by Pastor Mark Downey
July 27, 2014
Scripture Reading: Genesis 18:23-32
In criminal law, William Blackstone formulated the principle that: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.” The actual numbers or ratio is not as important as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case." Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant. The concept is much older than The Commentaries on the Laws of England, which is why I choose today's Scripture in Genesis 18, about the destruction of Sodom which, it must be noted, God did eventually destroy, but with the innocent getting out of Dodge beforehand. Similarly, we are told in Rev. 18:4 to, “Come out of her [Mystery Babylon] My people [Israel]... that ye receive not of her plagues.” Blackstone's maxim was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by our Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century. I would be shocked and dismayed if Kurtis' prosecutors never heard of this fundamental precept of law. Perhaps it's as diminished as one hour of instruction on nutrition in medical schools. Or the spiritual analogy from seminaries that religion is only for people to feel good.
Defending British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre, John Adams also expanded upon the rationale behind Blackstone's Formulation when he stated: “It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.” Indeed, it would open the floodgates of a dictatorship where the government itself is above the law and selectively prosecute whomsoever they want eliminated from their society. Kurtis is not the first innocent man to be found guilty in an American courtroom for murder, and the way things are going, he will not be the last. But, if we say nothing about his case, we may see our name on the docket. It should be understood by all freedom loving Americans that totalitarian regimes are adamantly opposed to the principle of saving one innocent man from the guilt of many. It's the mindset of of 'kill 'em all and let God sort it out,' although I doubt God is an integral factor at all with that crowd. If God were a consideration, then justice would be considered as well.
Abraham knew the Judge of all the earth would do right. He does not plead that the wicked may be spared for their own sake, or because it would be too drastic to destroy them, but for the sake of the righteous who might be found among them. And righteousness can only be made in the form of a plea before God, not plea bargains before human prosecutors. Our commitment to free Kurtis Monschke is firstly a pleading before the Divine Court, which will, in turn, plead to the heart of the Governor of Washington State. Abraham petitioned Heaven for intercession, to spare Lot and his family. Oh, wait a minute, what did Jesus say about His return to earth? What was the sign? “And the world will be as it was in the days of Lot” Luke 17:28.
Being born and raised in Washington, I know a little about the current Governor, Jay Inslee, who went to law school, is a Democrat and was a US Congressman. Earlier this year (2-11-14), Governor Inslee suspended the death penalty in Washington by issuing stays of execution to its nine death row prisoners. In a statement, the Governor's office explained Inslee's reasoning. "Inslee said it is clear to him that use of capital punishment is inconsistent and unequal, and it’s time to have a conversation about ensuring equal justice under the law. 'Equal justice under the law is the state’s primary responsibility. And in death penalty cases, I’m not convinced equal justice is being served.'” OK it's a start, that may open the door and his heart to the reality of a wrongful conviction and travesty of justice.
