote>
You go, girl! If only more so-called Americans had the same mindset as you! Not everyone does. <br />
<br />
She continues:<br />
<blockquote>
However, while men and women fight and die everyday to protect our freedom, it really isn't always ours. My soon to be ex-husband didn't like what was being said, so he used his connections to have the blog removed. It seems he is only comfortable with freedom of speech and expression as long as HE is making others talk.</blockquote>
Boy, can our blogger testify to this last part.
He says that Melody Thomas-Morgan used her connections (Dan Murray, a Prescott police "officer" (no longer <a href="http://www.azpost.gov/">POST certified</a>), Mr. <a href="http://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/thomas-lloyd-689080">Thomas Lloyd</a>, a Prescott City Prosecutor, and <a href="http://courts.yavapai.us/superiorcourt/superior-court-divisions/">Judge Kenton Jones</a> to abuse our blogger by getting an unconstitutional injunction against harassment against him.. She is only comfortable with freedom of speech as long as SHE is the one talking.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-65880725881521927222012-10-25T17:56:00.000-07:002012-10-25T17:56:10.674-07:00Money Quote on Michael's Law!If you're a victim of an unconstitutional revocation of your Second Amendment via a civil injunction, use this quote from the Arizona Court of Appeals in your appeal. Better yet, quote this in a Notice to your judge before you challenge the injunction against you. By putting the judge on notice now that he can't take away your gun rights, you might save yourself a lot of aggravation in the future.<br />
<br />
On October 18, 2012, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on a Second Amendment gun grab against a Federal Border Patrol Agent. (Thankfully, they gave the Agent his gun right back. He was going to lose his job otherwise. No gun = no job.) There is a great statement in the Opinion which pertains
to "<a href="http://suingforjustice.blogspot.com/">Michael's Law</a>" and should settle the issue once and for all that a judicial officer
in Arizona cannot legally revoke your Second Amendment right in a civil
injunction.<br />
<br />
The case is <a href="http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/CV20120060Opinion.pdf">Mahar v. Acuna</a>.<br />
<br />
The case was about a criminal Order of Protection, a criminal domestic violence matter, which, per statute (right or wrong) allows a judge to take away your guns. (As opposed to a civil injunction, which does not. And
which our blogger has been fighting for a few years now.)<br />
<br />
While the overall case is not on-point for civil injunctions per se, the COA said something interesting in
their ruling which is on-point for civil injunctions:<br />
<blockquote>
Our statutes do not authorize their use [orders concerning firearms] to discourage people from yelling or engaging in 'harassment' of the type proscribed by A.R.S. § 12-1809(R). Nor do our statutes authorize the use of firearms restrictions to provide incentives for positive behavior or to teach people a '[l]esson' about civilized conduct.</blockquote>
And that's from the liberals in Tucson! (Division 2)<br />
<br />
So the judges of the Court of Appeals get it, even if the Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court don't.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-67186131669285066082012-10-25T12:44:00.001-07:002012-10-25T12:44:18.998-07:00Not the same as Jezebel website. But close?We doubt anyone would confuse this blog with the website "<a href="http://jezebel.com/">Jezebel</a>," which bills itself as the "Home of Shiny Happy Ladies" whatever that means. (We don't want to know.)<br />
<br />
Anyway, we find it interesting that, even though the creators of the Jezebel website don't appear to be Christians, they, ironically, seem to know enough about the Bible to name themselves after another "shiny" lady in the Bible.<br />
<br />
What's more, they seem to be flaunting her name, just as she flaunted herself. <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/passage.aspx?q=2-kings+9:30-35">Just before she died.</a> <br />
<br />
Oh, the arrogance.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-53669269558519368892012-09-26T22:47:00.002-07:002013-02-04T04:14:41.927-08:00(YOU) tell it to the church<a href="http://youtu.be/QDxxWFFWakQ">Here's a link to a YouTube</a> of Mrs. Bodine's first husband's spiritual (and emotional) appeal to his church (the apostate <a href="http://www.firstbaptistprescott.com/">First Baptist Church of Prescott Arizona</a>), per <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/18-17.html">Matthew 18:17</a>.<br />
<br />
If the YouTube link is down, <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx9m90_you-tell-it-to-the-church-rev-3_lifestyle#.UQ-kZ8jLfI8">try this link</a>, posted by a brother in France. <br />
<br />
Mrs. Bodine's first husband sent about 600 CD's and audio cassettes of his appeal to the members of First Baptist. No one called him to help. A few loving "christians" contacted him, telling him, essentially, to "shut up." (Look, if what Mr. Bodine did was wrong, <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/6-1.html">they should have rebuked him in love</a>, showing him his error. Telling him to "shut up," isn't the same.)<br />
<br />
Interestingly, Mrs. Bodine (through <a href="http://scumbaglawyers.blogspot.com/">her scumbag divorce lawyer</a>) introduced this audio as evidence in her divorce trial. Amazingly, despite the objection that this spiritual monologue was a First Amendment Religion issue, the <a href="http://reportjudgehinson.blogspot.com/">evil Judge Howard Hinson</a> allowed it into evidence anyway. (Throughout the trial, scumbag divorce lawyer (IMO) Mark Moore spoke about Mr. Bodine's spiritual beliefs as grounds for divorce. THAT is really dangerous. Arguably, Mark Moore is a traitor to YOUR constitutional rights.)<br />
<br />
But who knows? Maybe <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/8-28.html">God used their evil actions for good</a>, to make this public today? Perhaps your evil wife is divorcing you and her evil church is aiding and abetting her? You're not alone.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-6063655265910980112012-09-21T13:53:00.000-07:002012-09-26T22:22:30.985-07:00Court papersPerhaps some of the papers our blogger has filed in this matter will help you in your fight against a civil injunction against harassment.See <a href="http://fightinganinjunction.blogspot.com/">http://fightinganinjunction.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
