Questions for Drug-Sniffing Dogs

10 Dec


MWD (Photo credit: U.S. Embassy Montevideo)

On December 4th, A.D. 2012, Supreme Court of Louisiana issued an opinion in the matter of case number 2012-K-0466, styled:



$144,320.00 TINA BEERS




The case was based on a traffic stop.  A Louisiana traffic cop stopped a woman (“Tina Beers”) driving a van from North Carolina and asked for permission to search her vehicle for drugs.  She consented, and he subsequently found nine bundles of cash hidden in the van that were worth $144,320.  The “State” found no drugs in her van, and never charged the woman with any crime, but did seize the cash.  (Of course.)

The woman and her sister subsequently made a motion to overturn the seizure for lack of probable cause.  The trial court ruled against the sisters’ motion.  The appellate courts ruled for, against and then for the motion.  The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled against the motion.

The Supreme Court’s opinion is about 19 pages and offers a lot to be learned.  But one aspect of the case that intrigues me is the traffic cop’s reliance on a drug-sniffing dog to justify the seizure of the cash.

In general, I think it’s absurd, insulting and degrading to allow the police to rely on the quasi-testimony of a damned dog to find people guilty of anything. How can any defendant cross examine a dog “witness”?

I agree that a dog might be used to raise some suspicion, but a dog’s signals should not, in themselves, constitute evidence.  A dog is like a metal detector at the door of a court house.  If the detector buzzes, it’s not proof that someone is committing a crime by packing a guy or knife.  It’s only evidence that they may be packing some metal. Once the metal detector buzzes, the man going through the detector empties his pockets, takes off his belt buckle, and removes the package of gum with the aluminum wrapper from his coat pocket.

So far, the government doesn’t call in the SWAT team every time the metal detector buzzes.  Instead, the people assigned to the metal detector simply conduct a more thorough search to determine if the visitor is packing a 45 or a wristwatch with a heavy metal bracelet.

Similarly, if a dog “alerts” to a possible evidence of drugs, that alert should mean nothing other than it’s time to conduct a more thorough, scientific analysis of the person, vehicle, property to which the dog “alerted”.  All by itself, the dog can’t “testify” to the presence of drugs.  The dogs are not infallible.  The dog’s “alert” only signals a heightened probability that drugs might be present.

In any case, here are some of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s comments relative to the drug-sniffing dog’s use and reliability:

On page 3 of the Supreme Court’s opinion, we read:


“After discovering the large amount of currency, Trooper Dupuis transported Beers to the State Police regional office in Lafayette, Louisiana. State Trooper Jackson, a regional narcotics agent, took custody of Beers’ vehicle and assisted Trooper Dupuis in removing nine plastic shrink-wrapped bundles of money from the floor compartment. Trooper Jackson placed the bundles in what he called a “neutral room.” He then brought in a trained drug-detecting police dog to sniff the room, and the dog alerted to the bundles of currency, which according to Trooper Mire indicates the presence of “illegal narcotics.”  No further testing was performed on the money. The currency was counted and valued at $144,320, consisting of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100-dollar bills. In subsequent requests for admissions, the State admitted no narcotics were found in Beers’ vehicle and the State did not charge her with a crime related to this incident.”

Page 4:


“The affidavit shows Trooper Mire became a Louisiana State Trooper in 2001 and was assigned to the West District Narcotics Section in January 2005, after receiving instruction on investigating illegal narcotic trafficking. He noted his experience and training taught him drug traffickers frequently carry large amounts of cash and the cash they carry often contains narcotics residue. Trooper Mire testified trained drug-detection dogs like the one used here generally alert to the scent of narcotic residue on currency derived from drug trafficking. He also testified Interstate 10 is a known corridor for drug trafficking.”

Pages 7 & 8:


“The court of appeal found probable cause was not established by the drug dog alerting to the scent of narcotics on the currency because of “the prevalence of currency in circulation [8] which would contain such a strike.”10

. . . .

10  In a footnote, the court of appeal stated, “recent studies have found that a majority of the currency in circulation contains drug residue.” However, no study was cited, nor did the court indicate a police dog would alert to every trace quantity of drug residue.”


Commentary & Questions

The nine bundles of cash were placed in a “neutral room” (note the quote marks in the original text from the Louisiana Supreme Court; these quote marks suggest that the term “neutral room” is a kind of police slang rather than an official name or even objective description for that particular room).  The dog was brought into the “neutral” and subsequently “alerted” on the bundles of cash.

Q:  What, exactly, is the “neutral room”?

Q:  Is the “neutral room” intended to have no conflicting scents that the dog(s) might alert on?

Q:  When was the last time the “neutral room” had drugs in it prior to this particular incident?

Q:  Is the “neutral room” cleaned and deodorized after each use to insure that any scent from a previous collection of property suspected of being contaminated with drug residue had been removed?

Q:  What evidence exists to verify that any lingering scents in “neutral room” had been actually “neutralized” before the nine bundles of cash were placed in the room?

. . . .

Q:  How were the nine bundles of cash placed in the “neutral room”?  Were all nine bundles stacked in a single pile—or were they spread out into nine, distinctly-separate bundles?

Q:  When the dog “alerted” to the bundles, did it “alert” to each individual bundle?  Or did it alert to all nine bundles ts the same time?

Q:  If the dog alerted to all nine bundles at the same time, is it possible that only one bundle carried any drug residue but the other eight did not?

Q:  If only one or some of the nine bundles included any drug residue, did the police have any authority to seize the bundles that did not have traces of drug residue? I.e., if the dog only alerted to one bundle, must the police return the other eight bundles to the suspect?

Q:  When the dog alerted in the “neutral room,” did it alert to a mere drug residue or to the presence of drugs in sufficient quantity to constitute a criminal offense?

Q :  Is the dog trained to distinguish between a drug residue and an quantity of drugs sufficient to trigger criminal prosecution?

Q:  Does the dog think he’s finding a significant quantity of drugs—or does the dog only think he’s finding residue?

Q:  If the dog alerted to finding a significant quantity of drugs but actually only alerted to a small residue of drugs that was imperceptible to people, isn’t the fact that the dog alerted to mere, unseen residue evidence that the dog’s “opinion” is unreliable?  I.e., if the dog “alerted” to five kilos of cocaine but no drugs were actually found, doesn’t that indicate a false positive and an unreliable dog “witness”?

Q:  If the “neutral room” is routinely used for conducting the “sniff test,” and if the dog’s nose is super-sensitive to mere “residue,” could the dog’s alerts to the nine bundles actually have been alerts to a microscopic residue of drugs on the floor of the “neutral room”?

Q: After the dog “alerted” to the presence of drugs in the “neutral room,” was the dog rewarded with a doggy treat or with praise by the dog’s handler?

Q:  Does the dog have a vested interest (receiving treats or praise) in “alerting” to the presence of drugs?

. . . .

Q:  Given that the bundles of cash were wrapped in shrink wrap plastic, is it possible that the drug residue that the dog allegedly sensed was on the exterior shrink-wrap plastic rather than the currency inside each bundle?

Q:  If the drug residue was only on the exterior, shrink-wrapped plastic, would the police have the right to seize the currency inside each bundle—or only the exterior shrink-wrapped plastic?

Q:  Did the police dog “alert” as to whether the drug residue was on the exterior of the bundles or on the interior cash?

Q:  If the dog did not specifically “alert” to the cash inside one or more of the bundles, what probable cause exists to seize the currency inside of the bundles rather than only the plastic wrapper?

. . . .

Given that there are nine bundles of cash that are “valued” at $144,320, it follows that the average sum of cash in each bundle is about $16,000.  Given that the cash consisted of “5, 10, 20, 50, and 100-dollar bills,” the minimum number of “bills” in any bundle would seem to be 160 (160 $100 bills = $16,000).   In fact, when you add in the “5, 10, 20, and 50” dollar bills, there were probably 200 to 500 bills in each bundle. Thus, there may have been anywhere from 1,800 to 4,500 bills in the nine bundles of cash—and there might’ve been a lot more.

Q:  If a dog alerts to a bundle of bills, does the dog alert to each bill that’s contaminated with drug residue or does he alert to the entire bundle?

Q:  How sensitive is the dog’s nose?  I.e., what is the minimum number of bills contaminated with drug residue that the dog will alert to?  One?  Twenty?  One hundred?

Q:  If the dog’s nose will alert to a single dollar bill that’s contaminated with drug residue, and if the police find a bundle of, say, 200 dollar bills and the dog alerts to that bundle, does the dog signal how many of the bills in that bundle are contaminated?  Is any effort made to distinguish between those bills that are contaminated by drug residue and those that are not?

Q:  If a dog alerts to a single dollar bill in a bundle of, say, 200—do the police have the authority to seize all 200 bills—or only the one (or several) bills that can be shown to be contaminated by drug residue?

Q:  If the dog didn’t specifically alert to every dollar bill in each of the bundles, on what basis are the police entitled to seize all of the dollars (not just the ones that are contaminated)?

. . . .

As one appellate court observed, the presence of drug residue on dollar bills is so prevalent, that it really doesn’t mean anything. In other words, it wouldn’t be the least bit surprising if some or all of the bills in anyone’s wallet are carrying some drug residue.

Q:  If we were to sic the dog on the offering plates in most churches, would the dog probably alert to the presence of drug residue on the offering?  Would the police therefore be entitled to seize the offerings?

Q:  Isn’t it true that some banks are known to assist in the laundering of drug money?

