You have laid upon the table a substantial threat. I have taken that threat seriously. And therefore, I have devoted a significant amount of time to consider whether or not this threat could be fulfilled by you.

I have asked myself this question.  Is it possible that Sean Prophet could actually use the court system to suppress what I see as my right to free speech, protected not only under the federal constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of California?

In my first email on this subject, I explored your allegation of "stalking" and the threat to seek a court-ordered restraining order against me based on that allegation. As you know from my first email, after a detailed analysis of California Penal Code Section 646.9, it is my sense that the facts of the situation would not support a charge of "stalking" against me.

The next allegation you have leveled was one of "harassment" and you have threatened to seek a restraining order against me based on that allegation. I will now go through a detailed analysis of Section 527.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures, to determine whether the facts of the situation would support a request for a restraining order based on an allegation of "harassment".

The first paragraph of Section 527.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures, reads as follows:

The act of "harassment" is defined in the law, under subdivision (b) as follows:

As noted in my analysis of Section 646.9 of the California Penal Code, in which the credible threat of violence played such a central role, in this situation there is no credible threat of violence. There has never been any suggestion of any threats at all. In the evidence that is before the court, in the body of emails which have passed between us, there is only the fact of a determined effort on my part to help persuade you to return to your original mission, and thus receive the tremendous blessings associated with that, and moreover, bequeath to the peoples of this planet, the tremendous blessings associated with that mission.

This vision of victory may seem nonsensical to you at the moment. But think about what Saul might have said if someone had theorized the possibility that he might become the chief exponent of the teachings of Jesus Christ, even as he was involved in the persecution and the execution of Christians of that era. He would have laughed at any such theory. But, the Light of God, can descend so powerfully upon an individual, through the heart of the Master, that REALITY is revealed so completely, that all the former delusions held by the mind of the persecutor drop away. This is possible for you. You can take what the Masters have said about your mission, and conclude from this, that this is possible for you. All of my emails go to the very high probability that this will be your experience as well.

As you can see, threats of violence against your person (on my part) would be an unthinkable addition to any dialogue which is trying to prepare you for that epiphany.

Perhaps in your out-of-control imagination these fears have flared up. But the flaring up of the imagination in this respect, into unfounded and exaggerated fears, is not enough to meet the requirement of a credible threat of violence. If you desire to base your request for a restraining order on this criteria, the judge will ask you to give him the reasons you believe that I might inflict violence upon you. The term "credible" infers some element of tangible evidence. Mr. Prophet, Did Mr. Showers ever speak a threat to you? No. Did he ever write a threat to you? No. Is there anything in his writing that would make you believe that he would become violent towards you? No. Does he have a history of violence? No. In your six hour meeting with him in April of 2006, did he exhibit any inclination to commit violence against you? No.

There is no possibility, none whatsoever, that my behavior towards you, would ever go beyond the reasonable expression of the truth as I see it, always remaining well within my constitutionally protected free speech rights.

I will stipulate that I am engaged in "a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person ..." The thorn you have placed in the side of our church, I would ask you to please withdraw it. My approach to this, as noted, is to call you back your original mission. In that way, the thorn would be withdrawn, and your life, the church, and the planet would be greatly blessed. I am pressing you on this point, I admit it, and the evidence proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

This is the next question. Is it true, and can it be shown, that this course of conduct "seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses" you? How do we interpret the word "seriously"? How does the judge interpret that word under the law? Take a look at the additional qualifier. "The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff."

I believe the evidence shows that a "reasonable" person would not suffer "substantial" emotional distress from the course of conduct that I have engaged in.

You have attacked, in a premeditated and very destructive manner, that which thousands of people hold very precious, i.e. your parents, the church they founded, and the teaching which the church gives to the world. I would argue that a reasonable person, in your position, would expect to receive a commensurate level of reaction by those whom you have attacked. Therefore, I would argue, that because a reasonable person would expect this response, having brought it upon themselves, the legal criteria of substantial emotional distress, cannot be met. It could not be "substantial" under the law, because it would be reasonably expected.