Among the filings is <a href="http://fightinganinjunction.blogspot.com/2012/09/motion-fo-menal-exam-of-thomas-morgan.html">a Motion for a Court ordered mental exam of Melody Thomas-Morgan</a>.<br />
<br />
It's our blogger's personal experience with injunctions, reinforced by observations of others who have sought injunctions, that these people tend to be of unsound mind. (In our opinion, paranoid. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=endiUqx1G6c">Listen to Quartzsite Councilman Joe Winslow seek an ex parte injunction against Michael Roth.</a>)<br />
<br />
Fortunately, <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02202.htm">Arizona law disqualifies someone of unsound mind from testifying in a civil matter</a> - which means, legally, they can't get an injunction.<br />
<br />
That's the theory, anyway.<br />
<br />
(In reality, <a href="http://fightinganinjunction.blogspot.com/2012/09/motion-to-quash-injunction.html">Arizona's civil injunction law is unconstitutional</a>.)concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-86815717014616223862012-08-02T11:10:00.001-07:002012-08-02T11:10:33.252-07:00Where to find demonsOur blogger was listening to <a href="http://www.coasttocoastam.com/">Coast to Coast AM</a> the other night (which, interestingly, the late Melody Bodine, when she pretended to be a Christian, used to disparage for its para-normal bent). The show was about (Demon) Possessions & Exorcisms, and the guest was the Founder of Free Our Family, Bill Scott, <a href="http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/07/29">who recounted an excruciating 18-month period when he and his wife invited a woman (Roxanne) who was demon possessed, and the member of an active satanic network, into their home.</a><br />
<br />
Mr. Scott wrote a book about his experience. His publisher said he needed to get Roxanne to sign off on the book before publishing.<br />
<br />
But Roxanne was long gone. Where to find her?<br />
<br />
Well, Mr. Scott's wife had a brilliant idea, which had occurred to our blogger years ago.<br />
<br />
Where do you find demons?<br />
<br />
You find them in the Christian church! (Like, <a href="http://firstbaptistprescott.com/">First Baptist Church of Prescott</a>?)<br />
<br />
Look, if you were the devil, where would you marshal your forces to do the most damage? Would you put a demon possessed man or woman in a desert? What good would that do? (No pun intended.)<br />
<br />
No, if you're the devil, you'll put a demon possessed man or woman in the church! That way, you can mislead as many people as possible!<br />
<br />
The Apostle Paul foresaw this <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+20:28-30">and warned the early Christian Church, saying</a>, "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. <b>Even from your own number men [like so-called Music Pastors?] will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.</b>"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sites.google.com/site/fensterzu/thatwomanjezebel/demonic%20tend%20toward%20churches.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1"><img border="0" height="34" src="https://sites.google.com/site/fensterzu/thatwomanjezebel/speaker.larger.gif?attredirects=0" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;" width="36" /></a>
Mr. Scott's wife's brilliant observation was that this demon possessed woman "always gravitates to the church."<br />
<br />
Remind you of anyone? (Hint: Go to First Baptist church of Prescott and ask for Melody Thomas-Morgan.) <br />
<br />concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-63834860227945329932012-07-29T22:37:00.003-07:002012-07-29T22:37:57.036-07:00Steve Sanchez on "The Jezebel Spirit"Wow - we're gratified to see someone else sees it too. Independent of us.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sites.google.com/site/fensterzu/thatwomanjezebel/jezebel%20spirit%20by%20steve%20sanchez.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;" title="'Take Two,' with Steve Sachez"><img alt="image of an acoustic speaker" src="http://e0ab7edc-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fensterzu/thatwomanjezebel/speaker.larger.gif" style="height: 34px; width: 36px;" /></a>
Here's an audio clip from <a href="http://www.thestevesanchezshow.com/">Steve Sanchez </a>about something he calls "The Jezebel Spirit" in women. (1 min, 35 sec.)<br />
<br />
Our only disagreement with Mr. Sanchez is that he blames the problem on TV, music and movies. Instead of sin and disobedience to God. (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-john/3-4.html" title="1 John 3:4">Which is what sin is.</a>) Sure, the world's TV, music and movies exasperate the problem and condone double-minded Jezebel behavior. But let's call it what it is. Sin.<br />
<br />
But he's correct when he says the behavior must stop. And he calls on Christian "fathers" to correct their daughters.<br />
<br />
Of course, some Jezebel women make sure their daughters don't have fathers anymore, so the Jezebel women can raise their daughters in their own image.<br />
<br />
And what an ugly image it is. <br />
<br />
<br />concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-48992256181916783702012-05-15T17:08:00.002-07:002012-05-15T17:08:32.106-07:00(Another) Mother murders kids, selfIt happened again. Another crazy women murders her children. According to the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/tonya-thomas-shooting-florida_n_1518544.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D161070">story</a>, <br />
<blockquote>
<span itemprop="articleBody">Tonya Thomas, 33, fatally shot her four
children, who ranged in age from 12 to 17, said Lt. Tod Goodyear, a
spokesman for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office.</span></blockquote>
Of particular interest for this blog is that this lady was a church going lady (but unlike the late Melody Bodine, she didn't attend <a href="http://firstbaptistprescott.com/" title="They'll support you in your sin">First Baptist Church of Prescott</a>) and apparently lied to the cops about her husband. <br />
<blockquote>
Two years earlier, she filed a domestic violence complaint against [her husband] Joe Johnson, but that was dismissed after a hearing.
