Chapter Two – The Shocking Reality


But now comes the most shocking reality. This is the terrible truth. I am writing from God's point of view. Yeshua (Jesus) said, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones [minors] which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he was drowned in the depths of the sea." Matt. 18:6 FictionYes, those who condemned our God-given events offended these "little ones," who are now named "minors", and it would be better that the state would be cast into the sea and drowned. To create the mystery of God into a crime is a death knell for the state. Whether it be state officials, parents or friends, those who turn children, or anyone else, against the Anointing of God will perish in the final fires. These flames are already licking at the heels of this beast.

I will carefully explain the seriousness of this. I will share with the reader what occurred behind the scenes. The two young women that I was accused over by the state of New Mexico, on their own, had each come to me and shared with me that God had told them to request of me this favor. I would pray for them and they requested to be unclothed. I did not request this of them, but because of my education I did understand the benefits this request could have. I earned a Master's Degree in religion at Loma Linda University, which is a medical university for training physicians, and I had learned healing in various forms during this period in my life. I was condemned and imprisoned for one of the principles I learned at LLU.

The quotation below is a description and explanation of the science behind the touch of healing by placing my hand on the upper sternum and clavicle area for healing purposes which came with the Spirit of the Anointing when He appeared in me in the year 2000. This is the healing touch that I carried out with A.S. which I was sentenced to 10 years in prison for. I have inserted a few account details in brackets within the quotation below:

There is an ache at the center of the chest, called the grief point. In it lies the personal history of our pain--the fire, the loss, the impermanence we cannot control--and our unwillingness to expose it. Many do not acknowledge or even notice this ache. It is a pain we wish not to see, a constant reminder of how painful it is to be closed. We only mention this ache when it becomes too great to deny, when escape mechanisms are insufficient to suppress our grief.

This point has correlations in many healing technologies. It exists in all traditions which view the body as an energy system. It is the heart center, a point on the chest, on the sternum, roughly between the nipples and about two or three inches above where the rib cage comes together. A simple pressure exerted in that very sensitive area connects the mind/body with the heart center. [When I placed my hand on this point on the sternum/clavicle area, where, for the first time ever in my life, I began spontaneously placing my hand after Father spoke the Spirit of Messiah into me, I could feel in my own sternum area a warmth of healing love from the Anointing's heart, going out of me to them. Many were able to take in the Anointing's love and healing touch, in varying depths, while others seemed unable to let it in.]

This focal point where we hold much grief may be extremely sensitive. Investigate the breastbone to find this point of sensitivity. For many when they find it, it will be unmistakable. There may even be a slight indentation there. After you discover the grief point, place your thumb onto it. Obviously there is the sternum, the bone plate, but there is also something subtler which is perceived -- a desire to protect yourself, to stay in control, to push away feelings. All the moments of hiding, of protecting ourselves from life, add layer upon layer over the heart. Thousands of such moments accumulating to become thick as armor. A density of self-protection and an unwillingness to enter directly the pain so long suppressed, which pushes back as you push into it. A resistance to life, a resistance to healing. The resistance of a lifetime pushing back.

This ache in the chest is like a compass that directs us toward the path of the heart. We are all grieving the Beloved. We are all aching our birthright, longing to be free. Our homesickness for God drives us from sensation to sensation, from thought to thought, emotion to emotion. But, when together we enter our grief, there is the combined strength to heal. When we enter the grief point, so sensitive when discovered that it is hardly able to be touched, we allow each other the space to let go of whatever is appropriate to release. We do not extract the pain from another, but simply offer that into which it can be expressed and healed. Working together at the grief point, opening to long-disregarded pain, ancient sufferings begin to melt.

As the grief point transforms into the touchpoint of the heart, we find ourselves offering its pain to the Beloved. One of the remarkable qualities of this is that when you have completed your process and take your finger away, you may still feel very distinct sensations where the grief point has become the touch point for the heart. Condensed from "Embracing the Beloved," by Steven and Ondrea Levine.


