Return to Christ's Lawful Assembly
In our previous article we were shown our Father's tender mercies toward our Daniel of today when he had refused to make supplication to the secular kings of the municipality where he is currently sojourning because he had committed no trespass, and how our Father's Providence stayed the lion's mouth.In this long running spiritual battle, those same kings these many months later have again falsely accused our Brother of another "trespass," this time in the form of "failure to appear" on a charge of "practicing medicine without certification" and other sundry "violations" concerned with his making available our Father's healing herbs to those in need.
After having abated and defaulted the charges four months earlier, they came on a Sunday to the house where he was staying, and arrested him. After spending two nights in vinculus in their grey-bar hotel, he was brought before "THE COURT" on a Tuesday morning. The following "record" is the "arraignment" on that day.
In these transcript's, we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original copies. Randy Lee's comments are in [brackets]. The comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, and it is not an effort to put words in anyone's mouth, for only the Holy Spirit can do that. The comments are simply given for the edification and guidance of those that may at one time or another be in the same type of situation. Again, we must remember that only the Spirit of God will give you the words to say in that hour.
Court: DANIEL. Arraignment Tuesday, October 10, 2000
Daniel: Are you trying to address me?
Court: Yes, Sir.
Daniel: I couldn't be the person - - I mean I couldn't be who you think I am because the name you have is in all capital letters, which is a misnomer.
Court: (Yes) it is in all capital letters.
Daniel: My God-given name is spelled capital "D," lowercase "a-n-i-e-l," uppercase "C" - -
Court: Let's go over this. I want to get the spelling correct here. Your first name - - go ahead and stand up, sir. Your first name is capital "D," and then it is a lowercase "a" - -
[*Comment: We should recognize here that the judge's patronizing acceptance of the proper spelling is done for deceptive purposes. After the acceptance of the proper spelling by the Court, one should object to this acceptance because the Court can "normally" only prosecute the "person" (name in all caps), not the substance. If objection is not made, it is taken by the Court that you are giving permission to be prosecuted.]
Daniel: Lowercase "a," lowercase "n," lowercase "i," lowercase "e," lowercase "l."
Court: Okay.
Daniel: Uppercase "C"..... [*etc.].
Court: All right.
Daniel: And I do not accept or use the designations, which are heathen, of "Sir" or "Mister."
Court: All right. On this matter I have corrected the spelling to reflect the spelling that you have given the Court.
[*Comment: With that, they have recognized his substance in Christ and have abandoned the ability of prosecuting him as a "person" (name in all caps). At this point, one should object to being prosecuted under his true name and point out that the Court does not have the ability of prosecuting him under his true name without his permission, and that he does not give them permission to do so.
And without the objection, the Court now reads the charges.]
In this matter you are charged in Case No. 1645 in Count I with practicing medicine without certification, a violation of Business and Professions Code Sec. 2052. Count II alleges practicing medicine without certification, a violation (of the same Code). Count III alleges conducting business without a license, a violation of the Beastly Municipal Code Sec. 4.09.030. And Count IV alleges not having a food permit, violation of Health and Safety Code Sec. 10554(a). How do you wish to plead? Guilty or not guilty?
Daniel: I could not be willful in this thing that I am accused of because I do the will of my Father, who is in heaven, and nothing about Him is evil.
[*Comment: "I could not be willful in this thing" is defensive and goes to the "facts" of the case, which causes "joinder." At this point, the "charges" are still against the "person" only. Better is: "Those charges are against the person DANIEL C.... in all capital letters, which I am not, because I am known by and do the will of my Father only."
But with the "defensive" response, the Court "assumes" jurisdiction with a plea for the "DEFENDANT"]
Court: All right. That will be a not guilty plea to all four charges.
Are you going to represent yourself, hire an attorney, or do you want the Court to appoint an attorney to represent you in this matter?
Daniel: I am going to represent myself. I wish - -
[*Comment: A bondmen of Jesus the Christ cannot represent "himself." The Christ is your Advocate and Wonderful Counselor. "Myself" denotes self-will. Always remember that any "benefits" offered by the Court are the same "benefits" that were offered to our Lord by Satin when he offered Him the glory and powers of the kingdoms of the world. As He rejected them, we must also.]
Court: You would like to represent yourself?
[*Comment: Here, the Court gives him the ability to recant by asking him to reconfirm that he "would like" to represent "himself."]
Daniel: I wish to address the District Attorney.
Court: All right. On what issue do you wish to address the District Attorney at this time? On the issue of the charges?
Daniel: Yes.
Court: Okay. Before I go ahead and allow you to do that, I am going to go over some information with you just to make certain you understand. [*"The Court" then stated all of his (civil) "rights" to an attorney, the "right" to represent himself, etc.] With that in mind, do you understand and give up your right to have an attorney in this case so that you can represent yourself?
[*Comment: Again the judge gives him the opportunity to say "Get behind me Satan."]
Daniel: I give up the right to have an attorney.
[*Comment: Giving the "impression" that he "had" rights allows the Court to "presume" that he is a 14th Amendment citizen and that he has previously exercised (civil) "rights." In this position, we must remember that all of the questions coming from the bench are "loaded." The Court is seeking the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to "fully" acquire jurisdiction.]
Court: All right. If you wish - -
Ms. DA: Are you able to tell whether this is a City Attorney or a District Attorney matter?
[*Comment: Here, the Ms. suggests that see is unaware of what the case is concerned with. But, the District Attorney's Office had been working on the case for close to six months. It would "appear" that the Ms. came to court unprepared. Don't be fooled!]
Court: This is a District Attorney filing. There is a Beastly Municipal Code violation that is included in the filing; however, the case was filed by the District Attorney's Office by Ms. Gantry.
Ms. DA: Thanks. I didn't have my file.
Court: All right. Sir, what is it that you would like to talk to the District Attorney about?
[*Comment: He finally receives the opportunity to set the "record" straight. The following should have been stated at the time of the "name spelling," so as to set "the state of the forum" at the beginning of the proceedings. The blessing is that he was able to seize the moment in the name of the Lord and make manifest his duty as a bondman of the Christ.]
