Since Brian Outy apparently does not want her followers to know the entirety of the conversation, as she was selective in posting hardly any of it on her forum, I have posted it here for all to see.

Brain Outy
Seriously? Are you crazy? YOU don’t know anything about basic law. Honey, I do contract law for a living, since the 1980’s. Been an RBT student for 40+ years. Your little video here now makes it clear why these kinds of uploads are ILLEGAL. You snip out of context.

He wasn’t a lawyer, and freely said that. He constantly upgraded and corrected past mistakes. But of course you being a jerk, snip out of context. That’s why those of us who won’t do that, are prohibited, as COPYRIGHT LAW WHICH YOU ARE VIOLATING IN THIS VIDEO, forbids uploading. As of 2003. So I can report you.

Instead, come on over and debate whatever you want with me. I have EVERYTHING Thieme ever taught on reels and cassettes, at frankforum. I’d put the link in here but apparently you don’t allow links. The forum is for all kinds of things, not really designed to be about some dead pastor. But hey: you should have your lying say, and I’ll have mine, and anyone else can chime in.

But if you get canned by Youtube for posting this video, for violating copyright law which clearly you do not know, then it wasn’t me who reported you.

And oh: I’ve copied this comment and it will be in frankforum, so if you block it, then folks will know

PS the notion of an appeal trial is in fact in Scripture, and I spent 15 years writing it up. Runs over 1500 printed pages. Videos prove the tenets from Scripture both in vimeo and Youtube, extensive proof is in . Better be able to read the Hebrew and Greek, or you can’t follow it.?
Okay, suddenly the links work. Here’s frankforum, home of anonymous people, whether atheist or Christian or computer geek or whatever,

principled legal standard
Why would I want to block it? lol I never said Thieme was a lawyer, so you can stop bearing false witness by wrongly implying that I even remotely suggested that Thieme was a lawyer. (this is my little law lesson to you about you Brainouty). Knowing Gods standards of law is not the suggestion or implication that knowing law, is being a lawyer as a human vocation. Second the very admission of having to make correction after correction, is that Thieme was not taught by the Holy Spirit. What he was doing is called “winging it”. And Thieme never did depart from the “appeals trial doctrine”. It is still taught by his marionettes to this day. Know this, You don’t intimidate me you piss ant. Is that clear? Even if it is not clear to you, it does not change the fact that you’re not even in my universe. I don’t upgrade nor do my doctrines change with the wind, like varying shadows and mists. Fair use, look it up. You need to bone up on copyright law, idiot. As far as a debate? I will debate you on the penal substitute (otherwise known as the abomination of punishing the innocent) any day pal. So yeah there’s bad blood, so don’t bother acting like a castrated effeminate shemale joel osteen type. Positional truth? another violation of law, bearing false witness about ones legal record, as if it never happened…Your “doctrines” are nothing but the butchery of law. Debate? no problem pal.?
Now, out of my good graces I am going to overlook the character defamation, of your falsely accusing me of copyright infringement. And as I think it would be beneficial for you, I will teach brain outy “the lawyer” about the fair use law (without including the many court case decisions and precedents). So I will start by giving you a lesson on LAW, Mr. lawyer:

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted
material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to
comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be
done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair
use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use
qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal
infringement. – See more at: In its most general sense a fair use; is the copying of any copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative”; purpose, such as comment upon, criticize, or parody of a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. In other words fair use is a defense against a claim of coyright infringement. If your use qualifies as fair use, it cannot be considered a copyright infringement.

Now Mr. expert on the law, who does claim to be a lawyer. Be sure to post in your crap forum about the initial exchange between us in the comment section of this PARODY, EDUCATIONAL AND CRITICISM VIDEO OF MR. ROBERT THIEME. And the fact that you err in understanding anything about FAIR USE contained within copyright law, and you can post on your crappy forum, about you bearing false witness (otherwise known as lying and in this case character defamation, to which legal relief can be sought against you)…by flat out claiming that I infered in my video that Robert Thieme was a lawyer, when in TRUTH I did not. It seems that you have a problem with the TRUTH from the outset BRAIN OUTY, the truth about the law and about other people, namely me. Post this whole comments section on your forum, so that your buddys and followers can read and see your not only violations of civil law, but violations on your own “God’s law”.