And thus, whatever emotional distress that you feel, by their response to you, by my response to you, always well within our free speech rights, has been brought on by your own actions. That is really the key point. The old adage applies, that if you want to be in the kitchen, then you must be prepared to take the heat.

Admittedly, this entire set of criteria, dealing with "seriously alarming" or "seriously annoying" and so forth, and "substantial emotional distress" are very subjective criteria. And I would wonder what standards the court would bring to these, and because I do not know for sure, I will leave open the possibility, that if you break down and cry before the judge, for example, that he might be persuaded to believe that you have been "seriously" annoyed, or "seriously" alarmed, or suffered "substantial" emotional distress. Perhaps you will need to show a note from your doctor. This is simply unclear.

But even if that is the case, i.e. even if the judge feels that these criteria have been met, there is a further criteria, which applies to that clause, which must be met, when it comes to this "course of conduct". Under this section there are three definitions attached, and one of the definitions further defines "course of conduct" as follows:

(3) "Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

The key point here is the last sentence of this paragraph which reads, "Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." The meaning of this phrase is important. Even if all the other criteria listed has been met, i.e. you have shown to the court that you are indeed "seriously alarmed" or "seriously annoyed" and so forth, and that you have suffered "substantial emotional distress", if the judge determines that my emails are constitutionally protected activity, then the criteria for harassment under the law has not been met.

And that is the common sense of the matter. The content of my emails is constitutionally protected. You have thrust a thorn into the side of our church, and into the side of every member thereof. We have a right to self-defense, and the constitution protects our right to speak in our own self-defense. This important principle of self-defense is articulated within the body of this very law, in subparagraph (1) as follows:

(1) "Unlawful violence" is any assault or battery, or stalking as

prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, but shall not include

lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others.

I understand that this reference to the principle of self-defense allows a person to physically punch his (physical) attacker in the nose, justly shielding him from a charge of inflicting "unlawful violence" i.e. in the act of self-defense. However, I believe that this principle of justice is broadly applicable to the area of free speech rights, which guards the right of every citizen to challenge an attacker, directly to his face, in verbal or written form, as long as the expression remains civilized, and is void of any threat of violence.

Beyond the principle of self-defense, I must return to the point briefly touched on above. Common sense demands that we adhere to what is rationale when it comes to the question of whether a particular course of conduct has been "seriously alarming" or "seriously annoying" to the target individual, or whether "substantial emotional distress" has been inflicted. I believe that common sense tells us, that one cannot be "seriously" alarmed, that one cannot be "seriously" annoyed, if you know full well, that your own actions are the source of these email communications.

Clearly Sean Prophet knows exactly what he is doing. He is trying to destroy the credibility of his parents, and the church and the teachings they brought forth. Thus, he is fully aware that he has thrust a sharp thorn in the side of this church, and all members thereof. Therefore, his claim that he has been "seriously" alarmed, or "seriously" annoyed by my response to the thorn he has thrust into our side, is simply not credible. Because these elements of seriousness cannot be proven , then it follows that the presence of a level of emotional distress the meets the definition of "substantial" cannot be proven either.

But that point is mute, because the course of conduct in question here is "Constitutionally protected activity" and falls within the general rubric of "lawful acts of self-defense".

If the court determines that my communications serve a legitimate purpose, then the definition for harassment embodied in this law cannot be met. I have already touched on these key principles. Sean Prophet has set himself up as the destroyer of the character of the founders of our church, which are his own parents, of the character of the church itself, and of the teaching which the church would disseminate to the populations of the world. The members of our church must defend the founders, the church, and the teachings, from his attacks. This is our obligation and our duty. Communicating our opposition to this destructive agenda is a legitimate purpose. It is legitimate as a matter for the survival of our church. It is legitimate as a matter of survival for the good name of the founders of our church. It is legitimate as a matter of survival of the teachings of this church.

Certainly, this principle is true, that the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, and freedom of religious belief, go to this end, that the Powers of the State can never be used as a hammer and a sickle to keep good men from opposing evil. In bringing this legal action, Sean Prophet is trying to use the power of the state to mow down and smash his opponents.