Daniel: Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is my Sovereign. I am a bondservant of Him. And the law of God and the law of the land are all one and the same, and both preserve and favor the land. And all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and I would like to see a record in law leading to the establishment of this Court under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am not a person, I am not a human being or - - or a natural man or a resident because it is written from the beginning the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he understand them because they are spiritually discerned. I am not a person because it has been written from the beginning God is not a respecter of persons, and, also, if you respect the person you have sent and are convinced of the law and are a transgressor of the law - -
Court: I know you don't like to be addressed as "Mr. Daniel." How do you choose to be addressed here?
[*Comment: Here, the judge deliberately interrupts, changing the subject with a patronizing "bone." His above statement is a blessing, but at this point he had already given the "impression" to the Court that he is "a person" due to his acknowledging "rights," and "representing himself." But for witnessing purposes, the Spirit of God wrote it on his heart to state the Truth.]
Daniel: "Daniel."
Court: All right.
Daniel: Upper and lower case letters.
Court: Okay. In this case the issues that you are discussing right now appear to be of a jurisdictional nature, and those are issues that you are discussing with the District Attorney in court; Ms. DA represents the People of the State of California, and it is by the authority vested in her by the State of California that the District Attorney's Office is pursuing this prosecution. Certainly, the issues that you are raising, if you wish to set forth in motions, that would be fine.
[*Comment: Here, the judge seeks further jurisdiction by "suggesting" that "motions" be "set forth." Whether "set forth" or "filed," whether on a jurisdictional question or otherwise, any "formal" motion gives the Court jurisdiction over "the person," because motions are created for "persons" only.]
At this point in time I also would like to note that there - - let's see. I have taken a look at the - - on the issue of bail, that is something that needs to be discussed today. Daniel, we need to talk about bail. I note that you did fail to appear and that you were cited to appear on July 25th, and I would ask that you address the Court on that issue so - - since that is a determination that I need to make at this time.
[*Comment: Here again the judge seeks the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to further "enhance" the jurisdiction of the Court. In this situation, one must stay with the Sword of the Word, avoiding any defensive posture or addressing the facts of the case, thereby avoiding any further joinder. But Daniel defends.]
Daniel: Yes. I have never practiced medicine or attempted to practice medicine or have any intent to practice medicine at any time, and so I haven't broken the law. I work with God's herbs to help people. I have never diagnosed, treated or operated on anyone for any disease whatsoever. I have never used drugs or pharmacia or practiced sorceries.
And I had 22 people come into my ministry, the sanctuary where I work for my Lord and Savior, and they tore the place apart. They had a warrant, they said, a so-called warrant. They were looking for antibiotics, prescription drugs, drugs with expiration dates, medical equipment, which they found none. So whoever made up the affidavit lied about it, and so I did not break the law. And they told me if I didn't sign the citation that I would go to jail, and I was - - I did it under duress and threat of jail time.
[*Comment: With this "defensive" statement, he has given all that the Court needs to proceed with the prosecution—full joinder. But since he has, more importantly, brought the Power of the Word to bear down on the Court and the District Attorney's Office in this arraignment and in the Abatement/Default (of which they never answered), he will ultimately fare well. And they know that they will still have to deal with the Abatement issue at some point due to their experience with him in the previous traffic case.]
Court: All right. Daniel, I have to ask you a question. If, in fact, I order that you return to court - - because now these charges are pending, and they have been brought by the People of the State of California - - will you promise me that you will appear in court? Because without that promise, I have no choice but to set bail in this case. Otherwise, based upon the nature of the charges - - I have had an opportunity to read through the reports in this particular case. I am familiar - - because there was another case a while back involving a traffic ticket. We have had the discussion before on the appearance issue, if you will recall, so I am familiar with what your belief system is in regard to that; however, I need to know that you would come back to court, if I ordered you to do so, to defend the charges against you.
[*Comment: As we can see, she is very familiar with whom she is dealing. At this point, the judge is simply "following procedure".]
Daniel: Would that be signing a contract or losing my venue if I came back to court? Because when I walk through that door there (the bar), I would be under - - I would be giving you jurisdiction; is that right.
Court: Well, the Court - - basically, the way you look at it, the Court, essentially, forces the jurisdiction upon you. I mean, I know that you do not accept the jurisdiction of the Court. I know that that is your position. Nonetheless - -
Daniel: But I accept the law. [*Comment. This is an ambiguous statement. When we mention the word "law," we must clarify which "law" we are talking about. If not, the judge will "presume" that you mean man's law.]
Court: This is the law. You are charged with a case. There is a Complaint. The People of the State of California brought this Complaint.
And at this point in time, I would deny any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the statements that you have made today in court. [*Emphasis added.] [*Comment: With this full revelation from the bench, it would do everyone good to study and analyze this transcript to better understand what was said by Daniel to give the Court full jurisdiction.
We must also consider that the judge is admitting that the Court's original jurisdiction is only "presumed," and that it is the words that come out of your mouth which transforms the "presumption" into a "reality" for them.]
I need to know that you would, in fact, come back to court, if I ordered you to do so, so that this case can be litigated, if necessary, or settled, so that you could have a further conference with the District Attorney on the issue of settlement and - - or, if it is necessary, to set the case for trial. [*Comment: It is interesting that the judge is already talking about "settlement." Could it be that the Sword of the Word has already broken the bands of their fasces, and at this point they're only going through their motions of jurisdictional procedure?]
Daniel: We can do that today?
Court: The People have 30 days from today's date to bring this case to trial. I anticipate the People aren't ready to start a trial today.
Ms. DA: I don't have my file, Your Honor.
[*Comment: How convenient!!]
Court: So, no, we would not be able to start a trial in this matter today. We could set the case for trial now if you want to do so.
Normally, the procedure is to set a pretrial conference, which would give you an opportunity to discuss the matter with the District Attorney, to see whether or not you had any discovery motions or any other motions that you might want to file and then, also, set a trial date.