We've all heard of Johnny Appleseed, but did you know we also have planters in Identity? In one of Kurtis' recent letters to me he wrote an elated prayer report about our corporate prayers for him. He said, “We asked for strength, patience, endurance, courage and peace and our Father has provided it; it is amazing. Our God has provided a comfort I have never known and an insight with maturity that shocked me. My faith and loyalty to our profession has never wavered. I fight this system. I stand. I encourage others. Sometimes we get selfish, stuck in our own problems, personalizing everything and this blinds and binds us. I would often think “this isn't fair!” and it wasn't. But what are we to expect? These are God's enemies, the beast system. And so, am I expected to go to the beast and say, “please, will you be fair? Will you do the right thing?” Of course not. I was talking to my attorney and she says, “I just don't see how they can't see our position!” And it clicked, duh! They do see our position very clearly! And they act as only our adversary can, unjustly. Mt. 21:22 says, “And all things, whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” And Romans 8:28 says, “We know all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.” What God revealed to me is that if we pray believing, it will correspond to God's will, not ours. If I pray to be released, that is selfish and may or may not be in His will. If I ask for my will to be done, it is not in belief. In our corporate prayers, we asked that God's will be done, come what may; to have strength to fight the adversary, courage to face adversity, endurance to withstand the fiery darts of our enemies and to be at peace in the artificial environment of a prison. Eph. 6:12, “For we struggle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and authorities, against the powers of darkness, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, is it not? So we are asking them to be fair? This will only be possible if God has purposed it! I cannot ask God to insert my desires into His Grand Design, for that would be asking in unbelief [and the highest court did turn down Kurtis' petition]. Perhaps God's will is for me to be in here, riding the federal circuit (for they pay big bucks to fly me all over the country) lighting a fire at each stop. Luke 12:49 says Jesus came, “to send fire on the earth, that My purpose is already ignited.” I interpret this to mean that He does not want us to be idle, waiting for Him to do it all for us; He wants us in the faith, to put it to work ourselves; to get the fires going. I remember Samuel Adams saying, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.” Back to the point of the prayer report: since ya'll began praying, I have been at peace. I have been thankful and exceedingly blessed. Even as I lay to sleep, I feel comfortable and smile and say 'thank you Father.' Now this is amazing because these prisons keep making the beds smaller and smaller, mine is about 2 feet wide, little more than a bench [Kurtis suffers from knee and shoulder injuries]. I used to begrudgingly eat every bite of food; now it seems more pleasant while I pray, while my adversaries wish to deprive me of nutrients and feed me secret GMO's and aspartame; God protects me and allows my body to be nourished. I smile at a bite that doesn't taste so bad and I say, thank you Father. These are small things, but are miraculous to me. I know that we have brethren who have pains and trouble sleeping; they're struggling and going through hell. And all I mean to say is that it is the prayers that have allowed me to endure this hell.”
Well, that is really quite a testimony from Kurtis. 'Come what may' is putting yourself on God's side no matter what happens. We couldn't have a better ambassador of Christ inside the prison system today than Kurtis Monschke, but we don't believe in incarceration; it's not a biblical remedy for justice. Furthermore, justice proceeds out of God's character of love, so that the purpose of justice is correction, rather than destruction; it should never be confused with divine retribution for capital sins. Therefore, Kurtis has fought the good fight, has planted the seeds of hope and proves his love for God by his walk with Christ for the last 10 years and now deserves clemency, which is the ethics of mercy, the cousin of judgment. Perhaps the prosecutors of Kurtis' case are not familiar with what Jesus meant in Mt. 7:2 CNT, when He said, “For with the judgment by which you condemn, you shall be judged, and with the measure by which you measure, it shall be be measured with you.” And that includes how a governor evaluates and decides a clemency case. In ancient times, the Judges of Israel did not have the right to judge any man by his own standard. He was called to administer the Law of God and so his judgment was not supposed to be his own. It is the same with us today. All of Kurtis' remedies of law (of man made law) have failed. It is only through the Law of God that Kurtis has been exonerated. Kurtis is at peace with God's Law, but we wrestle against the secular laws that resemble ancient Babylon. That's why we are putting into motion this project to free Kurtis from an injustice that never should have happened.
Kurtis did not kill anybody; that much is clear from the court transcripts and testimony. He was, however, in proximity to the crime scene (one of the perpetrators testified that he was one mile away) and Kurtis was acquainted with the actual perpetrators of the murder; was in the classic 'wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people' that would be used to sentence him to life imprisonment. But, even that is not why they really went after him. The truth is they hated what he represented in his religious and political beliefs. That's why he's in prison. It's not that much different than the persecution of Christians in the first century, insomuch that Kurtis has not been literally thrown into a den of lions or crucified. Modern persecution is psychological torment to break one's spiritual bond with Christ. Kurtis is excited that this project can be used of the brethren as a tool to bring forth a myriad of reasons for the cause of righteousness; it's just the right thing to do, not as a matter of anything selfish on the part of Kurtis, but as the creed of our American Revolution declared: 'Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.' The selfish thing to do is to not resist at all, to be the innocuous bystander watching your neighbor being hauled off to distant gulags. This can only lead to one thing: someday they will knock on your door and drag you off to points unknown. It helps to have friends. Or you don't even have to be a friend of Kurtis, but you do have to be principled-friendly. What is the principle of what shall make us free? It's the truth. We have to love the truth as well as our own brethren or we will be delusional and estranged from God.
