No products in the cart.


NavyJack – Another Victim of Black Lives Matter, This Time It’s One of Their Own – Updated 08/04/2016

A tragic story is unfolding in Baltimore County. It is a story of the death of a 23 year old black woman, Korryn Gaines, consumed by the hate and fear generated by the Black Lives Matter movement. On Monday she decided to face down a Baltimore County SWAT Team with a shotgun rather than to be served with an arrest warrant. She is now dead and her 5 year old son is wounded as a result of the confrontation.

The incident started on Monday morning around 9:20AM when three officers with the Baltimore County police arrived at Korryn Gaines’s apartment to serve warrants to her and a man who resided there.  Korryn Gaines had an arrest warrant for failing to appear in court in March.  The man was wanted on an assault charge.

The police stated that initially no one responded to 10 minutes of door knocking, even though they could hear several people inside. When officers obtained a key to the apartment, they found Gaines sitting on the floor with her 5-year-old son, holding a shotgun.

After nearly 6 hours of negotiation, Ms. Gaines raised the shotgun at the officers and told them that she would kill them if they did not leave. Based not only on her actions, but also on the words she used, the officers fired one round at her.  She in turn fired several rounds back. The officers returned fire, striking and killing her. Her 5 year old son was struck by one round.  The man being sought fled the home with a 1-year-old child, but was later taken into police custody.

Without hesitation and without any regard for the facts of the case, Black Lives Matter advocates took to the Internet to protest the shooting of Ms. Gaines. Shaun King, a popular Black Lives Matter activist, explained to his followers how she would still be alive if she were white under the same circumstances. He promoted a false narrative that Ms. Gaines had been repeatedly harassed by the police and that her fear, driving her to load and point a shotgun at the officers, was the result of these encounters.

korryn-gaines-42The truth of the matter is somewhat different. The incidents that Ms. Gaines complained about are posted to her social media accounts with narrative descriptions that do not hold up once the videos are actually watched. In each case discussed, it is clearly Ms. Gaines that escalates the situation. She becomes combative in what appears to be an intentional attempt to cause the officers to react to her and her threatening statements.  In each case the police officers are professional, courteous and attempt to deescalate the situation. After reviewing the videos that Ms. Gaines cites as evidence for her traumatization, it is crystal clear that she is misrepresenting the actions of the officers in order to gain acceptance within the Black Lives Matter movement.

With the death of Ms. Gaines, the Black Lives Matter movement has claimed yet another victim. This time it is not five police officers protecting their right to protest, as was the case in Dallas. It is not three officers being ambushed in Baton Rouge, LA. This time it is one of their own. A believer that used her cell phone and her 5 year old son to document interactions with police to achieve acceptance by the movement. Based on the outrage as a result of her death, it appears that Ms. Gaines has achieved this goal.


Update (08/04/2016):

It is painfully clear from the comments and emails received that the intent of this article has been lost on many. I understand that many of you feel that the officers should have been directed to wait her out. I understand that many of you feel that the officers placed themselves in the position of having to shoot by entering the apartment.  I was not there. There were many hours of negotiation. If the officers felt sufficient progress in the negotiations had been made to enter without risk to their life or hers, then this was a miscalculation and yet another tragedy. Clearly Ms. Gaines had decided that she was not going to allow herself to be arrested.  In this article I have not defended the actions of the officers involved. I am confident that due-process will ascertain the facts and, if needed, result in disciplinary action or indictment of the officers if warranted.   The intent of the article is to point out the tragedy of this woman’s death; a tragedy that was instigated by the rhetoric, hate and lies of the Black Lives Matter movement.

As I stated in an earlier article, the Black Lives Matter movement is just one of the Social Movements involved with the destabilization of the United States of America. Others include La Raza, The Revolutionary Communist Party and the World Workers Party. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Jihadist movements are also heavily involved. To learn more the Black Lives Matter movement, please review my previous articles on this subject:




Navy Jack

During my service I deployed on various platforms, including submarines, amphibious assault units and special boats. I participated in expeditionary and humanitarian missions to the North Atlantic, Iran, Beirut, Libya, and the Caribbean. I am a Patron Life Member of the NRA. I am an Oath Keeper Life Member.


  1. The “arrest warrant for failing to appear in court in March” stemmed from a traffic stop where Korryn Gaines was pulled over for having a liberty-oriented placard instead of a license plate. (source: )

    At some point among the rampant fedgov tryanny we should ask ourselves about the legitimate source of government authority, of which the answer as revealed in the process used at the Philadelphia Convention is “limited to that of a single individual”.

    Does the practical expectation differ from the actual outcome in Korryn Gaines’ death? No. Nonetheless, do I as an individual have the authority to kill another over lack of ornamentation on their vehicle? No. Lacking that authority, can I delegate it to anyone else?

    1. PeaceableGuy – The police were executing two warrants; one for Ms. Gaines failure to appear in court and the other for a Mr. Kareem Courtney for assault. The article you reference from minimizes Ms. Gaines actions during the original arrest and is biased to say the least. The facts of Ms. Gaines original arrest are as follows:

      Ms. Gaines was pulled over at 4:16 p.m. on March 10 in the area of Pikeswood Drive and Liberty Road after an officer noticed a rectangular piece of cardboard in place of where a license plate should have been on a Toyota Camry Gaines was driving.

      Police said the officer reported that the cardboard on the back of the car said, “Any government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be held criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” The piece of cardboard on the front of Gaines’ car had “Free traveler” written on it, police said.

      When an officer asked Gaines for a Maryland driver’s license and why she didn’t have any tags on her vehicle, she said the officer did not have the right to pull her over and asked that the officer identify himself, according to the police report.

      The officer said he then asked Gaines for her driver’s license and registration, but she said he did not have the authority to ask her for any information, according to the police report. And when he asked her again for her driver’s license and registration, she said again that he didn’t have the authority to ask her for it.

      A second officer was called to the scene. The first officer repeatedly asked Gaines for her driver’s license and she repeatedly said he was breaking the law, according to police. Gaines was told by the first officer that if he couldn’t identify her, she would be arrested, according to the report.

      Police said after checking the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration using the Toyota’s vehicle identification number, they learned that Gaines was listed as the owner, but there was no insurance information, no tags were listed and the vehicle was suspended for failing to comply with the Maryland Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, according to the police report.

      When asked about insurance, officers said Gaines continued to be belligerent and said she might have an insurance card, according to the report.

      Gaines was issued a citation and a must-appear form. She said she did not want the paperwork, and after the citations were placed in the car, she threw them out the window, according to the police report.

      Gaines was told her car was going to be towed and she needed to get herself and her children out of the vehicle, but she told the officer she wasn’t going to get out and wouldn’t let the first officer “steal her car,” according to the police report.

