EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME XXVI

 

Law and Justice

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume XXVI--Law and Justice

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume XXVI--Law and Justice

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part ZZZ--Christian Injustice 

 

      393             A Story from Yisrael                                                                                          6

 

      394             Christian Justice System                                                                                14

 

      395             More Christian Injustice                                                                                  19

 

      396             Lawyers                                                                                                              24

 

      397             Lack of Honor and Integrity in Justice                                                          37

 

 

Part AAAA--Government Corruption 

 

      398             The Unjust Justice Department                                                                     47

 

      399             The Justice-Media Link                                                                                   50

 

      400             More Government Corruption                                                                        55

 

      401             Federal Law Enforcement                                                                              63

 

 

Part BBBB--Christians Disobey Christian Laws 

 

      402             Christians and Their Own Laws I                                                                  68

 

      403             Christians and Their Own Laws II                                                                 79

 

      404             Christians and Their Own Laws III                                                                92

 

      405             Christians and Their Own Laws IV                                                               98

 

      406             Christians and Their Own Laws V                                                              110

 

      407             The Modern Philosophy of Law                                                                  123

 

 

Part CCCC--Christian Hypocrites 

 

      408             A Christian World of Hypocrisy I                                                                  133

 

      409             A Christian World of Hypocrisy II                                                                 145

 

      410             A Christian World of Hypocrisy III                                                                156

 

      411             Gross Ignorance                                                                                             161

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume twenty-six of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 393--A Story from Yisrael

 

 

A Revisit to a Story From the House of Yisrael  

 

For an excellent illustration on the incredible confusion and rebellion in the generic classification and analysis of Israelites and the police state that they have now allowed to develop (as described in prior chapters), one of the most profound and serious mitzwah in the Scriptures says that one must never afflict a widow woman and/or orphan children (Ex 22:22; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 24:17-19; 26:12-13; 27:19; Jas 1:27). 

 

Truly, it is a very evil and wicked person who would dare hurt a widow woman and fatherless kids (Job 24:21). 

 

Also, the US Constitution outlines some laws which are relevant (as will be described in some detail in later chapters herein on the decision of Christians to ignore their own laws, as well as those of The ELOHIM)--like laws that say people are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; that people are not to be denied life, liberty and property without due process of law; that private property shall not be taken without just compensation; that persons in a suit at common law shall have a right to jury trial (with the jury trying all facts and the law); that an accused is entitled to a quick/speedy jury trial (before his peers); and that excessive bail shall not be required. 

 

So there was a couple named McGuckin with six kids, living in Garfield Bay, North Idaho (cited earlier).  Per a Jun 18, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 3) story on “Federal Child Swiping a Profitable Endeavor” by Tony Blizzard, the tragedy of this family was cited. 

 

Michael, the 61 years old husband, was in poor health with multiple sclerosis.  He lost his sawmill business and faced troubled times.  Thereupon, he could not pay the excessive 1998 taxes of $8,700 on the family’s 40-acre farm and house (which just happened to be located in Bonner County, near Beaver Lake, and worth up to $500,000).  Accordingly, the county seized the property for the taxes on May 25, 1999. 

 

However, there was a provision in the law which allowed people like the McGuckins to pay the back taxes within three years and nullify the tax sale (evidently, by May 25, 2001).  In August 2000, the county sold the property for $50,000 to a fat cat in New Jersey with alleged local connections.  Obviously, in May 2001, there was pressure on to allow the chosen, privileged and connected buyer to take possession. 

 

 

The Man Died 

 

On May 12, 2001, the ill Michael McGuckin died of multiple sclerosis--leaving behind his 46 year-old widow JoAnn (who, herself, has a heart condition) and six children, ages eight to 16.  With Mike gone, JoAnn was faced with no money and a pile of debts. 

 

The family had been self reliant and actually home schooled their kids (which, of course, made them enemies of the state).  Thus, the widow was reluctant to go to the county for financial help (though she finally did so, in order to get her husband buried).  She and/or her husband earlier had contacted the county about the taxes due and offered to deed part of the land to the county in payment of the taxes. 

 

But the supposedly “loving, compassionate” county officials said “no” to this offer.  Being indigent and being opposed to taking welfare, the widow finally struggled to fill out the forms to have the man buried by the county.  Two weeks after the death of her husband, the funeral was set and Michael was buried. 

 

 

The Entrance of Conspiracy? 

 

In the meantime, the county prosecutor and child protection people entered into evidence of a prima facie conspiracy (possibly with other county officials, the NJ buyer and/or a local land developer/speculator, who was buying up much of the nearby land) to throw the widow in jail--so that her property could be more easily stolen. 

 

After all, it would have been a difficult process for this cabal of alleged conspirators to steal the property from a widow and six orphans and evict them two weeks after the husband/father died.  But with her in jail and past the three years deadline, the alleged conspirators could easily and quickly take possession and make a killing in profits. 

 

So these concerned county officials ordered the local Sheriff to arrest the woman on the day of the funeral.  The pretext for this arrest was that she was criminally negligent in taking care of her kids.  Apparently, an older girl had had a squabble with her parents and left home to enter the Navy earlier. 

 

Reportedly, this teen-age girl made some accusations against her father and mother when she left home (to the tune that the mother did not keep a clean house and that she did not properly attend to her kids.  Conversely, the mother was to later claim that she did the best she could with a dying husband, no money and many problems).   

 

 

Big Brother Moves In 

 

Consequently, the prosecutor and child protection people used these old allegations to support their prima facie conspiracy to place Mrs McGuckin in jail and her kids in a foster home.  This would allow the NJ people to take possession of the property with no further delay.  For sure, if the Sheriff tried to evict her and her orphaned kids two weeks after the death of her husband, it would have been a nasty process.  

 

In the meantime, the Sheriff refused to arrest her on the day of the funeral.  So he left her alone for another week before sending out deputies to arrest and jail her.  In order to make the arrest, the “concerned” law enforcement people enticed her to come out of her house--ostensibly, in order for them to help her fill out some forms so that she could get social security (from her dead husband and for the kids). 

 

Being a new widow and down and out, the poor woman came out of doors and was immediately arrested and whisked off to the county jail.  The local female magistrate ordered the woman held under a $100,000 bond. 

 

With the arrest of the woman, the Sheriff (per the arbitrary demands of the child protection people) tried to take the children in custody--so that they could be sent to foster homes.  However, the children refused to surrender and held out for five days.  Finally, intermediaries persuaded the kids to give up to the (loving/kind?) officers, while their mother was socked away in the county jail. 

 

The evil, controlled, national media picked upon the story and gave it some coverage--with a painted picture that the woman was evil, that the man died from malnutrition, that the kids had to eat soup made from pond lilies and that the kids actually had guns (which are still legal in the US) and some dogs (which many Americans own) to use against the “loving and compassionate” law enforcement people. 

 

The leftist Jun 11, 2001, “Newsweek” (p. 18-19) called the woman mentally ill and described her home as a bunker with guns and snarling hounds.  “Newsweek also called the Sheriff’s seizure of the kids a “rescue.”  The deceitful and evil Spokane “Spokesman-Review” of Jun 4, 2001 (p. 1), said that the standoff with the kids for five days was “marked by wild dogs, stockpiled weapons and hungry, frantic children.” 

 

The Rusty Humphrys’ “Saturday Night Live” program devoted its effort on Jun 2, 2001, to a report on this event.  Naturally, Humphrys reported the controlled media spin that the kids pulled a gun and turned the bad dogs loose on the “loving” Sheriff. 

 

 

Distortions and Lies 

 

The only problem with all of this hype, coming from the controlled media, is that it was almost all lies and deception.  There was virtually no truth in any of the reports.  They had twisted, lied, deceived and spun the true story into a story of hate--primarily against the widow.  And why would the controlled media (controlled by a handful of super rich plutocrats) be so anxious to paint a picture of lies and deception? 

 

The reason is obvious.  These big boys have an agenda for world government.  This agenda envisions a dictatorial, totalitarian state which completely controls all thoughts and thinking of all of its zombiized subjects (as envisioned in George Orwell’s “1984”).  Therefore, people now must be taught to never oppose the state in any of its undertakings.  We all must submit! 

 

Last, there is a plank in the Communist plan--calling for a division between children and their parents.  The goal of Socialists have for ages been the separation of children from parents and the placing of children under the state to be raised as zombiized subjects of the state.  This is one of the reasons for the focus upon outcome based education and child protection services, as discussed earlier. 

 

True, there were some dogs at the McGuckin house.  But most of them were pups from a female mother.  Also, in truth, the house did have two guns in it (which are perfectly legal by the US Constitution).  But never did any of the kids handle, display or brandish the guns at the arresting Sheriff, despite the controlled media lies. 

 

The children were taken to a local hospital and found to be well fed and in good health.  Even the dogs were found to be in good health.  There was food in the house--as the woman had been receiving some free food from the local county food distribution program.  The arrested kids were soon to become wards of the big Brother state and shipped off to a foster home. 

 

 

More Fall Out

 

The child protection thugs would get a new case to bolster their case load (so that they could get more state money and hire more employees).  The state would use taxpayer funds to pay for a foster home for the kids--which would allow the evil child protection people to come in and begin brainwashing the children on the evils of their mother. 

 

With the child protection lies (from the trained, professional, child protection psychologists and bureaucrats), the small children could be sufficiently brainwashed and deceived to come to hate their mother and preclude all possibilities of ever being reconciled and back together with her as a family. 

 

Many of these child protection people in the US states appear to be butch lesbians--which only goes on to add to the dilemma and sickness of the whole child kidnapping practice, as discussed in former chapters.  In this system, everybody in the know seems to be happy.  The only losers were/are the hurting widow and orphans. 

 

Days later, the (supposedly fair and impartial) judge said that she would release the poor widow from jail, if the widow would agree to stay away from her kids.  But the widow said no. 

 

So she stayed in jail (eventually, she gave in and agreed to the demands of Big Brother and was released.  As a side point, the demands and the agreement were all made as secret stipulations and have never been made public.  So no one knows for sure what the facts are). 

 

Per the media spin and the local Bonner County officials, there was never an issue over due process of law, indictment by a grand jury, trial by jury, excessive bail, justice, fair play, etc. 

 

 

Christian Preacher Barley, Revisited 

 

And by all means, no one gave a squat about the Torah and YHWH’s Words about afflicting widows and orphans.  In an injustice like this, one must ask where was the Bonner County Christian preachers?  Or did they care one way or the other?  Thus, the Scriptures were trodden upon by evil Christians (even including Dave Barley, the local Christian Identity preacher in Sandpoint). 

 

In his Sep-Oct 2001 “America’s Promise newsletter” (p. 7-8), Christian leader Barley gave an update on the case.  He said that he had talked to some private persons who knew the woman.  Allegedly, these gossipers told him that she maintained a “messy, polluted, unhealthy home,” to apparently include having a mouse problem and some bugs (Barley didn’t say what kind of bugs--cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes or what). 

 

He then added that she was a recluse who did not “allow family, friends, nor any church to be involved in any way in her or her families’ life because she was an overly paranoid schizophrenic, who did not trust hardly anyone... Biblically, an individual is not above the community/church.  The local body does have the right to intervene...” 

 

 

The Confused Barley 

 

Obviously, sun worship leader Barley simply does not understand the Word.  He is totally lost in trying to tell anyone anything--in terms of the Book.  After all, throughout the Word, YHWH is always the defender of widow women and fatherless children.  Too, there is the question of lashon hara (the evil tongue) in spreading gossip.  On judgment day, the evil Barley will have some tall explaining to do when he is judged. 

 

In all of his gossiping (lashon hara) and harsh judgment placed upon the helpless woman, sun worship leader Barley failed to mention that up until a few days before her arrest, the poor woman had had a husband at home (though he was extremely ill, he was the head of the household and in charge of her life).  How much blame should be placed upon him?  Or should it all be placed upon her? 

 

Actually, if the woman did act a little peculiar, she assuredly had a lot of reasons for it.  For years, her husband was sick and dying.  She had to take care of him and the house full of children.  Since he was not working, they had no income and it was up to her to try to feed and provide for the family.  The oldest girl could have helped her mother greatly.  Instead, she abandoned her family and joined the Navy. 

 

In the meantime, the excessive taxes were due on the property.  The county could have accepted the trade offer the family made.  Or for that matter, it was even in the county’s power to forgive the taxes.  But the county big shots were more interested in profits and gain and not in helping a sick, dying man and/or a poor helpless widow woman with a house-full of kids. 

 

To top it all off, the self reliant family was opposed to taking welfare.  Manifestly, that poor woman had her hands full.  And even if she did go to one of the sun worship churches, they would have done nothing for her.  With the death of her husband, any of the churches could have helped her.  But they didn’t!  She didn’t have to be a church member in order for them to give her some money, food or bury her husband. 

 

Surely, they could have contacted county officials and intervened on her behalf.  And where was the gossiping Barley when this family was sinking?  Did Barley help (or did he just come along later to gossip)?  Truly, if she had of went to some Christian Church for help, her plight on judgment day would be far worse.  She would have likely picked up a Christian demon and would have become even more peculiar (and in real sin). 

 

The point is that sun worshipper Barley simply knows not what he is talking about.  Or at least, he knows little or nothing about the Scriptures and truth.  With people like Barley running the Christian Identity movement, its future is clear.  It will go down the tubes.  And someday, the uninformed and gossiping Barley will meet his fate (punishment) from the same evil system that destroyed the McGuckin woman. 

 

Actually, this case was not unique in the US, as noted in prior chapters.  Oppressive, government crimes like this one routinely happen across America. 

 

 

YHWH Cares 

 

But the preachers and government and fat cat workers of evil should have awakened long enough to read what The ELOHIM says on this matter.  For example, in Exodus 22:22-24, YHWH declares that if that widow and those kids cry out to Him, He will hear and He will kill those men and turn their wives and children into widows and orphans.  He is The Avenger of widows and orphans (Ps 68:5; 146:9). 

 

The Dec 16, 2001, “Coeur d’Alene Press” paper (p. A7) had a follow-up story on Mrs McGuckin which noted that she lives in a small, single, motel room and spends her time praying, writing in her journal and meeting with her lawyers and doctors.  Apparently, she is a Roman Catholic as she gets to see her children at Sunday services at a local Roman Catholic Church. 

 

With this background, there is always a question about whether The MOST HIGH will hear and listen to the prayers and petitions of people who are in sin and transgressions.  In this vein, it’s hard to fathom that He would even listen to the prayers of a pagan Christian.  With her link to pagan sun worship, one must wonder whether her prayers to the sun god will accomplish anything immediately or not. 

 

This writer is suspicious that The MOST HIGH is not bound in His Word to hear her prayers and take prompt vengeance upon the evil people who have hurt her and her orphan children (though He is aware of the problem and may address it later in time). 

 

While He may or may not listen to her prayers, we can be sure that The HIGHEST has been upset with the gross sin and wickedness of the local sun worshipping Christians who perpetuated this evil upon a widow woman and orphan children.  Who this woman prays to and worships will not alter the fact that the local sun worshipping Christians treated her grossly wrong and very contrary to the Scriptures. 

 

Manifestly, YHWH is the defender of helpless widow women and orphan children.  While He may have no obligation, Scripturally, to immediately answer the prayers of this widow woman, surely He has taken note of everything that has happened to her.  At some point in time, He will very likely act against the evil people of Bonner County. 

 

In any case, whether YHWH acts at once or later, He will surely act in time and punish those evil Christian sun worshippers for how they have afflicted and hurt innocent widow women and children.  Those pagan sun worshipping Christians are simply not going to get away with this wickedness.  They will have a price to pay for their sins.  Sin always brings a pay-back! 