Q:  If we were to allow the dog to sniff each bank teller’s cash drawer at the First National Bank, out of ten cash drawers, how many are likely to cause the dog to “alert”?  One? five?  All ten?

Q:  If the dog alerts to just one teller’s cash drawer, are the police entitled to seize all of the cash in that tray as “drug-related”?

Q:  If the dog alerts to just one teller’s cash drawer, are the police entitled to seize all of the cash in the entire bank?

. . . .

The idea that a mere “alert” by a dog should be deemed sufficient evidence to warrant seizing cash is logically untenable.

The cash in our church offering baskets, bank teller’s cash drawers, and even policeman’s wallets will probably all show traces of drug residue.  Should all of that cash be subject to seizure on the say-so of a mere dog?

Drug-sniffing dogs may be useful, but they can’t be regarded as having provided definitive evidence that any cash or object is definitely contaminated with drug residue, nor that an object that is contaminated with drug residue was actually associated with some drug-related offense.

In the particular case cited, I’ll bet that the drug-sniffing dog was just a gimmick used to justify the taking of $144,320 with little or no evidence or cause.

By using some of the previous questions, I think it might be fairly easy to make drug-sniffing dogs and the officers who rely on them look pretty stupid in court.

A complete copy of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in the case can be downloaded at:




Posted by on December 10, 2012 in Forefeiture, Police State


Tags: , , , ,

99 responses to “Questions for Drug-Sniffing Dogs

  1. Joe

    December 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    I find it interesting that the case was styled so as to assert that both the cash and the defendant were part of a United States “Zone Improvement Plan district.” Anything found in the territory of the United States is subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Apparently the defendant did not make a special “in propria persona” appearance solely to object to the jurisdiction of the court. Apparently the cash failed to speak up and object to jurisdiction as well.

  2. cdarkins

    December 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM


    I love your post and find them very informative. State forfeiture laws are sand boxes filled with land minds. They bait you into engaging in a rigged system that is designed to confuse, thwart, and ultimately deprive you of your property for redistribution by the state to the tentacles of the state. In actuality with In Rem forfeitures the states are adjudicating federal claims under general admiralty maritime law propagated through the Commission for Uniform State Laws. Rather than playing in their sand box I believe the best strategy is to transfer the case to federal court at the outset based upon “federal/constitutional question” jurisdiction and then file a motion to quash/dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a substantial connection to admiralty maritime activity which is required to invoke admiralty maritime jurisdiction. I have never tried this strategy but my research leads me to believe it is the best strategy.

    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 6:06 PM

      Re: “federal/constitutional question”
      Where did this BS originate? There really is no such thing as a “federal/constitutional question.” Once again, where did this “federal/constitutional question” BS originate?

  3. Yartap

    December 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM


    Great logical line of questions!

    I hate these damn governments that steal!

    • Richard Robb

      December 13, 2012 at 8:40 PM

      I just got a kick out of reading the entire article, word for word. Only in the USA. God, I love this country!

  4. palani

    December 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

    Just a rumor and not substantiated but I have heard that any Federal Reserve Notes in your possession over and above the amount of $500 is evidence that you have been dealing in drugs. Also quite a coincidence that an application for a conceal carry permit is more likely to succeed if you give a reason such as “I frequently carry sums over $500 on my person”. Extending the logic you can see why the system would want to have only drug dealers issued concealed carry permits.

  5. Jim

    December 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    Hey palani stop the I have heard bs. If you don’t have first hand knowledge then you don’t know and should not pass the rumor on. You know these troopers and lawyers are going to steal the cash but for ~ 150 k I want a better show. An important point is the jurisdiction is restricted at title 1 county / parish and title 28 chapter 5 territorial composition.

    • palani

      December 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM

      “You know these troopers and lawyers are going to steal the cash but for ~ 150 k I want a better show. ”

      Unless you have firsthand knowledge of this then I consider this to be a rumor. At least I give a ‘heads up’ to my rumors while you delude yourself with your own version of reality.

  6. TheSleeperHasAwakened

    December 10, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    Animals (drug sniffing dogs) are used to provide evidence against other “Animals”.

    The government deems the people to be animals. In doing so, government lays the foundation for treating us as slaves.

    These women should have not consented to being “Animals”.

    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 4:06 AM

      @These women should have not consented to being “Animals”.

      Go back to sleep, one that’s deeper than the one you are already in.

  7. PatriotOne

    December 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

    “These women should have not consented to being “Animals”.”

    These women didn’t consent, i mean did they ask to be pulled over and searched?

    And the court ruled that there was “probable cause”? Without corpus delecti?

    The ONLY crime, even if the Women had 1000k pounds of cocain, is the crime of theft by a gang of men and women wearing costumes titled POLICE-DEA-JUDGE-PROSECUTOR-DOG-STATE.

    I fear the People are being forced into violent defense of their livelyhoods.

    Had I lost 140k I’d be nakid in the street.

    I was pulled over in KY a few years ago. I had 0.0005 grams of weed and 20k cash and my gun. I was let go without arrest, without my weed, without my gun, but with my 20k. I just happened to have facts and evidence in my hands that proved the 20k was really my 20k. The ‘CHIEF’ at the scene of his crime was trying hard to claim my “money”. I did tell him “if you take my money you might as well adopt me, take me home and feed me”. I eventually got my gun back.

    Know your Constitution (lesson)->

    • TheSleeperHasAwakened

      December 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      I understand that these women are not “Animals”, but silence IS a form of consent.

      I have to believe that there is some link between this ruling and the federal drug laws that define drugs in terms of “man or other animals” and thereby define man to be an animal.

      Al, what say you?

      • Adask

        December 11, 2012 at 6:13 PM

        So far as I know, any time the government moves in the name of “drugs,” it moves based on the presumption that the people are animals. If the cop stops you while driving and wants to search your car, if that search is even partly for “drugs,” he’s presuming you to be an animal. If they seize your cash based on the presumption that any amount of cash beyond a certain limit is presumed to be the profits from drugs, they’re presuming you to be an animal. Insofar as you bank monitors and reports any of your banking transactions that are greater than $10,000 and that reporting requirement is based on a need to fight the war on drugs, your bank is arguably presuming you to be an “animal”. I believe that each of the examples specified are subject to an “man or other animals”/ freedom of religion defense. If that defense is made properly, I think the various searches, seizures and even bank monitoring might stopped and perhaps even counter-claimed in a way that causes those who presume you to be an animal to pay for their false (and genocidal) presumption.

      • Flatwood

        December 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM

        @ but silence IS a form of consent. (even for a deaf-mute???)

        Sooooo, e.g.,when the court says, you have the right to remain silent AND anything you say CAN & WILL BE used against you, then it’s like damned if we do & damned if we don’t. I know this, IF you refuse to “allow” a search they have ways of making you wish you did allow it AFTER they search anyway. Saying I do not consent means NOTHING.Everyone has to personally experience these “searches before he/she “gets the picture.”

  8. Anon4fun

    December 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM

    Where are all the paytriot legal advisors on this widespread abuse with an actual track record of wins for John Q. Public to be theorized and built upon? Oh, that’s right. They’re too busy getting good men like Kent Hovind thrown in prison with bum steers about the IRS, and otherwise discrediting and misdirecting legitimate research.

    • PatriotOne

      December 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

      There is no track record in the courts but there is a ‘WIN’ posted in this blog
      Alfred had a frivilous case against him and the STATE simply dropped its “claims”. When the STATE drops its claim there is no CASE to point to that evidences victory.

      Carl Miller -> Know your Constitution (lesson)-> talks about claiming damages or injuries for being forced to defend a frivilous claim.

      It seems to me that the STATE is not capable (or permitted) to make a mistake. The GovCo employee cannot say,; ‘oops, I was wrong, sorry I took up 100 days of your life-caused you to loose your home and job and bride, you’re free to go’,; without some kind of repairs rightfully owed to the falsely accused.

      In this (threads) case there was NOT corpus delecti, and is seems that the shyster attorney did not bring up that fact, thereby allowing the women to loose (be robbed of) a lot of money.

      The STATE has set precident that allows “it” (men and women wearing costumes) to lie-cheat-steal, as in this case. But Alfreds win does not exist because there was not a case.

      • manergy10

        December 11, 2012 at 4:12 PM

        PatriotOne, love your comments. You make great points however I believe “corpus delecti” is an element of an offense under common law venue and jurisdiction not admiralty maritime which is where In Rem civil proceedings take place. Rather than a “corpus delecti” there has to be some substantial connection to maritime activity which is what an attorney should contest after the case is transfered to federal court. Just my thoughts. Would love any insights you have on this.

      • PatriotOne

        December 11, 2012 at 6:19 PM

        it has been said by the courts (judge protecting his BAR buddy) that ‘CD’ is for civil not criminal and visa versa. It depends upon the corruption of the judge.

        However, from Tennessee:

        “To establish one’s standing to bring an action, “a party must demonstrate (1) that it has sustained a distinct and palpable injury, (2) that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that the injury is apt to be redressed by a remedy the court is prepared to give.” City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248, 280 (Tenn. 2001).

        “First we must address the issue of standing, a judge-made doctrine based on the idea that ‘[a] court may and properly should refuse to entertain an action at the instance of one who rights have not been involved or infringed.’ 59 AmJur.2d Parties § 30 (1987). In state law it parallels the constitutional restriction on federal court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 2. It has been said that no case or controversy is presented where the plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1…“In determining whether the plaintiff has a personal stake sufficient to confer standing, the focus should be on whether the complaining party has alleged an injury in fact, economic or otherwise…” Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3rd 760, 767.

