PLAINTIFF FOUNDATIONAL TESTIMONY SPOCK Affirmative Counsel, call your first witness. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) The Plaintiff. The PLAINTIFF takes the stand. A hush. PROPHECY AS ATTENTION AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Explain how you understand prophecy in the context of this case. PLAINTIFF In the context of this case, prophecy is not understood as prediction or fortune-telling. It is understood as a mode of attention that confronts the present moral moment. Biblically, prophecy functions to awaken awareness, clarify responsibility, and invite response—especially in times of crisis, injustice, or loss. It speaks into the now, not primarily about the future. As it is used here, prophecy is: a lens, not a timetable; a warning, not a forecast; an invitation, not a mandate. Throughout Scripture, prophets spoke before, during, and after catastrophe—not to explain why events occurred, but to call people back to justice, mercy, humility, and love. When future consequences were mentioned, they were conditional, not deterministic, and served to illuminate responsibility rather than remove choice. This case adopts that same understanding. Prophecy, as I am using the term, refers to a way in which attention is arrested—sometimes unexpectedly—in a manner that forces ethical clarity in the present. It does not eliminate human freedom. It returns it. It does not provide answers. It poses a question. SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT PRIOR TO THE NUMBERS AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Before the lottery numbers were chosen, was there anything shaping how you were thinking about prophecy or meaning at that time? PLAINTIFF Yes. Before any lottery numbers were selected, I had been studying the Book of Revelation in depth. Not for prediction or timelines, but to understand how Scripture addresses fear, endurance, witness, and moral choice under pressure. That study influenced how I understood prophecy generally—as something meant to orient attention and conscience in the present, not to forecast events. Around that same period, I also saw the movie Knowing. While it was memorable and entertaining, it did not function as a framework or guide. At most, it introduced the general idea that numbers can capture attention—nothing more. The primary influence on my thinking at that time was Scripture, not cinema. And even then, I did not believe I was interpreting Revelation or applying it to events. I was simply engaged in study, reflection, and ordinary life. That context existed before the numbers were chosen—and before any later tragedy occurred. DISCERNMENT AND DIVINE POSSIBILITY AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Before we move forward, the court needs clarity on one point. What role, if any, did God play in how you understood and responded to these events? PLAINTIFF I want to be precise here. I am not claiming certainty about divine action, nor am I presenting proof of supernatural intervention. What I am describing is discernment—the human process of attending to meaning, conscience, and moral responsibility within a religious framework. As a Christian, I understand prophecy historically as involving God, often mediated through human messengers and, in Scripture, sometimes through angels. That theological background shaped how I interpreted what was happening. It made me open to the possibility that my attention was being prompted—not forced, not overridden, but invited. At no point did I experience compulsion, loss of agency, or instruction that bypassed reason or conscience. Every action I took remained voluntary, reflective, and subject to doubt. If God was involved, it was not in the form of commands or predictions, but in the form Scripture most often describes: a quiet drawing of attention toward love, humility, and responsibility. I did not act because I was certain God had spoken. I acted because I believed—fallibly, cautiously, and with skepticism—that I might be being invited to pay attention and choose love in the midst of uncertainty. That belief itself is what is on trial here—not the existence of God, not the mechanics of angels, and not claims of supernatural proof. ORIGIN OF THE LOTTERY NUMBERS AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Please describe the personal events that led you to play the lottery using your own meaningful numbers rather than random selections. PLAINTIFF In early 2009, several ordinary but converging personal factors shaped the decision to play the lottery with non-random numbers. At that time, I was engaged in an in-depth study of the Book of Revelation. My interest was not in decoding timelines or predicting events, but in understanding how Scripture uses symbolism to confront fear, endurance, witness, and moral choice. That study made me more attentive to how symbols—and particularly numbers—function in biblical texts as devices that draw attention rather than provide instruction. Around the same period, I also saw the film Knowing. It is a fictional apocalyptic thriller in which numbers that initially appear random later align with dates and catastrophic events. I found the film entertaining, not instructional, but it did leave me with a general awareness of how numbers can capture attention without explaining meaning. Separately, I was working in healthcare IT consulting at GE Healthcare. The work was demanding, and humor was a common way my team dealt with stress. During a lighthearted moment, a coworker picked up a novelty “Answer Me Jesus” toy on her desk and