The Consider Podcast
The Consider Podcast
Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness
Ecclesiastes 7:25
www.consider.info
Hosts: Timothy and Jacob
Sound Doctrine Considered
The Consider Website
The Consider Podcast
Prosecutors Laugh at Justice: How Corruption Spreads
Correction: Lewis County Prosecutor elections are not kissing cousins with King County.
www.consider.info
Welcome to the Consider podcast. This July 3rd in the year 2025 of our Lord, time to consider that Washington state prosecutors laugh out loud at your right to a vigorous defense. Where jury duty is thought of as a dog and pony show. Where jury duty is thought of as a dog and pony show and yes, there's an. And that, according to prosecutors, there's only one thing they must provide proof for the Consider Podcast number 88 is ahead. The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the Consider Podcast, where we examine today's wisdom, folly and madness. More information can be found at wwwconsiderinfo. Now here are your hosts, timothy and Jacob.
Speaker 3:You know what, jacob? I am so ready for heaven. I have to look at all of this fraud in the law, this con. I mean these guys just never stop. You remember Prosecutor Seavers?
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 3:We'll get into it, but they just continue to pass down the fraud, the corruption. I've got like three titles for today's show, from no proof to pathway of corruption. If anybody's in criminology or sociology like in college this whole case it would be a pure textbook. You could follow the corruption from day one and how it just gets passed through. The quote unquote justice system. It's just, ah, man, it just wears you. I'll be so happy to get to heaven when, as far as I know, there's no lawyers in heaven. They all are in a different spot. How's it going? It's going good. Anything going on you want to chat about?
Speaker 4:Well, I don't know when we should bring it up. You know, we were briefly talking off air about this, the the idaho murder guy, right?
Speaker 3:do we want to talk?
Speaker 4:about yeah, we want to talk about prosecutors doing prosecutor stuff yeah, should we talk about him now? We're going to talk about him later.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, let's go for it all right.
Speaker 4:Yeah, so this brian guy right, the and the, and it's all up in the news that the prosecutors are cutting him a deal I um.
Speaker 3:Does this surprise you, that prosecutors are cutting a deal?
Speaker 4:well, it's like it surprises you at first because you're like what, what is going on? So it is surprising. And then you get upset and then you're like well, I guess not, it's, it's not surprising.
Speaker 3:But it is. It's a total shock, first to the system, that these prosecutors do stuff that is so contrary to reality. Yeah, and we'll talk about why in a moment. I did play a little bit of this clip or it's really just an audio clip from, I think it's a New York Post. That kind of gives an idea of what we're talking about here, and then we'll dive into this. Why would prosecutors do something this stupid? Of course that example would be we could take hundreds of cases, thousands of cases, and go why are they just being totally stupid? And we'll discuss why they're stupid here in a moment. But go ahead and play that, okay.
Speaker 5:Prosecutors amassed a mountain of damning evidence and key legal victories against Brian Koberger in the weeks before they offered him a plea deal for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. Koberger's defense pushed for delays, tried to block most of the evidence against him and even suggested a list of alternate perpetrators who they claimed could have committed the killings, but the judge denied most of their motions, allowing a tidal wave of evidence to be presented against the 30-year-old criminology PhD student. At his trial, which was scheduled for next month, the families of victims Kaylee Gonclaves, 21, and Zana Knodel, 20, slammed the decision to spare Koberger a trial and the chance of death by firing squad from the New York Post.
Speaker 3:Okay, we have two extremes here, right, jacob? We've got the city of Enumclaw, king County prosecutor, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington State, that clearly there was a hate crime, there was a criminal activity by Detective Grant McConaughey. I mean this is just like overwhelming, right. I mean we'll get into that in a moment. But then you have this situation where the evidence that he's this Brian guy is guilty, I mean there is absolutely. You tell me what would be the logical reason, when you have all this evidence, to offer the guy a plea deal?
Speaker 4:There is no reason. There's none why? Oh and okay. I'm only going to say real quick this latest corruption is not in Washington State, which we've covered right, this is in Idaho. And the only reason I say this is because anybody thinks that like, oh, it's only you know, these kind of problems only happen in, like, democratic states. No, this is happening everywhere across the country. And just because you move to Idaho does not mean you will escape the corruption of prosecutors and the judicial system.
Speaker 3:You bring up a really good point. They're doing this crazy stuff all the time. These prosecutors really have no sense of reality or they don't care about truth. They absolutely do not care about justice. They spend all their time conning juries just to get what they want. I'm hinting at why they do what they do, but let's first kind of lay out here that in both these cases the Bryan and the city of Enumclaw the evidence is overwhelming as to what's going on. And you have prosecutors playing the fool, thinking they're wise. Is it not astounding? It's astounding, Okay. Now here's a little.
Speaker 3:None of this is funny. I mean, you've got people murdered, yeah, murdered. This is a slam dunk. You nail the guy, you bring him Now again.
Speaker 3:If I was a pastor there, I'd be trying to bring him to repentance, but I'm not there and that's not what the state's doing. So when I'm saying like taking the firing squad, I'm not coming from the vengeance that's within the quote unquote justice system and these poor people that have been so wounded by what's going on. So I just need to say there's a little bit of a contrast and a difference here. All right, so where am I heading with this? Is that the former professor. Is that the former professor, because he was in criminology and his former criminology professor wants him to escape death by firing squad. Have you heard this? No, so she comes along and she goes, yeah, yeah. I don't want him to get the death penalty, I don't want him to get firing squad. And the reason she wants him to be alive is so she can continue to talk to him to find out how come she was so fooled, and her words are completely fooled by him. So she wants him as a specimen.
Speaker 4:Oh sure she wants to analyze him and pick his brain to see what's going on. All, all but for selfish reasons, right, she doesn't even come out with a statement and she doesn't go. Yeah, yeah, she, she's not concerned. Oh, everybody's selfish right.
Speaker 3:Everybody in this is just nothing but like for themselves exactly the, the reason I don't want to get too far the reason that she she wants to see why she was completely fooled and she's going to talk to a man who's a murderer and think she's going to gain wisdom as to why she's a fool If she's admitting that she was fooled, like you're going to.
Speaker 4:Like he's not. He can't fool you again.
Speaker 3:Correct and there's no humility in what she's saying, of saying well, how many other things am I being fooled on? And maybe it's people that are actually innocent. I mean this goes both ways. We see it all the time. Cops are always framing people, prosecutors, I mean. It's what they do for a living is frame people, and so there's going to be no wisdom gained from this, and so she just wants it's called self-justification, they just want to sit down and kind of go over and go okay, that's why I was taken in, and you're only deceiving yourself about why you were deceived. Now, does that make sense? I don't want to go too fast with all this?
Speaker 3:Yes, that makes sense yeah, the reason prosecutors do this is because they're number one and they only have a number one goal in their heart and in their life and in the injustice system is they want to be in control. I had somebody that's as I've talked with other people about the city of Enumclaw and King County Prosecutor of Corruption and Washington State and all that going on. They just made the observation because they know a little bit more behind the scenes. Now I'm looking at it from a sinful level. This person said well what it was. You challenged the authority. They wanted to be the power play. Everything people need to realize when you go to jury duty. That prosecutor is using words like guilty or vile or innocent, not because they believe anything about guilt or vile or anything else. They're using those words to be on top of the situation, to puff up their self-righteousness and their ego. That's why they're constantly deceived. You've met people right, jacob, that are so full of pride you can't correct them on anything.
