Calling Judge Jones

More political correctness run amok.

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

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

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

Sigh. Is there no common sense anymore?

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

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

High-schooler "Harasses" Gov. Brownback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From our bloggers federal lawsuit against Judge Kenton Jones,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double-minded woman

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

Same applies to double-minded women.

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

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

Turns out, he is over 18.

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

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

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

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

What a hypocrite.

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

The sin of malicious prosecution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No one, sir,” she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Famous Amos Harasses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On throwing stones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing about being without sin here.

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

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

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

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

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

On the woman caught in adultery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you guess the pull quote?

Objecting to the C&D letter

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

October 20, 2011

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


Greetings Mr. Eaton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I look forward to hearing from you.

It could happen to you

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

Click on the images for full size images.