If Jesus does come, I suppose, Weinland will miss his upcoming trial for tax charges. And, I will have to give up my blogging. I also suppose that, although the time is nigh, those who are concerned might want to get right with Jesus. Just a variation of exploiting Pascal's Wager, see Wikipedia entry, here. There is always the last minute come to Jesus moment. See the story of the penitent thief on the cross alongside Jesus, at Wikipedia, here. (It is unclear whether the penitent thief was exploiting Pascal's Wager or really had an epiphany. The point is that there's still time, that is, if you read this blog in time (or otherwise get the news). Readers can rest assured that I am doing all that is appropriate.
Update 5/28/12: Jesus did not come yesterday. Let me clarify, I do not have any credible report that Jesus did come yesterday. Even Mr. Weinland has changed his prediction, though, so that the prediction is not inconsistent with the facts. It now appears that Mr. Weinland has recalibrated and has announced that Jesus will come next year. Ron Weinland: Oops! My Bad! Jesus Is Coming Next Year, or Maybe After That, or Maybe..... (Armstrongism Blog 5/28/12), here. (This may be viewed as an application of Bayesian analysis, although it seems to me that he does not have the right prior.) So, Mr. Weinland will go to trial after all (unless he chooses to plead guilty or the Government drops the charges, neither of which seem likely at this point)..
It seems to me that in addition to not looking at the right time for Jesus, Mr. Weinland is looking for Jesus in all the wrong places such as foreign bank accounts.
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Matthew 25:40 (King James Version), here.
United States v. Weinland, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73026 (D. Ky. 5/25/12):
ReplyDeleteBased on the foregoing analysis, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Ronald Weinland's motion in limine regarding the use of evidence of a witness's religious beliefs or opinions to attack or support a witness's credibility [Record No. 32] is GRANTED. Subject to further Orders, both the United States and the defendant shall be prohibited at trial from offering or soliciting testimony concerning a witness's religious beliefs or opinions for purposes of attacking or supporting the witness's credibility. The Court's ruling on this issue does not prevent inquiry concerning a witness's religious beliefs or opinions [*6] for other permissible purposes, such as showing interest or bias.
2. Defendant Ronald Weinland's motion in limine regarding trial testimony of lay witnesses [Record No. 33] is DENIED.
And, it is good to know that He has changed the date to May 19. Almost like a reprieve.
ReplyDeleteJack Townsend
A hearing is scheduled for Thursday on the issue as to whether the defendant is allowed to use a sermon statement to prove the Swiss bank accounts were church funds even though held in the defendant's name. Government calls it hearsay under FRE, defense has other ideas.
ReplyDeleteDid the church financial statements show the account as a church asset. Of course, I am making an assumption that the church had financial statements.
ReplyDeleteJack Townsend
COrrection to my earlier comment: the hearing is tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThe defense is getting serious, seeking to qualify a John D Cline of San Francisco as the 3rd member of the defense pro hac vice
As far as church financial statements, they are not required to make them public and this one does not. Not even to it's members, AFAIK. Seems to me that a church is not even required to file an annual 990.
The court filings mention the "specific items method", with transactions identified from numerous church and personal credit cards and then analyzed.