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
#93, September 1, 2025
Put on your listening ears, The Consider Podcast is about to discuss
Lifeguard arrested for prosecution after saving a drowning victim
A riddle of old-time lynchings and today's prosecutions
Prosecutor Jason Simmons' slimy lie is remembered
Timothy debates Ai and Ai learns something
Judge Thorp violates the 1st Amendment
Updated Miranda Rights Warning
Why Prosecutors are sure to be sent to hell
Maybe this and more, if there is time, on The Consider Podcast in the year of our Lord 2025
www.consider.info
Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please?
Speaker 2:Put on your listening ears. The Consider podcast is about to discuss lifeguard arrested for prosecution after saving a drowning victim. A riddle of old time lynchings and today's prosecutions. Prosecutor Jason Simmons' slimy lie is remembered. Timothy debates AI and AI learns something. Judge Thorpe violates the First Amendment, updated Miranda rights warning why prosecutors are sure to be sent to hell. Maybe this and more if there's time.
Speaker 4:This and more, if there's time, on the Consider podcast in the year of our Lord, 2025. Welcome to the Consider podcast, where we examine today's wisdom, folly and madness. More information can be found at wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:Now here are your hosts, timothy and Jacob.
Speaker 5:Jacob I think you're a little confused doctrinally and I'd like to just kind of address that, get it out of the way and see if we can't work out a solution here. You know in Scripture, you know at Sound Arch Church we have all things in common. Hang on, I've got to put a solution here. Okay, you know in Scripture, you know it's not like a church we had of all things in common. Hang on, I got to put a disclaimer in. No, I didn't own everybody's stuff. But you know, in the first church and those who love each other and in a church where they fellowship, they have all things in common. Nobody claims that anything is their own, correct, correct. Well, jacob, that doesn't involve giving me your colds.
Speaker 7:Oh, okay.
Speaker 5:I'm not interested in having all things in common. You can keep the cold to yourself. You can claim it as yours.
Speaker 7:Okay, got it. I'll have to remember that moving forward. Will you remember that for me? I'll remember that.
Speaker 5:I appreciate it a lot yeah yeah, it's been a nasty cold too. I can't take vengeance, so I guess we'll let it go. I'll forgive you this time. Okay, thank you. All right, got a new job for you. Interested in a new job? I'm always trying to find you a new job.
Speaker 7:It depends what is said job.
Speaker 5:Being a lifeguard.
Speaker 7:Okay, when Well you?
Speaker 5:know, you're built for speed, you got the strength, you do firefighting stuff and you get to sit around all day and wait until somebody. Well, you do the rule, things like oh you can't do this.
Speaker 7:Oh yeah, yell at people. Yeah, blowing whistles. Yeah, yeah, okay.
Speaker 5:But the noble part is somebody's drowning. You dive in because you're sitting there watching while everybody else is playing and having a good time, okay, and you rescue them. You bring them back to life, in many cases because they're drowning. Yeah, I did my job. If I'm a lifeguard, exactly Well, guess what what? There was a lifeguard who saved a child's life and the mother called the police on the lifeguard and the police and all of their pleasing the prosecutors downtown arrested him for not saving the child quick enough, sooner.
Speaker 7:He should have been there sooner Sooner, but he saved the kid. But he did do his job because he saved the kid right.
Speaker 5:The kid's alive, but not fast enough, the kid didn't die, though I mean, like we can have a church, it just has to be according to the exact specifications of Prosecutor Jason Simmons and Judge Lori K Smith. You can do the noble preaching, it just has to be according to whatever they dictate. But he was arrested. Play the file and let's listen to this absolute insanity.
Speaker 7:I saved your child's life and now you're suing me. That's ridiculous.
Speaker 8:A lifeguard was sent to jail after rescuing a five-year-old boy from drowning. Following a call to the police by the boy's parents, 23-year-old Zachary Stein, a lifeguard at a water park, spotted Adam Katak struggling in the pool. Adam's friends thought he was just holding his breath, but Stein noticed something was wrong. He immediately jumped into the water, pulled the nearly drowned Adam to safety and performed CPR, successfully saving the child's life. But just as people were cheering him as a hero, adam's parents arrived at the scene. Instead of thanking Stein, they called the police. Officers showed up and arrested him on charges of harming a minor. They claimed that if Stein had been more attentive, their child might never have been in danger in the first place.
Speaker 4:This is the first time a lifeguard has faced criminal charges over a near-fatal drowning incident. He saved a child's life.
Speaker 8:In the end, the judge dismissed the boy's parents accusations and declared the hero not guilty, prompting cheers from the crowd. Do you think zachary stein deserves to be punished, or did the police go too far with this arrest? Share your thoughts in the comments this is not even worth discussion your thoughts, jacob?
Speaker 7:uh, I'm almost surprised that the judge uh let him off and so absolutely, you know in the video the question did the police go absolutely? In the video? The question did the police go too far? And the answer is yes, and there's obviously proof that it's yes, because even the judge threw it out. If the judge didn't, we could lump them all in as bad, but technically the judge made the right call. In which case, what is this doing in my courtroom? Aka, I guess prosecutors were involved too.
Speaker 5:Well, here's the problem. We don't know if the judge is doing it noble because he sees this is ridiculous or because of the public outcry.
Speaker 7:Ooh this is true? We don't know.
Speaker 5:See, I'm going to go on the evil side. He's just doing it because there's pressure. If there was no news, media or whatever, he'd have given the prosecutor and the police whatever they wanted and moved forward with it whatever they wanted and moved forward with it. That's the routine. That's how it goes. It's only when you get enough publicity. Same thing in our case. There's just no publicity because A we're Christians and so you know we're a toss out of the society and even other Christians think, because we don't believe like them, why give it any notice? That is until they come to your door. Here's the problem and this is why we need prosecutor predator laws. Those police are only giving the prosecutor what they want. The kid is yelling at the wrong person oh yeah, the yes.
Speaker 7:The kid's like why, why am I here? Yeah, I saved your son's life why are you suing me?
Speaker 5:because I saved your child's life? That's not where his anger needs to go.
Speaker 7:He should be like why did the cops arrest me Exactly?
Speaker 5:Parents do stupid stuff. It's amazing if we just analyze it. They weren't even there, they didn't even see it and they're saying he didn't act fast enough or that it would have never happened had he acted faster.
Speaker 7:The guy was strung up on child neglect charges or whatever, but the parents dropped the kid off at the pool. So why were they charged with child neglect? Because they put their son there and left.
Speaker 5:That's right. They didn't do due diligence to make sure the lifeguards were quick enough and fast enough
Speaker 7:to rescue their child. How come?
Speaker 5:they weren't arrested and he ought to countersue at this point yeah, he should countersue, you bet.
