Prosecutors Laugh at Justice: How Corruption Spreads

Send us a text

Correction: Lewis County Prosecutor elections are not kissing cousins with King County.

www.consider.info

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome to the Consider podcast.
This July 3rd in the year 2025of our Lord, time to consider
that Washington stateprosecutors laugh out loud at
your right to a vigorous defense.
Where jury duty is thought ofas a dog and pony show.
Where jury duty is thought ofas a dog and pony show and yes,

(00:26):
there's an.
And that, according toprosecutors, there's only one
thing they must provide prooffor the Consider Podcast number
88 is ahead.
The Consider Podcast Examiningtoday's wisdom, folly and

(00:46):
madness wwwconsiderinfo.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Welcome to the Consider Podcast, where we
examine today's wisdom, follyand madness.
More information can be foundat wwwconsiderinfo.
Now here are your hosts,timothy and Jacob.

Speaker 3 (01:19):
You know what, jacob?
I am so ready for heaven.
I have to look at all of thisfraud in the law, this con.
I mean these guys just neverstop.
You remember Prosecutor Seavers?

Speaker 4 (01:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:37):
We'll get into it, but they just continue to pass
down the fraud, the corruption.
I've got like three titles fortoday's show, from no proof to
pathway of corruption.
If anybody's in criminology orsociology like in college this
whole case it would be a puretextbook.

(01:58):
You could follow the corruptionfrom day one and how it just
gets passed through.
The quote unquote justicesystem.
It's just, ah, man, it justwears you.
I'll be so happy to get toheaven when, as far as I know,
there's no lawyers in heaven.
They all are in a differentspot.
How's it going?
It's going good.

(02:18):
Anything going on you want tochat about?

Speaker 4 (02:24):
Well, I don't know when we should bring it up.
You know, we were brieflytalking off air about this, the
the idaho murder guy, right?

Speaker 3 (02:31):
do we want to talk?

Speaker 4 (02:31):
about yeah, we want to talk about prosecutors doing
prosecutor stuff yeah, should wetalk about him now?
We're going to talk about himlater.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Yeah, yeah, let's go for it all right.

Speaker 4 (02:37):
Yeah, so this brian guy right, the and the, and it's
all up in the news that theprosecutors are cutting him a
deal I um.

Speaker 3 (02:50):
Does this surprise you, that prosecutors are
cutting a deal?

Speaker 4 (02:53):
well, it's like it surprises you at first because
you're like what, what is goingon?
So it is surprising.
And then you get upset and thenyou're like well, I guess not,
it's, it's not surprising.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
But it is.
It's a total shock, first tothe system, that these
prosecutors do stuff that is socontrary to reality.
Yeah, and we'll talk about whyin a moment.
I did play a little bit of thisclip or it's really just an
audio clip from, I think it's aNew York Post.
That kind of gives an idea ofwhat we're talking about here,

(03:25):
and then we'll dive into this.
Why would prosecutors dosomething this stupid?
Of course that example would bewe could take hundreds of cases
, thousands of cases, and go whyare they just being totally
stupid?
And we'll discuss why they'restupid here in a moment.
But go ahead and play that,okay.

Speaker 5 (03:41):
Prosecutors amassed a mountain of damning evidence
and key legal victories againstBrian Koberger in the weeks
before they offered him a pleadeal for the 2022 murders of
four University of Idahostudents.
Koberger's defense pushed fordelays, tried to block most of
the evidence against him andeven suggested a list of
alternate perpetrators who theyclaimed could have committed the

(04:02):
killings, but the judge deniedmost of their motions, allowing
a tidal wave of evidence to bepresented against the
30-year-old criminology PhDstudent.
At his trial, which wasscheduled for next month, the
families of victims KayleeGonclaves, 21, and Zana Knodel,
20, slammed the decision tospare Koberger a trial and the

(04:23):
chance of death by firing squadfrom the New York Post.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Okay, we have two extremes here, right, jacob?
We've got the city of Enumclaw,king County prosecutor, the
Association of ProsecutingAttorneys in Washington State,
that clearly there was a hatecrime, there was a criminal
activity by Detective GrantMcConaughey.
I mean this is just likeoverwhelming, right.
I mean we'll get into that in amoment.
But then you have thissituation where the evidence

(04:51):
that he's this Brian guy isguilty, I mean there is
absolutely.
You tell me what would be thelogical reason, when you have
all this evidence, to offer theguy a plea deal?

Speaker 4 (05:04):
There is no reason.
There's none why?
Oh and okay.
I'm only going to say realquick this latest corruption is
not in Washington State, whichwe've covered right, this is in
Idaho.
And the only reason I say thisis because anybody thinks that
like, oh, it's only you know,these kind of problems only

(05:24):
happen in, like, democraticstates.
No, this is happeningeverywhere across the country.
And just because you move toIdaho does not mean you will
escape the corruption ofprosecutors and the judicial
system.

Speaker 3 (05:37):
You bring up a really good point.
They're doing this crazy stuffall the time.
These prosecutors really haveno sense of reality or they
don't care about truth.
They absolutely do not careabout justice.
They spend all their timeconning juries just to get what
they want.
I'm hinting at why they do whatthey do, but let's first kind

(05:57):
of lay out here that in boththese cases the Bryan and the
city of Enumclaw the evidence isoverwhelming as to what's going
on.
And you have prosecutorsplaying the fool, thinking
they're wise.
Is it not astounding?

(06:19):
It's astounding, Okay.
Now here's a little.
None of this is funny.
I mean, you've got peoplemurdered, yeah, murdered.
This is a slam dunk.
You nail the guy, you bring himNow again.
If I was a pastor there, I'd betrying to bring him to
repentance, but I'm not thereand that's not what the state's

(06:41):
doing.
So when I'm saying like takingthe firing squad, I'm not coming
from the vengeance that'swithin the quote unquote justice
system and these poor peoplethat have been so wounded by
what's going on.
So I just need to say there's alittle bit of a contrast and a
difference here.
All right, so where am Iheading with this?
Is that the former professor.

(07:03):
Is that the former professor,because he was in criminology
and his former criminologyprofessor wants him to escape
death by firing squad.
Have you heard this?
No, so she comes along and shegoes, yeah, yeah.
I don't want him to get thedeath penalty, I don't want him
to get firing squad.
And the reason she wants him tobe alive is so she can continue

(07:26):
to talk to him to find out howcome she was so fooled, and her
words are completely fooled byhim.
So she wants him as a specimen.

Speaker 4 (07:39):
Oh sure she wants to analyze him and pick his brain
to see what's going on.
All, all but for selfishreasons, right, she doesn't even
come out with a statement andshe doesn't go.
Yeah, yeah, she, she's notconcerned.
Oh, everybody's selfish right.

Speaker 3 (07:56):
Everybody in this is just nothing but like for
themselves exactly the, thereason I don't want to get too
far the reason that she shewants to see why she was
completely fooled and she'sgoing to talk to a man who's a
murderer and think she's goingto gain wisdom as to why she's a
fool If she's admitting thatshe was fooled, like you're

(08:16):
going to.

Speaker 4 (08:17):
Like he's not.
He can't fool you again.

Speaker 3 (08:19):
Correct and there's no humility in what she's saying
, of saying well, how many otherthings am I being fooled on?
And maybe it's people that areactually innocent.
I mean this goes both ways.
We see it all the time.
Cops are always framing people,prosecutors, I mean.
It's what they do for a livingis frame people, and so there's
going to be no wisdom gainedfrom this, and so she just wants

(08:40):
it's called self-justification,they just want to sit down and
kind of go over and go okay,that's why I was taken in, and
you're only deceiving yourselfabout why you were deceived.
Now, does that make sense?
I don't want to go too fastwith all this?
Yes, that makes sense yeah, thereason prosecutors do this is
because they're number one andthey only have a number one goal

(09:05):
in their heart and in theirlife and in the injustice system
is they want to be in control.
I had somebody that's as I'vetalked with other people about
the city of Enumclaw and KingCounty Prosecutor of Corruption
and Washington State and allthat going on.
They just made the observationbecause they know a little bit

(09:26):
more behind the scenes.
Now I'm looking at it from asinful level.
This person said well what itwas.
You challenged the authority.
They wanted to be the powerplay.
Everything people need torealize when you go to jury duty
.
That prosecutor is using wordslike guilty or vile or innocent,

(09:47):
not because they believeanything about guilt or vile or
anything else.
They're using those words to beon top of the situation, to
puff up their self-righteousnessand their ego.
That's why they're constantlydeceived.
You've met people right, jacob,that are so full of pride you

(10:08):
can't correct them on anything.