During my legal process I explained to the grand jury that I felt there was a spiritual bonding in the process of this healing, and that's how I took it when I placed my hand there. It was a spiritual bonding between the Anointing of Messiah in me and the soul of the person receiving healing. But that is a bond that the beast energetically wanted destroyed. It is written: " many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Rev. 13:15b.

The young women told me that God had put this on them to ask of me. And, God also confirmed this to my own heart and constrained me to fulfill their request. It was not illegal for them to take their clothing off and no sexual parts were ever touched. These events were wholly about spiritual healing. God is our Witness. It was all purely innocent on their part. It was also all purely innocent on my own part. I was like a father to them for they had grown up with me and trusted me since they were babies. I was acquitted on the youngest sister and convicted on the oldest over the same "crime."

I was commanded by God (this is no jest) to give L.S. the healing procedure more involved than A.S., her older sister. L.S. requested me to put pressure on her which was against her rib cage. This procedure may have been similar to the healing procedure Elijah used in 1 Kings 17:17-24, and to the procedure Elisha used in 2 Kings 4:32 & 33, except that my procedure was far less invasive and I did not touch anything of a sexual nature, which Elisha and Elijah may have done. But the bottom line here is that it was God who commanded me to do what I was asked to do by L.S. I shared the procedure in my trial and the jury acquitted me over L.S. The jury then convicted me and the judge gave me ten years prison time for A.S. whose healing procedure required far less, and was for less time. She was also the older sister, as I have said. The state with its astonishing reasoning may make some confusing sense out of this strange judgment, but I cannot. The very best thing that can be said of it is that it is true confusion (Babylon).

I have never faulted the state for its opinion of me. One cannot expect the beast to understand God's ways and movements. But I have faulted the state for lying and hugely contorting the events through statecraft and confusion. 2+2=4 but not according to the state. To them, 2+2 is 17AB-CYFD+NM????? The beast's brain is not in its head but rather in its testicles. The beast does not give a stick for God or His instructions. It only judges by how it feels. The "sound mind" is entirely out of it. The state is rightly faulted for its deception and corruption. Why was I not given a fair trial? At least the beast should have been able to work that out. I should have at least been able to tell what actually occurred, and why, instead of having to constantly put up with the state and the media throwing their tar balls at me. But they had no intention of letting me get away. The DA stated that if there was a hung jury he would bring me to trial two more times.


But now comes the most terrible reality. When the state and some of the public intimated all of their most poisonous and perverted imaginings onto me and charged me over the heinous crime it had contrived of "criminal sexual contact" for this one spiritual healing event and for "contributing to their delinquency," and then put me in prison for it, the state by doing so, accused the minor ladies of seducing me into a crime. The two young women were terribly shocked that the state would take their friend and "father" away over something purely of a spiritual nature, and that now they were responsible for it. And what they requested was not even against the law. Their purity was made to look perverted by the state, and invented into a violent sex crime by Judge Gerald Baca, and the district attorney, Donald Gallegos. Was it their own corrupt religion through which they looked to judge me? Perhaps they were looking at their own dark souls and projecting that data onto my image. I ask the question, Are these men sex perverts in their own minds, so that is how I look to them? Do these men frequent pornography pages and these pages colored their thinking about me? God only knows the answer to these questions, but in the great judgment it will all be made clear. I doubt very much that these men would tell us their secrets. But in the great judgment their secrets will become known.

But there is more. God showed me that from heaven's point of view, the DA is guilty of molesting these two girls sexually in his office. I do not mean to say that the DA touched the girls somewhere physically. No. He violated their minds and hearts by perverting their love and faith in God into a "sex crime" of the state, and then he punished their "father" and friend for the "crime" that they had initiated. Before God, he is guilty of accusing them of "criminal sexual contact," and for being predators upon their "father" and friend. In a spiritual sense, the two girls were raped by the state in the district attorney's "secret chambers." It was a rape of their spirit and trust, for he turned their innocent request into a sex crime and condemned them by doing this, since the "crime" had been initiated by them. This is molestation of the highest order. He professed to be helping them, but in reality he was only helping himself, while offending the children. His self-glory and political fortunes seemed more important than justice.