 

 

Some History 

 

Interestingly, in the ancient Houses of Yisrael and Yehudah, the evil people oppressed widows and orphans (Isa 1:17-23; 9:17; 10:2; Jer 7:6; 22:3).  And sure enough, YHWH was The Avenger who had those men killed and their widows and orphans shipped off into slavery and captivity.  In the age end, the same thing is prophesied for the House of Yisrael (Ezek 22:7, 25; Zech 7:10-14; Mal 3:5). 

 

Prophetically, in the age end, evil men will once more oppress helpless widows and orphaned children (as has happened in Idaho and really across modern America).  Will YHWH hear their cries?  Or will He execute judgment upon the sinning leaders (religious, political, etc) of the House of Yisrael.  For sure, these wretched injustices across Christian America invite a coming judgment--and soon! 

 

If this injustice happened to an Ultra Orthodox Jewish family in Israel (or even, in the US), the Ultra Orthodox Jews would assemble in mass to protest, raise “Hades” and demand restitution for the woman and children. They would never stand by and do nothing.  But apathetic, evil Christians simply don’t care and won’t do anything. 

 

The Word must have had US laws and enforcement and justice in mind when it said-- “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter... Who justify and acquit the guilty for a bribe, and take away the rights of the innocent...” (Isa 5:20-23, “Amplified Bible”). 

 

 

Some More History   

 

A former chapter discussed at some length the incredible apathy and don’t care problems in modern Ephraim America.  Of course, the dilemma with sun worshipping Christian Americans started from the very beginnings of this nation in 1788.  As outlined earlier, George Washington mistakenly allowed Amalekite bankers to have power (led by Alexander Hamilton or Levine). 

 

True, Andy Jackson came along in 1828 and ran them out of Washington.  But they were ever around, waiting for a comeback.  From Abraham Lincoln and on forward, Americans never bothered to exercise any control over immigration and naturalization of citizens.  Anybody and everybody came and they were welcomed with open arms (up until Warren Harding and the Quotas act of the early 1920s). 

 

In allowing Amalekites from Eastern Europe and Hamites from Southern Europe to come here, it was only a question of time until organized crime would take over.  And as the general society continued to miscegenate and amalgamate, everything was on a decline (with the reality that the entropy law was in full effect). 

 

Then the bankers were at last allowed to own the US currency and gold supply with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.  The incompetent and/or evil Woodrow Wilson quickly paid off his benefactors by signing the act into law.  Thus, the nation was for sure doomed to eventual world government when the Amalekites were given custody and control of America’s financial future. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 394--Christian Justice System

 

 

The Courts 

 

A few remarks are needed here on the idea of American justice.  Not only do many federal agents go out of their way to obstruct justice (as outlined earlier) and particularly if there is reason to believe that they have acted illegally or improperly, but there are continuing problems for any surviving persons facing a federal trial. 

 

In the first place, the previously cited Jack McLamb says that typically federal prosecutors use the FBI to conduct background checks on potential jurors.  With a background profile, the prosecutor is able to manipulate the courts to keep potential jurors off of the stand who might be inclined to side with the victims. 

 

With these background checks, politically incorrect people normally will never even appear on a jury list.  A politically incorrect, accused party is just not going to have any politically incorrect jurors.  Thus, whatever jury chosen will start off on the side of the government prosecutors. 

 

And most importantly, the judges themselves have been appointed by, are paid by and serve this system.  In other words, they are part and parcel of the problem.  Of course, some will be honest and try to dispense justice.  But too many judges are prostitute judges, just like the prostitute politicians who are only interested in self perpetuation. 

 

 

Some Examples 

 

In the case of the trial of Yuri Kahl (as described earlier), the fact that a marshal’s bullet was lodged in his gun was never even allowed to be discussed in court by the judge.  If this fact could have been brought out, and in the context that the marshals fired first without provocation (which is what Yuri claimed), it might be that Yuri could have had a better chance of defense. 

 

The trial of Montana Freeman LeRoy Schweitzer (also cited earlier) is also quite tragic.  It seems that Schweitzer has extensive education on law and legal procedures.  He objected to the court appointed attorney.  At his first trial in 1997 for tax evasion, he tried to read to the jury the statute which he was accused of violating and the judge would not allow it. 

 

He tried to raise some objections.  So the federal judge ordered him chained, bound and gagged during the trial.  Quite naturally, he was found guilty on Oct 23, 1997, and the Big Brother judge gave him the maximum sentence possible--27 months in prison, $112,683 in back taxes and $200,000 in fines (“Jubilee” paper, Nov-Dec 1997, p. 1, 5). 

 

Another federal trial of all of the freemen commenced in Montana in mid March 1998 for resisting arrest by federal agents.  Again, some of the accused tried to object to the court proceedings.  The judge ordered them removed from the courtroom--to be elsewhere bound and to watch the proceedings on closed circuit TV.  The (farce) trial went on without their presence. 

 

Naturally, all of them were found guilty and given harsh sentences from some 4 to 22 years (for passing bad checks).  This is modern American justice. 

 

At the opening of the unabomber trial in California, the court appointed defense lawyer decided that the accused Ted Kaczynski (similarly mentioned earlier) would be characterized as a nut--a paranoid schizophrenic.  Ted objected and wanted the lawyer removed (fired)--so that he could represent himself. 

 

Quite naturally, the judge ignored the defendant’s wishes and ordered the trial to proceed with the unwanted lawyer.  To back up the judge’s decision, the feds soon offered an allegation claiming that Kaczynski tried to commit suicide with his missing underwear--which they claimed was flushed down the toilet.  

 

Of course, this widely disseminated fed story was readily accepted by everyone.  It effectively proved that indeed Kaczynski was nuts.  Actually, this tactic of claiming that politically incorrect people are just nuts is one of the federal government’s practices in dealing with political enemies--as noted in preceding discussions. 

 

Hence, a dishonest judge and/or prosecutor can manipulate evidence and the court process so that even an honest jury may be deceived. 

 

 

The Jury 

 

And of extreme importance, there is the remaining problem that few juries are even told or allowed to understand that they decide “all issues,” including even the propriety and validity of the law which a person stands accused of. 

 

In this matter of trying the law, the 6th amendment to the US Constitution says that an accused is to have a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions.  Even the way this amendment is worded suggests that the jury can try the law or try a defendant for a lesser crime.  Apparently, this used to be the common practice in US Courts (Jul 17-Aug 6, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” newspaper, p. 2). 

 

In 1771, John Adams, the later second president of the US, stated that a juror should ignore a judge’s instructions on the law if it violates fundamental principles (Dec 10, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 10).  

 

Lysander Spooner, in 1852, said “In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they can do nothing to protect the people; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law” (ibid, p. 11). 

 

 

Supreme Court Decisions 

 

Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld this right of the jury to try the law--such as those written by Chief Justice John Jay in 1789; by Justice Samuel Chase in 1796; by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902; by Justice Harlan F. Stone in 1941; and repeated in the 1972 case involving US vs. Dougherty (Dec 1998 “Idaho Observer,” p. 20). 

 

The 1794 US Supreme Court said:  “It is presumed that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law.  But still both objects (facts and law) are within the (jury’s) power of decision” (Dec 10, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 10-11). 

 

In a 1969 decision (US v. Moylan), the US Court of Appeals stated that “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision” (ibid, p. 10). 

 

The 1972 above noted US Supreme Court case on US v. Dougherty said:  “The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by the trial judge...jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration.  The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury that formerly kings and ministers faced” (ibid, p. 10). 

 

 

Trying the Law is Established 

 

Therefore, the jury has the right, duty and obligation to “try” the law as well as the accused in a free jury system, as allowed in the US Constitution (Art III and amendments V, VI, VII and IX).  Such a jury can ignore an immoral and unjust law and just not convict. 

 

Some twenty state constitutions in the United States have this right of the jury to judge both the law and the facts spelled out (like MD, IN, OR, etc).  Importantly, the Maine State Constitution (Art I, Sect 4) spells out this right.  The Georgia Constitution specifically says-- “In all criminal cases, the jury shall judge the law as well as the facts.”  This condition was a fact of life in the American colonies in the 18th century. 

 

The “Spotlight” paper of Mar 20, 2000, had an article by Tom Stahl on “Citizens Must Claim Rights:  Founders Gave Juries the Right to Determine the Law” (p. 16-17) which quoted legal historian Lawrence Friedman, who said:  “In American legal theory, jury power was enormous, and subject to few controls.  There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. 

 

“This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh.”  Above all else, jury nullification is manifestly part and parcel of those rights retained by the people in the ninth amendment to the US Constitution.  While trial juries have enormous power in dispensing justice and deciding upon right and wrong, grand juries are even more powerful. 

 

Many people suppose that grand juries work for prosecutors.  But the truth is that grand juries are sovereign in their power.  They simply don’t have to indict accused people.  And by all means, they can indict government officials who obstruct justice and assume illegal powers.  If some grand juries started indicting federal judges, US attorneys and government leaders, things would quickly change.  

 

 

A Lost Reality 

 

Significantly, judges generally go out of their way to hide the truth of jury power, whenever they instruct and dictate to uninformed juries.  If the right of the jury to judge both facts and law is brought up, many judges become angry, wishing to reserve to themselves all questions over law. 

 

As Charles Key (previously quoted herein) outlines in his video on “Fraud and Corruption in American Courts,” most prosecutors and judges work hand in hand to keep people off of the jury who might be independent and judge the law. 

 

Key says that these forces work together by questioning potential jurors about their attitude toward the law (whether they will accept the law, as dictated by the judge, and apply it in all cases, notwithstanding their consciences and their feelings about the validity of the law).  Any juror who dares say that he will be independent and judge the law will be routinely dismissed by almost all judges/prosecutors. 

 

This subtle, deceitful and unconstitutional practice by judges and prosecutors works out to mean that the assembled jury will almost always be dedicated to accepting the right of the law and never exercising any power to judge the law, as is the basis of the whole jury system.  In these cases, if the law is bad, jurors will still convict. 

 

In his presentation of the historical development of the right of jurors to judge the law, Key cited an ancient case in England where a jury was held in detention by the King until it decided to rule in support of the law.  In the US, it used to be illegal to harbor a run-away slave.  But most US juries would never convict any person so charged--on the basis of conscience. 

 

While most judges and prosecutors are more than anxious to keep honest and informed jurors off of juries, an interesting “possible” contrasting position surfaced in a jury in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  The Oct 14, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a story about the attitude of local Judge David Buter, in a case involving a Grand Rapids police action. 

 

In the case before the court, a woman named Lori Blumke was called for jury duty.  In questioning, Lori honestly said that she could not be impartial in the case because she had been treated rudely by the local police in the past and she didn’t care for them.  The judge didn’t like her candor and ordered her to perform 24 hours of community service picking up trash, along with convicts. 

 

The point is that judges have great power to do about whatever they want to do in their courtrooms.  And if a potential juror speaks the wrong words, the juror could be in serious trouble with the judge.  Somehow, this perversion is just not right. 

 

 

A Basic Right 

 

Anyway, a jury has the right to determine the law as well as the facts in a case.  A good sample of how important this right could have been surfaced in the jury trial in October 1997 of an Au Pair British girl (nanny or baby-sitter) in Massachusetts, accused of killing a small child in her care (by shaking it). 

 

There was no evidence whatsoever of malice or premeditation involved suggesting that she intentionally wanted to hurt the child (even if she did carelessly shake it).  Nevertheless, the prosecutor chose to try her for murder with no option of manslaughter, as would logically apply, and while also withholding important evidence on the case, as will be established in later commentary herein. 

 

The jury brought in the murder verdict, evidently because it had no choice.  If the jury would have determined the law, they could have found the girl innocent of murder (but perhaps guilty of manslaughter, as was the option open to and exercised by the judge) to show the irresponsible action of the prosecutor and the inapplicability of the law involved. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 395--More Christian Injustice

 

 

Unequal Punishment 

 

One of the very sickening unjust processes of the American judicial system is the practice of courts to render different scales of punishment to different guilty parties--depending upon the wishes and discretion of the prosecutors and judges. 

 

The previously quoted Charles Key addressed this issue briefly in his video on “Fraud and Corruption in American Courts.”  Key made note of the fact that in American courts people who plead guilty receive less punishment than those who are convicted after pleading innocent.  Of course, this is not the Scriptural way.  In the Book, there is one prescribed punishment for one wrong and not different punishments for the same sin. 

 

Charles Key noted that the Congress (and obviously, some state legislatures) have, in some instances, attempted to standardize prescribed punishments for law violations.  But in those cases, the prosecutors still use discretionary powers by altering or modifying the chargers for the level of punishment the prosecutor wants imposed. 

 

Although not mentioned by Key, it is a fact that prosecutors and the courts will allow certain defendants to plea bargain and either beat a rap or receive little punishment if the defendant will squeal on the wrong-doing of some other party. 

 

It is very common to find that the courts will reduce sentences or even release people from jail if they will inform on other people (this practice was cited earlier and will be described in the following comments in the vein of how the courts coerce, force, induce and use people to spy upon or inform upon other people--often with the payment of monetary rewards or the alteration of justice). 

 

The deplorable reality of sentence enhancement will be addressed in a later chapter  herein (where judges merely enhance or increase a sentence upon a convicted party, based upon other unproven allegations).  This pathetic practice has now become a part of American justice. 

 

 

One More 

 

One more word on court trials is needed and particularly at the federal level.  There is supposed to be a prevailing attitude in court and among the judges and juries that a person is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

In other words, it is the prosecutor’s job to prove the guilt and not the task of the accused to prove his innocence.  Too often, courts are conducted on the premise that accused persons are guilty, unless they prove their innocence (as with Yuri Kahl and the Waco survivors). 

 

 

Another Common Practice 

 

Among the many practices followed in today’s Christian, sun worship society, perhaps one of the most evil practices of all surfaces when prosecutors (working for the government with all of its money and resources) bribe, payoff, intimidate, threaten, coerce and force people to testify against accused persons Big Brother wants to put away (as touched upon above and in previous commentary). 

 

In the context of sun worship justice, this has to be one of the most vile and corrupt practices to be a part and parcel of a so-called justice system.  What it amounts to is that if there are persons whom Big Brother opposes (usually politically incorrect people), government prosecutors will pull out all of the stops to obtain a witness against them. 

 

They are prepared to pay huge sums of money as bribes to get someone to come into court and testify against an accused individual.  Sometimes, they don’t have to make bribery payments because they can dig up something in various peoples’ lives to place them under threat of indictment and prosecution. 

 

Facing this open and powerful intimidation, many people will quickly agree to go into court and testify against their own close relatives and best friends, simply to avoid going to jail themselves. 

 

This whole practice in the modern, Christian, sun worship civilization has to be one of the most vile and despicable practices in the history of man’s supposed acts of justice and fair play.  This study assessed its prevalence in former chapters in the context of a brother testifying against a brother, as is now the common American justice mode (i.e. the Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh cases and others).  

 

The act of paying bribes to witnesses to testify against politically incorrect people was upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  It echoes the way dictatorial governments have historically paid or coerced witnesses to testify against enemies of the state.  It is inconceivable that this state of idiocy and perversion has reached the national acceptance level all across the United States.  But it has! 

 

 

It Is Routine Today 

 

Today, in the early 21st century, prosecutors willingly and regularly make pay-offs and bribes (either in money or other benefits) to get people to squeal or inform on others (usually relatives, friends and acquaintances). 

 

Many alleged criminals are captured, not because of expert police work; but rather, because of the promises of rewards, pay-offs and bribes.  Regularly, huge monetary rewards are offered for information, sometimes even in the millions of dollars (as noted in other comments herein, in terms of the Ted Kaczynski and Jay Merrill cases). 

 

And by all means, prosecutors regularly offer reduced sentences and/or early releases from prison to persons who will willingly squeal or give information (true or false) on cohorts.  This whole system represents a total perversion of justice. 