Finally, your so called “legal threats” based on falsehoods…because you are not the copyright owner, your are not the “injured party” that you make yourself out to be, by the inference of legal action…you might as well be Rosey O’Donnell. I argue principles of law, not a false teachers butchery of languages. It’s an a-moral stance to make a claim that because of your “interpretation” that something is settled as truth…to the neglect and violation of the most basic fundamentals of God’s law. God never punished the innocent, never has and never will STARTING WITH HIS OWN SON. So you tell us by what “standard of law” in any court…where infants deserve wrath, agonizing suffering and death. Start right there pal, and you better use law. For God is lawful and He never departs from the Mosaic standard of jurisprudence.?

Brain Outy

So yeah, frankforum is open to anyone and you can come; yet if you do, you will be proven a donkey in five minutes there. For the folks there can think. Which, is the heart of good law: THINKING.

TO OTHERS: there is a Youtube glitch when posting here. Can’t paste until you’ve hit the Reply or send button. So that’s why I’ve had to make several posts, rather than a single long one. I apologize.?

principled legal standard
An appeal is in God’s court is impossible. Irrefutable evidence cannot be appealed. Nor are any of God’s judgments and verdicts mutable. You’re an idiot. and trying to use “free will” as in “I don’t agree” as an appeal reveals what a moron you really are.?
Brain Outy

NO, you don’t understand what the Trial is, and what the appeal is, and WHY there can be one. Again you demonstrate total ignorance of BIBLE and THIEME and LAW.

TO OTHERS: idiots like this guy make dumb videos and then demonstrate their stupidity thinking the prove something. Yeah, they prove their ignorance.

To Wit: APPEAL is a process in law allowing a decision to be REVERSED. Has nothing to do with whether incontrovertible evidence is presented. It’s a FREEDOM MECHANISM so that the accused can have RECOURSE. The idea is, the one applying for appeal will only do it, if he thinks he can win. Again, has nothing to do with whether the evidence previously presented, was incontrovertible.

That same rule about APPEAL has always been true, and is the heart of JUSTICE. It’s an especially important rule when GOD is the Ruler, and the issue is the malfeasance of a judge (adikia in Greek). So that’s why you have Matt 25:41, since the evidence is incontrovertible, but all the APPEALS have to be exhausted before sentencing can take place.

Thieme has of course always taught this, but he’s not trained as a lawyer so doesn’t always talk in sufficient precision, as he passes on what he learned as he learned it, and would later revise what he found he got wrong.

I’m not trying to support him, but when someone lies about YOU, and some third party knows that, you hope the third party will speak up. That’s what I’m doing.

Again, I have a copy of this post and will post it in frankforum if it’s deleted here. This video came to my attention from someone else who asked me to say something, and I’m not here to crusade against the poster. Hopefully I won’t have to post again.?