Kurtis is currently working on two petitions; one of which is a petition to the WA state Governor Inslee for clemency and the other is an online petition drafted for the free world of stout hearted conscientious Americans to sign, so that when presented to the Washington State Governor, it will persuade him to grant clemency (i.e. mercy). We also need to raise $1500 to pay an experienced professional organization to spearhead the effort. According to The National Clemency Project, “No inmate submitting his or her own application has ever been successful.” $1500 is a very fair and reasonable fee for the work that is required for such a complete and thorough presentation. The website, FreeKurtis.com, is slowly but surely coming together with all the information one needs to know about the case. We hope to have a funding function soon, with an automatic shut-off when the goal is reached; or if you wish to be anonymous, you can contact me.
The truth is that Kurtis had no prior knowledge of what was to transpire the night Mr. Townsend died, nor was he at the crime scene (as trial and appeal transcripts prove) when the attack happened. When he learned of the attack he quickly and decisively parted company with those who attacked Mr. Townsend. One of the reasons Kurtis was convicted was because he was labeled a “white supremacist” and two ADL talking heads were at trial to convince the jury that Volksfront (of which Kurtis was associated) was a violence-prone organization or more succinctly, a gang-related hate group. In his 'Personal Restraint Petition' Kurtis needed the help of Volksfront leader, Randal Krager, to counter the ADL claims in a simple affidavit denying their charges. Kurtis’ defense made sure that Volksfront was alleviated from any criminal or violent ties to this case, specifically that Volksfront was a White civil rights group professing non-violence and opposing hate crimes. But, Krager, never responded to help a fellow comrade. In fact, even if there was a liability on Krager's part, the statute of limitations had run out. Kurtis was tried separately and testified that he was not a member of Volksfront. He categorically stated that he was not a member and had only donated $50 as an “official supporter”, which entitled him to a supporters T-shirt and a baseball cap. The media was complicit in disinformation by implying Kurtis was the Washington state coordinator for Volksfront. Of course the media is not concerned about the truth and oftentimes this will affect the local jury pool. Lord knows, outspoken White people are demonized for daring to speak out or taking a stand for their own race in various media.
All three co-defendants agreed that Kurtis was not present when the assault took place, and that he was not involved in the decision to assault Mr. Townsend. According to Medical Expert testimony at trial, David Pillatos and Scotty Butters had already inflicted the injuries which lead to Mr. Townsend’s death before Kurtis came to the crime scene. After the assault, Pillatos and Butters found Kurtis a good distance away. The two eye witnesses to the assault, Cindy Pittman and Terry Hawkins, who had nothing to gain or lose, testified that they saw the assault and that Kurtis was not party to it. Terry Hawkins reiterated that he saw the two men and one woman kicking and hitting Mr. Townsend and later a fourth behind the three, who did not participate at all. The co-defendants Pillatos, Butters, and Frye who testified pursuant to favorable plea bargains, and the testimony of disinterested bystanders, were largely supportive of Kurtis’ explanation that his only involvement was the prodding of Mr. Townsend some time after the assault, and did not otherwise participate in the assault. The physical evidence supports this as well. Clothes taken from Kurtis’ three co-defendants tested positive for Mr. Townsend’s blood, whereas Kurtis’ tested negative. All of this is substantiated from the court transcript of the trial and expert testimony in forensics.