 

Why is it possible that a convicted criminal, guilty of a particular crime, be allowed to go free or beat the rap if he will simply testify against someone else (either in truth or in lies)?  Yet, the US justice system regularly follows this practice.  It will make pay-offs, bribes, benefits, etc to convicted criminals for testimony against someone else. 

 

Of course, such ideas of justice are simply unheard of in the Scriptures.  In the Book, the convicted person is never granted a reprieve if he will simply testify against someone else.  In the Book, there are no rewards or pay-offs for people who squeal on or provide information on other persons accused of wrong-doing.  In the Book, all convicted criminals pay the full price as established by law (in the Torah). 

 

Tragically, the perverted, warped, Christian society uses all kinds of dishonorable gadgets, gestures and methods of allowing some persons to get off scot-free for a certain law violation while someone else will pay the full penalty of the law.  Clearly, this practice is grossly unfair and discriminatory.  It is stupid, evil and wrong, per the sense of justice, honor and righteousness (certainly, per the Scriptures). 

 

As Paul Craig Roberts correctly wrote-- “Matthew Hale established the maxim that testimony purchased with reward has no standing in court” (Feb 1999 “Taking Aim,” p. 14). 

 

 

Secret Evidence? 

 

Another most tragic case of US justice was revealed in a short news report in the March 20, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 2).  The US Bill of Rights promises accused people a fast and speedy trial and that accused persons can have a right of jury trial and the privilege of facing their accusers. 

 

It seems that one Dr Mazen al-Naijar, apparently an Arab American, has been incarcerated in Tampa, Florida now for over 1,000 days.  It appears that the doctor and some 20 other Arabs are in trouble with US authorities on the basis of secret evidence.  Many of these people are facing deportation based upon this secret evidence. 

 

As the story goes, there is a US law which allows the use of secret evidence.  The just outlined cases have caused a storm of protests in Washington.  There is even talk in Congress of repealing this secret evidence law (now coming out in HR 2121). 

 

Despite the concern over the allowance and use of secret evidence against accused people, the practice continues full blast and especially since September 11, 2001, and the New York and Washington, DC terrorist attacks. 

 

An April 1, 2002, report in the “American Free Press” (p. 15), by Christopher Bollyn, said that the US Justice Department had accumulated secret evidence against a local Muslim charity in Chicago.  Per Bollyn, this evidence will be used against the charity in a court case. 

 

The post 9-11 USA Patriot Act (“The Uniting and Strengthening of America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” to be discussed in a later chapter) “enables the FBI to spy on Americans for ‘intelligence’ purposes, as opposed to investigating criminal activity.  The authorities are not required to show probable cause to make arrests and with only a ‘preponderance of evidence’ can confiscate property.  Secret evidence can be used to do both” (ibid, p. 15). 

 

Actually, this idea of using secret evidence and secret witnesses is inconceivable, but it has become par for the course in America.  Other chapters herein have or will address the extent of such methods now in place from an executive order signed by GWB to allow US military tribunals to try captured Muslims over alleged terrorism. 

 

 

Acceptability of Perjury 

 

While it should not take much perception to understand that the American judicial system is in deep trouble, many sun worshipping Christians still seem to believe that everything is all right and that US citizens can get a fair shake in court.  But the 1998 Slick Clinton scandals were beginning to wake up a lot of otherwise lethargic and indifferent people that things were not exactly like they should be in modern America. 

 

Concern is now being expressed over the fact that Slick had been not only guilty of lying to the American public for years, but that he had assuredly committed perjury in a US court.  This is a most profound development that the President of the United States would actually commit perjury. 

 

Douglas Cox, a lawyer who worked in Ronald Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel a few years ago, has come forward to offer some comments on the status of the US justice system with the continuing Clinton lies and courtroom perjury. 

 

Cox wrote “Some may argue that perjury prosecutions arising out of civil cases are comparatively rare, as indeed they are.  But the entire justice system is predicated on the theory that witnesses tell the truth.  Permitting a culture of lying to take root in the justice system would ultimately destroy the system” (“Wall Street Journal,” Feb 2,1998).  The perception by this lawyer is most revealing at the present time. 

 

Yes, the whole US court and justice system is now in jeopardy because the nation has closed its eyes and allowed its primary leader to commit perjury, lie, cheat, steal and possibly murder with no accountability or reckoning. 

 

 

Above the Law 

 

Like other federal officials, the US president is now above the law.  He is a monarch.  And federal agents, working in their jobs, can no longer be prosecuted for the assault or murder of innocent people. 

 

In these comments of the acceptability of perjury, some qualifications are in order.  This current, evil, sun worship society will gladly sit back and allow perjury to persist in “politically correct activities” and among “politically correct people” --like with Slick Clinton. 

 

But rest assured if a politically incorrect person or action was an issue, any instance of alleged perjury would be called one of the greatest of evils and would be fully prosecuted by the full resources of the state. 

 

In other words, hypocrisy is the order of the day in much of American justice.  This nation will not get away with this perversion much longer.  The ELOHIM’s justice and judgment for sin and wickedness is about to intervene and correct the wickedness, evil and injustice that the American people have allowed to persist. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 396--Lawyers

 

 

The Problem With Lawyers and the US Courts 

 

One of the serious problems in the United States, in terms of its laws and justice, is the matter of the legal profession and how it functions in legal trials and in American courts.  It is this system which often (but not always) interferes in the dispensation of justice.

 

Next to used car dealers, lawyers have some of the worse reputations of all in the American sun worship culture.  It’s not to say that all lawyers are automatically liars and crooks with no ethics or integrity at all.  There might be a few out there (maybe one or two), who are persons of honor.  But there aren’t many for sure.  Most are totally greedy, selfish and dishonest. 

 

Perhaps part of the lawyer problem is that many, many, evil Amalek-Edomites are lawyers.  And since the run of the mill Amalekites (maybe not all 100% of them, but certainly most of them) are totally depraved and desperately wicked, it stands to reason that they would flock to the legal profession to carry out their deceit. 

 

Next, there is an obvious presence of lawyers all over America.  For example, in Washington, DC, there was 1,000 lawyers in 1950, 11,000 in 1975 and 65,000 in the mid 1990s or over 10% of Washington’s 600,000 people (Dec 2000 “Philadelphia Trumpet,” p. 3). 

 

Not only are lawyers profusely all over America, but they have sowed up things so that their services are constantly required to do much of anything in the US.  In today’s modern American world, it is impossible to do almost anything involving the law or the local courthouse without a lawyer. 

 

 

The Sleeping Lawyer 

 

A really good illustration of lawyers in action surfaced in a late Oct 2000 case involving a man named Burdine in Houston, Texas (per a news report on Oct 28, 2000).  The man was tried and convicted of murder earlier and given the death sentence.  All of this sounds well and good except it turns out that his court appointed lawyer slept in court through much of the trial. 

 

While the presiding judge said nothing to the lawyer and allowed him to sleep, apparently the accused Burdine did nudge and try to wake him up several times.  After the conviction, time passed and the man got a new court appointed lawyer, who decided to appeal the case on the premise that the sleeping lawyer was like having no lawyer.  The appeal went to the US Appellate Court for a hearing. 

 

As incredible as it turned out to be, the appellate court ruled against a new trial for the reason cited.  Never mind that the judge and prosecutor (who are officers of the law, supposedly trying to dispense justice) refused to speak against the sleeping defense attorney during the trial, the appellate court found that the defendant, himself, should have spoken out and complained in court about his sleeping lawyer. 

 

It is unclear whether the accused man was a humble man and was afraid to speak out or not.  It could be that he indeed was afraid and certainly that he did not understand that ultimately the court would rule that it was his job to speak (and not the task of the judge and prosecuting attorney). 

 

But in retrospect, the case can be made that maybe the man feared that if he did speak out, it would make his sleeping lawyer mad at him and he would get even less of a defense.  After all, pride being what it is, there is a great chance that a person trying to embarrass his court appointed lawyer would ultimately be penalized in some manner by the lawyer. 

 

In other words, the case can be made that the defendant was in a catch 22 situation where he would lose whatever he did.  If he remained silent, he would lose.  And if he spoke out, he would lose.  Surely, the most guilty person of all in that courtroom was the useless judge.  Above all else, he had the power and duty to see justice dispensed.  He was in a position to criticize the sleeping lawyer. 

 

 

Lawyers and Paula Jones 

 

Besides the lawyer rip-offs in the tobacco lawsuits of recent years, broached in a previous chapter, recent 1998 news reports were ablaze with the Paula Jones’ lawsuit against President Slick, also mentioned earlier. 

 

This case is a classic demonstration on how the modern, American, sun worship, legal profession functions and particularly in the political arena where many lawyers become politicians (like Slick and his wife). 

 

It seems that when Slick was Governor of Arkansas, he used to use the Arkansas State Police as his personal state pimp agency--with a duty to procure women for him on occasion (which seems to have been fairly often).  In a meeting with state employees in Little Rock, Slick saw Ms Jones (a state employee).  So he ordered a state trooper to bring her to see him in his hotel room.  The trooper obeyed. 

 

Slick was alone and when Paula entered, he told her to sit down.  He then approached her and dropped his pants to display his private part, which he fondled as he ordered her to perform oral sex on it.  She refused, but saw enough of his organ to recognize that there was something wrong with it with its distinctive abnormal bend.  He threatened her, as she immediately left the room. 

 

In time, medical specialists indicated that the bent, deformed description fits a particular disease that some men have called “Peyronie’s disease.”  Among his many other problems, it would seem that Bill has Peyronie’s disease.  No wonder he has always refused to allow his medical records to be made public! 

 

Later, Paula believed that she was discriminated against in her employment because of her refusal to Slick and because her name was ruined with reports from the state trooper of this supposed sex link to Clinton.  Thereupon, she sued Slick asking for an apology plus $700,000 in damages. 

 

Jones said that any money won from him would go to charity, after paying off her lawyers.  In other words, her only possible personal gain or benefit would be an apology to restore her damaged character.  Naturally, Slick tied the case up in court with his attorney Uncle Bob Bennett.  He claimed that he could not be sued like other people and the suit would have to wait until he finished his presidency. 

 

US District Court Judge Susan Wright ruled for Slick.  The issue had to go to the Supreme Court where it said that he could be sued.  After paying Bennett some $2 million in legal fees, Slick decided to offer to pay the Jones lawyers $700,000 in a non-publicized, secret settlement with no apology. 

 

 

The Jones’ Dilemma 

 

Since the Jones’ lawyers had already charged $800,000 to the case, they wanted Paula to settle without getting the apology she sought.  In other words, her lawyers would get their exorbitant fees and she would get nothing.  She refused.  So the lawyers quit the case and refused to do any more work on it. 

 

She found some other lawyers, who would take the case over with help from a third party--because she and her husband simply didn’t have any money.  Truly, they were little people.  But the old lawyers filed a lien on her case, allowing them to get the first $800,000 collected.  The new lawyers amended the lawsuit to ask for $2 million in order for them to get some money out of it as well. 

 

All along, Paula never wanted anything personally except the apology.  All of the money would go to the lawyers or charity.  Yet, the attack dog colleagues and hired agents working for Slick (like Bob Bennett, James Carville and others) went on national TV and hollered on and on about Paula Jones wanting money and slandered her to no end. 

 

True, big money was involved in the $2 million paid Slick’s lawyer and the proposed secret settlement of $700,000 to the Jones’ lawyers.  But money was no issue for Paula Jones.  All she wanted was to have her good name restored in the apology.  It was the lawyers on both sides who were to get the money. 

 

After the Supreme Court decision for the case to proceed, the IRS (under Slick) commenced an audit of Jones and her husband (as noted earlier), who evidently made something around $36,000 annually.  Slick and his paid agents tried to characterize her as trailer park trash (since she lived in a mobile home park) while the president was a great man of honor and integrity. 

 

By the way, this former practice of Slick, in using the Arkansas State Police as his personal pimp agency, seems to have continued while he was in the White House--although the pimps were then called “facilitators” by the media rather than pimps.  There was much evidence that Slick used Secret Service agents as facilitators after he became president.  Truly, he is totally corrupt and depraved. 

 

 

The Outcome 

 

With the green light from the US Supreme Court, the Jones case was supposedly ready to proceed in Arkansas in May 1998.  But it soon became apparent that legitimate questions could be raised about her honor, the judge. 

 

Very quickly, Judge Wright began issuing a series of judicial decisions, all of which favored Slick.  In the first instance, she ruled that what happened in Washington, DC with Monica Lewinsky and presumably others had no bearing on the case in Arkansas.  Wishing to show a pattern in Slick’s conduct, the Jones lawyers appealed this decision. 

 

However, before the appeal was even heard, the judge came forward with another pro Clinton decision by placing a gag order on all of the court proceedings.  This clamp meant that all of the derogatory information being dug up by the Jones people would be hid from the general public. 

 

Slick’s lawyers then went into court, claiming that the case should be thrown out as the allegations of facts (which were never disputed in court, but were assumed to be correct) did not constitute sexual harassment--thus, effectively meaning that the poor woman from the trailer park should be denied her day in court.  Consequently, Judge Susan threw the case out on Apr 1, 1998, as discussed beforehand. 

 

 

More on Wright 

 

This consistent series of favorable court rulings for Slick should make even the most stupid of observers be suspicious that something was wrong in the US District Court in Little Rock.  And on a closer examination, some amazing facts did surface. 

 

For example, Wright discusses cases with other people on occasion before making her decisions.  According to judicial ethics, this is unthinkable.  Yet, she does it and has even admitted it.  Moreover, in the Whitewater scandal involving then President Slick Clinton, Judge Wright discussed the Susan McDougal trial with former US Senator David Pryor, a close ally of Slick.

 

The Judge has also acknowledged that she discusses her cases with her husband.  It must be important to note that some weeks before her decision to throw the Jones case out, her husband told a reporter that she would not allow President Slick Clinton’s personal life to become a public issue. 

 

Obviously, in the event that the case went to trial, the Jones lawyers would bring up his personal life to show that he had had numerous encounters with women over the years while he has been in public life as Arkansas Attorney General and Governor and as President of the United States. 

 

While Slick was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, some years ago, Susan was one of his students and had had personal contact with him.  Though all of the ties never became public, there was an allegation that she cheated on a test, and he let her off the hook.  Another allegation floating around was that Slick lost one of her test papers and offered her a free grade B if she would not create any problems over it. 

 

With this prior contact and Clinton’s reputation for women, one can’t be sure of what links Susan has had with Slick (possibly even sexual).  From this background, one would have to wonder why Susan could even be sitting on the Bench in the Jones-Clinton case.  Judges are supposed to recluse themselves for a conflict of interest when they have had close ties with one of the litigants before the court. 

 

Yet, Wright stayed on the case and ultimately threw the case out of court, as just noted.  If the case had no legal basis, why did Susan allow it to go on and on for four years and a trip to the Supreme Court?  She could have saved Jones and the US a lot of pain by throwing the case out when it first came before her--without allowing it to drag on and on to make money for the lawyers. 

 

As late as July 1999, when Wright was forced into taking some action against Slick for his perjury in court, she levied the smallest fine possible of about $90,000 to cover the minimum amount of extra expenses by the Jones’ lawyers and herself.  Jones’ lawyers actually asked for something around $500,000 to cover their expenses.  Apparently, Slick’s lawyers argued for the lesser amount of $90,000.  So Wright ruled for Slick. 

 

Most of us committing perjury would have went to jail.  But not Slick. The $90,000 was nothing to him since fat cat contributors, like the Hollywood elite or the Chinese, would pay it.  Effectively, he was out nothing for committing perjury in a federal court. 

 

 

Paula Lost Out 

 

Hence, Paula Jones was denied any opportunity of having her good name restored.  Later, on Nov 13, 1998, Slick agreed to pay Jones $850,000--which was not even enough to pay her lawyers (and with no apology).  Rather than fight probable losing battles with the American judicial system, Jones agreed.  Thus, the Jones versus Slick Clinton case came to an end (and Jones effectively lost in the courts). 

