Teachinghearts	Modern Inquisition Laws "Explore the Word. Change the World"	Statistics: Time: 240 minutes Print: 53 pages

Planning for a New Pearl Harbour

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

In January 1993 a document from Dick Cheney called "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" called for the United States to assert its military superiority to prevent the emergence of a new superpower rival. It was based on a 1992 classified internal policy statement titled "Defense Planning Guidance".

These ideas were resurrected in a new report by another Cheney-Rumsfeld organization, the (PNAC) Project for the New American Century in 2000. Entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources" it concludes the following:

The United States needed a catastrophe, "a new Pearl Harbor" to jump start the blueprint for military and economic world dominance.

The Burning of the Reichstag The Reichstag building burned on February 27, 1933. Marinus Van der Lubbe was caught and tortured by the Gestapo. He confessed to the crime but denied that he was part of a communist plot. Hitler used this as an excuse to get rid of the communist party. Operation Northwoods Just in case you think we are incapable of such behavior. Operation Northwoods was a 1962 Pentagon proposal to stage phony terror attacks on US citizens to provide a pretext to invade Cuba.

September 11.
On September 11, 2001 four passenger planes were hijacked and flown into American buildings. Three reached their target. Six weeks later the U.S.A. Patriot act and military tribunals were rushed into laws, changing the face of the American justice system forever. The government experts claimed that they never knew that this was possible.
Hogwash! Even I could see what was coming after the bombing of the navy ship the USS Cole in October 2000.

A simple systems analysis drill would have demonstrated the possibility. By taking the three basic environments of air, land and sea one could have seen the escalating pattern of suicide bombings was based on using the transportation systems from each environment as a weapon against important targets. Truck bombings, bombings of navy ships and government buildings close to airports. All spelled disaster.
Not being evil, even my mind would not conceive of passenger planes. I thought it could have been less risky to hijack package delivery planes.

But Was It Allowed?

The Cosmic War Rather than viewing this as a great conspiracy, I see this as the clouding of human minds so that the cosmic war can progress by leaps and bounds. Through one event, and a subsequent war that somehow went terribly wrong, the whole world is caught in a trap. The events are so bizarre that no group can fix it. We are all being propelled forward into one set of idiotic actions for another. We cannot get out and we cannot get off. We are plagued with failure after failure and criminal activity. In this atmosphere of fear we traded freedoms and engaged in brutality. We believe with all our hearts that we are protecting ourselves from terrorism. And, that this single situation justifies our actions. But, in one day, a cosmic terror will grip us and we will use these new laws and this new attitude to execute the kind of brutality that we still believe that we are incapable of doing. Every action and setback keeps fulfilling prophecy or sets up the situation to rapidly fulfill a future prophecy. I have never seen anything like it.

The reason why some people say that this event was allowed and others say it was planned by the United States is because four aircraft went missing and were joy riding for two hours and no military aircraft was launched to intercept. The F-16s are supposed to be deployed if planes are missing over three minutes. Well, one missing plane and no deployment of an F-16 could be attributed to lazy employees. Four missing passenger airlines and no response gives teeth to the rumors.

So it could have been allowed to grab powers and legally create a scenario that could remove civil rights. But it would have taken a massive conspiracy to do so. This type of conspiracy usually fails. So, looking at their performance in other matters I would say that they are plagued by persistent incompetence.

Case: The Burning of the Reichstag.
The Reichstag building burned on February 27, 1933. On February 28, 1933 the "Protective Custody" law was created. It gave authorities the right to arrest on suspicion of criminal activity and to incarcerate indefinitely without the benefit of a lawyer or a trial. Marinus Van der Lubbe was caught and tortured by the Gestapo. He confessed to the crime but denied that he was part of a communist plot.
Without any other evidence, Hitler used this as an excuse to arrest the leaders of the German Communist party. He even wanted them killed that night. He also used this as an excuse to assume powers as a dictator.

Van der Lubbe was convicted and executed on January 10, 1934. All the others arrested were acquitted. There was no evidence. So, outraged at the results of the trial (he did not get the verdict that he wanted), Hitler decided that any future treason cases would be taken from the Supreme court and given to a newly created People's court so that they could guarantee the "right" verdict.

The Laws of the Nazi Empire.
In addition, they ended several civil liberties under the claim that they were protecting the people.

• The Dictator. January 30, 1933. Hitler was elected as chancellor of Germany.
  The Federal court system was stacked in favor of conservatism.
• No Right to Assemble or Express Opinions. February 4, 1933. Hitler convinced the president to sign a law that authorized the police to prohibit public meetings and publications that "endangered public security".
  Telecommunications laws gave the media companies to five conservative owners.
• The Opportunity. February 27, 1933. Reichstag burned. Communists became the enemies.
  The September 11, 2001 attacks. Al-Qaeda became the enemy that required these laws.
• Protective Custody. February 28, 1933 Decree. It suspended civil liberties. A false emergency was created after the parliament building burned. People now believe that Hitler planned it.
  The law authorized the police to make arrests on suspicion of criminal activity and incarcerated without benefit of legal counsel or trial.
  The Patriot Act took away liberties, set up military tribunals and allowed indefinite detention.
• Enabling Act. March 23, 1933. It gave Hitler absolute power to make laws for four years. These laws would be above the constitution.

  ARTICLE 1. In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48, of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence , endangering the state: Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty [114], on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press [118], on the right of assembly and the right of association [124], and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications [117], and warrants for house-searches [115], orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property [153], are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

  It was supposed to expire on April 1, 1937 but it never did because he passed more laws to stay in power.
  The patriot act was supposed to expire but it was enhanced and made permanent.
  Bush uses signing statements to give himself absolute power. The attitude is now, "if the president does it, then it is legal".
• No Elections or Political Parties. July 14, 1933. Article 1 of the law against the establishment of parties says that "The National Socialist German Workers Party constitutes the only political party in Germany".
  A majority in both houses ensures that the minority party cannot start criminal investigations, hold meetings or pass laws.
• Propaganda and Anti-Semitic Violence. He made Josef Goebbels the Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. He also established a boycott committee. They terrorized the Jews.
  The media companies act as the cheer leaders of the government.
• Law Against the Overcrowding of German Schools and Institutions of Higher Learning. April 25, 1933. This law to prevent Jews from attending school and over 400 laws were made to terrorize the Jews.
• Nuremberg Laws. 1935. Legalized anti-Semitism.

Other decrees created new federal agencies. The Storm Troopers (SA) and the Special Security (SS).
This is a summary of the rights lost and power grabbed in the beginning.

Changes	Item	Germany	United States
Civil Rights	Constitution guaranteeing basic civil rights	Enabling Act. Nuremburg Laws	Patriot Act. Military Trials
	Freedom of the press	None	Suppression of news by five media owners
	Free expression of opinion	Prohibit public meetings and publications	No protection for whistle blowers, threatening reporters
	Right of assembly and association	Prohibit public meetings	Preventing peaceful demonstrations, exclusion from public meetings
	Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications	Protective Custody	Spying on mail and all phone calls
	Protection against unlawful searches and seizures	Protective Custody	Patriot Act. Wiretaps without a warrant
	Individual property rights	Nuremburg Laws	The revised laws of eminent domain give private property to rich private developers
Government Structure	Federal States' right of self government	None	-
	Opposition group	Only one party allowed	Majority party ends all access by minority party
	Absolute Ruler	Dictator for Life	With "sign in" statements Bush exempts himself from laws
	Confinement	Ghettos. Concentration camps. Labor camps. Cattle cars	Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons
New Agencies	Domestic spying and terrorization	SS and SA. Boycott committee	Homeland Security, National Security Service, TIPS, Minuteman Project
Preemptive War	We will not start a war	Europe	Iraq and probably Iran
Torture	No cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment	Gas chambers, starvation, slavery	Torture, slavery in Marinas and permanent under class being created
Private Businesses	Cruelty to others to help businesses	Slavery, medical experiments	January 2007. Medical experiments, once outlawed for abuses, now allowed on prisoners.

Hitler could immediately remove freedom of expression. The Republicans had to take a different tactic. They will move against reporters and websites who criticize and filter the news. They have successfully done most of this through pressure from media owners against their employees. Next they will use social pressure by labeling such information as treason. Finally, they will claim that this is necessary for the war on terror, even if it means creating another fake emergency and claiming that it was the leaks and criticisms that made the enemy bold.

This pattern looks disturbingly familiar.
September 11, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and there is talk of a a new domestic intelligence counter-terrorism agency that is a cross between the FBI and the CIA.
Update (2005). This agency is now a reality. The National Security Service was created by executive order on June 29, 2005. It is a division of the FBI that is answerable to no one or to the constitution. So the federal police (FBI) can apply tactics to its citizens that it does on "terrorists". The name sounds too much like the Nazi SS. Unfortunately, the powerful are using these agencies to spy on any group that does not believe in some of the policies. People like the Quakers who believe in peace and have no intention of bombing the potted plants on the White House lawn. Hitler used the SS to go after his political opponents.

The premise of this article is that we are being manipulated into exchanging our civil rights for security in one form or another. All people want freedom from terror. Some people want freedom from immorality. Both intend to use the legal system as the weapon that will guarantee them victory.

