January 3, 2009
Your Grave Responsibility
Gerald E. Baca, Esq.
Las Vegas, NM 87701
[Mr. Baca's term as state district judge ended on the 31st of December. -ed]
Dear Mr. Baca:
I am writing to address some serious issues concerning the recent trial and conviction of Wayne Bent in The State of New Mexico vs. Wayne Bent, over which you presided.
At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing in Las Vegas this past Tuesday, after giving Mr. Bent the punishment you deemed fair, you addressed him personally about why you ruled as you did. As you spoke to him, I could see clearly what your perspective was on the case and why you gave the maximum sentence to this man. You stated your belief that the law of the land is supreme, and in light of this, you told Mr. Bent that he had “crossed a line.” Then you said something to the effect of, “Religions across the country are realizing that there are lines that cannot be crossed.” What was left unstated was that the State, and not the law books, is the final arbiter of where those lines reside in any given case.
I myself read the law on criminal sexual contact, and no precept of this law was violated by Mr. Bent in the events with the two minor young women, by their own plainly stated testimonies. I have also read the law on “contributing to the delinquency of minors,” and the evidence clearly presented in the trial also did not meet this criterion. The law was ostensibly upheld as supreme in this trial, but what was clearly seen both there and at the sentencing hearing is that the state and the ministers of the legal system do not uphold the law itself as supreme, but interpret the laws to say whatever they decide. This was clearly seen in Wayne Bent’s case by those of us who knew many more of the facts than were allowed to be presented and deliberated in trial. Personal interests and public pressure were very evident in the way the facts of this case and the final deliberations were manipulated to meet a very definite agenda of the State. What I saw plainly exhibited before my eyes, is that truth and principle are no longer the governing factors in our courts of law.
There were a number of serious discrepancies in this case and in the final ruling. I have some serious questions for you in this regard, as I understand that your position as judge in this case granted you the authority to overrule the convictions made by the jury, and even to throw the case out. Yours is a very serious responsibility.
Why was Mr. Bent let go on one count of criminal sexual contact with a minor, in Lakeisha’s case, and convicted on count two of the same, regarding Ashleey? Mr. Bent performed the same acts of healing with both sisters, but more times and more extensively with Lakeisha than with Ashleey, yet the charge on Lakeisha was dismissed. If only the facts and the law were being considered, as you have claimed, this gross anomaly in the jury’s decision would not have occurred. It reveals a very serious flaw in how the trial was conducted.
Since Mr. Bent was acquitted of criminal sexual contact with Lakeisha, why then was he convicted for contributing to her “delinquency”? At the sentencing hearing you stated something to the effect that this charge was in regard to his allowing her to be naked in his presence, but there is no law against nakedness. And her life in the two and a half years since the event has consistently, and to the full knowledge of the prosecutors, exemplified anything but delinquency. This was a very plain fact presented to the court. She is not morally loose, she does not steal, swear, or lie, does not use alcohol or drugs, or hate anyone. She is honorable, upright and obeys her parents unless and until it conflicts with her God-given conscience. There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Bent contributed to the delinquency of a minor in Lakeisha’s case, yet plentiful evidence to the contrary.
What about Ashleey? If Mr. Bent’s actions of healing were responsible for Ashleey turning away from God, and for her choosing and adopting the delinquent lifestyle of her parents, then why does her sister Lakeisha, who lives under the same roof, remain pure after all this time, continuing to follow God with all her heart?
What about the parents’ lifestyle that includes pornography and parties where alcohol is served and freely consumed in the presence of minors? Or the fact that Ashleey smokes cigarettes? Is it reasonable to assume, following the reasoning and based on the letter of the law regarding contributing to the delinquency of a minor, that Ashleey’s parents’ lifestyle of pornography and partying have contributed to her delinquency? And if so, should they not also be convicted and sentenced for this crime? If the courts of law were fair and impartial as they claim to be, if they were not influenced by factors other than law and justice but always upheld the law in precisely the way you and the district attorneys have claimed to be doing in this case, most parents in America today would have to be convicted on this charge. Yet they are not, but you have convicted and sentenced an innocent man based on arbitrary construal of the evidence, while claiming to uphold the law. The hypocrisy is astounding, as well as the absolute heartlessness of the individuals responsible in this.
What about Ashleey’s adult boyfriend who had sex with her while she was still a minor? Why is he not convicted of a crime, when his actions were clearly against the law of the land, while Wayne Bent’s were not? Ashleey’s parents willingly allowed her sexual relationship with her adult boyfriend, as well as her participation in their degraded lifestyle, yet they were also very willing to hurt and defame the name and character of Wayne Bent, a man who regards both body and soul of every individual as the sacred temple of God, and not to be violated or abused in any way. It is for this very reason that a naked body is safe in his presence. His life was given to the healing of these two girls, and not to dragging them into the gutter of immorality as Ashleey’s parents have plainly and openly done. Yet the public hears “nakedness” and “minors” in the same sentence and cries “Child molestation!” because they themselves cannot conceive that there is actually someone who is pure. And so the mob is conveniently used to carry out the State’s agenda against a religious sect and its leader who are making them uncomfortable because they don’t fit into their tightly controlled societal mold.
