|
Plaintiff
owns courts
This article was written in 1990 by
Pastor Paul Revere
 We
believe the things that Jesus Christ has commanded us to do are not
subject to adjudication in secular courts. Yet, we are accused day and
night and brought before the State's legislative tribunals. The following
NOTICE OF COURT DEFICIENCIES points out to the Court that it is like a
blind umpire. It cannot possibly see to render an impartial decision
because of the plank in its own eye.
Imagine for a moment that you are on the
Christian Crusaders baseball team and are scheduled to play against
Beelzebub's Braves. As you are warming up, the umpire arrives, stumbling
over home base carrying a white cane and waving a pennant, "GO BRAVES GO."
The umpire shouts, "PLAY BALL."
What are you going to do? The umpire is
obviously blind and favors the opposing team. If you move into position to
play and do not object to the umpire, you've accepted him and the decisions
he makes. If you object to the blind umpire, you expose his deficiencies.
We submit the following NOTICE OF COURT
DEFICIENCIES to expose the court's inability to render fair, impartial
decisions. One judge carefully read the NOTICE and said, "I agree with you
100 percent, but I am going to proceed anyway." After the hearing, she found
me guilty of all charges, ordered me to get a state driver's license and pay
fines. We wrote a series of letters to the court asking for copies of all
orders of the court. We received no response to our request, but one day
were surprised to receive a packet from the court returning the exhibits we
submitted in the action. It has been over two years and no coercive action
has been taken against me by the court or motor vehicles division. It's as
if the hearing never happened.
This NOTICE can be submitted at
arraignment, prior to entering a plea, or any time prior to trial. It is
important to remain steadfast after submitting the NOTICE because the court
will attempt to trick you into accepting their biased court. The court truly
has a very serious problem - they just don't want to admit it. Simply keep
saying, "I am not ready to proceed until this court meets the basic
requirements for a fair trial."
Prepared by the EMBASSY OF HEAVEN
CHURCH
in behalf of her missionary ___________________
To: Court of ____________________ for __________ County
State of __________, Plaintiff v. _____________________.
Your Case No._______
NOTICE OF COURT DEFICIENCIES
Before the
above-referenced action can proceed, the following deficiencies in the Court of the State
of __________ for __________ County must be resolved. These deficiencies include:
1. No
effective counsel is available for Church missionary. The accused has diligently searched
for counsel that is unfettered and not beholden to the plaintiff. It appears the only
persons who are allowed to be counselors are those who have taken a solemn oath to support
the plaintiff, the State of __________. Attorneys are also officers of the state and have a
duty to see that defendants are punished for violating plaintiff's laws. Thus, the first
duty of attorneys is to the courts, not to their clients and when duties conflict, their
duties to the court must take precedence. (See 7 C.J.S., Section 4, page 801-802,
Footnotes 53 through 56). It seems impossible to obtain counsel that can present Church's
side of the conflict because an attorney's first loyalty is to the Plaintiff. The accused
is not qualified to represent himself and is unwilling to waive his right to effective,
unbiased counsel. Where can an attorney be found who can practice law in your state who is
free to effectively counsel Church missionary and is not beholden to the plaintiff?
2. The
judge has taken "loyalty oaths" to support the laws of the plaintiff. He is an
employee of the plaintiff and is paid large sums of money to enforce the will of the
plaintiff. How can the judge be neutral and unbiased?
3. Every
juror is a member of the state and is, therefore, one with the plaintiff. Jurors are also
required to swear oaths to support the plaintiff. They, too, receive small amounts of
money from the plaintiff. Some jurors also receive large sums of money from the plaintiff
in the form of government jobs or handouts. Jurors have an intimate and longstanding
relationship with the plaintiff, but have never met the accused.
4. The law
enforcement witnesses have a very close relationship to plaintiff and are not impartial.
They are paid to go out and enforce the plaintiff's laws and then to testify in court to
facts that will help win plaintiff's action. The whole livelihood of law enforcement
officers depends on doing the plaintiff's will.
5. This
court was created by the plaintiff. Specifically, it is an administrative unit of the
legislature and is only a court in name and not in function. It carries out the will of
its creator, the plaintiff. Therefore, the court itself has been fettered to the plaintiff
and is not an impartial tribunal. It is clear in the 1958 Oregon Supreme Court decision of
State ex rel Wernmark v. Hopkins (213 Or 678) that the judicial power of the lower courts
is under the arm of the legislature, instead of being a separate branch of government:
Since amended Art VII authorized the
legislature to abolish or remake the county court, and the legislative assembly, in
embracing that power, retained only the name of the body, but changed it from a court
to an administrative unit we believe that the conclusion is warranted that so far as
Art XV, Section 2, is concerned, the legislature created the county court of Jackson
county. - (emphasis added)
State ex
rel Madden v. Crawford (207 Or 82) explains further the wide powers the legislature now
has over Oregon's courts:
Hence, under Section 1 of Art VII, as
amended in 1910, the Supreme Court is the only court created by the constitution itself;
all other courts are to be created by legislative act.