The question is, will we exchange one form of terrorism for a more deadly one? When we use civil rights to capture our current terrorists are we creating an environment where another kind of terrorism will emerge? We cannot fight this one when we have relinquished our only true weapons. Our freedom.

A Trojan Horse.
The next dark ages are being introduced by the careful control of several critical systems.

1. Economic. They will be used to track and identify and enforce an economic boycott in the end. The European labor laws are now being used to enforce religious Sunday laws.
2. Media. They are increasingly being owned by a few giant individuals and corporations. So they can censor and manipulate the news and entertainment the public receives. Already, they have been shifting to an introduction of Catholicism in the network dramas through the use of Catholic characters. The vast majority of those who shape our political opinions are Catholic.
3. Legal. Globally, laws are increasingly trying to stop all Protestant efforts to proselytize, and the penal system has defined a terrorist in such broad categories that they will ultimately include anyone who preaches a nonviolent gospel that will be classified as hatred under the expanded definition of hatred and its potential consequences.

The world is rapidly evolving towards a one world legal system which is modeled after the Inquisition. Many people are not concerned about their eroding civil rights, because of fear of terrorism. And because they falsely assume that these laws do not coddle real criminals and that they will guarantee us peace, justice and safety. With this thinking we captured farmers, cab drivers and barbers and began torturing them in Iraq, even though Iraq never attacked the United States, nor were they involved with Al-Qaeda.

Inquisition laws do not discriminate between the evidence and the innocent or the guilty.
All are guilty. Evidence can be achieved by torture. Evidence no longer leads to an arrest. We will arrest first then find the evidence.

The collapse of a free society is integral to the plans of two separate globalist forces. One wants to be the dominant military, economic and political power. The other wants to dominate all world powers so that it can enforce a global religion. One is the United States of America, the other is the Roman Catholic church.
Think I am wrong?

The crusades were ordered because the "unity of Europe" was threatened. The religious unity.
The Spanish Inquisition was called to unite Spain under the Catholic church.
The Roman Inquisition was called to suppress the Protestant heresy. The church is promoting the belief that heresy is the cause of social revolution. Such a revolution jeopardizes the plans of the political globalists.

So a darker force is behind these new laws. It intends to piggy back its goals on top of the political globalists. The emerging global religion and government will use these laws to justify their tyranny. When they have the legal means by which they will persecute, they will soon invent the crimes that will target the victims. Through the concepts of "public unity", "racism" and "hate speech" these groups are suppressing all religious speech that turns the light on their sinister plans. Because, lurking behind the war cry of obliterating "hate speech" is a tyrant hiding its activities and waiting to suppress all free expression and thought by implementing religious laws in the entire world.

Civil Rights
Civilized laws have always guaranteed certain legal rights. They were based on the fact that the people would not have justice perverted if they could participate in the judicial process. Also, it protected the lone accused against the vast array of forces on the side of the government. Otherwise, the powerless masses could not hope to defend themselves against a state with unlimited funds, time, expertise and power. As a part of the efforts to ensure a fair hearing, several rights have been recognized.

• Innocent until proven guilty. The ones who believe that a crime has been committed should bear the burden of proof based on the evidence that convinced them of your guilt.
• Habeas Corpus. Because innocence is assumed, a person should not be held in jail indefinitely until the trial is over. If not, the innocent would routinely be punished. Trials are the method that we have agreed upon to determine guilt, not suspicion and arrest.
• Past history secret. This is necessary to preserve the status of innocence until guilt can be proved by the facts of the crime in question. This is important because humans will tend to form an opinion based on these negative actions. And you can never be certain if someone is being convicted for a past crime. The theory is that the evidence of the current crime should stand on its own merit.
• Trial by Jury. A group of ordinary citizens who are strangers, who should not have any preconceived conclusions will judge the facts based on the evidence.
• Double Jeopardy. You cannot be repeatedly tried for the same crime until a guilty verdict is obtained.
• Lawyer. The presence of a lawyer does not change the facts or the evidence in the crime. The lawyers are not the enemy. They are necessary to protect the accused from a vast array of abuses by a prosecution system that assumes guilt.

These rights are under attack globally. The proof is that draconian changes to most of these laws have been secretly in place since 1996 before the terrorist attack. The threat of terrorism has simply been used as an excuse to win public support for them. As Kissenger stated in 1992, fear will make us exchange our rights for safety.
The legal systems have been targeted by a group of people who are determined to create a global government for the sole purpose of global dominance and installing a global religion.
The first casualties in this war are the justice system and the media. Because the media does not analyze and report on these issues frequently, the public is not informed about the replacement of their legal system for one that is modeled after the infamous Inquisition.

Habeas Corpus and Indefinite Detention
This is the right that causes those who have someone in custody to produce that prisoner with a statement to justify his detention.

In Britain, a person must be produced and charged within sixty hours of arrest. In America it is twenty four hours. The prosecutor also has the burden of proof. This is important because an innocent person often cannot prove a negative. If the government arrested you for terrorism and required you to prove that you did not meet with Terry Heiss to finalize plans to hijack airplanes, most of you could not do it. Even if the prosecution narrowed the offensive action to a specific date, most of you would still be unable to prove your innocence. Why? Because you do not spend your day establishing an alibi or remembering every detail of your daily actions.
So, the law justly requires that prosecutors must have some reasonable proof on which to arrest you and they must provide all the proof to convict you. They must have evidence.

This thinking is apparently inefficient, makes guilty people go free, coddles criminals and handcuffs the police. But if we allowed people in power to arrest citizens because of their expertise and "gut feelings" we will set up an environment of persecution of the masses by a few powerful self-righteous people.

The trend (even before terrorism) is to suspend Habeas Corpus and arrest someone indefinitely or for long periods while the legal system tries to find evidence against the person. Under reasonable laws, the government had to have a reason and some evidence to support it before an arrest is attempted.
This new trend makes someone subject to the whim of a malicious power and can be used merely to financially ruin someone during the months or years that they are incarcerated. These tactics were used by kings and papists to subdue some groups and is the exact reason why the right has been recognized by civilized governments for centuries.

Trial By Jury
The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is also under attack. Critical thinking is being suspended by labeling ordinary citizens as "simple", stupid and unable to judge the complexity of a case. The right wing has been attacking court systems and promoting replacement systems that rely on special judges to guarantee convictions. New procedures are described as "fairer, simpler and more efficient". Fair to whom? Simpler than what? And more efficient at what? Remember, the Inquisition was fair to the church, simple for the prosecution and more efficient at killing and converting people. The "simple" and "efficient" methods used was to torture people until they said and did what you wanted.
People, justice is not simple. To be completely fair it cannot be "efficient".

Evidence and Burden of Proof
Why is it important that the one who brings the charges, provides the evidence? Why is the concept of innocent until proven guilty so important?
It is because it is too difficult to prove a negative.

Evidence. Most reasonable people would agree that there must be some reason for a person to be charged with a crime. There must be some evidence or basis for the accusation. So the one who makes the accusation is at an advantage, they have some reasonable evidence in hand. This evidence is the thing that prompted the investigation that focused on you as the main suspect.

Mrs Peabody's Pilfered Pie

The Case of the Disappearing Pie. Suppose the crime was stealing a blueberry pie that had been cooling in the kitchen window of Mrs. Peabody. This pie was decorated for a fourth of July celebration with a little plastic flag.
The prosecution was first alerted to the fact because the owner of the pie reported it stolen. In the best case, the owner and another witness would have seen you do the dirty deed. Maybe an investigation would show footsteps and tiny pink feathers in the mud leading from the window to your house. Finally, when they walked into your house they would find you with a mouth full of blue stains and pie crust, mud on your feet, pink fuzzy slippers and a little flag in your hand.

Beyond a reasonable doubt they could prove that you walked by the neighbor's window and probably stole the pie. However, you could have baked a similar pie and might not be guilty of the theft. But you could be guilty of trespassing.

But suppose the burden of proof was yours. It becomes impossible to prove your innocence in many situations.

If the police came to your house without any evidence and said "prove that you did not steal your neighbor's pie", you would be unable to do it. If the crime was limited to a certain date and time then maybe you can provide some credible alibi. You were 200 miles away with the mayor dedicating a new orphanage on July 4, 2003 at 3:00 PM when the pie was stolen.
And we have news media video tape to prove it.
And we do not yet have the technology to disassemble a person's molecules, beam them across the hemisphere and reassemble them at the same coordinates of the neighbor's pie in one second.
If you happened to live alone, and had no alibi then you would be convicted.

If you could produce your stomach contents and prove that a pie was not included, then you might have only succeeded in proving that you did not eat the pie. You did not prove that you did not steal the pie.

Burden of Proof. So the concept of burden of proof is not only reasonable it is logical. The person making the charge should be able to prove it. There must be some reason why he selected you as the culprit. It protects people from malicious prosecution. If this were not the standard then your enemies would be able make any accusation against you and prevail.

Here are some things that are impossible to prove.

• You did not read last month's issue of Playboy.
• You never stole from the church offering.
• You are thinking about an assassination plan.
• You are not thinking about an assassination plan.

