Freedom of men in God
A description of a court case which will probably never occur....
Written on the Feast of St. Lawrence Justinian,
Bishop, Confessor, September 5, in the year of our Lord 2009
His Holiness Pope Pius XI gave the Spanish Holy Crusade of His Excellency
General Don Francisco Franco His Apostolic blessing during his speech to a group
of Spanish refugees on September 14, 1936 at Castel Gandolfo [The Catholic Mind
Publication, Vol. XXXV, No. 10, May 22, 1937, 53 Park Place, NY, NY]:
"Our Benediction, above any mundane consideration, goes out in a special manner to all those who
have assumed the difficult and dangerous task
of defending and restoring the rights and honor
of God and of religion, which is to say the rights
and dignity of conscience, the prime and the most solid basis for all human and civil welfare."
I will describe a court case for you, a court battle that will never happen. But in such a court case I will prove to you that Russian Communism rules America already, covertly and secretly, and that the KGB run CP USA penetration of the Government of the United States is not a "conspiracy theory" coming from a mentally disturbed mind, but a cold reality fully affirming what Our Lady of Fatima revealed to us [certified as the truth by the authority of the Holy Mother Church in 1931 - those true documents are no longer available for the public eye -
the 3rd Secret of Fatima - i.e. KGB run communist penetration and subversion of the Church].
In this "court case" it will become evident that when the fundamental rights of men to practice religion according to the Divine Command are trampled upon by the godless and by the already communist penetrated state, there is no recourse to such "justice" because where justice is not based on the laws of God there is nothing but tyranny of atheism - i.e. Communist rule.
I've lived in such a communist society for almost 22 years of my life so I know very well that when you seek justice these criminals will deny it to you. There is no possibility of appeal and no chance [at the end] to get the justice done and injustice overturn, because these communist criminals control not only the "justice system", but also the Communist Party will supply the
"jury" of the "impartial people", as is the standard procedure dictated by the Party to make certain that nobody honest and just gets the justice done and that the enemy country, as America is such a country, is thoroughly demoralized by it - all in accordance with the
Russian run [KGB etc. implemented and directed] Communist long-term plan.
This plan today is at its final stage, soon to be realized when the communist tyranny
openly establishes its satanic atheistic rule over the whole world, America first.
The Court Case
Discovery hearing in the District Court, judge ABC presiding.
Prosecutor:
Your honor, the defendant is charged with deliberately destroying legal documents, he works as a truck driver and came to the State Police station, asked for the Motor Carrier Enforcement Unit chief to show him a case evidence. The defendant then asked the DOT chief to step outside because the evidence, as he said, was mounted on his semi-truck.
When the officer came to the defendant's truck, he was shown a satellite communication unit mounted on the back of the truck. This unit was purposely covered by the defendant with an aluminum foil secured by duck tape so that
the foil would not come off while driving. This way, as the defendant's company general manager testified in sworn testimony, the satellite itself does not transmit the GPS tracking data to the company, so the company does not know where their own equipment is.
When the DOT officer observed the satellite, the defendant produced an empty metal coffee container, set it on the ground in front of the officer and took from the truck his own log book [by public safety law mandated legal document stating his hours of service while driving the commercial vehicle], then the defendant took matches and burned the log book in front of the DOT officer, thus destroying legal document.
The defendant resisted arrest when the State Police DOT officer tried to handcuff him. The defendant also tried to strike the officer.
The defendant is charged with assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest and purposely destroying legal documents, endangering public safety and destroying private property. For this the state seeks minimum of 3 years mandatory in the state penitentiary system.
Judge ABC:
How does the defendant plead ?
Defendant:
Not guilty.
Judge ABC:
Is the attorney for the defendant present ?
Prosecutor:
The defendant at this moment does not have a legal counsel because he says he does not have the money to pay for it. He's been fired from his job.
Judge ABC:
[to the defendant]
Do you have, sir, any means to hire an attorney to represent you ?
Defendant:
No, I do not.
Judge ABC:
Legal counsel, since this is a criminal matter, will be therefore assigned to you. Preliminary hearing is set for x days from now. The bail hearing will be set for tomorrow at 0800 hours.
Defendant:
I motion to wave my right to a preliminary hearing and ask to go directly to the jury trial.
Judge ABC:
[to the prosecutor[
Does the state agree ?
Prosecutor:
Your honor, the state has no objection.
Judge ABC:
Very well. A jury selection is set for the X day month at 0800 hours. Hearing adjourned.
Communist Party summoned her members and gave them orders to be present at the jury selection hearing, and the Party used her influence within the court to send the jury duty
orders to solely communists, with small exceptions, so that the party members would have majority on the jury.
The defendant meantime had his bail hearing, the prosecutor argued that the defendant has
no ties to the community, he has no means to secure a truck driving job at the moment and therefore, as he cannot leave town pending this court case and the evidence against him is overwhelming, he can leave the jurisdiction of the court and not appear at the trial.
The defendant's attorney [court appointed] argued that this trial is to clear his name, that the defendant is Catholic, has no prior criminal record and has no intention to escape justice.
The attorney for the defendant motioned that the defendant be released without bail.
The judge agreed with the prosecutor and set the bail at 5000 dollars. The defendant
was brought back to his cell at the county jail.
At the jury selection, the defendant's attorney was asked by the defendant to ask the potential jurors a question whether they are Catholics, and if they answered yes, then whether they have ever received the Holy Communion in the hand and [women] whether they wore pants and come to Mass without head covering.
The attorney wouldn't agree to ask such questions but when the defendant insisted, he concurred. When the jury selection began, the attorney for the defendant asked such questions and objection was immediately raised by the prosecutor that this is a civil matter and not
a case of religion and that we do have the separation of the church and state. Judge ABC
ruled sustained.
