Give me an opportunity to save you some money

The entire framework of this controversy which Mr. Prophet has brought before this court, is religious in nature, from the first to the last. Mr. Prophet entertains a particular hatred for my religious point of view, and not being able to silence that point of view, he believes he can enlist the aid of this court to do so, but not only that, he believes he can enlist the aid of this court to do something he could never do by himself, and that is to throughly discredit the character of this ideological opponent, even to assassinate the character of this ideological opponent, by hoisting a court issued "restraining order" as a victory pendent from his flag pole, stamping my character in the eyes of the public for all time to come as criminal in nature. I pray that this court, in its wisdom and objectivity, will not allow him to succeed in this thoroughly nefarious pursuit.

The plaintiff, Sean Prophet is the first born son of Mark L. Prophet, the founding messenger of the Summit Lighthouse, and Church Universal and Triumphant. The Summit Lighthouse was founded in 1958. Sean was born in 1964, when the organization was still young, and he grew to manhood within the cradle of this organization. He was trained to hold leadership positions in this church. He was an ordained minister, served communion, officiated at weddings, and he was a member of the board of directors for many years. The Teachings of our Church, delivered by the Messengers Mark and Elizabeth Prophet (his parents) proclaimed Sean to be an important soul with an important mission. I offer Keepers of the Flame Lesson No. 31 as evidence of this. Everyone in our church adheres to this teaching. It was always a duty and obligation of the members of our church to support Sean in his mission to the extent we were able. At the very least every new member was taught, from the beginning, to pray for him every day.

Now, something happened along the way, and Sean turned against the church. He left the church in the mid 1990's, and turned against it publically, and virulently some years later. He did not just go his own way, and try to live out a life in private obscurity. No. He decided to set up an online publication, which he called The Black Sun Journal, the purpose of which was to trash everything his parents ever taught, and to trash everything that our church stands for to this day. He established the Black Sun Journal in 2002.

In regards to the teachings of our church, it is our religious duty, as members of Church Universal and Triumphant, to use our own religious freedom, and free speech rights, to oppose Sean Prophet's efforts to destroy our church and the character of those (his parents) who founded it.

Your honor will understand, that when the first born son of a church founder turns against the church which his parents founded, and takes a public stand to destroy what his parents founded, which he is doing through his Black Sun Journal, that his voice has much more of a destructive power, than the voice of an average church member. More people will listen, because Sean was an "insider" and in the power structure. And because of this, there is a much higher priority attached to dealing with this problem.

Myself, as the editor of a pro-church online publication, which was established in the year 2000, which is called Homeward Bound - The Journal of Ascended Master Devotion, my approach to Sean's attacks against his parents and our church, was from the very beginning, to make the effort to call him back to his original mission. I don't claim high skill or mastery in this difficult work, only sincerity. If that effort at persuasion could work, he would, by freewill choice, shut down the Black Sun Journal, and he would stop trashing his parents, and the church they founded.

Some of what I had to say to Sean along these lines was published in the Homeward Bound Journal itself, and some of what I had to say was communicated in private emails. Whether a public or private statement, my goal was always to try to say something that might convince him of the wisdom of returning to the path which he had abandoned. On one occasion, at my invitation, Sean provided a statement for the church community that I published in the Homeward Bound Journal.

My dialogue with Sean was ongoing, though sporadic, beginning in October 2004, and continuing on through October 2006. At various points along the way something would come to my attention about Sean's activities, which would inspire me to write to him privately, again attempting to persuade him, from one perspective or another, to return to his original path.

In response to a series of private emails which I sent to him in February and March of 2006, Sean Prophet invited me to a personal meeting at a Denny's Restaurant that April. His stated purpose for this meeting was to convince me that he was hopeless cause, and perhaps to persuade me to adopt his newly formed atheistic point of view. That meeting lasted about six hours, and it was respectful. We had a lot to talk about. We continued the dialogue, more or less, after that meeting via email.

The building of this personal relationship, which he freely contributed to, continues to bear the fruit, in my mind, of additional ideas of what I might be able say, which I always hope might persuade him to return to his original mission. I have never given up hope in this regard.