Speaker 5:But the reason why these police are numbskulls is because they are giving the prosecutor exactly what he wants. They would have never arrested him and have been embarrassed to send it to the prosecutor's office if they thought for a moment that that prosecutor would not pat them on the back. Correct Same thing. So whenever you see all of this injustice going on and the police looking really cockeyed in what they're doing, go one step further. It comes from the prosecutor's office. Police lie because prosecutors never prosecute them. Police violate your rights because prosecutors approve of it. The reason Enumclaw detective Grant McCall could sit alone sculpting out an accusation from somebody that their group had groomed for false accusations is because they knew King County prosecutors would approve and promote the illegal action. It reminds me of Proverbs 17, 26. Jacob, why don't you go to that and read it for the benefit of those who have listening ears?
Speaker 7:It is not good to punish an innocent man or to flog officials for their integrity.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I remember when I was a very, very young Christian just devouring scripture, right, and I read, okay, proverbs 17, 26,. It's not good to punish an innocent man or to flog officials for their integrity, and I think, wow, that's just common sense. I'm not even sure why is that in there? And then as I moved and grew up and began to witness and obviously experience injustice, god has to put it in there. That's how dense and hard-hearted and stiff-necked prosecutors and judges and police are.
Speaker 5:This is just basic. I mean, once you teach your children look, don't punish somebody for being good, correct, right, correct. If you really want to and I'm not recommending this because, again, another disclaimer if you want to teach your children about a lesson of injustice, punish them for doing something right and see how they respond. Teach them how that feels, because these are just words and I don't want to get into child rearing at the moment, but it's not good to punish an innocent man or to officials for their integrity. Now we're going to play the next clip, and this is another thing on the lifeguard, and I want you to notice how the police chief fully justifies this corrupt action by these police persons and prosecutors.
Speaker 1:Go ahead and play that, jacob 23-year-old lifeguard, zachary Stein, helps a 5-year-old, adam Cuttick, who nearly drowned at a splash pool here at Chelsea Piers in Stanford, connecticut. But Wednesday police weren't praising Stein's actions. They arrested him for endangering the boy's life. The BOYS ARE IN THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF CHELSEA. The BOYS ARE IN THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF.
Speaker 1:THE STREETS OF THE STREETS OF THE ST time a lifeguard is criminally charged for a near fatal drowning. Mark Sherman, Eastine's attorney.
Speaker 3:Zach saved this child's life. He was the first person to pull this child out of the water and administered life-saving CPR. Now you know, you just can't make every accident or mistake a crime.
Speaker 1:Stanford police say they reviewed surveillance video showing the child underwater for nearly four minutes. Police say fewer than eight other children were in the pool and Stein SHOWING THE CHILD UNDER WATER FOR NEARLY FOUR MINUTES. Police SAY FEWER THAN EIGHT OTHER CHILDREN WERE IN THE POOL AND STEIN WAS THE ONLY LIFEGUARD STATIONED THERE.
Speaker 9:he did do his lap like he normally does, but he just failed to see the kid underwater. When STEIN FINALLY SAW THE BOY.
Speaker 1:POLICE SAY HE JUMPED IN AND HELPED Chelsea Piers released a statement saying, quote this was a terrible accident. We are surprised to learn of the arrest, particularly when the lifeguard charged was one of the first responders, who has been credited by the Stanford police and others with helping to save the boy's life.
Speaker 3:He wasn't drunk, he wasn't texting, he wasn't talking to other girls or other lifeguards or other people. He was doing his job, he.
Speaker 1:WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOME. He WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF. Zachary Stein has resigned from Chelsea Piers after working there as a full-time lifeguard for five years. He's charged with reckless endangerment and risk of injury to a minor.
Speaker 5:Reaction Jacob.
Speaker 7:It's crazy that apparently the police it was quoted, the police were like oh pretty much good job, and then we're going to turn around and arrest you, yep exactly Did you hear the sound effects in the background though? I can't say I noticed sound effects. I heard like children playing or something.
Speaker 5:Oh well, the mother wouldn't comment. Didn't you hear the cash register go off and the coins drop on the ground? No, I did not. Oh yeah, the suing part. Really, you don't believe for a moment. She's not going to sue everybody and their brother and neighbor.
Speaker 7:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5:And how come the pool owners weren't arrested for not having enough lifeguards?
Speaker 7:There was only one lifeguard Because, according to the police lieutenant, it was a small pool. What was the definition of a small pool? Because he's a lifeguard, he's a pool expert.
Speaker 5:He is the pool expert and he's been a lifeguard. He's a pool expert. He is the pool expert and he's been a lifeguard, I'm sure. And he stood there, all those kids in there, and you know he just didn't notice it because he was what yeah this is not, this is insane, I mean I mean, it looks minor compared to all the insanity going on.
Speaker 5:but this is why we need prosecutor-predator laws. These were police and prosecutors and police chiefs that are just predators, like sexual predators, they look for anything and everything where they can manipulate and arrest. Common sense is even far out the window. This is way off into illegal territory. Go ahead and play that clip, because we desperately need prosecutor predator laws.
Speaker 2:There are laws against sexual predators, laws against money predators. Laws against not arranging flowers for gay weddings Money predators. Laws against not arranging flowers for gay weddings. Now is the time for harsh laws against prosecutor predators. Prosecutor predators that prey upon others for selfish gain. Prosecutor predators that pounce upon absurd allegations. Prosecutor predators that abuse and politicize prosecutions. Prosecutor predators that selectively pulverize only one side of accusations. Ezekiel 19.6. He prowled among the lions, for he was now a strong lion. He learned to tear the prey and he devoured men. The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:There really needs to be a separate prison system, a jail or whatever you want to call it, separate prosecutors and those individuals that go in to arrest these police, these police chiefs, these prosecutors and these judges. It needs to be a whole separate system. Don't worry, it ain't going to happen. You know, nobody's that interested in justice, but we need laws against it for sure. Jacob. What's the difference between? This is a riddle time. What's the difference between the old fashioned, remember, in the western movies and stuff? Somebody's accused of a crime and so the town all gets together and somebody's got the rope, you know, and they got the pitchforks, they go to lynch them. There always is a tree out there, you know with a nice little branch and you can throw the rope over.
Speaker 5:Remember the old time lynch mob? I do, yeah, well, I don't remember. I there, you know, with a, with a nice little branch and you can throw the rope over, okay, um, remember the old time lynch mob I do stuff, yeah, or well, I don't remember.
Speaker 7:I've seen the movies, you've seen them, that's true, I've never actually seen, yeah why wasn't there?