In majority Communist Party members were selected to sit on the jury. The trial was scheduled to begin in 2 months. The defendant's attorney [DDD for now] asked the defendant about the case but was told that this was an act of self defense and that the defendant's Catholic Faith and Constitutional Rights were being violated by the DOT rules and that's why he burned his log book. The defendant also said that the police officer got so angry that he grabbed him very rudely and tried to handcuff him with violence injuring him on the wrist, and the defendant had no choice but to defend himself.
The Trial
Jury was called in, the defendant was brought in.
The prosecutor began his speech explaining what this trial was about and what the state intends to prove. Then the defendant's lawyer spoke, explaining that the prosecutor really didn't have a case because the defendant was not capable to discern at that moment whether
he does right or wrong or how exactly serious his conduct is, and therefore the defense will proceed to have the case dismissed on grounds of defendant's temporal inability to see his conduct and use the right reason to stop it on time.
The defendant asked to speak. Judge said proceed. Defendant told the judge that
he is firing his lawyer because of the line of defense he is pursuing.
Judge ABC:
Now that the trial has began, you cannot seek a new attorney.
The present counsel will remain.
The defendant:
Judge, I do fire this attorney because he was not competent enough to defend me and I do intend to defend myself alone. It is my right to have the best defense I can obtain but since this public attorney does not have the capacity to do so, I must
do it myself. I asked him to do it my way and he refused claiming that the defense
I suggest is not possible. I do not trust this man any longer.
He is not Catholic and therefore does not have the knowledge nor grace of God given to him to discern the truth from errors, and he does not want to pursue the line of defense I want him to pursue. This case is about freedom and about my Catholic Faith, and whether I am allowed to practice it in freedom of conscience or not. This case is not about whether I have destroyed any legal public documents.
Judge ABC:
This is highly unusual but based on the argument of the defendant, the court agrees. You therefore wave your right to an attorney, yes or no ?
The defendant:
Yes, I do wave that right.
The prosecutor was them told to call his first witness.
He called the defendant's former manager to the stand. After being sworn in [no bible used, only whether he swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God....], the prosecutor asked whether the defendant's truck was detected by the company GPS satellite tracking system. The reply was no, and that the defendant told the company dispatcher that
he has covered the satellite with aluminum foil so that the truck wouldn't be seen where it is.
The prosecutor asked why would he do that ? The witness replied that the defendant claimed that the Federal DOT Administration issued an order to mandate that when the motor carrier audit is performed [ed. note - this includes most of all the driver's and company's compliance with the hours-of-service rules - the log book, all receipts (fuel, toll, repairs, truck wash and any other related to the business) and since 2008 the GPS tracking data at the discretion of the DOT auditor], that now the DOT issued an order that the GPS tracking data would be requested at audits as well.
What was the defendant's reply the prosecutor asked.
The witness responded that the defendant said that such rules violate his Constitutional rights and specially his 1st Amendment right to practice his Catholic Faith. The people in the court room laughed. The prosecutor then faced the defendant and said your witness.
Defendant:
How long have I been employed by your company sir ?
Witness:
Almost 4 years. Would be in one month or so.
Defendant:
Were you satisfied with my work performance ?
Witness:
Yes. You were a good driver. There were times when things didn't go well, but such things are to be expected and are common to all human beings.
Defendant:
Are all your trucks equipped with the GPS satellite system, please from now on, unless I ask you specific question, answer only yes or no and nothing else.
Witness [company manager]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Have you not send me [and or to all company drivers] that informed us that the DOT audits will include the GPS tracking data beginning next month ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes I did.
Defendant:
Have you not been informed by me that such tracking, when made available to the Government, is no longer a private equipment used by you to know where your equipment [and your employees using it] are, but that it becomes the Government surveillance tool, which violates our liberty of movement guaranteed, among other laws by the natural law of God and that as a Catholic I cannot possibly obey and have that satellite tracking me for the governmental use ? Did I not say this to you sir ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes you did.
Defendant:
I have here a copy of a memo I faxed to your company. I'd like to mark it as defense exhibit A for the record.
It is an excerpt of an encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Pius XI Firmissimam Constantiam "Catholic Action Plan for Mexico - Mexico's religious situation", [about the Russian organized communist persecution of the Church in Mexico] published March 28, 1937, when the Pope gave the following guiding principles to all Catholics, which they are all bound to obey under the penalty of committing a mortal sin.
[Ed. note - this is taken from the book 'Social Wellsprings", Imprimatur Moses E. Kiley, Archbishop of Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1942, pg. 385].
Would you please read the highlighted paragraph for the record.
Prosecutor:
Objection your honor. This trial is not about religion but about whether there was a violation of the law or not. We have the separation of the church and state.
Defendant [after the judge looked at him to speak]:
Judge, if I am not allowed to follow this line I cannot possibly defend myself.
If I cannot defend myself, then there is no impartiality on part of the court.
My constitutional rights were violated.
This trial is about whether there is freedom to all of us in this society, or only to some or to none, whether the state guarantees the Constitutional Rights of every lawful citizen or is using the God given authority to violate it by any such "public safety" laws and regulations.
This is a fundamental question and if I am not allowed to pursue this I will say nothing more and I will not agree to have anybody to defend me because I will know that there is no justice in this court room.
The court room was in uproar [to make it more dramatic for the worldly people....]. The judge
waited for a moment, taught about it carefully and then said that he will allow this line of questioning provided the defendant is careful not to go over the line. The witness [company manager] was ordered to read the quote. He looked pale and unwilling, but then began to read.
He missed one sentence however and was corrected by the defendant who had his laptop and the original book in front of him and was making sure that the whole paragraph is read.