If the evidence is looked at with objectivity, it is clear that Kurtis had no role in the death of Mr. Townsend at all. The evidence supports that the most Kurtis did was prod Mr. Townsend with a bat in an effort to check his condition. Indeed, it is very unlikely that he could have hit Mr. Townsend with the bat and have gotten no blood on his boots or clothes, given Mr. Townsend’s condition after the assault of Butters, Pillatos and Frye. This evidence includes the testimony of Kurtis and of every eyewitness and participant and of the physical evidence. Only one person said that Kurtis used any kind of force with the bat (contradicting earlier statements), Tristain Frye, the star witness who received an 11-13 year sentence in exchange for her testimony (versus Kurtis who received a life sentence without parole). Ms. Frye was pregnant with Pillatos baby at the time of the crime and before the trial, letters from jail between the two were intercepted and show conspiracy to commit perjury. The Prosecutor's Office was well aware of the intercept and how that would play out at trial and choose to ignore that and pursue a plea bargain, so they could throw the book at Kurtis. Ms. Frye was allowed by the government to testify that she was not a White Supremacist or a Skinhead, in spite of the fact that at pretrial, they admitted she was, claiming she was deeply involved, possessing a copy of her membership application to Aryan Nations; having evidence of her yelling racial slurs in Tacoma before this crime; photos of her in skinhead attire and naming her baby after Robert Mathews and David Lane. The government had possession of a private letter that Frye had written to Kurtis before she got her sweet deal, wherein she acknowledged that he was innocent as opposed to the others who were “truly responsible.”
Kurtis' attorney at trial opposed bringing Dr. Mark Pitcavage forward as an expert witness. To paraphrase his statement: In the State's statement of clarification regarding the qualifying organization or identifiable group, the State wanted to have Dr. Pitcavage take the stand and testify that white supremacy, which they assert is an idea or a concept, and that white supremacy can also be taken as a whole, and can be seen as one group, that it's an identifiable group, that it has a hierarchy, and the defendant can do something to obtain membership in the group of the white supremacist or do something to maintain membership in the group of white supremacy, or he can somehow rise in an organization called “white supremacy.” I've been a White Supremacist all these years and I didn't know the aforementioned; does the prosecution have an address for the headquarters of “white supremacy” and whoever is in charge of this hierarchy? Please, such exaggerated hyperbole does not belong in an American court of law. The courts have their own language called legalese, but this is calumnese, the language of defamation, which the ADL speaks fluently.
Kurtis sent me a number of bullet points he wanted posted, which you can view on the website, but the last one posed this question: “Why Me?” And thus the following comments from him: “People need to understand that there is more to this case than meets the eye. I'm not referring to my actual innocence, but that this case created precedence for the government. It can be used against anyone the government doesn't like. They did not put me in prison because I allegedly committed a crime. They put me in prison because of what I believe. Washington State had a significant Skinhead scene and racialists that were extremely active, as opposed to other areas of the country. They used my case to disrupt racial activism and almost overnight destroyed all the progress that had been made. This can now happen to any one of us, anywhere, any time.”
Kurtis further explained this precedence in a letter to me, which I've posted under the title 'Addendum to the Introduction' on the home page of the website, in which he explained: “I was thinking over the letter I had sent, listing important points (Introduction for the home page) and I realized I left out a major point. When I explained why this is important, why people should care, is because if you look at my Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, starting at page 24, you’ll read the government-approved Jury Instructions. Specifically, the jurors were told that they could find me guilty of first degree murder as an “accomplice.” The jurors were told that it was not required that I personally premeditated or participated in the murder to find me guilty.
“To be found guilty under Washington State law of first degree murder, you have to meet a two-pronged test: 1. actus reus i.e. the act of a crime and 2. mens rea i.e. mentality of the crime or premeditation. You have to personally meet both criteria.
“The state was allowed to tell the jury that I was guilty even if I did not personally premeditate or participate in the murder, as long as one of my co-defendants did. They told the jury that I was guilty even if I prodded the victim lightly with a bat to check his condition, because this was “encouragement” making me guilty as an accomplice!
“This to-convict instruction is so dangerous because it implies that someone could be guilty of first degree premeditated murder as an accomplice without ever acting with intent to cause a death! People may read this and say, “Well, I don’t associate myself with criminals, I have nothing to fear.” Please turn to page 18 of the same petition. I was convicted of this crime because of my beliefs and associations (violating the First Amendment). The government said I was in a group and identified this group as “White Supremacy.” The Court of Appeals said this could apply to any number of people with a commonality, such as a law firm, a political party or even the Catholic Church.