</blockquote>
Crazy women do that. (Lie a lot.)<br />
<br />
<div style="border: thin solid red; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em;">
Mr. Johsnon is one of the few men we've heard of who actually got a DV complaint dismissed against him. We know a Christian man in Ogden, Utah, whose wife, like the late Melody Bodine, left him. Like the late Melody Bodine, this man's wife also sought an Order of Protection against her husband when she filed papers.<br />
<br />
Even though the trial judge rebuked the woman for stretching the truth (when the judge asked her if her husband had ever struck her, she thought about it a long time, and said, "Once, while we were playing cards, he reached over and slapped me on the knee"), the judge issued the OOP anyway, just to be "safe" as most judges do.<br />
<br />
So much for Equal Protection under the Law. (Men, it's all about money. It's called the <a href="http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/" title="Patently prejudicial">"Violence Against Women Act</a>," a federal program with lots of money to go around.)</div>
<br />
She had also struck her husband. <br />
<blockquote>
Records also showed that Thomas was arrested in 2002 on a misdemeanor battery charge for striking the father of her children.</blockquote>
We've heard this happens. A lot. <br />
<br />
The charges were later dropped, which, based on what we've learned from other men whose crazy wives have also struck them, probably means she really did hit him but her loving husband forgave her. (Hey, even Tiger Woods didn't bring charges against his wife <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/03/18/tiger-woods-gets-beaten-up-by-wife-erin-in-video-game-during-south-park-spoof-115875-22121291/">for beating him up</a>.)<br />
<br />
Well, the moral of this story is that you can never tell what this righteous, lying, church-going women are going to do. This one murdered her teenage kids. So not even they were safe. About all you can do it look for parallels in behavior. And when the shoe fits, RUN!concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-59680885347893741682012-03-03T09:58:00.002-08:002012-03-03T10:03:14.790-08:00First Amendment right to call someone a slut!Hooray for Rush Limbaugh! He correctly called a woman a slut.<br /><br />In the old days, she would have been ashamed of herself.<br /><br />In these news days, she's proud and most everyone says Mr. Limbaugh should be ashamed.<br /><br />Chelsea Handler calls herself a slut. Just renewed her contract for $25 million.<br /><br />More later.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-51755207422842050732012-02-25T08:51:00.005-08:002012-02-25T10:13:34.850-08:00Scary - Let's make another Federal case out of itYou probably heard the widely reported story by now <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/mark-byron-facebook_n_1300282.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D138394">of the man who is being threatened with jail for posting comments about his ex-wife on Facebook</a>? As in our blogger's case here, the man's comments were not sent to the subject. He was merely exercising his First Amendment right and posting his thoughts and opinions about someone on the Internet.<br /><br />But now a judge is penalizing in the man, as in our blogger's case, for speaking his mind. (Loss of 4th Amendment for the former. Loss of 2nd Amendment for the latter.)<br /><br />Really, the solution here is to repeal all State "harassment" laws. They violate the First Amendment right to free speech. That's partially what our blogger's federal civil right lawsuit, <a href="http://suingforjustice.blogspot.com">Michael's Law</a>, attempts to do.<br /><br />Here are excerpts from the story:<blockquote>CINCINNATI (AP) — A man [Mark Bryon] who was threatened with jail time for posting comments about his estranged wife on his personal Facebook page unless he posted daily apologies for a month says the court ruling violates his freedom of speech.<br /><br />. . . the Cincinnati man and free speech and media experts say it should concern other users of the social networking site.<br /><br />With hundreds of millions of people using Facebook for communication, Byron said that "<span style="font-weight: bold;">if they can do this to me, they can do it to others.</span>" [AMEN! They have!]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The idea "that anybody could tell you what to say to your friends on Facebook should be scary to people,"</span> said Cincinnati attorney Jill Meyer, who specializes in free speech and media issues.<br /><br />The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to — in some regards — his chosen group of friends," said Meyer. She noted that the comments were not directed to Byron's wife, Elizabeth Byron, who was blocked from accessing the page. [That is, it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Forcing a 'confession' if you will, out of someone by threatening them with jail.]<br /><br />According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part, <span style="font-weight: bold;">"If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely — all you need to do is say you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away."</span> [Remind you of anyone Melody Anne Bodine / Melody Thomas-Morgan?"]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Byron's comments expressed frustration, but they were not threats and he didn't make them to his wife</span>, said Cincinnati attorney Jack Greiner, who also specializes in free speech and media issues.<br /><br />G<span style="font-weight: bold;">reiner said he doesn't think the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, "allows a court to find that someone has harassed or caused a person to suffer mental abuse merely by expressing one's opinion about a court proceeding in a non-threatening way."</span> [BINGO!]<br /><br />Greiner said that a court compelling speech through a court-written apology raises as many free speech concerns as actions prohibiting free speech.<br /><br />The ruling says several of Mark Byron's comments were "clearly intended to be mentally abusive, harassing and annoying" to his wife and "generate a negative and venomous response toward her from his Facebook friends." [So what? Even if they were, it's a right we have. This is Thought-Police stuff. And what, you don't think his ex-wife is telling her friends mentally abusive, harassing and annoying things about her husband?]<br /><br />His comments were "<span style="font-weight: bold;">nothing other than free speech communication where he was venting truthful information</span>," Ford said.<br /><br /></blockquote>We hope they make a federal case out of it. This harassment by women has got to stop.<br /><br />Free Speech. Use it or lose it.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-75825005063195506732012-02-08T19:51:00.000-08:002012-02-08T20:15:35.634-08:00Welcome Ernie Hancock listeners!Our blogger was on <a href="http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Program-Page.htm?No=0001">Ernie Hancock's radio show</a> for a short segment near the end of hour two.