Speaker 4:Yes, correct that you. You can't get them to admit anything, nothing like zero.
Speaker 3:yeah, well, that's what you're looking at when you're looking at police and when you're looking at prosecutors, and you were looking at judges. I mean, they spend all day long bringing the dumbest people into the jury pool and you've got judges there that back up the prosecution and the prosecution owns the courtroom and everybody's patting everybody on the back and you can't challenge them, literally. If I walked in and said wait a minute, detective McCuller, wait about this over here, would I be allowed in the courtroom? No, not at all. So no wonder they become dark. First of all, those being attracted to being prosecutors have serious problems. Those that want to be policemen have serious problems, and then it goes just down the line, so that pride gets reinforced over and over again. Comment or anything on that, jacob.
Speaker 4:No other than it still is. You know, when we first started talking about this, you're like, oh, is it shocking? And it like still is. When you sit here and process just how selfish and corrupt and uncaring these prosecutors are about anything other than their own power trip, it still is kind of shocking.
Speaker 3:It is, and that's just another reason why I can't wait to get to heaven. You're left speechless and in shock. Yeah, like when you consider the Brian thing again, all the evidence. I mean if there was a guy that was ever guilty that needed to go before a firing squad, there isn't any weak aspect of the evidence correct, Correct and oh, I guarantee we know for a fact that there's more evidence that we don't know about, they have it, that's why his lawyers are cutting the deal.
Speaker 4:They know he will go down in flames. Correct.
Speaker 3:Well, in the same way, with the city of Enumclaw detecting McCall hate crime. The evidence is overwhelming, I mean wave after wave. It's literally even more evidence than this Brian guy. Yet all these prosecutors, and now the Association of Prosecutors in Washington State, back it all up and so the corruption just continues and the darkness keeps happening and somehow they just can't stop and go. Oh, I was conned, I made a mistake.
Speaker 3:And in fact even this criminologist professor that wants to bring him in to find out why she was conned doesn't really want to know why she was conned. What she wants to find is the excuse of why she was conned. So she's not overcoming being conned, she's conning herself about being conned. I hope that's not too confusing. No, it's not Okay. Well, let's kind of dive in and let's just go ahead and play kind of this outline, and it's going to be some old stuff and new stuff, because now we have the association of Washington state prosecutors along with somebody, a prosecutor in lewis county, laughing, laughing at the fact that a defendant wants to put up a vigorous defense.
Speaker 1:Play it, and then we'll start diving in you ask why does the washington state bar association no longer require bar exams? Because prosecutors are lawless. Prosecutor jason simmons. The state of washington does not have to prove anything other than age. Prosecutor paul se. Paul Sewell Jerry Doody is a dog and pony show. Prosecutor Paul E Macielo. Just laughs.
Speaker 1:Prosecutor Macielo, when requesting help from the Washington State Prosecutor Association, received back the corruption and whitewash associated with the Malcolm Fraser lawfare trial. Quoting prosecutor Paul Macielo laughing at the defendant's right to a vigorous defense. A defense attorney has just disclosed three witnesses that are going to testify as to the good reputation for sexual morality of the defendant. I have never heard of such a thing and laughed when I read that's what they were testifying to for sexual morality of the defendant. I have never heard of such a thing and laughed when I read that's what they were testifying. To End, quote the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys located in Olympia. And Prosecutor Macielo's fellow thugs may laugh, but they will not like it. When a holy God has the last laugh, I, god, in turn, will laugh at your disaster. I will mock when calamity overtakes you. The consider podcast examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 3:Jacob, what condition is a defendant in? Or what position is a defendant in? Once you finally enter the courtroom Before any of the words are spoken, before, prosecutors and judges and police do their little thingy, what position is the defendant in?
Speaker 4:I'm pretty sure, they're probably afraid, they're nervous, they are intimidated. The whole thing is turning their world upside down. There's a lot on the line for the defendant. Here's a word powerless, powerless, yes.
Speaker 3:Powerless. What people don't realize is, by the time somebody gets into the courtroom, every single right you have to present a defense has been stripped away. Then what the prosecution does is strip the stripping away so that when you're left with all, you really have no defense. Jacob, let's listen to the file of Lewis County prosecutor laughing at a defendant's attempt to do a vigorous defense. Let's listen to it now, because we're going to dig into it and it can get a little bit confusing, because that's the nature of corruption and muddy waters from paul macielo sent wednesday, february 28, 2024 7 12 pm to jason walker, washington prosecutors organization.
Speaker 5:Subject reputation as organization. Subject reputation for sexual morality. Hoping to get this sent out to the SAU listserv, I have a Rape 2 slash Rape 3 trial next week. Trial confirmation is Thursday and the defense attorney has just disclosed three witnesses that are going to testify as to the good reputation for sexual morality of the defendant. I have never heard of such a thing and laughed when I read that's what they were testifying to, but it appears D3 has bitten off on allowing that type of testimony. It's so I'm wondering if anyone has any briefing to counter this argument, as I only have a few days to educate myself on the topic, write a brief and give the court enough time to review the issue before making a ruling 2. I'm just worried that the court will be rushed and take the safe route of ruling against the state on matters they are unfamiliar with. Thanks, paul E Macielo. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, lewis County Prosecutor's Office. 345 West Main Street, 2nd Floor, chehalis, washington.
Speaker 3:Let's consider for a moment this prosecutor in Lewis County, right, miss Cielo. He needed help because a defendant wanted to bring into the courtroom to have other people testify as to his good character in terms of sexual stuff. Because obviously, look, people need to realize this whole. Accusations of sexual rape, whatever, it's all fraud Unless there's actually taxes, information, I mean evidence outside an accusation. It's all total lies, lies. And even if somebody just comes in and go, you know Harborview Medical Center has no interest in finding anybody that's lying about a false sexual accusation. They work for the prosecution. They get their money from bringing in accusations. They have no interest.
Speaker 3:You never will find a single prosecution in the state of Washington and really across this nation of people who make false sexual allegations in prison. If it is, it's so minor it's a joke, all right. So back again to my central point. By the time the defendant sits down, especially on these sexual allegations, there really is only one option and that is to say I didn't do it. They have so stripped, beaten down, like in the Malcolm Frazier case, we couldn't say anything, you couldn't talk about his good character, you couldn't talk about the good aspects of the church, you couldn't bring this in. You couldn't even bring the Washington State Constitution on the freedom of religion into the courtroom. Literally all you're left with is if he took the stand go. I didn't do it. I didn't do it, that's not a trial or well, or when they walk in powerless.
Speaker 3:The only other option is, of course, cut a deal. Well, correct. Well, that's extortion and I agree, but that happens too right, you only have two options. Oh, that happens most of the time. You can either be like well, most of the time, yeah exactly, but those are your two options.
Speaker 3:Yes, most of the time it's extortion, these prosecutors, they are illegal to the core, unconstitutional, vile individuals and what they practice? Extortion First of all. They strip away any aspect of money to be able to bring a defense in. That's what I'm saying. If we break down, by the time you actually sit down, you are, at that point, totally powerless. Then they begin to pound in and things that sound reasonable to the jury to make the defendant even more powerless. Yeah, think about what masiello said. He goes. They want to bring in witnesses and say, no, this guy couldn't have done this. He has a great character. He's not involved in sexual you know, present the positive side of who he really is right and listen to what he says. Quote I have never heard of such a thing.