      The first officer on the scene told Gaines if she didn’t get out of her car, she would be arrested, but she told police she wouldn’t leave and officers would have to “murder” her, according to the police report.

      While waiting for the tow truck, Gaines was asked several times to get out of her vehicle, but said she wouldn’t and officers would have to force her to leave, according to the police report. While other officers responded, Gaines took her infant into her lap and told her 4-year-old son to sit on her lap, according to the police report.

      When Gaines was told she would be arrested, one officer held back her arms in order for another officer to safely take the infant away from her arms, according to the police report.

      Gaines was physically removed from her car and put up a fight, screaming and not allowing officers to put handcuffs on her, according to the report.

      Gaines’ behavior drew a crowd of people to watch and Gaines yelled to the crowd that she “could not breathe and to ‘record this’ while police were placing her under arrest,” according to the police report.

      Gaines’ finger was cut and she was bleeding because she was resisting arrest, according to the police report. Gaines asked for a medic and one was requested, but while waiting Gaines screamed to her son to fight and bite the officer who was watching over him, according to police report.

      After she was taken to Northwest Hospital, treated and released, Gaines was taken to the precinct for processing. Her children were released to their grandmother’s custody, police said.

      Gaines’ vehicle was towed by Windsor Towing, and the two pieces of cardboard were seized and packaged per departmental policy, according to the police report.


      This entire event was videotaped. The police report is accurate and unbiased. Ms. Gaines death had nothing to do with “lack of ornamentation” on the vehicle. She intentionally provoked the original interaction with police in order to videotape it and promote herself within the Black Lives Matter movement. The officers serving the arrest warrant were extremely patient until she aimed the shotgun at them and said she was going to kill them. I am not sure what your expectations of the police are, but all of the officers involved with Ms. Gaines showed extreme professionalism and courtesy. I am not going to get into an argument about whether the State has the authority to require license plates, drivers licenses and/or insurance. You can bring that argument up with your State legislature.

      1. Navy Jack, you left out some critical information there pal. Since when is it reasonable to take SWAT to execute a warrant for FTA on a traffic citation. Better yet, since when does a member of the executive branch get to authorize and issue a summons, a judicial instrument? That is a seperation of powers doctrine violation. Did your grand parents register, tag, insure and need a license for their horse and carriage? Not likely, so what happened? What is an MCO/MSO and why does it matter in this case? Both Gaines and police are ignorant of these matters. This isn’t about crime, it’s about revenue generation!
        Both are at fault here.
        Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

      2. Defender – Regular police attempted to deliver the warrants, not SWAT. Ms. Gaines escalated the situation, which in turn caused the SWAT support request. There were two warrants, one for failure to appear and the other for assault.

      3. Anarchy. Here we go. Right to travel. Revenue streams. Public safety.

        At what point is a failure to appear for no tags worth this?

      4. It seems BLM only when blacks start acting out and being black. Black people are no different then brown, white, or yellow. BLM gives real black people a black eye!

      5. Sounds like the actions of a member of a sovereign citizen’s group. I hope this is not the beginning of a trend in the BLM movement. But if it is, I would like to see the response from the Obama administration to that.

      6. Yoda – The demands of many within the BLM movement include segregation and eventual sovereignty. Read the following statement from Babu Obowale, the minister of defense for the New Black Panthers People’s Army:

        “The end game is land ownership. The endgame is our own government in a nation within a nation. Okay. So we claim the states of Louisiana, we claim the states of Mississippi, we claim the states of South Carolina, we claim the states of Alabama, and we claim the states of Georgia. We just need to start migrating back to those states and taking control of the economics in those states. If black people move in, most definitely white people will move out. So it’s not a hard process for us to have our own country within a country. There is no way that we can totally separate ourselves in the United States of America and we are aware of that. We know that we are owed land, we are owed monies, we are owed restitutions and we are owed reparations. That’s going to be a continuing process. What we are saying right now is we want to control the economics in our community. We want to control the black dollars. The money that goes in, the money that goes out. We want to control the politics in our community. If a politician is not bringing anything to the table for the betterment of that community, we are not going to vote for these particular people. And we most definitely want to control the education. What our people are learning in what we call the public fool system, not school system, where they are teaching and misrepresenting the true history of the black man here in the United States.”

        Babu Obowaleas is also the co-founder of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, a black militant gun group named after Black Panther Party founder Huey P. Newton. The Dallas cop killer was a member and participated in many of their activities..

      7. Jack, it was at least two and a half decades ago that sources began to report strange predictions coming from Russian intellectuals and analysts concerning the future break up of the United States. These predictions were scoffed at until about the time that Obama first took office. It is uncanny how accurate these predictions were concerning the reasons for the break up. Here is an example taken from the Wall Street Journal.
        The causes come from two directions. One direction is historical baggage. The other direction is de-assimilation by design.
        Can this really happen? Well, we have the former nation of Yugoslavia as a prime example.

      8. While I agree that Ms. Gaines was utterly foolish in the current environment, and complete lack of respect for our rule of law at all levels, the question I have to ask is whether we would be writing the same of Sam Adams and John Hancock as they fled the British regulars. I fear that based on the discussions I’ve had with lawyers, judges, police, and even those who claim to be patriots, we would do so without any qualms.
        Let’s start with this peer reviewed study from the Seton Hall Law Journal; “Are Cops Constitutional” –
        The problem was not with Ms. Gaines, but rather with a total ignorance, disrespect, and animosity toward our rule of law by not only the criminal element on the street, but also those who sit the bench, and skulk around the halls of the legislatures.
        “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
        For those who are Oath Keepers that decision by the court recognizes the fact that the law is not subject to the whims of bureaucrats, or those who would use the heavy boot of government to exact justice, revenge, or even tyranny on the body of the People. Sovereignty remains in the hands of the People.
        Does the state have the authority to demand a license, registration, or insurance for a vehicle that a sovereign uses for their own personal pleasure. NO! And if you read the statutes surrounding licenses there is a distinct difference between a “motor vehicle” and a “private coach” that could not be registered or the owner required to be licensed.
        Respect for the law is a two-way street. As Dr. Edwin Vieira constantly points out, there are 27 words in the 2nd amendment. We cling to just 14, have no idea as to what the first 13 entail, and what is even more frightening, is the fact that we fear even speaking about what those 13 words mean, and how they apply in law.
        If those of us who claim patriotism dance around the clear intent of our doctrine of law, what chance have we for restoring the Republic?

      9. I agree with the premise of “free traveler.” It is unconstitutional to pass laws that impede our freedom of travel and to implement fees and licenses to do so. Good for Gaines, bad for police who took an oath to uphold the constitution and once again escalate a situation rather than just walk away. The whole story stinks with why this country is rotting. My LEO friends would agree with my stance. The little man in this country is dispensable. The all powerful tyranny of government just rolls on.

        ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  2. This whole Black Lives Matter movement I believe has been fostered by the President of this Country as a way of totally discrediting those who protect us from the criminals on the street. He and this administration have a common goal to divide this country and make it a third world country. The EVIL that comes out of his mouth is beyond the words of any previous President. From his first day in office he has made it his personal responsibility to do what ever he can to destroy the country he hates. He is not an American and never has been and never will be he is possessed by demonic spirits and he has an administration that is of like him EVIL. He has put Muslims in key positions for one purpose and one purpose only to make this a Muslim nation under Sharia Law. I support the POLICE and those who have to make Justice a passion to preserve.

  3. She demonstrably broke the law to draw attention to herself to confront and bait cops.The coward used her little kids as a shield while baiting the cops. She documents her attempts at brainwashing her 5 year old. How can anyone – ANYONE – defend or legitimize this sort of action?

    1. It is not a civil right to execute a civilian. It is not your or my right to execute someone just because they are provocative. Remind me not hang with you. Cheers!

    2. Dr. Frank,
      Everyone has the right in this nation to free speech. Everyone. Guess what, it matters not if you, the cops who responded, me, etc did not, do not like what is said, as US citizens, we are REQUIRED to protect that right in others we disagree with.

      It seems today a lot of people have trouble with freedom, independence of “others”. That is because they either came from a “tyrant” nation to here, or were taught against the US Constitution in schools here, plus TV with subliminals, propaganda everywhere being used AGAINST us and our nation, “smartphones” with subliminals, etc.

      My advice is to actually READ the US Constitution, read the writings of the framers and forefathers and make a decision on if you wish to remain here because we ARE going back under the US Constitution – or over many dead bodies including my own – you will be living in a nation where YOU personally, and those around you, will own NOTHING. You will wear what you are given to wear, eat and drink what you are given, go where you are allowed to go at the times you are allowed to do so, die when they decide you are of no more use to them or you tick someone off, etc.

      Hamilton, Federalist 33: “But it will not follow from this doctrine [that laws passed by Congress are the Supreme law of the land] that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

      Justice William O. Douglas, Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949): “The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion… It is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”

      Justice William Brennan, Texas v. Johnson (1989): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”

      Oh, and “She demonstrably broke the law to draw attention to herself to confront and bait cops.”

      No, she broke “Color of Law”, pretend law.

      Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

  4. Unintentional suicide by Cop. Suicide all the same.
    These people are the result of government indoctrinated schooling system, that teach them a lifetime of being owed something by white people because of a history of slavery that ended 151 years ago. That same government schooling system which did not also teach the truth about White Slavery, nor the fact there were more white slaves than black the entire time. As the descendant of both black and white slaves, I am sick and tired of hearing the lies and rhetoric promoted by uneducated and manipulative race baiters and politicians.
    Fools talk about reparations when a large portion are children of African immigrants and have no history of slavery. 1.8 million since 1807 with the most immigration in the last 10 years.

  5. Too bad these people cannot be registered as anti-police. Officers could skip responding when they call for help.

    That would probably bring BLM to a halt as quickly as almost anything would.

  6. Same old story. Stupid thug won’t comply and gets what they asked for. Being female (or stupid) don’t make her a victim.

  7. Sorry in advance to tick off a lot of you.

    Navy Jack, you may be correct in what happened – that I do not know as I have not researched that case enough to know what is going on. But I do know that TRAVELING by any means is a PROTECTED NATURAL RIGHT. Yet, people are killed over doing it and not following Color of Law here in the USA; as they are injured and killed over other natural protected rights BECAUSE those that are REQUIRED to know the US Constitution and to NOT step out of its boundaries are dumbed down, propagandized, etc, and “just follow orders” and “just do their jobs without doing KEEPING the supreme contract that they are under.

    The positions you held/hold require you to KNOW the US Constitution so that you recognize when its boundaries are being overstepped by others or you. Traveling is not a crime, nor is not having a vehicle unregistered as it is NOT a commercial vehicle. Of course, if she was in a commercial vehicle then everything I just said, am saying is then wrong.

    It is unconstitutional and even felonious (done by statute not constitutional law) to force a person to register their vehicle. Commercial vehicles are under the authority of those who serve within our governments within certain boundaries, but the ways a person travels is a RETAINED, NOT DELEGATED, so cannot be required to be registered by whatever means they do so. Here in the USA the American people traveling, by whatever means, is a constitutionally PROTECTED right. There can be NO lawful requirement to make people register their cars, trucks, dogs, cats, horses, children, etc as they are constitutionally protected natural rights. It is just a early control measure that was SLOWLY implemented, so slowly that even in the 60’s, 70’s, early 80’s the people who understood the US Constitution and their liberties won in court.

    Consider this if traffic infractions are not a crime, and they are not, how can there be warrants put out for them? It wouldn’t happen to be to take money from the people would it?

    “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3, step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.

    There was a time when the courts were more constitutional that they held that to be true (traveling, not commercial movement of goods and services) that to be true.Registering the regular peoples vehicles, registering them (driver license) are not lawful here in the USA. There was a time when officers of the law KNEW the US Constitution and the boundaries placed upon the position they served within.

    Basically if some domestic enemy or two had not created that “law”, and/or if the LE’s KNEW and understood the supreme contract that they are under, are required to support and defend, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

    Here are some laws to consider.

    “Traveling is passing from place to place — act of performing journey; and traveler is person who travels.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

    “Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (traveling by different methods, fishing, hunting, building homes, etc all were done before there were governments.)

    “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C.502.

    Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

    “Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but could be held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.” Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

    “There is no common law judicial immunity.” Pulliam v. Allen, 104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

    “Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100. (Remember that ALL laws/regulations/codes/treaties/etc (legislation) is REQUIRED to be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution, that when that/those laws/regulations/codes/treaties/etc go against the US Constitution it is NOT lawful and binding on the American people, it is a usurpation, a crime against the American people.

    If those officers had completely followed the US Constitution, that woman would not be dead, her child wounded, nor would the officers been shot at. Our homes are our castles and are constitutionally PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments – all who serve within our governments.

    There was no danger to others at that time, so they were wrong to open the door, or if it had been wide open, they would have been breaking the law to walk in without an invite from the person who owned or rented that place.

    If LE’s and the people want to be safe, they MUST follow the US Constitution. That woman has the right to say anything she wants as long as she does not cause damage, injury, death t another. This politispeak BS is NOT lawful here in the USA.

    I don’t have to like her, you don’t have to like her, the LE’s do not have to like her but we ALL are required to defend her right to life, liberty, travel, growing food, water, etc. THAT is our duty, that is what the US Constitution requires of us.