You can see this clearly, Sean, that if a judge rules that my communications do not serve a legitimate purpose, that there is a bright pathway laid out automatically for appeal. The judge would be ruling, in effect, that a person's religion cannot be defended, that the principle of self-defense does not apply to religious beliefs. What is the likelihood that this would happen? In our court system, nothing is impossible. But my sense is, that on this point, I have a 99.9% chance of prevailing. Is Steven S. Showers using his free speech rights for a legitimate purpose? The answer is clearly yes.

I understand that you will say that you have no problem with me saying anything I want to say on my own website. You only have a problem with me directing my statements to you personally. But you need to understand that there is nothing in this law (Section 527.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures) that makes that distinction. If my statements serve a legitimate purpose spoken into the public airspace, just because the sound waves strike your own ears, does not rob the content of my expression of its legitimate purpose. In fact, this laws says exactly that. If a series of communications addressed to a specific individual serves a legitimate purpose, this (particular) law cannot swing into action to stop that communication process. Perhaps there is another facet of the law that might be applied, but this is not the one.

I believe the people who framed this law, were careful to draw a bright line between what this law would apply to, and what this law would not apply to. If one person has a legitimate beef with another, and uses a series of communications to try to resolve that beef, and does that without any acts of violence, or threats of violence, then this law was not designed to apply to that situation, even if the communications inflicted emotional stress and so forth and the recipient felt like they were being harassed on that issue. And there are many such examples that could illustrate this point. For example, if my neighbor did not like the fact that my ivy was growing through his fence, and into his yard, and he would keep nagging me about it, writing me letters about it, pleading with me to fix the problem, even if I saw this as harassment after a couple of months, as long as the neighbor threatened no violence, I could not use this law to shut him up. People have all kinds of beefs with other people, and however petty a particular beef might seem to another, they are legitimate to them, and would be legitimate before the law, and their right to speak towards the resolution of that beef, was not intended to be abridged by this section of the law.

I understand that when you want something, you just want it, and you are not necessarily open to a long list of reasons why you will never get it. So, I am not overly hopeful that you will see in this analysis any reason for not moving ahead to get what you want, which is a court ordered gag stuffed into my mouth.

This effort of mine therefore to analyze the content of Section 527.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures, is more for my own benefit that yours.

As I said, I took your threat seriously. I did this analysis so I could come to a conclusion as to whether you could conceivably be successful in following through on that threat. But not only that. I wanted to see whether the law itself was designed to apply to a situation like this. I can see that it was not so intended. It was not intended to be used to stifle legitimate expressions of the free speech rights of the people. That is why the phrases "Constitutionally protected activity" and "lawful acts of self-defense" and "legitimate purpose" are found in the text of this law. These standards, when applied by the court, will make sure that this law cannot be used to stifle constitutionally protected activity.

My conclusion is that you would not be successful in following through on your threat to get a court to issue a restraining order against me based on the allegation of "harassment" under the current circumstances. The key sticking point for you is the phrase "legitimate purpose". The judge will ask you, why is Mr. Showers writing you these emails? You will not be able to say, "I Don't Know". Your explanation will be the same as mine. You will explain who you are. You will explain the religious context of the controversy. You will explain what I believe. And you will explain to him, that I am on a CRUSADE (your words), to persuade you to return to your original mission. And the judge will ask you, in your view, why is that NOT a legitimate purpose? You might respond, "because I will never agree to it." But I think he will say, this might not seem to be a legitimate purpose to you. But why is that not a legitimate purpose under the law? If you returned to your original mission, isn't it true that you would stop trying to destroy the character of your parents in the eyes of other people? Isn't it true that you would stop trying to destroy the image of the church? Isn't it true that you would stop trashing the teachings of the church? Would that not be a very positive outcome as far as the church is concerned? Would that not be an EXTREMELY positive outcome as far as the church is concerned? Is it not legitimate for a person to pursue a positive outcome for one's highly valued interests? What is not legitimate about pursuing this outcome?