Speaker 4:Now, okay, real quick, I just want to slow down for one second because and I'm just wanting to paint the clear picture this was a case that happened in Lewis County, right, correct? And we have a prosecutor named Paul Masiello and he was laughing. Do we know who was the other attorney? Because I feel like maybe just we used his name multiple times real faster. Paul Masioli is laughing at this other case, at this other defense attorney, correct, yeah, okay. So this defense attorney. He brings up, hey, let's, hey, I want to. The defense attorney is defending his client and he brings up the Frazier case, correct? Who brings up the Frazier case? Correct? Who brings up the Frazier case?
Speaker 3:Well, that's not what happened. He comes in and the defense attorney says we want to bring in these character witnesses for this guy, right, yeah, well, he doesn't want that to happen.
Speaker 4:Paul Paul Masialo. Yeah, he doesn't want it to happen because he's a prosecutor Correct.
Speaker 3:Well, yeah, he's a low life so he doesn't want it to happen. So he gets to go to this association of prosecutors for help. By the way, that ought to be illegal when you face trials. It should be by state money, by state agencies. He gets to go to all these. Not only are you powerless, but they have all these other nonprofits and groups and people out there. And so you're not just fighting the state when it says the state versus, that's a joke out there. And so you're not just fighting the state when it says the state versus, that's a joke. You're fighting every do-gooder blind, just like this other person, conned individual that thinks they're doing something good by ensuring that somebody's found guilty.
Speaker 3:So, maceo, again, I'm talking about a perfect world. Let him do his own research. Sure, all right. So he gets to go, hop in a trough and it's free to him. And he goes over the, the Association of Washington State Prosecutors. Hey, I got this situation going on where this, this defense attorney wants to bring in good character witness and testify, remember. And so what happens is the Association of Prosecutors of Washington State drag up the Malcolm Frazier case. Prosecutors of Washington state drag up the Malcolm Frazier case. That's what happened? Did I make that clear? Slow me down?
Speaker 4:I want to slow you down. So so the association comes back and they tell Paul Masialo that he that, oh, they use the Malcolm Frazier case to show well no, because in the Frazier case they used the Malcolm Frazier case to show Well no, because in the Frazier case they weren't allowed to bring up Malcolm Frazier's good characteristics. So it also can't happen in this other case that is correct.
Speaker 3:In fact, I'm glad you're slowing me down, dude, so I'm way too familiar with this stuff. Pull up the MP3 file and it's the whole email by Paul Macielo, because it gets worse than that. He actually this Macielo I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right he's condescending toward the judges in the court system, Like, yeah, I don't want them to get involved in something they don't really understand. They might actually allow this. So let me bring back my first point. He's never heard of, in the state of Washington, anybody being allowed to talk about their good character. Now we're entitled to a vigorous defense. Do you know what vigorous means?
Speaker 4:Vigorous is like strong, powerful, very strong, vigorous.
Speaker 3:Yes, overwhelming. Actually we'll look at the law here in a moment. It should be equal. The same amount of zeal and power and authority and vileness and energy that comes from the state should be allowed by the defendant. And we're not even close to that. Not even close.
Speaker 3:The state of Washington, because of the Washington State Supreme Court, has committed right rape and I want everybody that goes in for jury to understand that when that defendant is sitting there, every single right has been stripped from them. Every ability, unless they're multi, multi-millionaires, has been stripped from them. You have to realize these cops lie all the time. The truth has been stripped away. You have to realize that prosecutors care nothing, absolutely nothing about the truth In stripped away. You have to realize that prosecutors care nothing, absolutely nothing about the truth. In fact they spend their time twisting and hiding and perverting what the situation is. And we see this right here in the information that the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington State sent over. The whole report they sent to him is so narrowly focused. Like with the malcolm fraser stuff, it'll go like uh, maciela goes back to him to the washington state, whatever, and says well, I heard there was some you know thing about the church that the mccall had some animosity. The church, so paul's or a seawall? Uh, I've got the name mixed up. Yeah, maybe it's Sewell. Anyway, sewell writes and goes oh yeah, the defense brought that up and that's it. But there's no mention of his lying and the corruption and all that went on. So what you have is, instead of all of these prosecutors pursuing the truth, they each ask enough questions to say, well, I was told there was nothing to it. You see what they're doing. They're covering each other's bases, and this is how corruption moves forward. In other words, masiello is going well, you know, I heard this and he goes. Oh well, yeah, but the defense made him a lot of that. Well, that's true, but it's a lie. Let me be very, very clear.
Speaker 3:The city of Enumclaw, detective McCall, this was a hate crime and we didn't listen, see. Well, we did not make much of it. We were telling you you were wrong. We were telling you that the crime was not us, the crime was them, and you participated in that crime. So they come down, they whitewash it, they water it down, they lie about it, they leave out all of the corruption, and so we haven't got the information back yet on what happened when he presented this information to the court. It'd be interesting to see. It seems to be like they're delaying on it, so I'm a little suspicious of what actually took place. So he takes this Malcolm Frazier thing before the judges and goes hey look, this defendant should not be allowed to talk about his good character because Judge Lori K Smith, woman of the year, twice over minority, denied Malcolm Frazier of the right. So you see how the corruption continues to grow.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it grows. It's the case law. So one corrupt case is now spilling over and other prosecutors get to be corrupt because these other prosecutors were corrupt.
Speaker 3:Yeah, never mind that McCall said alone scripting out the accusations and so forth. What's really weird about it is just because Judge Lori K Smith says in this particular case that's not law Correct.
Speaker 4:I know Well, I'm using the term case law very loosely, but that is what they do. They say, oh, they do. That's what they do. Oh well, this is how it was here, so I should be able to do this, because they got to do that, even though they were corrupt about it. And yet the corruption grows and continues.
Speaker 3:Yeah, If these judges were doing with their job in Lewis County, you know what? If I were a judge there, I'd say well, Judge Lori K Smith violated the Constitution of the United States. She violated the Bill of Rights. She was wrong. That's corruption. So we're going to allow anything and everything in here. For this defendant to prove that he is not prone to do the crime Sounds reasonable to me. What about you, Jacob?
Speaker 4:Sounds reasonable. I also just want to make the quick point Lewis County. They consider it one of the most conservative counties in the state. So not only is corruption happening up in King County, seattle area, where everybody thinks they're woke and corrupt, it's happening in the conservative areas as well. They're all corrupt.
Speaker 3:Oh for sure. In fact Lewis County prosecutors are kissing cousins to King County prosecutors. Sure, give a little history lesson. You remember who Sattisburg was? He was in charge of King County. Yeah, he came in as a Republican. King County prosecutor got elected. Then he was really a closeted Democrat. So later on he decides oh no, I want to be a Democrat prosecutor. So he ran under a Democrat prosecutor.
Speaker 4:You get my point. Yeah, I think he was even more sneaky. I believe he didn't. He run as like oh, I'm not, I'm neither, I'm just partial. I think at first he was full on, like it's an impartial position or whatever. He changed it for sure he did Well that was the next step?
