PLAINTIFF FOUNDATIONAL TESTIMONY

PLAINTIFF FOUNDATIONAL TESTIMONY

SPOCK
Prosecution, call your first witness.

A-TEAM
The Plaintiff.

The PLAINTIFF takes the stand. A hush.

PROPHECY AS ATTENTION

A-TEAM
Explain how you understand prophecy in the context of this case.

PLAINTIFF
Biblical prophecy, as understood in this case, functions primarily to draw human attention—to awaken moral awareness, ethical responsibility, and choice in the present.

Prophecy is presented as:

• a lens, not a timetable;

• a warning, not a forecast;

• an invitation, not a mandate.

Prophets spoke before, during, and after catastrophe, calling people back to justice, mercy, humility, and love. This case adopts that same understanding.

ORIGIN OF THE LOTTERY NUMBERS

A-TEAM
Please tell us about the story behind your prophetic lottery numbers and why they inspired you to bring this case.

PLAINTIFF
The lottery numbers were selected years before any later tragedy, and were chosen entirely out of love and relationship, not fear, calculation, or prediction.

The numbers correspond to:

• a shared family birthday, 9/8—brother David and sister Mary;

• a first date, 12/14;

• a second date, 12/20 (Titanic);

• and a wedding anniversary occurring on Good Friday in 2009.

At the time, I had no theological framework for these numbers beyond their personal significance.

At the time they were chosen, I believed—mistakenly—that despite impossible odds, they would hit the jackpot. If that happened, I intended to give all the winnings away. I can prove this intention at the time with an email I sent my mother four days before the drawing on my birthday.

When the numbers did not win, the ticket was preserved as a personal artifact of love, not discarded.

WHEN THE NUMBERS CAUGHT ATTENTION

A-TEAM
How and when did the numbers catch your attention?

PLAINTIFF
They caught my attention in stages, beginning in 2009, but my understanding of the numbers changed entirely more than two years later, after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

PROCESS OF DISCOVERY

A-TEAM
Describe your process of discovery regarding how these numbers came to function symbolically—and later drew your attention in ways you came to understand as prophetic.

PLAINTIFF
The process unfolded in stages, not all at once.

At first, the numbers were purely symbolic and personal. They marked relationships—birthdays, courtship, marriage. They carried emotional meaning, not theological meaning. At that stage, there was nothing prophetic about them in my mind.

Later, they began to function as attention markers. I thought back to the movie Knowing. In it, seemingly random numbers start aligning with dates of tragic events and the number of deaths. I noticed the same phenomenon with my numbers and the Sandy Hook tragedy. This “accident” forced my understanding of the numbers to shift.

I make no claims about predictive prophecy here. This could be a random accident. But nevertheless, it got my attention.

I did not interpret the numbers as causing anything or foretelling tragedy. Rather, they drew my attention toward a deeper question: how human beings respond when confronted with unbearable loss.

In that sense, I came to understand them as prophetic—not because they predicted the future, but because they focused attention on the present moral choice between despair and love. They did what prophecy has always done: they pointed, they warned, and they invited reflection and responsibility.

The numbers did not give answers. They demanded attention. And that attention is what ultimately led me to bring this case.

LIMITING INSTRUCTION ON NUMBERS

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 arrives.

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

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.

DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION (SATAN)

SPOCK
Defense may cross.

SATAN rises again—smooth, careful, surgical.

DEFENSE
You’ve testified that these numbers are not predictive and do not cause events. Correct?

PLAINTIFF
Correct.

DEFENSE
And you acknowledge that human beings are pattern-seeking by nature?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

DEFENSE
Including confirmation bias—where once someone notices a pattern, they’re more likely to keep noticing it?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

DEFENSE
So it is possible that once these numbers caught your attention, you began to notice them more often—without any external force making them significant?

PLAINTIFF
That is possible.

DEFENSE
You cannot demonstrate that these numbers appear more frequently than chance would allow. True?

PLAINTIFF
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the numbers lack statistical significance. My claim is not that they are magical or causative, but that they are plausibly non-random in how they function together.

Here is how I invite the jury to evaluate that claim.

First, consider a replication test. Choose five numbers derived from meaningful dates in your own life—births, relationships, marriages, losses. Then examine whether those numbers coherently align with a symbolic framework already in existence, such as a religious or philosophical tradition that uses numbers symbolically.

Second, attempt the reverse. Begin with symbolic numbers drawn from a text or tradition—biblical numerology if you choose—and see whether you can arrange them into a set that is both personally meaningful and independently anchored in real historical people and events that together tell a coherent story.

I am not claiming that this process is impossible for others. I am claiming that it is difficult, constrained, and testable—and that most random or constructed sets will fail one or more of those criteria.

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 also encourage testing. My claim stands or falls on whether this pattern can reasonably be dismissed as coincidence—or whether it warrants attention.

DEFENSE
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 that had not been emphasized before. 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.

DEFENSE
Why should this court treat your view as more than personal narrative?

PLAINTIFF
Because what began as a private experience intersected with a public tragedy that belongs to everyone.

I am not offering an explanation of that tragedy—nor claiming authority over it. I’m offering a framework for how individuals respond internally after such events: whether attention can interrupt cycles of despair, hatred, and withdrawal.

DEFENSE
Isn’t it possible this comforts people emotionally without measurable change?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. People have free will.

But if there is even a possibility that another act of violence could be interrupted by this framework, the effort is worth it. There are no guarantees. Effectiveness could be evaluated later by public health statisticians.

DEFENSE
So what you’re offering is not a conclusion, but a proposed framework?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

DEFENSE
You are not asking this court to declare it true or binding—only reasonable and worth considering?

PLAINTIFF
Agreed, with the stipulation that demonstrating non-randomness in my experience guides observers toward choosing love. Proof is not required. Only attention.

DEFENSE
If observers reject it, they lose nothing—and your case depends only on their freedom to choose their response?

PLAINTIFF
Of course. We all have free will.

DEFENSE
So your claim is not that love prevents tragedy, but that choosing love after tragedy resists evil?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

DEFENSE
And this case asks the jury to decide whether choosing love after tragedy is rational and ethical rather than naïve?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

DEFENSE
No further questions.

SATAN sits.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

SPOCK
Redirect?

The A-TEAM rises—one question only.

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.

Defense 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.