 

Actually, this whole turn of events is quite logical because the US judicial system does not presently function to serve poor people or politically incorrect people in the generic sense.  Hence, scoundrels like Slick can get away with virtually everything. 

 

Of all people, the feminists backed Slick totally on this case while trying to disparage and cast discredit on Jones.  This has been very hypocritical.  Of course, it was the feminists of just a few years ago who destroyed Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon for flirting with women (other than his wife) and putting his hands on them.  Bob’s political career was destroyed.  Yet, Slick has gotten away with flagrant womanizing for years. 

 

The pathetic women’s feminist movement was so warped and patently hypocritical that it continued to support Slick Clinton all of the way through the period of Slick’s problems over his sodomy encounter with the young Monica Lewinsky.  Even as late as the December 1998 impeachment issue in the House, the feminists were busy supporting Slick and trying to defend him.  What gross hypocrites they are! 

 

Regardless of the slander which Slick and his attack dog agents have heaped upon Paula Jones and other poor people living in mobile home parks, the fact remains that she was a woman of integrity who refused to commit sodomy with the then Governor Slick Clinton.  Who is the better person--Paula Jones or the Sodomite Clinton? 

 

Who would you trust your daughter to go out with--Slick or unabomber Ted Kaczynski?  Who was the better man Slick or executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, in terms of trust with your daughter?  Who has character and integrity in the modern, Christian, sun worshipping America--abortion clinic bombers or Clinton? 

 

 

The Depraved American Legal Profession? 

 

Having just discussed the reality of a justice system built on the premise of making money for lawyers, as described in the above presentation, it would be well to note how the formal profession thinks and acts from an illustration in something which took place in early August 1999 in Atlanta, GA. 

 

The American Bar Association (ABA), the supposed national watch dog agency to monitor practices and ethics of lawyers, invited President Slick Clinton to be its keynote speaker at its annual convention in Atlanta.  In view of Clinton’s deplorable actions in the White House, many lawyers were upset and resigned from the ABA.  Clinton (hypocritically) spoke on the Constitution and the rule of law. 

 

“The Washington Times” of Aug 16-22, 1999 (p. 18), quoted some comments from the “Washington Post” of Aug 11th.  The Post said that the ABA “picked a lawyer (in Clinton) who had only recently gotten himself in considerable trouble by lying in a civil deposition in the presence of a federal judge and then lying again before a federal grand jury investigating his previous behavior. 

 

“It picked a lawyer who was held in contempt of court and fined by the judge whose case he had corrupted and who was then referred to his state bar for possible disciplinary action.  Even as he spoke to the ABA’s membership Monday evening, this lawyer faced possible disbarment for his lies.  Of all of the lawyers in the United States, the ABA decided to hear from President Bill Clinton.” 

 

Former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, who worked in the Clinton White House, said that notorious gangster John Gotti has more honor (than Clinton) and maybe more common sense.  Per Aldrich, Gotti has, at least, never sent his attack goons against federal law enforcement officers who were only trying to do their job. 

 

As Aldrich noted, Clinton has threatened, suspended, demoted, transferred, investigated and castigated a number of federal officers for showing disloyalty to Clinton, by seeking the truth in cases (Aug 16-22, 1999, “The Washington Times,” p. 6). 

 

Obviously, something is fundamentally wrong with America’s legal profession.  It has to be significant that YESHUA The MESSIAH offered some of His harshest criticism and complaints against lawyers (along with doctors and religious leaders). 

 

 

The Objective is to Win! 

 

As discussed elsewhere herein, the goal of lawyers, both prosecutors and defense attorneys, is always to win.  In the generic sense, justice is never an issue.  Since both prosecutors and defense lawyers are “officers of the court,” a student of the American judicial system would at first suppose that justice has to be the over-riding factor for all participating lawyers.  As noted above, it is not! 

 

In the Mar-Apr 2001 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 3), Earl F. Jones noted that many innocent people go to jail or sometimes to death because lawyers are more interested in winning the case than they are in dispensing justice.  Sometimes, lawyers who know the innocence of an accused will proceed to prosecute him fully and walk the extra mile to win (irrespective of the innocence of the accused). 

 

Earl Jones blamed this sick situation in modern American justice to “Talmudic socialists” (who have developed the modern US trial court system).  While Jones certainly had it right on the basic problem, he missed the point on who to blame.  Manifestly, the US justice system has nothing whatsoever to do with the Talmud (as described earlier). 

 

 

The Amalekites 

 

But tragically, the modern American justice system is heavily influenced and perhaps even somewhat controlled by the Amalekite lawyers and masters--who have been busy for ages, doing their best to destroy Yisrael and fleshly Israelites. 

 

For sure, these Amalekites are not religious (they don’t adhere to the Talmud, Judaism or anything else, as envisioned by Jones).  They are Satanists/Luciferians (yet, most of them even pretend to be atheists or agnostics). 

 

Though there is no denying the enormous power and influence of the Amalekite sons of Satan, in taking over and influencing the modern court system, one must also be fair and reasonable and lay some of the blame on the Christian sun worship culture, which allowed it all to take place.  Again, the US is supposedly a Christian nation.  The voters are Christians and indeed most US lawyers are Christians. 

 

Certainly, the Amalekites must be blamed.  But how about the Christian Churches, preachers, teachers, leaders, bosses, governors, presidents, senators, congressmen, and bar association leaders who have sat back and allowed the Amalekites to impose their evil on America?  Shouldn’t the Christians take some blame as well?  Why blame just the Amalekites?  Christian Identity people need to be fair about this issue. 

 

 

More on Lawyers 

 

The situation with the O. J. Simpson lawyers can be added to the above discussion on the Paula Jones case to bring home the point.  This case will be assessed in some detail in the next chapter.  Lawyers on both sides of the aisle (defense or prosecution) will go all out to lie, cheat and deceive in order to win. 

 

This writer has seen them in action.  It’s bad enough that they will lie, deceive, distort and twist truth any way possible to further their cause and win, but the judges sit on the bench and allow them to get away with it.  Lawyers are especially flagrant in lying and making deceptive opening and closing statements.  Effectively, they can say anything and they never seem to be challenged. 

 

Rest assured, if a defendant enters a courtroom to defend himself, pro se, the judge and the prosecution lawyers will raise all kinds of commotion and flack to prevent a defendant from making statements, except those that can be expressly proven.  Pro se defendants are never allowed the latitude that a lawyer is granted to make irresponsible, careless, deceptive and dishonest statements. 

 

A news report in the Jan 28, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) noted the situation with a 15-year old boy accused of drug possession in the state of Washington.  The boy fired his court appointed lawyer because the lawyer reportedly lied in court and did nothing to defend him.  The boy handled his own case and was acquitted. 

 

 

An Example

 

A friend of this writer living in North Idaho had a complaint against a local lawyer and sued him, pro se, in a local court.  He was served with the notification and the hearing date was set. 

 

My friend showed up on time and the lawyer was not there to answer before the judge.  The judge ordered a court recess.  Some 30 minutes later the lawyer showed up and went into a private meeting with the judge.  My friend saw him.  But the judge did not invite my friend into the meeting. 

 

The evidence is massive that the local judge probably knew the local lawyer in the suit.  When the court opened and the lawyer was not present, the judge ordered a recess and promptly called his friend and told him to come to court.  On arrival, the judge and the defendant lawyer had a private (secret) meeting in the judge’s chamber without the presence of my friend who was handling the case pro se. 

 

If the plaintiff in court was a lawyer, he would have complained vigorously about the way that this case was handled.  But what can a pro se litigant do?  Well, he can sue the system or bring the issue before the bar association.  However, all of the possible people in an oversight role are lawyers; and they will go out of their way to protect the judge and the defendant lawyer. 

 

 

Hiding Evidence 

 

The lawyers are also notorious about hiding evidence from their courtroom opponents.  Perhaps there is some logic to allow a rationalization as to why defense lawyers would hide evidence from prosecutors. 

 

But when prosecutors (who work for and represent the state with all of the money and resources available to the state to arrive at truth and justice) hide evidence from the defense, something is fundamentally wrong in the system. 

 

Other preceding chapters herein have focused on government oppression with many actual illustrations of where federal government police officials manipulated, hid and destroyed evidence--apparently, in collusion with US Attorney prosecutors. 

 

It would seem that if any of these people had an ounce of honor, integrity and character, they would speak out and not allow these despicable acts to take place.  Yet, no one seems to cry out for justice in the system. 

 

 

The Au Pair Case, Revisited 

 

Winning (to produce more money) is the name of the game and not truth and justice.  A good sample of this wickedness came to light in the October 1997 case involving the earlier mentioned au pair girl (named Louise Woodward) in Massachusetts.  It received some notoriety in the US press, as previously pointed out.   

 

Since her case was broached previously, all of the details will not be repeated at this time.  The case involved a young woman nanny who was caring for a child who she shook some to stop some crying.  She admitted the shaking.  The child died and the prosecutor tried her for murder. 

 

It turned out from an autopsy that the child had had a brain concussion and skull fracture two weeks earlier before Louise and the shaking incident.  This autopsy evidently did not definitely establish the cause of death.  Moreover, there was some serious evidence suggesting that the baby’s older, 2 1/2 year old brother may have hurt the infant (Dec 29, 1998, “Spokesman-Review,” p. A3).

 

The prosecutors knew and understood the medical fact of the prior injury, but went on to hide it from the defense.  Thus, poor Louise went into court on the premise that the child died from the shaking, whereas the truth was that there was real questions about why the child died, in view of the prior skull fracture and concussion.  Rather than Louise hurting the baby, it more likely was true that the baby’s brother was the villain. 

 

In any case, to win (without regard for truth or righteousness), poor Louise Woodward  was tried and found guilty of second degree murder which was later reduced to manslaughter by the judge.  She ended up serving 279 days in jail, before being released to go home to Britain. 

 

 

Oklahoma City, Revisited 

 

One of the great tragedies about the trial of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing (as discussed in prior chapters) was actions of the FBI and federal prosecutors to hide evidence from defense attorneys representing McVeigh and Nichols.  This condition was brought out in comments made in the Aug 23, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 18-21). 

 

The first indication that something was wrong was remarks made by the jury forewoman in the Nichols case.  She said that the jury did not trust the FBI reports submitted in the trial. 

 

In a subsequent motion for a retrial by Nichols’ attorney, information was made public that the FBI and federal prosecutors, acting independently or in collusion, kept vital FBI investigative reports from the defense.  Sometimes, certain FBI reports were not even made available to the judge or the prosecutors.  By law, these reports are supposed to go to the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

 

Often, reports furnished the prosecutors simply never reached the defense attorneys.  In May 2001, the FBI finally acknowledged that they withheld over 4,000 pages of data on the OC bombing case which simply was never supplied to the defense attorneys (as was pointed out in a prior chapter herein).  This hidden information could well have led the way for some possible acquittals or reduced sentences. 

 

During the trial, McVeigh’s lawyer asked for some documents which were supposedly not available for McVeigh’s defense.  However now, they have surfaced from the FBI’s revelations.  Furthermore, the judge even sealed other requested data from another case on the grounds of national security (May 21, 2001, “US News & World Report,” p. 22). 

 

Question--when a man is on the line for his life, and his lawyer needs certain documents for his defense, how is it or why is it that a judge can merely seal them and refuse them to the defense on the premise of “national security” (and particularly, in the late 20th century when the US is supposedly at peace with other nations). 

 

Moreover, certain investigatory reports prepared by the Oklahoma City Police Department and other investigators were given to the prosecutors who purposely or otherwise did not share them with the defense.  The question must be asked--did McVeigh and Nichols receive a fair trial? 

 

There were so many irregularities and unfavorable rulings for the defense in the trial of McVeigh that the Oct 11, 1999, “Spotlight” listed a whole page of them in an article on “Many Simple Questions Remain in the OK Bombing” (p. 9).  At one time, “Spotlight” asked the question if US District Judge Richard Matsch was a part of a cover-up?  

 

 

1816 

 

In this writer’s family, an ancestor died intestate in 1816 in Fentress County, TN transferring some property to one grandson just before his death.  His eleven children (the uncles and aunts, who did not share in the distribution) sued trying to have the property declared a part of his estate to be divided among them.  The case went to court and ultimately the Tennessee Supreme Court. 

 

In the end, the lawyers got all of the property in legal fees, and none of the family got anything out of it.  Like The MESSIAH said, agree with your adversary before going to court.  In a court action, it is the lawyers who get all (or most all) of the money from one or both sides of a conflict. 

 

 

Lee Bellinger on Lawyers 

 

“American Sentinel Publisher and Editor Lee Bellinger briefly assessed the modern legal profession in a March 2002 letter he sent to his mailing list.  The purpose of his mailing was to announce a new publication he had written or was distributing.  He defined today’s lawyers as “sharks” and noted the motions now in progress across America which reveal the modern sickness. 

 

First, Lee said:  “The whole country has gone lawsuit crazy--and you’re the target!  Spurred by today’s greedy, lawyer-driven litigation industry, people are now suing each other at the drop of a hat.  Literally overnight you can become the target of a litigious neighbor, a spurned lover, an overzealous creditor, an ex-spouse, an angry co-worker, a spiteful employee, a bureaucratic agency, or even an unscrupulous attorney looking to take advantage of someone he thinks has ‘deep pockets.’ 

 

“You name it.  Today’s sue-happy public has come to see everybody--including you--as ‘fair game.’  Million dollar lawsuits are considered to be a one-way ticket to the easy life, at your expense.  And it’s happening every day.” 

 

In his second commentary, Lee added:  “Lawyers are insatiably greedy.  Not a little greedy.  But BIG-TIME greedy.  Today, lawyers are like errant cab drivers who always take you on the longest route to your destination so they can charge you $64 for what should have been a $12 ride. 

 

“They (lawyers) are absolutely hell bent on dragging out your case for as long as possible so they can run up your bill ten, twenty, or even thirty times higher than what you should reasonably be expected to pay.  Beware my friend.  This is not the exception.  It is the rule.  Exorbitant lawyer fees have ruined more people than the lawsuits themselves!  (Remember Rodney King?  He won $2.4 million.  But his lawyer’s bill was $3.2 million!).”

 

 

An Example of Legal Madness 

 

The April 12, 2002, “The Week” (p. 4) had a news report on Richard Espinosa of Escondido, California.  Espinosa has filed a lawsuit against the Escondido Public Library because he says that his dog was attacked by the library’s mascot cat.  Richard wants $1.5 million in damages for the “sudden and malicious” attack. 

 

In his lawsuit, the plaintiff went on to say that he is a person prone to depression and panic.  He adds that he suffers from “a hidden disability” and that he is a member of a protected class.  Richard summed up his case by saying that the government will have to pay. 

 

The filing of this lawsuit is beyond description.  Yet, it appears to be the real world out there.  If the judge had an ounce of integrity, he would dismiss this case and file a legal action against the lawyer involved for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  But nothing this drastic will happen.  Instead, the lawyer and his plaintiff may get some money out of the deal. 

 

 

The Modern Legal Profession

 

For sure, America’s legal profession has tied everything into a knot which demands the services of a lawyer.  Yes, in most states a man cannot even prepare a deed to transfer property or a last will to settle an estate without a lawyer.  This writer is a CPA and is familiar with how lawyers have conned the accounting profession to require periodic lectures from lawyers in order to maintain a professional license. 

 

The problem is essentially that state legislatures and the US Congress are made up of primarily lawyers (yes, both Slick and Hillary Clinton are lawyers).  These lawyers write bills and laws in ways to benefit the legal profession.  As a minimum, there should be some caps on damages in lawsuits, but such ideas are extremely unpopular among lawyers.  So they rarely happen. 