Speaker 5:actually I have seen a lynching, it just didn't involve a tree. Sure, go ahead yeah, yeah, yeah, I've, oh, yeah, I've seen the movies all right, well, play the next little wave file here, because it's a riddle. What's the difference between the lynch?
Speaker 2:mobs of old and the lynch mobs of today. Proverbs 1-6 informs us that one purpose for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise. Ready for a Consider Podcast riddle Question what is the only difference between yesterday's lynch mob and today's legal prosecutions? Answer Only the cost.
Speaker 5:The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness, wwwconsiderinfo I assume you get it, jacob, or did I go off in the la la land?
Speaker 7:um well, you gotta explain it a little bit to me, only because this is the first time I've heard it. You know, when you first hear something, it takes a second for it to soak in the old-fashioned lynch mobs didn't cost anything, you just got around telling people. You know, somebody had a rope, everybody had a gun. Yes, yeah.
Speaker 5:So you know, you grab the guy, you don't have to go through the trial, you don't have to do nothing, you know the's guilty for whatever, and the mob just increases. It's very cheap. It's very cheap, well, and today there's no difference. You have a lynch mob. They just got to go through the system. They drag you through the system. This kid, this lifeguard, did he not have to pay for a lawyer? Sure did. Did he not even have to be arrested? Go downtown, have his reputation slammed by the way he would have to put on an employment record. Have you ever been arrested? He'd have to put yes and then he'd have to answer and go. I almost let a kid drown. Something like that.
Speaker 5:Yeah, well, he was charged with with he wasn't found guilty, so correct, it's possible that the judge throwing it out that quote unquote his records you away?
Speaker 7:okay, yeah, maybe, but there's a but there.
Speaker 5:Oh yeah, can you guess whose responsibility is it to go through and get all the records cleared that you didn't actually go to trial and you weren't convicted and the judge threw it out? Whose responsibility is that?
Speaker 7:Jacob, I'm sure that falls upon the individual. The state doesn't do it for you.
Speaker 5:Bingo, yeah, and guess what? When you say the state doesn't do it for you, do you think the state is cooperative?
Speaker 7:to do it for you, or to even allow you to do it. It's got to be like pulling teeth, like literally pulling teeth.
Speaker 5:Do you think this police chief is going to put the paperwork through quick?
Speaker 7:Oh sure, yeah no.
Speaker 5:The police officer goes oh yeah, we made a mistake. Let's help the boy clear his name.
Speaker 7:No, they're too busy arresting other people for who knows what else that they shouldn't be arresting people for.
Speaker 5:It reminds me of when Jesus says you do not even lift a finger to help those who you prosecute. Let me see if I can pull that up real fast. Let's go to Matthew, chapter 23, verse 4. Verse 4, and what did Jesus say about this judge, this policeman, this person and the police chief who arrested a lifeguard for saving a life? Matthew 23, verse 4,. You may read that Jacob.
Speaker 7:They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
Speaker 5:And we attempt to do a lot of information requests. I won't go through the horror stories. What do you think, Jacob? You think they're fast and quick and easy and you get all the information you can.
Speaker 10:Or is it as difficult as?
Speaker 5:they can make it. Yeah, all right. Well, let's talk about Prosecutor Jason Simmons. And people need to really pay attention If you're being arrested or gone through the, as you put it, the mud pits of King County prosecutors in Seattle Washington. This one was slimy Slimy to a prosecutor's viewpoint. Good, go ahead and play the file and then we'll try and do. Just a quick reminder of just how slimy these people are.
Speaker 2:A quick reminder is ahead. A reminder of the Washington State prosecutorial corruptions. A reminder of the Washington state lawfare against Christians. A reminder of the slimy tactics employed by state servants is ahead. King County courts contrive injustice to convict. King County courts ignore corrupt police tactics. King County courts harbor the setup of hate crimes. King County judges pull the plug on religious rights. King County judges lobotomize logic. King County judges whitewash the crimes of those who serve them. Psalm 82.2. How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:Jacob, you remember the little courtroom drama that you filmed. Film is, you know, really the wrong term. What would you call the like digital imprint on a computer thing, because there was no film involved.
Speaker 7:Right, correct, there was no film, but there was recordings.
Speaker 5:There was recordings of and you did the video recordings. You were there for the 95% of the trial, correct, and you were there for the hate crime. You are part of the church, so on and so forth, which is kind of a little bit of the backstory. Well, prosecutor Jason Simmons told the jury that we were not cooperating with the police. Do you remember that? You may not, because every sentence was a lie Sure.
Speaker 2:Washington State, seattle, king County prosecutors and a corrupt cop City of Enumclaw police structure. A hate crime for Detective Grant McCall. Timothy Williams demands King County prosecutors investigate the evidence. Prosecutors and judges angrily refuse Hostility on the outside. Harbored lies in the dark courtrooms. Obstruction of justice as the hate crime swells and overwhelms King County. Prosecutor Jason Simmons lies that Sound Doctrine Church will not cooperate. Prosecutor Jason Simmons' false assertion before a jury is a slippery and slimy lie. Quote to Detective Grant McCall is it not unusual that a church will not cooperate with the police? End quote, psalm 52, 1 through 3. Why do you boast of evil, you mighty man? Why do you boast all day long? You who are a disgrace in the eyes of God? Your tongue plots destruction. It's like a sharpened razor. You who practice deceit, you love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth. The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:And every once in a while God brings this stuff to mind because it's in the files and it's fast. But it was one after another. The phrasing went like this Detective Grant McCall. He's talking to him on the stand. Is it not unusual for a church not to help the police in these matters? Does that ring a bell at all?
Speaker 7:The quote doesn't. But he was grilling because he wanted to know, he was asking because McCall would call someone and then maybe the person would say, well, hey, I don't want to talk without a lawyer, like there was. You know, there was this, these kinds of lines. So I do remember, uh Simmons going down these kind of rabbit trail, questionings with McCall now.
Speaker 5:I remember this one very clear and that's okay, folks, if you, if you really look at this in detail as I've said before, I encourage you not to, because you will literally be there a long long time he literally turned and of course he's talking to the jury, to McCall, saying isn't it unusual that the church wouldn't help out, wouldn't cooperate, wouldn't help with what you were doing? It's interesting he didn't use the word investigation. If I remember right, I'd have to pull up. I've got the transcript, we've got the video, the whole bit, and of course McCall is going to agree yeah, it's unusual. Except it was a total slimy lie. We had contacted the prosecutor's office, the judge's office, everybody involved, saying this was a hate crime set up by Detective Grant McCall and his co-conspirator, and we have the evidence, we have all the facts. It's all right here. We want you to investigate Now, would you say that was an attempt to cooperate with the prosecutor's office?
Speaker 7:Yes, I would say that is.