[*Comment: The Court is still trying to lure him in by "suggesting" that he "might want" to "file" a motion.]
Daniel: No. I, basically, have the evidence to dismiss the case.
Court: Do you want me to set the matter for a jury trial or a court trial?
Daniel: Court trial - -
[*Comment: At this point, due to the Court "having" jurisdiction because of his previous defenses and giving acknowledgment to 'rights," it was best for him to request a Court trial— not a jury trial—since juries cannot consider the Law in their verdicts, whereas the judge can. But either way, he would have the opportunity to let his light shine before them and thereby honor the Father and glorify our Lord and Master. That is Daniel's purpose in this situation. We must remember that the Spirit of God has been giving His minister (Daniel) the words to speak for His purposes.]
Court: Let me just cover - -
Daniel: May I say one thing first?
Court: Yes, sir. I am sorry. Yes.
Daniel: Thank you. Would I be losing any jurisdiction? [*At this point, the judge has already made it clear that jurisdiction was already given "based on the statements that you have made today in court". But he has not yet compromised the Non-statutory Abatement, as will be seen later.]
Court: To make your arguments?
Daniel: Yes.
Court: No. At this point your motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. You can renew that motion at a later date if you choose to do so.
[*Comment: Here, the judge tries to reduce the Power of God's Word to a "motion." To counter this 'reduction,' he now brings up the subject of the Non-statutory Abatement, which nullifies any idea that a "motion" was made.]
Daniel: Yes. Well, the People and the District Attorney were served with an abatement and were lawfully abated, and all the defendants were abated, and I don't know why I am standing here.
[*Comment: It was very important for him to have brought up "the abatement issue" during the arraignment, thereby giving him the ability to force their hand in either a pretrial conference or in a trial itself if it came to that.]
Court: That is something you can discuss with the District Attorney. I don't have any information on that issue, and Ms. DA doesn't have her file at this point in time. That is something that should be discussed at a pretrial conference. The question I need you to answer is an assurance from you that you will be here if I set another date. If you do assure me of that, I will release you on your own recognizance and order that you come back to court.
Daniel: If I come up to the bar, will you arrest me and bring me across the bar - -
Court: Well - - if you do what?
Daniel: If I come up to the bar, will you arrest me and bring me across the bar on my return?
Court: Why would I? Why would I arrest you if you come in here? No, not if you come in here. If you don't come, then you get arrested. I have a question. If you want to represent yourself, you have to come up to the table here.
[*Comment: Here, we see the implications of "representing yourself." It brings you "in bar."]
Daniel: Yes.
Court: You walk up here on your own free will.
Daniel: I don't have any free will.
[*Comment: This is an excellent point to make. It is not defensive, and it makes it clear in this "trial of spirits" that Daniel does not serve the natural man's god.
And it also forces the Court to show the extent of its police power when it has determined that it has full jurisdiction over "THE DEFENDANT"]
Court: Well, you walk up here because I tell you to.
Daniel: Yes.
Court: That is going to happen, isn't it?
Daniel: Yes, if you order me back. And I can't sign any contracts with you.
Court: Well, then you don't waive time. If he doesn't waive time, he doesn't waive time, does he? He doesn't have to sign anything if he doesn't waive time? He has to sign an O. R.
[*Comment: At this point, we see from the above statement from THE COURT that the judge is flustered and probably running out of patience. The statement is what is known as "convoluted diatribe" for confusion purposes.]
Bailiff: Promise to appear.
Court: You have to sign a promise to appear. You do have to do that. I am just checking with the procedure. That is also in the Penal Code. That is a law of the State of California. I know that you abide by the law of the State of California because you have told me that before.
[*Comment: This last statement stems from Daniel's earlier statement that "I accept the law." We see here that the judge hears every word that comes out of your mouth.]
Daniel: If I did not sign it, I would be - - I would be arrested and put in jail; is that correct?
Court: If you don't sign it, then I can't release you O. R. This is an order by the Court that you return to this court for your pretrial conference.
Daniel: Yes.
Court: I can't release you O. R. without your signature on this, and that is Penal Code Sec. 1216, which is noted right here on the bottom of the page.
Daniel: I would like to get this over with because I have been persecuted by the Beastly Police Department for ten months.
[*Comment: This reference to "ten months" consists of "building code violations," the earlier "traffic case," and this present case.]
Court: All right. I am going to - - I want to release you on your own recognizance. In order for me to release you on your own recognizance, you must sign the O. R. form. Will you do so, sir?
Daniel: I will sign this, yes.
Court: You are released on your own recognizance pending your complying with the Court order that you sign an O. R. form. And we will set this matter for a pretrial conference on October 16th, 9:00 a.m., Division II. That would give the People sufficient time to find their file on this case, and then you can have a conference with the Deputy District Attorney that is in court. Do you want me to go ahead and set a jury trial or a court trial date at this time? Or what we could do is just set that pretrial conference date, have your conference with the District Attorney and then see if the matter can be resolved.
[*Comment: With this last statement, the judge sends a "message" to the District Attorney that "the Ms." may have a difficult time with a conviction, since it would be the judge that would be determining the final outcome if it was to go to trial.]
Daniel: Yes.
Court: Is that what you wish to do?
Daniel: Yes. Thank you.
Court: All right. And then pending that appearance - - I do not know the status currently of the - - I am familiar with the allegations. I have read the allegations in the police report. And a condition of your being released on your own recognizance is that you are not to practice medicine.
Daniel: I have never practiced medicine.
Court: So you do understand and accept that condition. All right. Please have a seat, and Deputy Swenson will have you sign the form and give you a date - - a slip of paper with a date on it.
