loading...
The Common Lawyer

Join Brent For...

 

     —U. S. Constitution on Trial— 

 

Ted Weiland  for the Prosecution

vs– 

Brent Allan Winters  for the Defense

 

—Locking Horns—

 

Question Presented: 

                Is the United States Constitution Biblical?

 

Ted answers "No"

Brent answers "Yes"

____________________________

 

                    In the Court of  Last Resort

____________________________________________

            Ted Weiland                              )     Jury Trial Demanded

           for the Prosecution                  )                                                                                                

          of the U.S. Constitution           )    Charlie Steward, Referee

                                                                 )

            –vs–                                            )      Set for Public Trial

                                                                 )      19 September 2020

           Brent Allan Winters               )          

           for the Defense                        )     Maranatha Camp & Retreat Center 

          of the U.S. Constitution         )    1831 Highway WW           

                                                                )     Everton, Missouri 65646  

                                                                   

Information Notice

Comes Now the above-referenced Parties to be heard before the Jury, in order to determine the following

Question Presented: 

Is the United States Constitution Biblical?

Further,

The Parties have stipulated to admissible evidence, agreed to the time and place of trial, and a proper course of proceedings calculated to allow fair-play and a reliable result; 

Accordingly,  

You are invited to be present at the time and place indicated above, or by livestreaming on YouTube, in order to witness the Parties' presentation of evidence and argument, and to make your verdict known in the manner directed at close of trial.

May the best evidence win.

__________________________

 

Ted Weiland

Pastor, Bible teacher, and author of thirty books,
including the 550-page book 

Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

 www.bibleversusconstitution.org

 

Brent Allan Winters

A practicing lawyer and author of nine books, including the 958-page comparative-law text called

Excellence of the Common Law in Light of History, Nature & Scripture     

And the four-volume set called

Good Book: A Common Lawyer Translates the Bible From the Original Tongues & Annotates

______________________________

Out of the Forge, Onto the Anvil & Under the Hammer of

Battle by Trial Before the Jury

19 September 2020

6:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m.

 

Maranatha Camp & Retreat Center 

1831 Highway WW

Everton, Missouri 65646 

About 40 minutes west northwest of Springfield, Missouri

 

Details of YouTube live-steaming forthcoming

 

 Overnight housing and RV hookup available; for questions and info:       http://godsendusmen.com/kingdomconference2020.html

 

                                                                 

Request for Stipulations

With Suggested Ideals for Trial

And the Course of Trial

Comes now the Defense to Request Stipulations, to Suggest Ideals for Trial, and to Suggest the Course of Trial; and in support thereof, states as follows:

The Question Presented begs and embraces an unknown number of relevant questions and answers. But because time allotted for trial is only three hours, the Defense Requests the following Stipulations, Ideals, and Suggestions, in order to narrow and streamline the course and flow of trial.

  1. The Defense requests that the parties stipulate to the following evidence and facts before date of trial:
  2. The Bible comprises the traditional Protestant collection of 66 writings:
  • 39 writings of the Older Testament.[1]
  • 27 writings of the Newer Testament.[2]
  • Bible includes no additional writings to these 66 writings.
  1. The Bible’s autographs[3]record the breathed-out words of the only true and final Lawgiver.
  • Accordingly, the Bible is man’s final rule of trust and action.
  1. The U.S. Constitution does not record the breathed-out words of the only true and final Lawgiver.
  • Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution is not mankind’s final rule of trust and action.
  1. God’s law, as the Bible records it, is perfect (cannot be improved upon).
  2. The U.S. Constitution is imperfect (can be improved upon).
  3. The U.S. Constitution’s drafters, acceptors, and ratifiers are all sinners.
  • Each and all of them were conceived, birthed and lived as sinners.
  1. We agree that during trial, to call our Lawgiver, our “Lawgiver.”
  2. The Defense reserves the right to offer more stipulations.
  3. Stream-lined Trial.The Defense suggests that the trial should be an orderly, pre-planned presentation of evidence, at a lively clip.
  4. Accordingly, we ought not allow debate, but follow an orderly course, calculated to allow the hearers to try the evidence.
  5. Debates are the stuff of high-schools and politics.
  6. A debate stresses argument and one-upmanship, not sworn evidence.
  7. By contrast, a trial focuses on proof of facts, using evidence.
  8. Thus, a debate provides little help to establish facts and arrive at truth
  9. Summing-up. After presentation of evidence, each party should sum-up the evidence in closing,
  10. Arranging the evidence’s priority and the weight to be accorded to it,
  11. Explaining the evidence as he wants the hearers to understand it.
  12. Our only available evidence is opinion evidence.Given that we stipulate to certain facts and evidence before trial, the only remaining evidence to offer at trial is the testimonies of the two opinion witnesses.[4]
  13. Opinion witnesses are not fact witnesses. Unlike a fact witness, which can testify only to facts he has seen or heard firsthand, an opinion witness is one qualified to formulate opinions relevant to the question before the court, and to provide such opinions by sworn testimony.
  14. His opinion testimony must be of independent mind.
  15. He must have read the other opinion witness’s writings on the Question Presented,
  16. Or have listened to the other opinion witness’s lectures on the Question Presented,
  17. Or both.
  18. Thus, an opinion witness must have gained enough knowledge about the Question Presented to be more help to the jury than hindrance.
  19. Further, opinion testimony must help the jury to form a reliable conclusion.
  20. Both opinion-testimony witnesses are qualified to testify in this trial.
  21. Each opinion witness has searched out the answer to the Question Presented.
  22. Each opinion witness has reviewed the gathered written and spoken knowledge, reasons, and conclusions of the other opinion witness, concerning the Question Presented.
  • Both opinion witnesses have searched painstakingly, written carefully, and spoken long, both to the evidence and their reasons supporting their answer to the Question Presented.
  1. Hence, the Referee should rule that each of the opinion witnesses is qualified to provide opinion testimony.