principled legal standard
You don’t seem to understand that you’re full of “censored”…that is my position. No appeals under the MOSAIC standard(not yours or thiemes). Once convicted of whatever criminal offense, the punishment is executed, whether it be tooth for tooth or life for life. Satan made accusations against God to make his rebellion and ascension appear justified, accusations of an impure motive…Satan accused God of not only being a liar, but also accused God of being guilty of what satan himself was guilty of. This is satanic hypocrisy and there’s scores of examples of it in the bible. You pretend as if there was irrefutable LEGAL evidence of God having a pure motive. The kind of evidence that one can flop on a table…there wasn’t. This is why there was no appeal, because the first trial was still ongoing even during the time of the TESTING of Christ. You’re legal idiots and gloss over the first trial. You say things like “satan rebelled and was sentenced to the lake of fire”…and just say he was proven guilty. When a person LIKE YOU says “this is the truth”, and it is not, you are calling God a liar. Satan did the same thing that you do, which is speak lies and call God a liar. This is why you’re satanic and do satan’s will. When two parties disagree, they are calling each other a liar. This is why God’s criminal court cases and verdicts are not settled by the “word of the judge”. When satan rebelled he called God a liar from the start. Evidence is what is put in the scale YOU “censored”, not words. And since satan accused God of what satan himself was and is guilty of…that was the basis of the first trial or legal inquiry. If satan’s accusations were correct he would have been justified in rebelling against a corrupt God. Perception isn’t legal evidence, just as insight isn’t either. So therefore, you can claim that all the angels knew the truth and perceived that God was of a pure motive…but that ain’t LEGAL evidence, BECAUSE SATAN ALSO ACCUSED THE ELECT ANGELS OF BEING LIARS AS WELL. This is the ramifications of satan’s accusations, for if God was a liar, all the elect angels would be found to be lying as well. occam’s razor baby! One cannot disagree with God without accusing God of lying. This satan did and the trial and testing of Christ was for the demonstration of His righteousness, I say again HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. This is why Christ said He came to testify that God is truthful, because His word and truthfulness was not just “called into question”, but was accused of being a flat out liar. This is you, thieme, that idiot at gbible, gdcmedia, versevyverse, cannot give evidence of and never talk about…That the “first trial” was not concluded because God’s truthfulness was “called into question”, not as an appeal, but as a basis or excuse for satan to coverup his own crimes FROM THE START! So stick that in your contract, in your freedom “censored” pipe and smoke it. Now back to infants, the mentally retarded, those who will never be able to learn their own names in this life…the infant who lives 3 months and dies. MAKE THE CASE FOR WRATH! MAKE THE CASE THAT INFANTS DESERVE WRATH, AGONIZING PUNISHMENT AND DEATH. Name their elective crimes, cite what infants THEMSELVES HAVE DONE and are responsible for, THAT THEY COULD HAVE AVOIDED. Make your case for infants deserving to be nailed to trees YOU PSYCHO! make you case! You say ALL MEN and all men means all men, you say it yourself. That ALL MEN DESERVE WRATH AND INFINTE SUFFERING AND DEATH, THAT INCLUDES INFANTS…even infants who live for 10 minutes and die. make your case you psychotic “censored”. Make your case that infants are guilty of crimes, have been found guilty by evidence and deserve to be nailed to trees and suffer wrath. MAKE IT. I will not respond until you do. I am forcing you to address the question that you are avoiding (just like you avoided me pointing out your bearing false witness about FAIR USE in copyright law, and avoided that FACT that you lied in making false claims that I said Thieme was a lawyer, WHEN i DID NOT)…I am forcing you to establish the legal basis that infants, the severely mentally retarded deserve wrath, and infinite suffering. You are going to have to NAME WHAT THEY THEMSELVES DID AND WHAT INFANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT THEY COULD HAVE AVOIDED. If you try and avoid this question and post comments about anything other than this question, THOSE POSTS WILL BE DELETED. Common sense tells one what the truth is and a common sense fundamental principle of law is: If you didn’t do it, you’re not guilty of it. If you didn’t do it, you’re not responsible for it and cannot be held to account as if you are. Make the case for wrath against the infant that lives 5 minutes, 2 months, 6 months, 3 years and dies! DO IT “censored”. The Mosaic law lists capital crimes and offenses, AND BEING BORN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE AT ALL, AND WHAT BODY ONE IS BORN IN OR THE STATE OF THE BODY THAT GOD HIMSELF PLACES MAN IN, ISN’T ONE OF THEM. If it’s a crime worthy of death to be created and born in these bodies…THEN GOD IS GUILTY AND IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE, BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE WHO PUTS INFANTS ALL HUMANS IN THEM. Make your case of infants being charged with crimes, with capital offenses, and infants being found guilty of crimes where punitive measures are called for, even infinite suffering and death. DO IT, LAWYER! No other posts by you will be permitted. ADDRESS THE QUESTION, if you try to avoid the question about infants and post about other things, those posts will be deleted, UNTIL YOU DO. The liar trying to pass off lies as truth, must multiply complexities and violate occam’s razor. The lawyer who lies, his bullshit reads like a 1,500 page fine print, filled with complexities…like the fine print at the bottom of a shady used car salesmen’s CONTRACT. The one with the true legal argument will be according to common sense law and never leave the fundamentals, as is found in the Mosaic standard of jurisprudence. Make the case for wrath against infants, where you portray God as holding infants responsible, as if it is their fault. Again if you avoid this question, in your next post, that post and any further posts will be deleted until you do.?

principled legal standard

This is where the long awkward silence occurs. Stymied! I know what the greek words are for the simplicity of the testimony and that those who suppress the truth, engage in “complexities”. The truth is reality and is according to it, and the truth is observable in real life. The law is reality, and is according to reality, and therefore what the law has to say about people, the state of man, EVEN INFANTS, is observable in real life. The simplicity of my arguments and law and testimony are according to 2 Cor 1:12. The ones without the simplicity, are the sophists, reasoning according to the flesh, making complex convoluted “censored” and claim it is law, and also that higher complexity is higher wisdom or law. That is a false premise. Christ stymied His detractors and opposition with just a few sentences, with SIMPLICITY. hagioteti baby! It don’t mean “purity”, hagioteti means simplicity. The simplicity of the truth.