The Infallible Supernatural Confirmation. I have a stupid granduncle who had a dream that his wife was being unfaithful. That week he met a man in a bar who looked exactly like the man in his dream. He came home and immediately accused his wife of having an affair. Years later, in any arguments they had he would continue to make this absurd accusation.

The Salem witch hunts were based on the same logic, that the supernatural is its own unimpeachable witness.

Double Jeopardy
The concept of double jeopardy guarantees you the security that you will not be charged over and over again for the same crime until the prosecution can get the "right" jury or court to prove that you are guilty.

This is important for several reasons:

• A malicious government or legal system or person with unlimited funds could use this process to ruin someone financially. Even if the state were forced to pay legal costs if you were acquitted, there remains a problem of maintaining your job, home and skills while you spend endless days in jail or in court.
• It forces the prosecution to prepare a good case. They cannot do a shoddy job knowing that they will get unlimited chances to convict you. The system already gives them time to prepare the case.

Double Jeopardy - Unattached?
Clever law makers are getting around the spirit of this law by allowing the following types of court cases to occur despite the verdict in criminal court. This usually happens in very public, emotional cases.

• Civil Law Suits. Even after conviction in a criminal court fails, a court with lower standards can convict someone and financially ruin them. This should not be.
• Another Jurisdiction. Another court system or another country can charge you with an equivalent crime.
• Another Law. Failure to convict in one court might lead to charges in another court that are technically different crimes. A person can be acquitted of murder in one court, only to be charged with "depriving a person of their civil rights" in federal court. This civil right is the right to life.

Extradition

The French Fashion Police
The French have found a new weapon in the war against terrorism. It is the scarf and the beanie! It was with tongue in cheek that I created this ridiculous example to illustrate the concept of extradition. But on December 19, the French proved that anything ridiculous will be possible. As this web page warns, ridiculous religious laws will be made with terrorism and unity as the justification. Declaring themselves a secular society, although they are 88% Catholic, the French have banned the Muslim head scarf and the Jewish beanie in public places. "Small" Christian crosses are allowed. Jews can wear a small star of David instead. Most of my Jewish friends want to wear a beanie. They do not wear the star of David.
The Religious Fashion Police in History Year Actions 637 Muslims captured Caesarea and forced Jews to wear a yellow patch 807 Caliph Harun Al Rashid forced Jews of Baghdad to wear a yellow badge and Christians a blue badge 1008 Egyptian caliph Hakkim forced all Jews to wear a gold calf around their necks 1215 Fourth Lateran Council forced Jews to wear the yellow patch as a "badge of shame" 1268 Austria forces Jews to wear a badge. 1267 Vienna city council forced Jews to wear the Pileum Coronutum, a cone shaped hat 1275 King Edward of England forced Jews over seven to wear a badge 1321 Henry II forced Jews to wear yellow badges 1555 Pope Paul IV forced Jews to wear a special yellow cap in the bull "Cum Nimis Absurdum" 1939 Hitler forces Jews to wear the star of David 199? Taliban forced non-Muslims to wear a badge 2003 France prohibits religious symbols, except a cross 2005 Germany prohibits religious symbols, except a cross Old data Source: Jewish Virtual Library. www.us-israel.org/jsource/index.html

Agreements made to transport the accused from one jurisdiction to another. This includes from one country to another. Under the concept of "Dual Criminality", one assumption is that the laws under which the accused is charged is a criminal offence in both countries. It guarantees that a foreign state cannot ask for the extradition of a citizen for actions that are not criminal within his own country. It even ensures that the foreign state cannot prosecute a citizen for an action that was committed in his own country but which is illegal in the foreign country.

Dressed to Kill: The Case of the Great Labor Day Escape
Suppose France believes that wearing white clothes after labor day is a fashion crime. While Americans who regularly dress in sack cloths only regulate public nudity. The following could happen.
• I wore white after labor day while at home in the United States. Friends would comment about my poor fashion sense. The French would be appalled but they could not ask for my extradition. If they did, it would not be honored. I did not commit a crime in their country and the United States has no fashion sense and does not care.
• I wore white after labor day in France. I could be arrested and imprisoned in France.
• I wore white after labor day in France and escaped to the United States. The French could ask for extradition because I committed a crime in their country. However, the United States is free to deny the request since that is not a crime in this country.
• I was naked at the Eiffel Tower and escaped to the United States. The French would go blind after goughing out their eyes. The United States would extradite me to France.

In the dark ages, the papacy regularly asked nations to punish individuals for legal actions done in their own country. If the nation did not comply an interdict would be imposed on the entire country or he would call for all faithful Catholics in the country to rise up against the infidels and execute mob justice.

Extraordinary Rendition
This is a fancy name for kidnapping a foreign national from their country to bring them to justice in a country of your choosing. Under the Patriot Act and the new mandate to fight terrorism at any cost, the government is kidnapping people and taking them to places like Egypt where they can be interrogated and tortured.

"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Department of State, 1948.

Models of Justice
There are three basic models of justice. They are based on some formal legal system.

1. Biblical Justice. This is based on the laws that combine civil and religious laws under a single civil penalty system. The government enforces both civil and religious law.
2. Civil Justice. These are laws based on enforcing only civil laws by the government.
3. Mob justice. This occurs when the public executes justice when they believe that the legal system will not guarantee them the verdict that they want. Anarchy results when people ignore the law and everyone becomes a law unto himself.
   
   Media justice. This is a specific form of mob justice. In this, the media attempts to do by persuasion, what a mob does by force. The problem with this is that the system assumes that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, the media becomes the judge and jury when it decides what the facts of the case determines and ruthlessly sets out to promote these facts.
   
   In several celebrated cases, the media deliberately broadcast positions or images that represented their opinions without showing all the evidence that contradicts these facts, or without actively retracting errors as vigorously as they promoted the fables.
   In protecting one position, usually that of the prosecution, they seldom correct errors that condemned the accused. This plays into the psychological games of the police who will use any tactic to break someone they have decided is guilty. They will manufacture images where none exists and the police is usually responsible for much of this falsehood.
   • False Reenactments. I have seen images of a neck with choke marks where evidence later proved did not exist. The police leaked a story that the victim was choked and the media took a picture of a model with make up that represented the alleged choke marks. When they presented the story they made you assume that these were actual crime scene photographs.
   • Lying by Omission. In the famous Jon-Benet Ramsey case, the open and shut argument was that there was snow on the ground and the only foot prints were ones leading to the house. Therefore, the killer must have been part of the house. The problem was, while all the media was presenting these facts and showing this evidence, that inches away and around most of the house there was no snow!
   • Inane Arguments and False Science. They will make ridiculous arguments and hope that the public is stupid enough to believe it. For example, when an accused man was found with changed appearance, he was supposed to be in a new disguise so that he could flee to Mexico. The problem is that he had dyed his hair weeks ago and met with his friends. It is absolutely stupid for someone to assume a new disguise and walk around for weeks so that people can see it. Someone who assumed a new disguise would change his appearance after he had started running, so that descriptions would be based on his old appearance. Duh!
     The more practical reason is that he changed his appearance to get some temporary relief from the hungry horde of fetid, rotting media hounds who would not let him walk around in peace. Because they assumed he was guilty and they were going to hound him until he confessed.
     
     In this particular case, I have heard so much evidence that "proved" his guilt that I knew was ridiculous from a scientific standpoint, that I wonder why the media would poison public opinion with such garbage while they ignored other credible evidence that was in favor of the accused.
     
     Since the Ramsey case and since researching police tactics, I have come to the conclusion that I will never believe anything that is reported and I will choose to jump off the bandwagon that the media and the prosecution are trying to railroad people into.
     There is a reason for the presumption of innocence.

   Media justice unfairly promotes one position and recklessly contaminates public opinion in the process. The police hire public relations firms and promote their case in the public instead of protecting the rights and privacy of the accused and the victims. As part of this promotion they deliberately tell lies or make associations that are negative. The media always becomes the puppet of the police as reporters try to be the next Perry Mason and Paul Drake. The accused is usually denied fair treatment.

Under any of these systems there are two models for determining the process by which justice is delivered.

1. The Law as a Weapon. The procedures are used against the accused. It is based on the goal of not allowing the guilty to go free. The biggest problem is the corruption of this system by the powerful and the vast number of the innocent who are destroyed.
2. The Law as a Shield. The procedures are used to protect the accused. It is based on the goal of not allowing an innocent to suffer. The biggest complaint is that the victims and their family suffer emotionally under this system. While there are many cases of the guilty being freed, this system works.
   In countries where this principle operates, the police have begun to use the media as the weapon to convict the accused before the trial. There should be an automatic gag order on the prosecution and defense in all cases.

Biblical Justice

Death Penalty Crimes
#	Crime	Text	Public
1	Other Gods	Exodus 22: 20	No
2	Idolatry	Deuteronomy 7: 4	No
2	Witchcraft	Exodus 22: 18	No
3	False prophet	Deuteronomy 12: 10	Yes
4	Work on the Sabbath	Exodus 35: 2	No
5	Disobedient to Parents	Exodus 21: 15, 17	Yes
6	Murder	Genesis 9: 5-6	No
6	Dangerous animal not controlled	Exodus 21: 28-29	Yes
7	Adultery	Leviticus 20: 10	No
7	Incest	Leviticus 20: 11-12, 14, 17	No
7	Homosexuality	Leviticus 20: 13	No
7	Bestiality	Leviticus 20: 15-16	No
7	Rape	Deuteronomy 22: 25	No
8	Kidnapping for Slavery	Exodus 21: 16	No
The death penalty was applied to crimes related to the ten commandments. Specifically it was applied to the first eight commandments that involved physical evidence and physical action. They were not applied to crimes of conscience which could not be measured or witnessed first hand. These are the last two commandments that outlawed lying and covetousness.