Speaker 4 (10:09):
Yes, correct that you .
You can't get them to admitanything, nothing like zero.

Speaker 3 (10:15):
yeah, well, that's what you're looking at when
you're looking at police andwhen you're looking at
prosecutors, and you werelooking at judges.
I mean, they spend all day longbringing the dumbest people
into the jury pool and you'vegot judges there that back up
the prosecution and theprosecution owns the courtroom
and everybody's pattingeverybody on the back and you
can't challenge them, literally.

(10:37):
If I walked in and said wait aminute, detective McCuller, wait
about this over here, would Ibe allowed in the courtroom?
No, not at all.
So no wonder they become dark.
First of all, those beingattracted to being prosecutors
have serious problems.
Those that want to be policemenhave serious problems, and then
it goes just down the line, sothat pride gets reinforced over

(10:59):
and over again.
Comment or anything on that,jacob.

Speaker 4 (11:04):
No other than it still is.
You know, when we first startedtalking about this, you're like
, oh, is it shocking?
And it like still is.
When you sit here and processjust how selfish and corrupt and
uncaring these prosecutors areabout anything other than their
own power trip, it still is kindof shocking.

Speaker 3 (11:26):
It is, and that's just another reason why I can't
wait to get to heaven.
You're left speechless and inshock.
Yeah, like when you considerthe Brian thing again, all the
evidence.
I mean if there was a guy thatwas ever guilty that needed to
go before a firing squad, thereisn't any weak aspect of the

(11:48):
evidence correct, Correct and oh, I guarantee we know for a fact
that there's more evidence thatwe don't know about, they have
it, that's why his lawyers arecutting the deal.

Speaker 4 (11:58):
They know he will go down in flames.
Correct.

Speaker 3 (12:03):
Well, in the same way , with the city of Enumclaw
detecting McCall hate crime.
The evidence is overwhelming, Imean wave after wave.
It's literally even moreevidence than this Brian guy.
Yet all these prosecutors, andnow the Association of
Prosecutors in Washington State,back it all up and so the

(12:23):
corruption just continues andthe darkness keeps happening and
somehow they just can't stopand go.
Oh, I was conned, I made amistake.
And in fact even thiscriminologist professor that
wants to bring him in to findout why she was conned doesn't
really want to know why she wasconned.
What she wants to find is theexcuse of why she was conned.
So she's not overcoming beingconned, she's conning herself

(12:47):
about being conned.
I hope that's not too confusing.
No, it's not Okay.
Well, let's kind of dive in andlet's just go ahead and play
kind of this outline, and it'sgoing to be some old stuff and
new stuff, because now we havethe association of Washington
state prosecutors along withsomebody, a prosecutor in lewis

(13:09):
county, laughing, laughing atthe fact that a defendant wants
to put up a vigorous defense.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
Play it, and then we'll start diving in you ask
why does the washington statebar association no longer
require bar exams?
Because prosecutors are lawless.
Prosecutor jason simmons.
The state of washington doesnot have to prove anything other

(13:42):
than age.
Prosecutor paul se.
Paul Sewell Jerry Doody is adog and pony show.
Prosecutor Paul E Macielo.
Just laughs.
Prosecutor Macielo, whenrequesting help from the
Washington State ProsecutorAssociation, received back the
corruption and whitewashassociated with the Malcolm

(14:04):
Fraser lawfare trial.
Quoting prosecutor Paul Macielolaughing at the defendant's
right to a vigorous defense.
A defense attorney has justdisclosed three witnesses that
are going to testify as to thegood reputation for sexual
morality of the defendant.
I have never heard of such athing and laughed when I read

(14:27):
that's what they were testifyingto for sexual morality of the
defendant.
I have never heard of such athing and laughed when I read
that's what they were testifying.
To End, quote the Associationof Prosecuting Attorneys located
in Olympia.
And Prosecutor Macielo's fellowthugs may laugh, but they will
not like it.
When a holy God has the lastlaugh, I, god, in turn, will
laugh at your disaster.

(14:48):
I will mock when calamityovertakes you.
The consider podcast examiningtoday's wisdom, folly and
madness wwwconsiderinfo.

Speaker 3 (15:09):
Jacob, what condition is a defendant in?
Or what position is a defendantin?
Once you finally enter thecourtroom Before any of the
words are spoken, before,prosecutors and judges and
police do their little thingy,what position is the defendant
in?

Speaker 4 (15:29):
I'm pretty sure, they're probably afraid, they're
nervous, they are intimidated.
The whole thing is turningtheir world upside down.
There's a lot on the line forthe defendant.
Here's a word powerless,powerless, yes.

Speaker 3 (15:48):
Powerless.
What people don't realize is,by the time somebody gets into
the courtroom, every singleright you have to present a
defense has been stripped away.
Then what the prosecution doesis strip the stripping away so
that when you're left with all,you really have no defense.

(16:10):
Jacob, let's listen to the fileof Lewis County prosecutor
laughing at a defendant'sattempt to do a vigorous defense
.
Let's listen to it now, becausewe're going to dig into it and
it can get a little bitconfusing, because that's the
nature of corruption and muddywaters from paul macielo sent

(16:32):
wednesday, february 28, 2024 712 pm to jason walker,
washington prosecutorsorganization.

Speaker 5 (16:41):
Subject reputation as organization.
Subject reputation for sexualmorality.
Hoping to get this sent out tothe SAU listserv, I have a Rape
2 slash Rape 3 trial next week.
Trial confirmation is Thursdayand the defense attorney has
just disclosed three witnessesthat are going to testify as to
the good reputation for sexualmorality of the defendant.

(17:02):
I have never heard of such athing and laughed when I read
that's what they were testifyingto, but it appears D3 has
bitten off on allowing that typeof testimony.
It's so I'm wondering if anyonehas any briefing to counter
this argument, as I only have afew days to educate myself on
the topic, write a brief andgive the court enough time to

(17:23):
review the issue before making aruling 2.
I'm just worried that the courtwill be rushed and take the
safe route of ruling against thestate on matters they are
unfamiliar with.
Thanks, paul E Macielo.
Senior Deputy ProsecutingAttorney, lewis County
Prosecutor's Office.

(17:43):
345 West Main Street, 2nd Floor, chehalis, washington.

Speaker 3 (17:50):
Let's consider for a moment this prosecutor in Lewis
County, right, miss Cielo.
He needed help because adefendant wanted to bring into
the courtroom to have otherpeople testify as to his good
character in terms of sexualstuff.
Because obviously, look, peopleneed to realize this whole.

(18:14):
Accusations of sexual rape,whatever, it's all fraud Unless
there's actually taxes,information, I mean evidence
outside an accusation.
It's all total lies, lies.

(18:37):
And even if somebody just comesin and go, you know Harborview
Medical Center has no interestin finding anybody that's lying
about a false sexual accusation.
They work for the prosecution.
They get their money frombringing in accusations.
They have no interest.
You never will find a singleprosecution in the state of
Washington and really acrossthis nation of people who make
false sexual allegations inprison.

(19:00):
If it is, it's so minor it's ajoke, all right.
So back again to my centralpoint.
By the time the defendant sitsdown, especially on these sexual
allegations, there really isonly one option and that is to
say I didn't do it.
They have so stripped, beatendown, like in the Malcolm
Frazier case, we couldn't sayanything, you couldn't talk

(19:21):
about his good character, youcouldn't talk about the good
aspects of the church, youcouldn't bring this in.
You couldn't even bring theWashington State Constitution on
the freedom of religion intothe courtroom.
Literally all you're left withis if he took the stand go.
I didn't do it.
I didn't do it, that's not atrial or well, or when they walk

(19:47):
in powerless.
The only other option is, ofcourse, cut a deal.
Well, correct.
Well, that's extortion and Iagree, but that happens too
right, you only have two options.
Oh, that happens most of thetime.
You can either be like well,most of the time, yeah exactly,
but those are your two options.
Yes, most of the time it'sextortion, these prosecutors,
they are illegal to the core,unconstitutional, vile
individuals and what theypractice?

(20:07):
Extortion First of all.
They strip away any aspect ofmoney to be able to bring a
defense in.
That's what I'm saying.
If we break down, by the timeyou actually sit down, you are,
at that point, totally powerless.
Then they begin to pound in andthings that sound reasonable to
the jury to make the defendanteven more powerless.
Yeah, think about what masiellosaid.