        Admirl or Maritime or Civil or Common is not the issue, injury or damage AND deprivation of a right (llawful or contractual) are all necessary to bona fi a valid cause of action. (if the “court” is truthful)

      • PatriotOne

        December 11, 2012 at 6:35 PM

        “It is a well-settled principal of law that a crime is an offense against the sovereignty, a wrong which the government deems injurious not only to the victim but to the public at large, and which it punishes through a judicial proceeding in the Commonwealth’s name. 21 Am.Jur.2d 61, pp. 115-116. Though the same wrongful act may constitute both a crime and a tort, the tort is a private injury which is to be pursued by the injured party. Id., at [section] 2, p. 116. Criminal prosecutions are not to settle private grievances but are to rectify the injury done to the Commonwealth.” Com. v. Malloy, 450 A.2d 689, 691.

      • cdarkins

        December 11, 2012 at 7:49 PM

        Blackstone Commentaries p. 431: Distinction Between Public and Private Wrongs. private wrongs, or civil injuries, are an infringement or privation of the civil rights which belong to individuals, considered merely as individuals; public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors, are a breach and violation of the public rights and duties due the whole community, considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity… In all cases the crime injury: every public offence is also a private wrong, and somewhat more; it affects the individual and it likewise affects the community. In gross and atrocious injuries the private wrong is swallowed up in the public.

      • Flatwood

        December 19, 2012 at 4:13 AM

        @ However, from Tennessee:

        I guarantee you,PatriotOne,, the answer in most courts will be: “That case is not a holding case in this state.”

      • PatriotOne

        December 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM


        Corpus delecti has the same meaning in each of the fifty united States and the United States and the United States of America and all other earthly States. Whether any State honors the truth depends upon the actors playing the role of the State.

      • Flatwood

        December 22, 2012 at 8:23 PM

        Hello PatriotOne,

        Re:Whether any State honors the truth depends upon the actors playing the role of the State.

        ok, same difference. I guess that’s why the lawyers say,good luck. I read part of the Tenn. case & stopped when I saw the/a 14th amendment “privilege” was alleged to have been violated. I did not need to read any further after I saw that.

  9. Buck

    December 10, 2012 at 9:21 PM

    The ruling is outrageous. Still i wouldn’t put it past the cops to allow the bundles to come in contact with narcotics before the sniff test. Cops lie cheat and steal to get the job done. I wonder how many bundles were really recovered- and didn’t make it to the evidence locker.

    I understand federal seizure laws deem suspicion as adequate for law enforcement to steal property. I think vehicles and boats are commonly auctioned before a conviction, and certainly before appeals are exhausted.

    The ruling is really no surprise, the systems is rigged and they are all in on it. It may have been a different ruling if the questions Adask suggested were posed. Of course the attorney for plaintiff was likely already payed and doing a good job was not necessary. If he were working on commission of monies recovered, its likely better argument would have been presented.

    • PatriotOne

      December 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM

      It is my comprehending that attorneys, being members of the bar/court/STATE, are forbidden from challenging jurisdiction. They cannot argue corpus delecti without risking their BAR CARD.

      • James Michael

        December 13, 2012 at 12:49 AM

        Woulda filed a counter complaint for Armed robbery, treason, breach if trust, oath, duty and contract. Of course, I would never consent to a search, period these days, no matter what they think they have. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them California Government Code. In America we are the sovereigns. Carl millers 3 two hour videos are very informative.

    • pop de adam

      December 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM


      Is is so far-fetched that these chemical substances might be purposefully included in the manufacture of the notes themselves to facilitate the recapture of them by the regime. Ever heard of hemp paper? I wonder if hemp paper triggers a positive. The people who are initially denied their property are not the only party stolen from, the money itself represents goods in the economy at large that are now repurposed to the ends of the afore mentioned regime. If any of those goods are the same as you or I use, our price will unnecessarily increase, this is not unlike the simililar increase in expense a shoplifter causes all other shoppers.


      • Flatwood

        December 22, 2012 at 8:35 PM

        The F.R. giveth (after you worketh for it-tith) & the F.R. taketh away, at it’s pleasure,but what does this have to do with Adam & Eve, our way way back grandparents?

  10. H1

    December 10, 2012 at 9:59 PM

    relying on a dog to tell you if there are drugs in the car is hearsay. If you allow it then you consented to it. And why is it that if someone hits a dog it’s “Assaulting a police officer”, but if the police dog bites you it’s just a dog bite?

  11. c

    December 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM

    How do you know the dog wasn’t responding to a movement of the officer to ‘false point’ for drugs?

    • Adask

      December 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM

      I don’t. That opens another line of questions.

      • PatriotOne

        December 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

        Or by licking his own balls… thereby eliminating the answer “because he can” to the question ‘Why does a bog lick his balls’…

      • Flatwood

        December 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

        Re:Technically, “officer Dog” has been subjected to involuntary servitude.

        This is true for the following reasons. Animals do have,”Rights.” They have feelings,emotions, they know what pain,& pleasure is. They do have to some degree, intellect. Therefore I believe the following CAN be applied in their behalf too !!

        I think it was Justice Brandeis in,Olmstead who said:

        “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.

      • PatriotOne

        December 27, 2012 at 11:22 PM

        is there a case cite? ^^^

    • PatriotOne

      December 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

      “”How do you know the dog…”” agreed to be EMPLOYEED as an OFFICER and perform its duties according to the Constitution and laws of the State?

      • Anon4fun

        December 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

        The dog did not agree to be employed as an officer. The evil-doers in government have obviously redefined “officer” such that “other animals” are included. Perhaps even inanimate objects and fictitious entities.

      • Adask

        December 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM

        Technically, “officer Dog” has been subjected to involuntary servitude.

      • Adask

        December 11, 2012 at 3:23 PM

        May the dog is presumed to have signaled its willingness to be employed as an officer by wagging its tail.

  12. indio007

    December 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

    Dogs are trained to react on the basis of a queue from the handler.

    “RENO, Nev. (KRNV & – Attorney Kenneth McKenna has filed a Federal Lawsuit on behalf of Nevada Highway Patrol Troopers and a retired Sergeant of Police who in part created and established the K-9 Drug Interdiction Unit for the Nevada Highway Patrol.

    They are suing the Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol, the City of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and individual members of the Highway Patrol Command Staff and Officers of the Las Vegas Police Department in a 103-page complaint filed in the United States District Court of Nevada.

    The Plaintiffs are alleging that the Command Staff of the Nevada Highway Patrol intentionally destroyed the K-9 program. They claim the program had been instrumental in “getting drugs off Nevada Highways and achieving seizures in the multi-millions of dollars to the benefit of the State of Nevada’s revenues”.”

    Supreme Court is asked to be skeptical of drug-sniffing dogs

    Hmmmm… lets see how many pseudo sceintific “proofs” have been used in court to convict and have now been thoroughly debunked when tested empirically?

    Bullet metallurgy
    Lie detectors
    Hair samples
    Bite Marks
    Arson “science”
    Drug Dogs

    need I go on?

    • PatriotOne

      December 11, 2012 at 7:49 PM

      Concerning the Washington Post article,

      “Together, the teams racked up 225 false alerts. Only one team was perfect. It was the one that did not alert at all, because there were no drugs in the facility.”

      Combine that with the ‘real-csi’? WOW

      If the People have the right to question their accuser or witnesses against them, and the accuser or witnesses cannot be questioned, should the acts of the un-questionable be barred?

  13. cdarkins

    December 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

    Federal Drug laws are Strict Liability laws which don’t necessitate a specific injury. The acts is deemed bad because it is prohibited (because congress says its bad). Areas outside of the several states and within the exclusive legislative purview of Congress are not bound to the same Common Law principles as the several states. In fact there is no federal common law. Thus corpus Delicti is not an essential component of a civil or criminal charge. Per the constitution this legislative authority is in full effect in navigable waters, property owned by the United States government and Washington D.C.. The strict liability laws adopted by the state are in accordance with General maritime law and its extension into the state is only jurisdictional if it has a substantial connection to maritime activity. Thus “In Rem” forfeitures are federal claims being adjudicated by state courts. The Reverse Erie Doctrine is in full effect.

    The reality is that most cases adjudicated after the passage of the 14th amendment make the legal presumption that you are a citizen of the union and a resident based citizen of the state rather than an Citizen in the Several states based upon birth in a state of the union. Allowing this presumption to stand strips you of your inalienable rights, protection of the first 10 Amendments, and Article 4 Section 2 privileges and immunities.

    Again I believe the answer in these situations is to transfer the case to federal court based upon federal question jurisdiction and then file a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because there is not substantial connection to maritime activity. Just my thoughts.

    • Cody

      December 12, 2012 at 12:25 AM

      I’d say you are correct based upon my cursory re-readings of Twining v. New Jersey.

      “..there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.’ The description of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, given by Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, is then quoted, approved, and said to include ‘those rights which are fundamental,’ to embrace ‘nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,’ and ‘to be the class of rights which the state governments were created to establish and secure.’ This part of the opinion then concludes with the holding that the rights relied upon in the case are those which belong to the citizens of states, as such, and are under the sole care and protection of the state governments. The conclusion is preceded by the important declaration that the civil rights theretofore appertaining to citizenship of the states [211 U.S. 78, 95] and under the protection of the states were not given the security of national protection by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”


      “for the whole court, said, in effect, that the 14th Amendment would not prevent a state from adopting or continuing the Civil Law instead of the common law.”