Many people want to go to a model of biblical justice. Biblical justice is based on a form of government called a theocracy. Since God is omnipotent, just and merciful, He would ensure that no miscarriage of justice occurred. Under the theocracy, God had more direct communication with people. You could expect an immediate answer from God. Error was impossible if they relied on God.

Because justice was guaranteed, and God was physically present, the punishment was more severe. The death penalty was applied to many crimes, because the crimes were committed against God by a person who had direct evidence of the existence of God. But even under this system it was very difficult to prove guilt and very difficult to apply the death penalty.

Two Witnesses. Two witnesses were needed to bring a charge. (Numbers 35: 20). When you think about this, it is very difficult in most criminal cases because crimes are generally not committed in front of an audience. Therefore, many guilty people must have escaped immediate justice. But since God became the guarantor of justice, we know that the guilty will not go free and that the "hidden sins" would be revealed. The problem was that often, God took many years to dispense justice. Why? Mercy was more important. The redemption of a sinner was a process not a single event. Vengeance was second place to mercy.

Cities of Refuge. God established seven cities throughout Israel. If a person who is guilty of accidental murder can run to these cities he would be safe there. The presumption is that only God could examine motives and even with the presence of two witnesses it is possible for an injustice to occur. Therefore, if God helped you to escape, He was in effect voting for pardon. Other crimes were not protected under this loophole because it is very difficult to "accidentally" commit rape, adultery, incest, idolatry and all the other crimes. All these crimes involved a deliberate act.
Alcohol intoxication would not be a defence because you are responsible for actions because of an object that is known to be dangerous that you continue to associate with.

Death Penalty. Death penalty was applied to crimes against God or against the physical body of another human being.
Since the law required two eye witnesses to convict you, how often do you think that these crimes were punished? Most of these are carried out in secret.

Adultery is a private act. Even if one of the parties accuses the other, neither would be convicted because the only two witnesses will not confirm each others statements.
In the case of disobedience to parents, how often do you think that two parents would turn over their child for punishment under the law?
In the case of the only crime that may be a public act, the owner of a dangerous animal is first given a warning. And there must be witnesses that he was warned.
Biblical justice seems to protect criminals.

Christ also leaned towards mercy. In the story of the woman who was caught in adultery (John 8: 1-11) it was clear that He preferred forgiveness.

But since Israel rejected the theocracy, none has been or will be established by God on earth until the coming of Christ. Therefore biblical justice can no longer be applied fairly. However, the bible predicts two global attempts to establish a theocracy by a religion that claims to have a representative of God on earth who can dispense justice through his infallible connections. The church ruled Europe in the dark ages and it will attempt to rule the whole world again at the end of time.
We have experienced the success of this experiment in the Dark Ages. Hundreds of millions of innocent people died or were tortured and irreparably ruined. Do not let it happen again.

Modern Civil Justice
There are two basic systems of modern justice. One is the Inquisition, the other is like the United States Constitution. Both make different basic assumptions about what is crime, the rights of the accused and the power of the prosecution. Systems like the Constitution came because of the excesses of the Inquisition. They assumed that power does corrupt and that the people needed a court which would be fair, impartial, immune from bribes and include the people.

The United States Constitution : The Law as a Shield
The constitution is more concerned with protecting the innocent than it is with punishing the guilty. The architects of the constitution came from an era when despots ruled and the people were at the mercy of their power and influence. Therefore, the law guaranteed that the people would be protected from those in power and that the excesses of the past, like the Inquisition, would not be repeated. These are the assumptions made under this law:

• Indefinite Detention - The sixth amendment guarantees that people are not held indefinitely by granting a fair and speedy trial. Habeas corpus was universally assumed. The judicial system must produce the arrested person within twenty four hours and prove why they should be arrested.
• Jury Trial - The seventh amendment.
• Innocent until proven guilty.
• The Defense has certain rights which will help them prepare an adequate case.
  • Witness are allowed to testify for the accused.
  • The accused has the right to a lawyer even at state expense.
  • You had the right to know what crime you were charged with.
  • You have the right to see evidence and witnesses.
• Chain of Evidence. Eye witnesses and physical evidence were necessary. Suspicion, gossip, accusation, implication by someone who was tortured might create information for an investigation but should not cause an arrest.
• Witnesses
  • Perjury. If a witness admitted that they were lying, the testimony would not stand.
• Torture or excessive bail was not allowed under the eighth amendment.
  • Self-incrimination. The fifth amendment says that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself.
  • The fourth amendment says that unreasonable search and seizure was not allowed.
• Seizure of property was not allowed under the third amendment.
• Appeal is allowed.

The Inquisition : The Law as a Weapon

Success at what cost?

For those advocating the success of this model in administering justice, it is worth noting that the only success that the Inquisition had was to kill millions of innocent people, destroy dissent and establish the Catholic church. And what were these crimes that disrupted the fabric of the whole family of humanity? Being Protestant, Jewish, Moslem. Being anything except Catholic. Worshipping on the Saturday Sabbath. Smiling or laughing at the ridiculous claims about the power of Mary. Not going to mass. Not obeying the pope on anything that he says, whether or not he is speaking infallibly. Eating fish on Fridays. Not performing idolatrous acts on her feast days. I suppose murder, rape, theft and robbery are included, unless you get a special indulgence to commit this act against the enemies of the church-state. Oh yes, the church granted indulgences to anyone who went on a crusade to kill or convert a heretic. This indulgence granted them immediate access to heaven on death, no matter what crimes they committed in the past, present or future. Do you think that murder, rape and theft decreased? Why would a church allow this? Because the prize was not the murderer or the rapist or a vile pedophile. It was global control of conscience.

The Inquisition was called to stop the spread of heresy. Many thought that heresy was disruptive to society and that the efforts of the church to restore social order was a good motive. This effort to "restore social order" does not imply that there was unrest, demonstrations or anarchy. However, the loss of people to other beliefs could not be tolerated by the church.

So the Inquisitor was appointed by the church and then the accused was handed over to the state for punishment.
Under this system of law, the following procedures and assumptions were allowed.

• Indefinite Detention - was regularly done. The accused would remain in jail until they confessed.
• Jury Trial - did not exist.
• Guilty until proven innocent.
• The Defense
  • No witness was allowed to testify for the accused.
  • No lawyer could defend the accused because they would be charged with defending a heretic.
  • No one could visit or support the accused because they would be charged with helping a heretic. Remember that technically guilt has not been proven. So how could someone prove their innocence under these conditions?
  • Sometimes the accused did not know what crime they were charged with.
  • They were not allowed to see documents related to their cases.
• Chain of Evidence. Eye witnesses and physical evidence were not necessary. Suspicion, gossip, accusation, implication by someone who was tortured was enough to cause an arrest and a conviction.
• Witnesses
  • Perjury. If a witness admitted that they were lying, the perjured testimony would still stand if it could convict the accused. But if the new testimony exonerated the accused then that was not allowed to be used as evidence.
  • Known perjurers were used.
  • Condemned heretics who were probably forced to implicate the accused.
• Torture
  • Self-incrimination. Once a tortured confession was obtained, torture would be suspended and the witness was asked to repeat his confession with the torture chamber in plain view. This was done to satisfy the claim that the confession was received without torture!
  • Accuse Others. The suspect had to implicate someone else. Often a name would be suggested by the inquisitor. This repeated the cycle and could be used to implicate someone else who had been arrested. The fact that the two defendants did not know each other, that the testimony was admitted to be false or that the witness was tortured until they agreed to the testimony was irrelevant.
• Seizure of property.
• Usually no appeal was allowed.

Therefore, on the assumption of guilt, the system was solely designed to make the accused confess. They were not even allowed the chance to attempt to prove that they were innocent.
A guilty verdict was guaranteed every time.

Canon Law
Canon laws are the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. They are unique in that they claim jurisdiction over civil and religious affairs. In this respect they model the Biblical Justice system. However, there is one flaw. We are not a theocracy. The claims of infallibility by the pope are meant to assure the faithful that biblical justice can be applied because of this special relationship with God. But if this assumption is false, we have unleashed a tyrannical demigod on the world.

To administer this system of justice, the church aims to form a one world government. In it there will be a single economic, political, religious and legal system.
One sign of this success is the creation of the world court. A world court has finally been established in which the Vatican has long hoped for this organization where

"those who are responsible for violations of the most heinous crimes which offend the conscience of the human family . . . will fall under the jurisdiction of this Court".

Because all the laws of the church cannot be reformed, if the church has its way heresy will be one of the heinous crimes that will be punished under this court.
So certain "crimes" will be seen as

• Offending the conscience of the human family.
• Disrupting the unity of the whole human race.
• Disrupting families.