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Media/Media-Files/129-0208123347-2012-02-08-ernie-am-FINAL.mp3">Here's the link.</a> The segment starts at 1 hour 3 minutes.<br /><br />If you're interested in the lawsuit, suing the Justices of the Arizona Supreme court, go to <a href="http://suingforjustice.blogspot.com/">Michael's Law</a>.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-18330749698849690302012-01-21T09:32:00.000-08:002012-01-21T10:22:39.596-08:00Woman murders children<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4dQXqj3KsOZirjyDv_PEclkZpZFyQtGEaq8MC8yAtB3QaZ5OPpfOjaWODfdDJyRoVGz_oGDZ-AJLR74Czd84c29vLS4l5pk0899I_wuANJwqu5WDXL_1YzHyaNEQ80mly5QQqzkCJcDyA/s1600/aide.mendez.smaller.jpeg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer;border:thin solid black;cursor:hand;width: 194px; height: 259px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4dQXqj3KsOZirjyDv_PEclkZpZFyQtGEaq8MC8yAtB3QaZ5OPpfOjaWODfdDJyRoVGz_oGDZ-AJLR74Czd84c29vLS4l5pk0899I_wuANJwqu5WDXL_1YzHyaNEQ80mly5QQqzkCJcDyA/s320/aide.mendez.smaller.jpeg" alt="a pretty woman murders her children" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5700143672821508418" border="0" /></a>Here' a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/aide-mendez-recorded-smoking-meth_n_1210107.html">recent story about a pleasant looking woman who murdered her children.</a> She appears happy enough. But you can't tell from outward appearances what's in a person's heart, can you? It's likely her thoughts were as black as India ink.<br /><br />We especially like what <a href="http://www.atoast2wealth.com/2012/01/18/video-aide-mendez-recorded-doing-drugs-before-killing-her-children-clearly-an-act-of-satan/">this blogger wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>The only thing that could have caused this young mother of two to commit murder, then turn the gun on herself <span style="font-weight: bold;">is clearly Satan.</span></blockquote>Amen to that!<br /><br />Now, in light of the above and considering the late Melody Anne Bodine, do you remember the parable Jesus told <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+12:43-45">about the demon possessed man</a>? <blockquote>When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.<br /></blockquote>Jesus' parable applies to women too.<br /><br />Now, Melody Bodine never was a Christian. But while she was under the headship authority of her believing husband, she was "sanctified," per <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/7-14.html">1 Corinthians 7:14</a>.<br /><br />That doesn't mean she was "saved." (Saved from hell - see <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/5-9.html">Romans 5:9</a>.) It simply means, that like Noah's and Lot's family, God graciously protects a believer's immediately family for the sake of the believer. (It's clear from their actions that Lot's wife wasn't a believer. <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/19-26.html">She looked back and was turned to a pillar of salt</a>.)<br /><br />Now that the late Mrs. Bodine has left her husband, she is no longer protected from demonic possession. Our blogger's opinion is that seven other wicked spirits have entered her latest incarnation as Melody Thomas-Morgan. Ask anyone who knew the old Melody and the new. They can tell you there's been quite a change. (Read her <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/02/mr-rushtons-letter-to-david-knight-at.html">former church elder's statement</a>.)<br /><br />So, does she hear voices? Will Satan have his way with her? Time will tell. It always does.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-56903243306114497352011-12-24T15:53:00.000-08:002011-12-24T17:21:45.509-08:00No 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/23-34.html">will murder the minority</a>. 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.)<br /><br />But as the Apostle Paul said, that's the fate of true believers. "... we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." (<cite><a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/8-36.html">Romans 8:36</a>.</cite>) Such is life when you're a <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/12-1.html">living sacrifice</a>. We know<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+5:10-12"> we're blessed when people falsely say all kinds of evil against us because of our faith</a>. So, while, admittedly it hurts a bit, we try to consider it a "<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-corinthians/4-17.html">momentary trouble</a>." It goes with the territory.<br /><br />But maybe you're wondering if this blog is written in retaliation?<br /><br />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." <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/12-19.html">Romans 12:19</a><br /><br />Can you write about someone without the spirit of retaliation? Sure, God does it in the Bible all the time. See <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-timothy/passage.aspx?q=1-timothy+1:19-20">1 Timothy 1:19-20</a> where the Apostle Paul names names. (Gasp!) And of course, you know He named Jezebel.<br /><br />But you know what? There will come a time <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/4-13.html">when everything is laid bare and we will all have to give an account to God.</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So "Use it or lose it," as is said.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">Have you noticed how those who have nothing to fear don't try to silence their opponents? As with <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/">the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists</a>? Or by getting Injunctions Against Harassment to shut you up?<br /><br />Interestingly there was a similar situation in Quartzsite (Arizona) recently <a href="http://qtown.us/blog/2011/12/07/florian-vs-jones/">where a Denise Florian, a public official, sought and obtained an Injunction to shut up Jennifer Jones</a>. Search the web for "Denise Florian." She's left some <a href="http://www.freedomfighterradio.net/DeniseWelchFlorian.wma">colorful voice mails around</a>. (Warning: Language.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div><br />But we will admit that, in a bit of irony, if <a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/">cheating judge Mary Hamm</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-86056197425852527672011-12-16T17:17:00.000-08:002011-12-24T18:23:04.721-08:00Women get away with murderWell, it wasn't murder in this case. It was pepper spraying. That is, assault. Felony assault.<br /><br />But no charges.<br /><br />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.))<br /><br /><hr />So, do you remember the news reports from "Black Friday?" <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/walmart-pepper-spray-black-friday_n_1112548.html">Some lady shot a crowd of shoppers with pepper spray.