(20:30):
He goes.
They want to bring in witnessesand say, no, this guy couldn't
have done this.
He has a great character.
He's not involved in sexual youknow, present the positive side
of who he really is right andlisten to what he says.
Quote I have never heard ofsuch a thing.

Speaker 4 (20:52):
Now, okay, real quick , I just want to slow down for
one second because and I'm justwanting to paint the clear
picture this was a case thathappened in Lewis County, right,
correct?
And we have a prosecutor namedPaul Masiello and he was
laughing.
Do we know who was the otherattorney?
Because I feel like maybe justwe used his name multiple times

(21:14):
real faster.
Paul Masioli is laughing atthis other case, at this other
defense attorney, correct, yeah,okay.
So this defense attorney.
He brings up, hey, let's, hey,I want to.
The defense attorney isdefending his client and he
brings up the Frazier case,correct?
Who brings up the Frazier case?
Correct?

(21:34):
Who brings up the Frazier case?

Speaker 3 (21:35):
Well, that's not what happened.
He comes in and the defenseattorney says we want to bring
in these character witnesses forthis guy, right, yeah, well, he
doesn't want that to happen.

Speaker 4 (21:44):
Paul Paul Masialo.
Yeah, he doesn't want it tohappen because he's a prosecutor
Correct.

Speaker 3 (21:49):
Well, yeah, he's a low life so he doesn't want it
to happen.
So he gets to go to thisassociation of prosecutors for
help.
By the way, that ought to beillegal when you face trials.
It should be by state money, bystate agencies.
He gets to go to all these.
Not only are you powerless, butthey have all these other
nonprofits and groups and peopleout there.

(22:09):
And so you're not just fightingthe state when it says the
state versus, that's a joke outthere.
And so you're not just fightingthe state when it says the
state versus, that's a joke.
You're fighting every do-gooderblind, just like this other
person, conned individual thatthinks they're doing something
good by ensuring that somebody'sfound guilty.
So, maceo, again, I'm talkingabout a perfect world.
Let him do his own research.
Sure, all right.

(22:31):
So he gets to go, hop in atrough and it's free to him.
And he goes over the, theAssociation of Washington State
Prosecutors.
Hey, I got this situation goingon where this, this defense
attorney wants to bring in goodcharacter witness and testify,
remember.
And so what happens is theAssociation of Prosecutors of
Washington State drag up theMalcolm Frazier case.

(22:53):
Prosecutors of Washington statedrag up the Malcolm Frazier
case.
That's what happened?
Did I make that clear?
Slow me down?

Speaker 4 (23:00):
I want to slow you down.
So so the association comesback and they tell Paul Masialo
that he that, oh, they use theMalcolm Frazier case to show
well no, because in the Fraziercase they used the Malcolm
Frazier case to show Well no,because in the Frazier case they
weren't allowed to bring upMalcolm Frazier's good
characteristics.

(23:20):
So it also can't happen in thisother case that is correct.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
In fact, I'm glad you're slowing me down, dude, so
I'm way too familiar with thisstuff.
Pull up the MP3 file and it'sthe whole email by Paul Macielo,
because it gets worse than that.
He actually this Macielo Idon't know if I'm pronouncing it
right he's condescending towardthe judges in the court system,
Like, yeah, I don't want themto get involved in something

(23:55):
they don't really understand.
They might actually allow this.
So let me bring back my firstpoint.
He's never heard of, in thestate of Washington, anybody
being allowed to talk abouttheir good character.
Now we're entitled to avigorous defense.

(24:16):
Do you know what vigorous means?

Speaker 4 (24:20):
Vigorous is like strong, powerful, very strong,
vigorous.

Speaker 3 (24:27):
Yes, overwhelming.
Actually we'll look at the lawhere in a moment.
It should be equal.
The same amount of zeal andpower and authority and vileness
and energy that comes from thestate should be allowed by the
defendant.
And we're not even close tothat.
Not even close.
The state of Washington, becauseof the Washington State Supreme

(24:48):
Court, has committed right rapeand I want everybody that goes
in for jury to understand thatwhen that defendant is sitting
there, every single right hasbeen stripped from them.
Every ability, unless they'remulti, multi-millionaires, has
been stripped from them.
You have to realize these copslie all the time.

(25:09):
The truth has been strippedaway.
You have to realize thatprosecutors care nothing,
absolutely nothing about thetruth In stripped away.
You have to realize thatprosecutors care nothing,
absolutely nothing about thetruth.
In fact they spend their timetwisting and hiding and
perverting what the situation is.
And we see this right here inthe information that the
Association of ProsecutingAttorneys in Washington State
sent over.

(25:29):
The whole report they sent tohim is so narrowly focused.
Like with the malcolm fraserstuff, it'll go like uh, maciela
goes back to him to thewashington state, whatever, and
says well, I heard there wassome you know thing about the
church that the mccall had someanimosity.
The church, so paul's or aseawall?

(25:52):
Uh, I've got the name mixed up.
Yeah, maybe it's Sewell.
Anyway, sewell writes and goesoh yeah, the defense brought
that up and that's it.
But there's no mention of hislying and the corruption and all
that went on.
So what you have is, instead ofall of these prosecutors
pursuing the truth, they eachask enough questions to say,

(26:15):
well, I was told there wasnothing to it.
You see what they're doing.
They're covering each other'sbases, and this is how
corruption moves forward.
In other words, masiello isgoing well, you know, I heard
this and he goes.
Oh well, yeah, but the defensemade him a lot of that.
Well, that's true, but it's alie.
Let me be very, very clear.

(26:36):
The city of Enumclaw, detectiveMcCall, this was a hate crime
and we didn't listen, see.
Well, we did not make much ofit.
We were telling you you werewrong.
We were telling you that thecrime was not us, the crime was
them, and you participated inthat crime.
So they come down, theywhitewash it, they water it down

(26:59):
, they lie about it, they leaveout all of the corruption, and
so we haven't got theinformation back yet on what
happened when he presented thisinformation to the court.
It'd be interesting to see.
It seems to be like they'redelaying on it, so I'm a little
suspicious of what actually tookplace.
So he takes this MalcolmFrazier thing before the judges
and goes hey look, thisdefendant should not be allowed

(27:20):
to talk about his good characterbecause Judge Lori K Smith,
woman of the year, twice overminority, denied Malcolm Frazier
of the right.
So you see how the corruptioncontinues to grow.

Speaker 4 (27:34):
Yeah, it grows.
It's the case law.
So one corrupt case is nowspilling over and other
prosecutors get to be corruptbecause these other prosecutors
were corrupt.

Speaker 3 (27:43):
Yeah, never mind that McCall said alone scripting out
the accusations and so forth.
What's really weird about it isjust because Judge Lori K Smith
says in this particular casethat's not law Correct.

Speaker 4 (27:54):
I know Well, I'm using the term case law very
loosely, but that is what theydo.
They say, oh, they do.
That's what they do.
Oh well, this is how it washere, so I should be able to do
this, because they got to dothat, even though they were
corrupt about it.
And yet the corruption growsand continues.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
Yeah, If these judges were doing with their job in
Lewis County, you know what?
If I were a judge there, I'dsay well, Judge Lori K Smith
violated the Constitution of theUnited States.
She violated the Bill of Rights.
She was wrong.
That's corruption.
So we're going to allowanything and everything in here.
For this defendant to provethat he is not prone to do the
crime Sounds reasonable to me.

(28:34):
What about you, Jacob?

Speaker 4 (28:36):
Sounds reasonable.
I also just want to make thequick point Lewis County.
They consider it one of themost conservative counties in
the state.
So not only is corruptionhappening up in King County,
seattle area, where everybodythinks they're woke and corrupt,
it's happening in theconservative areas as well.
They're all corrupt.

Speaker 3 (28:54):
Oh for sure.
In fact Lewis Countyprosecutors are kissing cousins
to King County prosecutors.
Sure, give a little historylesson.
You remember who Sattisburg was?
He was in charge of King County.
Yeah, he came in as aRepublican.
King County prosecutor gotelected.
Then he was really a closetedDemocrat.

(29:15):
So later on he decides oh no, Iwant to be a Democrat
prosecutor.
So he ran under a Democratprosecutor.

Speaker 4 (29:23):
You get my point.
Yeah, I think he was even moresneaky.
I believe he didn't.
He run as like oh, I'm not, I'mneither, I'm just partial.
I think at first he was full on, like it's an impartial
position or whatever.
He changed it for sure he didWell that was the next step?

Speaker 3 (29:39):
Yeah, because what he was doing, I think, is he ran
as a Democrat prosecutor, right,because he wanted to become
governor, and that was where thewinning ticket is.
So again, these prosecutorshave no integrity within their
soul.
They need to repent.
Say well, you need to repent.
I mean, it really is thatsimple.