And furthermore, in God's eyes, and in reality, District Attorney Donald Gallegos, state attorneys Emilio Chávez and Tomás Benavides, and Judge Baca are guilty of molesting these two young women in their court and violently tearing away their civil rights, and God will not let this hypocrisy pass by without being avenged. And even more, from God's point of view, not only are the judge and DA and his state attorneys responsible for sexual assault upon my children by the act of inferring that upon me, but all those who voted these men into office bear responsibility, also. We are responsible for the people that we place in office. We are responsible for what they do. This coming election will tell not so much what the state is guilty of, but how much the voters are guilty of.


There were, however, events in my trial that were especially troubling for me, not the least of which was the state's heedless disregard for its own laws. It seemed as though the judge was part of a collusion; a conspiracy to incriminate me. In my trial, early on, it was very well established that I had not touched any sexual parts of the two young ladies. Because of this clear testimony, my attorney entered a motion to dismiss, in an effort to end the trial proceedings, since it was abundantly clear by the testimony of the state's own witnesses (and later, by the judge, himself), that it was essentially a vapor crime -- an imaginary incident that never happened. But still the judge denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the state to continue with its fallacious charges and procedures.

FictionMy thoughts were, I am charged with criminal sexual contact. That has been disproved, so why am I still in court, and what am I now being charged with? The answer never came. Was the state convicting me of something else; of a crime that wasn't a crime by law or any other logical reasoning, but one that only offended a covert agenda they had -- religious, political or otherwise? I now believe that the agenda was religious and political and that the trail led to higher persons than our own DA. We were told by CYFD that it went at least as high as the governor.

My attorney was a public defender, appointed by the court -- the state of New Mexico -- to represent me. My attorney explained to me that we would only be dealing with what the state had directly charged me with -- touching the girls sexually -- and we would not be delving into any non-pertinent subjects such as religious beliefs, because that would be going "beyond the scope," which was illegal. I told her at the time that if the state wanted to get into our religion, then I would need a three-month trial to explain everything. Well, the judge then clearly redefined my charges to be something else, of which I had no idea, since he neglected to share that redefinition with me or my attorney. In his actions, Judge Baca, exhibiting a high degree of moral turpitude, inarguably aided the state in its opprobrious conduct.

I questioned in myself, why are these people so afraid of me? and where does this fear originate, which seemed the same as that exhibited by a cornered, wild animal, which was causing them to be exceedingly dangerous? Why was it so important, even from the outset, for these Roman Catholics to attack me and my congregation in a manner violating even their own laws?

Why is it that Roman Catholics become so exercised and heated over a grilled cheese sandwich that looks like it has the image of the Virgin Mary on it, or when one of their plaster images starts to bleed, but when the Anointing manifests itself in a man it's time to burn him at the stake or crucify him? And why Mr. Gallegos, can I not say that God has anointed me for a specific mission without offending you, but your Pope can claim to be God, calling himself the Holy Father which is the name only for God, or Vicar of Christ? Mr. Gallegos do you know what Vicar means? It means substitute for Christ; someone acting in His place or stead whose word is taken to be as the word of Christ, Himself; speaking on His behalf with assumed authority by rule of agency. Why cannot I be Messiah, which simply means "anointed," as in anointed for a mission, but the Pope can be God? So Mr. Gallegos, with respect, I have no apologies to make to you or your court.

It was more than obviously apparent that if I could not be tried honestly, without the state resorting to imaginary, nonexistent inventions against me, that that, in itself, was sufficient proof that there was no crime committed -- except the "crime" they manufactured out of whole cloth from their own imaginations. In other words, if the plain evidence of the case, submitted to the law alone, was insufficient to obtain my conviction, and overt dishonesty and lies were needed to accomplish the fact, that would indisputably prove that the state and judiciary obviously had other motives in mind that had not the least relationship to justice.

Judge Gerald Baca, as the presiding trial judge, was required by law to insure that the court proceedings were fair and legal, conducted in a constitutional atmosphere of presumption of innocence. But in reality, he aided and abetted the crimes of the state, such as the aforementioned act of allowing questioning "beyond the scope."