    As a Oath taker YOU should KNOW this. I think you need to relearn the US Constitution and what it means, that maybe you spent too much time serving within the military, government, and DoD contractors. It is the most important thing you can do for this country and its people if you mean what you told me when I questioned you earlier.

    I do not expect you, or others to like me, or agree with me on things, but I and ALL Americans deserve that from you and any other Oath taker and those that serve within our governments – be it military, contracted, elected, hired, etc ARE REQUIRED to know that and do it.

    Consider this. “The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, …It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

    Or, and Dr. Vieira said (sorry Dr. Vieira to throw you into this but your words are true!): “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. ” (end quote)

    You,. me, Stewart, Elias, Shorty, all of us are bound by that document and must, are REQUIRED to know it so that we understand when we see those trespassing against it so that we may support and defend the document from them and their actions and so that WE do not trespass against the US Constitution in our actions.

    When LE’s do not get a warrant and implement that warrant as the US Constitution requires of them then they are committing a felony and the crime of Perjury. So when they do that and they injure or kill a person in the commission of a felony – think about it – what happens? Nothing, but what happens to the people if they do so? Lots. But here in the USA ALL people are equal under our laws.

    There is no Oath taker that is keeping their Oath here in the USA without putting their life on the line, and often from other Oath takers and that is because they do not understand their Oath and the contract that they are under, nor do they understand that the OATH comes before anything else – orders from superiors or presidents, duties of the position they are occupying. Basically, there is NO LE, military, or governmental official of whatever rank doing the duty required of them to support and DEFEND the US Constitution.

    Think not, at this time common people (not LE, judicial, etc) are ignored when bringing charges because “Color of Law” does not let them. Hey, the PEOPLE HERE IN the USA delegated ALL authority that is where our governments came from. YET, those are able to do so under “color of law” do not bring charges.

    Some things to consider

    “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

    “Constitutional provisions and amendments to the Constitution relate to the fundamental law and certain fixed principles upon which governments are founded. Constitutions are commonly called the organic law of a State.” State ex rel. Halliburton v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, 130 S. W. 689.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

    “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

    “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

    “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

    “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

    If you can show me where I am constitutionally incorrect I will publicly apologize to you here. I do not think you can, and I personally find it appalling that you held the positions you held and do not know that.

    1. Cal – The U.S. Constitution defines and restricts the authority of the Federal Government. It makes no restrictions upon the States for the enactment or administration of laws as long as those laws, including their enforcement, do not infringe on the authority granted to the Federal Government or those specific rights delineated in the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments. The officers had a warrant. The laws violated were State laws. Certainly Ms. Gaines could have challenged the validity of those State laws in court, but not by threatening to kill the officers with a shotgun pointed at them while attempting to serve a warrant from a judge. Due-process was afforded. Citizens have a responsibility to respect both sides of due-process, not just when it serves their purpose.

      1. Navy jack, NONE of our natural rights were delegated to be under our governments – state of general (federal). The governments here in the USA were created to DEFEND and PROTECT those rights. See how far of base this has gone here in our nation.

        Most people here in the USA are dumbed down so badly that they do not realize that fishing, hunting, buying/trading/owning/training with a weapon OF ANY SORT and as MANY AS ONE CAN AFFORD is not only the natural right of all Americans, but is REQUIRED of them so that they are ready to defend themselves, their neighborhood, their county, their state, their nation at a moments notice.

        Traveling is a natural right, and like carrying arms, gardening, owning property (those that serve within our governments are ALLOWED to tax it when bought, but NOT yearly property tax. Property is something the framers understood well, all types of property), etc, and they are PROTECTED from those that serve within our governments – state and general (federal). Those rights were not only NOT delegated, but are listed or referred to as unlisted but still protected (per Ninth amendment) and not one person of any rank within either government has any lawful authority over natural rights of the people. Those who serve within our governments who are trying to are THE DOMESTIC ENEMIES that the Oaths refer to that ALL Oath takers are to support and DEFEND the US CONSTITUTION from (traitors also obviously – to be defended from).

        It is true that citizens must also respect due process, but the crimes being charged MUST be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution in order to be lawful and for any US citizen to be held accountable for it. Since traveling in any manner except commercial is a natural protected right not delegated to be under the authority of anyone serving within state or federal governments she committed no crime. The crime is all who still serve in any manner within our governments enforcing “color of law”. When force or the threat of force is used it then can become treason, depending on if it is trying to unlawfully change our government, and is always *terrorism against the American people. That is why all who serve within our governments are REQUIRED to know and understand the US Constitution.

        I am so frustrated with people who served and serve within our government and not understanding that it is NOT a crime to have a ton of weapons, it is a constitutional requirement. It is a crime to be using them against someone or using them to destroy anothers property – and that does include those who serve within our governments – they are NOT above our laws. It is NOT a crime to go fishing without a “license”, or hunting. It is a crime to have TSA at our airports, our bus stations, on our roads, etc – they are committing the crimes of false arrest and assault, and since force is implied and occasionally used it IS also *Terrorism against the American people on a minute to minute basis. When SWAT teams break into a persons house it is treason and terrorism. Our legitimate government is the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution, but the US Constitution – short as it is – is supreme, and even state Constitutions cannot do away with it or go against what it protects.

        It really is simple, those officers had no right to go after anyone who did not have a license or registration because no one within our governments were delegated any authority over how we the people travel.

        *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

        Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

        BTW, within Article 6 one finds the words “…, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”. That phrase means that those that serve within the state governments are bound to the US Constitution. None of the state Constitutions have any delegated authority over the natural rights of the people. Plus the Bill of Rights lists those powers retained by the people and out of the authority of those that serve within our governments at any level; except concerning specific situations, and it also delineates the way in which that authority is allowed to be “enforced”, what is required of that enforcement arm.

      2. Cal – Traveling is a natural right. Operating a motor vehicle is not a natural right. Piloting an airplane, helicopter, or commercial ship is not a natural right. There is no such thing as a “travel” license. States require motor vehicle licenses to protect the rightful liberty of citizens. Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Motor vehicles are responsible for more deaths and injuries than any other human activity. A motor vehicle license is earned when proficiency is demonstrated. That proficiency protects citizens from the loss of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Should an individual demonstrate recklessness while driving a motor vehicle; recklessness that is highly likely to deprive the rights of others, the license is revoked.

        Depriving a citizen that fails to demonstrate proficiency to safely operate a motor vehicle in no way deprives that citizen of their right to travel. Your arguments have been repeatedly tested in the courts and have never succeeded.