“The precedent is set with my case to essentially put anyone in prison who falls out of favor with the government e.g. if you are an environmentalist running a website encouraging people to carpool, you could be identified as a carpooler. Because you run a website, you are now a ring leader. A carpooler kills a non-carpooler in a road rage incident. The government can then make you guilty as an accomplice.
“The government actually told the jury “Evidence regarding White Supremacist literature and materials seized at the defendant’s [me] residence is being admitted for the purpose of proving motive, premeditation… you must not consider the evidence for any other purpose.”
“It is not an exaggeration to say this really could happen to anyone. No one is safe with legal precedence such as this. Not a cheerleaders squad, not for a sports team and certainly not any White Nationalist or Christian Identity adherents. I just wanted to make sure I explained that and it’s understood that if my case goes unchallenged, there will, no doubt, be more.”
In the Introduction, Kurtis stated, “I refused to cooperate with authorities and was unwilling to say what they wanted me to say. Because I exercised my rights guaranteed by law, this angered those who are paid to enforce the the law. They wanted to use me as a tool to destroy a legal political movement they despised. My three “friends” (the actual perpetrators of the crime) on the other hand, were ready to cooperate in exchange for lenient sentences. Indeed, one of my co-defendants, who was literally caught red handed, has already been released from any further incarceration. I was prosecuted along with the others, but refused to cooperate. I was charged with ‘capital murder’ narrowly avoiding the death penalty, although it was uncontested that I didn’t know about the assault, was not present at the scene of the crime and could not have prevented it.”
If you visit our website, you will see declarations from the former lead prosecutor, Barbara Corey, who spoke out against the travesty of justice that Kurtis suffered and actually sued the Prosecutor’s Office; she won the lawsuit and was awarded more than $3 million dollars. However, Kurtis never saw any judicial relief as a result of that lawsuit, even though it proved his innocence. In Corey's declaration she stated, “Pillatos and Frye’s efforts to manipulate the plea and trial processes were known to Prosecutors Gerald Horne, Jerry Costello, Greg Greer, and other deputy prosecutors and police detectives.” For her heroic whistle-blowing, she was fired and set the groundwork for the lawsuit. None dare call it corruption, but “prosecutorial misconduct” cost the taxpayers $3 million and the man they railroaded still sits in prison. The prosecutors/defendants in the Corey lawsuit didn't lose any money and they're not in jail for the false imprisonment of Kurtis Monschke. They are most likely enjoying the good life in Babylon; out on the golf course or boating in Puget Sound or some other recreation to divert their minds from what they did.
There is a preponderance of evidence that goes into detail that's going on the website that should convince anyone that Kurtis should be vindicated. The incredible progression of events is astounding and I jokingly told Kurtis that his life story could be a movie, but Hollywood would never touch it, without demonizing and twisting the characters and beliefs to color public perception, like the movie 'American History X.' We have a dubious document that gives us an inside look at the crime from the perspective of the prosecution, dealing with an amendment to Tristain Frye's plea bargain to wit: “After almost a year of continuing investigation and the compilation of almost 6,000 pages of discovery, the State now has a clear understanding of the details of the murder, including acts of each defendant... This investigation also now includes a recent and lengthy, tape-recorded statement given by Frye concerning the details of the murder... The reason Frye is being offered this reduction is because of (1) her reluctance to participate in the crime; (2) the substantially lower level of her culpability in committing the crime as compared to her co-defendants; (3) the difference in the amount of physical harm she inflicted on Mr. Townsend as compared to her co-defendants; (4) her remorse and horror expressed from shortly after the murder was committed to present; and, (5) her willingness to take responsibility for her actions and to cooperate in the prosecution of her co-defendants... [let me stop there and point out that all five elements are contradicted by other sworn testimony as far as Kurtis is concerned]... In brief detail, Frye has told the State... that she was the first of the four charged defendants to encounter Mr. Townsend. The victim came upon Frye as she was