A majority of the Americans who identify themselves as conservative Christian republicans work hard often thankless jobs in industries that provide the backbone of a functional economy and make possible the security and standard of living that our citizens take for granted. They’re the builders and the fixers, the cleaners and the clerks, the soldiers and the seamstresses. And they have faith that one day they’ll enjoy peace and freedom from labor and landlords, managers and mortgages in a better place to come.
This post isn’t about them.
To distinguish the kind of people this post is about, I use the example of Ruth Bredfeldt, the mother of a man who, along with his wife, dismantled my life over a 12-year period by serially accusing me to more courts and law enforcement officers than it’s possible for me to know.
Because it served them to.
This three-minute video synopsizes what would become 12 years of lying and abuse. For best textual readability, press play, tap the settings icon at the bottom of the frame, and adjust the playback quality to 720p. Ruth Bredfeldt’s daughter-in-law tailored her lies to whatever audience she was addressing at the time.
Ruth Bredfeldt is a registered republican, the mother of three, and the wife of a retired medical doctor who accumulated a goodly sum of his wealth, which is modest by Silicon Valley standards but hardly inconsiderable, by helping to flack medical insurance. If the man has had a callus in the last 50 years, I’d be surprised.
Both Ruth Bredfeldt and her husband, Ray Bredfeldt, M.D., are adherents of an evangelical Protestant sect called the Presbyterian Church in America and attend services ministered by their son-in-law. Ruth Bredfeldt’s husband is a former deacon of the same church.
According to Colorado public records, this is where Ruth Bredfeldt resides:
Cozy, right?
Below, in contrast, is where her husband and her son and her daughter-in-law endeavored to have me housed based on accusations grounded on lies spun over many years to cover up what might be called an extramarital lapse:
Ruth Bredfeldt and others like her—wealthy, privileged pretenders to piousness—would probably say they support “family values.”
I could have been incarcerated for up to some 16 months in the penal institution pictured above and maybe considerably longer: Ruth Bredfeldt’s son employed cut-rate, dirtbag attorneys who tried to impress the court with accusations of phony felony crimes just to coerce me to give up and plead for mercy (after I got a lawyer of my own and wasn’t a sitting duck). What lies her husband may have intended to tell the court, I’ll never know. He wasn’t given the opportunity to testify.
Did Ruth Bredfeldt consider whether there were mouths that depended on me for food and how months or years behind bars would impact them (on top of the decay that years of false accusations had already inevitably caused)? I don’t think so, no. Did Ruth Bredfeldt carefully weigh, according to her “Christian conscience,” how this might affect my family and their fortunes?
I don’t think she gave any consideration to anything but herself and her family. I don’t think she ever has.
I would even hazard a guess that she relished a little gossip with the girls: other idle, moneyed matrons either with nothing better to do or no compelling reason to do it.
How people like Ruth Bredfeldt have come to be identified with conservative Christian values in America isn’t such a mystery. They have political clout and social prestige, which makes them the kind of folks the downtrodden and disenfranchised want on their side.
What the have-nots don’t grasp is that users like this are only on their side because it makes them feel good, increases their wealth, and costs them nothing but some smiles and hosannas.
Copyright © 2021 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*If people like those this post criticizes were earnest in their purported faith, they would follow the example of their savior: give their riches away to those in greater need, live humbly, and dedicate their days to ministering to the poor and the sick. Obviously.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
They aren’t Christians, they merely pretend to be Christians. One of Christ teachings, that was important to the protestants, was to observe the pagan societies (Romans and the Turks) and notice how they treated others. It was key duty in protecting the dignity of a christian nation including a monarchy, something that has been lost to the “crown can do no wrong” sovereign immunity mentality in a nation that ironically no longer has a king. To deprive a person of logos (speech and reason) was to deprive a man of his personhood; to reduce them down to animals [think about social media has been treating us over 2 years….well those who used it]. It’s effectively murder, and has been recorded as unchristian and unheard of, save for blaspheme, by John Lilburn’s 1637 trial. 1 John 3:16 makes it clear that a murderer shall not enter heaven.
The other unchristian attribute is the desire to lock people up. The Quakers copied the Catholic Monestaries (whom the protestants branded the pope an antichrist) in 1790 due to their opposition to corporeal punishment. Traditionally the punishment for crimes would be somewhat proportional such as public service, fines, death, whippings not to exceed 39 stripes [40 was the limit as reported in the book of Acts], the stock and pillory. But rendering men unable to move was deemed unchristian in the Lilburn case. Rome did have one prison used to house those sentenced to death, but they could still move (lilburn was deprived of movement), have adequate food (lilburn was starved, and felow inmates kept him alive; The romans also didn’t starve their inamtes to death [with rare exception]), contact visits (lilburn was denied contact visits], access to a physician, and many of the rights prisoners have today.
I suspect most of these problems in faith is rooted in the Johnson amendment, that prohibited churches from getting too political. And so church sermons are reduced down to the bible stories and taboos you heard since you were a kid. So the law has compelled our church leaders to keep their congregation limited in understanding their faith, as various evils have taken over the political and legal landscape. The very nature of every government is an antichrist (I don’t care what Romans 13 says, as it is likely a forgery in my opinion {Paul should have been aware of antiochus IV just centuries past]), the best a people can do is try to restrain government since even if they abolish one another will spring up. Instead, we have evils beneath what the pagans would do conducting human sacrifices to nourish the the beast gets stronger and stronger. Including people lock up years without a trial, deprived of basic life necessities, for matters relatively petty with no regard for proportionality even if they were wrongs. All while people of the church are kept blinded to evil or even support the beast. So in the end, as to the “Christians” who seek to imprison and gag others…” You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”-John 8:44. And this too is whom the court serves. FJB. This PFA agenda is part of a communist movement [a type of antichrist], and contrary to our constitutional, natural, and ancient rights.
I help earn a scotus blog petition of the day, and later upon completing my paralegal certificate (I can’t give legal advice nor represent anyone [but myself]) I asked a large men’s rights law firm if I could do a free internship anywhere in the country for them to get these laws ruled unconstitutional. They didn’t get back to me. I suspect they too advocate that men obtain PFAs as well and have found themselves in a professional trap of ethics. see [ABA] Model Rules of Prof’l. Conduct R. 1.9 (2019), “a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent…a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client…”. A naive young lawyer exiting law school going wherever the market takes them goes with the flow. If they ever mature to a point where they realize that going with the flow is materially wrong, they are bounded by professional ethics to represent the material interest of their previous clients. Lawyers (officers of the court) have litigators immunity in their pleadings, so professional ethics>18 U.S.C ss 1983; That leaves a huge vacuum in who can defends our rights. Their might be room for a malpractice suit for taking on a client, when the attorney’s hands are literally tied. But odds are, if an attorney hasn’t intellectually matured to the point of realizing that what he is doing violates the constitution then it is unlikely that his client would know as well. If My might correct myself, I suspect all who are affected by these PFAs know they are unconstitutional, but lack the ability to articular specifically how or know that it would be mostly cost prohibitive to be represented how they need to be represented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I more than suspect you are right. Thank you for sharing the scholarly insights.
LikeLike