The state then began to insinuate, without presentation of proof or evidence of any kind, all manner of suspicious activities on my part. We seemed to have devolved into a legal nether-land of trial-by-inference, or rumor, rather than a trial-by-law, as was clearly set forth by the judge's comment, quoted here directly from the trial transcript:

I looked at the sufficiency of the evidence and I felt that it was sufficient to allow the jury to consider, although the victim, the alleged victim, in the matter had said that she was not touched in the intimate parts of her body. The description provided allowed the jury to make that inference. Dec. 30 Tr 4 lines 11-14 [emphasis supplied]

I was charged with "criminal sexual contact of a minor." It was proven that there was no "sexual contact." So now the Jury was allowed to guess that there might have been. As an example of the incomprehensible perfidy of the court, the judge actually spoke the following words into the record:

"And, as finders of fact, they [the jury] were permitted to decide whether or not, in their understanding and...under the instruction they were given by this Court, whether or not there was a touching that was contrary to law." Dec. 30 Tr 4 line 15 [emphasis supplied]

As bizarre as this may sound, he actually did say that, and even though I was charged with "criminal sexual contact," -- which, according to the law and to any rational human mind would mean, by definition, actually "touching," the judge boldly stated that even if I did not touch the girls in places deemed illegal, I was still guilty! And why now did they "infer" that I was "not guilty" over L.S. but they "inferred" that I was guilty over A.S.? My head utterly spins over the utter incredibility and lawlessness of the whole thing. I personally believe that our generation is mentally ill. What other explanation could there be?


I am shocked now by the "inference" in the judge's admission that "the victim...had said that she was not touched in the intimate parts of her body," yet this same judge sentenced me to ten years in prison for not touching the intimate parts of her body, which also necessitates my registering as a lifelong sex offender for not touching the intimate parts. This act has the most astonishing meaning according to biblical law. It means the accuser is actually guilty of the illegal touching.

When the DA and the judge gave their merciless judgment of me, and condemnation to prison for me, in reality and from heaven's view they condemned themselves and exposed their own guilt. I am not accusing these men, oh, no, I cannot imagine it. But they accuse themselves by their harsh judgment of me with the clear facts and the clear testimony that she was "not touched in the intimate parts" and in the trial she stated that she was "certain" of it. The biblical conclusion is that the judge, jury and DA are all guilty of criminal sexual contact of a minor and they put my face on their guilt, because I am, and was, not guilty of the crime and the state's two witnesses testified that I was not guilty.

In the Old Testament the law states that when a man is falsely accused for a crime, the accuser should get the sentence that was recommended for the wrongly accused. Why? Because the accuser is guilty. The Scriptures say, "Therefore you have no excuse...whoever condemns another...because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things you censure and denounce." Rom. 2:1

When I consider the people who condemned me when the evidence was clearly to the contrary, I have to confess that criminal sexual contact of minors is more widespread than I ever imagined, for all my accusers put my face on their guilt and used my blood that they spilled to cover their own sin. Some of my accusers and condemners may not have actually carried out the physical act of touching a sexual part, but they practice this crime in their imaginations or even in child pornography.

I do not make a charge against them. I just know the law and I know how life works. And the way I view this is that their condemnation of me, when the clear evidence is otherwise, is their confession that they are guilty. This, dear Judge Baca, I can rightfully "infer." In the great judgment all of these things will be thoroughly exposed. No one can hide then.


Judge Baca said, in essence, that although the state's own witness had declared under oath that "she was not touched in the intimate parts of her body," the jury was allowed to infer that for which there was no evidence from which to draw that inference.

Legal definition: "Inference. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts...already proved or admitted." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition [emphasis supplied].

So, we have a judge who makes the credulous claim that the jury can infer something for which there is no foundation in fact or evidence from which to make that inference, yet they must infer that an illegal act took place with nothing to establish that fact in law or testimony. This would be like an observer viewing a field of tulips and inferring the farmer was actually poisoning children, because the observer saw a child picking some of them -- the lack of evidence does not support the crime. This strangeness is glaring and foolishly obvious.

There is a Latin phrase in legal terminology, Sine qua non, which means, loosely, without this, you cannot get that; without evidence, you cannot make an inference. But that did not in the least deter Judge Gerald Baca.

