DEMONS & A Little Bit of Fabrication (PERJURY) in a Court of Law
The case against Yusuf Bey VI and Antoine Mackey is threatening to take a new ecclesiastical twist in theological debate and crisis. This is where this Voodoo case against Bey and Mackey is beginning to unravel and a court of law’s dilemma begins.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Reardon, the trial judge, recently postponed the sentencing of Yusuf Bey VI and Antoine Mackey for the murder of Chauncey Bailey.[1]
The judge ordered Devaughndre Broussard’s attorney, LeRue Grim, to appear before the court August 12, 2011 to explain what he meant when he told Bay Area News Group and CBP lead investigative journalist Thomas Peele that the State’s star witness, Devaughndre Broussard, “committed a little bit of fabrication”, a little bit of PERJURY to convict Bey and Mackey of Chauncey Bailey’s murder.[2]
However, Judge Reardon summarily characterized and dismissed the PERJURY issue as a “Tempest in a Teapot” (an argument or disagreement over a very minor matter).[3] Nevertheless Judge Reardon’s summary characterization of Broussard fabricating testimony as being a minor matter or inconvenience to the court, it requires the court to sit in ecclesiastical jurisdiction to resolve the revelancy and veracity of DEMONIC testimony and an admitted HERETIC, a HUMANIST.
Contrary to what Judge Reardon believes that will be no small matter or task but it will border on fringes of the occult, Demonology and “Legal Heresy” that continues to explode and spiral completely out of control in this case.
OF DEMONS AND GODS in the Court of Law
“Sometimes you’ve got to make a deal with a demon to get to the devil.” –Alameda Count DA Melissa Krum
The DEMON that DA Krum made a deal with was Devaughndre Broussard and the DEVIL that she wants to whoop and lynch with that DEMON is Defendant Yusuf Bey VI.
There is no debate about this. That is part of the court’s record. The State brought in its so-called DEMON, Devaughndre Broussard, and placed him under oath and he laughed, giggled, twisted, twirled, and slipped in and out of reality and consciousness through out his testimony. There is also no debate about this. That is part of the court’s trial and public record.
For ages spanning the globe, one of the established efficient means to ensure the delivery of truthful statements was to place a man’s words under the eyes of God. Validity was guaranteed in an oath through divine intervention. “I swear to tell the truth or so help me God.”[4]
DEMONS and GODS have been the subject of great theological, spiritual and biblical debate for generations. DEMONS are generally considered to be the enemies of God.
When the eyes of God are cast upon a DEMON or a soul possessed by a DEMON, it is to expel it, an act of Exorcism.
According to most Christian demonology, demons will be eternally punished and never reconciled with God. There is a description in the Book of Revelation 12:7-17 of a battle between God’s army and Satan’s followers, and their subsequent expulsion from Heaven to Earth to persecute humans — although this event is related as being foretold and taking place in the future. In Luke 10:18 it is mentioned that a power granted by Jesus to cast out demons made Satan “fall like lightning from heaven.”[5]
Can you bring a soul before a court of law possessed by a DEMON and place that man’s words under the EYES OF GOD without performing an Exorcism and expect him to tell the truth to a jury?
I don’t think so and the DEMON in the Chauncey Bailey Case didn’t tell the jury the truth and that is subject to become part of the court’s ecclesiastical record on August 12, 2011.
From beginning to the end, the prosecution and court have painted themselves inside an occulted corner. In what manner do you possess to bring a demon in a court of law before a jury to beat the devil?
Of HUMANIST, HERETICS and the Eyes of God
“Fay ce que vouldras”–Francios Rabelais (c. 1494 – 9 April 1553)
“Do what you will.” The law of the elite orgininated with French Philsopher Francios Rabelais. Rabelais motto was adopted by the Hellfire Club and the Secular Humanist Great Beast 666, Aleister Crowley.[6]
Pre-Socratic Greek Philosopher Protagoras (490 BC – 420 BC) is considered by many to be the founder of humanistic philosophy. His motto was homo mensura—which means man is the measure of all things.[7]
This dictum echoes the promise of the serpent in Eden: “. . . ye shall be as gods.” (Genesis 3:5) Humanism came to be used to refer to the Enlightenment (ILLUMINATED) philosophy.[8]
According to the Great Beast, a small elite must rule over the masses: “You will observe that I am advocating an aristocratic revolution. And so I am!”[9]
On August 12, 2011, Attorney LeRue Grim words will be under the EYES OF GOD when he testifies under oath what he meant when he publicly exposed that his client fabricated testimonial evidence while on the stand.
In 1973, LeRue Grim as the Secretary of the American Humanist Association was signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II.[10] As contained in the Humanist Manifesto II,
“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.”[11]
Rabelais envisioned a company of initiates whose consciousness is so transformed that they are beyond good and evil. — Mark Booth; The Secret History of the World[12]
To LeRue Grim, his oath and words under the eyes of God is “unproved and outmoded faith.” Humanists such as Grim reject the absolute sovereignty of God. According to his Humanist philosophy, he shall be as god, beyond good and evil. He is among a “small elite” and do what he wilt.
What that means is that even if Grim takes the oath to tell the truth about Broussard fabricating testimony to unlawful convict Bey and Mackey of murder, he is not bound to be truthful to anyone or under the EYES OF GOD. Grim’s testimony on the issue will have little veracity or no relevancy to resolve the PERJURY issues in this case.
The Chauncey Bailey Project (CBP) and the End of the Free Press as We Know It
“There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press” -Mark Twain
CBP’s lead investigative journalists, Thomas Peele, along with his colleague Josh Richman were also ordered to appear before the court on the same date as LeRue Grim. On July 11, 2011, Peele reported and published Grim’s statement that Broussard fabricated testimony in the murder conviction of Bey and Mackey.[13]
It was obvious that Peele, Richman and Matt Krupnick of CBP got caught up in the moment of the euphoria of the murder conviction like a lynching, they published their analysis of the conviction, “jurors took the ‘demon’ over the ‘devil’ in Bailey murder trial”.[14]
They seemed rather pleased and smug flirting with the occult and “DEMONOLOGY” to convict two poor and defensive young Black men of murder even with fabricated evidence.
Will Peele and Richman assert Reporter’s Privilege and refuse to cooperate with Judge Reardon’s quest to find out what evidence Broussard fabricated? This also is no small matter or task for Judge Reardon but threatens to explode and spiral out of control if they assert their Reporter’s Privilege.
CBP is caught in a dilemma betraying their profession,
“The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”–Hugo Black
In the Chauncey Bailey Murder Investigation, CBP has become the handmaiden of the State, an arm of the prosecution; and a racialist lynch mob. Who will protect them from us. The gutless Bay Area Free Press and Bandwagon Black activists?
Princeray\'s Weblog 
Leave a comment