        A vehicle registration program provides the States with a mechanism to ensure the registered owner is maintaining insurance. Some States also require vehicle mechanical inspections. Both of these objectives serve to protect the rightful liberty of citizens. Without insurance, a citizen struck and severely injured by a motor vehicle would most likely suffer not only a loss of liberty and their pursuit of happiness; they most likely would have no hope of recovering damages and payment of their medical expenses. Ensuring the mechanical soundness of a motor vehicle is no different than requiring that airplanes, commercial vehicles and freight trains meet minimum safety standards to protect the rightful liberty of others.

        Requiring vehicle registration, insurance and inspection in no way deprives any citizen of their right to travel. Your arguments have been repeatedly tested in the courts and have never succeeded.

      3. …Traveling is a natural right, and holds true regardless of a mechanism. Licensing a particular sector of means of travel is a recent 20th century infringement on our natural rights. Think… cheers.!

      4. @Navy Jack:
        I respect your service as you do mine. However, the forcing of licensing, insurance, vehicle inspections, etc, that you claim protects you from damages is a false narrative. Although well intended, legislating morality does not replace human error and human factors. Writing speeding tickets does not promote safety, it generates revenue. Having a speed limit does not prevent speeding. There are no laws that PREVENT an act of human behavior. Having home insurance does not prevent your home from being destroyed by fire, storm and flood, etc. Your premise of requiring something because it is for the good of the public is the road to tyranny. Ask Bloomberg what size soda you may purchase. Laws and regulation do nothing but pad the pockets of states with fines, fees and confiscations. Just because we have speed laws and insurance requirements will not prevent some speeder from running a red light, broadsiding you and killing you. Testing a law in a court of law means nothing, the courts are corrupt.

      5. WGP – I respect your service. I am not arguing the merits of any law. I am arguing that the U.S. Constitution provides that enacting these laws is a right afforded to the States. Please see my response to Unknown Ranger regarding the first U.S. Supreme Court decision (Hendrick v. Maryland 1914) regarding the constitutional question of the “right to travel” verses the requirement for licenses and registration. This case has never been superseded or reversed by any other case no matter what you read on “right to travel” blogs.

      6. Thank you for an excellent post. If I may, I’d like to add one other example — “Gun-Free Zones” do not prevent mass shootings.
        I would also add that the over-zealous scourge of piling more and more laws on a pile of laws already too cumbersome and intrusive is the passion of berserk politicians, and that practice only proves that politicians are statists instead of being liberty-minded patriots. Life in America is about freedom, not restrictions. Freedom itself only comes when individuals who comprise society accept, individually, the premise of personal responsibility. I do believe that the American people have had about enough government tyranny, most of which comes to us embodied in “statutes” and “codes” and are tempered with “rules of the court” and “color of law”. Many Americans are ready to get real, and many are discovering that “law enforcement” is of the government, while “to protect and serve” is of We The People. As Cal points out here constantly, any damned “statute” must be pursuant to the Constitution or it is null and void. State laws cannot legitimately supplant the protected liberties (unalienable rights) listed in the Bill of Rights, nor those not mentioned but implied in the 9th Amendment.
        Keep the Faith,

  8. While an unlicensed car does not in itself permit “taking of a life”, refusing an officers orders while ;pointing a shotgun at them certainly does. she may have had some mental problems, who knows as she didn’t allow anyone to get to that point.
    What is rarely portrayed in my view, is what the cause is for the “anti white” anti cop” attitude. why is there no discussion about WHO is behind the black lives matter movement? i think it is fairly well known that it is a far left group funded by Geo. Sorros. why is that not brought up and why is he immune to any pushback . Another thought is this Anti everything starts at the top. Obama from the get go put the blame for just about anything on “stupid cops”. The black community that would have been “wavering” on the brink so to speak, found suddenly they had a spokesman and someone that would back whatever they did, regardless of the nature. You see proof of that with every incident involving the death by cop of a black person.

    1. “…who knows as she didn’t allow anyone to get to that point.” WRONG! The trigger happy LEO’s made a choice to execute her rather than retreat. Now the state gets everything she owns, including the children.. It’s the game plan on everyone who is nobody. Escalate the unconstitutional ticketing into a felony, kill the new felon, take their property as reparation for their trouble to murder you. Coming to your neighborhood soon enough. Same as LeVoy….think! Cheers!

  9. God you guys are making it awfully hard for this patriot trying to recruit good people to his OK chapter in Southern NY State! How do I promote our cause to the Blue Lives that we claim matter, only to have them come here to find themselves described as “trigger happy LEO’s”?? Any of you State Presidents and Chapter Leaders wondering why you look around your ranks to see mostly “associate members”, look no further than our main web-site postings. With all due respect, wake up or fly lonely.

    1. Well Chip, we can’t and won’t censor people here who have a jaded view of police. And what someone in a comment says should obviously not be taken as this org’s position, whether they are critical of cops or are seen as apologists for cops (we get angry letters alleging both, in response to articles and comments).

      The reality is that many veterans, and many American patriots in general, now have a very dim view of police. It is NOT just among Black LIves Matter followers, and it is also not just among radical “anarcho-capitalist” libertarians who advocate no government. It is among constitutionalists, and mainstream conservatives too. And that is a reality we need to deal with, not censor.

      In fact, we got several angry emails from veterans in response to this article, saying that it shouldn’t be on our site, and that they no longer support us, and accusing us of being apologists for cops (apparently missing the point of the piece – that the BLM movement is creating such a climate of militant hatred of police and seeking of confrontation with police, among its followers, that it is leading to unnecessary death

      As an org, we stand in direct defense of police against cop killers, and we back up the good cops in a very real way. But we also cannot, and will not, support any unconstitutional action by police, and we also cannot and will not give them a pass when they do wrong. We can’t.

      And in fact it is our duty, as an org with good cops in our ranks, to be the ones to call out the bad cops first. Otherwise, we fail in our oaths and we will also lose credibility.

      We have to seek balance. And we will do the best we can to do so.


      1. Stewart, I would never advocate censorship. And I understand the views expressed. Pat1775 is dead on about the tragedy of the general ignorance of our own Civics. But here’s the other side of the coin IMHO: We claim to be “apolitical” as an organization. Our threads do not reflect this fact. We claim to have the Blue Lives backs. Our views, many from OK leadership, portray the “trigger happy LEO” as the rule rather than the exception across the country. This is what I hear from Blues from within my own Chapter who are as solid and Constitutionally literate as they come. I LOVE OK Stewart…I’m grateful for what you have accomplished and assembled here. But we need the Good Blues with us, and my concern…especially with the “active duty” ones, is they will never discover the kindred spirit within if we turn them away at the door. I’m not sure how we pull that off…I wish I knew.