Judge Baca: "And, as finders of fact, they [the jury] were permitted to decide whether or not in their understanding and...under the instruction they were given by this Court, whether or not there was a touching that was contrary to law." Fascinating logic here! How can the jury decide there was any act "contrary to law" with A.S. when there was no evidence or testimony presented in court from which to make that inference? If there is no evidence at all to indicate any crime has taken place with this young lady, nothing can be inferred from that except -- no crime has taken place. This must be the only logical and legal conclusion, no matter how intensely a particular judge wants at least one jury trial on his record before the next election; no matter on what scoreboard the district attorney desperately wants an 'X' in the win column of the highest profile case he has ever tried; no matter what twisting and perverting of legal language is used to cover up their own perverse and venal motives. Sine qua non -- you can't have your cake unless there actually is a cake. But in my trial they made up all kinds of cake in their imaginations and even made the jury believe through their "hypnosis" that they were eating cake when in actuality there was none.

The prosecution's entire case against me was predicated on their claim that I touched the breasts of the two minor ladies. And following we have a statement by the presiding court judge, made during closing arguments at the very end of the trial, which is actually on the record in the official court transcript; that same presiding judge in whom rests not only the legal power but the legal obligation to terminate trial proceedings in what is called a Directed Verdict, when it is clear that no evidence is present to support the charges against the defendant. So by the judge's own testimony -- on the record -- my attorney's Motion for Directed Verdict should clearly have been granted, had the judge the slightest interest in justice.

In the court recording of my trial, the voice of Judge Gerald Baca -- the one who sentenced me to ten years for "criminal sexual contact of a minor," can be heard whispering to my attorney and the state attorneys during a bench conference with them, "There is no evidence to support that there was ever a touching of the breast."

In Heaven's view of the matter, not only had every prosecuting attorney involved in my trial given sufficient evidence of their own guilt before the Eternal Judge, but the presiding trial judge himself had finally testified to his own guilt in, not a miscarriage of justice, but a factual abortion of it.

"But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" John 15:25 NAS.

That is, they found no cause in their own law for what they charged me with, but simply extracted their charges out of a legal vacuum; and then proceeded to apply an existing law to my actions that no more fit the crime than if I had been charged with blowing up the twin towers. And the state supreme court approved this abortion of justice. What this has shown is how the legal system and its so-called expert witnesses of New Mexico are not about truth or justice but about superstition, suspicion, self-guilt, prejudice and every other creepy, slippery corruption that is inherent in antichrist. Yes, it trumpets the end of the world as we have known it. I don't expect them to change.


As to the doctrine of prohibiting questions "beyond the scope," one example of such a question put to me was, "Did you fire all the ministers in the church so that you could take over the church?" I was utterly stunned by the stupidity of the question on the very face of it! If I was not already in charge of the church, then how would I have the power to fire anyone? And if I was in charge, why would I want to fire everyone? The blatancy the state attorney was expressing in that line of questioning was clearly designed to prejudice the jury. I answered "No." I had not done that. The state attorney then said, "Oh, okay." But the damage was done and the jury was prejudiced by the prejudicial question.

How we as ministers, years before, actually conducted church business, was to meet periodically and discuss our organization; its structure, finance, any issues that needed addressing, etc. We understood that there are other denominations who do not pay their ministers. They volunteer their time as a service to the church. There were only four of us at the time and we felt why should we get paid for doing what a Christian should do naturally. We were not doing evangelism at the time, so paying the ministers seemed unnecessary. None of us, including myself, were to receive a salary, but rather we agreed to volunteer our time. We all voted and agreed to support ourselves by other means, and there was no dissent to this agreement. Subsequently, the entire tithe fund used to support ministers was divided equally four ways. The amount given to each of us was exactly the same and it functioned as our severance pay and unemployment, equivalent to approximately $1050 per month for one year. We also spent that year assisting the church in various ways that were needful which included two camp meetings.