 

 

The Legal Profession Works for Lawyers

 

The sun worship legal system is designed and works for the lawyers.  It appears that historically the sun worship legal profession and justice system have always operated to make money for lawyers.  It’s been that way for thousands of years and hasn’t changed one iota in the Christian sun worship culture for the past 2,000 years (although it surely has grown worse in America in modern times). 

 

Obviously, the Scriptures have no provision for the historic sun worship legal and justice systems.  No wonder YESHUA was so much opposed to the lawyers (Matt 5:25; Lu 11:45-52; 12:58).  As pointed out earlier, doctors, lawyers and religious leaders are some of the biggest workers of evil in the Scriptures. 

 

Like YESHUA said, one should try to settle a legal problem out of court as quickly as possible.  Why--because it is often impossible to get any justice in court.  All that a person will likely achieve is a long drawn out legal battle which makes gobs of money for the lawyers on both sides of the issue. 

 

Remember, the judges themselves are lawyers and they certainly protect their own.  That’s why lawyers can get up in court and make all kinds of statements and never be challenged.  Yet, a pro se defendant must be extra careful of his words.  It is easy to presume that a person can merely go into court and tell his side of a conflict, along with the other party telling his side, and the judge or jury will decide the case. 

 

But that’s not the way the system works.  In fact, if a person tries to merely tell his side (in testimony), the opposing lawyer and judge will fight the person all of the way.  The opposing lawyer will raise all kinds of objections and the judge will usually go along with them.  The judges and other lawyers take care of each other.  What a tragedy and gross misapplication and miscarriage of justice. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 397--Lack of Honor and Integrity in Justice

 

 

Liberalism & Amalekites

 

There is another problem which will be next assessed.  Of course, there has been a supposition historically that American courts are run by people of honor, integrity, character, morality and honesty.  Though this presumption has historically been generally correct, a new twist has entered the arena in the last 70 years, since FDR came to power and introduced political liberalism nationally.  

 

As pointed out formerly, the typical liberal is often a person of little or no honor, integrity or character.  Many of them are really agnostics or atheists and believe in little or nothing, beyond the inherent good in man (thus, they are humanists as well).  In this context, they generally have little or no morality or honesty.  In short, they are depraved and evil people. 

 

Slick Clinton typifies these attributes in a true liberal.  Clinton manifestly shows no signs at all of having any integrity, honesty or character.  He seems to be totally evil--just like the genetic Amalekites, discussed previously (in fact, he could racially be part Amalekite, to be broached later). 

 

Obviously, the crafty Amalekites (who really call the shots) are totally depraved, deceitful and wicked since they are physically, mentally and spiritually children of Satan and are totally dedicated to serving the Adversary and destroying the White, Christian Israelites.  They are the epitome of evil and wickedness.  Since the Amalekites are fundamentally in charge of modern America, it is manifest that there are major problems in the United States. 

 

A former chapter discussed how the Amalekite bankers/masters can and have turned the entire Israelite school population of small children into being brainwashed, janissary robots (discussed previously, as meaning non-Amalekites who can be trained to adopt and blindly follow the Amalekite agenda with just as much dedication and commitment as any true, racial-ethnic Amalekite). 

 

When a politically incorrect person goes into court, he most likely will face a judge and jury with a decidedly heavy Amalekite presence or at least one with a presence of White Christian Americans who are largely janissaries and unconscious agents of the Amalekite power structure and agenda. 

 

When one assesses the incredible Amalekite presence and power over America, the problem of honor, integrity, character, morality and honesty is virtually out of the question in American courts since Amalekites have no sense of honor, character, integrity or morality at all. 

 

While there are many illustrations of how Amalekites abuse the whole court process, one of the most fascinating cases arose in early 2002 from a case involving the trial of four Blacks over the stabbing death of a Hasidic Jew in the 1991 Crown Heights, New York riots between the Jews and the Blacks. 

 

In today’s modern concept of justice, the Amalekites go out of their way to help Negroes and stack the deck against any Whites involved in a confrontation with Blacks.  However, the 1991 riots pitted Blacks against Jews.  And in this instance, even the Blacks were at a disadvantage. 

 

The Jan 21, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 27) had a news report about the case.  The US judge in the original trial of the Negroes influenced the jury makeup by including more Jews (in the view that they would convict the Blacks, which is precisely what happened).  An appeal went to the US appellate court which ruled that indeed the judge did act improperly by packing the jury.  Thus, the case was overturned. 

 

 

The Latest Innovation 

 

With this backdrop, something is happening in modern America that was totally unperceived when the Constitution was written.  Very wicked people (like Clinton) have been appointing Amalekites or other liberals (Blacks or janissary Whites) to the federal courts.  These people are essentially like Clinton.  Most of them have no honor, character, integrity or morality. 

 

The result has been a move to very biased and prejudiced courts where politically incorrect people can never hope to obtain justice.  This reality has surfaced in two news reports in the “Washington Times” of Aug 9-15, 1999.  The first story (p. 23), by Jerry Seper, was on “Clinton appointees huddle privately, raise eyebrows.”  

 

The essence of this article was that the eight federal judges appointed by Clinton in the Washington, DC area have private, secret meetings each month for some unclear purpose (behind closed doors).  There seems to be no earthly reason whatsoever which would allow separate, federal court justices to be having secret meetings on a monthly basis. 

 

It is known that Clinton colleague, Judge Susan Wright (who was mentioned earlier), has private meetings with various parties (to include prominent Democrat friends of Clinton) to discuss cases (as noted earlier); so one must wonder if that is the purpose of the Washington meetings by Clinton appointed judges. 

 

 

Judge Johnson 

 

Along the same line, the “Times” of Aug 9-15, 1999, had another story also by Jerry Seper on “Judge defends action in Hubbell, Trie cases” (p. 1, 23) which noted that Washington, DC Chief Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson (a Black judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter) has been selectively assigning cases of friends of Clinton to judges appointed by Clinton (with their collusion and consent). 

 

“The Washington Times” (p. 7) of Feb 14-20, 2000, had another follow-up story by Seper on “New probe ordered for Clinton-related judicial assignments” which further assessed the practice of Black Judge Johnson to take care of her friend Bill Clinton. 

 

One article pointed out that four prosecutions of Clinton’s Chinese friends (accused of illegal campaign fund raising procedures for Clinton) and one tax evasion case (involving Clinton’s friend Webster Hubbel) received favorable judicial attention.  Apparently, non-Clinton related cases do not receive Judge Johnson’s special care and concern. 

 

The proper court method of assigning cases is on a rotational, random-selected, computer basis, without other delineating criteria.  But in all of the cases involving Slick, the judge intervened to pass them to “consenting” Clinton appointed judges. 

 

When a complaint was filed with Judge Johnson, she said that she was assigning the cases to “highly capable judges” and that “politics” played no part in her assignments (if one believes that statement, then he probably still believes in the tooth fairy business).

 

Later, Johnson was asked again about the favorable treatment to Clinton’s friends and she said that she was authorized to assign “protracted or complex criminal cases to consenting judges when circumstances warrant.”  As she sees it, any of these cases involved in Clinton scandals fit automatically into this classification, requiring special judicial attention.

 

A number of Clinton friends and Democrat colleagues accused of wrong doing have received these controversial Clinton appointed judges.  The decisions rendered by the courts have been equally controversial, making one wonder whether these liberal judges (without honor, integrity, character or morality) would actually be unfair while sitting on the bench. 

 

As Seper noted, Clinton appointed judges have the just discussed secret meetings on a monthly basis.  Do they discuss these cases of Clinton friends at these monthly meetings or what?

 

Per the outline of the article, this process could undermine the American political and judicial processes.  It is cause for concern, although it seems impossible to prove that the judges have conspired in a political matter to aid and assist Clinton and his liberal, Democrat cronies.   

 

The House Judiciary Committee and Judicial Watch is looking into Johnson’s practices of favoritism for Bill Clinton.  Of course, Johnson should be impeached.  But no action will be taken against her because she is “Black.”  For fear of being called racists, the American system is so warped and pathetically sick that Africans are often not going to be disciplined or corrected by the hypocrite White establishment. 

 

 

Impartial Judges? 

 

While most Americans stupidly suppose that when they go into court, at least the judge will be impartial and rule on the basis of facts, the law and truth and not otherwise.  But as demonstrated so far herein, many judges are not fair and impartial.  Like other so-called human beings, many judges, as a minimum, have their own prejudices, emotions, hate, beliefs and feelings which they sometimes do allow into their courts. 

 

The situation with federal Judge Susan Wright in Arkansas, discussed previously, clearly demonstrates how judges can be very biased in favor of one litigant before the court in contrast to the other litigant.  And when politically incorrect people go into court, they will inevitably run into judges like Wright. 

 

Years ago, this writer knew a man who had been a tax protester.  He was arrested and tried in a federal court, sentenced and served his term.  In later years, he mentioned some of the difficulties for a politically incorrect person to deal with when faced with a court action. 

 

As discussed above and in previous chapters, the judge in almost all cases will assuredly be a politically correct judge (because they are the kind of judges which politically correct governors and politically correct presidents appoint).  Also, as outlined in previous comments, one can be sure that the jury is also a politically correct jury (because, under the system, the prosecutor, judge, court clerk and so forth will all automatically act to keep politically incorrect people off of the jury). 

 

Furthermore, on the judge, it isn’t only a matter of the judge being politically correct, the judge is paid by the politically correct system.  He (or she) is a lawyer who came up from the profession to gain his judge position.  He has loyalties to the politically correct system and the legal profession which inevitably will influence him to some extent. 

 

The point of this is that the judge is not on the side of politically incorrect people from day one.  This is not to say that there aren’t any judges of personal honor and integrity who can overcome their biases and preconceived prejudices (in that the word prejudice means a preconceived opinion, position or belief attained without regard to objectivity, facts and reality).  Some few are persons of character.  

 

The problem with judges grows worse with the passing days, as was brought out by Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key’s article in the Oct 11, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 3), previously quoted, in connection with the work of the US Justice Department. 

 

Key went on to quote a law professor who had a recent series of articles in the “Pittsburgh Post Gazette.”  The professor wrote:  “The courts used to be a buffer between prosecutors and defendants.  They are now a rubber stamp” (for the government prosecutors).  Truly, we have reached a pretty sorry place when judges cannot even be honest and fair. 

 

Beyond all of the implications of simply biased judges, there is still one more facet of this problem.  The April 22, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news report on Cook County (Chicago) Circuit Judge Thomas J. Maloney, who was eventually found to be taking bribes from defendants.  Judge Maloney was said to be biased against defendants who would not make a pay off to him. 

 

This problem with Maloney blew up over his handling of the murder case conviction of William Bracy and Roger Collins in 1980.  The Judge sentenced the two men to death.  While on death row, the two men appealed their conviction on the grounds that Maloney was against them because they would not pay him off.  Their appeal went to the US Circuit Court of Appeals where their conviction was upheld in March 2002. 

 

 

Judges Protect Each Other  

 

This issue over Judge Maloney brings up a couple of points which most Westerners are utterly void on understanding.  Since the Western Christian nations will not prosecute crooks like Maloney or do anything about grossly incompetent and unfair judges (mentioned earlier herein), a person hurt by this corrupt system has almost no alternative for a remedy or resolution. 

 

One of the supposed realities is that a damaged person can sue the judges and other public officials who damaged him.  But this is no panacea because of two contingencies built into the system to protect primarily the judges and prosecutors but also other government bureaucrat workers of evil as well. 

 

First, a judge has great discretion on whether he will even allow a case to go forward in his court.  There are almost no statutory laws that address this theme but there are court decisions and rules which judges use to grant them great latitude on whether a case can proceed in court or not.  The essence of these rules hangs on the question of jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the subject involved and jurisdiction over the person). 

 

If a judge doesn’t want to handle a particular case, he almost always can dismiss it out of hand on the basis that there is a jurisdictional problem or something else (like questions of service of process or on the statement of the claim).  A pleader usually has no opportunities to go beyond the action of the judge involved (except an appeal to a higher court which usually sides with the lower court).  It’s a catch 22 situation. 

 

The second major issue involved is in trying to sue judges, prosecutors and other officials is that most of them are “immune” from civil lawsuits.  These are court decreed laws which are normally not supported by statutory or constitutional laws at all.  In other words, the courts have decreed a thing called judicial immunity.  Not only have they created judicial immunity, but they call it “absolute judicial immunity.” 

 

Hence, it is almost out of the question to sue a judge or prosecutor (though there are a few loopholes which a party might use for a suit; but such are usually doomed in court).  Obviously, since judges will decide all questions in a court case (except when a person can actually get a case before a jury; and even then, the judges control the evidence that will go to the jury), judges have their own personal interests and biases at stake to motivate them to protect other judges (and themselves as well since they too could one day be sued, and they will then want immunity for themselves). 

 

In terms of other government officials, the courts use something called “qualified immunity” which hangs on whether the officials involved acted reasonably and in good faith in compliance with the laws/rules of their offices.  This qualified immunity is not as broad as the absolute judicial immunity.  But it is still hard to sue a government official over his gross incompetence or illegal actions in dealing with a damaged person. 

 

The bottom line on this theme is that while a person can be hurt and damaged by judges, prosecutors and other government officials, it is a very hard task to sue them in a civil suit and expect to be able to see the suit to a successful conclusion.  The courts have made it almost impossible for a citizen to do anything about any injustice imposed on him by the courts or government officials. 

 

 

More Non-Justice in Washington, DC 

 

Another situation where American justice was seriously blocked involved the investigation into the sodomy charges against Slick Clinton.  In attempting to get a fair grand jury hearing on the case, independent prosecutor Ken Starr, mentioned earlier, was faced with a Black grand jury in Washington, DC. 

 

To most ignorant, sun worshipping Americans, this is no issue.  But in reality, it has meant an impossible condition to hope for in obtaining justice.  Most sun worshipping Whites have been raised and fed a constant diet in their culture of the brotherhood of man and that the different races are precisely the same.  Not understanding how the African mind works, stupid Whites actually suppose that Blacks think like Whites. 

 

The first big problem was that Slick himself is highly esteemed among Africans.  They have always been his primary bloc voters in his political campaigns.  Moreover, two of the other key players, who could have violated any number of laws, were Slick’s friend Vernon Jordan and Slick’s secretary Betty Curry.  Both Curry and Jordan are Negroes. 

 

As a minimum, the Black jury would be in no mood to indict either of the Blacks for anything.  Slick counted on getting a free pass from them as well.  It was rumored that Starr tried to move Curry and Jordan’s testimony over to a Virginia court in hopes of having a number of Whites on the jury, but it was not possible.  The bottom line was a built-in escape hatch for the main players in the investigation. 

 

In late March 1998, Slick took an extended tour of Black Africa and took Betty Curry along with him.  As much as possible, he apologized for Black slavery, alleged oppression of Blacks by White Europeans, and even attempted to blame the United States for African genocide by various Black tribes against other Black tribes (as has been on-going for centuries now). 

 

Moreover, both he and Hillary pledged new grants and gifts of US money to various Black African nations for different purposes.  In one instance, he was among some primitive Negroes in one nation (many of whom still live in grass huts) and pledged them millions of US dollars so that their school students could be on the Internet. 

 

Quite naturally, the liberal media and press went wild with enthusiasm and support for Slick and his humanitarian moves to help Black Africa (and to further destroy his own country by giving away money which the US simply didn’t have to give away).  The question must surely arise as to why Slick would go to Africa at that time and make all those apologies and pledges of money. 

 

The answer to that question is not so complicated after all.  Obviously, it should not take many brains above the moron level to figure out that Slick wanted to take the gullible American voters’ minds off of his White House sex scandal and the on-going grand jury deliberations in Washington. 

 

But there was other manifest reasons for the trip as well.  As limited as Rush Limbaugh’s perception often is on important issues, he usually has had it right on Slick.  He certainly zeroed in on the gist of this trip in his radio talk show program of March 26, 1998. 