</a> It was reported that she was a <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_19426397">"competitive shopper"</a> who used the pepper spray to gain an advantage. Authorities were going through receipts <a href="http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-11-25/news/sfl-shopping-fever-leads-to-pepper-spray-near-la-20111125_1_police-press-hunt-pepper-sprayer-pepper-spray">in an effort to find her through her purchase of an X-box</a>.<br /><br />There was so much press, that<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57331853-504083/report-walmart-black-friday-shopper-suspected-in-pepper-spray-melee-surrenders/"> she turned herself in</a>. And <a href="http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/no-charges-yet-against-walmart-pepper-spray-suspect-dpgonc-km-20111127_16130468">admitted she attacked shoppers</a>.<br /><br />But then, the cops let her go saying <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_19426397">she was acting in self defense!</a><br /><br />Yeah, right.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Wouldn't that be equal justice under the law? No favoritism or partiality? (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/19-15.html">God hates partiality.</a>)<br /><br />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."<br /><br />And we bet she felt self-righteous. Was probably in fear for her life, doncha know. (Words are so dangerous.)<br /><br />This was the day before cell phones. So she got away.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We're not looking forward to it, but things will be different once the radical Muslims take over.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-52209325488722444262011-12-06T17:59:00.000-08:002011-12-06T18:16:34.292-08:00Woman shoots children, kills selfA headline from the Drudgereport.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN2nADaK2jKDW58gn-cT1Y66H5KL-y-mmyvZoiSGyEbdEVB17F1rOyRWK9AH8ELzlRMSjE8pYTeCZ3QcVJDZzbzvxzUJKAItrS7Uo0YYr3XXmlb1b23Z_OxLXdb5f32yRePfMVFtsyPxks/s1600/woman+kills+self+drudgereport.jpg"><img style=" margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 49px;border:thin solid black;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN2nADaK2jKDW58gn-cT1Y66H5KL-y-mmyvZoiSGyEbdEVB17F1rOyRWK9AH8ELzlRMSjE8pYTeCZ3QcVJDZzbzvxzUJKAItrS7Uo0YYr3XXmlb1b23Z_OxLXdb5f32yRePfMVFtsyPxks/s320/woman+kills+self+drudgereport.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5683201592198232498" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/woman-denied-food-stamps-kills-self-shoots-children-181629410.html">Here's the full story.</a><br /><br />It happens.<br /><br />People knew this woman. May even have seen this coming. The story reports, "She had issues."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://prescottsmalltownpolitics.blogspot.com/">quiet home town</a>."concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-33203047313888279452011-12-05T08:17:00.000-08:002011-12-06T18:25:05.732-08:00Calling Judge JonesMore political correctness run amok.<br /><br />The headline is "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/04/boy-suspended-from-school-for-sexual-harassment-after-calling-teacher-cute/">Boy suspended after calling teacher 'cute'.</a>"<br /><blockquote>A 9-year-old boy North Carolina boy was suspended for calling a teacher “cute,” WSOCTV.com reports.<br /><br />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.”</blockquote>Sigh. Is there no common sense anymore?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Well, at least there's a somewhat happy ending in the story. There, unlike here, <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2011/12/06/20111206north-carolina-cute-teacher-sexual-harrasment.html">the school apologized</a>.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-42559599366194087622011-11-29T13:22:00.000-08:002011-11-29T14:05:10.939-08:00High-schooler "Harasses" Gov. BrownbackOur 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 <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/27/emma-sullivan-apology-sam-brownback-tweet_n_1115382.html">high-schooler Emma Sullivan who tweeted some disparaging remarks about Gov. Brownback</a>?<br /><br />So Miss Sullivan was called to the principal's office and told to apologize.<br /><br />What? Did Gov. Brownback seek an Injunction against Harassment? And who does the principal think he is? <a href="http://www.co.yavapai.az.us/Content.aspx?id=19340">Judge Kenton Jones?<br /></a><br />See, this is the mindset of <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/25-41.html">those on the Left</a>. 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 <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/09/lets-make-federal-case-out-of-it.html">run and get an Injunction Against Harassment</a> against you.) Remember the DemocRATS telling the Republicans about devise speech and then immediately turning around saying "<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/in-warning-to-tea-party-jimmy-hoffa-jr-says-lets-take-these-sons-of-bitches-out/">Let’s take these sons of bitches out</a>"?<br /><br />Indeed, that's what <a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/">cheating Judge Mary Hamm</a> did with our blogger. If you read Melody Thomas-Morgan's <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuH9QIg4NNKbnYotG39EFS_URumflQP8gKlj1AoJ6T2XsjkNCvFLEAn8uB3tvIpZoSFtiQuRVNn-B1VBXrkW2M4BPMhRvDcS5eXXjXuvp9hGuijFoI-Ps0nAl7s2d6g_IcKbM65G5u4DX8/s1600/petition.p.2.jpg">petition for an Injunction against our blogge</a>r, she quotes, out of context, that Judge Hamm said our blogger was "dangerous."<br /><br /><a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/08/talking-about-death-is-constitutional.html">Here's the full context, quoting from the court transcript</a>. In fact, what the cheating judge said was that the First Amendment is dangerous.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />We agree. The First (and Second) Amendment is(are) "dangerous." To tyrants.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />From our bloggers <a href="http://suingforjustice.blogspot.com/">federal lawsuit against Judge Kenton Jones,</a><br /><blockquote>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.)<br /><br /> 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)<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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 . . . "<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.<br /></blockquote>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<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/emma-sullivan-receives-ap_n_1116945.html"> Gov. Brownback's office apologized for overreacting.</a><br /><br />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.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-68043194437232412242011-11-28T08:13:00.000-08:002011-11-29T14:36:08.910-08:00Double-minded womanIn the Bible, God talks about the "double-minded" man. (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/james/passage.aspx?q=james+1:6-8">James 1:6-8</a>) God says the double-minded man will not think he will receive ANYTHING from the Lord. He is unstable in all he does.