Remarks During the arraignment shown above, the court determined, from some of the words that were spoken by Daniel, that they had jurisdiction to proceed with trial. But, due to some of the other words spoken by him, the court and District Attorney's Office were confronted with a dilemma. They now had to address the Sword of the Word spoken by Daniel; and secondarily, the Non-statutory Abatement and Default that had been served upon them by the Christ's assembly at Los Angeles, which they had taken cognizance of during the arraignment. The dilemma was:
"They were confronted with, and had to answer to, the Truth." As we will gather from the following record, "the Truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).
Pretrial Conference and Plea
Monday, October 16, 2000 Court: Daniel, if you want to step forward.
Daniel: Spelled in upper and lowercase letters.
Court: We took care of that on the last date where we corrected the spelling on the Complaint.
Daniel: Thank you, Your Honor.
Court: Come up to the table. This case today was set for a pretrial conference. Today would be the time for you to discuss the case with the District Attorney, Ms. Gravely [*Ms. DA], who is present in court today, so that if there are any discovery issues or any legal motions you want to file today I would note that the Court did receive a -- on October 12th the Court received a packet including numerous letters, character letters and letters from people on behalf of you, sir, and the People, I believe, also received copies of those letters from Walker.
Ms. DA: I believe so.
[*Comment: We do not know what kind of an effect on the judge and DA these letters had. But, as we will see, they obviously didn't hurt Daniel's case.]
Court: Do you have that? So, sir, if you have a seat, I am going to continue calling the calendar, and then when the Court takes a break, that would give you an opportunity to discuss any issues that you have with the District Attorney.
Ms. DA: Your Honor, I would like to put the offer on the table -- the offer on the record.
Court: That is fine. We can do that. In fact, the conference can be on the record as well, which is very common when people are representing themselves that the conference is held on the record.
All right. Please have a seat in the audience.
[*Comment: At this point, the regular "business" of the COURT is tackled in an expedient fashion, thereby leaving them with a cleared courtroom in which to tackle the not-so-regular "business" of "dealing" with our Daniel of today.]
Continuation Court: On the Daniel matter, step forward, please.
All right. Daniel is present in court. There has been no time waiver on this case. On October 10th I released the defendant on his own recognizance and set today for a pretrial date.
First of all, do you anticipate that you are going to want to -- that there would possibly be a disposition involving a plea to any of the charges, or are you anticipating that the case will go to trial? What --
[*Comment: As expected, the judge immediately solicits Daniel to "cop a plea," and thereby walk away from the Abatement process. But our Brother does not listen to the whispers of the crafty one, and interrupts her beaconing call:]
Daniel: I think it should be dismissed as everyone, all the defendants, were served with abatement and default.
[*Comment: We see our Brother fending off the fiery darts thrown at him, by immediately brings up the abatement and default, and putting them on the defensive by calling them "the defendants."
As a side note, he could of also plead that the alleged offense is "not chargeable," due to the fact that they had not answered to the Truth in the Abatement, thereby disqualifying them from even bringing charges. If they cannot walk in the Truth, they have no ability to prosecute or judge him. "...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." John 8:7 (KJV).]
Court: Abatement and default?
Daniel: Yes.
Court: Okay. And how is it, from a legal perspective, that you believe that that would cause the Court to have the authority to actually dismiss the charges?
[*Comment: Here, the judge is testing the spirits. The test is: Will Daniel allow her to reduce the Truth within the Abatement process to mere "legalism" and mere "belief," or will he stand on The Rock; does he "truly" walk with the Lord?—for by his words he will be justified and by his words he will be condemned.]
Daniel: Well, I am not who they say I am, and so everything was abated and -- well --
Court: When you say "abated," could you, please, define what you mean in terms of your motion to dismiss on that ground.
[*Comment: We see here that when he said earlier that the case "should be dismissed," the COURT considers that "a motion." Whereas, "not chargeable" leaves them no choice but to inquire as to why he is "not chargeable," thereby giving him the ability to abate them verbally in open court. Instead, he is put in the position of explaining the abatement process. Though the "not chargeable" was not brought up, he is still given the opportunity to shed some Light on the situation.]
Daniel: Well, abatement is a process where you, basically, say that what paperwork they have is not correct, and until those corrections are made, they cannot continue forward in prosecution.
Court: Now, let me turn to the People for just a moment.
Have you received any documents or motions regarding abatement?
[*Comment: We see now how important it was for Daniel to stand with the Abatement and its Default in the previous week's ARRAIGNMENT. They are forced to address the abatement process, as long as Daniel continues to bring it to their attention that they failed to answer to it.]
Ms. DA: Apparently, yes, Your Honor, our office has. Deputy D.A. Ms. Gantry has informed Ms. Miser and I that it has been received by our office, and she will be handling that end of it.
We have -- also had an offer. I don't know if he is interested in it.
[*Comment: We now see how important it was for him to bring the Sword of the Word to them at every opportunity, and to also stand with the Abatement.
After the principality had spent hundreds of man hours, and who knows how many "dollars" investigating Daniel, they are now reduced to offering him "a deal."]
Court: Let me just clarify on this issue. Has the Court -- on this case I have a motion that was filed October 11th, a statutory -- or a non-statutory abatement.
Daniel: That was served to all defendants on the -- June the 20th.
Court: Okay.
Daniel: And it was -- the two men came back for answer, which no answer was given, and then everyone was served with it.
Court: Excuse me one moment. I have it in the file. I just normally know there will be a tab on the bottom to direct the Court's attention to it. It is -- what I have -- let me look at the file now so it is clear what the Court has.
I have filed on October 11th -- I don't know -- I want to make sure the People have this, the non-statutory abatement.
Ms. DA: That is a seven-page document, Your Honor?
[*Comment: Note that MS. DA gives the Abatement the status of a "document." This is a very good sign of what is to come.]
Court: Yes.
Ms. DA: I believe the People do have a copy of that. It is not conformed, so I believe it is a copy of a copy.
Court: And that is your argument regarding your abatement issue.
[*Comment: Here the judge attempts to reduce the Truth of the Word within the Abatement, to an "argument." We must remember that when the Truth is brought to someone, it is not an "argument" or an "apology"—it is the Truth.]