(30:00):
This has gone on way too long.
Then what happened is Satisbergsaid well, no, no, I don't even
want to do Democrat stuff, Iwant to just be independent.
So he got the National Awardshould stay King County.
People voted oh, yeah, yeah,independent.
So we got the national, the war.
Should you stay king county.
People voted oh, yeah, yeah,we'll just let prosecutors hide
more in the dark.
We won't know whether they'rerepublican, democrat, communist
or whatever.
They'll just get to run.
So the population voting forthis now are even more dumbed

(30:27):
down before they even go in forjury duty.
Yeah, all right.
My point being is Lewis Countycopied the same thing after
Sattisburg did this.
That's how corruption goes.
It just continues on, down anddown and down.
There's no integrity.
By the way, let me clarify it'sSeavers who wrote the appeal

(30:49):
and it's Seavers who's doing theWhite Wars job, sending the
information to the Associationof Orchard State Prosecutors.
It then sends it to thatdefense attorney, and it's
Sewell is the one who said thatjury duty is a dog and pony show
.
Is that clear?
Yes, this is clear.

(31:09):
It really doesn't matter.
Just they're all one mindset,they're all one group of
corruption.

Speaker 4 (31:16):
I mean literally just follow along with the points
and I totally yeah, I'm justgoing to.
They're all corrupt and I knowthat.
Yeah, the names, the particularnames, may get confusing, but
the important part isprosecutors in different
counties across the state andyou know they're all just
talking to each other and, asyou said earlier, the corruption

(31:37):
grows.
They're all bouncing off eachother's corrupt words to further
their corrupt agenda,regardless of you know what I
mean.
If somebody wants to nitpickthe exact name of who said which
corruption line, it's allcorrupt.

Speaker 3 (31:51):
The word for that in Scripture, the truth, the good
book God's all corrupt.
The word for that in Scripture,the truth, the good book, god's
word, is they're mockers.
Proverbs 122 says how long willyou simple ones, love your
simple ways?
It's all so simple.
Oh, they want to put up adefense?
Nope, nope, can't do that.
Judge Orchard Smith didn'tallow it.

(32:13):
So yeah, there you go.
So yeah, just shut up, sitthere and we'll let the accuser
get up there and go.
Yeah, he did this, he did thisand this and that, and your
response would be well, no, Ididn't.
Okay, that's fine, because wedon't need any evidence.
I'm sorry, I got sidetracked.
Proverbs 122.
How long will you, simple ones,love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delightin mockery?

(32:34):
That's why, when I read allthis stuff again, it's just one
big mocking echo chamber, youknow, full of lies.
How long will you mockersdelight in mockery?
And fools hate knowledge.
There was nothing about thisreport given by the Association

(32:55):
of Prosecutors of WashingtonState that contained anything
related remotely to the depth ofcorruption or truth of the
trial.
They took out this one littlesliver of saying no, a defendant
shouldn't be allowed to bringanybody in that would speak
positive of them and they ranwith it.
That's all it was about.
Now, there was a lot more wordsthan that, of course, but the

(33:16):
end result of lawyers is thatwhat it was.
So let me read this email.
Well, let me pause, jacob.
Do I need to clarify anything?

Speaker 4 (33:24):
No, I have the file, though now.

Speaker 3 (33:26):
Okay, go ahead and play that file then, jacob.
This is Paul Musiello's emailrequesting information and help
because he's in a desperatesituation.
And I've said it again what'sthe desperate situation?
A defendant might actually beable to talk about his
reputation.
Remember, prosecutors get upand go.
Oh, he's evil and he's vile andhis reputation, this and his

(33:48):
reputation, I mean, they justtrash you left and right, not
based on knowledge, and we'llsee here in a moment.
I'll get ahead of myself.

Speaker 5 (33:55):
Play it, jacob from paul macielo, sent wednesday,
february 28, 2024 7 12 pm tojason walker, washington
prosecutors organization.
Subject reputation for sexualmorality.
Hoping to get this sent out tothe sau list serveerv.

(34:15):
I have a Rape 2 slash Rape 3trial next week.
Trial confirmation is Thursdayand the defence attorney has
just disclosed three witnessesthat are going to testify as to
the good reputation for sexualmorality of the defendant.
I have never heard of such athing and laughed when I read
that's what they were testifyingto, but it appears D3 has

(34:36):
bitten off on allowing that typeof testimony.
It's so I'm wondering if anyonehas any briefing to counter
this argument, as I only have afew days to educate myself on
the topic, write a brief andgive the court enough time to
review the issue before making aruling.
2.
I'm just worried that the courtwill be rushed and take the

(34:57):
safe route of ruling against thestate on matters they are
unfamiliar with.
Thanks, Paul E Macielo.
Senior Deputy ProsecutingAttorney, Lewis County
Prosecutor's Office.
345 West Main Street, 2nd Floor, Chehalis, WA.

Speaker 4 (35:17):
Wow, okay.
So I think we should haveactually played this earlier and
I think it would have made itmore clear, but that's okay.
Yeah, wow, okay.
You know what's wild to think,and this is a sad thought this
is happening in the courts allthe time, this kind of
corruption is happening all thetime, and we just happened to

(35:39):
get this particular slicecorruption is happening all the
time and we just happen to getthis particular slice.

Speaker 3 (35:46):
That's what I'm saying.
This is a perfect textbooksituation that, if somebody
wanted to study how corruptionincreases within a judicial
system, from the time theinception of the false
accusation of Malcolm Frazierall the way up to here, you just
see how it grows and grows, andgrows.
That's why God says the facethe has chosen is to loosen the
chains of injustice, becauseit's a naturally growing thing.
It's who we are.
By the way, I'm going to giveyou a little intro here and say

(36:07):
okay, Jacob, go ahead and playthis in the beginning and we'll
discuss it when we get deeper in.
So if you want to cut anddouble it, up.

Speaker 4 (36:13):
Go for it.
I will.
Yeah, I want to.
Yeah, that'd be good.
All right, the part I'mchuckling about he acknowledges
that it's the right thing to do.
Yes, because well, he says,okay, he says, but I'm afraid
the state is gonna like prettymuch, do the right thing and let
these witnesses come in.
So I need your help.

(36:34):
Corrupt, corrupt washingtonstate prosecutor association.
Help me out.
Help Help me the countyprosecutor, don't let this
happen.
I need some ammo, because wecan't let the court do that.

Speaker 3 (36:48):
Yeah, let me read what he says.
I'm just worried.
So I'm worried.
Well, why would you worry?
Because the courts mightactually allow a defendant to
speak.

Speaker 4 (36:55):
And he even admits they probably will.
Unless you help me, they mightlet this go through.

Speaker 3 (37:01):
Sure.
So I'm just worried that thecourt will be rushed and take
the quote safe route.
It's called the legal route,it's called the Bill of Rights,
it's called the Constitution.
And even if we didn't have theConstitution and even if we
didn't have the Bill of Rights,it's the right thing to do.

(37:22):
Yeah, I'm just worried that thecourt will be rushed and take
the safe route of ruling againstthe state on matters they are
unfamiliar with.
Look at the condescendingnature he has toward these
judges.

Speaker 4 (37:36):
Yes, is that not condescending, very
condescending, that he knowsbetter than them.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
Correct, they're judges and they're the ones in
charge.
But you know what?
They're just unfamiliar withthe corruption we go involved
with.
They take the safe.
I mean, I'm listening to thatgoing.
By your words you'll beacquitted and by your words
you'll be condemned.
It's really that simple, youknow.
Let's just talk about humanbeings here for just a moment.
If they even have, they don'thave that because you're talking

(38:06):
about rape accusations andsending someone to prison who
literally could be killed.
That's considered the lowestlife of prison individuals,
correct?
And you'll sometimes you'llhear judges go yeah, you're
going to be killed, you're goingto be murdered, I'm sending you
there and they have no concernabout whether it's actually a
true charge or not.

(38:30):
And let me tell you somethingthere's no way that any of these
people they're believing in andI'm talking about if there's
just no evidence, just somebodymaking an accusation.
You've got to realize publicschools brainwash these kids
into that.
You've been abused.
Tv shows constantly are formingmemories that, oh, men are evil
and these things are vile.
And you've been molested.

(38:50):
Girls by nature remember theSalem witch hunts.
Their method of attentiongetting whatever I'm not going
to get all their motives is toform false charges and there's
nothing about Harborview MedicalCenter or these prosecutors or
anybody coming along and testingfor the lies, which are
extremely.
Then you have family court.