<br /><br />Same applies to double-minded women.<br /><br />Which reminds us. In<a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/09/lets-make-federal-case-out-of-it.html"> her petition for an Injunction Against Harassment against our blogger</a>, 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?)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Turns out, he is over 18.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://allwomenstalk.com/kim-basinger-may-face-jail-time/">Kim Basigner faced contempt for not allowing visitation?)</a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />What a hypocrite.<br /><br />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.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-69962624360001947042011-11-06T15:41:00.000-08:002011-11-16T22:54:25.694-08:00The sin of malicious prosecutionThis 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?)<br /><br />If you've been following along, you'll recall that Prescott attorney <a href="http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/072011/m4806106.pdf" title="A case of misrepresentation by Mr. Eaton?">Jay R. Eaton</a> specifically asked for this <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/09/our-sincerest-apologies.html" title="at the end of page 2">in his Cease & Desist letter</a> 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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">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. <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/passage.aspx?q=ephesians+2:1-3">So were we</a>, until we repented and were <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/3-7.html" title="Jesus said, 'You must be born again.'">born again</a>.</div><br />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 href="http://www.answers.com/topic/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing">a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.</a> So that you know the whole (short) story, here it is:<blockquote> . . . but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?”<br /><br />“No one, sir,” she said.<br /><br />“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” </blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />See, in this setting with Jesus, the Jews were still under the Old Testament law. Of sorts. A long time before, they <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-samuel/8-7.html">had rejected God as their King</a> 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. (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/passage.aspx?q=leviticus+26:14-39">As God forewarned.</a>) At the time, they were under the law of Rome. We'll come back to that shortly.<br /><br />Now, hopefully you know <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/passage.aspx?q=exodus+20:1-17">the 10 Commandments</a>. (If you don't, you had better <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-john/2-4.html">ask yourself if you're really a Christian.</a>) The 7th Commandment is . . . anyone? Bueller?<br /><br />"You shall not commit adultery." (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/20-14.html">Exodus 20:14</a>) And what was the penalty for this?<br /><br />The law that the lawyers and the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with was probably <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/20-10.html">Leviticus 20:10.</a> "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--<span style="font-weight: bold;">both the adulterer and the adulteress</span> must be put to death."<br /><br />So WHERE WAS THE MAN who committed adultery with the woman? As is said, <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/it+takes+two+to+tango" title="And the 'tango' is kind of a seedy (dirty) dance.">"It takes two to tango."</a><br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">Also, as a side note, neither God nor Moses said you had to stone them. While that was <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/24-16.html">the punishment prescribed for some violations of the Commandments</a>, it's not the norm for adultery. There is <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/passage.aspx?q=deuteronomy+22:23-24">one specific case where stoning for adultery is called for</a>, which involved a virgin pledged to be married. Maybe she was young and naive and smitten by a young lawyer? <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/03/sex-in-city-of-scottsdale.html"><br /></a><br />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.</div><br />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, <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/23.html" title="Read it all, and shout aloud in anger when you read it, just as Jesus did!">they were hypocrites.</a> Had they had cared about God's law, they would have simply killed the man and the woman pursuant to Moses without bothering Jesus.<br /><br />No, this was <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+22:15-22" title="Just like asking if it was okay to pay tribute to Caesar, who set himself up as 'god.'">one of their typical traps</a>, 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 <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/03/sex-in-city-of-scottsdale.html">with Brian's wife</a> (if not others).<br /><br />What was the specific legal trap? Well, as then and now, it was to trap to catch Jesus between "church and state."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<blockquote>Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/18-31.html">John 18:31)</a> </blockquote><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">Although, whenever it was convenient, the Jews often <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+7:49-60">stoned Christians to death</a>. Again, not much has changed today, except it's christians attacking true Christians. <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/10-21.html">A sign of the end times.</a></div><br />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.)<br /><br />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 href="http://criminalfaxing.blogspot.com/" tile="civil right lawsuit against Prescott Prosecutor Glenn Savona">a case of malicious prosecution.</a> As today, the lawyers and <a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/">Pharisees</a> 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!)<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/passage.aspx?q=deuteronomy+19:16-19">Deuteronomy 19:16-19,</a> the command about what to do with false witnesses. (Oh, if only we obeyed this law today.)<br /><br />UPDATE: Upon re-reading the prophet Hosea, it may be that the first thing Jesus wrote was Hosea 5:14. "<span class="versetext" id="ho4-14">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<a name="1"></a> and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes<a name="2"></a>--" Then, the second time He wrote, he may have written the names of the women </span>the lawyers and Pharisees had committed adultery with.