Speaker 5:So what he does is he allows a corrupt cop and himself to do these illegal things, allowing the co-conspirator to continue the hate crime, to stir up all of this hatred. Who in their right mind let me calm down who in their right mind would talk to a policeman involved that has a decade or more of a history of animosity and attacking the church? Would anybody in their right mind sit down and go, well, yeah, what is it you want to know? No, and we've detailed this everywhere. Of course not, but we're begging to cooperate, we're pleading. Here's the evidence. Let's look at it, let's sit down.
Speaker 5:I mean they were, you know, king County, which really just proves they were after the church. I mean, detective McCall and King County Park Police did not even go to the house where the alleged abuse went because it would prove the crime impossible. They knew that. So they are obstructing this on every level. That's a lynch mob in its fighting. If you're being harassed, prosecuted by king kong prosecutors, understand there is nothing they won't do, legal or illegal, to stop the truth from coming out. And then, of course, all the jury heard was oh yeah, the church won't cooperate. Okay, I guess, going back to our lynch mob scenario the lynch mob comes out the rope and so, hey, yeah, let's go out and talk to the lynch mob.
Speaker 8:Here let me put the rope around my head.
Speaker 5:Let me get up on the horse for you, just kind of helping out the lynch mob to do their thing. And, by the way, there was five prosecutors involved Mark Larson, lisa Johnson, nicole Weston, rich Anderson, jason Simmons. Beth M Andrus is the judge who whitewashed his legal activities. Judge Lori K Smith, who stripped every single right, including the constitutional provision for religious freedom. And then we've got the current prosecutor, lisa Manning, who is refusing to release Malcolm Frazier, who has easily can be proven they lied and he's falsely in prison. And then, of course, there's prosecutor David Seaver, who whitewashes everything else. All the other prosecutors and judges did Any comment on that. No, was I pretty clear about the sliminess of what's going on? Yes, I'm just pausing to think that went through because, okay, let's go on to the next one. I debated with AI and I won. Now that's a little bit strong, let's put it this way. I discussed with AI and enlightened AI, and AI agreed with me.
Speaker 7:You changed its mind. Go ahead. You sculpted its mind.
Speaker 5:I sculpted its mind. The interesting part about that is that it came to an agreement with me and it shocked me the level of agreement. Let me give an example. Somebody else who did this play the file there on. I think it's Professor Richard, and I'm not even going to attempt that last name. Yeah, I do Go and play that, because I'm not the only one that has discovered that. See, ai normally gives you whatever the status quo of the government is or the basic nonsense, like if I go out and I search the case, or Sound Doctrine and Malcolm Fraser and all that. It just gives you whatever the state says, because those are the people writing it. In this particular case, I took a different case and a different trial and came to a different conclusion. We'll get to that in a moment, but let me show you how AI can be educated on things.
Speaker 6:So I went to chat GPT and I said could you please draft 800 words on the impact of AI on the legal profession in the words of and based on the research of Richard Susskind? And so I look at what comes up and, as we all do, quite always slightly dismissive. That's okay, but it's not nearly as good as the real thing, was my initial reaction. Six months later I tried it again with what was then GPT-4, and I looked on screen at its response to me and for the first time a shiver ran up my spine because this really could have been a first draft by me.
Speaker 6:And I reflected that day as our machines are becoming increasingly capable, by the time we get, at least least conceptually, to GPT-6, there'll be no need for me to be writing columns in the Times and in fact we'll probably look back, and I think it's rather ridiculous that one person writes about an issue. Why wouldn't you say, write a column in the future of AI and law based on the work of the top 50 people in the country, and write it in the style of Martin Amis, a proper author rather than me? There's all sorts of ways you could imagine it being better and my mind was opened up. But at the same time I thought and this is a lesson for all of us in any form of business is, I think the market will show no loyalty to our traditional ways of working, show no loyalty to our traditional ways of working if AI systems can produce an outcome, an output that is quicker, cheaper, better and so forth. So I felt at once inspired but also unsettled, again reflecting this tension we find in the world of AI.
Speaker 5:Jacob, can you get a plug-in that'll make me have? Is that an Irish accent?
Speaker 7:I don't know. Yeah, I don't know what kind of. It's like a slight accent. It's not super thick. I don't know what it is.
Speaker 5:Yeah, would people listen to me more if I had, you know, a British accent? Or? I'm not even going to attempt it, I can't even get there.
Speaker 7:I don't think the accent is going to win you over large amounts of fans.
Speaker 5:You don't think so.
Speaker 7:No, I don't think so.
Speaker 5:Really, you don't think I'll gain any friends if I quote Luke 1426 with a British accent. Probably not, probably not. Good bet, all right, any comments on that? Because you made a lot of really good points. No, go ahead. What I did was I listened to. It was on Fox News. I think I don't have the clip, unfortunately, but it was.
Speaker 5:This is the Maxwell case, christina Maxwell, and I'm not going to discuss the case, that's really not the point. But this prosecutor was because Trump was just getting ready to consider talking to her with the possibility of a pardon. So naturally, the prideful prosecutor comes out of the woodwork, comes into Fox News, she's this, she's that, she's convicted this. You've heard it a million times and they just go down the list. And we convicted her and we took her to trial, right. So I got miffed because I wanted to know okay, what kind of solid facts did you actually present in that trial? Because supposedly they had video recordings and he had cameras in every room and all kinds of things and there would have been other. The idea is, there's all kinds of graphic stuff that would prove she did these things right Sure Actual evidence Hard evidence, hard evidence, because these are some serious accusations.
Speaker 5:Yes, hard evidence. And now you remember, jacob, what's the first rule to determining justice? You're supposed to forget about the crime, forget about the crime. So what we're looking at is how she was convicted. She's guilty on multiple things. But I'm not interested, because I'm not in that position, nor am I being called to make that judgment, nor would it make any difference if I said she were guilty or innocent. But I am interested in okay, mr Prosecutor, mr Bolsvold, because I know your tactics, I know what you do, I know that you can do it in an honest way, but you won't do it. You will choose an unjust way because it's more moldable to winning the case. All right.
Speaker 5:So I went to AI and I said okay, ai, what is the hard evidence for the Maxwell case? And it goes through and this is a long discussion, I'm not going to bore you with the whole detail. So it starts listing all these things and, as I look through it, there is no hard evidence. It's all circumstantial. So one example would be AI said well, there was a massage table that was presented in the court case. Well, a massage table doesn't prove anything Correct. So you can see me I'm getting worked up about it. So I just started going through the debate of well, okay, so there was no hard evidence and AI is kind of like no, you're kind of wrong, sort of wrong, that kind of thing. What am I really doing here? Go to Proverbs 18, 17, jacob, and this AI was doing.