Canon Law 751 - Heresy and Apostasy. Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Canon Law 1372 - No Appeals. A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops, is to be punished with a censure.

Canon Law 1369 - Inciting Public Hatred for the Church. A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

Canon Law 1373 - Inciting Public Hatred or Disobedience for the Church. A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

Canon Laws on Education. A Catholic education must be provided by civil government.
Canon Law 793 -

1. Parents, and those who take their place, have both the obligation and the right to educate their children. Catholic parents have also the duty and the right to choose those means and institutes which, in their local circumstances, can best promote the catholic education of their children.
2. Parents have moreover the right to avail themselves of that assistance from civil society which they need to provide a catholic education for their children.

Canon Law 798 - Parents are to send their children to those schools which will provide for their catholic education. If they cannot do this, they are bound to ensure the proper catholic education of their children outside the school.

Canon Law 799 - Christ's faithful are to strive to secure that in the civil society the laws which regulate the formation of the young, also provide a religious and moral education in the schools that is in accord with the conscience of the parents.

Canon Law 797 - Catholic Education. This laws sounds exactly like the School Voucher Bill arguments.
Parents must have a real freedom in their choice of schools. For this reason Christ's faithful must be watchful that the civil society acknowledges this freedom of parents and, in accordance with the requirements of distributive justice, even provides them with assistance.

These laws sound a lot like the hate speech rhetoric and legislation and the attempts to get the government to finance religion through school choice and charitable choice programs.

Towards a Modern Inquisition

The Legal Noose is Tightening
The Constitution Common Law (The World) "hate speech" laws Patriot Act (United States)   ICC The Next Dark Ages   Magna Charta Corpus Juris (European Union)

Three sections of the world are establishing laws and court systems based on the Inquisition. You think their noble goal is suppression of terrorism, public safety and harmony or prosecuting "real" criminals. But the prophecies warn us about the return of the dark ages through the same powers that ruled over the ancient persecutions.

1. The United States. Established the Patriot Act in 2001. However, the provisions of that law were hidden in many other laws in 1996. The Clinton administration must have been secretly preparing for a legal war on terrorism.
2. European Union. Established the Corpus Juris system in 1998 to prosecute financial crimes. However, the architects of the law intend it to be the model for all European Union law. It appears that within the member states, the national laws are conforming to this model.
   In England, David Blunkett, the politician who is trying to change British law to conform to this model also tried to get a law that makes it illegal to "incite religious hatred" in their new terrorism laws. Here we see the attempt to make a criminal offense of words not actions.
   
   The Canadian version of this law (Bill C-250) is now being used to makes it illegal to read certain parts of the Bible. If a homosexual feels uncomfortable because of your words you can be sent to jail for five years.
   
   Even in the United States we allow the KKK to have public demonstrations, own internet sites and say whatever they want. What does religious speech have to do with terrorism? Nothing, unless you make the great leap backwards into thinking that religious interpretation that is not Vatican inspired causes social revolution.
3. The World. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been established to prosecute the most heinous crimes. But they use methods of the Inquisition and appear to be going beyond the bounds of the "most heinous crimes" to include "mental crimes" and environmental crimes. Some countries are accusing others of destroying the global environment by driving SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicles)! It appears to be a forum where countries can take revenge against others.

Hidden in all these is the ultimate agenda of the church. They are already establishing the precedent that religious proselytizing, spreading a non-catholic gospel or heresy is a mental crime that is disruptive to human society. Therefore, in all these laws we see veiled reference to these two broad concepts.

1. Mental harm
2. Disrupting society or having the potential to do so.

Both can be punished because of our words, not our actions.

Efficient Justice? So court proceedings can be swift and efficient and can guarantee conviction of those we know are guilty under these conditions.

1. If we are omnipotent.
2. If we are infallible through special contact with the omnipotent God.
3. Lacking omnipotence and exuding with self-righteousness, if we set up a judicial system which is modeled after the inquisition we can obtain efficient prosecutions. But justice will not be possible.

Therefore, under the banner of efficient justice, many democratic nations are moving to a body of law that models the inquisition. The surprising thing is that these laws exist side-by-side with the most enlightened thinking of modern man. For example, the constitution forbids torture, yet those who hold defendants based on the Patriot Act allow torture. Therefore, there is no comfort in the stated aims of a law. What matters is the procedures and the judicial staff that are set in place to administer the law. In the right kind of atmosphere anything is possible, regardless of the law. And somehow, these laws and procedures from the dark ages are allowed to be applied while we are under the illusion that we are maintaining the civility and fairness of principles like the great United States Constitution.

The United States Patriot Act

The Supreme Court Rules On June 28, 2004 the supreme court made a decision about the status of prisoners held as enemy combatants indefinitely without a lawyer or charges or trial or any due process. The court ruled that although United States citizens can be held as enemy combatants, and they can be held indefinitely without charges, they and foreign detainees must eventually have access to a lawyer and the court. That still leaves so much room for delay and foot dragging and abuse. But, we have the correct legal situation to fulfill prophecy. We can be held indefinitely as enemies of the state, but will have access to a court where we must defend our faith. But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. (Mark 13: 9) So the Patriot Act system remains, but the prisoners have a right to present evidence in court. Justices Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas sided with the government. Now we know what the church wants! As of November 2005, it appears that the Supreme Court intends to reverse these decisions and allow the President to do whatever he wants to those he thinks deserve no justice. Recent Supreme court appointments are of people who agree with him. So the majority who made the 5:4 ruling is now in the minority. So the president gets a second bite at the apple while the status of the people at risk has remained unchanged during this time. This sounds like double jeopardy.

The provisions of the Patriot Act were already signed into law by the 104th congress in 1996. Why? And why was there not a public debate and a loud outcry? Do you think the media has been bullied into submission? If there was a sexual scandal linked to this then maybe they would have gotten of their big, fat "sit upons" to report the threat to our liberties.

Despite the fact that the constitution provides such wonderful protection, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ( U.S.A. Patriot Act) exists.
It is assumed that under a two-tiered system of justice, only the guilty terrorist will disappear into the void of unsupported government accusations and the good citizen will rise above the scum of close examination on the wings of the mighty constitution. It is assumed that the constitution protects the guilty and the Patriot Act closes these loop holes. The original law itself has these provisions which are against the constitution.

• Sunset Provisions. The legislators wanted certain powers to end after a certain period. They were concerned that these laws were too harmful to our civil rights.
• Sneak and Peak. They can search your property secretly without telling you before or after the search.
• Indefinite Detention.
• Special Prosecution. Military Courts are used to guarantee justice. However, these procedures break all the laws of the United States Constitution. And it was accepted because we thought an American citizen would not be subject to this treatment and non-citizens do not deserve the protection of the constitution.
  This was your first mistake.
  1. The trials are secret and you have no right to be there.
  2. There is no appeal.
  3. No trial by jury.
  4. No right of cross examination.
  5. You cannot testify for yourself.
  6. Hearsay evidence is allowed.
  7. There is the presumption of guilt.
  8. Guilt is by 2/3 vote.
  9. You may not have access to a lawyer. Prisoners do not have the right to choose their military counsel.
  10. You and your lawyer cannot see the evidence against you.
  11. There is an attitude that you do not deserve normal rights.
  12. Torture is allowed. Any evidence taken by torture is allowed.
  13. Provides no right of appeal against conviction or sentence to a higher court, or access to redress for any human rights violations that may occur during arrest, detention or prosecution. So if they beat and torture a false confession out of you, that does not matter.
  14. Bypasses the normal principles of law and rules of evidence applied in the trials of people charged with criminal offences in the United States courts.
  15. Even if you win your case despite all the insurmountable odds, the government can still detain you for the same reason that it lost the case. They just have to believe that you are a threat in their omnipotent minds and you disappear forever. We now have the situation where the government knows people are innocent but are not releasing them.
  16. Now we find out that if you are found not guilty after all these restrictions, the government can still hold you indefinitely.
  17. No speedy trial guaranteed. You can be held for over fifty years without charges!
  FISA is the court that has secret trials, authorizes secret searches and warrants.
  
  Donald Rumsfeld: The First Inquisitor General of the United States
  In June 2006 the supreme court said that the court system was unconstitutional. It advised the government to go to congress to make laws to authorize these actions. On August 2,2006 a draft proposal of the law was leaked to the Washington Post (page A4). This proposal goes beyond anything they previously had. It gave all the previous powers in addition to some new ones.
  • By the Will of the Almighty Rumsfled. The secretary of defense can add any crimes to the list of crimes prosecuted under the juristiction of this court at his own discretion in order to conduct his witch hunt on anyone. This is the man who could not define torture, even if it plucked out his fingernails. So do not remove the tags from that pillow! I know that they are going to call criticism sedition and throw all their critics in the dungeon.
  • Any Person. They have built in the ability to expand the jurisdiction of this court. Any person can be brought before this court whether or not they belong to or support a terrorist organization.
  • Death Penalty. They lowered the number of votes required for the death penalty from seven to five, less than 50%! Normal civilian courts and traditional military tribunals require 12 votes.

Patriot II (The Domestic Security Enhancement Act)

Aah, The Inhumanity!