<span class="versetext" id="ho4-14"> </span></div><br />When no one was left, Jesus was within the Law to not condemn the woman to death because elsewhere in Mosaic Law, <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/17-6.html">He (Jesus) required that there be "two or three witnesses" to execute anyone. </a><br /><br />Being God, He could have killed her on the spot. As He could kill us when we sin. (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/6-23.html">"For the wages of sin is death."</a>) 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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/james/passage.aspx?q=james+2:12-13">in the Book of James,</a> "Mercy triumphs over judgment."<br /><br />So, in answer to Mr. Eaton: Can we throw stones? Yes. As we explained<a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-throwing-stones.html"> in our last post</a>, God commanded us to. But you must first test to see if you have clean hands before you cast a stone.<br /><br />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, <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/33-11.html">"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked."</a> Neither should you.<br /><br />Finally, Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin."<br /><br />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?)concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-81004589040291428742011-11-05T18:18:00.000-07:002011-11-06T15:49:17.034-08:00Famous Amos HarassesOne of our blogger's favorite verses is <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/amos/5-15.html">Amos 5:15</a>. "Love good, hate evil. Maintain justice in the courts" Indeed, the irony is we wouldn't be here today<a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/" title="And not only Judge Mary Hamm but Judge Arthur Markham too."> if cheating judges</a> hadn't cheated and maintained justice in the courts.<br /><br />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].<br /><blockquote>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?]<br /><br />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."]<br /><br />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'"</blockquote>And you know what? Amos was right! The Israelites failed to maintain justice in the courts and all this happened as Amos foretold.<br /><br />But no one wanted to listen to him. Worse, they wanted him to shut up.<br /><br />Close your ears if you want, but it won't stop the message. Or listen and repent. It's your choice.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-4587473309378511232011-10-30T15:10:00.000-07:002011-11-06T19:28:21.007-08:00On throwing stonesSo, <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-woman-caught-in-adultery.html" title="The woman caught in adultery">last Sunday we set the stage</a> for why Jesus' statement <a style="" href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/passage.aspx?q=john+8:1-11" title="read the whole story">"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her"</a> can't mean that we should never accuse anyone of sin because, truly, <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/ecclesiastes/7-20.html">none of us is sinless.</a> Madonna once tried to justify her sin, or at least escape being accused of sin, <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/111736/MADONNA-DARES-PIOUS-CRITICS-IN-ITALY-TO-CAST-THE-FIRST-STONE.html">by invoking this verse once.</a><br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/">Bible Study Tools.</a> Please leave a comment if you know of a better site.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">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 ."</div><br />From the Old Testament: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt." <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/19-17.html">Leviticus 19:17</a> This is a command.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">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.)</div><br />Note that, in addition to being commanded to do it, rebuking is supposed to be an act of love. ("Do not hate . . . ")<br /><br />That's clear from <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/proverbs/27-5.html">Proverbs 27:5</a> "Better is open rebuke than hidden love."<br /><br />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 "<a href="http://www.asktheinternettherapist.com/articles/enabler-definition/" title="As with drunkards and drug addicts">enabling</a>." 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.)<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/passage.aspx?q=hebrews+12:5-11">Hebrews Chapter 12</a> that even God disciplines those He loves. If you're not disciplined, then you're a bastard child (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/asv/hebrews/12-8.html">some translations</a>), not a legitimate child of God. In fact, isn't about 80% of the Bible rebuking?<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">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."<br /></div><br />Here is just one example in the Bible of the Israelites stoning someone to death.<blockquote>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."</blockquote>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.<br /><br />Yikes! Why stone anyone to death anyway? Doesn't that sound harsh, like something only radical Muslims do today?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/21-21.html">Dueteronomy 21:21,</a><br /><blockquote>Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. <span style="font-weight: bold;">You must purge the evil from among you.</span></blockquote>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: "<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/141-5.html" title="Psalm 141:5">Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me My head will not refuse it.</a>" This shows the humility of someone truly saved. They accept correction. We saw this in our jump ahead to Hebrews 12, above. <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/passage.aspx?q=hebrews+12:9-11">There God states the obvious</a>:<blockquote>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.</blockquote>By way of contrast, if you consistently shun rebuke, you're not a child of God. As when one <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/10/it-could-happen-to-you.html">seeks an Injunction Against Harassment to avoid spiritual rebuke</a>, as did the late Melody Bodine and now Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan. God says in the Bible that's <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/02/wise-woman-builds-her-house.html">the sign of a fool</a>. Proverbs 9:8 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/proverbs/9-8.html">seems on point</a> here.<br /><br />Now, in the New Testament, we have the example of the Apostle Paul rebuking the Apostle Peter—in public!—for Peter's sin. (See <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Galatians+2:11-14">Galatians 2:11-14</a>.) But Paul didn't think <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-timothy/1-15.html">he was sinless</a>.