(39:11):
What is family court?
But everybody lying the bestthey can to get what they want.
So it's just chock full of.
By the time somebody actuallyaccuses another individual of a
sexual crime.
You really, as a juror, youknow what?
If they don't have physicalevidence, if there's not hard
evidence, personally I would notfind them guilty.

(39:32):
I couldn't.

Speaker 4 (39:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (39:33):
There's just no way these children and these
individuals look at the state ofWashington.
Are they not trying to get13-year-olds to mutilate their
genitalia for the state?
Yes, they are.
So the state of abortion doeseverything it can to pervert and
destroy the family.
It does everything in its powerto pervert reality by saying

(39:53):
well, you're not really male orfemale and you've got all of
this.
And men are evil, they're vile.
These prosecutors aredestroying relationships between
men and women.
It's just full of evilsuspicion.
These prosecutors are doingmassive damage and part of that
massive damage is falseaccusations and there's no way
these prosecutors and thesejudges can possibly get to the

(40:16):
truth as to whether it's falseor not, because they live too
many lies.
Not until they're actuallydeveloping systems to reveal the
liars and to put these liars injail for as long as it would be
if somebody were accused of thecrime.
Don't go into, I would not gointo jury and if they don't have

(40:37):
any evidence, forget it.
I'm not going there.
You will be found innocent,period.
That accuser can sit up thereand whine and cry and the
parents can give them wine andcry, and he's violently.
It's all a show.
It's all a show trial based onlies.
Did I get slow enough on thatone, jacob?

Speaker 4 (40:57):
No, that was not slow , but yes.

Speaker 3 (40:59):
Okay, yeah, you're correct.
Let me read the other paragraph.
I've never heard of such athing.
I want to take a breath on thatfor a moment.
I have never heard of such athing where the state of
Washington allows a defendant tobring other people to testify

(41:20):
to the goodness of his character.

Speaker 4 (41:23):
Well, I think he's saying he's never like the
defense wants to do this, buthe's never heard of, I guess, a
defense attorney ever doing that.
So he's just, he's never.

Speaker 3 (41:33):
Well, you know you bring up a good point because
the defense attorneys I wishthey'd wake up in the state of
Washington.
They are so neutered, correct,yeah, they're powerless.
They're powerless, they'reafraid.
They actually we've talkedabout this before they serve the
prosecution.
Look, defense attorneys, gettogether, give a portion of your
money to a nonprofitorganization, just like the
Association of Washington StateProsecutors, and get all your

(41:55):
information and put out there sothat people know what these
prosecutors are up to.
Correct, yeah, your namedoesn't have to go out.
Part of the reason that thesedefense attorneys are cowards is
that, well, number one, thedefendant has to pay for it, and
so it gets very expensive toactually do anything in any
power.
But one of the reasons isbecause the defense attorney has

(42:16):
to get along with the judge andit has to get along with these
prosecutors to plea bargain,because that's mostly how it
happens.
So give them money, send it toI'm not going to do it, I'm
throwing this out.
For send it to me.
I'll form a nonprofitorganization and we'll start
pounding what these people areup to so that when people go in
for jury duty, they actuallyhave knowledge.

(42:37):
Now, again, I don't want thatposition, but you get my point
right.
Jacob, I get your point yeah, soyeah, he's never heard of it
because Washington State SupremeCourt has right-raped the power
of defense attorneys toactually put up a defense for
you.
Please understand that Publicdefenders are powerless.
They're at the mercy of thestate for money and they're

(43:00):
always behind.
They have to get along with theprosecuting attorneys.
We need a separate, strongpublic defender's office that is
so separate from politiciansand from judges and from
prosecutors.
There needs to be equal power,because what do most people wind
up doing?
They have to wind up going tothe public defender's office.
There needs to be power forpower, money for money.

(43:22):
It needs to be equal.
Don't have time to get into allthe games or playing with that,
all right, I've never heard ofsuch thing and laughed Wow, how
inhuman can you be?
The defense wants to presentthat.
His whole life, his wholecharacter.

(43:43):
Same thing with the MalcolmFrazier case.
The whole nature of the church,the whole nature of how things
were structured, all the factsthat were associated with his
character who he was, amongother hardcore facts that the
crime was impossible were notallowed to be permitted.
So the prosecutor strows inlike a rooster and goes evil,
vile, wicked, this twist, lieabout that.

(44:05):
Remember the birthday one.
That's just one example.
And laughed.
Do you realize these people?
We need to realize.
These prosecutors are laughingat us.
They are laughing at judges.
They're laughing at judges.
They're laughing.
They own the system because theWashington State Supreme Court

(44:25):
has allowed these politicians towrite rapists, but it appears
D3 has bitten off on allowingthat type of testimony.

Speaker 4 (44:46):
Clearly something indicated that they were in
favor of it.
Yeah, I wonder if D3 isDistrict 3.
I don't know what D3 is.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
Me, neither Me, neither.
All right, mr Jacob, anythingelse, I know I'm kind of all
over the place.
I hope it's clear.
Anything you want to say?
No, all right, let's go to do.
You realize that things are so?
I know you do, Jacob.
People need to realize thatthings are so bad that

(45:12):
prosecutors do not need to proveanything, nothing.
Well, okay, I'm wrong.
They only need to prove onething.
In a sexual allegation case,prosecutors laugh because they
know they don't have to proveanything but one thing.

Speaker 4 (45:29):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 3 (45:30):
And let's play this.
This is from the MalcolmFrazier case, prosecutor Jason
Simmons and five otherprosecutors and Judge Lori K
Smith.
Have I mentioned that she'sbeen woman of the year for two
times in a row?
Mm-hmm, yep, okay, I mentionedthat, so I want to make sure
that's clear, because clearly,being a woman of the year twice
over as a minority judge makesher superior on understanding

(45:54):
what justice is right, oh yeah.
Uh-huh, yeah, okay, I'm just alowly white person.
Yeah, you know male.

Speaker 4 (46:01):
Male.

Speaker 3 (46:02):
Old too.

Speaker 4 (46:03):
You're a little too old.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Yeah, I am too old, you know, and my concepts I mean
, I just can't laugh at people'smisery and I can't, eh,
whatever, all right.
So this is what he told thejury and Judge Laurie K Smith
goes yippity-doo and the jurygoes yippity-yay.
This is what he told and nobodythought twice about it.
Go ahead and play that, jacob.

Speaker 5 (46:26):
State v Malcolm Fraser, case number 12-1-01886-0
.
Washington State, seattle, kingCounty.
Association of Prosecutors,olympia, washington, fully
supporting prosecutor JasonSimmons.

(46:47):
Quote the state doesn't have toprove anything else other than
their age.
The state doesn't have to provethat this began in November or
it began in April.
The state doesn't have to provethat.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
End quote Okay, jacob , I hope everybody's listening.
The attitude of prosecutors isthat when you're falsely okay,

(47:24):
when you're accused of sexualimmorality, sexual crime the
prosecutor just leans back inthe chair puts their arms back
on the top of their head andkicks up their feet and they
smile and they laugh becausethey only have to prove one
thing, and that's the fact thatthey were a minor, that they
were born and that theaccusation happened to be at a
time when they werequote-unquote a child.
Yeah, that's it.
That's it, people.
Let me read this to you againState versus Malcolm Frazier.
The state doesn't have to proveanything else other than age.

(47:48):
I want silence to set.
Think about what you're hearing.
And so then he goes on to saythe state doesn't have to prove
anything else other than age.

(48:09):
The state doesn't have to provethat MC act in a way that you
think an 11-year-old should.
The state doesn't have to provethat this began in November or
it began in April.
The state doesn't have to provethat.
Gee, how many times can he sayit?
Yeah.
What he's saying is not onlydoes the state not have to prove

(48:29):
anything other than her age,but she can make up any time
period.
She can say it happened in 68,it happened in.
Well, in the future, you don'thave to prove it right, you
don't have to prove it 2050,he's going to or he did.
Yeah, that doesn't have to beproved.

