Embassy of Heaven

Overcoming the Adversary's Questions

 

PayPal Donate

Previous Page Home Page Next Page

We Don't Recognize Judge's Voice

The next day they bring you into the courtroom to be arraigned. They call out your name and you just sit there. Then the judge calls out your name and you still just sit there. In other words, he's not your master. You don't know who that judge is. According to John 10, you know the voice of your shepherd. You look at this fellow wearing a black robe and you know, "Well, he's not my shepherd." The scripture goes on to say that you will know the strangers and that you are to flee from strangers. So there's no way you're going to approach that man.

The jailer notices you're not cooperating, "He's been disobedient from the day we saw him." He grabs you by the collar and drags you before the judge. Now the scripture comes true. They haul you before the synagogues of Satan.

Charges Do Not Apply

There you are standing before this judge. He's unimpressed. He doesn't take any recognition that you were dragged up there. He just calmly and collectively starts reading out the charges: "You have been charged with eluding a police officer, you have been charged with failing to carry or present a driver's license, you've been charged, you've been charged . . ." He reads off half a dozen charges. I mean this police officer who wrote up the citations was very upset because you acted just like a disobedient child.

After the judge finishes reading all the charges he comes back and says, "Did you understand the charges?" If you say "Yes," he moves on. And if you say "No," he says, "Well what's wrong with you? Don't you understand the English language?" Or he might ask what portion you didn't understand. You can't even answer "No, I did not understand the charges." The reason? You have to have the same foundation or understanding the judge has in order to answer his question.

A possible solution would be to say, "Hi Judge, or whoever you are, I'm an ambassador sent on a mission by the Embassy of Heaven Church, and I have diplomatic immunities. I'm not under the law. Therefore, the charges you cited do not apply. I am unable to answer your question." The judge's question is not meaningful. If you're not under their law, how can someone reading the charges expect you to understand them?

You Cannot Answer 'Yes' or 'No'

Those who are of their household are expected to understand the charges. It's just like asking Brooke, "You have been charged with not doing the dishes today. Do you understand the charges?" She understands them because she has been instructed on her duties. If she says, "No," I ask, "What part don't you understand about washing those dishes? You know we've got a whole book of rules and its in there." But if I turn to Art and say, "You have been charged with failing to wash the dishes. Do you understand the charges?" Art can't answer 'yes,' or 'no.' He would have to overcome my question: "I am unable to answer your question of whether I understand the charges because I am not one who is required to do the dishes. I'm not one who is subject to the laws that you are working out of."

Unfortunately, when we say, 'No,' we are thinking, "Well, I'm not under the law so the answer would be, 'No.'" It's like asking Art, "Is your Volkswagen blue?" Art thinks, "I don't have a Volkswagen so it's not blue. I guess the answer would be, 'No.'" But by answering the question, Art has misled everyone. People would assume Art has a Volkswagen, but it is not blue. Unfortunately, when we enter into the realm of law we get confused. We don't understand what is behind the question. When I ask you if your Volkswagen is blue, you understand that you cannot answer 'yes,' or 'no.' It's the same dilemma when it comes to answering questions about the law. When the judge asks, "Do you understand the charges?" you cannot answer 'yes,' or 'no.' When you say 'No,' you are really saying, "No, I don't understand the charges and 'Yes,' I am subject to them. An answer of 'yes,' or 'no,' assumes you are one subject to that law. Just as an answer of 'yes,' or 'no,' assumes you have a Volkswagen.

No Reason for Counsel

Further into the scenario, the judge presses forward about the counsel issue. "Would you like counsel?" You can't answer 'yes' or 'no.' "I'm sorry, but I'm an ambassador, as I've told you before, sent by the Embassy of Heaven Church. I have diplomatic immunities. I'm not under the law. Therefore, I'm very confused because I don't know why I'd ever want counsel. There would be no need for me to build a defense. There's nothing for me to defend on. I can't deny or accept counsel. It's a question that's not meaningful. Are you crazy or something?" Maybe we ought to ask them if they're "okay?" because they're asking questions that simply cannot be answered. We cannot answer them. For someone who is part of their household, they can answer the questions. But for us, we're not going to jump up in the tree with them and assume their trunk and branches. There's no way!

If they asked us a foundational question, maybe we could answer. If they asked, "Can we try you?" or "Are you subject to this law?" we might be able to answer. "Do you have a Volkswagen?" is a foundational question. "Art, do you have a duty to do dishes today?" Now that's a delicate question because it assumes Art might be one who has a duty. In everyday conversation, we usually have no problem communicating. But there are wolves, foxes, and snakes out there who enjoy double-talking us. In other words, they pose their question thinking from one perspective and we answer their question from another perspective and never do the minds meet. And they keep moving us through the system.

Trap Snaps With Either Answer

Let's take another famous courtroom question. It's pretrial time. There were supposed to be plea negotiations and all that has failed. You have still been unable to communicate. Finally the judge says, "Are you ready to go to trial?" If you say "Yes," he'll say, "We'll set trial for next Wednesday." If you say, "No," he might say, "Why not? How come you're not ready? When will you be ready?" He is still thinking down the road that he is going.

I'll show you an example of the failure of a 'No.' The man I mentioned earlier who was charged with eluding a police officer was asked by the judge if he was ready to go to trial. This man very boldly said, "No!" And the trap went off. KERSNAP! The judge said, "All right, we'll set trial for next Wednesday!" In other words, the judge didn't care whether the man said, "Yes," or "No." He didn't care whether he was ready or not. What the judge did was cause all kinds of due process errors, tempting him to want to enter into the law. They love to make errors. They make error after error so that you can appeal and get buried in the laws of men. If we are asked whether we are ready to go to trial, we cannot answer 'yes,' or 'no.'

I propose again this possibility, "Hi, I'm an ambassador sent on a mission by the Embassy of Heaven Church, as I've said before. I'm not under your local laws. I don't understand your question. There's not to be a trial because there's nothing to judge. I can't break your law because I'm not under your law." That would be a possibility. We may need to work on it, but what I am recommending is that you must communicate light. If you stay silent, they will assume whatever position they want. They'll get you into a 'yes,' or a 'no' by default, whichever one they like, they'll use. They don't care which one. They will use the one which is most favorable to them - the one that is most expedient or required by their higher-ups.

Previous Page Home Page Next Page