Embassy of Heaven




Plaintiff owns courts

This article was written in 1990 by Pastor Paul Revere

Pastor Paul RevereWe 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."

in behalf of her missionary ___________________
To: Court of ____________________ for __________ County
State of __________, Plaintiff v. _____________________.
Your Case No._______


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)