Daniel: It is not my argument. It was served on the defendants, and they defaulted.
[*Comment: This is an excellent response. Again, he reminds them that they are "the defendants" who did not answer to the Truth, therefore in Default, and that the Abatement is not an "argument."]
Court: It was served on the Plaintiff? You are the defendant. It was served on the Plaintiffs?
[*Comment: Here, the judge attempts to reverse the roles, but Daniel clarifies:]
Daniel: Well, in the abatement they are the defendants.
[*Comment: Again, he reminds them that the Abatement question is still pending, and until it is answered, they remain defendants.]
Court: Okay.
Daniel: Anyway, everyone was served --
Court: Okay.
Daniel: -- and they came back for an answer. No answer was given. They were promptly served with a default. And until they correct their "incorrections" or presumptions, then they cannot move forward lawfully.
[*Comment: This is the strongest statement yet that he has brought to them. It hits to the core of the question, and keeps the line drawn in the sand—keeping their feet to the fire.
But, of course, the judge continues to test the spirits by attempting to reduce the Abatement process to a criminal procedure defense "motion," which it is not:]
Court: Okay. First of all, a failure to respond in writing, in criminal law, to a Defense motion does not result in a default or a dismissal of the case. That is the procedure -- there is civil procedure. There is criminal procedure. And you are charged in a criminal Complaint wherein the issues, therefore, are guided by criminal procedure, and criminal procedure does not require a written response from the People, or either party, for that matter. If a motion is filed, it is not automatically dismissed or granted if the other side fails to respond in writing.
Are the People going to respond in writing?
Ms. DA: I do not believe so, Your Honor.
Court: All right.
Daniel: It wasn't a motion. It was an abatement that was served.
[*Comment: Excellent! Excellent! He does not allow the judge to diminish or reduce the standing of the Abatement, thereby keeping their feet to the fire.]
Court: The People are saying they are not going to respond in writing.
Will somebody actually be here from the District Attorney's Office to argue?
Ms. DA: As to the abatement?
Court: Yes. We do have to deal with the issue. The motion has been filed.
[*Comment: This is deception! She's still trying to reduce the Abatement to "a filed motion," but admits that they still have to "deal" with it. But because Daniel has continued to remind them that they have not answered to the substance of the issue—"unlike kind ought not to be joined."]
Ms. DA: That, Your Honor, I would have to check with Ms. Gantry. She has contacted us here. She has received that. She did not intend on responding in writing. I do not know if she will personally be before the Court.
Court: If she does not, will you or another representative of your office just be prepared on this?
Ms. DA: I would assume so, yes.
Court: Okay. So that needs to be resolved.
Are you prepared to argue it today?
Ms. DA: No.
[*Comment: With this answer of "no," we see that the natural man and his institutions are never prepared to answer to the Truth. If they cannot "skirt" the Truth, all that is left for them is to succumb to the Truth. Therefore, we have the following chain of events. But first, to further bring them to a full understanding of their lack of standing, and to leave no doubt as to Who he serves and Who does the healing, our Brother brings their own maxims, and more importantly the Sword of the Word, to bear down on them in a fashion that leaves them with little breathing room:]
Daniel: May I speak a few minutes? Maybe I can clarify.
Court: Certainly. Go ahead.
Daniel: I am a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am here to execute His will and testament, and it is written from the beginning that man does not live by bread alone but by all the words that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and so I have to do His will. And I believe it is written, as He has accepted me, I will also accept you. From the beginning it is written -- and it is also written that thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and only Him thou shall serve.
I am His bondservant and must do His law. I believe it is written in your law that any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all. I do His will. I am a minister.
It has been written from the beginning that the fruit of the trees are for -- the fruit of the trees are for meat, and the leaves are for medicine, and it, also, has been written from the beginning that the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. And so I couldn't be willful in the thing that I am accused of.
And I believe it is also written in your law that an act -- any act -- an act does not make a man guilty unless the intention be guilty. It is not my will. It is His will. And so first in time is first in right. That is written in your law, I believe.
And so it has been written from the beginning that Jesus Christ went from village to city healing the people and curing their afflictions. And, again, as He has accepted me, now I have accepted you. I am commanded by Him to do this.
And, again, he who is before in time is preferred in right. I believe that is written in your law. It is also a perpetual law -- that no human law can be perpetual.
And manifestation of the spirit has been given to every man to profit with all and so some, the gift of faith, some, the gift of healing, and if a man knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to Him, it is a sin.
I believe in -- also, in your law it says that afflictions arise from law and law -- and not law from afflictions. And so I could not -- also, bankrupt entities have no force or effect in law, and I believe it has been written in your law that cities such as the City of Beastly and corporations such as the City of Beastly and corporations such as the State of California or the County of Los Angeles have no soul and, therefore, cannot be sued, and they are dead. The dead cannot receive an injury. I believe that is also written in your law.
And the word of God says the body without the soul is dead, and the dead know not anything. We are to avoid the appearance of evil.
And I believe it is written in your law that licenses are permission to do what would, otherwise, be unlawful, illegal, a tort or a trespass.
And I do the will of my Father in heaven, and nothing about Him is evil.
And there is also no law that says that the living should be joined to the dead.
Court: All right. Have you completed what you wanted to state for the record at this time?
[Comment: With this question, we see that the judge is becoming very uncomfortable, and is trying to come up for air. But our Brother does not allow it:]
Daniel: No.
It is also -- we are commanded not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and I believe it is written in your law that the unequal things ought not to be joined.
[*Comment: With these last two points, the nails have been thoroughly driven into the coffin of which the COURT lays in. But the judge does not relent. She is still testing the spirits, by "playing dumb":]
Court: I am not sure that I understand that, what you just said, so if you want to clarify. How does that apply --
Daniel: Unequal things should not be joined, so —
Court: What are you talking about that is unequal?
[*Comment: He has already explained what is meant by this. But she continues to test him as to the implications of it, and to see if he has a full understanding of those implications. He answers the challenge and seals the lid on the coffin:]
Daniel: It goes back to, there is no law that says that the dead should be -- or the living should be joined to the dead, and the corporations are dead. It is ruled in God's law and, also, I believe, your law. So I should not be joined to the dead.