jokingly asked whether I would win the lottery so I could quit my job. The answer displayed was: “Love one another.” We laughed, and the moment passed. At the time, it carried no theological or prophetic weight for me. Shortly after that, I realized that lottery drawings occurred on Fridays. That fact intersected with something personal: in 2009, my tenth wedding anniversary fell on Good Friday. About a week before that date, I remember sitting quietly at my desk, reflecting on my marriage. I was not thinking about probability, prediction, or strategy. I was asking a relational question: if I were to choose numbers, what numbers would honor my marriage and the relationships most central to my life? That reflection led me to select numbers rooted entirely in personal and relational meaning, not randomness, calculation, or prediction. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Please explain the specific numbers you chose, how they were derived, and what they meant to you at the time they were selected. PLAINTIFF The numbers were selected years before any later tragedy and were chosen entirely out of love and relationship—not fear, calculation, or prediction. Each number corresponded to a meaningful personal event or relationship: 9/8 — a shared family birthday, belonging to my brother David and my sister-in-law Mary; 12/14 — the date of my first date with my wife; 12/20 — the date of our second date, when we went to see Titanic; and a wedding anniversary that fell on Good Friday in 2009. At the time the numbers were chosen, they held no theological or prophetic framework in my mind. They were simply markers of relationship, memory, and love. I did believe—mistakenly—that despite impossible odds, the numbers might win the lottery. If that had occurred, my intention at the time was to give all the winnings away. That intention is documented in an email I sent to my mother four days before the drawing, on my birthday. When the numbers did not win, the ticket was not discarded. It was preserved as a personal artifact—an expression of love and meaning—rather than as evidence of failure or loss. ADMISSION OF EXHIBIT B — LOTTERY TICKETS AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) At this time, Your Honor, the affirmative counsel seeks to admit Exhibit B. SPOCK On what basis? AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Exhibit B consists of the original lottery tickets purchased by the plaintiff in 2009 and subsequent years, containing the numbers just described. They are offered to establish timing, intent, and preservation—not interpretation or causation. SPOCK Any objection? (Adversarial response as appropriate.) SPOCK Exhibit B is admitted for the limited purpose stated. FOUNDATION QUESTION (IMMEDIATELY AFTER ADMISSION) AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Mr. Brandvik, what are we looking at in Exhibit B? PLAINTIFF These are the original lottery tickets containing the numbers I’ve described. They were purchased on specific dates, including Good Friday in 2009, and later occasions. When they did not win, I kept them and placed them behind my wedding photograph. They were preserved as personal artifacts, not as proof of anything. CONTEMPORANEOUS INTENT (EMAIL TO MOTHER) AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Before the lottery drawing occurred, did you communicate your expectations or intentions to anyone? PLAINTIFF Yes. Four days before the drawing—on my birthday—I sent an email to my mother. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) What did that email express? PLAINTIFF It expressed my belief at the time that I would win the lottery and my intention, if that occurred, to give the money away. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Is that belief documented anywhere other than your memory today? PLAINTIFF Yes. The email itself documents that belief and intention at the time it was written. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Your Honor, we submit Exhibit C. ⚠️ Notice: You do not interpret the email yet. You only establish existence, timing, and content. DISCONFIRMATION & CORRECTION (DISAPPOINTMENT + STOPPING) AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) What happened when the numbers did not win? PLAINTIFF I was disappointed—both emotionally and in myself—for allowing so much hope for an outcome I knew was extremely unlikely. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) How did that disappointment affect your behavior? PLAINTIFF It corrected it. I did not continue playing the lottery. I had no intention of playing again. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) For how long? PLAINTIFF For more than a year. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) During that time, did you interpret the numbers as prophetic or meaningful beyond personal memory? PLAINTIFF No. They remained a private artifact of a past experience, not an ongoing pursuit. INDEPENDENT REACTIVATION (NOV 20, 2010) AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) What caused you to revisit the numbers after that period? PLAINTIFF Events surrounding my sister’s wedding on November 20, 2010. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Was this decision driven by renewed hope of winning the lottery? PLAINTIFF No. I had already experienced disappointment and had set that expectation aside. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) What was different this time? PLAINTIFF The experience was tied to remembrance, meaning, and participation—not outcome. The numbers no longer functioned as a wager, but as a marker of unfolding events I was trying to understand. There were lots of strange coincidences and memorable moments around the wedding. After the wedding, I felt very connected to God and reflected a lot about the importance of faith and family. Then I realized that 12/14 was coming up. It happened to fall on a lottery drawing day. That’s what prompted me to play the numbers again. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) So to be clear: this was not a continuation of the 2009 belief? PLAINTIFF Correct. It was a separate moment, prompted by different circumstances and approached with different expectations. What remained consistent, however, was the theme of marriage. I still embraced the idea of giving the money away, but this time I held no expectation of winning. TRANSITION TO ATTENTION AND PROPHECY AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Did this renewed engagement with the numbers immediately lead you to interpret them as prophetic? PLAINTIFF No. At that time, the numbers carried only personal and symbolic meaning. I did not understand them as prophetic, nor was I seeking for them to function that way. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Then when did your relationship to the numbers change? PLAINTIFF Later—after the Sandy Hook tragedy. That was the moment when numbers that had previously belonged only to private memory intersected with a public event in a way that arrested my attention and raised a moral question I could not ignore. What confronted me was not interpretation or belief, but coincidence of detail: The event occurred in the morning—9:00 a.m. Eastern, 8:00 a.m. Central. The date was December 14. Twenty children were killed. Taken together—9, 8, 12, 14, 20—these details forced my attention, not because they explained anything, but because they disrupted my ordinary way of thinking. I make no claim that these numbers caused, predicted, or explained what happened. I assign no meaning to the tragedy itself. But the convergence of time, date, and loss redirected my attention—from faith, family, and ordinary life toward the reality of unbearable suffering—and confronted me with a deeper question: how a human being responds when attention is forcibly drawn to evil. Scripture teaches that God—understood as love—is sovereign even in the presence of evil. In a broken world, that claim is often the greatest barrier to faith. I could not help but notice that an act of profound evil appeared to overlay numbers I had chosen entirely out of love. That tension raised a question I could not dismiss: whether this collision echoed a core biblical truth rather than explained an event. That moment marked the change. PROCESS OF DISCOVERY AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Describe your process of discovery regarding how these numbers later came to function symbolically—and drew your attention in ways you came to understand as prophetic. PLAINTIFF The process unfolded gradually, not all at once. At first, the numbers remained what they had always been: personal and relational. They marked birthdays, courtship, and marriage. They carried emotional significance, not theological meaning. There was nothing prophetic about them in my mind. Only later did they begin to function as attention markers. In trying to understand why my attention had been so forcefully disrupted, I recalled the film Knowing, in which numbers that appear random later align with dates and loss. That parallel did not provide explanation or meaning—but it helped me recognize the experience for what it was: attention being captured, not answers being given. I make no claim of predictive prophecy. This could have been coincidence. But coincidence alone does not explain why attention shifts—or what one does after it does. I did not interpret the numbers as causing anything or foretelling tragedy. Instead, they redirected my focus toward a deeper and more difficult question: how human beings respond when confronted with profound loss. In that sense, I came to understand them as prophetic—not because they revealed the future, but because they focused attention on the present moral choice between despair and love. The numbers did not provide answers. They demanded attention. And it was that sustained attention—not certainty—that ultimately led me to bring this case. LIMITING INSTRUCTION ON NUMBERS AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) How are these numbers being used in this case, and what limits are you placing on their meaning? PLAINTIFF The numbers are being used in this case solely as attention markers, not as explanations. They are not offered to explain why tragedy occurs, to predict future events, or to prove divine intervention. They do not assign meaning to suffering, justify harm, or suggest that events were intended or orchestrated. Their only function is to help frame a human process of attention and recognition. They mark moments where ordinary human experiences—love, relationship, memory, loss—intersect in ways that prompt reflection. In this case, the numbers serve as a narrative thread that keeps the focus where it belongs: not on causes, mechanisms, or certainty, but on how human beings respond after tragedy or life challenges arrive. They are offered as corroboration of attention, never as causation. They invite reflection, not belief. They point toward moral choice, not metaphysical claims. Any meaning drawn from them belongs to the jury, not to the numbers themselves. FINAL LIMITS / WHAT NOT TO INFER AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) What