What are infants responsible for, what have they themselves done that they should have avoided? What have infants done themselves that calls for them to be punished, suffer wrath and death? (its a very hagioteti question). Again, no further posts will be allowed if they do not address this question. The classic satanic tactic that idiots of thieme use is to start talking about how infants that die are automatically ingrafted into the body of Christ…by this they bear false witness and only pretend that they answered the question, when in fact they avoided it. Another satanic tactic that thiemites use when asked this question about infants, is they start talking about Adam and what Adam did…ADAM ISN’T THE INFANT. The question is what did the infant do, what is the infant responsible for that he should have avoided? Funny how they make sport of limited atonement Calvinists and point out a capricious and arbitrary God (this is a God who doesn’t go by law)…in being angry at the “unelect” and “depraved” when according to the Calvinist themselves, they will freely admit that the reprobate cannot do anything about their condition and supposed fate…that the reprobate could not be righteous even if they tried…but in fact are not even allowed to try or even desire goodness at all! According to the fundamentals of law, it is clear that the reprobate of Calvinism have a mitigatable and legitimate defense argument. God made them that way, and wants them to stay that way, will not help them, and even prevents them from even desiring goodness, let alone chose it. So just as the denial of free volition would be a valid defense and would take the case out of the arena of punitive offenses and states COMPLETELY. So just as the bible says that the sons are not punished for the sins of the fathers, God don’t punish…nor does God suggest that infants deserve wrath, agony and death for the “sins of their fathers”…even going back to the first father, which was Adam. These are simple principles of law, according to common sense law (which has to be totally avoided and is not contained in any of “out of brains”(new name), comments. Contract law isn’t criminal law, the only time contract law gets into criminal law is when a criminal offense is committed during the breach of a contract, that 1 or more has agreed to. Infants didn’t sign a contract you “censored” idiot. Not even the infant that lives two months and dies. Another interesting thing about contract law, is that a contract cannot be held against you if you NEVER AGREED TO IT. Infants not only do not sign on the dotted line, one man cannot hold a contract against another man, if the man never agreed to the contract(this of course is not referring to court orders that must be agreed to as part of a resolution, such as property damage or fraud, to just name a few examples). Also about contract law, all parties must be aware of the contract. You cannot make a contract that another man did not sign and is completely ignorant of..and then hold the man to a contract that he was oblivious of and never agreed to. See the simplicity? (This same argument can be made about the national debt and the passing it on to people not yet born, they never agreed to the debt obligation nor to the borrowing of the original money). Anyone not yet born has not agreed to the creating of debt, much less being legally obligated to the paying of debt which is not theirs. This has to do with contract law. But I will not entertain discussions of contract law, any further posts by “out of brains” that do not adress my clear ans simple questioning concerning infants and those of mental defect, WILL BE DELETED.
You will not see simplicity with “out of brains” attempts to answer the question concerning, infants, even those who die at 6 months old, the mentally retarded who will not learn of good or evil in this life (these are those who’s falling short condition is not after the similitude of Adam, but never the less death remains and they are subject to it). This is why when people puffed up with pride think they are smarter than me, and think they are gonna use me like a fool and make sport…get STYMIED right from the start with the first question. (I know about Romans 5:12 and the 4 definite articles left out and sin singular. I also know that 1 Corinthians 15:56 says the exact same thing as Romans 5:12 and Paul still awaits to be delivered from “The death”. After all immortality or eternal life is athantos. I also know about the anarthrous construction of Genesis 2:17 in the LXX. thanotw “judgment of death by the controling legal authority or court”..apothaneisethe “which is non-punitive physical death”)…so I shall wait in this long awkward silence while “out of brains” tries to get around the conundrum of how to explain that infants deserve wrath, infinite suffering and an agonizing death…FIRST BY EXPLAINING WHAT INFANTS HAVE DONE THAT THEY CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR, WHAT THEY DID THEMSELVES TO DESERVE INFINITE SUFFERING FOR. Yeah that’s right I got more patience than Elihu. Now lets see who is “complicating’ what should be the simplicity, or simple truth..lets see who is the one using complexities to try and suppress the SIMPLE TRUTH! Yeah that’s right, cornered and no where to go, “out of brains” bit off too much to chew. I am the 800 pound legal gorilla and you’re in my “censored” cage!