Court: You mean by being -
Daniel: The authority of my Father in heaven.
[*Comment: Here, he ends the question once and for all by interrupting her "You mean by being -," and unequivocally states from whence all Authority is derived. There is none Higher; and the judge has no choice but to agree, in a rather "legalistically" confused and round-about" way, of course:]
Court: I see what you are saying. You are saying -- basically, what -- I have heard your arguments, and, basically, you have got two different areas that you are arguing. One, again, relates to factual issues, the factual issues being that you lacked the criminal intent. You have stated that. And your other argument was, along those lines, relating to use of -- I am assuming there is some use of herbal healing, and that is --
Daniel: I use God's herbs.
Court: -- that that is not a violation of the law.
Daniel: That is correct.
Court: And so those are factual issues.
And then, also, the legal issue would be whether or not the People would be able to proceed against you --
Daniel: Lawfully.
[*Comment: Here, Daniel does not allow the judge to reduce everything to "legality," but reminds her that the points that have been raised must be answered according to Law, not legalese.]
Court: -- lawfully based on the argument that you have made about not being able to join the living with the dead.
And so we have both the legal issue that needs to be resolved by way of your motion and then the factual issues. Depending upon how the Court rules on your legal issue, the factual issues are issues that then would be determined by a jury and -- or a court, depending upon whether or not the sides in this case want to proceed and agree to proceed by way of a court trial or a jury trial.
Now, since you are representing yourself on this case, do you have any issues at all at this point by way of discovery? Have you received the police reports in the case? I think on the last date when you were in court, you received a packet. Yes.
[*Comment: We see that the judge continues her "Court Procedure" in an attempt to draw Daniel away from the substance, and to avoid the Truth that has been brought to her. As we shall see, it's only a cover.]
Daniel: Yes. I am not interested in that.
Court: You don't have any issues right now. There was someone else here earlier that had an issue regarding a desire for the People to do an investigation.
Is there anything at all at this point in time that you feel you do not have that you would need from the Prosecution by way of discovery for alleged evidence?
Daniel: No. God is my witness and the Holy Spirit and the Son.
[*Comment: We see here that our Brother is not accepting any of the poisoned fruit that is being offered to him.]
Court: Also -- I believe I discussed this with you on October 10th -- you have the right to have a trial within 30 days of October 10th. You have not given up your right to a speedy trial. Is it still your desire to have a speedy trial on this case, meaning, is it your desire to be brought to trial within 30 days of October 10th?
Daniel: Did not the Prosecution have an offer?
Court: What is the People's offer?
Thank you for raising that.
You had an offer on the case. What is the offer?
Ms. DA: Yes, Your Honor, if I can find the file. A plea to Counts III and IV.
Court: Counts III and IV. Let me take a look and see. Count III is conducting business without a license. Count IV is no food permit. Those relate to licensing issues.
Then you are willing -- if he pleads to those, you would be willing to dismiss Count I, which relates to practicing medicine without certification, and you would be willing to dismiss Count II?
Ms. DA: That is correct, Your Honor.
Court: And you would, in exchange for pleas of either guilty or no contest --
A no contest plea on a misdemeanor is a plea that is entered -- or can be entered because the defendant believes that it is in his or her best interest to do so. That can have many different meanings, including the desire to resolve the case before a trial. The People are offering those charges. Do you --
In terms of resolution or disposition, is there anything else that you --
Ms. DA: Yes, Your Honor. We would be asking for a fine and for the defendant to cease and desist.
Court: Cease and desist what?
Ms. DA: I believe it is the operation of the business without a license, the activities in Counts III and IV, that the People allege he was partaking of.
Court: So what you would be asking for is summary probation or informal probation. You don't report to a probation officer.
Basically, the Court is the -- you would be on probation to the Court. And the People are asking that you would be ordered, as a condition, to not operate a business without a license.
Ms. DA: That is correct.
Court: Then the fine, I think, would be in the discretion of the Court, I am assuming.
Ms. DA: Correct.
Court: You have also served some time in custody. I would be inclined to suspend the fine.
Basically, what the People have offered is to dismiss Counts I and II, which relate to practicing medicine without a license. They will dismiss those charges. They would want you to plead to the conducting business without a license, no food permit, which relate to what you discussed in your papers as licensing issues with the City and the City's requirement of a license; and that if you pled to those, the Court would put you on informal probation and order that you not operate a business without a license, and I would give you credit for the time because you were in custody, and I would not impose any fine. That would be the resolution that is being offered.
[*Comment: We see from the above dialogue that the COURT and the DA's OFFICE has gone into an "offer in compromise" mode, with a lot of compromise. We must remember that the charges that were brought against him carried a possible two year jail term. With the Truth that has been brought to them, they are having to make a stretch just to give themselves some justification for having pursued the prosecution to begin with.
Daniel reminds the judge what kind of business he is about doing, for her future reference:]
Daniel: The only business that I am about is my Father's business, who is in heaven. And what would the restitution be?
Court: There would be no fine because you served time. I would give you time served. Basically, credit for time served. I don't know how many days you were in. I know I saw you in custody on October 10th. So when were you arrested on that warrant? Was it the day before?
Daniel: It was on a Sunday.
Court: Actually, then, you were in custody three days. You would be entitled to three days, credit three, and I would impose no further -- there would be no fine payments due.
Daniel: Okay. I will accept the People's offer.
Court: You want to accept the People's offer?
Daniel: I don't want to waste the Court's time --
Court: Okay.
Daniel: -- or the People's time.
[*Comment: He makes it clear to the COURT that all of these many month's of their investigation, harassment, jail time, court time, etc., has not been a waste of time for him. It was a Glorious time for him, because he was able to witness to them and shine the Light on their darkness. But for them, the time had come to end their folly.