      • PatriotOne

        December 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

        It seems, from the above, that GovCo is permitted to travel without the Constitution?

        Accepting the premis that the ‘attorneys’ arguing the case were not competent, or they intended to loose, I would disagree.

        I claim that the President of the United States cannot travel anywhere on earth without the Constitutiion.
        That every GovCo employee is always (when on the clock) with and bound to the Constitution.

        The POTUS cannot depend upon the Constitution to get elected and then go to Russia and disregard the rights of People in Russia. The Declaration of Independence claims that “all Men are endowed by Their Creator”, it does not limit Men to be ‘American’ or Egyption or French or … , it states ‘ALL MEN’.

        The Constitution, being dependent upon the Declaration, cannot discriminate one Man from another Man without enslaving both Men. In truth the MASTER is bound to his slave, thereby enslaving himself.
        (If I have a slave I must contain my slave in order to have a slave. This makes it impossible for me to do anything without also keeping an eye on my slave. I am no longer free.)

        GovCo is a different kind of MASTER, wherein the masters do not realize the role they play, and there are 1000k of them.

        Remembering that SCOTUS renders Opinion from which no Man should be bound. A jury must be unanimous, yet suffering Men to their ignorance and prejudice.

        How can a gang of men and women (GovCo) get together and determine that marijuana is so dangerous to Man that GovCo must point a gun at Man to save the Man from marijuana?

        Is GovCo saying the Constitution grants it power to determine how Men shall exercize freedom?

        Factually, what is GovCo? Is it a gang of Catholics or Baptist or Muslims or Communists or Marzist or NAZI or Republicans or Democrats?

        Corpus delecti, injury or damage AND deprivation of a right, is required to institute a valid (bona fide) cause of action. Without corpus delecti any Man can be caged by any other Man for any reason or no reason at all.

        Ps the 14th Amendment applies ONLY to GovCo employees. Congressmen/persons are BORN/elected/created in the United States. Men are born, by their Mothers, on earth.

      • manergy10

        December 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM


        I think a critical question is how are those “Privileges and Immunities” articulated by Justice Washington activated. Article 4 Section 2 Privileges and Immunities have been effectively labelled as the Comity clause suggesting that they only protects those fundamental rights when a citizen is in a state other than is birth state. I believe that Justice Washington and the Supreme Court through subsequent affirmation indicates that these Privileges and Immunities define and protect our fundamental rights from trespass by any state legislature home or foreign. The key question is how are these protections asserted? When charged with a Strict LiabiIity offense such as marijuan possession I believe you should first demand the “nature and cause” of the charges and after receipt of said “nature and cause” transfer the case to federal court and then submit a Plea in Abatement stating that you are a legally competent man born in a state of the union entitled to Article 4 Section 2 Privileges and Immunities and thus not a person as defined in the charging statue. The last document should be a motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction. Any thoughts?

      • Adask

        December 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM

        I started to respond to your comment. My response grew into a half-baked article which I will try to complete and publish on the blog at some later date. The “Privileges and Immunities” clause is relatively short: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” But, on reflection, those 19 words are surprisingly confusing. Clearly, they are talking about the “Citizens” of the States of the Union (there were no other kinds of “states” at the time when the Constitution was ratified). Clearly, that clause does not extend to “citizens” of the territories or Washington DC.

        Therefore, if it’s true that TX, OK and NY signify territories rather than States of the Union, then the “citizens” of TX, OK and NY are not “Citizens” of the States of the Union and have no standing to make claims under the Privileges and Immunities clause. If so, citizenship (perhaps as evidenced by residency) in any of the administrative divisions of “this state” may be hazardous to your political health.

        More, note that the Privilege and Immunities clause refers to both “Citizens of each State” and “Citizens in the several States”. The distinction between the two classes needs to be discerned.

        And, what exactly, are the “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”? Do those “Privileges and Immunities” include our God-given, unalienable Rights? Or are they merely a shorthand for minimum set of rights common to every State of the Union?

        I don’t have answers to these questions. However, I think they may be very important questions and so I will try to suggest answers in the near future in the form of an article.

      • cdarkins

        December 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM


        I look forward to seeing the article and reading your insights. To give you a head start on researching the issues I suggest reading Corfield v. Coryell 6 F. Cas. 546; 1823 where Justice Washington defines the Privileges and Immunities in Article 4 Section 2 as the following:

        “The privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states guaranteed by the Constitution are those privi- leges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free gov- ernments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose the Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. They may be all comprehended under the follow- ing general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and pos- sess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state. To which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised.”

        The definition of this clause was further expanded in the case of Maryland v. Ward 79 U.S. 418 in which the following was stated:

        “Attempt will not be made to define the words ‘privileges and immunities,’ or to specify the rights which they are intended to secure and protect, beyond what may be necessary to the decision of the case before the court. Beyond doubt those words are words of very comprehensive meaning, but it will be sufficient to say that the clause plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the right of a citizen of one State to pass into any other State of the Union for the purpose of engaging in lawful commerce, trade, or business without molestation; to acquire personal property; to take and hold real estate; to maintain actions in the courts of the State; and to be exempt from any higher taxes or excises than are imposed by the State upon its own citizens”

        Paul v. Virginia 75 U.S. 168 makes the following assertion regarding the “Privileges and Immunities” Clause:

        “Corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The term “citizens” as there used applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed… The privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each state in the several states, by U.S. Const. amend. IV, are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter states under their constitution and laws by virtue of their being citizens. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own states are not secured in other states by this provision. It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one state any operation in other states. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those states. The special privileges which they confer must, therefore, be enjoyed at home, unless the assent of other states to their enjoyment therein be given.”

        Just a bit of food for thought. I look forward to reading your article once posted. Regards,

      • PatriotOne

        December 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

        ^^^ but Alfred,
        Factually, what is the state or State or STATE?

        Factually, what is the united States of America?

        Factually, what is the United States?

        Answer: they are nothing more than words on paper. those words are then taken by a gang of men and women (wearing their specific state costume) who attach a gun to those words and point the words and guns at people.


        What facts does the ‘prosecutor’ rely upon that prove he can apply his belief in the
        ?state? upon Me? Can the prosecutor apply his belief of God upon me? Can the prosecutor apply his non-belief in God upon me?


        God is not revelant to anyone other than the Man that believes. God might have given Man dominion over the animals, and I’m sure you can tell that to the shark as he pulls you under.

        But man did not create the earth, therefore man has truthful control only over his own body.

        The STATE cannot act without the body of a man doing the actions. And since the State cannot speak or taste or think or poop, how can the state direct any man to do any thing?

        Are Men slaves to God? Can GovCo say “those of you that believe in God can go those of you that do not believe in God shall be slaves”?

        The whole concept of GovCo is a lie. And being forced to have a God other than GOD GOVCO is a lie.

        I do not want to turn this into God v ____ .

        On what conditions can one man throw another man into a cage without trespassing upon the caged man?

      • Adask

        December 12, 2012 at 8:27 PM

        What is the “state, State or STATE”? They are not just words on paper. They are agreements, probably evidence of pledges, that have been made by people party the underlying documents. These agreements are enforceable in the same sense that any contract or trust is enforceable. These agreements are conceded and broadly described in the third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” which declares, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration declares or implies that:

        1) The Founders viewed the primary purpose of government as to “secure” each man and woman’s God-given, unalienable Rights.
        2) That such governments would be “instituted” among men–presumably by written or oral agreements; and,
        3) These governments would derive their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.

        This implies that some people enjoy positions of power within the government based on their willingness to obey the terms of the original written or oral agreement (Constitution). However, if people in positions of power renege on their agreement to abide by the terms of the Constitution and begin exploit the others party to the agreement and thereby subject the majority to INJUSTICE, then the victims withdraw their consent and the original agreement (based on mutual CONSENT) seems to become worthless and void.

        This may be the circumstance described in PatriotOne’s previous comment. PatriotOne appears to see the Constitution and similar agreements (and/or the “United States” et al) as, now, nothing more than “words”. He’s right. Without public consent, the Constitution and the “United States” it created degenerate into words without meaning.

        Conversely, as we tend to see the Constitution/agreement no longer in force due to the government’s breach of fiduciary obligations, the government (wanting to maintain its power to exploit us) degrades into a mass of thugs (police state) bent on enforcing their authority over us by means of force. Insofar as we no longer consent to their authority, they attempt to impose their authority by force. The government takes for granted that it’s irrelevant whether they obey the original Constitution/agreement or not. They presume that we must obey them, even when they violate the original agreement.

        If the govco carries that presumption far enough, we will see 1) an overt police state; 2) civil war; or 3) political and social chaos.

        The govco wants to blame the people for refusing to obey govco’s laws, but the real cause of our problem is govco’s refusal to abide by the original Constitution/agreement. By refusing to obey the Constitution, the govco lost our consent. Without our consent, govco either admits its breach or resorts to force.

    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 9:57 PM


      @ (because congress says its bad).

      That’s it in a nutshell.

      @ transfer the case to federal court based upon federal question jurisdiction.

      Won’t help. Also, there is no such thing as federal question jurisdiction. I, unknowingly,befriended a Federal Judge & this is one thing he told me. However, the “law” is whatever the courts say it is.

