July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment
THE APPOINTMENT By Danny Shreffler
In the days of my youth while serving in the US Navy, I made an error in judgment that caused me to stand in judgment before the authorities of the base on which I served. Fortunately, the captain afforded me leniency citing previous commendations I had received and my otherwise exemplary record.
The infraction for which I was called to task was not considered major and most of my shipmates felt I should not have to answer for it at all. They felt it was nit-picking and that the command was being totally unjust to even hold me to task. Every man had advice as to what to say when I got before ‘the man.’ One would say you should tell him this! Another would say ‘Stand up for yourself!’ Tell him it is nonsense! All were in agreement that I should ‘school’ the master and tell ‘him’ how it was. Of course as a young man all kinds of thoughts went through my head about how it would be and what I would say. On the ‘appointed day of judgment’ as I was grilled about what I did and why I did it…all I could say was ‘Yes sir, yes sir, and no sir’ as I stood frozen with fear and the realization that I was totally at the mercy of the powerful figure before whom I stood. The reality of my situation suddenly took on a new reality.
So often we have appointments with the doctor, dentist, the PTA, the neighborhood association or some other matter of varying importance, sneak up on us. Perhaps a spouse or friend will tell us just prior to ‘the appointment’ “Don’t forget your appointment!”
There are two other appointments of another nature that each and every one of us will absolutely keep. We have no idea when they will occur. We will have no one remind us. We may know when the first of these is near, or we may mistakenly believe it to be far away. Yet when it comes we will not miss it, we will not forget it, and we will have no say about its being rescheduled or postponed.
Ben Franklin is attributed with saying “The only things certain in life are death and taxes.” Perhaps that is true and yet there is another certainty that will take place after life and that is the judgment. As the scripture puts it:
“…it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” – Heb 9:27
Not only does every man who has ever lived or who is living, but every man who will ever be born will keep two appointments; one with death and one with the judgment. This article is about the second appointment, judgment.
The scriptures teach us that every man will be judged. While some scriptures suggest we are being judged even as we live, this scripture seems to suggest that the finality of that judgment will occur after our first appointment, death.
“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” – Rev 20:12- 13
In our day, there is a growing migration toward the doctrine of universal salvation. Beginning with the Roman Catholic Church, many are beginning to teach this doctrine as a matter of fact not open to discussion. Recently the new Pope was said to have made the statement that even atheists are redeemed. Though this statement was later corrected by the church, joined with the earlier statements about both Jews and Muslims being ‘saved’ shows the inclination to teach and believe universal salvation.
For the moment, let us forgo the debate about the state of the dead, as well as the issue of universal salvation and concentrate strictly on the subject of judgment. Judgment by its very definition implies that one will be examined for what he has previously done. This is the very sentiment of the passage above that says “…they were judged every man according to their works.”
We know for a certainty that salvation does not come from works…
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yahshua, even we have believed in Yahshua, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” – Gal 2:16
…and yet it is a certainty that our works will be judged.
Today we find our nation and our people under Yahuwah’s judgment. We go about our daily lives as if we have no clue as to why. This is an example of our being judged in this life both as people and as a nation. Nationally we suffer from abuse by those who rule over us and personally, many of us suffer from diseases and maladies that are brought upon us as a direct result of violating Yah’s laws.
The appointed judgment after death is another matter. It will consist of our being examined for the works we have done for the kingdom and those things we certainly could have done better. In the teachings of Yahshua, we find an example of how some are rewarded more and some less as a direct result of how they lived their days of probation in the flesh. This is further demonstrated in the book of Mathew, chapter 25, verses 14 through 30. In the conclusion of the parable, we find the ‘unprofitable’ servant cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This cannot be the hell of nominal Christendom as we know the preponderance of the scripture will not bear that doctrine. Yet it certainly is a condition of some sort that causes indescribable pain and woe. Something none of us will want to experience. In contrast we find another group that is called blessed and invited to enter the kingdom of Father Yahuwah prepared from the foundation of the earth.