And it would appear from the following question from the judge, and the ensuing discourse, that she appreciated his candor. She even appears to be acknowledging and pursuing the Truth, which she did not have to do in open court, since he has already agreed to their offer:]
Court: Let me just go over something. You have raised the non-statutory abatement issue. I have reviewed the documentation here, and, as I understand that issue to be, it relates to whether or not the People have the authority to pursue this at all, given your arguments that the original lawful authority comes from the Lord Jesus Christ. Basically, that is what I understand the crux of your argument on the abatement to be.
Daniel: To some degree. They need to follow lawful process before they have a jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction needs to be followed all the way back to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has been given all power in heaven and earth.
Court: All right. So -- okay. Anything else on that argument that you would like to make on the abatement? Because we do need to deal with that issue. If you want to accept the People's offer, I would be willing to go ahead and resolve this matter today, but I need to make a ruling on your abatement issue.
[*Comment: What we see from the above statement from the judge is that, firstly, she didn't hear him accept the offer, as the record shows; and secondly, even if Daniel accepts the offer (a second time), the Abatement issue still has to be resolved. This is an acknowledgment that the Abatement and Default take precedent over and above their prosecution. In short, it is an acknowledgment on her part that they have no law.
But she tries to get out from underneath the Abatement by playing "the dating game":]
Daniel: Well, it seems to be that you are denying -- you did not receive abatement on the 20th of June.
Court: Let me review the court file, sir, because I did not -- October 10th was when I had the court file before me, and it may be that it was in the court file prior to that date.
Clerk: The case wasn't filed until July 24th.
Court: It wasn't filed until July 24th. There was not a court file put together on it. Let me just see what documents have been included here. I want to make -- I think Mister --
Daniel: This, I believe, is what was served to you, the Court, on the 20th.
Court: Of June.
Daniel: Of June.
Court: Okay.
Daniel: And on the 4th and 5th -- the 5th and 6th of July, the year of our Lord, it was served -- the default was served when the two messengers came in and asked for a response and there was no response, and --
Court: I can -- I am sorry. Go ahead.
Daniel: Also -- it was served on the District Attorney also on the 20th of June, and on the 6th of July, the --
Court: If you could, Deputy Stevens --
This is the Complaint date. I am just showing you here that that is -- the date that the case was actually filed by the District Attorney's Office was in July, and so just procedurally -- so I want to make sure that you understand. Those documents did come into the clerk's office, but the case -- the Court would not have even had a court file on it until the District attorney filed the charges, so that may explain, in part, why --
Daniel: Why I am standing here.
Court: Well, why there was -- that the Court wouldn't be able to respond because there wasn't a court file on it.
Then you filed the motion again, once we had the case before us, in October on that same issue, which is the abatement. But at the time that you filed the abatement, the District Attorney's Office had not yet pressed the charges, which means there wasn't actually a court file or formal charges pending against you. I, just for clarification --
Daniel: July 24th,
Court: Correct. Yes.
Daniel: I believe the District Attorney was also served. I have a proof of service here by the Sheriff's Office. I don't know how they can say they didn't receive it. But you have -- I mean, they didn't get served --
Court: Let's assume that they received this. If they disagreed with it, they are not required to respond in writing as a matter of criminal procedure in the State of California, and they went ahead and they filed the charges.
Your position on the abatement, Ms. DA, is what? That -- do you think that the abatement would cause the People to dismiss the charges?
Ms. DA: No, I do not, Your Honor.
Court: Okay. So, basically, your argument is that the abatement has no place in terms of your complying with the laws of the State of California by way of your prosecution?
Ms. DA: That is correct, Your Honor.
Daniel: So she is denying that use of the abatement for over 15O years is -- doesn't pertain to her in law?
Court: Essentially, in terms of this criminal prosecution, is that your position?
Ms. DA: That is correct, from the District attorney's standpoint in the State of California.
[*Comment: Note the words used by MS. DA, "in the State of California." That is an acknowledgment that "the State of California" is void of True Law, because "the State of California" is a fiction.
And the judge goes on to admit that manmade law is separate from God, and that the bible of the State of California is written by its legislators; and Daniel pushes the envelope:]
Court: Okay. The People are proceeding under the laws of the State of California, the Business and Professions Code and the Beastly Municipal Code and the Health and Safety Code. Those are all, granted, manmade laws, the People of the State of California, as in the Penal Code, which is a book that has been written by the legislators. And that is how they are proceeding, and they --
Daniel: I believe I said before it was written in her -- their law that no law is a perpetual law -- that no human law can be perpetual --
Court: Okay.
Daniel: -- and any law -- it is also written in their law that any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all, so, I mean --
[*Comment: We see here that Daniel, even though he has already agreed to accept their offer, continues to speak with boldness and does not back-off from bringing the Truth to bear down on them. This whole discourse is a sign that the Holy Spirit is moving both sides.
In the following discourse, the judge first interrupts Daniel, and then reverts to her "reasoning." But she gives recognition of the substance of what Daniel has brought to the courtroom, in a round-about and dodging way. It is all quite double-minded:]
Court: Let me just go ahead and make my ruling at this time because -- and state for the record the Court's reasoning. My understanding of the abatement is -- what you have put on the record and quite articulately today -- that it is not lawful for the People to proceed with these laws against you and that the fact that they were served with the abatement, essentially, would have required them to cease and desist in the prosecution. And that is simply not the criminal procedure in the State of California. It does not require that they cease and desist with their prosecution. They are not required to do so, nor were they required to respond to your abatement in writing.
First of all, the abatement that was filed in June preceded the case even being filed. They have a one-year statute of limitations on the case. They are not required to file the case immediately. And it is my job to follow the law of the State of California in terms of the criminal procedures that apply in criminal proceedings. The Court, obviously, received the documents, which were placed in the court file, prior to the case being filed, but they, obviously, were maintained by the clerk's office, and then when they finally came through, they were placed in the file. You again filed the motion on October 11th, which I also have --
[*Comment: The judge continues to try to categorize the Abatement as a filing. She does this for the COURTS own purposes.]