      2. Chip – with this comment I am speaking for myself, not the organization. I am a veteran. I have served my country in conflict. I live in Baltimore where a lot of the Black Lives Matter leadership live and conspire against our country. I will not stand by and watch these people kill police officers. In what will seem like a blink of the eye, the citizens of our nation may soon find themselves in a life or death struggle to survive. It is this eventuality that motivates my articles. If/when these events come to pass, it will be the decisions of our police, active duty military and National Guard that will make the difference between our nation surviving or perishing. We will reassert rightful liberty and embrace the U.S. Constitution or we will be killed; our children and grandchildren will be enslaved.

        We will need every police officer that is physically fit and able to protect our families, businesses and places of worship when the curtain falls. I suggest that true patriots must get off of their butts and get out there and work with them. Educate them on Rightful Liberty. Educate them on our Constitution. Explain to them where the laws that they are sworn to uphold infringe on the Bill of Rights. Explain why these rights must be respected and restored. The same effort must be extended to the active duty military and National Guard members. These people will either be your ally or your adversary in the coming years. It is their arsenals that will either defend liberty or destroy it. I suggest we prepare by ensuring they will be our allies. I do not believe that the fight for liberty can be won without them, especially if we are facing occupation by United Nations forces.

      3. We are very much on the same page NJ. I admire your passion and commitment, as I do most who visit here. Thanks for your service brother.

      4. Navy Jack, and Chip if you are in or have been in a governmental position that REQUIRES you to TAKE and KEEP the Oath – and that includes all who are elected, hired, contracted, etc for ANY governmental position.

        What I am hearing you say is that your “oath” is to what used to be the “thin blue line” which was the first step to DIVIDE and CONQUER between what used to be police officers in blue uniforms and today are mostly military masquerading as offices of the law.

        Yes, I can speak because when they UNLAWFULLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY “changed” the requirements cops had for arrest, for searches, for breaking and entering into the peoples homes I changed careers. My other family members stayed and today are governmental criminals pretending to be upholding the law.

        The lawlessness of former friends and family as officers is disgusting when they spout off, much like you did to me about upholding the US Constitution, while the actions (and words here) do not match the requirements of the Oath taken. The US Constitution, military service followed by law enforcement runs in my family. I chose the US Constitution first. They enjoy the freedom they now have as “officers of the law”, most KNOWINGLY going against our US Constitution. Know why? It was fun and made the work easier.

        Yet, they come to me about Agenda 21, etc and protecting their various properties they own and what can they do to stop what is happening. Hey LE’s, why do you think the first step of the destruction of a nation is called a “police state”? The safety of all in our nation, including you in your job (generic “you”) raises greatly when you KEEP YOUR OATH. Don’t let a CoP tell you what is right, because your Oath to the US Constitution is first and above that authority. When they tell you it is a “need to know”… YOU need to know as it is your azz on the line and the crime may be treason and/or terrorism.

        I do know your “brothers” will not always appreciate that action, that they may even leave you hanging when they are supposed to have your back. But that/those action/s should tell you something about today’s LEA’s, and what is going on.

        But what is going on now could NOT have happened if earlier officers had KEPT THEIR OATH. You would know your duty under the US Constitution if they had done that. I apologize for my generations weakness; not all went the easy way, now it is YOUR choice to stand for your nation or to continue in assisting in its destruction from within.

        Military, we can NOT be at war in any nation lawfully if the Congress does NOT DECLARE WAR. You need to refuse those unlawful orders, refuse to serve as the military arm of the UN/NATO and stay an American – because no one who serves within our governments were ever given the authority to decide that once you join the US military that some Treasonous, Terrorist scum like Panetta or Dempsey could give your service to America to a foreign entity or foreign nation, etc.

        We are not supposed to have a permanent military because they are ALWAYS used against their nation, used to impoverish, etc their own people, and later to murder them. You are supposed to be the regulated 9trained as congress requires the US military to be trained and educated in the US Constitution and the Constitution of your state so that if needed to defend your nation you are ready.

        George Washington: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. “

        John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

        Navy Jack, YOUR Oath is to the US Constitution, you need to learn what is required of you by it. Backing cops breaking their Oath is not keeping your Oath. They are REQUIRED to take that Oath, and should have bothered to learn what it requires of them. But dumbed down officers are much easier to manipulate and can be/are being used against our nation – admittedly a lot unknowingly. But they, like you, should NOT be unknowing – they/you could have educated yourselves.

        We all make mistakes, and that is not a bad thing, it is how we learn as a species. But to not correct your mistakes and learn from them IS a bad thing. You really mean that you are fighting for the US Constitution then learn what it really says/means.

        I stand behind any honest, constitutional officer or military. But I will also call it as I see it and not shut up because it is not PC. I stand for the US Constitution FIRST and foremost and that is what ALL Oath takers stand for, what they lost lives for, were injured for when at wars – lawful or not.

        J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

        John Adams wrote to Abigail April 26, 1777 and said: “Is it not intolerable, that the opening Spring, which I should enjoy with my Wife and Children upon my little Farm, should pass away, and laugh at me, for laboring, Day after Day, and Month after Month, in a Conclave, Where neither Taste, nor Fancy, nor Reason, nor Passion, nor Appetite can be gratified?
        Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

        Thomas Paine: “THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…. In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

        If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity. (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

      5. Cal – What I am saying is that it would be foolish to expect to be able to secure your community in a martial law situation if you have declared the local police, sheriff and/or the National Guard as an adversary without first making every effort to secure their support. What I am saying is that we cannot cast aside the good men and women in our law enforcement agencies because we disagree with certain laws that these men and women have sworn an oath to uphold without first making every effort to educate these men and woman on the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We can pontificate all day long about how martial law and emergency powers are unconstitutional; that will not stop their implementation. We can sit at home and debate the merits of laws we disagree with until hell freezes over, but that will not stop these laws from being enforced. If you or any other patriot on this forum wants to secure the future of your children and grandchildren, the best place to start is building relationships and educating the men and women serving your local police, sheriff and the National Guard. You may be surprised when you see how many of them will readily embrace the founder’s ideals.

  10. Here are some more LAWS to add.

    SUPREME COURT: “Constitutional rights may be claimed by a belligerent claimant in person (PRO-PER).”

    Hertado vs California (110 U.S. 516): “The State cannot diminish the rights of the People.”

    Many people automatically make the assumption that these statute laws are passed to restrict the rights of only the BAD GUYS. WRONG! EVERYBODY’S RIGHTS ARE LIMITED.
    Chicago Motor Coach vs Chicago (337 Ill.200, 169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834.):
    – Ligare vs Chicago (139 Ill.46, 26 NE 934.):

    – Boone vs Clark (214 SW 607, 25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163): “the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.”

