Refused The Right To Confront
Prosecutor Jason Simmons and Judge Lori K Smith used their darkness to deny the right of Timothy Williams to confront those who lied to them that never saw the right to face one’s accusers.
In short, there is an evil wealth of lies, slander and twisting by false witnesses that dim-witted prosecutors use to justify their unholy prosecution all because it was wanted they wanted to hear. The fact liars are never prosecuted or challenged informs false witnesses of what King County Prosecutors lust to be told.
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.” John 3:19-21
God used the clash between the Light of the Gospel and the darkness of Perverts of Jurisprudence to prepare them for judgment. Those who used the darkness to spread lies and those who used such lies for their god are being prepared for the wrath of God because they refuse to repent. The Lord works out everything for his own ends- even the wicked for a day of disaster. Proverbs 16:4
In fact God is preparing for Himself a good laugh – a holy laugh.
The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them; but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. Psalm 37:12-13
One example, out of many, is the accusation that WinePress Publishing was "stolen." Because King County Prosecutors and certainly Enumclaw Police were hostile to any type of testing or examination for evidence, this lie was a major point of enflamed pride to prosecute by Prosecutors. Had any examinion, on any point been, by anyone hiding in the darkness the hate crime would have been thoroughly exposed. 1 2 3
Note well when you serve on jury duty that Washington State Prosecutors, Judges and Police are hiding evidence and facts of their injustices in the dark. Prosecutors by their unconstitutional anonymous tip lines have invited liars while creating a nation of snitches with accounability.
Right To Face Accusuers Denied!
The Right to Face Your Accuser: A Cornerstone of Justice
The right to face one’s accuser is a fundamental principle embedded in many legal systems around the world, most notably enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This right, often referred to as the "Confrontation Clause," ensures that individuals accused of a crime have the opportunity to directly challenge the testimony of those who bear witness against them. It is a safeguard against unchecked power, secret trials, and the potential for fabricated or coerced evidence. Beyond its legal mechanics, this right reflects a deeper commitment to fairness, transparency, and the pursuit of truth in the administration of justice.
Historical Roots
The origins of the right to confront one’s accuser stretch back centuries, with roots in English common law and even earlier in Roman legal traditions. One of the most infamous violations of this principle, which helped solidify its importance, was the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603. Raleigh was convicted of treason based largely on a written statement from an alleged co-conspirator, Lord Cobham, who was not present in court. Raleigh demanded to face Cobham, famously crying out, “Let my accuser come face to face, and be deposed!” His pleas were ignored, and he was executed. This miscarriage of justice became a rallying point for reformers who sought to ensure that no one could be condemned solely on the word of an absent or untested witness.
By the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the framers recognized the necessity of this right. The Sixth Amendment states, in part, that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This clause was a direct response to the abuses of colonial courts and a reflection of Enlightenment ideals about individual liberty and due process.
How It Works in Practice
In modern legal systems, the right to face one’s accuser typically manifests in the courtroom through cross-examination. When a witness testifies against a defendant, the defense has the opportunity to question them, probing for inconsistencies, biases, or falsehoods. This process is not merely a formality—it is a critical mechanism for testing the reliability of evidence. Judges and juries rely on this adversarial exchange to assess credibility and weigh the strength of the prosecution’s case.
Why It Matters
The right to confrontation serves several vital purposes. First, it protects against the use of anonymous or unaccountable accusers. Without the ability to see and question a witness, a defendant could be convicted based on rumors, written affidavits, or testimony from someone with a hidden agenda. Second, it promotes transparency in the judicial process, ensuring that evidence is presented openly rather than behind closed doors. Third, it upholds the psychological and moral dimension of justice: facing one’s accuser humanizes the process, forcing both parties to reckon with the gravity of their claims.
This right also acts as a check on prosecutorial overreach. History is replete with examples of governments using fabricated or coerced testimony to silence dissenters or eliminate rivals. The confrontation clause stands as a bulwark against such abuses, demanding that accusations be substantiated in the light of day.
Contemporary Challenges
In the digital age, the right to face one’s accuser faces new complexities. The rise of online crimes, such as cyberbullying or hacking, often involves anonymous actors or evidence stored in the cloud. Courts must grapple with how to apply traditional confrontation principles when accusers are pseudonymous or when key evidence comes from digital forensics rather than human testimony. Additionally, high-profile cases involving national security—like those of terrorism suspects—sometimes pit the right to confrontation against claims of classified information, raising thorny questions about where the line should be drawn.
The #MeToo movement has also sparked debate about this right. In some instances, survivors of sexual assault have sought to share their stories publicly without testifying in court, while defendants argue that such accusations, if untested by cross-examination, violate their due process rights. This tension highlights the delicate balance between protecting victims and preserving the accused’s constitutional protections.
A Universal Principle
While the Sixth Amendment applies specifically to the United States, the right to face one’s accuser resonates globally. The European Convention on Human Rights, for instance, guarantees a similar right under Article 6, ensuring that defendants can examine witnesses against them. International tribunals, like those for war crimes, also incorporate this principle, recognizing its universal importance to fair trials.
Conclusion
The right to face your accuser is more than a legal technicality—it is a pillar of justice that reflects a society’s commitment to truth and accountability. It empowers the accused to challenge the narrative against them, while compelling accusers to stand by their words. Though it must adapt to modern realities, its core purpose remains unchanged: to ensure that no one is stripped of their liberty without a fair and open reckoning. In a world where power can too easily silence the powerless, this right stands as a timeless defense of the individual against the weight of accusation.
What Happened
In short, Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall, King County Prosecutors, Judge Lori K Smith and Judge Beth M. Andrus used an impossible-to-commit crime by Malcolm Fraser to frame-up and destroy Sound Doctrine Church or Timothy Williams. The organized hate crime allowed Washington State’s anti-Christian mindset to demolish the rule of law as criminal activities went into full power-play mode.
Short List Posts
Main Bad Actors
King County Prosecutor: Prosecutor Mark Larson, Prosecutor Lisa Johnson, Prosecutor Nicole Weston, Prosecutor Rich Anderson and Prosecutor Jason Simmons. Judge Beth M. Andrus, Judge Lori K. Smith, Prosecutor Leesa Manion, King County Prosecutors Office, City of Enumclaw Police.
Washington State Supreme Court Right Rape
Justice Debra L. Stephens, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Barbara Madsen, Justice Barbara A. Madsen, Justice Steven C. GonzáLez, Justice Sheryl Gordon Mccloud, Justice Mary I. Yu, Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, Justice G. Helen Whitener, Justice Salvador A. Mungia
Post Number
This Post's ID Number Is= 16189
- Remember the Post ID Number.
- Enter the post number and it will be find.
See Post ID System For List Of Posts