      • cdarkins

        December 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

        Hi Flatwood,

        The authority for federal courts to obtain federal question jurisdiction is found in Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America. It is further authorized for the federal district courts in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Absent an express grant from congress for the lower courts to obtain jurisdiction over these cases the requisite burden to hear these cases would fall solely on the Supreme Court of the United States. Their is no discretion for the Supreme Court or Congressionally authorized lower courts in accepting these cases if it is based on a issue arising under the laws of the United States, a treaty, or the Constitution for the United States of America. Not sure what you are suggesting does not exist.

  14. pop de adam

    December 12, 2012 at 5:25 PM

    cdarkins, adask, cody-

    A portion of cdarkins last quote:

    “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own states are not secured in other states by this provision. It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one state any operation in other states.”

    This portion seems correct in a logical manner. The “drivers” license from Maine is valid in California, as a privilege. By getting a license an operator is trafficing in commerce, and that is often asserted as a reason for jurisdiction over a driver. How can a state then devise different classifications for a holder of said license? In a purely logical sense this puts anyone engaging in such behaviors in a confusing position. The person has complied with the “necessary” commercial licensing with even the most basic(automobile/motorcycle) license. If this someone were to then proceed to “use” a dump truck or tractor trailer they are discriminated for then not having the proper class of license. The rebuttal to authorities asserting this improper licensing might be to challenge the jurisdiction again, where they again will rely on the license again, but here the person already holds one. This seems like a catch twenty-two scenario with no remedy. Perhaps rivisiting the concept that no entity shall distribute/issue licenses for activities without which would be unlawful, If it is unlawful to operate, drive or travel without a license, possesion of a license is much like the indulgences the catholic church would bestow upon its favored constituants, the indulgence doesn’t actually mitigate the underlying immorality or unlawfulness of the act itself. Even more simplified: Murder is unlawful, can licenses to murder be issued?

    I also think it questionable that any commerce should be presumed to be “privileged”, who came up with this concept anyway. If someone uses a public resource excessively they should bear it, an exteme case might be traveling on an interstate in a bulldozer, it’s slow and holds up other travellers and also tears up the pavement. If I toss a case of cornflakes in the bed of my pick-up and take it across town or across the nation, while it most likely fits the legal definition of traffic I really doubt it meets anyone’s conventional concept of traffic which a likely example might be a Walmart tractor trailer.

    I am really beginning to believe that the entire legal profession was created to redefine and obfuscate many of our common activities into cornundrums for profit for those who purvey/solicit the idea of legal over lawful, a sort of soft tyranny.


    • cdarkins

      December 12, 2012 at 5:57 PM

      Pop, In reading Justice Story’s commentaries and numerous treatise on Interstate Commerce published prior to the 1870’s I have come to the understanding that Congress’s authority over commerce starts at a port of entry or navigable waterway and continue up until the delivery of the item of commerce which then becomes property (some will say after removed from its original packaging used for import and payment of duties). The federal transportation code regulates the activity of persons that are engaged in that class of activity above described. Each state has adopted a version of the uniform transportation code in accordance with the general maritime law which means that they have to adopt the Federal Transportation code as a minimum standard but may apply stricter standards throughout their states. The legal presumption in a court of law is that you are engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce in which authority to legislate is vested by the nature of the subject (i.e. legal person, corporation, association, etc.). This presumption must be rebutted and competency must be demonstrated. From my understanding there are two ways to demonstrate legal competence: 1. by having overwhelming knowledge; 2. by burden shifting. Burdern shifting is essentially requiring them abide by the Constitution of the state or the United States and demanding the “nature and cause” of the charge in writing. This formality shifts the burden by requiring them to explain in writing where there authority comes from and what action by you has vested them with jurisdiction. I used this once in a traffic case in Texas in a Constitutional County Court and the case was dismissed after the District Attorney could not produce the “nature and cause”. The case couldn’t proceed without it and she couldn’t produce it because she could not articulate what legal personal obligated me to abide by the transportation code. Just my experience. I would be interested to know if anyone else tried this with any success.

      • Flatwood

        December 20, 2012 at 7:11 PM

        December 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

        Re:The authority for federal courts to obtain federal question jurisdiction is found in Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America. It is further authorized for the federal district courts in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

        Where is the word “question” in either Article III OR 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ???

        I think the Federal Judge who told me there “is really no such thing as a federal constitutional question” told the truth. HOWEVER, just because any or ALL judges will ask, in court, what is the “federal question” in this case, does not mean, there is such a thing. I sort of believe if I was up in front of the Judge who told me “there is no such thing,” he very well might ask me the same thing,i.e. what is the federal question? See what I’m trying to say?

    • PatriotOne

      December 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

      “I also think it questionable that any commerce should be presumed to be “privileged”, who came up with this concept anyway.” -> “I am really beginning to believe that the entire legal profession was created to redefine and obfuscate many of our common activities into cornundrums for profit for those who purvey/solicit the idea of legal over lawful, a sort of soft tyranny.”


    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 4:21 AM

      Pop, in your opinion, WHO is the “Superior Authority” these licenses come from since the president, Congressmen, Senators, Governors,etc., have a driver license. If you,Pop, say the state/State/STATE is the “Superior Authority” be specific & say who/what the state/State/STATE is, consists of.

  15. Anon4fun

    December 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM


    A state is “nothing more than words on paper” in anarchist rhetoric only.

    As defined by de Vattel – who, unlike political agitation hacks like Hayek, Rothbard, et al., is taken seriously by those responsible for building and maintaining states (including the founders of the United States) – in his The Law of Nations:

    “Nations or States are political bodies, societies of men who have united together and combined their forces, in order to procure their mutual welfare and security.”

    Words on paper don’t even rate a mention here.

    pop de adam:

    “By getting a license an operator is trafficing in commerce, and that is often asserted as a reason for jurisdiction over a driver.”

    This is often repeated, but it seems doubtful. If a driver’s license was a precondition of driving in commerce, getting one would be a lot more voluntary than it is. You could simply show the cop who pulls you over that you are not operating commercially, and be on your way without a license. But this is not what happens. I suspect most people need a driver’s license because any and all driving they do is necessarily commercial. The reason being that the (all-caps designated) fiduciary relationship they voluntarily assumed with the private (i.e. commercial) company posing as the people’s government in DC makes it so.

    • PatriotOne

      December 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

      Thank you A4f for repeating de Vattel’s opinion.

      Can you answer; Factually, what is the state?

      If you were a prosecutor:

      Defendant: was I in the state when the officer issued me the citation?

      Prosecutor: yes

      Defendant: can the officer issue a citation in anither state?

      Prosecutor: no

      Defendant: do you have first hand knowledge that I was in the state when the officer gave me the citation?

      Prosecutor: yes

      Defendant: factually, what is the state?

      Prosecutor: ______________________

      (asking for a responsive answer, NOT someones opinion)

      • Anon4fun

        December 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

        In the context of establishing the location where the officer issued the citation, a relevant reply as to “factually, what is the state” need only address the geographic facts of the State’s jurisdiction. These can usually be found in the State’s constitution.

      • PatriotOne

        December 12, 2012 at 8:33 PM

        YOU CANNOT DO IT A4f. Although it is fun (I must laugh just to keep from screaming) to read your circular BS.

        Factually, what is the ‘States Constitution’?

        “factually, what is the state” need only address…………. THE FACTS

      • PatriotOne

        December 20, 2012 at 5:24 PM


        If Anon4fun walked up to me and said:
        “I am the State of (pick one. Kentucky?) Because I am the State of _______ I have jurisdiction over you because it is written somewhere in “our” Constitution. This jurisdiction includes the ability to force you to give money to me, I mean the State, for any reason the State says so.

        PatriotOne replies:
        Factually, what is the State?

        Anon4fun/State replies:
        _______________________ ?
        (if A4f cannot reply responsively no body can reply responsively, I challenge all Men)

        PatriotOne offered facts:
        The ‘State’ is nothing more than a gang of men and women actors wearing costumes including guns demanding that people purchase permission to sustain their lives or suffer the rath of the State.
        This ‘State’ of actors appears and disappears randomly. Or the people are traind to go see a man (State actor) in a booth and give him money he then will return a license.
        The people are told by the ‘State’ that if they do not have the license that the ‘State’ can or will throw the people into cages and demand MORE money.
        The ‘State’ has several licenses that restrict all men’s ability to sustain their lives individually and severaly.
        The ‘State’ acts like a crininal enterprise.
        If a man did the things that a ‘State’ does the man would be arrested as a criminal.

    • pop de adam

      December 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM


      “You could simply show the cop who pulls you over that you are not operating commercially, and be on your way without a license.”

      I agree it would be interesting to have an officer either point out where in my conveyance he sees a paying passenger(driver for hire situation) or invoiced commodities that are destined to be sold(delivery driver).

      Another issue is most people require three things to avoid the officers’ sceptical eye, insurance, registration and licensing, each of these is often circularly dependant on each of the others, the cure is sometimes thought to be to have none of them. To cover the insurance end, maybe get a policy of a general nature that covers any and all potential liabilities in context of the public or any other individuals, whether the activity is traveling, snowshoveling, roofing, knitting, etc.


      • Anon4fun

        December 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

        “I agree it would be interesting to have an officer either point out where in my conveyance he sees a paying passenger (driver for hire situation) or invoiced commodities that are destined to be sold (delivery driver).”

        According to my theory at least, what makes driving commercial is the status of the driver as an all-caps designated (e.g. JOHN SMITH) employee of the private company in DC. No cargo or passengers needed.

