If you’ve been on this blog before, you probably know that I am to some degree fixated on government laws that expressly define the American people to be “animals” and thereby deprive us of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our “Declaration of Independence”.
Over the past eight years, I’ve probably published 30 to 40 articles on this blog that deal with the “MOOA” (“man or other animals”) phenomenon. You may know that I’ve used this insight and the grace of the Good LORD to stop a lawsuit by the Attorney General of Texas after he’d invested six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings.
But in all of this, I only focused on presenting a freedom of religion argument that would prove that only I or other defendants were “men made in God’s image” and therefore couldn’t be “animals” or subjected to laws that presumed us to be “animals”. Our status as “men made in God’s image” was protected by the 1st Amendment and our right to freedom of religion.
But I received an email today from “Jeff” that made me realize that the MOOA defense might significantly expanded to include others, even adversaries and jurors as “men made in God’s image” and therefore, not “animals”.
Here’s a copy of Jeff’s email and my reply:
I sent you an e-mail sometime ago in which I roughly described challenging your adversary’s ability to hold office/position or have legal standing because they are a man or woman and not a PERSON. Thus, denying them the ability/authority to execute office/prosecute or take legal action.
Well, I have further tweaked that approach and want to hear what you think.
After challenging their NATURE, you state that you see a man or woman standing before you. Then if they deny that they are a man or woman, you then state that that they must be an animal and that per Genesis 1:28, you will exercise DOMINION over them.
Maybe this would be a legal junk shot.
That sounds like an interesting and viable strategy. Instead of only arguing that you are a man made in God’s image, you contend (under oath) that your adversaries (the police officer, prosecutor and judge) are also men made in God’s image and that, as such, they are personally liable for any crimes they commit against you. (“Men made in God’s image” should have much higher levels of liability for their crimes or mistakes than “animals”.)
You essentially not only refuse to be judged as “animal,” yourself, you also refuse to be prosecuted or judged by others who regard themselves as animals.
I.e., it might be that they can treat you like an animal today, and get away with it because they presume themselves to also be only “animals” who are largely unaccountable for their seeming “crimes” (all crimes require “intent”; animals typically lack the requisite “intent”). How can you hold an “animal” guilty of falsely imprisoning a “man made in God’s image”?
But if you expressly declared your adversaries to be “men made in God’s image” (especially in front of a jury) they’d have no recourse but to accept your description or publicly admit before the jury that they deemed themselves to be only “animals”. If they admitted they were only “animals,” they might lose both the jury’s support and any claim of authority over you. Must you consent to be tried or judged by “animals”?
If they admit to being “men made in God’s image,” how can they justify trying you under MOOA laws that apply only to “animals”?
You might even voir dire your jury ito see if they believe they are “men made in God’s image” or “animals” based on your refusal to be judged by “animals”. What if (during the voir dire jury selection process) you asked the whole jury if they regarded themselves as “men made in God’s image” (as per Genesis 1:26-27) or as animals?
Could my right to be judged by my “peers” be a basis for refusing to be judged by “animals” in the jury box? As a “man made in God’s image,” I am not a peer–equal to–the animals.
If I declare that the cops, prosecutors, judges and jurors are all “men made in God’s image,” what are they going to do–publicly deny it? If they admit that they are just “animals,” I think they’d open any subsequent conviction of the defendant to a successful appeal. If they admit that they are “men made in God’s image” but operate on the presumption that I (the defendant) am only an “animal” and subject to laws that apply only to animals,
The idea of declaring not only yourself, but also your adversaries, prosecutors, judges and jurors to be “men made in God’s image” impresses me as a potentially brilliant insight and basis for a new, fundamental strategy.
What do you think, readers?