Speaker 3:Yeah, because what he was doing, I think, is he ran as a Democrat prosecutor, right, because he wanted to become governor, and that was where the winning ticket is. So again, these prosecutors have no integrity within their soul. They need to repent. Say well, you need to repent. I mean, it really is that simple. This has gone on way too long. Then what happened is Satisberg said well, no, no, I don't even want to do Democrat stuff, I want to just be independent. So he got the National Award should stay King County. People voted oh, yeah, yeah, independent. So we got the national, the war. Should you stay king county. People voted oh, yeah, yeah, we'll just let prosecutors hide more in the dark. We won't know whether they're republican, democrat, communist or whatever. They'll just get to run. So the population voting for this now are even more dumbed down before they even go in for jury duty. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 3:My point being is Lewis County copied the same thing after Sattisburg did this. That's how corruption goes. It just continues on, down and down and down. There's no integrity. By the way, let me clarify it's Seavers who wrote the appeal and it's Seavers who's doing the White Wars job, sending the information to the Association of Orchard State Prosecutors. It then sends it to that defense attorney, and it's Sewell is the one who said that jury duty is a dog and pony show. Is that clear? Yes, this is clear. It really doesn't matter. Just they're all one mindset, they're all one group of corruption.
Speaker 4:I mean literally just follow along with the points and I totally yeah, I'm just going to. They're all corrupt and I know that. Yeah, the names, the particular names, may get confusing, but the important part is prosecutors in different counties across the state and you know they're all just talking to each other and, as you said earlier, the corruption grows. They're all bouncing off each other's corrupt words to further their corrupt agenda, regardless of you know what I mean. If somebody wants to nitpick the exact name of who said which corruption line, it's all corrupt.
Speaker 3:The word for that in Scripture, the truth, the good book God's all corrupt. The word for that in Scripture, the truth, the good book, god's word, is they're mockers. Proverbs 122 says how long will you simple ones, love your simple ways? It's all so simple. Oh, they want to put up a defense? Nope, nope, can't do that. Judge Orchard Smith didn't allow it. So yeah, there you go. So yeah, just shut up, sit there and we'll let the accuser get up there and go. Yeah, he did this, he did this and this and that, and your response would be well, no, I didn't. Okay, that's fine, because we don't need any evidence. I'm sorry, I got sidetracked. Proverbs 122. How long will you, simple ones, love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery? That's why, when I read all this stuff again, it's just one big mocking echo chamber, you know, full of lies. How long will you mockers delight in mockery? And fools hate knowledge.
Speaker 3:There was nothing about this report given by the Association of Prosecutors of Washington State that contained anything related remotely to the depth of corruption or truth of the trial. They took out this one little sliver of saying no, a defendant shouldn't be allowed to bring anybody in that would speak positive of them and they ran with it. That's all it was about. Now, there was a lot more words than that, of course, but the end result of lawyers is that what it was. So let me read this email. Well, let me pause, jacob. Do I need to clarify anything?
Speaker 4:No, I have the file, though now.
Speaker 3:Okay, go ahead and play that file then, jacob. This is Paul Musiello's email requesting information and help because he's in a desperate situation. And I've said it again what's the desperate situation? A defendant might actually be able to talk about his reputation. Remember, prosecutors get up and go. Oh, he's evil and he's vile and his reputation, this and his reputation, I mean, they just trash you left and right, not based on knowledge, and we'll see here in a moment. I'll get ahead of myself.
Speaker 5:Play it, jacob from paul macielo, sent wednesday, february 28, 2024 7 12 pm to jason walker, washington prosecutors organization. Subject reputation for sexual morality. Hoping to get this sent out to the sau list serveerv. I have a Rape 2 slash Rape 3 trial next week. Trial confirmation is Thursday and the defence attorney has just disclosed three witnesses that are going to testify as to the good reputation for sexual morality of the defendant. I have never heard of such a thing and laughed when I read that's what they were testifying to, but it appears D3 has bitten off on allowing that type of testimony. It's so I'm wondering if anyone has any briefing to counter this argument, as I only have a few days to educate myself on the topic, write a brief and give the court enough time to review the issue before making a ruling. 2. I'm just worried that the court will be rushed and take the safe route of ruling against the state on matters they are unfamiliar with. Thanks, Paul E Macielo. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Lewis County Prosecutor's Office. 345 West Main Street, 2nd Floor, Chehalis, WA.
Speaker 4:Wow, okay. So I think we should have actually played this earlier and I think it would have made it more clear, but that's okay. Yeah, wow, okay. You know what's wild to think, and this is a sad thought this is happening in the courts all the time, this kind of corruption is happening all the time, and we just happened to get this particular slice corruption is happening all the time and we just happen to get this particular slice.
Speaker 3:That's what I'm saying. This is a perfect textbook situation that, if somebody wanted to study how corruption increases within a judicial system, from the time the inception of the false accusation of Malcolm Frazier all the way up to here, you just see how it grows and grows, and grows. That's why God says the facet he has chosen is to loosen the chains of injustice, because it's a naturally growing thing. It's who we are. By the way, I'm going to give you a little intro here and say okay, Jacob, go ahead and play this in the beginning and we'll discuss it when we get deeper in. So if you want to cut and double it, up.
Speaker 4:Go for it. I will. Yeah, I want to. Yeah, that'd be good. All right, the part I'm chuckling about he acknowledges that it's the right thing to do. Yes, because well, he says, okay, he says, but I'm afraid the state is gonna like pretty much, do the right thing and let these witnesses come in. So I need your help. Corrupt, corrupt washington state prosecutor association. Help me out. Help Help me the county prosecutor, don't let this happen. I need some ammo, because we can't let the court do that.
Speaker 3:Yeah, let me read what he says. I'm just worried. So I'm worried. Well, why would you worry? Because the courts might actually allow a defendant to speak.
Speaker 4:And he even admits they probably will. Unless you help me, they might let this go through.
Speaker 3:Sure. So I'm just worried that the court will be rushed and take the quote safe route. It's called the legal route, it's called the Bill of Rights, it's called the Constitution. And even if we didn't have the Constitution and even if we didn't have the Bill of Rights, it's the right thing to do. Yeah, I'm just worried that the court will be rushed and take the safe route of ruling against the state on matters they are unfamiliar with. Look at the condescending nature he has toward these judges.
Speaker 4:Yes, is that not condescending, very condescending, that he knows better than them.
Speaker 3:Correct, they're judges and they're the ones in charge. But you know what? They're just unfamiliar with the corruption we go involved with. They take the safe. I mean, I'm listening to that going. By your words you'll be acquitted and by your words you'll be condemned. It's really that simple, you know. Let's just talk about human beings here for just a moment. If they even have, they don't have that because you're talking about rape accusations and sending someone to prison who literally could be killed. That's considered the lowest life of prison individuals, correct? And you'll sometimes you'll hear judges go yeah, you're going to be killed, you're going to be murdered, I'm sending you there and they have no concern about whether it's actually a true charge or not.