The reader may now say, “We know all this so where are you going?” Follow with me. Again in the book of Mathew we read another parable about fruit.
16 “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” – Matt 7:16-23 (Lord in this passage is Greek Kurios meaning supreme authority)
On our individual appointed ‘day of judgment’ we will all stand before a figure mightier than any figure we could ever have known or even imagined in our short tenure upon this earth. Our thoughts will be entirely upon where we are and who we stand before. Our acutely heightened senses will unequivocally recognize that we have not one thing to rely upon other than the mercy of the august majesty before which we stand.
Yet the parable seems to say some will protest saying “Lord! Haven’t we done this or that? Have we not earned our passage into the kingdom? The mind cannot imagine the shock and absolutely hopeless despair one will feel at the moment they hear those damning words! To be certain the parable says it will happen. Some will be ordered to depart!
The scriptures reference three categories of people based on behavior. There is the righteous, the sinner and the wicked. The righteous are undoubtedly those who have dedicated their lives to the service of Yahuwah. They walk the walk. They talk the talk. Sin is a rarity in their lives and their devotion is exemplary.
The sinners are those who have answered the call of Yahushua and have chosen to abide under the covenant they have entered with him. Yet they are weaker. They from time to time fall flat on their face. They commit sin, sometimes even knowing it is sin while they do it. Yet the Spirit of Yah pleads with them, coaxes them, and causes them to realize their wrong, repent with tears and return to the favor of Yah.
The third category is the wicked of which there are two types. One category consists of those addressed throughout the scripture. They hate Yah. They hate His plan. They hate His people and work constantly with fervor to live totally in accordance with the lust of the flesh doing whatsoever they wish with abandon. The second category is those who embrace a sin to the point they willingly and tenaciously hold to it until it becomes their very damnation. They know it is wrong. Yet they love it and make a conscious decision that they will not quit that sin. In their minds they justify their behavior in spite of knowing it is wrong. Like Eve in the garden they convince themselves that God will tolerate their rebellious behavior. It is that decision which moves them from the category of sinner to the category of the wicked.
Repentance, properly defined, is a genuine sorrow for a sin and a consequent abandonment of that sin. This is the sin that Yah is faithful and just to forgive. Knowing something is wrong and refusing to give it up, is the unforgiven sin addressed by Paul in the passage addressed in a previous article: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” Heb 10:26-27
So how do we get from sinner to wicked? By refusing to admit something clearly forbidden by scripture as sin. Doing so becomes rebellion and scripturally rebellion equates to witchcraft.
“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” – I Sam 15:23 Witchcraft cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Galatians 5:17-21). The truly
scary thing about this condition is that Yahuwah tells us that the condition itself can be so ensconced within our being that we become deluded into thinking we are just fine even with our sin. Yahuwah says:
“…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess 2:10-12
Certainly the ‘day of judgment’ will find some who will protest that they in fact worked for God. Yet they will hear the words “Depart from me.” If they truly believe the words of their protest, then indeed they were deluded. They became that way because they loved not the truth and were intentionally deluded by God. The scripture tells us the delusion brings their damnation! Certainly they are among the wicked. How important it is for us to daily search out our own honesty. How important it is to be vigilant to what we say is acceptable in the true light of scripture. What is our true love? Do we love the truth or do we love a lie?
The scriptures tell us the end of the wicked is destruction. How sick many will be on the appointed day when the delusion is removed. The day when we clearly know even before the words are spoken exactly where we stand. No thought of the mind, no love of the flesh, no intention, and no deceit will be hidden from the One who holds the power of eternal life or eternal death. No sin, no lie, no deceit and no love will be worth the potential loss. Preparation for that appointment is the time to examine our hearts and ask ourselves “What words will we hear?”
Questions or comments may be addressed to email@example.com
© – Permission to reprint this article is hereby granted, provided it is reprinted in its entirety, with full credit given, and no changes are made to its content.