If
an appeal is made to the court's decision, it is handled by the appeals court that was
also created by the plaintiff. (ORS 2.510) Thus, the plaintiff makes the laws, employs the
police to enforce the laws, and finally adjudicates the laws in the plaintiff's own
courts. Is there any chance for a fair, impartial trial when the judges, prosecutors,
public defenders, jury and witnesses are not just paid by the plaintiff - they are the
plaintiff!
6. Public
Law 97-280, 96 STAT. 1211, 1982, affirms that the Bible is the Word of God and recognizes
our need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible declares that
Jesus Christ is the highest authority:
Then Jesus came to them and said,
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18
Jesus Christ instructs us:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust
in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say
to your brother 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a
plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then
you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5
This
"court" is attempting to take the speck out of the missionary's eye, while
ignoring the plank in its own eye. This "court" is blind because of its many
structural defects and cannot possibly see to remove any defects from the accused. As
Jesus instructs us, "If any one of you is without sin let him be the first to throw a
stone" (John 8:7). The court must first correct its own defects before attempting to
correct the defects of the Church missionary. If the court is unable to resolve its own
deficiencies, then it cannot possibly see clearly to correct any deficiencies of the
Church.
Here are
some questions for the court that the Church has answered. Please correct the Church if
the answers are in error:
Q. What constitutes a fair
trial?
1. An
adequate hearing and an impartial tribunal, free from any interest, bias, or prejudice.
The Reno, C.C.A.N.Y., 61 F.2d 966, 968.
2. A fair
and impartial jury and a learned and upright judge to instruct jury and pass upon legal
questions, and an atmosphere of calm in which witnesses can deliver their testimony
without fear and intimidation, . . . and in which truth may be received and given credence
without fear of violence, Floyd v. State 166 Miss. 15, 148 So. 226, 232.
3. An
orderly trial before an impartial jury, and judge whose neutrality is indifferent to every
factor in trial but that of administering justice. State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 131 Fla.
566, 179 So. 695, 698, 115 A.L.R. 857.
Bias or
prejudice either inherent in the structure of the trial system or as imposed by external
events will deny one's right to a fair trial. A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic
requirement of due process.
Q.
Why should a person have a fair trial, why not an unfair trial?
A. The answer is so obvious as to be self-evident. It isn't
right for men to judge their own cause. Considering human nature, neither party to a
dispute can be trusted to render judgment justly. A third party can do so only if he is
unbiased and fully appraised of the facts.
Q.
Who created this court?
A. The State of __________.
Q.
Who is the plaintiff in this action?
A. The State of __________.
Q.
Who pays the judge, district attorney, public defender, witnesses, jury and staff?
A. The State of __________.
Q.
Where is the impartial third party whose neutrality is indifferent to every factor in the
trial except that of administering justice?
A. There is none.
Q.
When can plaintiff try its own cases?
A. Only if plaintiff is lord over the accused or if
the accused has agreed to a biased court.
The
Church's lord is not the State of __________. Our Lord is Jesus Christ, the King of kings and
Lord of lords. Our Church missionary does not consent to being tried in a secular tribunal
"owned" by the plaintiff. Nor does missionary, a member of the body of Christ,
claim to be also a part of the state or under its supervision. "No man can serve two
masters" (Matthew 6:24). Upon what authority does this court use state vehicle
statutes to judge a missionary of the Embassy of Heaven Church traveling under the
jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Heaven? Missionary has not knowingly consented to having
his God-given duties to travel from place to place preaching the gospel judged by an
administrative tribunal of the legislature. (Matthew 28:18-20) We are not aware that the
State of __________ has supervisory authority over Jesus Christ and His church. (See Matthew
22:21)
If the
state insists on trying the Church missionary, we require a court that is not beholden to
the legislature, a court that is part of a separate judicial branch and free to hear
Constitutional issues related to separation of Church and state. We require a fair trial,
in an impartial court with the assistance of effective, unbiased counsel. Until these
basic requirements of due process are met, the Church missionary is not ready to proceed.
(Signed
and Dated)
|