Suggested Trial Ideals

  1. Lively trial. The Defense suggests that the trial should roll-along at a smart clip, like a sea billow, the contrast gaining height and visibility as it nears the shoreline, peaking and breaking over closing arguments.
  2. Like a two-mile derby at the county fair.
  3. Press to the close with vigor once begun, leave off when done.[5]
  4. Doing so shall keep the hearers’ awake, listening, and thinking.
  5. Audience participation. Just before Closing Arguments, the audience shall submit questions for Mr. Weiland and Mr. Winters to answer. After trial the audience can ask more questions.
  6. The Prosecution is the complaining party, the challenger at this trial:
  7. The Prosecution challenges the legality of the Constitution.
  8. The Defense does not challenge the Constitution.
  9. Therefore, the Prosecution being the complaining party, shall have the final word in rebuttal after Mr. Winters’s closing arguments.
  10. The Defense gets no rebuttal after closing arguments.
  11. Further, the Prosecution should lead with the first opening statement, the first closing statement, and put on his case first.
  12. In sum, the Prosecution has the first and last word in every stage of the trial.                 
  13. Time keeper.We shall agree upon a time keeper to limit answers to questions, opening statements, and closing statements to the agreed-upon preset time limits.

 

Suggested Course of Trial

Is the Constitution Biblical ?

Saturday 19 September 2020 (6:30–9:30 p.m.)

  1. Referee’s Opening Remarks:
  2. Referee shall read aloud each party’s Bio, word-for-word, just as each party has given it to the Referee.
  • Each Bio shall be calculated to qualify each witness to give opinion testimony,
  • While also introducing each party to the audience. Each party shall limit its Bio’s length, so that it takes no more than two and a half to three minutes for the Referee to read each Bio.
  1. Therefore, the reading of the bios shall take at the most 10 minutes.
  2. Opening statements, saying what the evidence will show—20 minutes total.
  3. Mr. Weiland’s opening statement—limit to 10 minutes.
  4. Mr. Winters’s opening Statement—limit to 10 minutes.
  5. Mr. Weiland’s case-in-chief—50 minutes total.
  6. Direct examination questions—20 minutes total.
  • Mr. Weiland shall have given written question to the Referee beforehand, who shall read them to Mr. Weiland word-for-word.
  • Limited to 15 questions.
  • No single question can be two questions compounded.
  • The Referee shall count any compounded question as two questions.
  • Mr. Weiland shall be allowed one minute for each answer.
  1. Mr. Winters shall cross-examines Mr. Weiland with 30 questions he has already given to Mr. Weiland in writing, at least two weeks before trial—15 minutes total.
  • Mr. Winters must read these questions to Mr. Weiland word-for-word, just as he has provided them beforehand to Mr. Weiland in writing.
  • Mr. Weiland’s answers to these cross-examination question shall be limited to the following three responses: correct, incorrect, or I don’t know.
  1. After cross-examination, the Referee shall read Mr. Winters’s cross-exam questions back to Mr. Weiland word-for-word, and he shall have one minute per question to further explain any of his answers, if his so desires—15 minutes.
  2. Winters’s case-in-chief—50 minutes total
  3. Direct examination questions—20 minutes total.
  • Mr. Winters shall have given written questions to the Referee beforehand, who shall read them to Mr. Winters word-for-word.
  • Limited to 15 questions.
  • No single question can be two questions compounded.
  • The Referee shall count any compounded question as two questions.
  • Mr. Winters shall be allowed one minute for each answer.
  1. Mr. Weiland shall cross-examines Mr. Winters with questions he has already given to Mr. Winters in writing,at least two weeks before trial—15 minutes total.
  • Mr. Weiland must read these questions to Mr. Winters word-for-word, just as he has provided them beforehand to Mr. Winters in writing.
  • Mr. Winters’s answers on cross-examination shall be limited to the following three responses: correct, incorrect, or I don’ t know.
  1. After cross-examination, the Referee shall read Mr. Weiland’s cross-exam questions back to Winters word-for-word, and he shall have one minute per question to further explain any of his answers, if his so desires—15 minutes.

130 minutes allotted up to this point (2 hours and 10 minutes).

Break for 10 minutes 

  1. Question and Answer Session from the jury (audience) or others who have submitted questions—30 minutes.
  2. The Referee shall have final discretion of which the questions the audience has submitted shall be asked of the opinion witnesses.
  3. The Referee shall present the same number of questions to each party.
  4. Each answer is limited to one minute.
  5. Closing arguments.
  6. Mr. Weiland’s closing arguments–15 minutes limit.
  7. Mr. Winters’s closing argument—15 minutes limit.
  8. Mr. Weiland’s rebuttal—5 minutes limit.

Total trial time: 3 hours.

Respectfully submitted,

Brent Allan Winters for the Defense

[1]Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings , 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

[2]Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts (of the Apostles), Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

[3]The Bible’s autographs are the manuscripts that the Bible’s original penmen, penned.

[4]Often called expert witnesses, such a witness is better called an opinion witness. The phrase expert witness freights cynical feelings. Voltaire said that liars fall into three categories: liars, dirty liars, and expert witnesses. But beyond that, the prefix ex, pronounced x,is the sign of the unknown; a spurt is a drip of fluid under pressure. Hence it is said that an expert is an unknown drip under pressure. Thus is the cynicism that the phrase expert witness conjures up, recommending the phrase opinion witness instead.

[5]The Gideon Bible Society’s motto for its members when making a public presentation is applicable: stand-up, button-up, speak-up, shut-up.

————————————————