    Sherar vs Cullen (481 F.2d 946): For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”

    Kent vs Dulles (357 U.S. 116, 125): “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”

    Miranda vs Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 125): “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Miller vs U.S. (230 F 2nd 486,489): “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

    Mugler vs Kansas (123 U.S. 623, 659-60): “Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.”

    Declaration of Independence, Par.2: “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    Thompson vs Smith (154 SE 579): “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    Thank you Cal for taking you Oath seriously!
    Fight On, Salute!

  11. you go cal: and chip, btw – this seaman is justifying the ignorance of leo — there is only one way – either an oathkeeper or not! local established courts and pd’s have arranged their actions to be acceptable — they obfuscates truth and law. “it is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them”!
    follow orders ? I am a Marine — so is my son and we fully get it — WE REFUSE unlawful orders — it is our Duty! as it is with leo etc…. pd’s are not at liberty by practice or stare decisis (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent), to claim their action legal when in violation of what they claim to represent, and thereby dismiss the their avowed oath. ignorance of the truth and law is not acceptable any longer from acclaimed enforcers. they must be qualified to perform their duties mentally as well as physically. to deny this they endanger all of us and our republic.. understanding Civics is an American responsibility. A criminal justice class and reactionary training coupled with a false sense of bravado is recipe for disaster. If this does not change the very fabric of the oathkeepers will be tested.
    no victim no crime — people have “unalienable rights” not government generated ones.
    time is coming when that tree of liberty will be shaken once again if we do not take a breath and think clearly about when and where we all derive our freedom.
    really tragic leo are more apt to escalate by force these days, but they want it they will get it — it is sad it is headed that way all from ignorance! A king was once held by brave people that demanded freedom — America land of the free home of the (sl) or (br) ave? yet to be determined.
    I challenged a deputy here in iowa (verbally) regarding his constitutional knowledge and he said to me ” do you know how much civics training we get — 0 ” my response was this> when I walk into a court and claim ignorance of the law I am told there is “NO” exception No excuse! My position on leo not knowing THE LAW they are OATH BOUND to uphold is the same! “NO EXCEPTION – NO EXCUSE” I explained that for any leo to make such a claim disqualifies them to perform the duties of their appointment beyond being thugs and enforcers, and I suggested that he resign and take up a different occupation! Today this is a standing army, and by every standard today it is difficult to distinguish any difference!
    Semper Fi

    1. Thank you for your family’s service Pat. Your points are well taken, I just believe (especially now) LEO’s deserve the benefit of doubt…and less of the broad brush.

  12. does anyone here know that there are more people incarcerated in America than in china Russia and north Korea – combined!? Sound like freedom?

  13. she made this bigger than what was intended. comply . c omply . cant do the time e dont do the crime. twisted genetration may not be western cul ture eith er

  14. NavyJack ; Your understanding of our Constitution is convoluted ; The Right too travel cannot be infringed upon by any of our Federated state’s ; Federal Constitutional Law trump’s state law , when a state violates “The Bill of Right’s” ; If you use , that same sort of argument too justify Gun control you will lose the argument ; Hand’s down !!!

    1. Unknown Ranger – Please read my reply to Cal above. The right to travel is a natural right. The right to operate a motor vehicle is not. The argument does not extend to gun control because the right to keep and bear arms is a specific right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The right to operate a motor vehicle, airplane, cruise ship, helicopter and/or freight train is not.

      1. “The right to operate a motor vehicle, airplane, cruise ship, helicopter and/or freight train is not.”

        As far as PRIVATE vehicles, PRIVATE planes; a cruise ship is a business as is a train carrying freight or people for pay. If that lady was driving a vehicle for profit then let me say i am sorry, as I got the facts wrong.

        Navy jack, I am sorry as I was in error thinking she was in her own private vehicle instead of engaged in business vehicle.

        In that case YOU are correct.

        But if it was private vehicle, and she was traveling within it, you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation. As Keltic Sage so aptly brought up and I am re-posting here.

        Thompson vs Smith (154 SE 579): “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”


      2. In Thompson v Smith the issue that the court rejected was the State delegating the administration of the State responsibility to a county sheriff, city police department or other lower authority. Thompson v Smith affirmed the State’s right to issue and revoke licenses to drive.

      3. If you cannot say “no” without penalty, it is then government tyranny. Period. It is education and training that makes a good pilot, or sea captain, or driver of any motorized vehicle, not a law, or regulation, The FAA requires pilot training and successful testing. There is no fee to have a pilot of aircraft license. If we were to apply the FAA rules to automobile rules, the states would lose 100’s of millions of dollars in revenue. States only want the money, the could care less about personal safety. Seat belt laws are common sense, but the heart of them is to provide a means to ticket civilians, and possibly escalate a seat belt violation into a felony conviction.

        The same applies to property rights. There are none. Our properties are now subject to ridiculous fees, taxes, permits, and regulations that only profit the state.

        Regurgitating court cases is not a premise of which upholds the bill of rights, the constitution and common sense. The preponderance of gun regulation on the 2nd amendment that are upheld by courts is an example of why courts are viable as evidence to make your case.

  15. I think a very key element of this has been lost on most of you. Yes they attempted to serve a traffic warrant on her, however they were also attempting to serve a felony assault warrant on the boyfriend. A warrant for his arrest that had the address on it. Well within constitutional boundries. So lets not get tunnel vision on her traffic warrant. Plain old everyday street officers went to serve those warrants, and at some point she decided to pull a shotgun on them and that prompted the SWAT call out. Let keep the facts straight.

  16. I have not researched this entirely, but I did watch the first few minutes of her video of her getting pulled over. She clearly turned the volume of her radio up before the cop came to her window; that IMO is her escalating the situation. So I would say she started it right then and there. She was looking for a fight. She was pissed off about a lot of things that she probably has a right to be pissed about (inequality, etc)
    Now, I do not believe for one second that any cop had the right to enter her apartment AT ALL. If no-one answers the door walk away, send something in the mail, and if that don’t work, catch them at their next infraction and arrest them then. Castle doctrine gives a person the right to defend their home, as it should.
    Both sides made mistakes here.
    The problem is laws. We have too many. Quit making everything illegal, and quit being aggressive (cops) for minor infractions where there are no victims.
    It’s just basic decency and common sense, which is non-existant in both sides these days. Everybody loses here, ESPECIALLY that poor child.