      • manergy10

        December 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

        Some would argue that transportation code enforcement is the enforcement of a federal claim by the state within the state then it is governed by the Congressional rules of statutory construction which define a “person” as the following (USC Title 1 Section 8):

        “a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. ”

        If you run the word “infant” through a cipher called a legal dictionary it is defind as somone who is legally incompetent. Thus the law makes a presumption that you are legally incompetent unless you are competent enough to rebut that presumption. The phrase “at any stage of development” I believe simple means that you can be legally incompetent regardless of age. You could be a 40 year adult that is legally incompetent. This analysis again refers to the need to assert that you are not a “person” as defined in the statue because you are of age and legally competent.

      • Adask

        December 12, 2012 at 8:32 PM

        For me, the key term is “homo sapiens”. Homo sapiens are members of the animal kingdom. They differ from apes, monkey and rodents only by degree. The homo sapiens are not men made in God’s image nor can they be “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.

      • PatriotOne

        December 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM

        “The homo sapiens are not men made in God’s image nor can they be “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.

        Are you sure Alfred?

        Could a science class show a picture of a Man and say ‘here is a picture of a homo sapien’? An up-right walking mammal? Because a Man is a kind of mammal? (although the Woman produces the milk)


        Can you prove that they are not endowed by their creator? Adam and Eve had every fruit to eat, they did not eat meat (I suppose), so it would seem to me that before the ‘apple’ animals to had a right to life, subject to an earthquake or other catastrophy, that is if catastrophies also happened before the ‘apple’?

        My point being that God is an opinion not unlike evolution. I believe in a God, but I cannot prove my belief actually exist.

        Now, should Men allow GovCo employees to determine what is and what isn’t God or Man or animal? I say NO. I thought USA GovCo existed ONLY to defend (not protect) Life or Liberty or Property? I never thought GovCo existed to define nature.

        Can Man really say to GovCo “I have God given Rights” without requesting GovCo At Law to respect or prohibit religion? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”.

        corpus delecti, without it there is no valid cause of action

      • Adask

        December 12, 2012 at 11:17 PM

        I am sure that the “Declaration of Independence” is part of The Organic Law of The United States of America. It has every bit as much legal authority as the Constitution of the United States.

        Thus, I am sure that I can rely on the Declaration as a legitimate authority in court.

        I am sure that Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence (and the principles it declares) every 4th of July in our biggest, purely-American holiday.

        Thus, I am fairly sure that I can rely on most juries–if the Declaration is properly explained to them–to be sympathetic to claims made based on the authority of the Declaration.

        I am sure that said “Declaration” Declares that all men are created equal, that they are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

        I am sure that no such unalienable Rights were declared as given to animals.

        I am sure that if you’re willing to appear in court as an animal, you’ll have no standing or authority on which to rely–to claim to be endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

        I am sure that if you expressly appear in court as a man made in God’s image, your claim to God-given, unalienable Rights will be extremely difficult to deny.

        I am confident that if there are any Christians on a jury, that I can make a presentation concerning my standing as a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights which will have a high probability of eliciting their understanding and sympathy.

        I am confident that, if called to defend myself in a court, I can base a strong argument on the Bible, my freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, on the principles and rights found in the Declaration of Independence, and on the 9th Amendment’s guarantee of rights (including my God-given, unalienable Rights) not enumerated in the Constitution. There’s no guarantee, but I am confident that if I’m called on to raise this defense in a court, there is a high probability that only an extremely competent plaintiff or prosecutor–or a corrupt judge–will be able to defeat it.

        What I’m not sure about is whether you visit this website to make a positive contribution to everyone’s understanding or if your primary motive is to show us of how stupid we all are and how brilliant you are. You pose lots of questions without providing too many answers. You sometimes write to us as if we are children. Most of us are pretty close to being fully grown.

        So I have a couple of questions for you: 1) how many cases have you won in court? 2) what was the nature of the cases? 3) what is your true name? 4) can you express your ideas in a form that would be persuasive to jurors, or are you only capable of writing books? 5) why do you seem so cynical and pessimistic?

        It may be true that I can’t prove God exists to others, but that doesn’t mean that my belief in God is merely an opinion. Some of us have direct knowledge of God. That’s virtually impossible to communicate to those who lack such knowledge. But some of us don’t “believe”. Some actually “know”. We have “facts” that not available to all.

        I am sure that knowing God is real gives me grounds for some optimism.

        I am confident that those who don’t really know God might tend to be pessimistic.

        You also asked “Can you prove that they [homo sapeins/animals] are not endowed by their creator?” A: Of course not. No one can prove a negative statement. But what I can prove is that there are recognized authorities (Bible, “Declaration” and federal Constitution) to support and perhaps prove the positive statement that “I am a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

      • PatriotOne

        December 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM

        Thank you Alfred,
        I value and admire your ability to comprehend and write and stand up for yourself. The things you have done make the task easier for those that are trying to do. If you did not share your experiences many people would have one less valuable method.

        “So I have a couple of questions for you: 1) how many cases have you won in court? 2) what was the nature of the cases? 3) what is your true name? 4) can you express your ideas in a form that would be persuasive to jurors, or are you only capable of writing books? 5) why do you seem so cynical and pessimistic? ”

        1) I have actually won one case (2000 A.D.?).

        2) I rear-ended a car totaling my car. The other car had no visiable damage, neither did the ‘driver’ of that car contact me. Prior to court I submitted a notice and demand for a bill of particulars to the alleged prosecutor and copy to the court. I defaulted the alleged prosecutor for failure to answer. I was seeking the true prosecutor.
        On court day, on my turn, one other man in the audience, the judge stood up – called my case – and asked “Are there any witnesses?”, all sat still, the judge then said “case dismissed”.

        The judge then called my seatbelt citation, he did not stand up and ask for witnesses. Me, thinking that if i did not stand I’d soon have a warrant, stood up and said “I am here”. The judge denied my motion to dismiss, denied my argument that state law forbids an officer from issuing a citation based upon an accident report, fined me $90 and said “if you don’t like it you can appeal”. Chesterfield Twp. MI – Judge Cannon… go figure

        At that time I was “graduated” to Oath of Office. I was also maintaining the lives of my family, sometimes home daily sometimes away for a week. Your 1st question is flawed in that it has no real meaning. 1000k cases a year are “lost” that should not have been in court at all. GovCo/Obama “won” obama care at SCOTUS effectively giving me a loss, unless somehow I can spend my life dedicated to avoiding OC and away from my family.

        3) I have e-mailed you attempting to united you with other scholars that are fighting the same fight. I did include my Real Name. I do not believe that disclosing My Name here would serve any useful purpose. I also prefer to be annonomusly ignorant somrtimes.

        4) I almost was a juror but the judge dismissed me stating “#17 is not conformable”.
        The room had 45 people. Most of them BELIEVED that the “law” was valid because the state said so. Some said that speeding was wrong and they should be fined if they were caught doing it.
        Could I convince a jury of believers in lies? Only if I thought I was successful at voir dire. Considering that juror candidates are registered voters or drivers license holders that believe, to their death (like my dad), that man MUST have a license to drive, or that marijuana IS against the “law”. All the married jurors having a marriage licesne.

        5) I suppose it is because of my masterful writing abilities? I did not intend to upset you by asking you a question directly. I do realize that you are passionate in your belief and I admire that, in no way am I challenging your belief.


        I am challenging, or trying to comprehend, how GovCo can require natural Rights only come from God, that natural Rights do not belong to Man simply because He is alive. And at the same time GovCo forces all Men to get a license to sustain his life, God or no God, thereby requiring the learned Man of God to make his claim in court and denying the un-learned Man of God his claim in court.

        Does GovCo, or a jury, arrest a man because he is a muslum or because he is a thief? Whos God protects any Man from another Mans God?

        For me it narrows down to corpus delecti. Factually, who is the injured party? can I question the injured party? is there a factual and evidenced injury?

        Your colodial silver case was without an injured party. If your only remedy was God, is the man that does not believe in God without remedy? If that is the case Men without God shall be slaves. They shall be slaves belonging to Men that might or might not believe in God. Ironic…

        We are controlled by knowing and not knowing liars and thieves, many of them believing in God and many not believing. All of them claiming what is right and what is wrong, imposing their beliefs, written on paper with gun attached, upon all Men who are with or without God.

        If “all Men are endowed by Their Creator”, why is the mexican (any man including ‘American’) Man required to seek or purchase permission to live free in a place of freedom commonly referred to as these united States of America?

        If the subject of this article, the women and their money, have unalienable rights endowed by their creator, why were they stopped in the first place?
        Where is Corpus delecti?
        Do we train the dogs to determine who has unalienable rights and who does not?

      • Adask

        December 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM

        All governments are initially based on mutual consent of the parties to the new government. Over time, however, a new generation is born and they are presumed to consent to the powers of government–but they haven’t actually, expressly “consented” so much as “assented”. Eventually, the “pigs” in positions of power begin to insist that while “all animals are created equal,” that some animals (the government and the rich) are “more equal”. The government ceases to serve the people and begins to openly exploit for the benefit of the government and rich. increasingly rules by force rather than consent and degenerates into a police state.

        Geo. Washington said something to the effect that government is “not reason or eloquence, government is force.” But that force is not one-sided. We are led to believe that only government can exert force against the people, but the world is regularly exposed to revolutions where the people exert force against the government. We the People are still the 800# gorilla, if we care to get up off couch and assert our power and force against government.

        However, so long as we are inclined or conditioned to submit, government will continue to exert force against us. We will continue to cower from the awesome power of the almighty government even though we could crush ’em if we ever cared enough to do so.