 

As Limbaugh saw it, Slick’s trip was made to firm up the main block of Democrat voters (African Americans) and their Congressional Democrat representatives (which play to and appease them).  When Slick’s many womanizing scandals would reach the US Congress for removal action, Slick would need the full support of his Democrat allies. 

 

The popular radio talk show host went on to also point out that Slick was laying the groundwork for his sexual harassment trial with Paula Jones later.  Realizing that this trial would have taken place in Little Rock, Arkansas, with a significant number of Black jurors, Slick would obviously want to connect with these Blacks in advance. 

 

His African trip would have done just that; of course, though the need was nullified with Judge Wright’s decision to throw the case out and with the Jones settlement.  To these excellent observations by Limbaugh, this writer would add that Slick was still faced with a Black Washington, DC grand jury.  Certainly, he needed all of the bridges he could build with Africans in general.  His African trip did this. 

 

There is furthermore the question of possible future criminal or civil actions in Washington, DC, if Slick should ever leave political power (although this option was nullified later when he beat all of the raps against him).  In such a remote eventuality, any Washington criminal or civil trials would assuredly include an all Negro jury.  Slick’s trip to Black Africa helped in addressing this possibility, as well. 

 

Finally, Ken Starr and his grand jury was not through with testimony from Betty Curry.  Betty was scheduled to reappear before the jury.  While taking her with him did not eliminate this eventual testimony, it did shore up his relationship with her.  Clinton had already leaked data on his Paula Jones testimony.  So Curry knew what he had said and what she was supposed to say. 

 

Clearly, Slick needed Betty to back him up and say the same things.  Being his secretary and being Black, one could speculate that she would readily do so in any situation.  However, just in case she should waiver and not come through for him, as hoped, the free trip to Africa for Betty would certainly help in being sure that she would be on his side in all future testimony. 

 

Slick Willy is certainly not as stupid as some people may wish to suppose.  This man has spent his political life building bridges with the Black community (as elsewhere described) and he uses them and his connections fully since they bloc vote and since in a trial, they generally have little or no conception of justice--per the views of the Western White civilization. 

 

 

Black Justice  

 

Another classic example of African justice surfaced in late 1998 when Clinton’s former Secretary of Agriculture was tried for corruption and bribery (in taking $33,000 in gifts, trips, etc from businesses which were regulated by the Department of Agriculture).  While the trial involved some 30 counts, it must be acknowledged that this is all that the prosecutors could substantiate. 

 

There could have been far more gifts and gratuities involved.  Who knows what all Clinton friends in Arkansas gave Espy.  The big poultry producer, Tyson Foods, was involved.  So one has to wonder why they were giving gifts to Espy, unless they expected something back in return.  Businesses don’t shell out money without anticipating a payback. 

 

The problem for Espy was that there were laws that are supposed to limit government officials from accepting gifts from people or businesses they regulate and control.  In any case, the African-American Espy had it all on his side when he went into a Washington, DC federal court and jury controlled and run by Blacks. 

 

Since Blacks are just in no mood to convict a brother, the outcome was certain.  The verdict came in on Dec 2, 1998, and Espy was acquitted of all 30 charges, though both he and some of the accused businesses had admitted some of the gifts in prior public statements.  This is Black justice in operation. 

 

It was too bad that the Black crook Ron Brown was not allowed to have his day in court with an African jury.  Brown, another close Clinton aide, was the former Secretary of Commerce being investigated for a host of fraud and corruption charges.  Before he could be acquitted and set free by a Black jury, he died mysteriously in an airplane crash in Europe, as discussed before. 

 

Take the criminal case of the O. J. Simpson lawyers and jurors, previously cited.  Certainly, truth and justice were never an issue for any of them.  For the lawyers, money and victory in winning clearly were their considerations (the defense attorneys are supposed to be officers of the court as well as the prosecutors--both should be interested in justice and not just in winning their case, as noted earlier). 

 

And for almost all of the people associated with the O. J. Simpson case, the prospects of collaborating in the writing of a book or screen play was a primary focus that seemed to dominate much of their focus.  One must always remember that money (profits) is the name of the game in the entire Western, sun worship culture (which has been largely built on greed, get and selfishness). 

 

For the Negro jurors, their concern was to take care of their Black brother.  As just noted, Black juries are typically never in any mood to convict Black brothers who are in conflict with White people or the White society at large.  That’s why Betty Curry and Vernon Jordan had no problems in the Slick case, as outlined above. 

 

Occasionally, Black juries may convict a Black of wrong doing when the victim is another Black.  But if the victim is White, it’s just about out of the question.  Because of this condition in the real world, justice is generally not dispensed with African juries. 

 

A few years ago, a national magazine had an interesting survey of Americans with a question about what role the issue of race played in their decisions and actions.  It has to be significant to note that the matter of race plays no role in the decisions of most White Americans, while the matter of race plays a primary or central role in the decisions made by Blacks. 

 

Thus, when Blacks enter the polling booth or when they sit on juries, their decisions are predicated upon taking care of the Black brothers (and certainly, over Whites).  That factor alone accounts for the huge Black support of the liberal, permissive, give-away Democrats.  That is the reason that Negroes have massively supported Bill Clinton (who is known as the first Black president). 

 

The controlled media would have people believe the exact opposite.  The controlled media would like to convey the image that Black people are fair, just, honorable and people of integrity who do things on the basis of right and wrong and not on the basis of the color of people’s skin.  Actually, it is American Whites who demonstrate this profile and not Blacks. 

 

 

Back to OJ 

 

The Los Angeles District Attorney should have considered this reality when he chose to move the Simpson criminal trial from OJ’s neighborhood, where the crime took place and where affluent Whites lived (and would dominate the selected jury and convict, as they did in the later civil lawsuit), to a district where Negroes predominated and were certain to pack the jury. 

 

The reason for this improper transfer (from the district or area where the crime took place to a distant one) was that the DA and his prosecutors were evidently a little proud and cocky.  They thought they had an airtight case and plenty of evidence which would convince any jury--White or Black. 

 

Recognizing that if a White jury were to convict a Black for killing a White, then the Los Angeles Negroes would have went wild to destroy, loot and burn the city down.  To avoid the certain Black backlash, terrorism and anarchy, the DA chose to move the trial, hoping that the Africans would not burn Los Angeles down if OJ was convicted by a Black jury. 

 

How pathetic it is that the White society has to twist and subvert justice in order to play to and appease wild, uncontrollable Blacks.  But this stupidity is about what one can expect in the typical sun worship culture.  The achievement of truth and justice is not on the agenda in the modern, Western, sun worship civilization. 

 

African juries are effectively in no mood to convict fellow Africans (in any conflict with Whites), but Whites can be in trouble when appearing before Black or Hispanic juries and especially if the trial involves a White confrontation with Blacks and/or Hispanics in some manner.  Whitey is simply not going to get much justice from Black and Hispanic juries. 

 

A related problem was outlined in the Feb 7, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 10), in an article by F. C. Blahut on “Court Puts Race, Language Before Your Civil Rights.”  The focus on Blahut’s story was upon some decisions of high courts--like one in New Mexico which mandated the inclusion of all persons in a jury pool. 

 

The goal of these decisions and the direction being chartered is the inclusion of Hispanics and other minorities (who cannot even speak English) in juries, trying a person in English.  “Spotlight” asked if this presence of non-English speaking peoples in a English speaking courtroom means a trial before your peers, as envisioned in the US Constitution. 

 

Blahut also noted another court process from the state of Maryland and a decision by the Maryland Supreme Court that attorneys may ask potential jurors in a criminal case if they harbor any racial or ethnic prejudices, regardless of the defendant’s race or if the case has racial overtures. 

 

If a juror says no and the court can prove that the juror once made a critical remark about Blacks or minorities or used the so-called “n” word, then that juror becomes a perjurer and can be prosecuted to the full force of law.  This means that juries will be packed with people who are pro racial amalgamation, integration and miscegenation.  No one can be on a jury who opposes these concepts. 

 

Therefore, if a person is charged with a hate crime or thought crime for speaking against or criticizing government protected minorities in any way, then that person will be tried before a jury--not of his peers; but rather, by his enemies.  This process means that a person accused of a hate crime (which now can just include speech with no presence of anything else) can easily be prosecuted and convicted. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 398--The Unjust Justice Department

 

 

A Corrupt US Department of Justice  

 

Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, got in on the justice problem in a “Washington Times” newspaper column for Sep 13-19, 1999 (p. 33).  He noted that virtually all US government departments had been corrupted under President Bill Clinton.  Going on, Levin added that the corruption was more acute in the Justice Department. 

 

Upon becoming Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno promptly fired all 93 US Attorneys (while Levin did not mention the reason for this unprecedented move, it is apparent that Reno took this action for political reasons). 

 

While Waco and many other issues could be cited for the gross corruption in the US Department of Justice, Levin essentially focused upon the problem by saying that Reno had politicized the US justice system more than anyone else to protect a corrupt president and a lawless administration. 

 

Levin has it right.  The US Department of Justice had become a symbol of corruption and no justice in the last several years.  This reality makes it extremely hard and difficult for any Americans to get justice in US Courts if they are on the Administration’s list of enemies (like politically incorrect people are). 

 

As late as Oct 1999, Robert Novak, in his column, commented upon the role of the US Department of Justice in the FBI investigation into illegal campaign contributions to Slick Clinton (Oct 4-10, 1999, “Washington Times,” p. 31). 

 

In 1997, Clinton friend and contributor Charlie Trie was under investigation and his female assistant was busy destroying documents which had been subpoenaed by a US grand jury.  FBI agents were stopped by the Justice Department from searching her home. 

 

One FBI agent (Barbara Parker) submitted her personal notebook of campaign irregularities to the Justice Department.  It came back with 27 pages torn out and missing. 

 

 

Charles Key, Revisited 

 

The previously cited Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key had an article in the Oct 11, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 1, 3) on “Waco Scandal Demands New Look at OKC Bombing.”  It was predicated upon a realization that the US Department of Justice (the prosecutors, who are addressed elsewhere herein) had repeatedly lied and obstructed justice in the Waco incident. 

 

Key said:  “The Justice Department has gotten so out of control that an increasing number of former prosecutors and judges are speaking out about the misconduct and regular violation of law.  Hiding facts from the court and defense, lying in court, promoting perjury and acts of retribution against those who raise question are becoming commonplace.” 

 

 

Zacharias Moussaoui

 

The Zacharias Moussaoui case will be addressed in some detail in a later chapter that discusses the Sep 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.  But there was at least one event associated with this case which deserves special mentioning here in discussing the corrupt and sorry US Justice Department, which is manifestly not interested in justice. 

 

Moussaoui was one of the Muslims arrested in the US based upon allegations that he played a role in the 9-11 attacks.  As it turned out, another Muslim, also in US custody, was a witness on the side of Zacharias who said that Moussaoui was not involved in the 9-11 case.  The US proceeded to try Moussaoui anyway, but denied him the ability to call upon this favorable witness held in US custody, outside the US. 

 

Zacharias Moussaoui went to court to try to gain access to the Muslim witness held by the US.  The US said that Zacharias Moussaoui could not call upon the witness on the grounds that the witness was outside the US and was unavailable (though in US confinement, evidently in Cuba).  Moussaoui contented that under the sixth amendment, he was entitled to this favorable witness. 

 

The issue went to the appellate court in early June 2003.  But the point in making this reference is to the reality that the US Justice Department is itself corrupt and sorry.  The one thing that the US Justice Department itself is not interested in--is justice.  When the chief prosecutor tries to deny an accused man (facing a death sentence) an opportunity to have a defense witness, something is wrong. 

 

And of course, something is fundamentally wrong--either in the US system or at least in the way it is being administered in modern times (with the new concepts of so-called US justice, truth and righteousness).  Actually, the problem is in the modern administration of justice--since the American justice reality has manifestly changed so dramatically in the last fifty years or so. 

 

 

More From Justice 

 

While many gullible and uninformed Americans thought that things would change at the US Department of Justice with the departure of Janet “Butch” Reno, and the arrival of a somewhat more honest John Ashcroft, such appears to not be totally the case.  While Ashcroft is hands down a more honorable person that the sodomites Slick Clinton and Janet Reno, there still remains many problems at Justice. 

 

For example, the US Justice Department has been accused in a Knight-Ridder story of inflating its terrorism case reports with routine criminal actions for years (Feb 11, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

While it is not totally clear why Justice would be involved in this skullduggery, it might be that there are at least two benefits.  First, the terrorism case load builds up the case for more draconian and repressive laws to further take away the Bill of Rights from the average John Doe citizen and helps to bring on world government (which is the plan and goal of the plutocrats who are calling the shots). 

 

And second, there is a certain sense of citizen paranoia associated with terrorism (in that it can affect the average person on the street).  This paranoia insures that the Congress will dole even more money out in future days to increase the number of people and actions going on in the Justice Department.  In other words, the Justice bureaucracy will grow and grow. 

 

Anyway, these allegations have prompted Representative Dan Burton to ask the General Accounting Office to audit the Justice Department’s reports on terrorism.  Again, as is always true in government, nothing will come of these efforts, one way or the other. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 399--The Justice-Media Link

 

 

Controlling the Spin 

 

The question of media spin has been commented upon in prior chapters.  In the normal context, the US Department of Justice and its army of prosecutors, federal agents, spies and oppressors of truth and justice have never had a problem with the media in modern times--that is, with the controlled national media. 

 

After all, the national media is owned and/or controlled by the same people who own and control America’s politicians and government leaders.  Manifestly, the people pulling the strings from behind the scenes are not going to sit back and allow the government and the national media to pursue hostile or contrary positions on anything of importance to the ruling plutocrats. 

 

In general, the question of media spin and hypocrisy is almost mute and non-existent.  Thus, there is no particular problem for the Justice Department to lie, spin, deceive and mislead the controlled national media (since both entities effectively take orders from the same ruling plutocrats). 

 

But just in case there is a problem or could be a problem, the Justice Department and its army of lawyers and federal agents and virtually unlimited funding does have important people who are experts and professionals at spinning and deceiving the worthless national media. 

 

Since almost everyone in the entire system is playing on the same team (owned/controlled by the ruling plutocrats), the national media never questions the government spin.  They close their eyes and look the other way.  So government spin artists get away it and are never really challenged. 

 

Well, they are almost never challenged. Actually, there have been a few isolated instances when some media rogues entered the arena to cast doubt upon the integrity, honesty and character of Janet Reno and her henchmen. 

 

 

The Davidians, Revisited 

 

The first incident worth mentioning happened in Waco during the government siege against the Branch Davidians, discussed earlier herein.  In order to control the event, the FBI had periodic press briefings in which the feds gave the spin and told how evil and wicked David Koresh was.  Since the feds were in charge of these briefings, no one ever heard Koresh’s side of the story.  It was all one sided. 

 

Naturally, the liberal press people from the controlled national media stood there like dupes and sucked in all of the lies, distortions and deceptions being spun by media manipulators from the FBI.  Every time a lie was told about how evil Koresh was, the media wrote it down and never questioned the charge.  They were all attentive listeners, eating up everything the feds said. 

 

However, by some fluke, the “Jubilee” paper of California (elsewhere quoted herein, from time to time) had a reporter present at these FBI briefings.  Instead of merely closing his eyes and saying yes to all of the lies, deceptions and spin, this reporter got bold and asked some difficult questions.  The FBI officials were totally unprepared for this turn of events. 

 

So they took the normal government use of sheer power and jack-boot strength to try to intimidate and silence this reporter who would dare question their spin.  He was manhandled and hustled out of doors and told that he could not come to the briefings; and if he interfered any further in them, he would be arrested (naturally, they could charge him with obstructing justice or something similar). 