Speaker 4 (48:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (48:51):
It's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant why, as juryindividuals, are we
participating in this monumentalcorruption?
Not to mention the fact thatthe lie started out that he was

(49:14):
there a year and a half, right,jacob.
Then it gets whittled down,then they don't know and so they
literally didn't have to provetime proof.
But it was important, becauseMalcolm Frazier was only in the
house for six weeks and,according to the manipulated
accuser testified in the courtthat nothing happened during the

(49:38):
first six weeks.
So he goes.
Yeah, that's irrelevant jury.
We don't have to prove that.
It doesn't matter whether it'ssix weeks.
This week happened, then theydon't have to prove anything.
This is why you see so manyfalse accusations.
There was a case of a guy wasaccused of doing something I
think it was rape also but hewas in a totally different town

(50:02):
and he had a receipt of being ata restaurant and eating and so
on gas receipts and the policeand the prosecutors just totally
ignored it.
So he was on the verge ofactually being.
Because of publicity, of courseit changed, but he was on the
verge of going to prison forsomething he wasn't even there
to do.

(50:22):
They really do have thisattitude, so don't buy it when
you go in for jury selection andthe jury, the prosecutor, will
go oh no, we don't do that.
And this doesn't happen here,it happens everywhere.
These prosecutors, these policeare ignoring facts and truth
and evidence just to win aconviction.

(50:44):
Look at what's happening withthis, the Malcolm Frazier
injustice about testifying toyour quality of character.
Have they not just literallyignored every piece of evidence
we brought to them?
Jacob Correct, they act like itdoesn't exist and we just keep
repeating it and showing it andproving more and more.
They just ignore it becausethey don't have to prove

(51:06):
anything.
Now, that's how far gone alegal system that turns to us
and says we don't have to proveanything except this one thing
your age is gone.
Yeah, that's toast.
Yeah, gone, yeah, that's toast.

(51:28):
Yeah, you know, if the, if Iwas a doj investigator, this is
where I would start.
There are, there are multiplelevels to the malcolm fraser
thing.
It goes off in a lot ofdifferent direction.
It goes off spiritually,legally, socially, um, all kind
of psychology, all kind there's.
You could study this thing froma lot of different angles.
But if I was in the DOJ and Iwas looking to bring a nice

(51:49):
little sliver of individuals toput them in prison.
This is where I would start.
Do you see where I'm going withthat, jacob?
Any feedback before I go alittle more with that?
No, go ahead, detective McCall.
And you've got the worddetective right.
Aren't detectives supposed togo get facts?

(52:10):
Yes, they are.
So that's a lie.
I mean, I think he should bearrested for claiming to be a
detective, correct, but anyway.
So Detective McCall knew thatJason Simmons in the state
didn't need any evidence.
Ok, well, that's one element,that's just.
There's a federal law,deprivation of honest services.

(52:31):
That's just one law thesepeople could be arrested on.
So no wonder McCall didn'tbother to go get evidence.
Number one it would haveexposed the hate crime.
So no wonder McCall didn'tbother to go get evidence.
Number one it would haveexposed the hate crime.
Detecting McCall did not evengo, as far as we know, to the
house where the alleged crimetook place, examine the house to
see if it was possible andcreate a report about the house

(52:53):
and the events.
He didn't even go there.

Speaker 4 (52:54):
Well, and I think you just used the words like we're
not sure, something like thatI'm pretty sure.
Yeah, we know for a fact.
I think you just used the wordslike we're not sure or
something like that I'm prettysure, yeah, we know for a fact.
I think he was asked like didyou ever go to the house?
And the answer was no.
Well, he's a liar.

Speaker 3 (53:07):
That's why he also claimed to only delete two email
messages.
I mean, I appreciate yourepeating that no, yeah, but
anyways.
You can't believe anythingMcCall said.
This is true.
He's proven himself over andover again, uh, to be a massive
liar.
Yeah so, but okay, I'm gonnaassume he didn't.
Let's just tell him the truth?
oh, I'm pretty sure he did notno, he spent his time doing

(53:29):
other things, which is harassingus, and looking for other
salacious things he could accuseand lying about our doctrine,
yeah, and all those kinds ofthings.
Um, so you could come in on thefact.
Wait a minute, you weredetecting me.
You didn't even go find thefacts.
At one point during the trialhe arrogantly says well, I
decide what the facts are.
No, detective McCall, theevidence decides what the facts

(53:53):
are.
But Washington State and theWashington State Association of
Prosecutors do not requireevidence.
Nope, why are they evenexisting?
I don't get it To further thecorrupt agenda?

Speaker 4 (54:03):
That's an opening question.
Don't even try to answer, goahead, all right.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
So that's an angle the DOJ could come in.
I'll stop here because I'mpounding on it and I don't want
to give any more information.
But if you want to get to thetruth of what took place, this
is where you would begin and whythis hate crime continued to
move forward with great speed.
This is your answer, all right.
Anything else on that?
No, all right.

(54:29):
Where should we go with this?
Now I'm taking my breathbecause all of this stuff is
monumental in nature.
Jacob, you ever heard of Burgerversus the United States?
And that's not hamburger,that's B-E-R-G-E-R versus the

(54:49):
United States.
No, I never have.
Really, it's a 1935 case law.
Well, I haven't heard of it.
Really, aren't you an averageindividual?
Don't you know when the policepull you over?
You have to be a mini lawyerbecause they'll trick you out.
Average individual, don't youknow?
When the police pull you over,you have to be a mini-lawyer,
because they'll trick you out ofevery right and ask you
questions to make you lookstupid and then falsely accuse
you that you're resisting arrestor doing that and the other.
You've got to be a mini-lawyer.

(55:11):
So you've never studied up onthe 1935 Berger v United States?
I have not Well, clearly, theAssociation of Washington State
Prosecutors and all these otherprosecutors within King County
and Lewis County have not either.
Okay, go ahead and play that,and then let's listen to what

(55:31):
this law says from 1935.

Speaker 1 (55:38):
Prosecutors debase the law.
Prosecutors debase the law.
Consider the year 1935.
Consider berger versus unitedstates, 295, us 78, 1935.
It is as much the duty of theunited states attorney to
refrain from improper methodscalculated to produce a wrongful

(55:58):
conviction as it is to useevery legitimate means to bring
about a just one.
Dwell on the fact thatWashington state prosecutors do
not require proof in a trial.
Think on the fact prosecutorslaugh when a defendant would
have others testify to theirgood character, such as the
right rape by the washingtonstate supreme court.

(56:21):
The consider podcast examiningtoday's wisdom, folly and
madness wwwconsiderinfo.

Speaker 3 (56:38):
Jacob, can you put that in layman's terms?

Speaker 4 (56:47):
I think you don't be corrupt.

Speaker 3 (56:49):
Well, that's exactly why you need it.
Anyway, you already had theConstitution and Bill of Rights
by 1935.
What it really is saying isequal power is equal power.
The prosecution is required touse equal power to punish

(57:09):
somebody, as they are toestablish that it's done with
justice.
In other words, you can't haveLewis County prosecutors
laughing at a defendant beingable to defend himself.
Yeah, the prosecutor needs touse the same energy that he's
using to put that person in jailto ensure that the defendant
has the ability to defendhimself.

(57:31):
You can't have Judge Lori KSmith go.
We'll let all these people lieabout the church, and they can
do it with impunity, but you'renot allowed to bring up anything
yourself.
Or how about this?
We'll let all these people liein King County court for 28 days
wasting how many thousands ofdollars the defense doesn't have

(57:55):
.
So the defense isn't able toput up a defense.
This law establishes the factthat the same money, the same
power, the same effort needs tobe afforded to the defendant.
In other words, no moreextortion.
The state really needs to startpaying for the defendants,
period.

(58:16):
Yeah, they allow all of thismassive wealth and power to come
in and all to crush thedefendant so he can't plead
anything in court.
But we need.
We need the same thing, by theway, is a sub note Any
politician, policeman, judge,anyone accused of a crime should
have to use a public defender'soffice.
They're public employees.

(58:36):
They should be forced to.
They shouldn't be allowed touse police union lawyers.
They shouldn't be allowed to goto the association of
prosecutors to get help todefend themselves.
That's what this law is reallysaying.
Now I know I've taken it toofar out, but my point is this
law is not even close anywherein court, correct?
Correct?
Let me read that again Jacob.

(58:57):
Us reports Berger and I'm gladthey pronounced it correctly
versus United States.
295 US 78, year 1935.
It is as much the duty of theUnited States attorney to
refrain.
You see, these prosecutorsdon't refrain themselves on
anything.

(59:17):
There's no refrain by thepolice.
It's only what am I saying?
Mccall was caught, it waswhitewashed.
There's no refraining of theirpower.
It just keeps going over theduty of the United States
attorney to refrain fromimproper methods calculated to
produce a wrongful conviction.
Everything about the MalcolmFrazierzier case and trial.

(59:41):
Was it not calculated toproduce a wrongful conviction
because they hated the church?