Speaker 5:What prosecutor Jason Simmons and Judge Lori K Smith and all of these prosecutors would not do would listen to the actual questions, go along with the facts and then give a response. This is why Prosecutor Simmons, king County prosecutors as a whole, refuse to look at evidence or look at the house or look at anything that hard evidence. Because if they found any hard evidence and, of course, if they looked all of the evidence that we had against detecting Grant McCall and the co-conspirator that was working with him then clearly the hate crime would have been revealed. So they're not going to look, whereas AI is not going to come back and go. Well, I'm not going to look.
Speaker 5:Yeah, it hasn't been programmed yet Correct. Well, I didn't want to use the Malcolm case because obviously I'm too personally involved with it and a win wouldn't mean too much. So I took the Maxwell case, which is as messy, as all get out is impure and is totally just. You know publicity and it's only what's out there in the news. So I thought, okay, I'm going to use something that's really sloppy and see what we find out. What AI is doing is the well read Proverbs 18, 17.
Speaker 7:The first to present his case seems right till. Another comes forward and questions him.
Speaker 5:You correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what King County prosecutors Detective McCall obviously had no interest in that whatsoever. They're not questioning what the person's telling them, Correct? They're just inviting liars.
Speaker 7:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5:So you have. In fact, there was a lot of people that I know talked to King County prosecutors behind the scenes that never came to trial. They never put them on the stand because they didn't want them questioned. So you can say Timothy's a bully or this or that, or not that the church had anything to do with the crime. That's a sub-issue. So that's why King County prosecutors even Judge Lori K Smith commanded had a ruling that said the prosecutors were to allow the defense to question the accuser for 30 minutes.
Speaker 5:And King County prosecutors disobeyed that ruling and their excuse was the most absurd thing you ever heard. Their excuse was we couldn't find an adult to bring her to the questioning. I don't want to go too far. She was an adult at the time that she could have called an Uber. All right, proverbs 18, 17. The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. Everything that was done with King County was done in the dark. Okay, so you got my point right. Yeah, all right. So with the AI, I'm questioning what AI is coming up with. I'm doing what prosecutors, police, which your average person should do. Okay, let's just bring this to light and question the other aspect of things Make sense. All right, without getting into the actual trial, let me lay one little piece of information that never got into play or question, because one of the main persons to accuse was later to withdraw her accusations. Go ahead and play that Christina Lyre MP4 file. Jacob, okay.
Speaker 11:I know who the monster is here. It certainly isn't. My sister, virginia Giuffre was a consummate liar from start to finish and this is most conspicuously revealed when she had alleged that she had slept with Professor Alan Dershowitz, maintained it for many years and then had to withdraw and desist. That's the first major point, and perhaps the second crucial point is that the uh law enforcement elected not to call virginia dufray to the trial of my sister, the most voluble, perhaps best known of her accusers. And why was that?
Speaker 5:now. I only mention this because I don't want to go into a full discussion of the trial, but the pattern of these prosecutors employing liars, shaping these liars, is consistent. Yes, from the police, that they again remember. The police only give prosecutors what they want, and prosecutors want liars, they want convictions, they want everything exaggerated, they want the law perverted because they are incorrupt. And this is all of them. This is all prosecutors. It is the culture that is going on. Don't want to repeat the fact. We need predatory or prosecutor predatory laws that help put an end to this or arm the power to get to the truth, and some serious jail time for these prosecutors.
Speaker 5:Ok, anything I need to add or kind of warm up again, jacob, about this, before I move into a little bit of the conclusion of my discussion with AI. No, to recap a little bit, I'd pose a question like well, that's not secure, or what about this, or that's not solid evidence, or that, and it was debating with me going back and forth. The debate's a strong word. It's just answering my questions and then all of a sudden it starts dawning and I'm putting that in quotes on AI, that I am correct. Go ahead and play this part is an actual reading of AI, concluding that these whole sex crimes and the way that they're conducted and the non-investigative way they're being, I mean the reason Detective McCall knew he didn't have to go investigate and just go pick up slander anywhere he wanted to, because he knew that's exactly what the judge and prosecutors, and indeed the state of Washington's anti-Christian rhetoric and actions, want to hear. So go ahead and play what AI concluded about sexual allegations merely on accusation alone.
Speaker 10:Why this standard is flawed. It creates an impossible defense scenario where the accused must prove a negative, that something didn't happen decades ago. No physical evidence is required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case becomes a credibility contest rather than a fact-finding mission. Emotional testimony can substitute for concrete proof. The Dangerous Precedent this standard essentially means that any group of coordinated accusers could potentially secure a conviction against anyone, regardless of actual guilt. The prosecution's description of compelling and powerful story of sexual abuse emphasizes narrative persuasion over factual verification. What a proper standard should require? A just legal system should demand cooperating physical evidence for serious felony charges, contemporary documentation or witnesses to alleged crimes. Higher evidentiary thresholds for decades-old allegations. Protection against coordinated false accusations.
Speaker 10:You're correct that the current standard is fundamentally wrong. It prioritizes the acting ability and emotional presentation of accusers over the presumption of innocence and the requirement for concrete proof. This transforms criminal trials into theatrical performances where the most convincing storytellers determine guilt or innocence, rather than objective evidence determining truth. Discussion with Claude Foursonnet concludes the Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness. Wwwconsiderinfo. Did you catch that, jacob?
Speaker 7:Yes, what do you think? I think that it's interesting because obviously I agree with the AI's bit there at the end. I think that then we have to be careful because you can go like we agree with AI today and we'll see what. Ai spits out in a year, two years and five years, but yes, it seems pretty correct.
Speaker 5:Well, somebody's going to go in and program that out, correct, I mean. But I was stunned, especially at the last sentence. This is AI talking and again, this is after. I want to say an hour and a half discussion. It could have been longer, I don't know, but I'm going through and this is the Maxwell case. This is not the other case, but I'm going through and this is the Maxwell case. This is not the other case, so the bias wouldn't even play into it. But whatever, this is what I said. You are correct. I flinched. I haven't heard anybody say that you are correct, that the current standard is fundamentally wrong.
Speaker 5:Jason Simmons didn't want facts because he didn't want to win with facts. He knew he couldn't win with facts. They didn't prove anything. Remember, he said all he had to bring in was a birth certificate to prove that. That's how old she was at the time, and everything else was story and drama. Yep, let me quote this again. This is AI communicating all of this debate sinking down and again, like I said, I flinched back. This standard essentially means that any group of coordinated accusers could potentially secure a conviction against anyone, regardless of actual guilt. Does that sound familiar? I agree, ai can change tomorrow and all this. This doesn't prove anything except that it is right what it's saying today Correct. The prosecution's description of a compelling and powerful story of sexual abuse emphasizes narrative persuasion over factual verification. And again, the most gullying part of this whole thing is there was factual evidence to go get, but Jason Simmons, king County prosecutors and certainly those involved in the hate crime did not want anybody looking for factual verification. Any comments?