July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment
Feds: Gary Man ‘Bought’ Child To Make Porn
March 7, 2013 6:03 AM
HAMMOND, Ind. (CBS) – A Gary man paid a woman for the past two years to use a child to make child pornography, according to federal charges handed down Wednesday.
Christopher M. Bour, 39, and the 24-year-old woman both face federal charges in the case.
Bour was arrested last month after the former owner of a massage parlor that Bour frequented tipped police off he had invited her to record him having sex with a child.
The woman, according to court documents, told police Bour told her about his interest in child pornography and that he played child pornography videos when she went to his house on a private call in November.
He then sent her several text messages on Feb. 13 asking if she wanted to watch him with a child and “if u would hold the camera.”
When the FBI searched his house, he admitted that he had downloaded child pornography for two years but insisted it was just for “role playing” and that he never sexually touched a child.
The federal charges, filed in U.S. Court in Hammond, dispute that claim. Along with one count of buying a child for producing child pornography from August 2011 to February, the indictment also charges Bour with one count each of producing child pornography and possessing child pornography featuring a minor younger than 12.
The woman is charged with one count each of selling the child and allowing the child to participate in making child pornography.
No other details on the charges were available Wednesday afternoon.
“Oh man you’re breaking my heart,” Ken Gordon, a neighbor of Bour’s, said upon learning of the accusations. “Man, say it ain’t so. Lord have mercy.”
Bour, who has been ordered held without bond pending trial, is set to be arraigned March 11. It was unclear if Hillard has been arrested or has had her initial appearance.
July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment
We’re social workers and we’re not supposed to reveal it,” she said. “If someone else releases it, that’s on them.
July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment
State Child Protective Services officials had been investigating possible abuse of 2-year-old Nathaniel Jones when he was killed in March 2009.
But the state’s involvement with the family prior to the boy’s death had been kept from the public until the detail came out in Franklin Circuit Court Tuesday as state officials argued they should be able to withhold information about the death or near-death of child abuse victims.
Information about the allegation that brought Nathaniel to the state’s attention remains secret, as well as the details of his death. The state has said it needs to keep the file confidential because of pending murder and criminal abuse charges against Nathaniel’s mother, Tiea Jones, and her boyfriend, Brian Gallagher in Rowan County.
Angela Estep, a social worker with the Department of Community Based Services, testified that the file should also be kept confidential to spare Nathaniel’s father details of his son’s death.
“There are a lot of things that the father doesn’t know,” Estep testified, even if he can find some of them in news reports of Nathaniel’s death.
“We’re social workers and we’re not supposed to reveal it,” she said. “If someone else releases it, that’s on them. But I don’t think it’s the Cabinet’s job to release it.”
Estep and several other social workers from across the state testified before Judge Phillip Shepherd to explain why they believe information should remain confidential in the files of children who died or were seriously injured by abuse or neglect.
The social workers, at times emotional, testified in the second day of a hearing that pits the desire of Cabinet officials to keep abuse details private against the the state’s two largest newspapers. The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader argue disclosure will make it possible to fix any problems in the system and allow the public to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to protect children.
The newspapers requested records on child deaths and near-deaths more than three years ago. The Cabinet has fought the release, but began releasing records — with details blacked out — last year.
Reporter Jessie Halladay can be reached at (502) 582-4081 or on Twitter at CJ_JHalladay.
July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment
31 July A.D. 2013
Note that this ethics process got started when the litigants before that (kangaroo) court did something about it. The only people in the position to do anything like this are the parties to litigation in that court. Thus, we’re seeing that those parties took individual responsibility, and now that judge is being “reviewed” under misconduct standards. There’s also the pending lawsuit (which got started in 2009 and is apparently still pending). Why there’s no mention of criminal charges is anyone’s guess. Either they exist and didn’t make this story, or they don’t (yet) exist. Intentional (criminal) violation of rights, e.g., “fair trial,” is what they’re talking about, and we’ll know in time whether such charges ever get filed.