Speaker 3:And let me tell you something there's no way that any of these people they're believing in and I'm talking about if there's just no evidence, just somebody making an accusation. You've got to realize public schools brainwash these kids into that. You've been abused. Tv shows constantly are forming memories that, oh, men are evil and these things are vile. And you've been molested. Girls by nature remember the Salem witch hunts. Their method of attention getting whatever I'm not going to get all their motives is to form false charges and there's nothing about Harborview Medical Center or these prosecutors or anybody coming along and testing for the lies, which are extremely. Then you have family court. What is family court? But everybody lying the best they can to get what they want. So it's just chock full of. By the time somebody actually accuses another individual of a sexual crime. You really, as a juror, you know what? If they don't have physical evidence, if there's not hard evidence, personally I would not find them guilty. I couldn't.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 3:There's just no way these children and these individuals look at the state of Washington. Are they not trying to get 13-year-olds to mutilate their genitalia for the state? Yes, they are. So the state of abortion does everything it can to pervert and destroy the family. It does everything in its power to pervert reality by saying well, you're not really male or female and you've got all of this. And men are evil, they're vile. These prosecutors are destroying relationships between men and women. It's just full of evil suspicion.
Speaker 3:These prosecutors are doing massive damage and part of that massive damage is false accusations and there's no way these prosecutors and these judges can possibly get to the truth as to whether it's false or not, because they live too many lies. Not until they're actually developing systems to reveal the liars and to put these liars in jail for as long as it would be if somebody were accused of the crime. Don't go into, I would not go into jury and if they don't have any evidence, forget it. I'm not going there. You will be found innocent, period. That accuser can sit up there and whine and cry and the parents can give them wine and cry, and he's violently. It's all a show. It's all a show trial based on lies. Did I get slow enough on that one, jacob?
Speaker 4:No, that was not slow, but yes.
Speaker 3:Okay, yeah, you're correct. Let me read the other paragraph. I've never heard of such a thing. I want to take a breath on that for a moment. I have never heard of such a thing where the state of Washington allows a defendant to bring other people to testify to the goodness of his character.
Speaker 4:Well, I think he's saying he's never like the defense wants to do this, but he's never heard of, I guess, a defense attorney ever doing that. So he's just, he's never.
Speaker 3:Well, you know you bring up a good point because the defense attorneys I wish they'd wake up in the state of Washington. They are so neutered, correct, yeah, they're powerless. They're powerless, they're afraid. They actually we've talked about this before they serve the prosecution. Look, defense attorneys, get together, give a portion of your money to a nonprofit organization, just like the Association of Washington State Prosecutors, and get all your information and put out there so that people know what these prosecutors are up to. Correct, yeah, your name doesn't have to go out.
Speaker 3:Part of the reason that these defense attorneys are cowards is that, well, number one, the defendant has to pay for it, and so it gets very expensive to actually do anything in any power. But one of the reasons is because the defense attorney has to get along with the judge and it has to get along with these prosecutors to plea bargain, because that's mostly how it happens. So give them money, send it to I'm not going to do it, I'm throwing this out. For send it to me. I'll form a nonprofit organization and we'll start pounding what these people are up to so that when people go in for jury duty, they actually have knowledge. Now, again, I don't want that position, but you get my point right.
Speaker 3:Jacob, I get your point yeah, so yeah, he's never heard of it because Washington State Supreme Court has right-raped the power of defense attorneys to actually put up a defense for you. Please understand that Public defenders are powerless. They're at the mercy of the state for money and they're always behind. They have to get along with the prosecuting attorneys. We need a separate, strong public defender's office that is so separate from politicians and from judges and from prosecutors. There needs to be equal power, because what do most people wind up doing? They have to wind up going to the public defender's office. There needs to be power for power, money for money. It needs to be equal.
Speaker 3:Don't have time to get into all the games or playing with that, all right, I've never heard of such thing and laughed Wow, how inhuman can you be? The defense wants to present that. His whole life, his whole character. Same thing with the Malcolm Frazier case. The whole nature of the church, the whole nature of how things were structured, all the facts that were associated with his character who he was, among other hardcore facts that the crime was impossible were not allowed to be permitted. So the prosecutor strows in like a rooster and goes evil, vile, wicked, this twist, lie about that. Remember the birthday one. That's just one example. And laughed. Do you realize these people? We need to realize. These prosecutors are laughing at us. They are laughing at judges. They're laughing at judges. They're laughing. They own the system because the Washington State Supreme Court has allowed these politicians to write rapists, but it appears D3 has bitten off on allowing that type of testimony.
Speaker 4:Clearly something indicated that they were in favor of it. Yeah, I wonder if D3 is District 3. I don't know what D3 is.
Speaker 3:Me, neither Me, neither. All right, mr Jacob, anything else, I know I'm kind of all over the place. I hope it's clear. Anything you want to say? No, all right, let's go to do. You realize that things are so? I know you do, Jacob. People need to realize that things are so bad that prosecutors do not need to prove anything, nothing. Well, okay, I'm wrong. They only need to prove one thing. In a sexual allegation case, prosecutors laugh because they know they don't have to prove anything but one thing.
Speaker 4:Mm-hmm.
Speaker 3:And let's play this. This is from the Malcolm Frazier case, prosecutor Jason Simmons and five other prosecutors and Judge Lori K Smith. Have I mentioned that she's been woman of the year for two times in a row? Mm-hmm, yep, okay, I mentioned that, so I want to make sure that's clear, because clearly, being a woman of the year twice over as a minority judge makes her superior on understanding what justice is right, oh yeah. Uh-huh, yeah, okay, I'm just a lowly white person. Yeah, you know male.
Speaker 4:Male.
Speaker 3:Old too.
Speaker 4:You're a little too old.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I am too old, you know, and my concepts I mean, I just can't laugh at people's misery and I can't, eh, whatever, all right. So this is what he told the jury and Judge Laurie K Smith goes yippity-doo and the jury goes yippity-yay. This is what he told and nobody thought twice about it. Go ahead and play that, jacob.
Speaker 5:State v Malcolm Fraser, case number 12-1-01886-0. Washington State, seattle, king County. Association of Prosecutors, olympia, washington, fully supporting prosecutor Jason Simmons. Quote the state doesn't have to prove anything else other than their age. The state doesn't have to prove that this began in November or it began in April. The state doesn't have to prove that.
Speaker 3:End quote Okay, jacob, I hope everybody's listening. The attitude of prosecutors is that when you're falsely okay, when you're accused of sexual immorality, sexual crime the prosecutor just leans back in the chair puts their arms back on the top of their head and kicks up their feet and they smile and they laugh because they only have to prove one thing, and that's the fact that they were a minor, that they were born and that the accusation happened to be at a time when they were quote-unquote a child. Yeah, that's it.
Speaker 3:That's it, people. Let me read this to you again State versus Malcolm Frazier. The state doesn't have to prove anything else other than age. I want silence to set. Think about what you're hearing. And so then he goes on to say the state doesn't have to prove anything else other than age. The state doesn't have to prove that MC act in a way that you think an 11-year-old should. The state doesn't have to prove that this began in November or it began in April. The state doesn't have to prove that. Gee, how many times can he say it? Yeah. What he's saying is not only does the state not have to prove anything other than her age, but she can make up any time period. She can say it happened in 68, it happened in. Well, in the future, you don't have to prove it right, you don't have to prove it 2050, he's going to or he did. Yeah, that doesn't have to be proved.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 3:It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant why, as jury individuals, are we participating in this monumental corruption? Not to mention the fact that the lie started out that he was there a year and a half, right, jacob. Then it gets whittled down, then they don't know and so they literally didn't have to prove time proof. But it was important, because Malcolm Frazier was only in the house for six weeks and, according to the manipulated accuser testified in the court that nothing happened during the first six weeks. So he goes. Yeah, that's irrelevant jury. We don't have to prove that. It doesn't matter whether it's six weeks. This week happened, then they don't have to prove anything. This is why you see so many false accusations.