drinking beer in the general vicinity of the subsequent murder. Frye had become separated from the other co-defendants. The victim approached Frye as she was drinking a beer and began speaking with her. He asked for a “swig” of her beer and she gave him the remainder. The two then began smoking cigarettes... [please note that she is smoking and drinking and pregnant at the time] Shortly after this, the victim walked away, toward some railroad tracks, where he encountered defendants Butters and Pillatos. Butters spoke brieﬂy with the victim who soon became afraid and tried to run away. The victim had run a very short distance when he looked back to see if he was being followed. As he did so, Butters, having pursued him, struck him in the side of the head with a baseball bat. The blow was so hard that the bat broke and the victim was rendered apparently unconscious. Frye’s response to witnessing this act was to freeze, as if in shock. As the victim lay unconscious on his back, Butters and Pillatos stood on each side of him and violently kicked his head back and forth between them with a force Frye has described as, “as hard as they could.” Butters and Pillatos were wearing steel-toed boots. This went on for about a minute before Pillatos noticed a small boulder-sized rock. Pillatos picked up the heavy rock, raised it above his head, and then threw it forcefully straight down onto Mr. Townsend’s face, hitting him in the mouth and nose region. After this act, Butters grabbed the victim under his arms, Pillatos grabbed him by his legs, and they carried him to the nearby railroad tracks. Based on Frye’s statement, together with independent evidence, it is believed that Butters and Pillatos positioned the victim’s body by placing him face down across the railings of the track. The victim’s face was positioned on one of the rails with his mouth wide open, as if he was biting the rail. It is firmly believed that Butters and Pillatos next performed what is known as a “curb stomp” on the victim [which is straight out of the movie 'American History X' i.e. life imitating art]; they stomped on the back of the victim‘s head several times with the heel of their boots, to ensure his death. After this act, Butters, Pillatos and Frye walked further up the tracks in order to find defendant Monschke. As they walked, Butters kept repeating that he had “killed that guy.” Pillatos ran ahead and located Monschke. The four defendants then returned quickly to where the victim had been left, with Butters and Monschke running slightly ahead. Pillatos and Frye soon arrived at the scene where they found the victim now on his back, gurgling blood and - apparently still alive. Monschke then brutally beat the victim over and over in the face with a baseball bat and, according to Frye, “finished him off." Either Butters or Monschke, or both, had turned the victim over onto his back before Monschke began this ﬁnal attack. lt was at this time that Pillatos informed Frye that she must also kick the victim. Frye stated she couldn’t do it; however, Pillatos grabbed her from behind her neck and forced her to walk up to the victim. He then covered her eyes with his hand and told her to kick — and she did. Frye kicked the victim in the head three or four times with such force that her knee hurt the next day. The four defendants then left.”
Apparently the prosecution could care less about two eyewitnesses and Tristain Frye herself saying in sworn testimony that Kurtis never assaulted Mr. Townsend. Here's what they said. In questioning eyewitness Cindy Pitman at trial it was asked:Q: It wasn't until they came face to face with you that you were able to recognize that the fourth individual was not participating, correct? A: Yes. Q: And then you told these attorneys when they showed you a photograph that this fourth individual that was not participating was Mr. Monschke? A: Yes. He was the last one I seen come out from under the bridge. Q. Okay. Are you concerned that anybody from the State, prosecutors, or law enforcement is trying to pressure you to say something that's not true? A. Yes, I am, in a way. Q. Why do you feel pressured? A. Because I know there is one guy that's going to trial, and there's some doubt in my mind that he may have had the same involvement. Q. What do you mean by that? A. Because I seen three people around the body. Q. Mm—hm. (Replies affirmatively.) A. The fourth person, I couldn't tell you. I mean, there was a fourth person there, but I couldn't tell you what their involvement was. I don't want something to happen to somebody that didn't do nothing. At the same time, I don't think that the people that I know what they did —— I think they're getting off lightly. Q: (By Mr. Greer) Is there anything we can do to make it so you think the process is fair? A. No. I guess you just have to do your job.