It’s also important to note that there actually are problems in that kangaroo court. There are problems not because there’s any “constitution” to violate but rather because there are judicial doctrines that are violated, e.g., the “right to a fair trial” doctrine. We find “constitutional” labels “everywhere.” What we don’t find is application of the whole of any “constitution.” Since “constitutions” are “package deals,” where even one part is missing, it’s not just that one part that’s missing; it’s the whole that’s missing. Thus, while there are no “constitutions,” there is still the judicial doctrine of the “right to a fair trial.” Violation of that right triggers not only civil liability, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (state actors acting under color of law and office to violate rights), but also criminal liability, for which see 18 U.S.C.§§ 241, 242.
Where the “traffic court” “judges” that are this horrible don’t get jailed, just remember that they work for the “bank.” We’re not dealing with a “government” of the type that we’ve all been raised to “see.” We’re dealing with a “bank” that provides “governmental” services. The “transportation” system (scam) exists as a “money supply management” tool, and the more “funny money” that comes back out of circulation via the “transportation” system, the greater the need (in that area) for “money supply management.” Always remember that what’s good for the “bank” is good for the nation.
Those who don’t agree with that, such as this author, find ways to distance themselves from that system. The “best” sort of suit to have the opportunity to pursue against such a “judicial hack” as that guy would be one pursued by an informed defendant who didn’t even have a “license.” The system thinks that “no license” is evidence of a “transportation” “crime.” The reality is that “no license” is the best evidence of no intent to engage in “transportation,” at all, in the first place. To know that difference well enough to argue it is to have a civil suit (responsive to any such bogus “transportation” charge) that squarely rests on intentional (criminal) violation of rights.
Again, “rights” are concepts that have been recognized judicially. There are no “rights” protected by any “constitution,” for the simple reason that there are no “constitutions.” That which the justices of the systems’ high courts have recognized as rights comprise the list of rights that exist (at present). There are also “statutory rights,” meaning that the “legislatures” of these commercial sub-entities under the national “bank” also recognize and establish “rights.” (“Legislatively” established “rights” vanish with the next item of “legislation” that does away with such “right(s).” So, it’s very difficult to call those rights. But, for so long as the legislatures recognize such rights, so must the courts, and the courts are very good about that.)
Hopefully, there’s still more to come from these particular matters in INDIANA.
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org
——– Original Message ——–
A Marion Superior judge presiding over the county’s traffic court faces four judicial misconduct charges as a result of his general handling of traffic infraction cases and one suit in particular, where the state justices have described him as being “biased.”
In a seven-page charging document issued July 16, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications formally outlined the misconduct allegations against Marion Superior Judge William E. Young, who’s been on the bench since 2001 and has been publicly criticized, sued, and even reversed by the state justices for his handling of traffic court cases that have come before him since taking over Superior 13 in January 2009.
The commission alleges he “engaged in a practice of imposing substantially higher penalties against traffic court litigants who chose to have trials and lost,” and the commission also alleges that Judge Young “routinely made statements implying that litigants should not demand trials and would be penalized for doing so if they lost.”
Specifically, the commission detailed the judge’s alleged misconduct in the 2009 case of Christian Hollinsworth, who police pulled over in August 2007 for speeding.
Just before the bench trial started, Hollinsworth’s attorney asked for a brief recess to “sign off” on a plea agreement but no agreement was reached. The lawyer asked for a continuance, and Judge Young denied that and then wouldn’t allow a plea after Hollinsworth informed the court she would accept one and didn’t want to proceed to trial.
Court records show that Judge Young “exhibited impatience” during trial by citing the time and his “full afternoon” docket when talking to Hollinsworth about a plea agreement, then told her, “I don’t know if I want to take your plea. I’d rather just go to trial, I think. I don’t like being jerked around at all, all right?” At sentencing, Judge Young noted that Hollinsworth had other pending charges on theft and battery and her attorney said those were alleged charges, to which the judge responded, “Sure they are.”