        Why–if the people in the case referenced had unalienable rights–were those people stopped in the first place? Two reasons I can see:

        1) government has passed laws that presume that the people are no longer men and women made in God’s image, but are instead animals, or citizens, or residents and therefore without standing to claim those God-given, unalienable Rights. So long as we accept that degraded status, government can “legally” oppress us like so much livestock.

        2) We have lost the will to fight and not yet regained it. Why shouldn’t the government stop that car and seize the cash? Surely, the people in the car won’t make an effective defense. Surely, the people losing their cash won’t pose a meaningful threat to the police. It’s just like a gang of punks providing “protection” to a mom-and-pop grocery store. The gang can extort $500 a week from mom-and-pop precisely because mom-and-pop won’t fight (or kill) the gang members. Mom-and-pop have consented/assented to the authority of the gang. The woman driving the car also assented to the power of the police and courts to take her cash.

        My point is that when the Constitution/agreements break down into nothing more than words, there is no more consent and the public is entitled or even forced to exert their own force against the purported government/gang.

        Back about A.D. 1982, there were a series of 6 or 8 deaths on the south side of Dallas where clearly innocent blacks were shot by trigger-happy Dallas police officers. The classic example was an 80 year old woman standing inside the screen door of her little shack and holding a broom. The screen on the door obscured the vision of a police officer standing outside the little shack. He mistook the silhouette of the broom for a rifle and shot the old lady through the screen door. The black community would bitch about the various deaths, the case would be taken before a grand jury, the grand jury would exonerate the police officer based on official immunity or some such.

        Then, one or more snipers started shooting at Dallas Police cars as they cruised through the south Dallas black neighborhoods. In a matter of about two weeks, three shots were fired. All shots hit the passenger side of the police car’s windshield and therefore never actually hit a cop. But the message was clear. The cops had better stop shooting niggers.

        The cops got the message. Within 30 days the Dallas Police Department decided that “a life was a terrible thing to waste” (especially cop’s life) and therefor initiated a new policy whereby the cops would no longer shoot first and ask questions later.

        In essence, by firing just three bullets (and hurting no one) the African-American community on the south side of Dallas elevated themselves from the status of niggers to the status of men.

        I’ve never forgotten that story. It’s lesson strikes me as profound. To stop the government’s abusive powers it’s not necessary that we stand up and start shooting. Just a handful of individuals dedicated to stopping the abuse and willing to stand up in court or in the alleys to resist government oppression may be enough to make a difference–especially if that resistance is made early on.

        The great tragedy is that We the People have allowed government power and abuse to grow without serious resistance. It could’ve been stopped in the 1970s or 80’s. It could still be stopped if just a handful were willing to take the risk of active resistance to governmental oppression. However, it appears that we will all wait for someone else to do our fighting for us and very few, if any, will actually stand up now. Therefore, the system will continue to degrade into an increasingly overt police state until it either collapses under the weight of its own irrationality–or the public finally rises up en masse to kill ’em all.

        We don’t lose our rights simply because someone takes them. We, first and foremost, lose our rights because we don’t personally fight to defend them.

      • PatriotOne

        December 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM

        If I cannot convince Alfred (or any other Man) that I have unalienable Rights, with or without God, where-ever I was born on earth, would I want Alfred (or any other Man) as a juror determing my future?

        “The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, (or that the minority have the right to rule the majority (sic)), practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that – however bloody – can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”

        Lysander Spooner –

    • James Michael

      December 13, 2012 at 12:58 AM

      All states are in fact fictions, and it is very easy to prove with facts. No State, in any form existed before the date it was in fact created on paper. They are plain and simply a mental construct of the mind of man. If you weren’t watching the road signs would you in fact know when you left one state and entered another? Of course not it is only makes on a map. There isn’t a bit of anarchist rhetoric in it at all. Facts are pretty stubborn things as one wise man said. There is mental delusion in the belief that the state is anything other than a construct in your imagination it cannot exist in reality.

      • palani

        December 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM

        James Michael posted: “All states are in fact fictions”

        I am afraid you are mistaking the government for the state. While the government is said to represent the state governments seem to change philosophy and direction frequently. The state remains the same. Instead of your view you might consider government to be the agent and the state to be the principal. A good policy is to deal only with principals and inform agents of this policy as soon as you encounter them. Either this or “When you see an agent: run.”

  16. Anon4fun

    December 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM


    >>“factually, what is the state” need only address…………. THE FACTS

    For the most part, “factually, what is the state” need not be addressed at all. It is a very broad political question that the judge will instruct a witness to disregard. It is not the judiciary’s job to address such matters. Nor is it the citing officer’s job. The jurisdiction of the State, under the document everyone in the room is familiar with as the constitution of the State, is the only “what is the state” fact of relevance.

    • PatriotOne

      December 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM


      Who is the Plaintiff, say, in a traffic case or a drug case? A case where there is no injured party? Who is bringing the charges?

      If the plaintiff is the state, can the defendant truthfully be within the plaintiff?

      Now if, “The jurisdiction of the State, under the document everyone in the room is familiar with as the constitution of the State, is the only “what is the state” fact of relevance.”, this is true, would the state exist without the Constitution? (The Constitution being words on paper, the opinion of men and women, binding upon those who swore to serve it.)

      Or is the state an ACT of congress? Kind-of like “”places everyone, quiet on the set, ACT 7 Scene 32, aannnnnndddd ACTION—————–CUT PRINT””.

      • Flatwood

        December 24, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        To: PatriotOne,
        Re: the people are at the mercy of the court.
        This is the result I have experienced for the most part & in a nutshell. Maybe other state courts are a little more merciful but I have been in many of them & EVERYONE are of the same mindset. It’s like they are robots in that they think alike, EVERYONE !!! PRIVILEGES, from them. There are no rights, only PRIVILEGES. People should post their wins they have had in “courts” instead of talking about them.

  17. James Michael

    December 13, 2012 at 1:06 AM

    Your exactly correct Anon and my statement that I am not a part of, or in the state is a political choice, and not within the judiciaries jurisdiction to decide. But my asking for clarification because the state has such an ambiguous meaning is directly relevant to the question of many things, jurisdiction being the main one and Marc Stevens has been using it very effectively for over a decade in the courts. Of course we can use the ironclad contract called the Constitution which they have a sworn oath to defend or they have no authority whatsoever. Not hard if you use your brain.

  18. James Michael

    December 13, 2012 at 1:13 AM

    Whenever the state comes against someone Marc asks the prosecutor if he has evidence of a complaining party? Of course he doesn’t because there is no real plaintiff when the state comes against anyone, because the state doesn’t exist, and if you didn’t in fact sign the constitution, you are not a party to it, and they cannot demand specific performance. The state is coming against you for fiat debt notes 99% of the time look up the Clearfield Doctrine sorry the state is just another business and needs a contract to compel specific performance.

    • Flatwood

      December 22, 2012 at 8:47 PM

      James Michael,

      Re: Marc asks the prosecutor if he has evidence of a complaining party? Of course he doesn’t…

      The “complaining “WITNESS” IS the ticket-TING OR, arresting officer. I asked this same question you say Marc asked & this was the answer from the judge. At best it is a crapshoot with a lotta CRAP.

      How much does Marc’s courses cost, total amount + TAX.

      • PatriotOne

        December 23, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        Marc does not have a “course” per se. He has a radio show and a blog. Marc does have a ‘store’. Basically Marc is like Alfred, they share their experiences and the experiences of others.

        Courts are dependent upon honest judges and prosecutors, a rare environment.

        My journey started with a custody battle in 93′. Back then there was Right-Way-Law. I then found Carl Miller, Alfred, Robert, Marc, Rod. Like most people I have to eat and living off court cases did not fund my livelyhood. So, like most here, I put bits and pieces together hoping I’ll never need to use them, and funding them un-prepared when needed.

        There MUST be a silver bullet, and I believe there is. But the liars and thieves commonly referred to as GovCo ignore the truth, pointing guns in order to collect their pay.

        No Man should need to listen to Marc, Alfred Carl, Rod, or any judge or prosecutor for that matter. But because the court shysters are running the SHOW doing their BUSINESS paying men to wear costumes and point guns, the people are at the mercy of the court.

  19. Anon4fun

    December 13, 2012 at 3:14 AM

    James Michael:

    “No State, in any form existed before the date it was in fact created on paper.”

    Standard anarcho-capitalist appeal to historical illiteracy. Your claim is obviously wrong given the many states that have existed in cultures with no written law.

    “There is mental delusion in the belief that the state is anything other than a construct in your imagination it cannot exist in reality.”

    Standard anarcho-capitalist recourse to personal insult dispensed from a lofty altitude attained through self-inflation.

    “Of course he doesn’t because there is no real plaintiff when the state comes against anyone, because the state doesn’t exist, and if you didn’t in fact sign the constitution, you are not a party to it, and they cannot demand specific performance.”

    For starters, The Coca-Cola Company can be a plaintiff, so being a fictional entity is no obstacle. Secondly, the state is a real entity in a critical sense, because the people are the state. The private company posing as the people’s government in DC is not the state, it’s just another Coca-Cola. So dump that low-end Mises and Rothbard hackwork, and learn some de Vattel whom those who actually created the government were reading and I quote again: “Nations or States are political bodies, societies of men who have united together and combined their forces, in order to procure their mutual welfare and security.”

    Societies of men who have united together and combined their forces are a big problem for the greatly outnumbered Money Powers who prefer us too glued to the boob tube and alienated from the body politic to prevent their schemes and restore the Republic.