Witness [company manager]:
....it must be admitted that for Christian life to develop itself it must have recourse to external and sensible means; that the Church, being a society of men, cannot
exist or develop if it does not enjoy liberty of action, and that its members have
the right to find in civil society the possibility of living according to the dictates
of their consciences.
Consequently, it is quite natural that when the most elementary religious and civil liberties are attacked, Catholic citizens must not resign themselves passively to renouncing those liberties.
Defendant:
Is this clear enough language ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes, it is.
Defendant:
Would you please read also the copy of the following excerpt from the Holy Bible for the record, this is taken from the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 7 : 23. Would you please read the excerpt [Judge, I do have the original Bible here for the reference to show the court that this is the correct line and I made a copy of this page for the court, for the prosecutor and for the witness to read.]
Witness [company manager]:
You are bought with a price;
be not made the bondslaves of men.
Defendant:
Have I not send this little excerpt to the company through the satellite messaging ?
Witness [company manager]:
I do not recall.
Defendant:
I have here copy of the messages obtained by my [now former] lawyer from the satellite provider, which shows that the message was sent by me [from the unit # XXX] to the company [CCC] and it was received and read, as it is marked read.
Have I not made the phone call to you on that day and have you not received this message and read it to me back over the phone stating that I shouldn't be sending such messages because it cost you money and that I should write a memo instead ?
Witness [company manager]:
I do not recall.
Defendant:
I have also faxed this memo to the company and I do have here a printout from the fax machine that it was received at this number [VVV] - is this your company fax number sir ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes it is but we receive so many faxes a day that I do not recall seeing this particular one....[defendant interrupts the witness]
Defendant:
Judge, would you please instruct the witness to answer only yes or no to my question ?
Judge ABC:
The witness will answer without making any additional statements not requested.
Defendant:
Since the company has received this memo, the person that receives the fax
is directed to give it to the person to whom it is addressed on the fax sheet,
is that correct sir ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Would you please read the highlighted part of the front page of my memo,
which I did fax to your company ? This is marked as the defense exhibit B
for the record.
[Judge ABC asked the prosecutor and there was no objection, it was so ordered].
Witness [company manager]:
Time [xyz], date [xyz], faxed from number [xyz], received by number [xyz].
Please give this to [the company manager] for his record, thank you very much.
Defendant:
Have this not been delivered to you then since it is addressed to you and, as you have just testified, the person receiving the fax is ordered to give it to whom it is addressed. Have this then not been delivered to you sir, yes or no only ?
Witness [company manager]:
[The witness looks pale, waits a moment, then looks at the judge and replies]
I do not recall seeing that memo, I may have seen it but do not recall remember seeing it or reading it. I may have set it aside and forgot all about it, I have a lot of paperwork on my office desk sometimes as I am busy to run the company. I do not have time to read all memos as they come in and this particular one may have come on my desk and I may have read it but I do not remember it.
Prosecutor:
Objections your honor. The defense is badgering the witness.
Where is all this leading to ?
Judge ABC:
[To the defendant: Please make it quick.]
Objection overruled...for the moment.
Defendant:
Judge I am trying to present the truth, not partial, but the whole truth. For this I need all time I can get because it is ultimately my freedom which is hear at stake. Any limitation of this pursuit would not be helpful to my case.
[Judge ABC shakes his head, roles his eyes up and down and then nods as if he said O.K. then....continue].
[Defendant to the witness]
The normal procedure then is that when a fax is received, a person receiving it would read at least a part of such a memo, wouldn't that be the case sir ?
Prosecutor:
Objection - calls for speculation.
Judge ABC:
Sustained.
Defendant:
Judge, I am trying to prove that normal procedure exists and that this company used that procedure and that someone has read the memo I faxed to them. However, I will rephrase the question - [turns to the witness] - would you
please tell us sir whether it is normal procedure at your company that when correspondence is sent, including faxes, these are read by somebody at your company, is that the case sir ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Do you receive faxes regarding customer orders - business faxes ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes we do.
Defendant:
When a fax is received by the company fax, it is perceived that it is business related, isn't that correct sir ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes.
Defendant:
So according to the rules someone has read this memo, isn't it correct sir ?
Witness [company manager]:
I do not recall reading this memo and I do not know who may have read it.
Defendant:
No more questions at this time, I do reserve the right to recall this witness.
Judge ABC [to the prosecutor]:
Redirect ?
Prosecutor:
Yes your honor. [To the witness] - sir, the satellite communication system you have mounted on your trucks, is that an important equipment that you use for your business ?
Witness [company manager]:
Yes, it is very important.
Prosecutor:
Would you please explain exactly to the court why was the defendant fired
from his job ?
Witness [company manager]:
Because he covered the satellite with aluminum foil and then refused to supply his log books to the company for the record keeping, as the DOT Regulations mandate.
He was fired because by this conduct he disobeyed the company rules which he had signed when he was hired as a truck driver and when we have tried to make him understand that these rules are mandated on us and that if we do not follow them that our operating authority will be taken away from us, he still refused to follow the company and DOT rules. We had no choice but to terminate his employment, although we know that his financial situation is not good, but we have to follow
the law and he doesn't, and we want to run our company in a safe and compliant manner with the DOT Regulations, and evidently, Mr. [X] [the defendant] does not want to do that.
Defendant:
Objection. The witness speculates about the state of mind of the defendant and about his intentions.
Judge ABC:
Sustained. The jury will disregard the last sentence.
Prosecutor:
I have no more questions at this time.
The prosecutor then called the [previously mentioned] DOT officer [officer N] to the stand. After being sworn in [again no bible used nor God mentioned, only whether he swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth], he sat down and the questions began to flow in.