Speaker 4 (59:49):
yes, and they used improper methods, meaning they
didn't.
It's, yes, it's.
You know, if it was a real cult, where's the where's the actual
evidence of it?
You know what I mean like beinga cult, because there are some
real cults out there.
Ours was not.

Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
Absolutely.
In fact, it's interesting thatwhen Simmons and the five thugs,
prosecutors and Judge Laura KSmith and did I mention she's
Woman of the Year?
Did I mention she's Woman ofthe Year twice Voted to by her
peers?

Speaker 4 (01:00:18):
Yeah, you did mention .

Speaker 3 (01:00:19):
So none of her peers are going to go against the
corruption she brings into thecourtroom.
Because why?
She's a woman and she's blackalso.
So anyway, simmons, when hewould ask people that were
testifying against the church,did not ask in a truthful way.
What he said was what was yourunderstanding of the teachings
of the church?

(01:00:39):
He never asked what did thechurch teach, correct?
Do you see the big differencebetween that?
They can lie about theirunderstanding, but all that
really shows is if that wasreally their understanding.
They're the ones guilty,correct?
Do you understand when they'reup there going, well, the church

(01:01:00):
is this and we're this and wehave to walk in light, and all
that.
And their understanding is whatthey said.
Well, they're the ones thatshould be in prison because
that's not what the churchtaught, correct?
All right, it's all slides, allsort of hand, and I know
somebody's thinking well, whydidn't the church defend?
Why didn't you bring that up?
28-, 28 day trial.
You want to pay for it, youwant to bring in the

(01:01:24):
constitutional lawyers.
This, this trial was so mixed up.
The malcolm fraser accusationsbecause they don't have to prove
anything was used as a pretextto attack the church and nobody
had the money or the resourcesor the power to deal with that
effect.
In the meantime, there was ahate crime going on behind the

(01:01:44):
scenes, destroying the company,people's livelihoods and
families.
The amount of destruction theseprosecutors are doing in the
state of Washington, it's nowonder God's going to judge them
All right Calculated.
To produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every
legitimate means to bring abouta just one, you need to see

(01:02:06):
equal energy that the truth isbeing presented on both sides.
What would happen if this lawwere actually put into place?
You wouldn't have the trial,because it would become evident
that they're not guilty or thatyou don't have enough evidence,
because it would become evidentthat they're not guilty or that
you don't have enough evidence.
So the only way they can justplay the power, play and con
themselves and bring people inand accuse them is you totally

(01:02:28):
have to ignore all facts,evidence, everything else
impropriety, illegalities andlying, prosecutors and police
and so on and then you can justdo what you want.
Isn't that what we see wasgoing on, jacob?
That is what is happening.
That is what has happened.
Well, jacob, I've gone long.
We've gone all over the place.
My fault, there's just too muchto say.

(01:02:49):
So let's end with so peopleunderstand just a little bit,
just a little bit of what theAssociation of Prosecutors in
Washington state are supportingby bringing up the Malcolm
Frazier trial to try and induceand corrupt the whole system so
that they can continue to laugh,so that they can be sure the

(01:03:12):
judges don't take the safe routeof actually helping a defendant
.
Anything you want to say, jacob, before we play that file.
No, all right, jacob, playmccall's lawn lawfare and then
take us out of here and everyallegation comes from the

(01:03:33):
detective lawfare against arighteous christian Church
Washington State, seattle, kingCounty.

Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
Prosecutor Judges and Police Corruptions Unhinged and
Unleashed.
Prosecution of Malcolm Fraser,defendant Case Number
12-1-01886-0KNT.
Lawfare against a righteousChristian church aimed at

(01:04:05):
destroying Timothy Williams,sound Doctrine Church, salt
Shaker Christian Bookstore andWine Press Publishing.
Quote concerning City ofEnumclaw Police.
Every allegation comes fromDetective Grant McCall.
City of Enumclaw Police.
End quote.
Quote from Washington StateProsecutors and Judges.

(01:04:28):
The state of Washington doesnot have to prove anything other
than age.
End quote.
King County Prosecutors andJudges are Prosecutor Mark
Larson, prosecutor Lisa Johnson,prosecutor Nicole Weston,
prosecutor Rich Anderson andProsecutor Jason Simmons, judge

(01:04:50):
Beth M Andrus.
Judge Lori K Smith, prosecutorLisa Mannion.
All who fully support thelawfare against righteous
Christians.
All who fully support thelawfare against righteous
Christians.
City of Enumclaw.
Detective Grant McCall and aprimary co-conspirator,
multi-level, marketed a hatecrime against Timothy Williams

(01:05:11):
or Sound Doctrine Church,knowing that Washington state
prosecutors would require zeroevidence that a crime actually
took place.
Require zero evidence that acrime actually took place.
The co-conspirator, groomedaccuser, sat alone with
Detective Grant McCall as hescripted out the accusations all
had agreed upon.
Detective McCall turned thevoice recorder on and off at

(01:05:34):
will, deleted evidence and had aknown history of abused police
power to proselytize his radicalBaptist ideologies.
Dr John Uwa, phd, r-psych.
A professional examiner,rightly concluded that McCall
engaged in methods to inducedesired false accusations.

(01:05:55):
This also explains why City ofEnumclaw police refused to
investigate the accusations forproof.
Detective Grant McCall knewthat if an honest investigation
were performed, the hate crimewould have been uncovered.
Some extreme proof ofWashington state's lawfare
against a righteous Christianchurch is located at

(01:06:19):
wwwconsiderinfo All right.

Speaker 3 (01:06:25):
So let's play this next clip and let's watch Beth
Andrews here as she listens tohim lie within a 20-minute
period.
Go ahead and play that, jacob.

Speaker 7 (01:06:36):
Well, the entire case revolves around a couple of
things.
One of them is the church as awhole.
We've received complaints frompeople about the church okay,
hang on a second.

Speaker 3 (01:06:51):
That okay.
Anything you want to say, jacob, before I dive into this, no,
go ahead.
Look at his attitude.
We've received complaints aboutthe church.
What is he?
The?
The pope of the city?
Venum claw, yeah, and sincewhen is a church being

(01:07:11):
complained about?
Grounds for any type of makingthat criminal?

Speaker 4 (01:07:18):
Yeah, how does that translate over to something
illegal?
It doesn't.

Speaker 3 (01:07:24):
And he's stating this before Beth Andrews, as if this
were an important point.

Speaker 4 (01:07:30):
Correct, as if this is a valid reason why he did the
things that he did Correct.

Speaker 3 (01:07:35):
Because it's a misconduct.
All the other churches inWashington state aren't
receiving complaints.

Speaker 4 (01:07:43):
Yeah, I know Exactly.

Speaker 3 (01:07:45):
Well, let me put.
Let me refer to that for you.
Probably not, because 99% ofmost people, if they called a
police station and said I don'tlike the Jehovah's Witness or I
don't like station, and said Idon't like the Jehovah's Witness
or I don't like the Mormons orI don't like the Baptists, what
is the average police stationgoing to do?

Speaker 4 (01:08:04):
Not our problem, sir.

Speaker 3 (01:08:06):
Not our problem.
Grow up, go get a life, go away, don't bug us again.
Right, correct?
But not in this case, becausethe city of Enumclaw and
Detective Grant McCall was amagnet for liars, so he was
willing to receive all of thesecalls.
I mean, when we made acomplaint, oh well, it's not
happening, it's not our business, we're not going to deal with
it.
They certainly pushed us off,correct?

(01:08:27):
So then he's sitting beforeBeth Andrews here going.
Yeah, I'm going to present mymost valuable facts as to why
this case of a man falselyaccused of a sexual crime is
guilty.
I'm going to present to you thething you need to pay attention
to, judge Beth Andrews, and youknow what it is.

(01:08:48):
You know what it is, bethAndrews.
Do you know?
Do you know?
We have received complaintsabout the church.

Speaker 4 (01:08:55):
Dun, dun, dun oh really Not.

Speaker 3 (01:08:59):
Well, what are the complaints?
Who made the complaints?
I know how were the complaintsdealt with?
None of that fact.
It's just we receivedcomplaints and Beth Andrews is
going okay, so you've receivedcomplaints.
I get it.
They're evil, they're bad.
I'm.
I get it.
They're evil, they're bad.
You're a cop.
Therefore, you never lie, younever say anything wrong and we
don't hold you to anyaccountability.
So, okay, fine, you're free tosit here and use Washington

(01:09:29):
State's court system to belittlea church because they receive
complaints.

Speaker 7 (01:09:33):
Start from the beginning and let's play it
again.
Well, the entire case revolvesaround a couple of things, and
one of them is the church as awhole.