It bothers me that you do not care. It bothers me that you care more about your next paycheck, cable television, DVD, cell phones, car taxes, a vacation, a new car and stock prices. It bothers me that you are willing to trade the possibility of terror avoided for the reality of terror inflicted on an innocent. It bothers God too. That is why this generation must suffer the economic punishment of Revelation 18.

On January 10, 2003, John Ashcroft sent a draft of the law called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" (DSEA). It has been suspended as a result of the bad publicity. But its provisions are being carried out in Guantanamo Bay and are probably privately being entered into law just as the provisions in the Patriot act were quietly entered into law in 1996. Here are some of the provisions:

• No Expiration. Many "sunset provisions" that were supposed to expire in five years will not. These are the laws that were so troublesome that legislators only passed them if they would expire. Sixteen expired provisions were extended. Fourteen were made permanent! However, as I stated in my page on laws, the original provisions that effect my eschatology did not expire under the first version of the law.
  • Home can be searched without your knowledge. They can plant electronic listening devices or search you home for names and locations of other members of your church.
  • Internet activity can be monitored without a court order. Bible study chat rooms can be monitored, shut down and participants can be traced.
  • Phone records can be obtained without a court order. Conversations and locations can be obtained.
  • Credit records can be obtained without a court order. Flight to avoid persecution can be tracked if you use electronic transactions.
• Deportation. Legal permanent residents can and are being deported without any charge or evidence even if the offence is not related to terror.
  A British born person who is now a citizen was detained and questioned. No evidence and no charges were filed but he was returned to Britain because of a marijuana charge that he had in the 1960's. Forty years ago! He has a wife and family and has never had any problems since. We have had many presidents who "lusted in their hearts", committed adultery, were alcoholics, and took other drugs.
  On August 24, Sixty Minutes showed similar stories this time involving Arab men. Some had families with young children. One person was arrested and detained and beaten for months. What did he do? Unfortunately, he used the same Internet cafe that was used by one of the hijackers to send an e-mail. The story did not say that both events occurred on the same day. I assume it was not.
  All the men could not be connected to terrorism yet they were all deported on the tiniest excuse.
  It appears that this is a malevolent application of the law. And this is occurring in calm times.
• Citizenship.

  The Lone Wolf Terrorist November 2005. They have created a class of people who they can subject to these laws. These are people who they cannot connect to any organization, but the claim that they are "in sympathy" with the enemies of the United States. We have seen that their definition of "in sympathy" means any opposition to the president. Sedition Act. There is also a simultaneous movement to bring back a sedition act. This means that any criticism of the government is defined as treason. Several media critics are calling for this to silence public officials like politicians and other media. This means that you have to agree with torture, raping of children, gassing and burning civilian populations because these actions are necessary to protect our society. I do not think that God intended for us to agree to this.

  We accepted military tribunals because a distinction has been made in the minds of the public between citizens and non-citizens, terrorists and the rest of the law abiding public. You assume that a citizen will not come under the jurisdiction of this court.
  
  This was your second mistake.
  
  Therefore, all the court has to do is fiddle with the definition of who is or is not a citizen. As you will see, even if you are born in this country, on the fourth of July you can be stripped of you citizenship and fall into the void that is named the Patriot Act.
  
  Under the provisions of Patriot II, a United States citizen (born or naturalized) can lose their citizenship without formally requesting to do so. By redefining words they say that by your actions they can infer that you want to give up your citizenship. Therefore, they are not even taking responsibility for stripping you of your citizenship. They are twisting their rhetoric to say that you "asked" to be relieved of your citizenship by your actions.
  
  This was the same slick redefinition of words used to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay so that they are called "unlawful combatants" and not "prisoners of war". Under this definition they hold them in wire cages and torture them. And the American public generally did not care because they were terrorists who did not deserve any comfort.
  I will demonstrate that in democratic countries these "terrorist actions" are as simple as preaching a gospel that offends someone. In France it may soon be wearing a hat that cannot even hide a gun. Some people claim that they will never be that rigid in applying the law.
  
  This will be your third and final mistake.
• Assets Taken. I also believe that because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103 which became public law 104-191 on August 21, 1996, that property can be confiscated from people who lose their citizenship. The Patriot Act itself allows for forfeiture of assets.
  This tactic became a very profitable action for the church in the Dark Ages. The rich were often accused of heresy and their property was taken. The rich therefore learned to promote the welfare of the church with all their money and power.
• Indefinite Detention. The government can refuse to release any information about someone who is detained until they are actually charged. But they are already doing that anyway. Hundreds are held at Guantanamo Bay for almost two years and they still have not been charged. During this time unreliable tortured information is being extracted and their families wait at home with no idea about what has happened. And you still do not care as long as the threat level is green.
• Suspend Habeas Corpus. Indefinite detention occurs because Habeas Corpus is suspended. This has not happened since the civil war. And then it was done for an unjust reason.
• Liars Protected. Businesses and people who spy and give private or wrong information will be exempt from legal actions. This provides no safeguard against malicious actions.
• Illegal Searches Protected. Police officers are exempt from legal action if they were following orders while doing illegal searches. This brings us back to the spurious nature of the charges on which the orders were made. The police can search anyone, anywhere, anytime and claim that they gave orders based on information that they are not required to verify from people who will not be punished for lying.
• Extradition to a Foreign Government. These actions can be requested by a foreign government. So, just like medieval times, the Vatican can ask for citizens to be persecuted. Although this scenario is just a glimmer in my eye, it is now legally possible that because of mutually agreed upon infraction of the law the Vatican can request this government to arrest, interrogate and torture. Sounds familiar?
• Judicial Appointments. In March 2007 we learned about another secret provision that the idiots who passed the law without reading it missed. The powers fired their own conservative lawyers who would not play along with political abuses. They have the power to do this and bypass congress when they appoint judges permanently. According to the constitution, congress is supposed to approve these appointments. Now the little shrub wants to make appointments that his inadequate mind thinks will save the world when the whole world knows that he has turned out to be a greater threat to the universe.

It is the Inquisition. No lawyer, no contact with family, no charge, no evidence, torture, stealing assets and indefinite detention or banishment after leaving you destitute.

Ouija Board Justice. In the military tribunal, guilt is not by an absolute majority. Burden of proof is now on the accused! The defendant does not have a right to see a lawyer and does not for years. Tortured testimony can be taken. The defense does not have the right to cross examine. The defense is severely handicapped. But if the tribunal of military officers (not a jury of your peers) finds you not guilty you can still be held indefinitely!
How? How? How is this possible?
If the almighty government in their wisdom thinks you are a threat or will be a threat then they can keep you even if they have no evidence in a court that is stacked in their favor.
And all of this can be requested by another government. Witnesses, officers of the court and the government can lie without any fear of accountability.
It is a justice system that has nothing to do with justice but everything to do with efficiently removing a targeted group.
They are persecution laws.

** Update **. It seems that the provisions of the Patriot Act II is being developed in the dark and misty dungeons of secrecy. And they will be thrust upon us. In June 2005, the government is not only seeking to make the laws permanent, it is trying to add more restrictions. The media has no coverage on the issue or what is at stake. They cut off testimony on the abuses. They simply relay the message that the Patriot act is protecting our country. By June 7 the FBI has been granted the ability to search without warrants. They do not even have to go to a secret court to convince a judge. Any person in the FBI can issue a "National Security Letter" that begins this process. Imagine if such a person has a vendetta against a person or a church! Justice is now in the hands of private citizens and one church. Guess which church is deep in the pockets of the FBI and CIA, with many member in top positions?

The FBI is watching groups such as the Quakers, ACLU, environmentalists, PETA and any group that advocates peace. In fact they are watching groups that do not agree with their business policies. This has nothing to do with security. It is a political vendetta. Already absolute power has absolutely corrupted. Or the absolutely corrupted have taken absolute power.
Imagine thinking that an organization that call themselves "The Society of Friends", that opposed slavery and love peace can be investigated. This is not about terrorism. This is about silencing groups that will oppose inhumane and barbaric behavior. Even Peacefully. It is investigating the ACLU because this organization protects the Bill of Rights and challenges any encroachment on them.
One famous man used such high ideals to call the frightened and prejudiced. He also set up gulags and tortured. Then they murdered. Then they murdered. Then they murdered.

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.

Creating The Police State: Local Spying
The government is experimenting with mobilizing and managing the citizens. In this effort, two organizations have emerged.

• Citizen Spies. In August 2002, the Terrorism Information and Prevention System was launched. It gives citizens a means to report suspicions without fear of reprisals or liability. As part of this program, the government is training any personnel who have the right or permission to access private homes. They are taught to look for suspicious activity. So repairmen, mailmen, delivery personnel, housing inspectors and utility employers are a part of this army. My apartment is usually inspected once every two years. Last year, 2004, I had a brand new inspector. He looked so military I had to chuckle. So it was no surprise to me when my landlord informed me this year that inspections will now be annual. Of all the people who could come into a private home, this is the only group of workers who have the right to go everywhere and look into everything. What amazed me was that I expected this. I looked at all the types of professions who were being trained and I concluded that only the housing inspector truly has the type of access that could give any meaningful information.
  I wonder if private homes will suddenly start getting an excuse for regular intrusive inspections. It will probably be done as a pretence to evaluate property for taxation. They may even sell it as a tax relief program.
• Citizen Militia. The minute man project emerged in April 2005. It is used to patrol our porous borders. We are mobilizing more citizens with guns and a feeling of power. And we are fostering the "us against them" nationalism that never led to any good in the past.