It was simple declaration of how the prosecutor views the case - a defendant's violation of public laws by destroying his log book, a legal document which, as the prosecutor said, verifies the hours of service performed by the defendant for the purpose of commercial
carrier private enterprise.
The hours of service were explained - i.e. that the truck driver is allowed to drive only 11 consecutive hours and then take 10 hour brake [the time may be split into two parts, one of which cannot be smaller than 8 hours], that he is allowed to work in total of 14 hours per day and that this 14 hours rule starts counting when first the driver begins his on-duty status,
when basically he does the mandatory vehicle inspection and begins to drive in the morning.
Then the witness [DOT officer N] was asked if this is not done by the driver whether the public safety is compromised. The reply was in the affirmative and statistical data was produced to show that there were vast number of truck related accidents, many times causing death, and
the commercial vehicle driver was found in non-compliance with the hours of service rules, and being tired, the truck drivers drove over the limit of their physical ability and therefore these rules are in place to assure the public safety.
The prosecutor then asked the witness to explain what happened when the defendant came to the State Police station. The witness said that the defendant shown the satellite dish, which was mounted on the back of the truck to the witness and the dish was covered with duck tape and aluminum foil was showing on the side of it. The defendant explained that the company cannot see the truck where it is because of this foil.
Then the defendant burned his own log book, which is a legal document, in front of the officer.
The witness said that the defendant was then arrested and handcuffed and brought to the station for questioning. The defendant's rights were in no time violated. The defendant used
his constitutional right to remain silent. Criminal infraction citation number [X] was issued to the defendant for destroying legal documents, resisting arrest and assault on public official.
He was then taken by the State Police to the county jail to spend the night to be brought
to the court the next day. The prosecutor said to the defendant - your witness.
Defendant:
Officer N, do you have a law degree ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes, I do. I am qualified to know and understand the law in my particular type of work. [The people in the court room chuckled...]
Defendant:
When you are asked a question from now on, please answer only yes or no,
unless factual answer is requested from you. Where did you study ?
Witness [officer N]:
[BBB] University, Faculty of Law, and then Police Academy courses of course.
Defendant:
So you know how the justice system functions and how it should function, is that correct sir ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Did you have to take an oath when you have become a police officer,
to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
To your best knowledge, which is in general terms, as you have just testified here that you do have a law degree, does any public official has to take such an oath of office ?
Prosecutor:
Objection your honor. Relevance to the case.
Defendant:
Judge, I am trying to show the jury that the justice system that is exercising the authority to judge this case is sound and good and that the jury is assured of that.
Moreover I'd like the jury to see how much this officer knows about the Constitution and the rights of the American people in regards to his public duty, and in regards to this particular case, which outcome will either result in my acquittal or jail sentence. I think I have the right to examine the ability of this officer, who is involved in this case, to explain to the jury the law and how it is applied in
this particular case.
Judge ABC:
Objection overruled. The witness will answer the question.
[The officer asked for the question to be read again from the record.]
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Would that include the judges ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
To your best knowledge, based on your law degree qualification,
do the judges have to be impartial in every case the preside over ?
Prosecutor:
Your honor, objection. Where is this all leading to ?
Defendant:
Judge, I am Catholic and as I have shown with the previous witness, I do have
to follow what the Catholic Church always taught. I am trying to prove that my Constitutional Rights are being violated by these DOT Rules and Regulations.
This line of questions is essential to my defense.
Judge ABC:
Objection overruled. [To the defendant] I will be patient with you,
but do not spoil it. The witness will answer the question.
Witness [officer N]:
[The question was read from the record - "To your best knowledge, based on your law degree qualification, do the judges have to be impartial in every case the preside over ?"]
Yes.
Defendant:
Officer N, based on your law degree and qualification, as a public official, do you have the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes I do.
Defendant:
And if the Constitution is being violated, do you not have the duty to
act as a public official ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes I do have that duty.
Defendant:
To your best knowledge is the Constitution of the United States superior to any law, including federal, state, county, city etc. laws etc. ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
[Takes a book from the table, gives it to the witness].
This is the Constitution of the United States of America - as it says on the first page, it includes also the Bill of Rights. Would you please find in it where does it say in this book that there is such a law separating the Church and the state ?
Prosecutor:
Objection. Relevance.
Judge ABC:
Sustained. [To the defendant - I have been patient with you but that is at end. Constrain yourself strictly to the case.]
Defendant:
There is such relevance to this question, judge, but I will continue. Officer N, Have you not just testified that according to your law qualification, the judges of the court must be impartial ?
At this moment the court room was in uproar. The judge was angry. He waited and also the witness waited looking at the judge what will happen next. The defendant remained calm looking at the judge.
Judge ABC:
If I hear any more questions and remarks from you, Mr. [X] [the defendant] I will find you in contempt of the court. Please constrain yourself to the case and not whether this court is impartial or not.
Defendant:
Judge, my freedom and my Constitutional Rights were violated and if
I am not allowed to prove that in this court room, then I cannot defend myself.
Officer N, do you believe in God ?
[Judge ABC shook his head, but allowed the question.]
Witness [officer N]:
I do believe there is a God but I do not have any particular relationship with Him.
Defendant:
Would you please read from the Bill of Rights the 1st Amendment ?
Witness [officer N]:
[He reads the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech, religion etc., and the free exercise thereof...]
Defendant:
So when this fundamental right is infringed upon, you, as a public official,
have to act to defend it, isn't that correct sir ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Permission to approach the witness - [Judge ABC said it was O.K.]
[Defendant gives the witness the piece of paper - defense exhibit A]
Would you please read the memo I faxed to the company, already marked as the defense exhibit A for the record, the highlighted part .