As the documentary evidence shows, I am referring to the emails which have been entered into evidence, my intent was never to harass, but only to try one more time to call him back to his original mission.

Now he says he doesn't want to hear about it anymore. He wants to be able to continue to be public enemy number one in relationship to our church, but wants to use the court system to shield him from the natural consequences thereof, in as much as other people have a right to speak, and they have a right to direct their comments to him personally, when it comes to defending the teachings of their own church.

I believe that the principle embodied in Article 1 Section 3 of the California Constitution, which gives the people the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, has application to the private sector as well. When an individual publically attacks a church, or any individual in that church, our constitutionally protected free speech rights includes the right to direct responses directly to the attacker, and I believe that the power of government cannot abridge this important right, as long as it is carried out in a respectful and civilized manner.

Indeed, this principle of lawful self-defense is mentioned under the very section of the California Code of Civil Procedures, under which these proceeding have been invoked, namely, Section 527.6., subsection (1), where we see mentioned "lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others." I understand that this reference countenances appropriate acts of violence if they are in self-defensive.

But certainly, this principle must apply to the area of free speech as well, wherein, the freedom to respond to attacks made and perpetuated by Sean Prophet, against my church, and against my person, must be held as equally inviolable, as long as those responses are substantive and civil, which the record shows that they are.

Your Honor, my communications never have been, nor will they ever, be designed to harass anyone. I believe that I have good ideas. The communication of good ideas for a legitimate purpose should never by considered as meeting the definition of harassment. And therefore, under the law, I do not believe that this court should grant the relief sought by Mr. Prophet.

To challenge the untruths which Sean Prophet speaks in great abundance from his public website, The Black Sun Journal, and to continue to fulfill my duty to call him back to his original mission, which is my duty, under the teachings of my church, I believe is constitutionally protected activity under Section 2 and Section 4 of Article I of the California Constitution.

In summing up, I would note that Mr. Prophet has a simple remedy at his disposal if he does not like what I have to say, and that is either to delete my emails upon arrival, or to fashion an email rule that would dump them into the trash automatically upon arrival, wherein he would not even have to see them. I would pose the question to the Court, why did Mr. Prophet not take advantage of these far more simple remedies? Why did he pull this situation into a court room, to seek a restraining order? I believe it is because, at heart he wants to enlist the assistance of the State to suppress the very act of writing those emails, and moreover to enlist the assistance of the State in the branding of my character, as a criminal. I pray, as before, that the court will not cooperate.

It is true your honor, that if my communications contained any kinds of threats against Mr. Prophet's person, where I have consciously made him feel that his safety is in danger, then I would label myself a criminal, and I would hold out my own hands for you to place the cuffs on them yourself. But the facts go in entirely the opposite direction. Your Honor has the full body of my emails to Sean Prophet before you. As you can see for yourself, I have never written a word, not one, that could be construed as a threat of personal injury. There is only the expression of reasons why he should return to his mission, which would be a great blessing to him and to our church. My benign vision for Sean Prophet, can be summed up in a nutshell. I hold out the hope that the epiphany given to the Christian-Killing Saul by the Master Jesus Christ, will be given to Sean Prophet one day. Whereby, that great illumination from on high, will turn him around totally. All of my writing points in that direction.

I understand that it is not the province of this court to place a stamp of approval on my religious beliefs. But it is the province of this court, I believe, to protect my rights to express those beliefs, and I believe, to uphold my right to legal avenues of self-defense. The plaintiff , Mr. Prophet would cling to his own constitutional rights to trash me and my church publically, while trying to enlist the power of this court in an effort to deny my constitutional right to respond directly (in a civil manner) to those attacks. I would propose to the court that there is a major flaw in his agenda, and I would again ask the court not to cooperate in the fulfillment of that agenda.

Your Honor, I respectfully request that this court deny Mr. Prophet's petition for a restraining order against me, and that my constitutionally protected right to speak freely, especially in self-defense, remained unabridged, and that he be directed to pay compensation to me, that will cover my time and expenses which were devoted to addressing the false and exaggerated charges he has leveled at me in this proceeding.