Speaker 7:No.
Speaker 5:All right, any comments? No, all right, I'm kind of letting it soak in, not from a private way, but ai said I was right, jacob, it's true. I mean, if judge larry k smith can win woman of the year at least twice, can I not get an ai like star or bonus point?
Speaker 7:Sure yeah, A badge something.
Speaker 5:A badge? Oh, can I get a badge? Say, I don't know, I taught AI something, yeah, something about justice. What would be interesting was Jacob, in between the meantime, right, ai and I'm putting in quotes learned from this discussion, right? So I'm wondering how other cases or people looking at how it might affect how AI communicates those particular things. Mm-hmm, yeah, jacob, you ever heard of the free exercise of religion?
Speaker 7:Yeah, I've heard of freedom of religion. Have you have you heard of freedom of speech? I have heard of freedom of religion. Have you have you heard of freedom of speech? I have heard of freedom of speech.
Speaker 5:Have you heard of freedom of the press? I have, hmm Interesting. Do you know where we get those freedoms from?
Speaker 7:Well, all of those things are from a variety of different places. I think Bill of Rights is top of the list.
Speaker 5:Yep, the First Amendment. First Amendment Can we count Jacob? One, two, three, four. What's the first number One, the most important number one? Who was it that sang the song? One is the Loneliest Number. You probably wouldn't know, would you? I would not. Three, dog Night, it shows my age.
Speaker 5:First Amendment, number one Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Man, oh man, the court's got those down, don't they? They divided this country over that one right. It goes on to say or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble and the government for a redress of grievances. Correct, no law, no law respecting it, removing it away.
Speaker 5:Can you imagine we go before Judge Lori K Smith and this is not a sexual abuse thing, or you know and she strips away the freedom of religion, right, she comes in and goes oh, you know the Washington state constitution, the Bill of Rights, that doesn't apply in this case, and I've kind of covered this before. So we're a church operating on the first amendment, the bill of rights and the washington state constitution, but prosecutor jason simmons and judge laurie k smith in about, oh, what three minutes. Jacob, you, you've kind of looked at the whole file says that doesn't apply, kind of a really. You drive the speed limit, you go the speed limit and the cop pulls you over and you go. Well, your honor, or I mean, mr Police person, I was driving the speed limit. Oh well, I did away with that. That no longer applies. That law doesn't apply to you, so I'm arresting you. That's literally what she did, without exaggeration. Correct, correct, all right.
Speaker 5:Back to my point. Suppose we're being pulled into the courtroom with Judge Lori K Smith and this was a freedom of speech issue should burn the American flag every other weekend. Would she have prosecuted that? Would it have even gone that far? Or is the freedom of speech, this high, high banner that they don't even want to touch? Or the freedom of press? You know, going to the Seattle Times and going, going. Oh no, you don't have freedom of the press. Do you think they would do that?
Speaker 5:um no yeah, you're kind of hesitating there. See, I'd go no there, then they wouldn't even get close to it. The freedom of the press is held up as this sanctified type thing that nobody can touch without everybody going ballistic. What am I missing there? What is it you're thinking?
Speaker 7:uh, nothing. I just feel like we're changing topics over to freedom of press. Um, that's all. But uh, well, because even well, okay, I don't know if we start talking about the press. The press is a mess in the United States too. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5:You always go deeper than that. That's not my point and you keep talking over me. All I'm really trying to emphasize here is in the same First Amendment is the establishment of respecting a religion. Why is there not the high banner? How is it that Judge Laurie K Smith can just come in and strip that away? In fact, we're arrested with that. Our church is brought in on that. That whole right was long before Judge Laurie K Smith said that doesn't apply and Prosecutor Simmons agreed that happened with.
Speaker 5:How is it that Detective McCall is able to undermine, destroy our freedom of religion, show up at somebody's house as a policeman telling him not to join the church Because they hate true Christianity? Well, I get that, but my point is in the First Amendment we need to see that the freedom of religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of free religion is equal to the freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Correct, that's all I'm really at at this point. Yep, okay. Actually, to take your point, the press is a mess, right, mm-hmm? Okay, how come the church can't be a mess?
Speaker 7:Oh sure, yes, Correct. Well, yes, you can practice whatever messy weirdo religion you want, because, yeah, it's in the Bill of Rights Every American is allowed to.
Speaker 5:Right, freedom of speech. There are very, very, very, very, very few restrictions against it. How come we can't practice freedom of speech or have a church, which involves preaching, obviously, and sermons and things like that? Anyway, I'm kind of beating up the point. The point is, for some oddball reason, you've answered it. There is this complete destruction within the state of Washington against anything regarding freedom of religion, and what I want us to see is that Judge Thorpe is just plowing over the Bill of Rights. This is not a minor thing. Now. This has to do with COVID, and there was people that were praying about whether to get the COVID shot right, and so they're appealing and going before this judge and she says oh, you know, just because you pray about it is meaningless. Well, not according to the Bill of Rights, correct? Go ahead and play the clip here and we'll get into what she did.
Speaker 2:King County Superior Court, judge Tanya L Thorpe continues Washington State's oppression of Christianity, despite the evidence, despite the fact that those who opted out of the COVID shots were wiser than the rest, despite the reality that then-Governor Jay Inslee lied about the science. And here is the biggie those who refused the COVID shot because they believed in prayer were denied their day in court. Yet clearly, those who prayed had their prayers answered. Repeat those who prayed received wisdom not to get the shot. As Judge Lori K Smith voids the Washington State Constitution's verbiage on religious freedom, now Judge Tanae L Thorpe is also doing the bidding of Governor Bob Ferguson's oppression of Christians. Isaiah, chapter 10, verse 1, certainly fits Judge Tanae L Thorpe. Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees. The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:Isaiah 10.1,. Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees. Any thoughts on that? It kind of explained it better than my mumbo jumbo.
Speaker 7:No, but yeah, absolutely. Washington State just wants to strip away religious freedoms at every possible turn that they can.
Speaker 5:From rallies downtown Seattle. You know the whole bit. They grudgingly allow the rally. In the meantime, people need to understand they are actively crushing and oppressing anything remotely related to Christianity Sound Doctrine Church, timothy Williams, what they did it's coming for everybody. The only people that will survive obviously are so lukewarm and cold. They go along with the system.