Witness [officer N]:
....it must be admitted that for Christian life to develop itself it must have recourse to external and sensible means; that the Church, being a society of men, cannot
exist or develop if it does not enjoy liberty of action, and that its members have
the right to find in civil society the possibility of living according to the dictates
of their consciences.
Consequently, it is quite natural that when the most elementary religious and civil liberties are attacked, Catholic citizens must not resign themselves passively to renouncing those liberties.
Defendant:
Officer N, do you know whether Catholics are allowed to knowingly and willingly disobey a command of the Pope ?
Witness [officer N]:
No I do not know that.
Defendant:
Would you please read from the memo [exhibit A], from the lower part highlighted section for the record ?
Witness [officer N]:
Dear Mr. H, [company manager], as a Catholic I do have to obey the command of the Sovereign Pontiff in all his commands, because he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, unless such a Pope knowingly departs from the teaching of the Holy Mother Church.
His Holiness Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Firmissimam Constantiam , written in 1937, or in any time during his Pontificate for that matter, has never departed from the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Pope has the Teaching Authority given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who is fully God and fully man and the King of kings and the Lord of lords [Apocalypse of St. John 19 : 16].
The Pope is also the supreme ruler of all Catholics, he's the governor whom, if we wish to remain Catholic and thus save our immortal souls, we must obey in all the Pope commands. This is not some human law, but Divine Law, which supersedes all human laws whatsoever that have ever existed or will exist.
This came from the Holy Gospel of St. Mathew 16 : 18 - 19 where our Lord Jesus Christ says:
"And I say to thee: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
I do not wish to disobey you in this, because you are my supervisor, who has the authority over me while I am at work, but since you have disregarded my urgent calls for following what my true Catholic Faith tells me, I have no other choice but
to disobey you and continue the line of action I have followed.
If I obeyed you, in which case I would be put under government controlled surveillance, which is in clear violation of my Constitutional Rights, and also
if I was to fill out any more of the log book, which rules violate my liberty as
human Catholic soul to freely move where I please and to conduct myself in a lawful manner [Law of God - the Ten Commandments, The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Teaching of the Holy Mother Church], I would have willfully and knowingly committed a mortal sin against God, which as a Catholic I will not do
- not even if I am about to cut into pieces.
Because, when the situation and circumstances arise and there is a contradiction between the law of God and the law of men, we as Catholics must obey God and disobey men.
And this is precisely what I am doing. By firing me from my job you are violating my Constitutional Rights to have freedom of religion and free exercise thereof, and so do the same these DOT Rules and Regulations. May God have mercy on your souls for doing this. I will pray for you and for all who imposed this evil on us.
Sincerely [defendant's name].
Defendant:
Is the liberty of movement one of the fundamental rights of men officer N,
yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Now you have testified previously that the Constitution of the United States is superior to any law passed by the Federal, state, local etc. government, isn't that correct sir ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
And you have also testified that you have a law degree, isn't that correct sir ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes I do have a law degree.
Defendant:
Does the Bill of Rights stipulate that, as a Catholic, I do have the right guaranteed to practice my Catholic Faith, yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
Defendant:
Now officer N, you are a Commercial Motor Carrier Enforcement officer, as it was previously established and it is already in the record. Have you ever performed any DOT inspections on Commercial truck drivers - like for example DOT state scale inspections or road side inspections - you can answer freely.
Witness [officer N]:
I have performed, as part of my work official duty, mandated by the State of [X],
all types of inspections of commercial motor vehicles.
Defendant:
Have you also examined the drivers' log books while performing these inspections, answer please only yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes.
At this point the atmosphere in the court became more intense. The judge was about
to call a lunch break but held it until the following question was answered.
Defendant:
Now you have testified that the liberty of movement, to be able to move freely in free society is one of the fundamental rights of men as the record says. As I am Catholic and do wish to practice my Catholic Faith in this society, I do have to
obey what God through the Church commands me to do. That is called liberty
of conscience. Now I have to obey also what Pope Pius XI wrote, as you have
read for the record officer N.
So if I am ordered by the Federal Motor Carrier Regulations to fill out a log book while I am driving a semi-truck, do I still have as the citizen of a free country the liberty of movement, yes or no ?
Prosecutor:
Objection your honor. The defense is badgering the witness asking questions outside the frame of the case. I do object to this line of questioning, the officer is not on trial here.
Judge ABC:
Sustained. The jury will disregard the last question. Lunch is called, we will reconvene at 1400 hours. Hearing is adjourned.
When the lunch was over, the court room was packed. The witness, DOT officer N, came back, pale in face, Judge ABC and the prosecutor came back, and the defendant was brought in. The Jury came in. Hearing began - all rise etc..
Judge ABC:
[To the defendant]
Do you have any more questions for the witness ?
Defendant:
Yes I do.
Officer N, as you have testified that you do have a law degree. I am asking you
- can the fundamental constitutional right to move freely within the free society be infringed upon by any kind of federal, state, local etc. law which is based on public safety ordinance, yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
[Pale in face]
Yes, for the safety of the public.
Defendant:
Officer N, you have testified previously that the United States Constitution is superior to any federal, state and local etc. laws. May I remind you sir that you are under oath.
I am asking you again - can any federal, state, local etc. law set time limits on the movement of private citizen within the society [excluding of course private property] - as the DOT Motor Carrier Regulations do, yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
Yes, for the public safety.
Defendant:
Officer N, as a DOT officer, you are a public official who, by the oath of his office have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, have also performed log book inspection on private citizens, the truck drivers, for the purpose to enforce by the authority and public trust given to you, rules that directly oppose the fundamental liberty of movement, have you not done so sir, answer only yes or no ?
The court room was in uproar. It was evident clearly that something extraordinary was happening here. The accused had transformed himself into an accuser and the accuser was submitted into the role of the accused.