Speaker 3:There was a case of a guy was accused of doing something I think it was rape also but he was in a totally different town and he had a receipt of being at a restaurant and eating and so on gas receipts and the police and the prosecutors just totally ignored it. So he was on the verge of actually being. Because of publicity, of course it changed, but he was on the verge of going to prison for something he wasn't even there to do. They really do have this attitude, so don't buy it when you go in for jury selection and the jury, the prosecutor, will go oh no, we don't do that. And this doesn't happen here, it happens everywhere. These prosecutors, these police are ignoring facts and truth and evidence just to win a conviction. Look at what's happening with this, the Malcolm Frazier injustice about testifying to your quality of character. Have they not just literally ignored every piece of evidence we brought to them? Jacob Correct, they act like it doesn't exist and we just keep repeating it and showing it and proving more and more. They just ignore it because they don't have to prove anything. Now, that's how far gone a legal system that turns to us and says we don't have to prove anything except this one thing your age is gone. Yeah, that's toast. Yeah, gone, yeah, that's toast. Yeah, you know, if the, if I was a doj investigator, this is where I would start.
Speaker 3:There are, there are multiple levels to the malcolm fraser thing. It goes off in a lot of different direction. It goes off spiritually, legally, socially, um, all kind of psychology, all kind there's. You could study this thing from a lot of different angles. But if I was in the DOJ and I was looking to bring a nice little sliver of individuals to put them in prison. This is where I would start. Do you see where I'm going with that, jacob? Any feedback before I go a little more with that? No, go ahead, detective McCall. And you've got the word detective right. Aren't detectives supposed to go get facts? Yes, they are. So that's a lie. I mean, I think he should be arrested for claiming to be a detective, correct, but anyway.
Speaker 3:So Detective McCall knew that Jason Simmons in the state didn't need any evidence. Ok, well, that's one element, that's just. There's a federal law, deprivation of honest services. That's just one law these people could be arrested on. So no wonder McCall didn't bother to go get evidence. Number one it would have exposed the hate crime. So no wonder McCall didn't bother to go get evidence. Number one it would have exposed the hate crime. Detecting McCall did not even go, as far as we know, to the house where the alleged crime took place, examine the house to see if it was possible and create a report about the house and the events. He didn't even go there.
Speaker 4:Well, and I think you just used the words like we're not sure, something like that I'm pretty sure. Yeah, we know for a fact. I think you just used the words like we're not sure or something like that I'm pretty sure, yeah, we know for a fact. I think he was asked like did you ever go to the house? And the answer was no. Well, he's a liar.
Speaker 3:That's why he also claimed to only delete two email messages. I mean, I appreciate you repeating that no, yeah, but anyways. You can't believe anything McCall said. This is true. He's proven himself over and over again, uh, to be a massive liar. Yeah so, but okay, I'm gonna assume he didn't. Let's just tell him the truth?
Speaker 3:oh, I'm pretty sure he did not no, he spent his time doing other things, which is harassing us, and looking for other salacious things he could accuse and lying about our doctrine, yeah, and all those kinds of things. Um, so you could come in on the fact. Wait a minute, you were detecting me. You didn't even go find the facts. At one point during the trial he arrogantly says well, I decide what the facts are. No, detective McCall, the evidence decides what the facts are. But Washington State and the Washington State Association of Prosecutors do not require evidence. Nope, why are they even existing? I don't get it To further the corrupt agenda?
Speaker 4:That's an opening question. Don't even try to answer, go ahead, all right.
Speaker 3:So that's an angle the DOJ could come in. I'll stop here because I'm pounding on it and I don't want to give any more information. But if you want to get to the truth of what took place, this is where you would begin and why this hate crime continued to move forward with great speed. This is your answer, all right. Anything else on that? No, all right. Where should we go with this? Now I'm taking my breath because all of this stuff is monumental in nature.
Speaker 3:Jacob, you ever heard of Burger versus the United States? And that's not hamburger, that's B-E-R-G-E-R versus the United States. No, I never have. Really, it's a 1935 case law. Well, I haven't heard of it. Really, aren't you an average individual? Don't you know when the police pull you over? You have to be a mini lawyer because they'll trick you out. Average individual, don't you know? When the police pull you over, you have to be a mini-lawyer, because they'll trick you out of every right and ask you questions to make you look stupid and then falsely accuse you that you're resisting arrest or doing that and the other. You've got to be a mini-lawyer. So you've never studied up on the 1935 Berger v United States? I have not Well, clearly, the Association of Washington State Prosecutors and all these other prosecutors within King County and Lewis County have not either. Okay, go ahead and play that, and then let's listen to what this law says from 1935.
Speaker 1:Prosecutors debase the law. Prosecutors debase the law. Consider the year 1935. Consider berger versus united states, 295, us 78, 1935. It is as much the duty of the united states attorney to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. Dwell on the fact that Washington state prosecutors do not require proof in a trial. Think on the fact prosecutors laugh when a defendant would have others testify to their good character, such as the right rape by the washington state supreme court. The consider podcast examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 3:Jacob, can you put that in layman's terms?
Speaker 4:I think you don't be corrupt.
Speaker 3:Well, that's exactly why you need it. Anyway, you already had the Constitution and Bill of Rights by 1935. What it really is saying is equal power is equal power. The prosecution is required to use equal power to punish somebody, as they are to establish that it's done with justice. In other words, you can't have Lewis County prosecutors laughing at a defendant being able to defend himself. Yeah, the prosecutor needs to use the same energy that he's using to put that person in jail to ensure that the defendant has the ability to defend himself. You can't have Judge Lori K Smith go. We'll let all these people lie about the church, and they can do it with impunity, but you're not allowed to bring up anything yourself. Or how about this? We'll let all these people lie in King County court for 28 days wasting how many thousands of dollars the defense doesn't have. So the defense isn't able to put up a defense.
Speaker 3:This law establishes the fact that the same money, the same power, the same effort needs to be afforded to the defendant. In other words, no more extortion. The state really needs to start paying for the defendants, period. Yeah, they allow all of this massive wealth and power to come in and all to crush the defendant so he can't plead anything in court. But we need. We need the same thing, by the way, is a sub note Any politician, policeman, judge, anyone accused of a crime should have to use a public defender's office. They're public employees. They should be forced to. They shouldn't be allowed to use police union lawyers.
Speaker 3:They shouldn't be allowed to go to the association of prosecutors to get help to defend themselves. That's what this law is really saying. Now I know I've taken it too far out, but my point is this law is not even close anywhere in court, correct? Correct? Let me read that again Jacob. Us reports Berger and I'm glad they pronounced it correctly versus United States. 295 US 78, year 1935. It is as much the duty of the United States attorney to refrain. You see, these prosecutors don't refrain themselves on anything. There's no refrain by the police. It's only what am I saying? Mccall was caught, it was whitewashed. There's no refraining of their power. It just keeps going over the duty of the United States attorney to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction. Everything about the Malcolm Frazierzier case and trial. Was it not calculated to produce a wrongful conviction because they hated the church?