    That someone did not personally sign a constitution is irrelevant. What counts is, his representatives signed it for him. The people are the beneficiaries of their state and federal constitutions. Those who signed these documents did so in the character of hired agents, not in their personal capacities.

    • PatriotOne

      December 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM

      Here ^^^^ you have prejudiced every Man that is draged into your court.

      To presume that the founders, who are long dead and gone, were hired by Me, is a trespass upon My right to disagree with their writings.

      The Constitution only applies to those that promis to conform to it. In one of Alfred’s other articles he contemplates Obama taking a private Oath with the Koran and a public Oath with the Bible. Nowhere does Obama sign the Constitution.

      Could this be corrected by requiring every elected and hired government employee to sign the Constitution? I do not think this is a bad idea to consider.

    • PatriotOne

      December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

      “No State, in any form existed before the date it was in fact created on paper.”

      Alice In Wonderland existed in the mind of its author who then wrote words on paper. Does Alice or Wonderland exist naturally in nature?

      If Alice or Wonderland does not naturally exist, all things being equal, can the State exist?

      If, like Alice In Wonderland, the State is nothing more than the immaginings of men written on paper, under what bona fide authority can the State have any ability to act?

  20. PatriotOne

    December 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    I would like to add this video -> <- to the discussion because it is relevant and very related.

    My question would be; where do the God given rights begin? Before or during or after the RAID? If the Women or employees in these incidences are not able to verify their God given rights, are they without those rights? Is a deaf dumb and bling Man without God given rights or natural rights?

    Had one of the Women or one of the employees in this video, needed to sneeze and reached into her purse for a tissue, might she have been shot?

    Are thee People without rights until they are able to verify those rights in court?

    Did the men in the south Dallas area (described above) verify their rights as Men, or were they forced to become violent like their violent attackers, thereby eliminating the possession of rights and making MIGHT IS RIGHT?

    Why should any Man be forced to shoot back simply to be left alone?

    Every OFFICER is a Man that has taken an Oath to be a government employee wearing a costume with DEA/FBI/IRS/DHS/CITY OF DALLAS printed on it and pointing a gun at People. Factually, what are they serving or protecting or defending? It cannot be the Constitution if the Constitution isn't applied until the Man makes it into the court room alive.

    Corpus delecti MUST be verified before any Man is required to declare His rights whether natural or God given. If corpus delecti IS verified at the beginning I'm sure the trespasser was without God in the first place, but the trespasser would hope (I suppose) that the man determining the penalty was a man of God.

    • Flatwood

      December 15, 2012 at 5:55 PM

      Re: corpus delecti
      “Today” according to the “courts” this means “a complaining witness,” e.g. the arresting or ticket-TING wearer of the customary costume,i.e, he/she who goes upon the highway in “disguise.” It takes TWO or more to make the legal act illegal.One actor in costume makes it legal.

  21. Anon4fun

    December 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM


    “Who is the Plaintiff, say, in a traffic case or a drug case? A case where there is no injured party? Who is bringing the charges?”

    It depends. What does the paperwork of the court case say?

    “To presume that the founders, who are long dead and gone, were hired by Me, is a trespass upon My right to disagree with their writings.”

    The founders were hired by the People, not you. You’re just along for the ride, except insofar as you can influence the outcome of the People’s hiring process, i.e. their elections.

    “My question would be; where do the God given rights begin? Before or during or after the RAID?”

    God-given rights begin at creation, which is conception, and are inherent properties of the natural person. This means they cannot be removed. You can, however, contract to waive the exercise of these rights.

    “Why should any Man be forced to shoot back simply to be left alone?”

    Should someone who enters your property be able to compel you to leave them alone?

    “Every OFFICER is a Man that has taken an Oath to be a government employee wearing a costume with DEA/FBI/IRS/DHS/CITY OF DALLAS printed on it and pointing a gun at People. Factually, what are they serving or protecting or defending?”

    Why the loaded language? They’re called uniforms, not costumes. Also, these government employees do a lot more than just point guns at people. Don’t expect much mileage from cartoonish caricatures with the scholarly readership of this blog. Go pitch it to Ali Baba and the forty thieves.

    Generally speaking, the uniformed employees of the various levels of government serve and protect both the privatized governmental entities, in their many local subdivisions, and the American people. Since these privatized entities are invariably creations of the people’s legislatures, consisting of those to whom the people in their collective capacity have entrusted the exercise of their legislative authority, it has to be both. Such is the de facto form of government we now have, a public-private partnership Democracy.

    • PatriotOne

      December 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM


      The paperwork, not of the court but of the Plaintiff, says; The State of ________ v Man.

      I do hope your continued reading will eventially sink into your brain.

      Elections? Are you saying that strangers can decide the tyranny level I shall live under, until I can convince the Sheeple not to vote for tyranny?

      When I asked “Before or during or after the RAID?” I was referring to the video. If rights begin at conception why didn’t the RAIDers have a bona fide warrant. Evidently the IRS disagrees with you.

      And, please disclose the facts you rely upon that prove a Man can contract to waive the exercize of his rights. It is said that by talking to a COP you have waived your right to remain silent. I believe that to be BS. The Man hasn’t waived the right He simply failed to exercize it. The Man is in a situation, if pulled over, where if he refuses to show ID and PAPERS the COP might point a gun, is showing PAPERS also waiving a right?

      When I asked “Why should any Man be forced to shoot back simply to be left alone?” I was refering to GovCo not the neighborhood cat-burgular.

      “They’re called uniforms, not costumes.” The Man puts on a costume and is playing the role of OFFICER/MAYOR/SENATOR/GENERAL/PRESIDENT, his script is supposed to be the Constitution. God created Man, the natural. Man created the PRESIDENT, an actor.

      “Such is the de facto form of government we now have, a public-private partnership Democracy.” You should apply at the North Carolina Administrative Court, they have ruled that the Dallas NC POLICE are not government employees but are private contractors that cannot be sued in the administrative courts, neither can the tag agency that takes money for license plates. People with the A4f philosophy on government seem to be running NC.

    • Flatwood

      December 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

      Re: God-given rights begin at creation, which is conception…

      I believe your statement is true. BUT,the USSC says since the 14th Amendment says,in pertinent part,all persons BORN, not conceived. The USSC says the 14th Amendment only applies to the BORN & therefore the conceived & unborn have NO rights. They use this line lying reasoning to justify ABORTION which is MURDER. What does this truly make them?

  22. flatwood

    December 15, 2012 at 12:06 PM

    Re:“You could simply show the cop who pulls you over that you are not operating commercially…

    The “statute(s)” requiring a D.L. does not “use” the word “commerce.” The truth is, this WAS once a fundamental RIGHT that has been reversed into being only a PRIVILEGE. It’s called usurpation & abuse of delegated power. It began with the 2nd “power clause” of the “Federal Constitution.”

  23. Flatwood

    December 16, 2012 at 2:51 AM

    Does “gone to the dogs” mean the same thing today as it once did?

  24. Flatwood

    December 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

    Palani > “When you see an agent: run.”

    This is against the “law.” In many ways. Here you are advising people, a.k.a. Subjects, to break the law. You are also breaking the law by walking away. Trying to avoid is converted into trying to evade.

    • palani

      December 19, 2012 at 7:35 PM

      palani: “A good policy is to deal only with principals and inform agents of this policy as soon as you encounter them. Either this or “When you see an agent: run.”

      @Flatwood … you might get the entire sentiment rather than editing it. There is no law broken by running wherever you desire whenever you like. I would suggest that if you establish a policy of only doing business with principals that it will be agent who would rather run.

      • Flatwood

        December 19, 2012 at 10:11 PM

        Had to do something to get you to answer. They do call running, absconding. Willie Nelson was “just “sitting” in an airport (I think it was Boston),with his drummer, & was arrested for,Looking Suspicious. So, don’t tell me you cannot be arrested for running when you can be arrested for sitting. There must be, I hope, others on this blog who understand. By the way, I enjoy reading your comments. Very much.

      • Flatwood

        December 19, 2012 at 10:30 PM

        Palani, your sense of humor is dry, even with a gallon of water. (:)

      • palani

        December 20, 2012 at 9:22 AM

        Don … Is that you?

      • Flatwood

        December 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM

        December 20, 2012 at 9:22 AM

        Re: Don … Is that you?

        Is this question directed to me???

      • Flatwood

        December 22, 2012 at 8:55 PM

        I cannot find where you have asked a question except 1 time. This means you have all the answers. Do you have any “true Law” courses for sale? Your “no answer” to this IS an answer. I’ll get you to “answer” one way or another.

      • palani

        December 22, 2012 at 9:01 PM

        Don -> “Do you have any “true Law” courses for sale?”

        I have successfully disengaged myself entirely from the commercial plane so the answer is “no I don’t have a single thing for sale”.

      • Flatwood

        December 23, 2012 at 9:18 PM

        if you see somebody climbing up a sic-a-mo tree, when you see a UFO, Palani, that’ll be me, I’ve got my eyes upon you, so be careful what you say or do.
        Would you like to take a ride in my dignified machine, ICU?
        “Don” aka the Shadow.

      • Flatwood

        December 25, 2012 at 8:52 AM

        Re: Would you like to take a ride in my dignified machine, ICU?

        I’ll answer for you. Palani, says, NO !!! keep it dignified, not unified.

  25. Flatwood

    December 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM

    I perceive that your sentiment is one of a refined or tender emotion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s