are you not claiming about these numbers, and what should the jury avoid inferring from them? PLAINTIFF I am not claiming that the numbers predict events, cause tragedies, encode secret messages, or reveal divine intent in a mechanical way. I am not claiming that suffering is planned, deserved, or required for meaning to emerge. And I am not claiming that these numbers explain why tragedies occur. The jury should not infer that numbers replace moral judgment, human responsibility, or rational inquiry. They do not override evidence, history, or common sense. The numbers function only as attention markers. They draw focus—but they do not interpret events for us. Any meaning that arises does not come from the numbers themselves. It comes from how human beings respond once their attention is captured—especially in moments of loss. In this case, the numbers are offered with strict limits: as contextual corroboration, not proof; as invitation, not instruction; and as a framework for reflection, not belief. The jury is free to dismiss them entirely. Their role is not to convince—but to invite attention to the choice that follows tragedy: despair or love. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINATION (SATAN) SPOCK Adversarial Counsel may cross. (SATAN rises. Smooth. Precise.) PATTERN & BIAS ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) You’ve testified the numbers are not predictive and do not cause events. Correct? PLAINTIFF Correct. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) And you agree humans are pattern-seeking by nature? PLAINTIFF Yes. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Including confirmation bias? PLAINTIFF Yes. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) So once the numbers caught your attention, it’s possible you simply noticed them more—without any external significance? PLAINTIFF May I offer an analogy to clarify the limits of that explanation? Imagine a long road trip with children. To keep them engaged, I ask them to count red cars and white cars. They are intentionally looking for both—no preference, no bias. After twelve hours, they report seeing ten red cars and one hundred white cars. No one concludes this happened because they were looking. The explanation is external and structural: manufacturers produce more white cars because consumers demand them. In other words, pattern recognition alone does not explain the pattern. The explanation lies in an underlying system that generates it. In my case, the adversarial counsel points to pattern-seeking. I accept that premise. What is missing is the equivalent of consumer demand or manufacturing bias—any identifiable mechanism that would generate the density, coherence, and constraint of the patterns observed. Absent such a mechanism, the experience does not resolve into explanation. It remains a mystery—not because it proves anything, but because it resists dismissal. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) And you cannot prove these numbers occur more often than chance allows? PLAINTIFF My claim is not causation. It is structured coherence—coherence that resists easy dismissal as coincidence. I am not asserting that these numbers are magical or causative, only that their behavior together is plausibly non-random. Here is how I invite the jury to evaluate that claim. Consider a replication test. First, choose five numbers derived from meaningful dates in your own life—births, relationships, marriages, or losses. Then ask whether those numbers naturally align with an established symbolic framework—religious or philosophical—that already assigns meaning to numbers. Second, attempt the reverse. Begin with symbolic numbers drawn from an existing tradition—biblical numerology, if you choose—and see whether you can assemble them into a set that is both personally meaningful and independently anchored in real historical people and events, forming a coherent narrative rather than an arbitrary collection. Third, test scope. Examine whether your numbers align not only with isolated stories, but with major turning points within a single historical framework. In my case, that framework was American history, and the numbers coherently aligned with its critical events over multiple centuries. You may find meaningful stories—but do they consistently converge at foundational moments, or do they scatter? Fourth, examine convergence. Do those same numbers also align with the central narrative of the religious or philosophical tradition from which they were drawn? In my case, they did—across multiple, independent domains. The focus here is not merely on the numbers themselves. The difficult element to replicate is the process: how the numbers were chosen, why they were chosen, and whether their symbolism allows them to function together—and independently—in a way that produces a consistent, constrained, and compelling narrative. For example, I can demonstrate that before tragedy entered my life, these numbers were not associated with money or gain. I saved losing lottery tickets not as wagers, but as artifacts of affection and symbolism. Any argument that frames this pattern as post-hoc meaning-making ignores that documented prior intent. What I am offering is not proof of destiny or divine causation, but evidence of structured coherence that resists easy explanation by randomness alone. I encourage skepticism. I encourage testing. My claim stands or falls on whether this pattern can reasonably be dismissed as coincidence—or whether it warrants sustained attention. RETROSPECTIVE