Speaker 3 (01:09:41):
Okay, stop it right there, I covered the second part
of the first part this wholecase you correct me if I'm wrong
, jacob this whole case, thefalse accusations toward Malcolm
Frazier, the whole case aboutthat accusation revolves around
what?

Speaker 4 (01:10:01):
Jacob, a couple things.
There's a couple things here,okay.

Speaker 3 (01:10:07):
What are those couple things?

Speaker 4 (01:10:09):
Well, I, don't know what the second one, but one one
of them.
Well, I don't know what thesecond one, but one one of them.
So, out of the two, there's two, and one is we have received
complaints Back up.
Oh, the church as a whole,You're technically correct.

Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
You applied logic to the situation.
I'm looking at his two and Icould be wrong.

Speaker 4 (01:10:30):
One would be Well, his words are two.

Speaker 3 (01:10:33):
Yeah, it is the whole church but, that's not really
that's a redundant point to thecomplaint.
So really you only got one.
I hear what you're saying.

Speaker 4 (01:10:41):
This is nonsensical but in his words, yeah, the, the
church as a whole.

Speaker 3 (01:10:47):
That was his words to beth andrews, sitting right
there.
You can see her right there inthe video.
Yes, whatever she's doing theretaking notes, listening, like
waiting for it to get over with.
I can't guarantee you what'sgoing on in her mind at this
point.
But the church as a whole right.
As we've made very, very clearwe have evidence of this was a

(01:11:09):
hate crime instigated by aco-conspirator and Grant McCall.
They wanted this accusation tobring down the whole church.
King County prosecutors had toknow that all the evidence
pointed to the crime could nothave happened, but they were
willing to use that to take downthe church and that's been made

(01:11:32):
clear all along.
All right, so he's lying.
Any comments before we finishthis video?
No, keep going then.
Keep playing.

Speaker 7 (01:11:40):
Church as a whole we've received complaints from
people about the church.
So the sound doctrine churchreally doesn't have anything to
do with the investigation at all.
It's just that some of thespiritual things involved to
kind of muddy the waters of thechurch really doesn't have
anything to do with theinvestigation at all.
It's just that some of thespiritual things involved kind
of muddy the waters a little bitand have muddy the waters.
But the sound doctrine of thechurch has got really nothing to

(01:12:00):
do with these allegations atall.

Speaker 4 (01:12:07):
And he's done Nothing at all.
Nothing at all.
And then it's quiet.
It's like a pause, as he looks,because that's the end of his
statement.
He's just done, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:12:18):
And you notice he is an expert liar because if you
watch in the beginning his faceis not looking toward the judge.
Yes, he's talking more to thecourtroom, probably to the jury
kind of thing, right?

Speaker 4 (01:12:29):
Well no, there's no jury there.
This is a misconduct.

Speaker 3 (01:12:34):
Okay, mis jury kind of thing.

Speaker 4 (01:12:35):
Right well, no, there's no jury there.
This is a misconduct, okay,yeah, so right now he's looking
he's looking over at ann who's Idon't you know asking her yeah,
asking her questions.
She's the one that gets to askhim questions and he's just
talking to the entire court,whoever's there.

Speaker 3 (01:12:47):
Well, here's my I'm gonna rephrase it this way my
valid point when he turns to lie, he turns and looks at her,
looks at who.

Speaker 4 (01:12:57):
He's looking at the judge.
No, he's not right now, he'slooking to the side.

Speaker 3 (01:13:02):
Keep playing.
Does he not turn and look ather?

Speaker 4 (01:13:04):
No, Well, it just ends.
I don't know what's oh rightthere.

Speaker 3 (01:13:08):
Right there, he's looking at her.
Yes, yeah, he's looking at her.
Yes, yeah, yeah, okay.
So what's your favorite?

Speaker 4 (01:13:12):
phrase.
Jacob, I don't know what's myfavorite phrase You're right, oh
, you're right.

Speaker 3 (01:13:18):
Yes, oh well, yeah, okay, yes, you are correct.

Speaker 4 (01:13:22):
You are correct?
Yes, he's looking right at thejudge.

Speaker 3 (01:13:25):
Yes, okay, making contact, making emphasis that
this lie is true.
Yeah, it's classic lyingbehavior.
And again, feel free to correctme at any time.
I cannot keep all this straightbecause I'm not an expert liar,
I don't even try.
All right, have we hammered in?
Think about this.
This is like full blown on lie.

(01:13:48):
Yes, first, it's.
This case has totally to dowith the church.
Twenty minutes later, when thatstarts getting exposed by the
defense attorney, he realizes,hey, this is not looking good.
So what he does is he slingsand says the complete opposite,
correct, correct, the completeopposite.

(01:14:10):
You have proof right here thathe lies about everything and it
all has to do with taking downthe church.
And it worked.
I mean, I have to give himcredit, it did work.

Speaker 4 (01:14:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:14:21):
Now.
So what Beth Andrews does isshe's really boxing a corner.
Clearly our cameras are in theroom and it's clear he's done
misconduct.
I mean there's a lot of otherthings to this aspect but she
whitewashes all the lies.
She'll sit there and go.
Well, I'm pretty confident thathe was doing the best, that he

(01:14:42):
thought and we won't get intothat.
We've covered that before.
So this all gets whitewashed.
But she knows he's lying.
She knows he's flat out lying.
You can see it on her face.
Now I zoomed in and I took somestills of this.
And let's just zoom in and lookat her face.
You tell me that's not a facethat goes.

(01:15:03):
What am I hearing here?
Yes, is now you correct mewrong, but that looks either one
or two things.
She's got some illness orsomething I know she doesn't
have an illness.
Okay, that's she's like.

Speaker 4 (01:15:17):
So we've ruled that out.
What I'm hearing?

Speaker 3 (01:15:19):
yeah, this guy is crazy yeah, loony, but then she
still whitewashes it yeah, she,I know, yeah, I think isn't
there another couple zooms?
Keep going in there.
It's just kind of, maybe not.

Speaker 4 (01:15:32):
This is the big.
Yeah, this is very clear.
It'll be big on the screen.

Speaker 3 (01:15:39):
It just goes downhill from there.
I mean, if you're going towhitewash this kind of bad
character of a cop, there's noway you're going to get a fair
trial.

Speaker 4 (01:15:51):
No.

Speaker 3 (01:15:52):
You're not even going to get, and when?

Speaker 4 (01:15:54):
I say fair trial, that's a long way from an honest
trial.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, that's yeah.
An honest trial is impossible,impossible, you can't, it's
impossible.

Speaker 3 (01:16:06):
They won't allow it, the very laws or the way they
twist them and things they leaveout.
It's just not feasible.
Just so happened in thisparticular trial.
It got sharply into focusbecause we didn't bow down to
all their corruption.
All right, jacob, any otherthoughts on that?

(01:16:26):
I don't want to leave that tooquick because people again I'm
repeating, but I'm trying toslow down here Think about what
you're hearing and seeing andwhat McCall is getting by with.
If Beth Andrews and then laterJudge Lori K Smith are letting
this man with these kinds oflies and corruption we've just
looked at a couple to falselyaccuse somebody else and take

(01:16:49):
down a whole church and drivethem from the city of Enumclaw.
People just need to wake up tojust how much corruption is
going on.
It's unfathomable, it really is.

Speaker 6 (01:17:01):
It is the allegation comes from the detective.
The quality of the interview ofthe complainant in this case
was very poor.
This is an absolutely terribleinterview.
There are many leadingquestions in this case was very
poor.
That this is an absolutelyterrible interview.
There are many leadingquestions in this interview.
The interviewer providinginformation as opposed to
obtaining it.
I'm just so sorry that thiskind of poor quality

(01:17:23):
interviewing is going on in the21st century.
We don't need this.
What we need are good qualityinterviews to be done, instead
of it all being led by what theofficer's looking for.
There's nothing here.
A proper interview.
We'd have a narrative.
This was an interview toconfirm what the detective
thought or the investigatorthought had happened.

(01:17:44):
I mean, this entire interviewis not acceptable.
Every single act, alleged act,is suggested first by the
officer.
Every act.
Yes every act and everyallegation comes from the
detective.
He's the one who suggests allof the things that happen.

(01:18:07):
This is how.
If you wanted to do aninterview to make suggestions to
a complainant, this is how todo it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
Nothing on the Consider podcast should be
considered legal or life advice.
Each is admonished to seek aholy God and obey by picking up
a cross to follow Jesus.
The Consider podcastwwwconsiderinfo.