(The following comments by “Brain Outy” were deleted because he did not answer my questions concerning infants being deserving of wrath):

Brain Outy
I didn’t avoid the question, I answered it before you posted it. And when you write long posts without paragraphs, it proves you’re not thinking.

What you MEAN to argue is false, because you hallucinate that the Mosaic law is the same thing as the Appeal Trial for Satan. It’s not the same. The Mosaic law was a parody of religion, a satire proving NO WORKS SAVE. It was also a post-salvation spiritual code.

You don’t understand the Mosaic Law. It had three components: Freedom Code (often called Codex I by 1930’s theologians, not merely Thieme), II the Spiritual Code, which is about the post-salvation life, and III Jurisprudence which YES had a bunch of APPEALS built into it.

Now, since your long post demonstrates your total ignorance of that structure, and especially of the appellate provisions, no doubt you won’t understand my reply, either.

In any event, it’s totally apart from the SEPARATE APPEAL TRIAL which is required to resolve whether GOD IS A BAD JUDGE, vis a vis the ANGELS.

So delete or not what I said, I don’t care. You keep proving too ignorant of Bible to talk to. I didn’t come here to shoot you down. Since you can’t even write a proper paragraph, I’m not interested in teaching you what you clearly are too lazy to READ.?

Brain Outy
What long awkward silence? Because I didn’t ANSWER YOU IMMEDIATELY? Like I’m supposed to hang around here breathless for your reply?

That’s what you did. I have other things to do. Your own video mocks you, so I don’t wish to do that.?
END OF DELETIONS(two additional comments by “Brain Outy deleted are not listed here) and my response as to why they were deleted:

The Principled Legal Standard
I told you the rules, that if you comment and do not address my question concerning infants, that your comments will be deleted. They will continue to be deleted until you do address my question concerning infants and those with mental defect, as to what they themselves have done to deserve wrath, infinite suffering and death. What have infants done(infants, even the infant that lives 4 months and dies, for example) that they can be held responsible for or that they could have avoided? This has to do with you having to establish a legal basis for the calling for wrath on all men FIRST, to then later it to be diverted unto Christ. So, you decided to ignore the question, and your comments will be deleted. (you’re gonna be busy, start your 100 legal cases of copyright infringement, of full videos uploaded by many youtube users..ohh you cant, because you do not hold the copyright or the license that expires at death of the holder, which varies somewhat based on the years and changes in copyright laws)?

The Principled Legal Standard
The debate results with Thiemite marionette named “Brain Outy”: I started the debate by asking 1 simple question, to wit Brain Outy could not answer it. She hem and hawed, obsessed about contract law, she had a few spasms and had to put a shoe in her mouth to keep from swallowing her tongue. And the sad part is “Brain Outy’s” forehead is flat from bouncing it off her computer desk in frustration over knowing what the answer was to my question, but could not give a truthful answer because the truth contradicts her “censored” doctrines…which is what her whole existence and claims of legitimacy hangs from. So, in recap: First debate results PLS 1, thiemite weirdo ZERO.

Youtube user “Brain Outy” says she studied Thieme and/or he was her pastor for 50 years and i see no reason to doubt that claim. The question I asked was pertaining to what infants & those with mental defect, have done themselves that they can be held responsible for, that they could have avoided, which calls for them to be deserving of suffering infinite wrath, nailed to trees, agonizing suffering and a horrid death. So with 1/2 a century of studying Thieme the “censored” artist, and making a gazillion videos herself…Brain Outy knows what the truthful answer to my question is. The answer is NOTHING, NADA ZIP. Infants have done nothing and are not able to do anything that they can be held accountable for, hauled into criminal court for, let alone be judged to be deserving of infinite suffering, agonizing death, etc. In order to argue that Christ suffered the wrath that “all men” supposedly deserve, a legal basis must be established first, that all men deserve wrath. Thus, the question concerning infants was asked, which Brain Outy refused to answer.?

Thieme and his followers believe infants deserve wrath, and an agonizing death, for CRAP THEY DIDNT DO AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH. YOU’RE PSYCHOS, RELIGIOUSLY PSYCHOTIC!