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 85%;">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.</div><br />Now, here's a command for true believers: "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/6-1.html">Galatians 6:1</a> 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.<br /><br />And here is Paul's command to Timothy: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, <span style="font-weight: bold;">rebuke</span> and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction."<br /><br />Nothing about being without sin here.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.firstbaptistprescott.com/">the First Baptist Church of Prescott</a> too. From 1 Corinthians 5:1-5,<br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote>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 "<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-corinthians/3-1.html" title="Called them 'carnal.'">without sin</a>,") 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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=2-corinthians+2:5-11">apparently did</a> later.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 href="http://criminalfaxing.blogspot.com/">a problem still with us today</a> with the <a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/">Pharisees.</a>concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-66739127002932534172011-10-23T10:42:00.000-07:002011-11-06T16:15:50.997-08:00On the woman caught in adulteryIn his formal <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/09/our-sincerest-apologies.html">Cease & Desist letter to our blogger</a>, Prescott attorney <a href="http://www.martindale.com/Jay-R-Eaton/54218-lawyer.htm" title="Also check out azbar.org for discipline history">Jay R. Eaton</a> formally asked for a post about<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/8-7.html"> John 8:7</a> and how our blogger "might somehow be exempt from this scripture."<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Is that what Jesus is teaching here? That we should never accuse anyone of sin because we are sinners ourselves? Let's see.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The passage is a story you all probably know in passing. It's the story about the woman caught in adultery.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />Is Melody Thomas-Morgan's attorney confirming that the late Melody Bodine committed adultery <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/03/sex-in-city-of-scottsdale.html">on a wild, devil may care excursion to Scottsdale?</a> 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, <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/07/food-stamp-fraud-and-first-baptist-of.html">just as they've given her a pass on everything else.</a>)<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica;font-size: 85%;">As far as we know, no one has asked her, nor has she confirmed or denied. (We wonder if her former attorney, now <a href="http://sillycelejudgehancock.blogspot.com/">Judge, Cele Hancock</a> knows? It probably would have come up in preparation for the deposition during her divorce.)<br /></div><br />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 <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/20-10.html">Leviticus 20:10</a>. And think about how our legal system today is often misused for personal gain. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.)<br /><br />But before we get too far into context, for completeness, we point out that this passage may not be Scripture. <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html">The story is not in the earliest Biblical manuscripts.</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/111736/MADONNA-DARES-PIOUS-CRITICS-IN-ITALY-TO-CAST-THE-FIRST-STONE.html">used Jesus' words to shut down her critics.</a><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica;font-size: 85%;">Not to get ahead of ourselves, but Jesus green lighted the execution. He did NOT say "Do not stone her to death."<br /></div><br />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 <a href="http://criminalfaxing.blogspot.com/">these same prosecutors knowingly violate law.</a> And do we have to tell you <a href="http://isthatjusticerobertbrutinel.blogspot.com/">about cheating judges</a>?<br /><a href="http://maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com/"></a><br />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?<br /><br /><div style="border: thin solid red; margin: 0pt 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-family: arial,helvetica;font-size: 85%;">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<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/23.html"> Matthew 23.</a> 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.)<br /><br />Amazing.</div><br />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.)<br /><br />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?)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We'll plan to pick up this discussion later and show you what God says.concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-80019002469747215832011-10-21T15:16:00.000-07:002011-10-21T15:32:22.712-07:00Melody 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.)<br /><br />Can you guess the pull quote?concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576303057809208799.post-46683371765613126702011-10-21T04:05:00.000-07:002011-10-21T04:40:26.593-07:00Objecting to the C&D letterHere's a letter our blogger just sent to Mr. Jay R. Eaton, Miss Thomas-Morgan's attorney, regarding the <a href="http://thatwomanjezebel.blogspot.com/2011/09/our-sincerest-apologies.html">Cease & Desist letter</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote style="border:thin solid black;font-family:courier;padding:10px;color:black;background-color:white;">October 20, 2011<br /><br />Jay R. Eaton<br />O'leary Eaton, P.L.L.C.<br />115 N. Grove Avenue<br />Prescott, AZ 86301<br /><br /><br />Greetings Mr. Eaton:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />At this point in time, I represent myself in this instant matter. A request for nominal documentation, please.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />As you know, and as TV comedian Craig Ferguson constantly jokes, <a href="http://outrageousoutrages.com/2010/04/19/is-everyone-on-twitter-a-marketing-expert/" title="See end of third paragraph">anyone can post anything on the Internet. Doesn't make it true.</a> Just because your client posts on LinkedIn.com that she's running a business, that does not make it true. <br /><br />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." (<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/melody-thomas-morgan/32/362/273" title="Current as of October 21, 2011">Screen shot attached.</a>) Thus, it appears a critical element to running a going concern is lacking.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />I look forward to hearing from you.</blockquote>concerned citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09094388429211228673noreply@blogger.com0