Judge ABC:
[To the defendant]
Are you accusing this officer of violating your Constitutional Rights ?
Defendant:
Not only him, but the whole Federal and subordinate DOT Motor Carrier Administration. As I have demonstrated clearly, this is the case. I had to make myself into a defender, your honor, to bring this about to the public eye, because when I have called the city police and explained to them my case - i.e. that I am being forced to violate my Catholic Faith and thus sin against God and that my fundamental human rights [civil liberties] are being violated by the very Government that is sworn to uphold them and defend them, I had no other
choice than to come to the State Police station, ask for this officer [he points
at DOT officer N], bring him outside to show him that I have covered the satellite dish on my truck and then I have burned my log books before him and gave
him the so called evidence.
This I have done in self-defense, to defend not only my Catholic Faith, which is thus been infringed upon, but also to defend my Constitutional Rights, namely to be able
to live and work as a free person, which freedom I have not had before I came to this country, because I have escaped from Communist society where such freedom didn't exist, and so as I want to live in freedom.
Judge ABC:
But how can the society then be protected from truck related crashes, we do not have absolute freedom.
Defendant:
The Federal Motor Carrier Administration established rules for truck drivers that set time limits for the truck drivers to be able to perform their job.
Such rules not only violate my freedom, they are forcing me to sin against God, because God commands me by the authority of the Apostle St. Paul who in his
First Epistle of to the Corinthians 7 : 23 says:
You are bought with a price;
be not made the bondslaves of men.
I have been born a slave of men, the Communists, and I do not wish nor I am allowed by the very dignity of my God given status as Catholic, to forgo that dignity, and if I allowed this to happen, I would sin against God. That I will not do no matter if I am torn in pieces.
The society is already substantially protected by civil, traffic and criminal laws. If, as a truck driver I cause an accident, I am charged with negligence and so forth and the justice is served.
These DOT rules are violating my liberty of conscience and they must be abolish,
or if not, then we do not live in a free society any longer and this is the end of America's freedom. I would like to ask some more questions of this officer,
if I may your honor.
Judge ABC:
Please, go ahead.
Defendant:
Officer N, you have stated you do have a law degree. And you have already stated that when you have become a police officer, you have sworn that you will defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The record shows that.
Now since you were given public trust by this very office you exercise, how is it possible that you do uphold the very rules, the DOT Commercial Driver Regulations that set time limits on the movement of a private citizen, the very citizen whose Constitutional Rights you have sworn to uphold and defend ?
Please answer freely.
Witness [officer N]:
I do have to follow the laws of the State of [N] and the guidelines and codes that
the Federal and State Legislation passed. And these codes include the traffic laws. These are fundamental to traffic safety and without them we would have a chaos
on our highways and public safety would be compromised. I do understand the defendant's stand but we have to follow these laws and regulations. If they are to
be changed, that can be done only by the Legislature, we as police officers have to obey what the laws dictate us to obey. We have no other choice but to follow what the Legislature passes for laws.
Defendant:
Officer N, can good be established by doing evil - yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
No.
Defendant:
When you have arrested me, you have thought about the laws, rules and regulations and public safety guidelines, but you have forgotten about the Constitution, have you not ?
Witness [officer N]:
No, I have not forgotten about the Constitution.
Defendant:
Officer N, then I will ask you this. Can the Constitution of the United States
of America be compromised by enacting in violation to it, public safety laws
that set time limits, as the DOT Motor Carrier Regulations do, to the movement
of private citizens of this country, yes or no ?
The court room noise became so loud that when the Judge ABC spoke, nobody could hear him.
He had to use his court "hammer" to silence the room.
Judge ABC:
Witness will answer the question.
Witness [officer N]:
I don't know how to answer this question your honor.
Defendant:
Officer N, you have stated that you do have a law degree and that you have studied also the Constitution of the United States and you are saying don't know how to answer this fundamental question ?
If you don't know how to answer this question, what are you doing as a police officer, when the public gave you its trust to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution ?
This is my question - are you not, officer N, violator instead of protector of the Constitution of the United States of America, yes or no ?
The court room was again so loud and people yelling, Judge ABC had to use his "hammer" again to silence the forum.
Judge ABC:
[To the defendant]
Are you suggesting by this question that this police officer is violating the Constitution of the United States ?
Defendant:
I am not suggesting it - HE IS VIOLATING IT AND HE HAS TO KNOW IT BECAUSE HE AND HIM LIKE, IN THE POLICE FORCE, HAVE BEEN DOING THIS EVIL FOR MANY YEARS NOW AND NOBODY DARED TO STOP THEM.
I will not follow this evil nor will I be forced under it. This is Communism - plain and simple. This is what the communists had - they haven't had the technology as we have today, but they had snitches all over the place and they knew where people were all the time. I am not finished with this officer yet.
Officer N, is it not a violation of human rights or a private citizen by these very rules, the DOT Motor Carrier Regulations, when this U.S. Government agency is forcing us, truck drivers and private citizens, to document our whereabouts to
the Government 24/7 around the clock [while driving a truck or at work in a warehouse] - isn't this a violation of human rights, officer N, answer only yes or no ?
Witness [officer N]:
No. It is done for the public safety. [Turns to Judge ABC - your honor, I am being accused by this person as some kind of villain - I am a police officer and I do love this country......]
He's interrupted by the defendant:
If you have loved this country, you would have upheld and defended its Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and you would have investigated vigorously any violations of it.
I will make this piece shorter. I still have to explain at the end, in the conclusion how I know
all this and how this is happening. This is not a fictional case, but my own case, under different circumstances, but the same constitutional issue. This is what I would have said in the closing argument:
I have been fired from my job because I wouldn't follow these evil rules and I wouldn't allow the satellite GPS tracking device, since I have learned from the message my supervisor send me that the DOT will use the GPS tracking data in future audits, I have disabled the satellite because if I let it work as it is, I would
sin against God [ed. note - the above quote from St. Paul and Pope Pius XI] and I would thus became the slave of the government bureaucrats.