I have not once felt that I should receive more than the other ministers, nor have I experienced the temptation to steal from anyone. I have never considered myself better than anyone else. Some judges and other politicians indulge a sense of superiority over others because of their authority and position, but this has never been a temptation for me. The state, however, employed this line of reasoning when questioning me, in an attempt to instill in the minds of the jurors that I was forcing people to conform to my will in both their beliefs and actions. But truthfully, I never forced or coerced anyone; we operated purely by agreement. In our church business meetings we all had a strong desire for perfect agreement on any project before we proceeded with it. Any dissent would halt the proceedings until all were satisfied. Our church board meetings were not a place of conflict but rather a gathering to enter into mutual agreement of mind and heart in working out church matters. As pertaining to getting paid; did Jesus receive a paycheck -- this man who had "nowhere to lay his head"? (Matt. 8:20)

Because of the refusal to dismiss my case (a dismissal for which there was abundant evidence) the state was allowed to create a "bad man" or "boogie man" image of me, but without permitting me the opportunity to share with the jury what the circumstances actually were. This tactic by the court was a complete surprise to us. In this the judge appeared to me to be uniquely complicit with the state's attorneys. I felt that the judge was aiding and abetting the criminal behavior of the state by his duplicitous actions, and that the jury was intentionally prejudiced by the prosecution without my ever being permitted any attempt to mitigate or undo the prejudicial damage already done to the jury. The judge, whose agenda was clearly something other than justice, was permitting the state's attorney to bring into record all manner of suspicions and rumors, unfounded in fact and lacking any legal pertinence to the issue at trial. While the state was thus allowed unbridled freedom to create a false concept of our church and its beliefs in the minds of the jurors, I was not permitted to address these falsehoods. I felt a certain kinship with Yeshua who had the same kind of trial before the High Priest and members of the Sanhedrin.

Once, when on the witness stand, I tried to bring some light into the courtroom as to the reasons and truth of what had taken place in their prejudicial question, but I was immediately, rudely and prejudicially silenced by the judge. I thought, "Oh, I'm not supposed to expose their error." The judge had the duty of keeping the trial fair and honest, but I believe he failed at his duty -- and that he failed intentionally.

The state's public defender seemed to me to be blindsided by what she considered illegal activities she never imagined possible in a court of law. And it seemed to both of us that the judge was consciously intent on perpetrating a basic unfairness in a thinly disguised miscarriage of justice. Repeatedly, time and again, my attorney's valid motions were denied, if those motions seemed at all capable of exonerating me and resulting in a denial of my conviction, or proving that I was not guilty of the crime.

My defense attorney requested that the judge hold an in-camera interview with each alleged victim to hear their testimony and determine whether there was actual cause for my case to even proceed to trial. The judge refused. However, it should be noted that such evidentiary hearings are a common practice, and conducted to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the defendant for trial.

In-camera is a legal term simply meaning that a hearing is "In chambers; in private....had before the judge in his private chambers...." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990)

My trial was engineered to destroy my credibility by allowing the state to pose questions during my cross-examination that had nothing whatever to do with criminal sexual contact, but had everything to do with statecraft, smoke and mirrors, superstition and every other motive reminiscent of the Inquisition or the infamous Star Chamber, and as I mentioned, the Sanhedrin.


The great lie presented in my trial was not only over what I did, but what I am. My trial had all the markings of Satan where he takes one thing and completely turns it into something else. The Bible says that the beast "doth great wonders, so that he makes fire come down..." Rev. 13:13. He works miracles on the mind, causing people to see great light (fire) from heaven, causing people to believe a lie, as he did in my trial. The DA even boasted of how he pulled it off in a radio interview he gave in Kentucky. This "marvelous working of Satan" and the time of it was prophesied 130 years ago.

"...when, under the influence of this threefold union [Roman Catholicism, apostate-Protestantism and spiritualism] our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government ...then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near." A Prophecy of Ellen White, 1885, 5T 451.

It is written of this threefold union, "And the great city [USA Babylon] was divided into three parts [Roman Catholics, apostate Protestants and spiritualists], and the cities of the nations fell (collapsed morally, died spiritually); and great Babylon came into remembrance before God to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Rev. 16:19.

prev  |  next