In questioning Tristain Frye as to her participation in the assault: Q Kurtis didn't make you do that, did he? A No, he didn't. Q In fact, he had nothing to do with that at all, did he? A Correct. She was then asked about a letter she wrote to Kurtis a few months after being booked. Q Do you recall writing that right there? A Yes. Q And what did you say? A I said someone's got to be punished for this crime. It might not be you, it might be the one who truly did this. Q Someone's got to be punished for this crime? A Yes. Q But remember, it might not be you. It might be the ‘one who truly did this? At that point there was an objection/sustained. Q Maybe the one that truly did it would get punished instead of Kurtis, correct? A Correct.
Finally, in questioning Scotty Butters, he was asked: Q: So you acted as an accomplice to murder in the first degree. Now, as an accomplice, it's fair to say that what you meant was, you knowingly assisted in the commission of murder in the first degree, correct? A: I guess. Q: And your testimony that you've given earlier was that Kurtis did not knowingly assist in the crime of murder in the first degree, did he? A: True. These are just a few of the highlights that should be overwhelmingly compelling testimony as to the innocence of Kurtis Monschke.
I've used the word 'innocent' intentionally and purposefully throughout this message instead of 'not guilty.' Because of the circus atmosphere of what American jurisprudence has become, the English common law and biblical concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been replaced with 'guilty until proven not guilty.' Prosecutors want prosecutions and so they stain the character of the accused from the get-go; to add insult to injury, they will put you in an orange jumpsuit and parade you around in handcuffs and shackle your feet. The accused may not have the best countenance before a jury, because of the way they have been treated. I don't know if Kurtis was in one of these costumes, but he was in restraints, giving the jurors the impression that he was prone to violence even though there was no past history of such behavior. He was a teen-age skinhead, a White Nationalist and God forbid one of those Identity Christians, whom during Y2K the FBI predicted in their 'Project Megiddo' all hell would break loose from these types of radicals. Of course, no such thing happened, but they got the best bang for their bucks in propaganda. Most lawyers, not worth their salt, will tell you that there's no such thing as 'innocence.' The distinction could be made that 'not guilty' means that there was not enough evidence to move a juror beyond a reasonable doubt whereas, 'innocent' means that one has not committed a crime. Juries in Courts of Admiralty (signified by a red, white, blue and yellow flag) do not find a person innocent. Generally, we no longer have common law courts (based on biblical law) in America, but rather alien jurisdictions.
Admittedly, there are some criminals that have pretty sleazy lawyers who know every loophole in the warehouses of law books to find their client 'not guilty,' when they're dirty. OJ Simpson is probably one of the best known examples of a 'not guilty' verdict. Jesus Christ is the most well known case of an innocent man found guilty. And Lord knows how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Christians have followed in His steps only to be prosecuted by a self serving system of “beast” empires, which have landed on our shores and persecute the woman of Revelation, Chapter 12. Pontius Pilate said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person [Christ]” Mt. 27:24. But, in the very next verse, we read about the people who actually killed Christ and they said, “His blood be on us, and our children.” This is a peoples who embrace and flaunt their guilt in perpetuity and circumvent the Laws of God, denying He who is our Judge, our Lawgiver and our King (Isaiah 33:22); the three branches of government, which they so expertly subvert by way of deception. Justice has become “just us” meaning those who conform to the world. If you are a non-conformist like Kurtis, you too could be spending the rest of your life behind bars. Why does the enemy of mankind make so many laws? It's because they are the author of confusion.
I pray that the Kurtis Monschke story has not been a confusing one, but rather a clear case in which we can all stand with him as if we were in his boots. As the saying goes, 'if we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything.' I pray that you visit the website FreeKurtis.com and get informed, sign his petitions, write letters to Governor Inslee (be polite), donate what you can for the National Clemency Project, tell others and above all else be in fervent prayers for all concerned. May God have mercy on us all.
PS. Kurtis will answer any questions that you may have about his case. Or feel free to write him letters of encouragement where he is presently in captivity:
Kurtis Monschke #98258-011
PO Box 3000
White Deer, PA 17887