I am faced with extreme difficulty. It is true that I have been filling out my log book daily until recently, but back then I didn't have the clear understanding of this important question - whether we are free men under God or property of the State run by the very people that are sworn to protect and defend our fundamental human rights. The only way out I could find is to make myself into a defender in such a case, because I tried to call the local police and was told that nobody, not even the Sheriff's office, will investigate this as a crime and that it is a civil case.
This I am asking all of you - is a violation of human rights a civil case in a society that is free ? No - it cannot be so and must not be so. Our freedom does not come from what men in authority allow us to have and do, it comes from God, Who establishes natural law which we either obey and follow, or if those in authority
do not wish to obey this natural law of God, they will become as evil monsters - communists.
And if these people in authority are allowed to do this evil to the whole society, using the very authority the public has entrusted to them, then the society itself will crumble and will be swallowed up by such evil - no matter how you call it.
One of the main excuses of the Nazi war criminals at the Nurnberg trial was that they were under orders from the High Command [means from Hitler etc.] to do this evil and therefore their actions, in their eyes, were justified.
This is a complete demagoguery and evil reasoning.
The American society cannot be build or maintained on such principles.
Now we have a question to ask - who is the beneficiary of all this ?
It is the very forces of organized Russian run Communism, the Communist Party members who are ordered by the Party, under the Russian command, to penetrate the Government of the United States - including the White House, all the way down to the lowest level of the Government possible, would be infiltrated and subverted by the communists - to enact laws that would limit and take away the freedom of the American people and prepare the way for violent Communist Revolution in America - Moscow in charge.
They have done this in Poland in 1947 - 49 and succeeded. They have tried to do this in Spain in 1936 - 39, murdered 350 thousand Catholics while doing it, and
only the Catholic Faith of Spain through the vigorous active defense of it by His Excellency General Don Francisco Franco with the Spanish Catholic fighters Spain was saved from this Russian atheistic Red Terror.
I know I am innocent of all these people charge me with - they are the evil ones. They know well the Constitution and they know that this is the fundamental human right for every citizen to be able to move freely and have no time limits ordered by the Government to follow.
Such rules are not only repugnant to the dignity of a free human soul, they are totally evil, they are satanic, these are communist rules.
And they are no doubt enacted by the Communist Party members within the government, or under their suggestion when they were first [in absolutely mild form - not as they are today], put in place - in 1935 I am told.
I will not follow such rules and if you, the jury, allow them to stand as they are and do not seek to abolish them, then one day this very government, which, I say, by these very fruits [i.e. laws as these] it produces, will no doubt one day put this satanic yoke on you also.
So far you, as private citizens, have not been subjected to such rules, only the trucking industry. But that is also for a reason.
The Communists [Moscow in charge] want to subvert and destroy the American genuine free enterprise, and the trucking industry moves about 75 % of the goods and products sold in America.
Since the movement of these goods is thus timely limited by such DOT Rules and Regulations, the businesses do not receive their products when they would otherwise have received them because the driver is not allowed by the Government to move until he had his Government mandated rest - which is usually 10 hours.
This may seem as a necessary thing - for the public safety. But it is also infringing on human rights of private citizens. These log book regulations are not traffic laws, like speed limits or weight and size limits, which are perfectly correct and legitimate, because they do not involve the human soul, a living person, but the equipment the people are using.
The same applies to government tracking of military shipments or secure cargo - again, the GPS tracking is in place to provide security tracking for the cargo, not to track the driver where he stopped, when, and how many hours he drove - as the GPS satellite tracking data used by the trucking companies are now subjected to DOT audit - as we are told. The same applies to the log book.
I have no more to say - it is for you, the free people of this country, to determine the outcome of this case. I have already won it, not because I have made the argument available, but in my heart and soul I have won this case because of my love for our Lord Jesus Christ and for the Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church.
[Ed. note - this case is not a fictional one - it is a real situation. I do not wish to offer the outcome of it, because it may give my enemies, the Communists, the information they seek
to know and understand....]
Conclusion
Communist tyranny is at the door, Russia in charge. Communism has never collapsed in the Soviet Union nor in Eastern Europe. For them this is to lure the western countries, and most
of all America, into a communist trap and when the time comes, they will execute their evil Communist Revolution worldwide.
I do not make these things up. These are clearly the facts and I am living in it. Our Lady of Fatima warned us about this satanic evil, about Russia, and we all know that Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, and we also understand with our Catholic Faith, that
I am about to loose my trucking job which I needed in order to be able to spread the information among the Catholic Faithful. I had received some death threats - evidently
from the communists [KGB etc. behind it].
I am no doubt under their surveillance. But they can kill the body, but never
will they be able, with the help and grace of God, to destroy my soul.
I have stand firm and will remain firm on this - this is evil, this is Communism.
To have Government GPS tracking of a private citizen, which they now have, is nothing but a communist rule. The same Motor Carrier DOT Agency can issue soon another order stating
that they demand the trucking companies to establish instant access [via the Internet or so] to the same satellite GPS tracking system, again for the "public safety reasons".
I have no doubt that there are Moscow directed communists among the police.
The question is how many ?
I do not know whether you will believe me, but I would say that by now it is the majority of them - the catastrophic situation would be if all of them were communists. That is possible to happen.
If you were in their situation, when they are possessed by the satanically inflamed hate for America, then you would know that these criminals do not allow any risks in their operations and they are very thorough in doing their evil business.