Courage: Into the Mouth of the Lion
John Ashcroft, December 6, 2001.

To those who scare peace loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to American enemies.

King Darius made a law that no one should make a petition to any God for a certain period of time. The penalty was death. Daniel would daily go to his window and pray towards Jerusalem in public. This was his normal practice. When the law was passed he did not close the window and pray in private or leave the window open and pray from further within the house so that he could not be seen.
He maintained his loyalty. He gave God his best. He stepped into the mouth of the lion.
He did not find a compromise between his love for God and his fear of an unjust law.

Neither can I.

It is ironic that we are being criticized for defending the constitution. Ashcroft implies that the Patriot Act cannot be criticized. It is as if we are giving away top secret information. He implies that but for our meddling and belly aching, that somehow the Muslims could not articulate the huge discrepancy between our constitution and our actions. His comment unfairly characterizes those who defend the wisdom of the constitution in the following manner:

The Phantom of Liberty Past It seems that while Mr. Ashcroft was waxing eloquent about "phantoms of liberty lost", that the spooks (Gonzalez and Carr) came to his hospital bed while he was on pain medication. He was having surgery for a problem with his pancreas in March 2004. The president wanted him to agree to the secret domestic spying program and his deputy who was left in charge would not agree to this. So the spooks trotted off to Ashcroft's death bed on their little goat feet and tried to convince him to agree. To his credit he said no. While lying on his back, his backbone kicked in. Finally, it appears that Ashcroft recognizes that only God is good and humans are a degenerate species who should not even be given the authority to wipe their own behinds. Needless to say, the fairy tale does not end there. James Comey (Ashcroft's assistant), Jack Goldsmith and Patrick Philbin later resigned. In 2005, James Robertson, a judge on the FISA court also resigned in protest. Both Ashcroft and his deputy and that crowd were not invited back to King George's tea party in the next administration. And they never got the cheap gold watch and the shiny medal and the promotion. They got the boot. This is an update to what I wrote three years ago. While Ashcroft may have had his idealism tarnished. I would just like to say that there are real, honest people who still reflect the character of God.

• Not Peace Loving. You are not for peace if you defend the constitution. You are for peace if you allow the government to torture and indefinitely imprison suspects. I would say that acting humanely will not hurt us in the face of a group of people who do not fear death, fear God, believe that God will reward them, believe we are infidels and have proven that they will stop at nothing to kill us. They are several billion strong. We cannot kill them all.
• Assist Terrorists. He is accusing them of treason. Giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. This is a lie. We are defending the constitution. I am defending the golden rule.
  This concept of "giving aid and comfort" is so broad that it could mean any rhetoric that does not agree with the government. It is not limited to directly providing food, money and shelter.
• Erode Unity. We cannot be unified under a moral wrong. Germany tried it and lost their soul in the bargain. I intend to keep mine.
• Ammunition to Enemies. This is the only truth. We are teaching our enemies about love, justice and fairness.
• Treason. He is essentially accusing us of treason. Recently FOX news personalities have been calling for the government to investigate and jail liberal media organization and others who oppose the president and his war.

Lost liberty is not a phantom, Mr. Ashcroft. It is a real tragedy.

Consider Adam and Eve. The only way one can reconcile what happened in Eden with the actions of God is to realize that liberty and freedom of conscience was more important than the billions of innocent unborn. God did not intervene with one final appeal when Eve held the forbidden fruit in her hand. God did not sterilize her to prevent billions of unborn innocents from suffering.
He threw us into the mouth of the lion.
Why?
The only reasonable answer is that liberty of conscience was worth the cost. He would repair the damage.

I know that I must face God some day. I would like to do it with clean hands, a clear conscience and the courage to speak up about evil. The bible repeatedly warns that morality cannot be achieved by force because persecution is the final option. To prevent this concentration of power, God forbid the family of kings and priests to perform the same work. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

One shameful fact of my church is that although they did not actively participate in some social injustice they did nothing to prevent it or express their displeasure. They accommodated it. It took the government to force my church to admit black patients in their hospitals. They were content with living with segregation, even if it meant that they were sending people to their deaths by denying treatment. They never found a nonviolent or noncoercive way to voice their objection because that would cause them physical pain. Or loss of membership. We do not want to make waves. I wonder whose church they were protecting? In my gospel, you absorb pain, but you do not inflict pain or watch it being inflicted. Now we proudly claim that Soujourner Truth was a member of the church. But we probably did not support her or her underground railroad. The Quakers have an honorable legacy that Jesus is proud of. I am proud of them.
When we behave like Christ, we will get into trouble even when we do not seek trouble. It cannot be avoided. Just having a different point of view invites mocking and derision. The gospel requires us to turn the other cheek and to give our coat also when someone takes our shirt. This does not mean hiding in the corner, hoping that we can pass by undetected. We are being backed into a corner. One of passive compliance and the other of moral courage. I choose the path of moral courage and passive resistance by my freedom of verbal expression. When they justified torture they crossed the line. When they raped children to coerce parents they erased the line. And I say, not in my name will anyone torture, rape, terrorize, steal, oppress or enforce Christianity under the label of freedom and security.

The Unconstitutional Power Grab
I am inserting this paragraph under the umbrella of American laws because the power abuses that have occurred since I wrote this have been simply breathtaking. In the dead of night Republican lawmakers are inserting laws which were never debated and which give enormous powers into the final copy of a legislation between the time the final draft was debated and the corrections printed the next day for the final vote. This is a tactic from the inquisition that was used in fifteenth century France. The president is spying on American citizens, we have secret prisons around the world where we are torturing people, raping children to force parents to talk and creating a mockery of decent human behavior. Like the Nazi German doctors, military doctors are now participating in the torture by assessing the best psychological weaknesses to attack and by medically inducing consciousness so that the prisoners are conscious for longer periods of torture. It is a nightmare.
Even after God asked me to write about the effect of personality and interrogation techniques in 2001, and to investigate laws in 2003 and the role of the media, I still did not think that such a breakdown in decency could occur so quickly under relatively calm circumstances. I thought that the strange and urgent compulsion to investigate and write these things was fascinating and informative. I never thought that I would be living the nightmare.
It was as if a horde of bandits had been waiting for generations to rape the constitution and they are now in the throes of an orgy and a feeding frenzy. Now all their waste is being dumped on us. They foul the air with their lying lips and from the other end they crap on the rest of us who are living down stream and down wind.

Over 150 years ago, Adventists said that the constitution would be changed. But because of the contempt for the law and the process by which a law is made and challenged, it appears that the change and implementation comes before the challenge in court. And this effectively subjects the citizens to a period of a reign of terror until someone challenges it in a court. And we only hope that court is filled with decent men. Well, the court has also been stacked with despots. We now have a solid Catholic majority on the supreme court, ready to implement canon law. These congressmen are even writing draconian laws that include the provision that the courts have no authority to challenge the law. Is our country being run by monarchs who think that they have a divine right to rule? Welcome to our brave new world.

Speaking about roving wire taps in a April 2004 Buffalo interview, the president said "nothing has changed, you need a court order for a wire tap ... when you think about the patriot act, the constitutional guarantees are in place ... We value the constitution". That was a lie, because the man is a disgraceful liar. They had been illegally wiretapping for three years and last week they claimed that the constitution and the patriot act gave them the power.
The law that allows domestic wire taps is very liberal. You can get the court order retroactively, so time is not an issue. In all the years that it has existed the secret FISA court has only denied four of the over sixty thousand requests. The only reason that they broke the law is because they want to wire tap their political and industrial enemies without leaving a record. And they want to do whatever they want because they are lawless. They waste precious resources and man power infiltrating environmentalist groups with little old women. They abandoned Osama in Afghanistan to grab the oil in Iraq. They are not fighting terrorism. They are grabbing wealth and power.
I am now inclined to think that any future "terrorist" attack will be orchestrated by them to keep us living in fear and secure their power.

The Unity Chair

More Stupid Laws from the Minds of Stupid People. We now have a scenario where anyone can surreptitiously insert any stupid unconstitutional law into a bill that is being voted on and it suddenly becomes the law. Someone could decide that every American needs to show their patriotism by owning a chair painted in red, write and blue. We have the freedom to put the stars anywhere we wish. But regulations require fifty.
The country has three weeks to comply and miraculously some company who owns a chair manufacturing company just happens to sell a state approved chair. By the fourth week, the police could be inspecting homes and arresting people all over the country. People could languish in jail until someone challenges the law. If the federal and state appeals court and the supreme court are stacked with men who believe in the "chair for public good" then we are doomed to sit in another chair. Four men could turn the country upside down if congress is as idiotic as this one.
The powers granted under the patriot act are unconstitutional and immoral and we are still plagued by them after four years. Most of the people arrested, tortured and languishing in jail because of it have never been found guilty of any of the original charges even under the military tribunal system that rubber stamps their evil deeds. Most of the supposed confessions are to lesser offenses and were made under torture. They deport people who had one arrest for marijuana possession in the 1960's and count that as a triumph for the power of the patriot act. Under these metrics, they would count it a victory if they could convict you of spitting on the sidewalk and cutting off the labels on your sofa if they could not prove that you were manufacturing nuclear weapons.
When I made up the French Fashion police scenario I thought that was ridiculous, then two years later the French started banning hats! So, maybe there is a unity chair in your future?