Speaker 4:yes, and they used improper methods, meaning they didn't. It's, yes, it's. You know, if it was a real cult, where's the where's the actual evidence of it? You know what I mean like being a cult, because there are some real cults out there. Ours was not.
Speaker 3:Absolutely. In fact, it's interesting that when Simmons and the five thugs, prosecutors and Judge Laura K Smith and did I mention she's Woman of the Year? Did I mention she's Woman of the Year twice Voted to by her peers?
Speaker 4:Yeah, you did mention.
Speaker 3:So none of her peers are going to go against the corruption she brings into the courtroom. Because why? She's a woman and she's black also. So anyway, simmons, when he would ask people that were testifying against the church, did not ask in a truthful way. What he said was what was your understanding of the teachings of the church? He never asked what did the church teach, correct? Do you see the big difference between that? They can lie about their understanding, but all that really shows is if that was really their understanding. They're the ones guilty, correct? Do you understand when they're up there going, well, the church is this and we're this and we have to walk in light, and all that. And their understanding is what they said. Well, they're the ones that should be in prison because that's not what the church taught, correct? All right, it's all slides, all sort of hand, and I know somebody's thinking well, why didn't the church defend? Why didn't you bring that up? 28-, 28 day trial. You want to pay for it, you want to bring in the constitutional lawyers.
Speaker 3:This, this trial was so mixed up. The malcolm fraser accusations because they don't have to prove anything was used as a pretext to attack the church and nobody had the money or the resources or the power to deal with that effect. In the meantime, there was a hate crime going on behind the scenes, destroying the company, people's livelihoods and families. The amount of destruction these prosecutors are doing in the state of Washington, it's no wonder God's going to judge them All right Calculated.
Speaker 3:To produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one, you need to see equal energy that the truth is being presented on both sides. What would happen if this law were actually put into place? You wouldn't have the trial, because it would become evident that they're not guilty or that you don't have enough evidence, because it would become evident that they're not guilty or that you don't have enough evidence. So the only way they can just play the power, play and con themselves and bring people in and accuse them is you totally have to ignore all facts, evidence, everything else impropriety, illegalities and lying, prosecutors and police and so on and then you can just do what you want. Isn't that what we see was going on, jacob? That is what is happening. That is what has happened.
Speaker 3:Well, jacob, I've gone long. We've gone all over the place. My fault, there's just too much to say. So let's end with so people understand just a little bit, just a little bit of what the Association of Prosecutors in Washington state are supporting by bringing up the Malcolm Frazier trial to try and induce and corrupt the whole system so that they can continue to laugh, so that they can be sure the judges don't take the safe route of actually helping a defendant. Anything you want to say, jacob, before we play that file. No, all right, jacob, play mccall's lawn lawfare and then take us out of here and every allegation comes from the detective lawfare against a righteous christian Church Washington State, seattle, king County.
Speaker 1:Prosecutor Judges and Police Corruptions Unhinged and Unleashed. Prosecution of Malcolm Fraser, defendant Case Number 12-1-01886-0KNT. Lawfare against a righteous Christian church aimed at destroying Timothy Williams, sound Doctrine Church, salt Shaker Christian Bookstore and Wine Press Publishing. Quote concerning City of Enumclaw Police. Every allegation comes from Detective Grant McCall. City of Enumclaw Police. End quote. Quote from Washington State Prosecutors and Judges. The state of Washington does not have to prove anything other than age. End quote. King County Prosecutors and Judges are Prosecutor Mark Larson, prosecutor Lisa Johnson, prosecutor Nicole Weston, prosecutor Rich Anderson and Prosecutor Jason Simmons, judge Beth M Andrus. Judge Lori K Smith, prosecutor Lisa Mannion. All who fully support the lawfare against righteous Christians. All who fully support the lawfare against righteous Christians. City of Enumclaw.
Speaker 1:Detective Grant McCall and a primary co-conspirator, multi-level, marketed a hate crime against Timothy Williams or Sound Doctrine Church, knowing that Washington state prosecutors would require zero evidence that a crime actually took place. Require zero evidence that a crime actually took place. The co-conspirator, groomed accuser, sat alone with Detective Grant McCall as he scripted out the accusations all had agreed upon. Detective McCall turned the voice recorder on and off at will, deleted evidence and had a known history of abused police power to proselytize his radical Baptist ideologies. Dr John Uwa, phd, r-psych. A professional examiner, rightly concluded that McCall engaged in methods to induce desired false accusations. This also explains why City of Enumclaw police refused to investigate the accusations for proof. Detective Grant McCall knew that if an honest investigation were performed, the hate crime would have been uncovered. Some extreme proof of Washington state's lawfare against a righteous Christian church is located at wwwconsiderinfo All right.
Speaker 3:So let's play this next clip and let's watch Beth Andrews here as she listens to him lie within a 20-minute period. Go ahead and play that, jacob.
Speaker 7:Well, the entire case revolves around a couple of things. One of them is the church as a whole. We've received complaints from people about the church okay, hang on a second.
Speaker 3:That okay. Anything you want to say, jacob, before I dive into this, no, go ahead. Look at his attitude. We've received complaints about the church. What is he? The? The pope of the city? Venum claw, yeah, and since when is a church being complained about? Grounds for any type of making that criminal?
Speaker 4:Yeah, how does that translate over to something illegal? It doesn't.
Speaker 3:And he's stating this before Beth Andrews, as if this were an important point.
Speaker 4:Correct, as if this is a valid reason why he did the things that he did Correct.
Speaker 3:Because it's a misconduct. All the other churches in Washington state aren't receiving complaints.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I know Exactly.
Speaker 3:Well, let me put. Let me refer to that for you. Probably not, because 99% of most people, if they called a police station and said I don't like the Jehovah's Witness or I don't like station, and said I don't like the Jehovah's Witness or I don't like the Mormons or I don't like the Baptists, what is the average police station going to do?
Speaker 4:Not our problem, sir.
Speaker 3:Not our problem. Grow up, go get a life, go away, don't bug us again. Right, correct? But not in this case, because the city of Enumclaw and Detective Grant McCall was a magnet for liars, so he was willing to receive all of these calls. I mean, when we made a complaint, oh well, it's not happening, it's not our business, we're not going to deal with it. They certainly pushed us off, correct? So then he's sitting before Beth Andrews here going. Yeah, I'm going to present my most valuable facts as to why this case of a man falsely accused of a sexual crime is guilty. I'm going to present to you the thing you need to pay attention to, judge Beth Andrews, and you know what it is. You know what it is, beth Andrews. Do you know? Do you know? We have received complaints about the church.
Speaker 4:Dun, dun, dun oh really Not.
Speaker 3:Well, what are the complaints? Who made the complaints? I know how were the complaints dealt with? None of that fact. It's just we received complaints and Beth Andrews is going okay, so you've received complaints. I get it. They're evil, they're bad. I'm. I get it. They're evil, they're bad. You're a cop. Therefore, you never lie, you never say anything wrong and we don't hold you to any accountability. So, okay, fine, you're free to sit here and use Washington State's court system to belittle a church because they receive complaints.