 

 

R. Vincent Bertollini 

 

In the Dec 20, 1999, “11th Hour Remnant Messenger” (p. 1), R. Vincent Bertollini wrote about the government work and “injustice” for the Branch Davidians.  As Bertollini noted, the Davidians had some guns (which were supposedly protected under the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution).  But they advocated no insurrection, anarchy or sedition (or violence--ed).  They just wanted to be left alone and made that public. 

 

Nevertheless, per Bertollini, an illegal warrant was served, an illegal action was promulgated, an illegal siege was developed and an illegal mass murder occurred.  No one from the government side was indicted or made to stand trial. 

 

This writer would expand on Vincent’s words by noting that yes, government agents manufactured lies to get the warrant (which they did, as proven earlier herein).  Instead of just serving it, they launched an attack with an army of people in bullet proof vests, terror uniforms and guns blazing.  And ultimately, they murdered some 86 innocent men, women and children who had not violated any laws in the United States. 

 

Even after this exercise, the government people then went to work to tell lies, destroy and alter evidence, obstruct justice and do every thing possible to prevent justice and truth to ever be known. 

 

Then to top it off, they arrested the few Davidian survivors who were not murdered and promptly prosecuted them for various trumped up charges.  These innocent victims were found guilty and all sentenced to long terms in federal prison. 

 

With this mass murder of people and all of the other problems involved, one would think that, as a minimum, a grand jury would be convened to look into the matter; but no, not so, in US Christian justice circles (at least, not so, by 2003). 

 

After seven years of lies, distortions and manipulations, public outcries and the work of an independent film producer, the Justice Department was forced in 1999 to open a new inquiry (using John Danforth, a government loyalist, as noted earlier). 

 

 

The TWA Flight 800 Case, Revisited 

 

A second powerful demonstration of the US Department of Justice in operation surfaced over the TWA flight 800 crash, discussed earlier herein.  Many persons who had pulled their heads out of the sand (and refused to believe the lies, distortions and spin) believed that 800 was shot down--evidently, by a missile or two, as fired by the US Navy. 

 

One of the people interested in this scenario was an investigative reporter named James Sanders.  He went to work and dug up facts and data raising real questions about some of the conclusions of the federal agents.  In response to his efforts, he was arrested and charged with a federal criminal indictment. 

 

“Spotlight” of Feb 14, 2000, had his report in an article on “Journalist Faces Criminal Charges After Exposing TWA Cover Up” (p. 1, 3).  Sanders says that he interviewed people in 1996 on the crash and found an emerging picture of an “invisible hand straining to move the government inquiry onto a politically contrived path leading to a ‘mechanical’ conclusion.” 

 

Per Sanders, this invisible hand guiding the government inquiry was the same guiding hand that had dealt with criminal acts committed within the Clinton administration after 1993. 

 

Since 1996 was an election year, Clinton and his handlers would not have wanted any publicity that the Navy, under his watch, shot down a US airliner full of people.  One of the most damaging charges was that the Navy was involved in exercises in the area and that a drone was being used.  The conclusion was that these exercises went amiss. 

 

The August 2000 “Internet Vortex” (p. 11) had a related article on “New Photographs Show TWA 800 Cover-Up, Independent Prober Says” which detailed the work of Sanders.  Per this source, Sanders found photographs of crash investigators tampering with key evidence as they reassembled the plane’s carcass on Long Island (they were bending some of the metal down to make it look like an internal explosion).  

 

Somehow, in 1999, Sanders gained possession of the fabric from one of the plane’s seats.  He promptly had it analyzed by a California lab.  The laboratory concluded that the fabric had some strains of what appeared to be rocket fuel residue.  However, the government claimed that the residue was glue. 

 

 

Leaks 

 

Apparently, Sanders was getting fed information and documents from investigators inside the Department of Justice which indicated that the government was lying and deceiving the public about what all was going on in the investigation. 

 

Of course, the Justice Department was angry that inside people were feeding information to Sanders.  So they contacted him and demanded the names of all persons he was getting information from.  He refused.  The feds then followed up with one of their favorite tricks--which is to intimidate, threaten and coerce family members (wives, children, etc). 

 

Sanders was told that if he did not reveal his sources, his wife would be targeted and indicted in a criminal court.  He still refused.  So the feds hauled him in front of a federal grand jury and had him and his wife both indicted for conspiracy.  The trial was held and Sanders was quite naturally denied (by the federal judge) the privilege of the first amendment as a defense. 

 

Quite naturally, Justice had its way.  They were both found guilty and were sentenced.  Per the “Internet Vortex” article, Sanders and his wife Elizabeth are appealing their sentences. 

 

Of course, the controlled national media hid Sander’s story from the public.  The point is that no one can oppose the national media or the crooked politicians who rule in Washington.  They have all of the money and almost all of the resources, federal agents, judges and court officials on their side.  It’s very hard for a little man with no money to oppose this combine. 

 

 

A Summary 

 

In order to close out this discussion on US justice, this summary is needed of material largely covered heretofore.  While it might be allowed that justice and truth sometimes surface in court trials, this is not the function or reality of the US justice system, as it has developed over the last 215 years. 

 

There are always far more over-riding issues than justice.  Clearly, prosecutors could care less about justice and truth.  Their primary motive is getting a conviction in order to help their own pride, vanity and success in life.  The judges and courts have an over-riding motive of maintaining the system, status quo and vested interests. 

 

Finally, the jury (when an accused is blessed with a jury) has generally been hand-picked by the establishment to be sure that it is in support of the politically correct system.  For sure, the only hope of any certain justice is a jury.  But the US juries are so controlled and the jury members are so mesmerized and zombiized by the system that justice even evades them. 

 

With the tables stacked against many accused (and especially, politically incorrect ones), there is almost no way that truth and justice will emerge in a trial, legal process or judicial action.  It’s hard to fight this combine because defendants simply don’t have the money and resources to gain acquittals or establish truth and justice; whereas the government has unlimited funds, people and resources to protect the system. 

 

In order for the prosecutor to get his conviction and the judge to protect the system, the public must be made to believe that justice and truth did prevail.  So, without wasting any time or effort to pursue justice and truth, the government wants a quick explanation or fast conviction which will satisfy and pacify the gullible public.  Often, this involves a patsy or other inconsequential player or excuse. 

 

Thus Lee Oswald, Tim McVeigh, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Linda Tripp and Paula Jones all took the blame.  The real guilty parties all escaped justice. 

 

In many instances, it is the feds or federal agents themselves who are to blame (as at Waco, Ruby Ridge and OC) or some prominent politician or fat cat (like Slick Clinton or the super rich).  The judge must be sure that all of these parties are fully protected--as they are part of the system.  

 

If there is no immediate fall guy or patsy to put the blame on, then the system demands that a suitable explanation be drafted to pacify and satisfy the gullible public.  That’s why the middle fuel tank on TWA 800 took the blame. 

 

In all cases, judges like Susan Wright (for Paula Jones) and Richard Matsch (on Tim McVeigh) have delivered for the system, as they were tasked to do.  These judges were not going to allow justice. 

 

 

No Truth or Justice 

 

Consequently, truth and justice were never on the agenda or at issue with the JFK killing (the bankers and Mob beat the rap), in the OC bombing (the conspirators or at least the ATF which had stored high explosives in the federal building escaped justice), with Paula Jones (the guilty Clinton skated free), in the TWA 800 case (Clinton and the Navy were protected) or at Waco or Ruby Ridge (where federal agents murdered people and got away with it). 

 

While this corrupt and sorry system may satisfy and appeal to the gullible Christians (who have allowed it to develop and persist), it is a far cry from what The ELOHIM demands in His Word.  Since it is so corrupt and evil, it is doomed to fall and one day be held accountable by The HIGHEST. 

 

Like YESHUA said, the very elect need to settle with their adversaries and avoid lawyers and court actions if at all possible because they will typically be hurt and oppressed since the system is stacked against them. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 400--More Government Corruption

 

 

US Justice, Revisited 

 

Former chapters herein have already discussed at some length the gross corruption and evil found in the US Justice Department and among various federal law enforcement and investigative agencies and people--particularly, in the FBI and the CIA. 

 

With this detailed coverage, there is no intent presently to begin to repeat those findings.  But the problem is far more profound than simply something in the US White House, the US Justice Department or the FBI.  It permeates throughout the entire United States government. 

 

While the case can be made that there used to be some honorable people in charge in government departments and operations, all of this has changed since WWII and especially since the arrival of the depraved law violator, crook and pervert Bill “Slick” Clinton in the early 1990s. 

 

Of course, much of the United States assumed that with the arrival of George W. Bush and a so-called Christian conservative Attorney General named John Ashcroft, things had to improve.  And probably, there is some improvement at the top level (not much, but “some”). 

 

Though the Bush family itself has had a dirty rap sheet for ages (and especially, with the presidency of George H. W. Bush), John Ashcroft certainly represents something better than what the nation had under Bill “Slick” Clinton and Janet “Butch” Reno.  Nevertheless, gross problems still remain and deserve some further commentary. 

 

 

Far More Than the Justice Department 

 

To pick upon and expand the remarks of the previously cited Mark R. Levin (that virtually all US government departments had been corrupted under Clinton), it is true that virtually all US executive branch departments had been corrupted at the top levels during the last ten years or at least have had misconduct charges and complaints filed (like with the secretaries or department heads). 

 

The list includes Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, Interior, Energy, Health and Welfare, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Defense (especially the Department of the Army, when the Secretary manipulated burials at Arlington Cemetery on behalf of Clinton), Office of the Surgeon General, Office of the Counsel to the President and on and on.  Some of these incidents have already been mentioned. 

 

 

The Indians 

 

While both Treasury and Interior have had multiple accusations of wrong doing over the last several years, perhaps the most significant act of corruption involves a 1998-1999 case when both departments entered into an apparent conspiracy with the president himself or someone close to him in the White House to obstruct justice (which is a common Clinton tactic in dealing with the courts). 

 

It seems that some time ago, complaints were leveled against Interior and Treasury about an alleged mismanagement of Indian trust funds.  Per an audit report by the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson, there was some $2.4 billion of funds which could not be accounted for. 

 

Various Indian tribes hired lawyers and filed a class action lawsuit against Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (the apparent Amalekite master who resigned and went to work as a co-chairman of Citigroup, as discussed heretofore). 

 

Rather than deal with the issue straight and forward, the Secretaries (evidently, in collusion with Clinton or someone else at the White House) decided that they would delay, stonewall, obfuscate, hide, cover up, distort, deceive and mislead all parties as to the facts in the case (either because the facts were politically damaging to Clinton or there were some thieves involved who had to be protected). 

 

In the beginning, the judge ordered the relevant documents turned over to the attorneys of the plaintiffs to determine what happened to the money.  The government alleged that the records could not be produced because of various reasons--like that some of them were stored in a warehouse in New Mexico which were covered with rodent droppings, thereby causing a potential health problem if they were disturbed.

 

On November 23, 1998, the judge was unhappy with the delays and excuses and ordered the documents produced.  The US government lawyers went into court and told the judge that certain microfilm records had been mistakenly destroyed, but that otherwise Treasury officials were right then busy taking all necessary action to locate the rest of the documents so that they could be turned over to the court. 

 

 

The Court Investigation 

 

There were more delays and nothing happened.  So the court appointed an investigator named Alan Balaran to find out why Interior and Treasury were not complying with the judge’s order. 

 

Per a story in the December 13-19, 1999, “Washington Times” (p. 1, 23), by Jerry Seper, on “Treasury officials lied about shredding records,” Balaran found that on the very day (Nov 23, 1998) that the judge ordered the documents produced and the US lawyers made more excuses, Treasury officials issued an order to destroy all of the documents. 

 

Thereupon, the US shredded some 162 boxes of documents associated with the case.  In a previous contempt of court citation from the judge (for the US delays, lies and distortions of truth), the US Departments of Treasury and Interior were ordered to pay a fine of $625,000 (which, of course, comes from the US taxpayers, so it was no issue for either Clinton, Babbitt or Rubin). 

 

With the Balaran revelations, US Justice Department lawyers have gone into court and said that the Balaran report should be hid from the public since it would cause potential severe and unfair damages to the reputations of seven Treasury Department lawyers involved in the shredding operation. 

 

 

The Same With Bush 

 

With the arrival of the Bush Administration in 2001, it would have seemed that the new Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton) would clean up the acts of the old Clinton people.  But a news report in the Oct 28, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) said that Judge Lambert found Norton also in contempt of court for failing to abide by his court order of three years ago. 

 

This case is like so many others that has been in court in the last several years.  Nothing has been done or will be done.  There will be numerous court appearances of lawyers to file motions to delay and stonewall the truth.  And as is usually the situation, the various lawyers (on both sides) will make much, much money, as the confrontation drags on and on in the US courts. 

 

Finally, in the end, the parties will themselves agree or the judge will order the US taxpayers to make a pay-off of money to the Indians and their attorneys.  No one will be prosecuted, fired or face disciplinary action.  The controlled media has largely had a black out on this incident and it will soon be totally lost to history. 

 

 

The EPA 

 

A former chapter mentioned the situation with the Environmental Protection Agency in financing a number of left-wing causes to the tune of $2 billion from 1993 to 2001 under Bill Clinton’s guidance and direction (May 2002 “American Sentinel,” p. 3).  But there is still more to this story. 

 

The essence of this report was that this money was in the form of grants, some of which went to environmental groups to lobby Congress in support of the environmentalist agenda.  Apparently, the Land Mark Legal Foundation found out about these grants and sued the EPA in federal court because it is illegal under federal law to use grant funds for lobbying purposes. 

 

In January 2001, Federal Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to protect the documents involved on these grants which the Land Mark Legal Foundation were seeking to establish the propriety of the grants. 

 

Instead of protecting the documents, the EPA reportedly began a cover-up operation.  EPA officials erased computer hard drives and had back-up email tapes destroyed.  Accordingly, Land Mark is pushing the federal court to hold the former Clinton era people in contempt of court.  Will anything come of this effort?  Probably not! 

 

 

Another White House Cover-Up 

 

The Jan-Feb 2000 “Jubilee” (p. 5) had one more report of a major White House cover-up and obstruction of justice, as taken from an article by Jerry Seper and Andrew Cain in the Feb 15, 2000, “Washington Times.” 

 

Several Clinton cases have been before the courts involving fraud and corruption in the Executive Branch. 

 

Thousands of documents, (100,000) e-mails, etc on Filegate, Chinagate, campaign finance abuses, Monica Lewinsky, etc had been subpoenaed either by the courts or by the Congress in various lawsuits and/or Congressional investigations. 

 

Now, Sheryl L. Hall, chief of the White House computer operations, has come forward to say that all electronic messages under subpoena from August 1996 to November 1998 were given security classifications and were hid from investigators.  They were not turned over to the various subpoenas. 

 

Once Ms Hall made her comments, she was promptly fired from her job in the White House and transferred to a position in the Treasury Department.  The fall-out of this Clinton cover-up was zero.  There was no problem and he got away with it (as he gets away with about everything he does). 

 

 

The Theft of Earmarked Funds 

 

A most extraordinary story of Clinton depravity surfaced in a story by Mike Blair on “Clinton-Gore Pilfer Funds to Support Extremists,” which appeared in the Mar 6, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 1, 3). 

 

Since 1937, the US has established by law a Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund to allocate all excise taxes raised from the sale of guns and ammunition to federal and state wildlife agencies for wildlife restoration projects, hunter safety training programs and firing range constructions.  Some $3.4 billion has been raised for these purposes. 

 

Congressman Don Young of Alaska was suspicious that something was going wrong in this program under Bill Clinton.  So he requested that the US General Accounting Office (GAO) audit it.  GAO did so. 

 

Per the GAO report, tens of millions of dollars from this fund have been illegally diverted by Clinton to finance other Clinton projects--like animal rights activists and funding for foreign trips by high ranking bureaucrats in the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Congress held hearings on the issue and found more incredible reports of Clinton dishonesty, lying and cheating. 