Again, where was the evidence of delinquency resulting from Ashleey and Healed’s requesting a religious healing from Mr. Bent? There was absolutely none, and no law backing up this charge against him. He did not “cause or encourage a minor to become involved in delinquent or illegal activity,” or “engage in conduct in the presence of a minor that is likely to lead to delinquent or illegal activity by the child, or to otherwise encourage a minor’s disregard for the law.” There is no way, by any construction, that such a thing was proven “beyond reasonable doubt” in that courtroom, and for you to abide by a provably tainted jury’s decision to that effect is a breach of your responsibility and integrity as a judge. You declared several times that the jury had sufficient evidence to come to this conclusion, and left the final verdict with them. In washing your hands of the responsibility you had for truth and justice in this case, you did exactly as did Pilate of old. But I am afraid your hands did not come clean.
Mr. Baca, you said that Mr. Bent had “crossed the line.” The line that Mr. Bent crossed was NOT the law on criminal sexual contact of a minor, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor. According to the legal definition of these laws upon which he was convicted, by the clear testimony of all parties no actual law was broken. What was broken was a tightly controlled social perception of morality and religion, whereby the public became offended by some false, twisted imaginations and media hype about Mr. Bent’s actions. This also is not against the law. In the Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson, 1989, it was stated by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., “A bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Mr. Baca, you also told Mr. Bent that as one in a position of authority, he “should have known better,” referring to Bent’s own statement that he knew his actions in response to what was requested of him could be problematic. So, is one to disregard following God’s instructions in the healing of a soul because it might cause offense to someone else? Should one save their good name, reputation, or very life by choosing not to follow God’s leading? Yes, almost every person living would do this, but Mr. Bent would not do this. Nor would anyone who is truly imbued with the Spirit of Christ as he is, choose to save their life over obeying God’s clear instructions to their soul. For this, and this alone, Mr. Bent has been sentenced to prison. Tell me, Mr. Baca, should one not follow their God-given instructions, when no state law is broken and only good could come from it to those involved? For a considerable time after the event, Ashleey’s expressed sentiments about it was that it was a positive thing and that it helped her. She expressed this via email to Mr. Bent and others. Only after she had lived with her parents for some time, and was in contact with the offended and hateful souls who fomented these false charges against Mr. Bent, did her testimony change. There was very clearly witness tampering involved in this case.
But these and many more substantiated facts in the case were not allowed expression in the courtroom. Evidence was restricted, omitted, and falsified by the DAs, in their presentation to the jury. Mr. Chavez used suggestion, innuendo, and outright lying in his approach before the jury, as is documented by the recorded trial transcripts. The DAs brought up unresolved grievances from offended ex-members, asking subtle and not-so-subtle questions that had nothing to do with criminal sexual contact with minors, to manipulate the minds of the jury to see Mr. Bent and what he did in a certain light.
Referring back to your statement that as a man in a position of authority, Mr. Bent “should have known better,” how do you harmonize the “justice” served in this case with that served in a case that was decided just the day before in New Mexico, over a man who was also in a “position of authority” and indeed should have known better. This man was clearly guilty of something far worse than Mr. Bent was even accused of, and yet was given only ten months on work release, while Bent was about as far as could be from being proven “guilty beyond reasonable doubt,” as the law requires, and was given what amounts to his death sentence in prison. Where is the justice in this? Please tell me.
Coach sentenced for sex with girl Tuesday, 30 Dec 2008, 10:19am
ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (AP) – A former Alamogordo High School girls soccer and basketball coach has been sentenced to 10 months on work release after admitting to having sex with a 16-year-old girl who was one of his athletes last March.
State District Judge Waylon Counts sentenced James Javier Cruz on Monday. Cruz also has to register as a sex offender. He pleaded guilty in August to three counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor.
He originally faced five counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and three of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
According to court records, Cruz would pick up the girl at the school before a class and take her to his mother’s apartment for sex. Afterward, he would return her to school.
You have insisted this trial was not over religious freedom, but the issue was only this: the word of God to the soul vs. the word of the State. Laws that were not broken, were arbitrarily used by the State to make a public example of its claim to supremacy over the soul and conscience. This is the claim of the State and its legal arms. One of the officers who came to take away our children because of these false charges, was questioned about the stance he seemed to be taking that the State owns the souls of the children. He replied, “Well, you may not think so, but it does.” You have surely heard of the “mark of the beast” being enforced in the end time upon the soul or conscience of man. This is exactly what the core issue of Wayne Bent’s trial was, and it can be seen by anyone with eyes to see. The populace is manipulated in many ways to fear and trust the State for its welfare, to where they can be made to compromise their conscience by the threat of the State, or to procure its “security.” This, a true follower of God cannot do, and this Mr. Bent would not do. In the Bible account, Peter and John the disciples of Jesus were charged on similar grounds, and answered the rulers of the people thus:
Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, you judge. Acts 4:18
This, Mr. Baca, you have judged, and I felt responsible to bring this to your attention. The ultimate ruling in this case was in your hands, and you have sentenced to prison an innocent man. I know you are a busy man, but I would like some answers to these questions.
Sincerely,
Bethabara Travesser