Come to think of it, I believe the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), would have to control the judge's thinking on this point. If you will remember, the court ruled in that case that the police power of the state could not be used to stifle the door to door proselytizing activity of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses. In this situation, this principle would suggest to the judge that a purpose is not illegitimate, simply because it is religiously motivated. This would establish the standard in this case, that a legitimate purpose, under this law, could be religiously motivated. Then the judge would have to determine, given the religious belief systems in play, whether or not the purpose of my communications served a legitimate religious purpose. I admit, that it totally escapes me, how anyone might reason that this would not be considered a legitimate religious purpose, given the fact that the person in question (you), and the church in question, have so much to gain if the purpose can be fulfilled. (We could use as evidence of this, all the things which the Masters said about your mission in Keepers of the Flame Lesson No. 31.)

I know it would be a challenge to stand up in court and make this presentation, but I believe I am up to it. I believe I can do it. And I will certainly give it my best effort. And I believe I have a good chance of succeeding in squashing any attempt on your part to persuade the court to put a gag in my mouth. And this is really the point. You can see, simply in the principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, that I am operating well within my free speech and religious liberty rights. And I am ready to defend those rights if need be. And I will not allow myself to be intimidated by threats of court action from exercising those rights.

On this basis therefore, Sean, I will continue as before, saying to you what I believe needs to be said, when I believe it needs to be said. You really do need to think ahead to the day of the epiphany that I have mentioned. Not delivered by me, but by those who are your best friends in heaven.

The package I sent to you, by the way, is not a "gift". It is just another way to communicate a principle. It is a letter constructed out of stone, in this case marble, and so forth. And as you well know, there is a purpose to it. Some time ago, the forces of heaven somehow arranged for a street light to be knocked down along my normal walking route. The minute I saw it, I knew this was for Sean Prophet. He thinks he is speaking out of wisdom, yet the truth is, the street light that he was, has been knocked down, and the light does not shine from it any more. So, I sent you a photo essay of that knocked down street light, I believe I ended that email with the idea that any street light that can be knocked down, can be put back up.

At the time, I was inspired to pick up a piece of that broken street light, for the purpose of sending it to you, as a way to drive home that point. That piece of broken street lamp sat on my altar for several weeks, in as much as I was busy doing other things. And in the interim as well, the street light was rebuilt, and I got pictures of that, which I wanted to sent you as a second part of the photo-essay.

And it finally came to pass, that after completing some other projects, I noticed the piece of broken street light sitting on my altar, and I could see that now was the time to send that to you. I had in my sanctuary a marble paper towel holder, and I thought the base of that paper towel holder would be a good base upon which to present this piece of broken street light to you. So I unscrewed the upper vertical portion, leaving only the base, and I glued the piece of the broken street light to it. I made a oak plug to fill the hole in the bottom of the marble base, and shipped it off to you. At that point I gathered together the additional photos that portrayed the process of rebuilding the street light, and sent those off to you, with a notice of what was coming in the box.

What you do with it, is up to you, like you said, if I send it back, you will throw it into the trash. That is certainly your choice. It's very much like what the Ascended Master's give us. What they give us is so much more valuable than anything that I could ever put together, yet I too, was in the habit of throwing those valuable things away at one time as well. But, I can tell you, if you knew that there was a hundred dollar bill taped to the bottom of that marble base, you would not throw it into the trash before you opened it up.

And so, I will send this box back to you, clearly cognizant that I am within my constitutionally protected rights to do so, not as harassment, but as yet another attempt to call you back to your original mission, which would benefit the planet to an extent I know you cannot now imagine. But the Treasures of God can live again in you, and that's a fact, and that is where the blessings for the planet are derived, i.e. the Treasures of God anchored in the temple of embodied souls. Any soul that is empty, can be filled. Life is not so complex in that regard.

I will have one more email to write to you on this subject, explaining to you what I learned about the "Black Sun" in the process of dealing with this latest situation.

May you pass every test.

Always Victory! Sincerely, Your Little Brother, Steven S. Showers   (Who is Your Little Brother?) (And Some Notes on Victory ) Homeward Bound - The Journal     of Ascended Master Devotion The Daily Blogger Grand Teton Web Cams The Lighthouse Keeper Roses of Camelot Lake WOW at the Heart     of the Inner Retreat Get Your Awesome     Violet Flame Button     Here! Mighty Victory's     Hourly Checklist