MEANING ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Isn’t it still true coherence can be constructed after the fact? PLAINTIFF Yes—human beings can construct meaning retrospectively. But I distinguish arbitrary invention from constrained recognition. Early followers of Jesus revisited existing texts after a shocking event and recognized themes (the suffering messiah) that had not been emphasized before. The sheer number of Christ prophecies in the Old Testament led to attention. The texts existed. The events occurred. What changed was attention—and that attention fueled action and consequence. Retrospective recognition does not automatically invalidate meaning. In many historical cases, it is precisely how meaning emerges. PLAINTIFF Statistical proof of causation is not my claim. I am claiming my prophetic experience resists easy explanations. It’s not ordinary. It is, in fact, remarkable. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Isn’t it true coherence can be constructed after the fact? PLAINTIFF Yes. But recognition after an event does not invalidate meaning. History often works that way. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) So again—why should this court treat your view as more than personal narrative? PLAINTIFF Because a private experience intersected with a public tragedy. I offer no explanation—only a framework for human response after such events and possibly a means to prevent future events like it. EFFECTIVENESS & FREE WILL ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Isn’t it possible this merely comforts people without measurable change? PLAINTIFF Yes. People have free will. But if even one act of violence could be interrupted, the effort is justified. Outcomes can be evaluated later. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) So this is not a conclusion—just a proposal? PLAINTIFF Yes. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) And you are not asking the court to declare it true—only reasonable? PLAINTIFF Correct. Attention—not proof—is required. BLAME TRAP ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Then if people reject it, they lose nothing? PLAINTIFF History disagrees. Unchecked fear, grief, and despair—especially in power—often precede harm. ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Are you blaming those who do not choose love for future violence? PLAINTIFF No. I am describing intervention before harm—not guilt after it. Violence emerges from cycles of fear, rumination, isolation, despair. Interrupting those cycles reduces risk. No coercion. No belief. Just interruption. MOCKERY ESCALATION ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) (smiling) Ah. So not belief. Not proof. Just… interruption. A pause you design. A moral lane you define. Who authorized you to install this “constraint”? You deny coercion—yet dictate the acceptable response. Choose love… or despair wins. That’s pressure. And worse—you imply despair is illegitimate. Tell the parents. Tell the survivors. Tell the broken their darkness must pause for your framework. Who gave you the authority to restrain despair? AUTHORITY PLAINTIFF I am a believing Christian. According to the Jesus I follow, authority is exercised through love—not control. The red letters command interruption of hatred, retaliation, despair. That authority is not exclusive. It is offered. The jury need not believe me. Only consider whether despair has ever healed anyone. PANIC ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) Convenient. When evidence thins, Scripture appears. So grief must be managed, despair interrupted, love chosen—on command? Who decides when grief becomes unacceptable? Who polices despair? Isn’t despair simply what remains when illusions fail? THE TRAP PLAINTIFF One question—answered simply. Can you name a single life, family, or community that has been healed by remaining indefinitely in despair—without interruption? Not distracted. Not numbed. Healed. (Silence.) If despair cannot heal, then interrupting it—even briefly—is not coercion. It is care. EXIT ATTEMPT ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN) This has become theatrical. The Adversarial Counsel objects. Belief is masquerading as care. Despair and grief are realities—not failures. To interfere dishonors loss. We move to strike. THE COURT SPOCK Motion denied. Despair has not demonstrated standing as a remedy. CLOSURE (Pause. Adversarial Counsel remains seated.) AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) One final question, Your Honor. SPOCK Proceed. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Plaintiff—what are you asking of the jury? PLAINTIFF Only this: When fear, grief, or despair arrive—pause long enough to notice them, and consider choosing love instead. That is all. (Silence.) SPOCK The record will reflect that the witness asks for attention, not assent. Witness excused. REDIRECT EXAMINATION SPOCK Redirect? The A-TEAM rises—one question only. AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) Just so the record is clear—are you asking anyone to accept your framework, or only to consider whether attention toward love can interrupt despair? PLAINTIFF Only consideration. Attention is the invitation. Choice remains free. END OF CURRENT PROCEEDINGS SPOCK leans forward slightly. SPOCK The Plaintiff’s foundational testimony is admitted in full. Adversarial Counsel cross-examination is complete. Redirect is complete. This court will proceed with corroborating witnesses. The jury is reminded: There will be no verdict, only choice. A soft gavel. FADE OUT.