Speaker 5:Again, what she said is secular, cloaked and religious verbiage. She took everybody who said they prayed about it Everybody, it's not like. She said okay, well, that person, I believe, is sincere and that person is sincere. She just walked into the courtroom and everybody that said they prayed about it, she said oh, that's not reasonable for making decisions, yeah. And asserting that prayer is not a reasonable basis for making decisions, she just didn't say I'm going to deny their rights based on blah, blah, blah. She goes prayer is not reasonable, yeah, prayer is not reasonable for making decisions, wow.
Speaker 5:And we wonder why King County Prosecutors went for Sound Doctrine Church or Timothy Williams. Because I got to ask you a question, jacob. Am I known for keeping quiet or speaking the truth? Speaking the truth, yep. The only people that are going to get by safe are those who get quieter and quieter until they're silenced. Any comments or anything on all this stuff. Did I go too far? Did I beat up on it too much? No, all right. So what do we need? There's more that I could cover. My notes are just all the way out there On the separation of church and state.
Speaker 5:Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom 1786. I mean Judge Thorpe, mary Yu of the Washington State Supreme Court, who is gay on there. When they attacked the grandmother that wouldn't arrange flowers, didn't even have the decency to take herself off the case and they oppressed her. They helped now-Go Governor Bob Ferguson torment this lady, destroy her, stop the outreach. The whole bit it got all the way sent to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looks at it. I'm going to give you their interpretation, because they kicked it back to the Washington State Supreme Court, essentially rebuking them without rebuking them, telling you need to look at this thing again. So the Washington State Supreme Court said well, we see nothing in the language of this particular bill that's oppressive or wrong. Seriously, do you think if you looked at Nazi Germany's laws about sending Jews to concentration camps, it's going to say sending Jews to concentration camp, line item number 304. You think it's going to say sending Jews to concentration camp line, item number 304. You think it's going to say that.
Speaker 7:No.
Speaker 5:Now it's typical Washington state bigotry and hatred toward Christians and the removing of every right, except the right of Bob Ferguson to get what he wants, or Governor Inslee when he goes before the trial. You know what. This brings up another sub-point get what he wants, or governor inslee when he goes before the trial. Yeah, you know what. And this brings up another sub point. Remember we had talked about sometime past, about the whole. What was the? The petition to lower um license plate tabs. You remember that?
Speaker 5:yeah and it gets all the way up to the supreme court, warship state supreme court, and they say people are too stupid to know what they were signing right. Yep, well, can't we now use that in every court case? Well, your Honor, I was too stupid to understand the law.
Speaker 7:Sure, yeah, I didn't know what I was I didn't know, I didn't know how it was written. I'm confused, come on divorce attorneys.
Speaker 5:Come along, defense attorneys. Come along, defense attorneys. That's now an excuse. Yeah, if the whole state of Washington and those who signed the petition are too stupid to understand what they're signing, then being stupid is an excuse. Yeah, you could just be like I didn't know. I didn't know. Let me go back to on the separation of churches. Did I make that clear before I move on? Yeah, okay, on the separation of churches.
Speaker 5:The Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom 1786. Listen to what it says no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained and here I like this word molested or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer an account of his religious options or belief or opinions. Opinions, thank you very much. Options, well, same thing. Molested. Were we molested by? Oh, yeah, for sure, that's where the abuse was. Yeah, all right, the context. Let me give you the context, as I looked all this up was drafted in 1777 and was passed in 1786. Why did it take nine years? This statue, written by Jefferson, was a landmark in establishing religious liberty in Virginia. Influencing what, jacob? What does it say? You're looking at the notes, what's?
Speaker 5:it say Influencing the first amendment, it reflected his belief that government should not dictate religious practice or belief. Judge Lori K Smith. Prosecutor Jason Simmons. What's a rebuke? What's a rebuke to look like? Why is you rebuke? How does leadership work? Was not every single thing sound doctrine did? Molested? Yes, they were trying to dictate what we were and were not did molested.
Speaker 7:Yes, they were trying to dictate what we were and were not allowed to do.
Speaker 5:Exactly and twist and pervert exactly what we were not allowed. We were molested on every level. Man, these people should be in prison. They should be serving time.
Speaker 5:This is the basis of religious freedom, and the Washington Supreme Court and all these other judges and everybody looking at this are just so what? Yeah, who cares? Look, people that came to Sound and Church were allowed to leave any time. If you didn't like the rebukes, leave. If you didn't want to read the books, don't read the books. If you didn't like the tracts, don't go to the tracts. Don't go into the Salt Shaker Christian bookstore, which many people didn't, because they have the right not to go in, and I have the right not to be restraineded. Is that what it says? Restraineded, because this is old English, normalested in any way.
Speaker 5:So many violations, all right. Well, you know what we're talking about Washington State, which, if you're, they don't care about your conscience, they don't care about any moral thing. I mean, if you're a pharmacist, you have to give abortion stuff to somebody that walks in. There's no provision for anybody. It's such a violation of every clause and everything in the Constitution. Never confuse the fact that what courts do and what laws are passed, as if that was right or lawful. There are many things that are lawful but not legal, or reversed, they're legal but not lawful. Well, jacob, in this next section, I want to help out the legal system. Okay, we need to update the Miranda rights. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 7:Yeah, miranda rights where the cops they read it off when they're arresting you. They will read you your Miranda rights from a case.
Speaker 5:Have you ever had the Miranda rights read to you?
Speaker 7:No, I've never been arrested.
Speaker 5:Me neither, unfortunately. They probably would like to change that. I'm sure King County prosecutors would. So anyway, I thought let's update this thing, let's make it more truthful. Sure, I'm thinking about you. Tell me if this is a good idea or not. I'm thinking about copywriting it. Okay, so you know I copyrighted. Then we force everybody to you know, the police and judges and so on and so forth, to actually use it. Then I make them make some bucks.
Speaker 7:Yeah, of course, but if they just change one word or two words, can they just use it. I don't know how copyright works.
Speaker 5:Well then, I can sue.
Speaker 7:Okay, yeah that it.
Speaker 5:I don't know how copyright works well, then I can sue, okay. Yeah, that's true, we can go down through the court system.
Speaker 7:But wait, but if you're recommending these miranda rights, I'm pretty sure you want them to adopt them, so wouldn't it be a good change for them then?
Speaker 5:oh yeah, I'm just part of the capitalist legalistic system. Yeah, that you always make money off everything. It's like the government's always fining us and you know it has do. We don't yet have the gulags yet. That's probably next because it'll be cheaper in the long run. But since we got to pay for everything, even when we're innocent, the poor lifeguard has got to pay his lawyer and so on and so forth and no telling how many other things. Then the lawyer in the system that'll clean up the system that falsely accused him. He gets the idea I want my penny, I want my little you know coin or whatever. I'd prefer gold, but I don't think we're on the gold standard updated.