Hollinsworth received a year in county jail and her driving privileges were suspended for an additional 365 days. The judge also found her to be indigent, and didn’t impose any additional fines or penalties on the speeding conviction.
According to the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s allegations, the judge “exhibited impatience and frustration” with Hollinsworth and her attorney, and made “sarcastic remarks” while insisting that the trial move forward despite the litigant’s objection.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed that conviction June 3 and ordered a new trial in the case ofHollinsworth v. State, No. 49S02-1006-CR-286, pointing specifically to Judge Young’s behavior that violated three judicial conduct canons requiring impartiality, patience, unbiased behavior, and recusal if a judge’s impartiality might be questioned.
“The trial court’s behavior in this case did not meet these standards,” the justices wrote.
Now, the commission is charging Judge Young with four counts:
Count I is that he violated Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, requiring judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and to maintain high standards of conduct; violated Rule 2.2 that requires judges to perform their duties fairly and impartially; violated Rule 2.3(A) requiring judges to perform their duties without bias or prejudice; violated Rule 2.8(B) that requires judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants and lawyers; violated Rule 2.11(A) that mandates that a judge disqualify himself when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party; and overall that Judge Young committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Count II centers on the judge’s general sentencing practice of imposing increased penalties against traffic infraction litigants for exercising their rights to trial. By engaging in that pattern of conduct, the judge allegedly violated Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, and Rule 2.2 – requiring judges to comply with the law and prohibiting them from conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Count III mirrors the above charge on the increased fines, but specifically focuses on that general practice after trials on traffic infraction cases.
Count IV charges that in 2009 Judge Young routinely attempted to coerce traffic court litigants into admitting infractions through his advisements, comments, projections about potential evidence, and misstatements about the burden of proof. The commission alleges that by doing so Judge Young violated Rule 1.2, Rule 2.2, and Rule 2.6(B), requiring judges to not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement, and committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Judge Young had 20 days to respond following notification of the charges, but an answer is not mandatory. Following that, the Supreme Court will appoint three special masters to conduct a public hearing on the disciplinary charges, and the masters will then issue a report for the justices’ consideration. If the case isn’t settled at any point, the Supreme Court can dismiss the charges or impose sanctions ranging from a private or public reprimand to a permanent ban on holding judicial office in Indiana.
Judge Young also faces pending questions in other cases resulting from his behavior on the traffic court bench during the past 17 months. A class action case, Toshinao Ishii, et. al. v. Marion Superior 13, the Hon. William E. Young, Judge, and the City of Indianapolis, No. 49D11-0912-PL-55538, accuses the judge of instituting fine and access policies that undermine confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, and are highly prejudicial to litigants. It’s pending in county court, and the justices in May appointed a special judge to hear the case. That suit also prompted the General Assembly this past session to approve legislation limiting hefty fines imposed for traffic infractions.
Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden, who filed the suit in December, said he’s sorry that these disciplinary charges were necessary but they won’t impact the pending case.
The judicial disciplinary commission has only filed charges and the justices haven’t had a chance yet to consider the case, he said, but if they ultimately end up penalizing Judge Young, it could impact the civil case, Ogden said.
“This isn’t terribly surprising, and you really don’t hope for this,” Ogden said about the allegations against Judge Young. “All of us have our own careers and we don’t wish ill on anyone, but you have to abide by the rules.”
He added that this case could serve as a warning to judges throughout the state who may follow similar practices.
“I don’t think that this is the only place in the state of Indiana where people are punished for wanting their day in court. If it concludes like we hope, then hopefully judges will see that the Supreme Court is paying attention to this.”•
July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment
WHO IS BENIFITING MONIES THE STATES AND ITS ACTORS THEY REDEFINE THE DIRECTIVE TO GET MORE THE APPEARANCE OF SOME TOM FOOLARY WITH CHILDREN ?
July 31, 2013 § Leave a comment