 

One Fish and Wildlife employee said that he was ordered to use the money to fund animal rights groups which aggressively are involved in efforts to destroy hunting.  Another employee said that he was ordered to destroy computer records which could be used to reveal the abuse and misuse of these funds by the Clinton Administration. 

 

As always in cases like this, nothing has been done or will be done.  Assuredly, per the US Constitution, Slick Clinton and the other parties involved in this illegal endeavor should have been impeached and removed from office.  Of course, that option was not about to happen (as will be established in succeeding chapters herein). 

 

 

Global Crossing 

 

One of the giant telecommunications companies in America has been Global Crossing.  On January 28, 2002, Global Crossing filed for protection under federal bankruptcy laws.  There is now some concern that the Chinese Communist will acquire the technology of this company (May 20, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 7). 

 

While several things contributed to the demise of this company, the just cited “American Free Press” reported some on its background which allowed it to have success during Bill “Slick” Clinton’s tenure of office. 

 

The story involved said that the company made enormous payoffs to Clinton and his people.  For example, attorney Anne Bingaman (wife of Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico), former head of the Clinton Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, was put on Global’s payroll for six months at $2.5 million to do some lobbying work. 

 

Terry McAullife, head of the Democrat National Committee did some work for Global and received $100,000 in stock that was sold for $18 million.  Former Defense Secretary William Cohen received a $500,000 consulting fee from Global; and Clinton, himself, received $one million from Global for the Clinton library.

 

It is unclear how much money Global paid to the Republicans; but surely, they also got some of the company pie before bankruptcy was filed.  Otherwise, the huge payoffs by the crooked Enron Co to politicians of both parties were discussed in a prior chapter. 

 

 

Clinton Reaction 

 

The Jul-Aug 2000 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 32) quoted Lee Bellinger, editor of the American Sentinel, as saying that in fourteen instances, Clinton invoked executive privilege to conceal illegal activities from the public. 

 

Effectively, he obstructed justice in all 14 instances.  Per his view, it was his right as chief executive of the US to hide and conceal illegal activities. 

 

 

So-Called Independent Commissions or Investigators 

 

One of the shrewd maneuvers which the fat cats and their prostitute politicians have successfully used in their cover-up operations to deceive and delude the gullible, ignorant public has been the practice to appoint so-called independent commissions or investigators to make an inquiry or investigate some event or matter which holds public interest. 

 

Over the years, evil and deceitful presidents have learned that they can appoint these so-called commissions/investigators and have them become the official cover-up people.  The public is so credulous and gullible that these commissions or investigators can easily lie and deceive the public. 

 

Thus, America has had such farces as the Warren Commission with its crooked head Earl Warren, appointed by President Johnson. 

 

And now, the latest fraud is the Commission to investigate the 9-11 terrorist attacks--appointed by George W. Bush.  At first, Bush appointed the cover-up artist Henry Kissinger to head this Commission.  But complaints surfaced showing a Kissinger business conflict of interest, so he resigned. 

 

Another so-called independent investigator named John Danforth was appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno (obviously, with the approval of Bill Clinton) to investigate the murder of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. 

 

Once someone in the executive branch (the president or whomever) appoints one of these entities, the gullible public is supposedly pacified.  It seems that no one can put two and two together and understand that when a president (or one of his lackeys) appoints someone to investigate the president, there is a pre-determined conclusion to come from this so-called independent inquiry. 

 

Obviously, the president or whomever will always appoint known commodities who will deliver as they are supposed to deliver (like with Earl Warren and John Danforth).  Since presidents and attorney generals are not independent, their appointments are typically not independent ether. 

 

The essence here is that these commissions and investigations are laid on by executive branch people precisely to cover-up and hide the truth so that it will never be known.  So, in a sense, why allow the president or one of his lackeys to even go through the investigatory  motion since it is such a waste of time? 

 

 

The Unwritten Code for Presidents

 

Sometimes, the public elects a successor to a former crooked president with some hope that the successor will investigate and prosecute his predecessor for crooked dealings in the White House.  An example of this ,precise thinking was in the minds of many Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 with hopes that he would take action against the former culprit Slick Clinton. 

 

But any person naive and stupid enough to believe such possibilities should have stayed home and not voted.  The problem is that there is a code in the presidency that each new president acts to protect and insulate his predecessor from any fall out for wrong doing. 

 

The reason for this code is clear enough.  All incoming presidents realize that four years from now they could well be on the outside facing their most harsh opponent who may succeed them.  If a president starts prosecuting and hurting his predecessor, he well knows that his successor might turn the tables on him and prosecute him. 

Can one imagine what would happen if GWB started attacking Slick Clinton in 2001 after GWB assumed the White House?  Well, Bush knew the code and knew that in four or eight years Bush will be out and his successor could be Hillary Clinton.  Is it not obvious that if Bush hurt Bill, Hillary would retaliate and later hurt Bush? 

 

Therefore, the unwritten code comes into play.  The code simply says that once you are in the White House, you pledge to never do anything destructive or hurtful to your predecessor.  People like the Clintons and Bushes can slug it out on the campaign trail; but once the election is over and the president is chosen, he is duty bound to protect his predecessor.  It always works out that way--with no exceptions. 

 

Too, it must be recognized that the persons getting elected to the presidency are generally all members of the same secret loges and fraternities.  They are lodge brothers who are sworn to aiding and assisting each other.  Admittedly, during the campaign days, they are allowed to attack each other.  But they know that with the election their successor will end up helping and protecting his predecessor. 

 

Some observers alleged that when Bill “Slick” Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993, he gave a secret fraternity sign to George H. W. Bush during Slick’s inauguration.  Of course, they do belong to the same secret groups.  Slick and both Bushes are members of the Skull and Bones Society at Yale.  This condition tied them together in profound ways. 

 

Obviously, there was no way that Slick would hurt Bush Senior when he came to power in 1993.  And when Bush Junior came to the presidency, there was no possibility that he would take any action to damage his predecessor Slick.  Each succeeding president is duty bound to protect his predecessor.  And they always carry out their obligations on this matter. 

 

Many people have been fascinated with how Bush Junior was so hard on Slick (and Slick’s colleague Al Gore) during the 2000 presidential campaign.  Yet, once Bush Junior was in the White House, he and Bill Clinton became the best of buddies.  The same is true with Bush Senior and Clinton.  They called each other dirty dogs in 1992.  But once the election was over, they were the best of friends. 

 

It should be obvious to anyone with brains above the moron level that this tragic unwritten code exists among the presidents.  That’s why a succeeding president will never do anything to hurt his predecessor. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 401--Federal Law Enforcement

 

 

The FBI 

 

Corruption in the Justice Department’s Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has already been detailed in former chapters.  It is almost redundant to try to add anything further on the illegal activities and practices of the FBI.  Many of these practices started under J. Edgar Hoover and have only intensified since he died and left office.  Of course, it only grows worse over time. 

 

The Aug 2002 “News Max.Com” (formerly the “Internet Vortex”) had a report by Phil Brennan on “Freeh Gets Free Pass From Congress” which tells what has happened to the FBI in modern times.  Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a very evident Amalekite, was appointed and served while Bill “Slick” Clinton was in the White House. 

 

Brennan says that under Freeh, the FBI became thoroughly politicized and took an active part in huge federal cover-ups in several of the illegal or shady Clinton undertakings--like the handling of the Waco affair, the downing of TWA flight 800, the death of Vince Foster and so forth.  Per Brennan, Freeh knows where the bodies are buried and the Clinton Democrats are the grave diggers. 

 

Yes, tragically, the FBI has become a political agency involved in crime and cover-up operations.  Certainly, Freeh was a willing participant in such pathetic illustrations emanating from the nation’s primary law enforcement agency.  Perhaps the Bush Director Robert Mueller will be a little better, but the die is cast and the trend for crime and corruption is in motion. 

 

 

More From the FBI 

 

Another most fascinating thing surfaced in early 2001 when US authorities discovered that a long-time counterintelligence agent with the FBI (named Robert Hanssen) had been spying for the Soviets and Russians since 1985.  The importance of this story is that Hanssen was one of the officials within the FBI itself who was tasked to catch foreign spies. 

 

Clearly, Robert Hanssen was in a critical position to have access to much highly classified information.  Apparently, he used his position to gather some of this crucial data and feed it to Russian agents for money.  Anyway, the discovery of Hanssen and his years of spying work caused quite an uproar in the Justice Department and the subordinate FBI offices. 

 

One of the things which was discussed in late February and early March 2001 was a plan that the FBI conduct periodic lie detector tests of employees to ascertain their continuing loyalties and whether they were involved in any illegal activities.  Reportedly, FBI Director Louis Freeh, himself, entertained this idea. 

 

In any case, the word was out within the agency that officials were seriously thinking about implementing the lie detector practice to try to halt any further disasters, as surfaced with the arrest of Robert Hanssen. 

 

 

FBI Agents Protested the Lie Detector Plans 

 

Once the federal employees learned that they might become subject to periodic lie detector tests, they collectively rose up in protest over the scheme.  Many of them and numbers of their various governmental organizations came out to protest the plan during the week of March 11, 2001. 

 

A news report on NPR on March 17, 2001, noted that these various protesting entities had written a series of memos, letters, etc to the FBI Director claiming that this lie detector plan would be a utter disaster for FBI employees.  They argued that for every lie detected in a test, some 50 to 100 innocent allegations about lying would surface.  Per their pitch, the lie detector process was too subject to error to be relied upon. 

 

Many of these protesting FBI agents claimed that the careers and whole futures of numbers of innocent people could become subjects of criminal allegations and investigations from erroneous lie detector information (which, per their position, would be grossly unfair). 

 

As the NPR reporter correctly noted, the FBI has been using lie detectors for years against people--both the innocent and the guilty.  There has never been a reported problem or concern from the agency and its agents heretofore over the use of lie detectors. 

 

 

FBI Deceptions 

 

Not only have FBI agents been notorious in using lie detector machines against various people, but one of their favorite tricks is to subject a suspect to a unique lie detector scheme designed to entrap a person. 

 

This practice comes into play if a suspect passes the lie detector examination.  Subsequently, an FBI agent interviews him and lies to him and tells him that he failed the test (in hopes of getting a confession or other information by hook or crook).  Wen Ho Lee, discussed earlier herein, was subjected to this FBI deception. 

 

Therefore, the history of the FBI and the present protests against the use of the lie detector tests points out one of the terrible features of the modern world--that of gross hypocrisy.  Yes, these role models and privileged high ranking big shots within the Big Brother government are classic hypocrites.  Tragically, hypocrisy is a common problem among Adamites and particularly today. 

 

 

The Latest Technology 

 

In the vein that the previously used lie detector tests did have inherent problems, scientists have been busy cooking up new methods of trying to determine the presence of lies or truth in the words of a person. 

 

The Mar-Apr 2002 “Prophecy Club” newsletter (p. 5) quoted a recent news report from NewMax.com on the Internet.  Per the story, an “experimental new lie detector that measures sudden flashes of heat from around the eyes may soon provide another line of defense against terrorism.” 

 

This new technology allows the question of lying to be detected without any contact with the subject whatsoever and instantaneous in real time.  Apparently, this device can be used in any place that watches or looks at people--airports, various checkpoints, offices, etc.  The article did not reflect on the practicality of using this technology in connection with video cameras, but this option will surely materialize. 

 

Seemingly, this new device is substantially more accurate than the former lie detector tests that were used.  Too, the new approach doesn’t require the knowing participation of a given subject.  In other words, anyone can be evaluated at random with the device whenever desired. 

 

Actually, there already may be a new piece of technology on this subject in the hands of Big Brother (whether the just cited equipment or still something newer). 

 

The previously quoted May 2002 letter (p. 7) from Lee Bellinger, editor of the “American Sentinel,” says that federal agents now have a small device which can scan a face from fifty feet away to detect whether there are signs of lying.  People subjected to this scan will not even know that they are being checked. 

 

 

Nesher, Revisited 

 

In perhaps the most dangerous and deplorable reality in the United States government today is evidence submitted in an “American Free Press” (AFP) story in 2002 on the presence of a cell or clique of people known as “Nesher,” operating in the US law enforcement and investigative operations (like the FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, etc).  This network of evil was discussed in former chapters. 

 

AFP suggests that this tightly-knit group has infiltrated US law enforcement to corrupt justice and truth.  Reportedly, it was this group which directed and supervised the US efforts to destroy Congressmen George Hansen and Jim Traficant.  Hansen was a Republican from Idaho and Traficant was a Democrat from Ohio. 

 

Who knows, the set-up, prosecution and conviction of Ku Klux Klansman David Duke and the fall of Richard Nixon both could have involved some portion of this secret Nesher network, operating internally within the United States government (reportedly, to serve the interests of the Amalekite Jew masters/plutocrats ruling America). 

 

Both Congressmen Hansen and Traficant were very independent people who would not march to the party tunes.  Both Hansen and Traficant seemed to have populist ties and concepts which immediately cast both of them at odds with the ruling plutocrats.  Any politician today who has any real care or concern for this nation, its people or its future will be opposed by the plutocrats ruling the US. 

 

The media and government powers (which today are exclusively in the hands of the Amalekite Jewish masters/plutocrats) will pull all of the strings possible to destroy any politician who does not march to the tune being piped by the people in power. 

 

Assuredly, it is this tragedy which insured that both Hansen and Traficant would be destroyed.  It was also this same situation which must have set-up Nixon and Duke for their downfalls, as discussed earlier herein. 

 

 

More on Nesher 

 

And in fact, it is even conceivable that the Nesher network had some role to play in the murder or cover-up of the John F. Kennedy assassination plus many or all of the various incidents in modern times which have set up the passage of very dictatorial laws to impede upon the United States Constitution and the rights of American citizens (like Ruby Ridge, Waco, TWA 800, Oklahoma City, the World Trade Canter bombing, 9-11, etc). 

 

In both the Traficant and Hansen cases (as well as in Waco, Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, etc), this Nesher group reportedly provided the impetus and fuel to corrupt much of the involvement of federal powers in the way things worked out (for sure, in the vein of government cover-up operations). 

 

Based on the AFP report, this inside clique of people, if in existence as claimed, undermine and control justice and truth in America to be sure that the politically approved position (of the Amalekite Jew plutocrat bankers/masters) prevails.  In other words, this clique uses hook or crook to insure that the objectives of the Amalekite Jew plutocrats always persist in US government law enforcement operations. 

 

Since much of the US investigative powers is diffused in a number of separate US agencies (like the FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, etc), the Nesher conspiracy seems to be the tool or function which coordinates and controls the different agencies in pursing and accomplishing the wishes of the plutocrats in terms of the United States government operations. 

 

Actually, the conduct of the Nesher work is not as difficult as one may first suppose.  After all, all US presidents since Woodrow Wilson have answered to the ruling plutocrats (though some of them may not have fully comprehended how controlled and managed they were, like Reagan; and though some of them grew rebellious and had to be eliminated, like Kennedy and Nixon). 

 

Obviously, the internal Nesher entity in the US government and people at the White House are all working together on the same objectives. 

 

Perhaps the primary difference between the Nesher people and the White House personnel lies in the fact that people at the White House can change with each presidential election and new administration.  The Nesher people seem to be full time US employees who do not change with the administration changes.  


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 402--Christians and Their Own Laws I

 

 

But More Than Government 

 

While government’s willful and flagrant violations of its own laws is incredibly sick and pathetic, there is more to come on this subject. 

 

 

A Review of Reality 

 

All of the discussion in prior chapters on how bad the Christian sun worship people, government and society have proved to be (in the US, but correctly all over the Christian West) necessitates a look at some fantastic parallels on how Christendom approaches its own human, governmental, civil and criminal laws vis-à-vis on how she approaches the Scriptures. 

 

The American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two of the great documents prepared in history.  If the American sun worship society and culture would have taken to heart what those documents literally said, things would