They do have their Communist Party agents inside any and every entity functioning in this country, and these people are ordered by the Party to either subvert and take over such an entity [like in the case of any and every branch and agency of the U.S. Government], or in the case of the private sector to cause such genuine enterprises to either be taken over or destroyed completely.
I am about to end - I did receive a death threat and I think it was real.
One would ask, why don't you fight it, you have a good case the way you have described it ?
No, it is not possible to fight it this way, and the reason is again the Teaching of the Church, unless extreme necessity requires to speak out and defend the truth.
The following is from Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Part 2, 2, Q. 10, art. 10.
"Whether unbelievers may have authority or dominion over the faithful ?
Then St. Thomas Aquinas speaks about the temporal authority, when you work for an unbeliever, and he says that the Church sometimes allows it and sometimes not. And then
this great Saint adds that this kind of yoke the Church can easily take away from the faithful.
Not today, when the world is so poisoned and godless and not Catholic at all.
But we have to resist it. And we will resist it.
But let us consider this in another way - when we know that Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, then we also know that there could not possibly be any collapse of Communism.
We then know, as this website has warned about previously, that the Pope and the Novus Ordo bishops are material heretics, they follow and proclaim condemned heretical teaching
[Modernism - condemned by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X -Pascendi Dominici Gredgis] and that there is now way, as the Church and the Holy Scripture teaches, that such people who are heretics and apostates, God will hear and convert Russia [St. John 9 : 30 - 31] - unless they first repent, amend and publicly repair all the evil they have done to the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith.
Today, this is almost impossible - because countless souls of people who have already died, and who have obstinately trusted these enemies of the Church, may be somewhere where they may not want to be.....
Now we are also taught by Rev. Fr. Yves Le Roux, Rector of the SSPX Seminary in Winona, MN, in the United States, the following heresy in his 2006 article Quo Vadis Domine, widely disseminated in almost all SSPX American chapels and churches:
On the day of the Passion, another chorus rose to pity the Man of sorrows, who had "neither form, nor beauty to attract our eyes," stripped of His clothes, as today the Church is whipped by an odious modernist doctrine and stripped of Her liturgy. Then, the women of Jerusalem were that chorus.
Today another such chorus exists: it consists of those who react too naturally before the imposing mystery of the redemptive Passion, being renewed in the Church, which requires the death of the Just and His descent to the tomb.
The Church follows the steps of Her Master and Her way is identical.
-----
[God]...invites His children to participate in His sufferings in peace......"When these things begin to happen, raise your heads,
because your liberation is at hand."
[Ed. note - this is contrary to Jeremias 48:10 for example]
But when we consider what St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Church teaches,
as quoted above, we see that the Church does not allow unbelievers to have authority over
the Catholic faithful in any capacity whatsoever.
Now when we live in freedom, we should be able to practice our Apostolic Catholic Faith freely. But when Moscow directed communists takes over the society, covertly and clandestinely, then we are still children of God, free in Christ Jesus, and we are not allowed
to let the godless atheistic communist monsters to have any dominion over us - the Church forbids it by the above teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Those who are not ready to fight this upcoming Holy Crusade against
the Antichrist - i.e. Russian run worldwide Communism, will therefore be disobedient not only to the Sovereign Pontiff's command [Pope Pius XI], which altogether is a mortal sin [see Summa Theologica - obedience],
but also to the Teaching of the Church, including the above teaching
of St. Thomas Aquinas.
This is extremely serious situation - to let oneself be dragged freely and without any struggle to a communist concentration camp and to allow these satanic atheistic monsters to have dominion over you, that is like allowing the devil to destroy the Church.
We are the Church, we are Her members. Let us fight them and let us not give up the true Catholic Faith. If we die for it in battle, that's martyrdom for the Faith - one way ticket to Heaven.
But if we do nothing and let us freely submit to such satanic rule, we are no longer worthy children of God and I don't know whether He will have mercy on such people who did betray Him and betrayed His Church.
I am done driving a truck - for good. Now, I want to drive a truck because that is my free choice in a society that says it is free society. But the same society, already long ago penetrated by Communism [Russia in charge], is now firmly under the Communist control.
They cannot tell me to get a different job. They cannot say that I have to crawl and submit to their rules, which are clearly, as demonstrated on the above described "court case" in violation of my Catholic Faith.
I will not accept such rules nor allow such people who push such rules on us to ruin my chance to see our Lord Jesus Christ face to face and remain in Heaven with Him forever - I will not allow such communist criminals to do this.
They have violated my soul since I was born, they have denied me access to the true Catholic Faith and only by a miracle, when I escaped from Communism, I was spared by God not to go to Hell - and if I was not spared, I would be in Hell already.
I know this is a long peace - the truth is sometimes difficult to grasp and sometimes it take an effort to defend the truth and justice. I am pursuing God's justice and will pursue it and if any communist criminal stand in my way, I will defend myself with all licit means necessary, including the Holy War.
I am about to become a homeless, my life is in danger, I have received death threats and they are real - I know that these criminals mean business. They hate us Catholics beyond measure and they want us eradicated, but they also want us to renounce our true Catholic Faith first.
With me they have not yet succeeded and I will not let them.
But in person, for myself, I do forgive all injuries that I have received from anybody, but as for what they have done to me because I am a Catholic, this is not for me to forgive, but for God to forgive - and God does not forgive unless such people confess their sins, repent and amend.
The fight is on - now. Let us fight it. This is honorable battle for God and for His Church,
which is also ours, and for our Catholic Faith.
May God grant us the strength, fortitude, wisdom, grace and perseverance in this Holy War and may our Lord, through the intercession of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, lead our immortal souls to salvation.
In Christ and Mary
Jan Malina
Catholic forever
Please see Appendix A for additional picture evidence.