Speaker 2:Miranda writes year 2025. You may choose to remain silent, but the supreme court has established that silence can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Any statement you make, refrain from making or might potentially say will be distorted and used by the police. Before a dumbed-down jury, you have the right to an attorney, but only after the prosecutor's office has effectively undermined your financial capacity to pay for a lawyer. Keep in the forefront of your mind that facts, evidence and logical reasoning are no concerns to police, judges or prosecutors. Once you've been ruined by the accusations, a public defender, which is owned by the state, paid by the state and made powerless by the state, will be assigned to your case. The prosecutors, police and judges will ensure that your defense is limited to junk legal words and procedures. Do you understand that you no longer have any rights and surrender all thoughts of justice? Now? Do you wish to speak to me or should I shoot your dog? The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:What do you think?
Speaker 7:Jacob dot. Consider dot info. What do you think? Jacob Felt like I was at a carnival.
Speaker 5:Well, isn't that pretty much what court is?
Speaker 3:I don't think the cops are, like, smart enough to you know recite all of that Okay.
Speaker 5:I'm not going to go down that little rabbit trail. They're obedient enough to repeat the words. Will they even mean what they say? They'll may shoot your neighbor's dog, but it's factual stuff. Um, excuse me. Psalm 55, verse 9, says confuse the wicked, oh lord. Confound their speech, for I see violence and strife in the city Everywhere we look. What is our nation falling into? It's because Miranda rights don't mean anything anymore whatsoever.
Speaker 5:Let's go ahead and play this last clip and we probably need to get out of here. I mean, I had more, but I've discussed this stuff before. As far as prosecutors are most certainly going to hell, you don't even need to guess, like, if you're a prosecutor, probably even if you're a police, you don't even have to ask the question well, am I going to heaven or hell? Because now I'm going to get into it. Ephesians 5, verses 5 through 6, tells us exactly why, for of this you can be sure, no immoral, impure or greedy person has any Note the word any. There's not even a little bit of a connection. Inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things, god's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Ephesians 5, 5 through 6.
Speaker 5:Prosecutors and police are impure in everything that they do. Judges also. The impurity is just all over the place. Now the goal of me in saying this is that they would repent place. Now the goal of me in saying this is that they would repent. There might be one or two prosecutors or police or judges that might repent. I mean, I'm talking the full gospel message here. I'm not talking your little religious. You go to church on Sunday because you look good in the community and get your pat on the back. We're not talking that kind of stuff. We're talking about true discipleship to Jesus Christ. Jacob played the class action lawsuit and let's discuss that a little bit, because I remember when I mentioned to you, you disagreed with me.
Speaker 2:Come on, defense attorneys, time for a class action lawsuit. Anyone arrested since Salinas v Texas in 2013 must immediately be released from prison. That is correct. Released because they were lied to.
Speaker 2:The Miranda warning to remain silent that was repeated to them was a lie, a trick, a legal word, mesh of confusion and a hidden loophole for police to push their routine power plays when making an arrest. The semi-right to remain silent is an impure ruling. It's a lying law dog trick that creates a confusing mess of legal words and meaning. Salinas versus Texas is vague. It's broad and forces the average citizen to act as their own mini-lawyer rather than having their rights respected. Salinas vs Texas is an unreasonable power play to confuse citizens of the United States, thus negating the reasonable right to shut up, speak up or mix up. Their rights to speak up, shut up or mix it up.
Speaker 2:Wait, there's more. A bonus class action lawsuit against dumbed-down juries. Juries must be well-informed about the legal charges and possible sentences. Juries must be versed in the Bill of Rights. Juries must be required to spell out each count and why the person is guilty. Juries must be informed concerning jury nullification. Juries must specify each point of the prosecution and justify a guilty verdict. Juries must be informed of any plea agreement the prosecution offers. Juries must be paid the average defense attorney wage to attract quality jurors. Finally but not least, if a mistrial is declared, then the state must reimburse the defense. Come on, defense attorneys. There's a goldmine of class action suits just waiting on you, amos 524.
Speaker 2:Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never failing stream. Now to repeat the updated Miranda reading, reflecting the truth. Updated Miranda Rights, year 2025.
Speaker 2:You may choose to remain silent, but the Supreme Court has established that silence can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Any statement you make, refrain from making or might potentially say will be distorted and used by the police before a dumbed-down jury. You have the right to an attorney, but only after the prosecutor's office has effectively undermined your financial capacity to pay for a lawyer. Keep in the forefront of your mind that facts, evidence and logical reasoning are no concerns to police, judges or prosecutors. Once you've been ruined by the accusations, a public defender, which is owned by the state, paid by the state and made powerless by the state, will be assigned to your case. The prosecutors, police and judges will ensure that your defense is limited to junk legal words and procedures. Do you understand that you no longer have any rights and surrender all thoughts of justice? Now? Do you wish to speak to me or should I shoot your dog? The Consider Podcast Examining today's wisdom, folly and madness wwwconsiderinfo.
Speaker 5:I realize that's a show in and of itself. We may get into actual jury stuff and what should be done, but you remember the part where I said they should all be released? Um, we were discussing about.
Speaker 7:I was saying, yeah, you know, miranda rights aren't up to date and individuals that have had their miranda right old one they should all be set free yeah, this is a private conversation we had not on the show. That is correct. Yes, okay, correct, I'm just clarifying. And you dared to do what I disagreed you disagreed. How unbelievable you would disagree with the cult leader I know, oh yeah, I know, very controversial, it is controversial do I get an award for that, for somebody disagreeing with the cult leader and the cult leader actually listens?
Speaker 5:Do you get two badges today, two, two. How about the little gold stars you used?
Speaker 5:to get for just being yeah, anyway, do I believe for a moment that the court system is actually going to release everybody? No, Am I serious about it? A little bit Meaning if the courts will do their usual stuff, even if it got close to this, and go, okay, we need to update it. Yeah, you got a point. Do you agree that there's a point here that remaining silent is no longer right, that that needs to be all clarified, correct, correct, all right. So the courts go okay, yeah, you're right. I don't believe for a minute they're going to let everybody free. I mean, there's no way that's going to happen.
Speaker 5:But then all the prosecutors go. Well, for the safety of society and our first goal is safety for society we need to look at every case again. In other words, they'll just drag it out. Once I hear that kind of nonsense, well then, you've lost the privilege of keeping these people in prison. There needs to be real, factual, hardcore change. Of course, the change I would really like is you know, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, right, judge Lori K Smith and Prosecutor Jason Simmons Anything you want to say, jacob? No, take us out of here.
Speaker 4: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.