Daniel: That is -- I gave it to you because you said you had not received it or had not been served.
Court: And it may be because -- I also note there was no file stamp or tab. It wasn't tabbed. The other information wasn't tabbed. That is what I am used to seeing is a little piece of colorful paper. My apologies. Looks like it was in the court file. What you served was file-stamped. The document you served needed to be file-stamped. You have done what you need to do to preserve your record in this case.
Daniel: Yes.
So the Court is saying that the law of God and the law of the land are not one and the same, and both do not preserve and favor the land or --
[Comment: Here, he continues to press the question, seeing if she is sincere in what she has said, or whether she is just giving him lip-service.]
Court: I don't want to --
Daniel: You are not bringing that in.
Court: I am not bringing in the -- because the facts of your case involve alleged use of herbal medication to heal people. When you talk about the law of the land and what is right, I am not passing any judgment on that. I am simply dealing with the criminal procedure.
Daniel: Yes. The Court doesn't decide decisions that would be outside their jurisdiction is what you are saying.
Court: Correct.
[*Comment: Again, Daniel keeps the pressure on. With every question he asks, the answer given by the judge can be learned from. Forced to follow her court procedure, the remainder of the record speaks for itself.]
Daniel: It would be political.
Court: That is correct. It would only be before the Court if there were a court trial in the case and I were to hear the facts of the case, and at that point if I were then required to apply the law to the facts, then I would be in a position of having to rule on that issue.
But the fact of the matter is the People are willing to dismiss the charges relating to the practice of medicine and at this point are willing to do so provided you enter a plea of guilty or no contest to the license violations, and so since -- if you, in fact, work out that disposition, then that is something that I merely accept as a disposition. And I have indicated to you that I would follow the recommended sentence of the Prosecution, and that would resolve the matter, the sentencing being the probation and not to operate a business without a license.
Daniel: And the probation stays here? I do not have to report to anyone?
Court: No. No.
Daniel: Okay.
Court: So based upon the arguments that you have made on the abatement, that at this point is denied without prejudice. And when I say "without prejudice," what that means is if the case is not resolved today, then you can raise that as an issue later. If the case is resolved, then everything is off the table. But, procedurally, that is the proper way for me to do it, okay?
So having denied that motion without prejudice, is it your desire to accept the People's offer at this time?
Daniel: I will accept the People's offer.
Court: Okay. I am going to go over your Constitutional rights.
I will do it orally.
Daniel: If the Court assumes that I have Constitutional rights, they can also assume to waive them. I do not claim any Constitutional rights.
Court: Okay. I --
Daniel: But you may --
Court: As a practice, I have to do this, so I am going to go ahead and do it.
All right. You have the right to have an attorney. If you can't afford to have an attorney, I would appoint one for you free of charge. You have the right to have a jury trial or a court trial, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to present a defense and the right to remain silent.
Do you understand and give up those rights?
Daniel: I do.
Court: With your rights in mind, how do you plead to Count III, which alleges a violation of the Beastly Municipal Code, and Count IV, which alleges a violation of the Health and Safety Code? Count III alleges conducting a business without a license. Count IV alleges no food permit. Guilty or no contest?
Daniel: No contest.
Court: Sir, I find that you have expressly, knowingly, understandingly and intelligently waived your Constitutional rights. I find that your plea has been freely. and voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature and consequences thereof, and there is a factual basis for the plea.
At this time I am going to go ahead and impose sentence. Imposition of sentence is suspended. You're granted a conditional sentence for three years on the following terms and conditions. That is the informal probation.
You are ordered to serve three days in the Los Angeles County Jail with credit for three days time served.
You are ordered to pay a restitution fine of $100. That is waived because of the County Jail sentence that you served.
You are ordered to obey all laws and orders of the Court.
And you are ordered not to conduct business in the City of Beastly without a valid business license.
Do you understand and accept these terms and conditions?
Daniel: I do.
Court: All right. Are Counts I and II relating to the practice of medicine dismissed?
Ms. DA: People so move.
Court: Excuse me. On People's motion, Counts I and II are dismissed.
And if you would have a seat, Deputy Stevens will give you the documents here.
And since this case has been resolved by way of a plea agreement, then the motion regarding the abatement is something that, also, is off the table. I denied it without prejudice. Now that the case has been resolved, essentially, the status we are in now is the probationary status, and it is ended but for the probation, the order not conducting business without a permit.
Okay. Anything else?
Daniel: Off the record.
Discussion held off the record [*The following is an account of what was said off the record in the judges chambers, and some additional thoughts, in our Brother Daniel's own words]:
I believe the Holy Spirit led me in what I said on and off the record to the judge. This is for those who would like to know what was said off the record.
I spoke directly to the judge. I told her that I have been praying for her for her, and praying that her judgment would be a righteous judgment as God would have led her to make. I told her that I know that her job is not easy, and prayed that God would bless her with the strength and wisdom to do it well, and that God continue to bless her.
I believe that the judge is born again, or well on her way. I know that she was under some political pressure from the city, and the from the court that she works in.
I could have gone to trial, and most likely been victorious by and through our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, having had all of the charges dropped. I believe though that it worked out according to God's Will, and each one learned the lessons or heard the words that God wanted us to learn and hear.
I thought that I had also made mistakes, and I thank God that the two main charges were dismissed. I also knew that there would be much more stress put on my family and I if I was to wait forty-five more days for the main trial.
I am so glad that God is True to His Word, and is always with His children in times of trouble.
[*Comment: In the aftermath of these proceedings, Daniel was mildly harassed by the Beastly Police Department from time to time. It was usually in the form of them driving by the house where he stays from time to time, and turning on their bubble-gum machine and giving a quick siren whistle. That has now ceased.
He continues to minister God's herbs for healing to those that are in need of them.
He has not heard from the judge.]
Return to Christ's Lawful Assembly
| Home | Greetings | Who We Are | Helpful Info | Rest Room | Search | Contact Us |