Speaker 7:Start from the beginning and let's play it again. Well, the entire case revolves around a couple of things, and one of them is the church as a whole.
Speaker 3:Okay, stop it right there, I covered the second part of the first part this whole case you correct me if I'm wrong, jacob this whole case, the false accusations toward Malcolm Frazier, the whole case about that accusation revolves around what?
Speaker 4:Jacob, a couple things. There's a couple things here, okay.
Speaker 3:What are those couple things?
Speaker 4:Well, I, don't know what the second one, but one one of them. Well, I don't know what the second one, but one one of them. So, out of the two, there's two, and one is we have received complaints Back up. Oh, the church as a whole, You're technically correct.
Speaker 3:You applied logic to the situation. I'm looking at his two and I could be wrong.
Speaker 4:One would be Well, his words are two.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it is the whole church but, that's not really that's a redundant point to the complaint. So really you only got one. I hear what you're saying.
Speaker 4:This is nonsensical but in his words, yeah, the, the church as a whole.
Speaker 3:That was his words to beth andrews, sitting right there. You can see her right there in the video. Yes, whatever she's doing there taking notes, listening, like waiting for it to get over with. I can't guarantee you what's going on in her mind at this point. But the church as a whole right. As we've made very, very clear we have evidence of this was a hate crime instigated by a co-conspirator and Grant McCall. They wanted this accusation to bring down the whole church. King County prosecutors had to know that all the evidence pointed to the crime could not have happened, but they were willing to use that to take down the church and that's been made clear all along. All right, so he's lying. Any comments before we finish this video? No, keep going then. Keep playing.
Speaker 7:Church as a whole we've received complaints from people about the church. So the sound doctrine church really doesn't have anything to do with the investigation at all. It's just that some of the spiritual things involved to kind of muddy the waters of the church really doesn't have anything to do with the investigation at all. It's just that some of the spiritual things involved kind of muddy the waters a little bit and have muddy the waters. But the sound doctrine of the church has got really nothing to do with these allegations at all.
Speaker 4:And he's done Nothing at all. Nothing at all. And then it's quiet. It's like a pause, as he looks, because that's the end of his statement. He's just done, yeah.
Speaker 3:And you notice he is an expert liar because if you watch in the beginning his face is not looking toward the judge. Yes, he's talking more to the courtroom, probably to the jury kind of thing, right?
Speaker 4:Well no, there's no jury there. This is a misconduct.
Speaker 3:Okay, mis jury kind of thing.
Speaker 4:Right well, no, there's no jury there. This is a misconduct, okay, yeah, so right now he's looking he's looking over at ann who's I don't you know asking her yeah, asking her questions. She's the one that gets to ask him questions and he's just talking to the entire court, whoever's there.
Speaker 3:Well, here's my I'm gonna rephrase it this way my valid point when he turns to lie, he turns and looks at her, looks at who.
Speaker 4:He's looking at the judge. No, he's not right now, he's looking to the side.
Speaker 3:Keep playing. Does he not turn and look at her?
Speaker 4:No, Well, it just ends. I don't know what's oh right there.
Speaker 3:Right there, he's looking at her. Yes, yeah, he's looking at her. Yes, yeah, yeah, okay. So what's your favorite?
Speaker 4:phrase. Jacob, I don't know what's my favorite phrase You're right, oh, you're right.
Speaker 3:Yes, oh well, yeah, okay, yes, you are correct.
Speaker 4:You are correct? Yes, he's looking right at the judge.
Speaker 3:Yes, okay, making contact, making emphasis that this lie is true. Yeah, it's classic lying behavior. And again, feel free to correct me at any time. I cannot keep all this straight because I'm not an expert liar, I don't even try. All right, have we hammered in? Think about this. This is like full blown on lie. Yes, first, it's. This case has totally to do with the church. Twenty minutes later, when that starts getting exposed by the defense attorney, he realizes, hey, this is not looking good. So what he does is he slings and says the complete opposite, correct, correct, the complete opposite. You have proof right here that he lies about everything and it all has to do with taking down the church. And it worked. I mean, I have to give him credit, it did work.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Now. So what Beth Andrews does is she's really boxing a corner. Clearly our cameras are in the room and it's clear he's done misconduct. I mean there's a lot of other things to this aspect but she whitewashes all the lies. She'll sit there and go. Well, I'm pretty confident that he was doing the best, that he thought and we won't get into that. We've covered that before. So this all gets whitewashed. But she knows he's lying. She knows he's flat out lying. You can see it on her face. Now I zoomed in and I took some stills of this. And let's just zoom in and look at her face. You tell me that's not a face that goes. What am I hearing here? Yes, is now you correct me wrong, but that looks either one or two things. She's got some illness or something I know she doesn't have an illness.
Speaker 3:Okay, that's she's like.
Speaker 4:So we've ruled that out. What I'm hearing?
Speaker 3:yeah, this guy is crazy yeah, loony, but then she still whitewashes it yeah, she, I know, yeah, I think isn't there another couple zooms? Keep going in there. It's just kind of, maybe not.
Speaker 4:This is the big. Yeah, this is very clear. It'll be big on the screen.
Speaker 3:It just goes downhill from there. I mean, if you're going to whitewash this kind of bad character of a cop, there's no way you're going to get a fair trial.
Speaker 4:No.
Speaker 3:You're not even going to get, and when?
Speaker 4:I say fair trial, that's a long way from an honest trial. Yeah, exactly. Well, that's yeah. An honest trial is impossible, impossible, you can't, it's impossible.
Speaker 3:They won't allow it, the very laws or the way they twist them and things they leave out. It's just not feasible. Just so happened in this particular trial. It got sharply into focus because we didn't bow down to all their corruption. All right, jacob, any other thoughts on that? I don't want to leave that too quick because people again I'm repeating, but I'm trying to slow down here Think about what you're hearing and seeing and what McCall is getting by with. If Beth Andrews and then later Judge Lori K Smith are letting this man with these kinds of lies and corruption we've just looked at a couple to falsely accuse somebody else and take down a whole church and drive them from the city of Enumclaw. People just need to wake up to just how much corruption is going on. It's unfathomable, it really is.
Speaker 6:It is the allegation comes from the detective. The quality of the interview of the complainant in this case was very poor. This is an absolutely terrible interview. There are many leading questions in this case was very poor. That this is an absolutely terrible interview. There are many leading questions in this interview. The interviewer providing information as opposed to obtaining it. I'm just so sorry that this kind of poor quality interviewing is going on in the 21st century. We don't need this. What we need are good quality interviews to be done, instead of it all being led by what the officer's looking for. There's nothing here. A proper interview. We'd have a narrative. This was an interview to confirm what the detective thought or the investigator thought had happened. I mean, this entire interview is not acceptable. Every single act, alleged act, is suggested first by the officer. Every act.
Speaker 6:Yes every act and every allegation comes from the detective. He's the one who suggests all of the things that happen. This is how. If you wanted to do an interview to make suggestions to a complainant, this is how to do it.
Speaker 2:Nothing on the Consider podcast should be considered legal or life advice. Each is admonished to seek a holy God and obey by picking up a cross to follow Jesus. The Consider podcast wwwconsiderinfo.