The European Union: Corpus Juris

An Example of European Laws » No evidence is required for an arrest. » You can be held for 116 days without a charge. » There is no trial by jury. » The first trial is before one judge. » Either side can request a new trial. » The second trial is before three judges. » You can make a final appeal to the Hague. People love this kind of system when they "want something done". Judges are very powerful.

It is like the Patriot Act of the European Union and it became law in 1998. This is a plan originally prepared by the European Union commission at the request of the European Parliament, to handle fraud against the budget. The details were written in a secret meeting in Spain, Ireland and finally in Rome. Most Catholic countries are modeled after this law. Countries that would have been affected were not informed so that they could make an impact.
"I wonder why", she said stupidly?

This model European criminal code will later to be extended to all types of crime. Here are the provisions that are modeled after the inquisition that was very successful at theft and murder.

• Special Courts and Prosecutors. It will set up a European Public Prosecutor who will function exactly like the Inquisitor General. He will have over-riding jurisdiction throughout Europe, to instruct national judges to issue arrest warrants against suspects.
• No Jury. Trial by Jury model is replaced with the model used under the inquisition. The cases are then to be tried by special courts, consisting of professional judges and "excluding simple jurors and lay magistrates". Not only are we too simple to study the Bible we are too simple to judge criminal cases.
  
  How could this have happened? And why are people more interested in football games than their rights? When the Adventist church kept saying that these laws would come and on the heels of it enforced religion, everyone laughed. Now that part of this prophecy is here, people are willing to assume that it will not be taken to the extreme. But the point is that you have already given them permission to take it to the extreme. And how many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?
• International Arrests. Those arrested can be transported to other countries and the special prosecutor can issue warrants for arrest in any country.
• Indefinite Detention. People can be held in custody for indefinite periods pending investigation. This was later changed to a six month detention, renewable for three months at a time without a maximum limit. What is the difference? None. It is still indefinite detention, whether or not the government surfaces every three months to request and obtain continued incarceration. No doubt they will make this inconvenience efficient.
• Double Jeopardy. You can be retried again and again for the same offence until they obtain a conviction or you are ruined financially.
• Guilty until Proven Innocent.
• No Evidence. There is no obligation to produce prosecution evidence and no right to a public hearing during this time.
• No Rights. There is no "due process" and there are no Miranda Rights.

It rapes the Magna Charta and the laws of many Protestant nations who are joining the European Union. In England, the Criminal Justice Bill is designed to make British law conform with the principles of Corpus Juris. Most other European Catholic states model that law.

The International Criminal Court
The statute authorizing the creation of the court was adopted at an international conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. Rome, meddling again?
"I wonder why?", she asked stupidly.
These laws are modeled after Corpus Juris. The mission of this court which originally convened in Rome is to prosecute the most serious crimes. It was probably started to curb leaders of sovereign nations who are guilty or are in the process of committing these crimes.
But it seems to be going beyond this mission to the prosecution of crimes that should be left to the individual nations. And some provisions under each category are too broad.

Again, like the Corpus Juris, we see Rome at the center of these laws. Read the prophecies and ask yourself why?
The tribunal came into force on July 1, 2002. This court was established to prosecute certain crimes.

• Article 6. Genocide. Among these crimes are "Mental harm" and "Imposing measures to prevent births".
  Under Genocide, is the crime of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". This could not only include abortion but the distribution of birth control pills which is a crime in the Catholic church. The statute should have read "forcibly or secretly imposing measures". The law had no trouble with the use of the term "forcibly" in other areas, but it left this category very broad.
  Did you ever think you would be guilty of genocide by simply taking a birth control pill or by distributing them? Pharmacists all across America are refusing to fill these prescriptions. And do not let them fool you into thinking that it is just controversial medicines like RU-286 that may actually prevent the implantation of a new embryo. They refuse to fill all types of birth control.
• Article 7. Crimes against Humanity. One vague crime is "other inhumane acts causing serious injury to mental health".
  • Under Crimes against Humanity is "other inhumane acts which cause serious injury to mental health". In France, religious instruction between consenting individuals for the purpose of conversion is called "mind control". Soon there will be no more Bible studies under this law.
  • Committing Outrages on Personal Dignities. (Article 8, 2b xxi and 8 2c ii). The Vatican considers efforts to teach the gospel a crime that fits this category. The crime of rape and other such personal crimes is already listed. So this additional provision is superfluous, vague and too broad.
• Article 8. War Crimes. These include willful killing or causing great suffering, torture and inhumane treatment, wanton destruction of property and stealing property, denying a prisoner of war a fair trial, forcing a prisoner to serve in your army, unlawful deportation, unlawful confinement, taking hostages, attacking civilian targets and many more acts of cruelty and unnecessary destruction.
  
  The United Nations lost any credibility when it provided exemptions from war crimes prosecution to powerful nations and allowed them to torture. They are demonstrating the behavior prophesied about them in Revelation. The nations will bow to the will of the United States and the Catholic Church.
• Article 121 and 123. Crime of Aggression. These crimes and acts of aggression have not been defined as of 2004. There is speculation that the USA invasion of Iraq would be guilty of this crime.
  But I believe that efforts to do evangelism will also fall into this category. Uninvited people knocking on your door to talk about religion certainly seems aggressive. The crime of attempting to change beliefs is a serious violation of canon law.

Torture. Although the laws do not allow torture, there seems to be an exception. Torture, "except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

So if the torture happens because of the "lawful sanctions" it is allowed!
Here is an example of the summary of the law specifically forbidding one thing while the administrative rules permit it.

War Crimes Tribunal . If the procedures of the War Crimes Tribunal is a model for the future, then international law is in trouble. Remember that this court was set up to prosecute the must heinous, public crimes that had a great effect on large groups of people. You have the impression that evidence and witnesses should not be a problem. But the tribunal did the following:

• Secrecy. It used secret witnesses.
• The prosecutor can use evidence in the trial and keep the source confidential (Rule 70).
• A witness can give the prosecutor evidence in confidence then refuse to tell either the prosecutor or in court how this evidence was obtained. This means that liars and malicious government agencies can fabricate charges and still be protected.
• Cross-Examination. It denied the defense the right to cross-examine witnesses.
• Under rule 71, a witness can give a deposition (testimony in writing outside the court) and they are not cross-examined by the defense. In a normal deposition both sides can cross-examine this witness.
• Indefinite Detention. Defendants were held for an indefinite period. Prisoners were held for over a year without being charged with any crime.
• Double Jeopardy. Rule 99 allows the arrest of someone who has been acquitted of the charges if the prosecutor will appeal the verdict.
• Self-Incrimination. Rule 90 forces a person to testify against himself.

As you can see, even though this is a court that should be overwhelmed with evidence, it is not set up to administer justice even though it has all the advantages. It is set up to showcase a predetermined public conviction. The presumption about the cases tried in this court is that the behavior was so widespread and public that there should not be a lack of evidence or witnesses. Yet, if these legal entities have to resort to these tactics to prove their case then any of the following is true:

1. They have no evidence to support their claims.
2. The court is a formality for imposing punishment on those that it has already determined guilty.

Other International Regulations
United Nations: Religious Freedom. Sometimes the lofty laws of the United Nations appear to represent the most noble aspirations. However, subsequent additions will make the law ambiguous so that it can support a future one world religious control.
For example, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'.

But it also says the following:

"no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice."

The church is interpreting proselytizing as this type of coercion. The French called it "mind control".

Banking Regulations.
It started as a noble effort to rid the world of drug and weapons trafficking by targeting money laundering. At first it targeted cash transactions over $10,000 and required the bank to submit a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). Now, all banks must develop a profile of all depositors so that they can determine suspicious transactions of any amount. This profile determines how much income and expenses you should have monthly. Any amount greater than these are "suspicious activity".

The "Know Your Customer" (KYC) regulations are becoming law around the world. It was initiated on April 28, 1989 in Paris by the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), as a five year plan to be completed between 1999-2004 to introduce KYC to the world.

The summary on a report, "Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance" states the following:

As proposed, the regulation would require each nonmember bank to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' source of funds; determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers; monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions; and report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FDIC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulation. By requiring insured nonmember banks to determine the identity of their customers, as well as to obtain knowledge regarding the legitimate activities of their customers, the proposed regulation will reduce the likelihood that insured nonmember banks will become unwitting participants in illicit activities conducted or attempted by their customers. It will also level the playing field between institutions that already have adopted formal "Know Your Customer" programs, and those that have not.

Your financial habits are predictable. So it is not difficult to develop a profile from your historical records because your monthly transactions do not vary a lot. Even cost of living increases can be anticipated. This profile becomes the "normal and expected" transactions.
Since there are a limited number of utility companies, the identification of the recipients of most of your expenses are known. All businesses are required to list all the types of goods and services they offer. This will help to trace your clothin