  17. NavyJack ; Freight train’s come under interstate commerce laws you need a Commercial Drivers license to operate them . A Cruise ship again is interstate commerce and also envelope’s Maritime law , nothing to do , with the right to free travel . The crux of your argument is based on privilege ; A Drivers license is a privilege ; Your whole argument is a Maritime Law argument , licenses , permits and serial number’s ; That is not Constitutional law ; Constitutional law is based on Common law , their are know statute’s in our Constitution ; Maritime law was created after the Civil War and it need’s too be moved from our land back to the sea where it belong’s ; Common law addresses all your issue’s , by the “Do Know Harm Clause” embedded in our Constitution ; Common Law Court’s are well suited to deal with any kind of prosecutional negligent crime’s that may occure while driving , by punishment under the law , by Rule of law , if their’s know harm theirs know crime ; Rule of Law cover’s all prosecutional crimes ; Traffic tickets , Parking tickets and all other Citation’s are unconstitutional and only relevant too Maritime law ; Accountability is paramount under Common law , you do the crime , you do the time !!!

    1. Unknown Ranger – First off, it is not “my argument”. The US Supreme Court has held that the right to travel does not restrict the States from requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle. You can travel in a car without being the operator. You can travel in an airplane without being the pilot (commercial or otherwise). The ability of the States to deny a motor vehicle operator permit to protect the rights of citizens from the potential harm of an incapable (blind, unable to perform basic skills, etc.) driver has been reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court every time it has been challenged. The ability of the States to deny a motor vehicle operator permit to protect the rights of citizens from a habitual offender of State’s motor vehicle laws has been reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court every time it has been challenged. Absolutely none of your case citations or those presented by Cal has ever resulted in a State being directed to rescind their motor vehicle licensing program. Nearly all of the case citations presented relate to either taxation (it would be unconstitutional to tax the right to travel) or they are cases where a city or other jurisdiction attempted to impose regulations in addition to those prescribed by the State (i.e. Thompson v Smith).

      The State of Maryland was the first State to implement a motor vehicle license that included a proficiency examination (1910). Maryland’s law was challenged on the basis of “right to travel” in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1914. The court held as follows:

      The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state.

      In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce.

      A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles, when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce, does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

      A state may require registration of motor vehicles, and a reasonable license fee is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horsepower of the engine. Such a classification is reasonable.

      The reasonableness of the state’s action is always subject to inquiry insofar as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress.

      A state which, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce may exact compensation therefor, and if the charges are reasonable and uniform, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. The action of the state in such respect must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear.

      A state motor vehicle law imposing reasonable license fees on motors, including those of nonresidents, does not interfere with rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the state. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, distinguished.

      This case, known as Hendrick v. Maryland, is the baseline case that all subsequent challenges to both motor vehicle operator licenses and vehicle registration with regard to “right to travel” have been decided upon. This case has never been superseded or reversed by any other case no matter what you read on “right to travel” blogs.

      1. “The US Supreme Court has held that the right to travel does not restrict the States from requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle.”
        Of course they did, because “Motor Vehicle” is one of the definitions used in the “Statutes”, (which are corporate rules), as are “operate”, “Drive & Driving”, etc.
        This is done to try and place EVERYTHING under “Commerce”, which is the only thing administrative government is supposed to have jurisdiction over. So they were really just reaffirming the state’s right to regulate commerce.
        If you admit to “Driving”, then you unknowingly place yourself in commerce, (at least in their opinion), because the corporate definition of “Driving” is when someone is paid to drive.
        What you are missing here is the difference between common law and corporate law. “Laws” are found within the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states. “Statutes” are found within corporations.
        You have to learn THEIR definitions of words that you thought you understood. Then don’t use or agree to ANY of them. Then you are still under the constitution, and not their corporate rules.
        According to their corporate rules, If you admit to “Understanding” the charges against you, you are agreeing to “Stand Under” their jurisdiction. When they ask you if you are a “UNITED STATES” citizen, answer no. The “UNITED STATES” is a corporation that they are trying to get you to admit to being a part of. It is NOT the united States of America that they are referring to. You are a resident of your state. (unless you live in Washington D.C., Guam or the Virgin Islands, etc. which are territories of the UNITED STATES, and therefore not protected by your state’s constitution or the constitution for the united States of America.), which makes you a citizen. You are not a corporate citizen unless you agree to being one.
        Watch this video, done by an attorney in Texas, to help you figure it all out. He is much better at detailing it than I am.

  18. @Cal CC Navy Jack ~ Re: Our “Needing to Learn what is required of us by it (Constitution).”
    Cal, you are without doubt one of the most Constitutionally informed visitors to this site. I can’t speak for NJ, but I think our point that you seem to be missing was best made by Lincoln so many years ago. And I quote: “When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and true maxim that ‘a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.’ So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing him of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause is really a good one.” Cal, do you realize how rare a bird you are in your grasp of the Constitution and “what is required of us by it”? We’ve all fallen asleep at the switch. I myself didn’t wake up until the great usurper hit the stage. How could most men taking the oath fully comprehend their action after 50 years of Public Education all but eliminate its significance??? This is why I love OK and its primary mission to educate and re-educate on this very matter. I believe what myself and NJ are trying to say, is that it is imperative for us to assume that the Blue minds needing to be schooled on “what is required”, have their hearts in the right place…until they prove otherwise. But as Lincoln himself would ask, how in the world would we hope to “win them to our cause” by broadly brushing them as “Trigger Happy LEO’s” straight out of the gate?

  19. Correction ; Maritime law was created long before The Revolutionary war , between England and France over disputes concerning International law’s of the seas , it was put in place , by King George or the Queen of England to settle disputes over
    international water’s and be came known as Maritime law and with the blessing of The Elite banker’s !!!



    of the sea

  20. “Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P.2d 46

    “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

    “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky. 731, 17 S.W.(2d) 1012,66 A.L.R.1378; and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S. E. 579, A.L.R. 604. (11 Am.Jur. § 329)

    “The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state.” – PG&E v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.

    U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 31
    (a) Definitions. – In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
    (6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
    (10) Used for commercial purposes. – The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

    1. Keltic Sage – The U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with you. This issue was decided back in 1915 (Hendrick v. Maryland). Your case citations are not relevant. The first two are not even cases associated with State motor vehicle licenses. In Thompson v Smith the issue that the court rejected was the State delegating the administration of the State responsibility to a county sheriff, city police department or other lower authority. Thompson v Smith affirmed the State’s right to issue and revoke licenses to drive. U.S. Code: Title 18: Section 31 is based on the Hendrick v. Maryland ruling which also affirmed the State’s right to issue and revoke licenses to drive. See my response to Unknown Ranger above. I suggest instead of taking sentences from various rulings and court decisions, people should read the entire court case and ruling. This would eliminate most (if not all) of these debates.

  21. The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a COMMON RIGHT which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interferring with, not disturbing another’s RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added). See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.

  22. Right to Travel
    By Jack McLamb
    from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
    For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
    Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
    CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
    CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
    It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
    CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
    CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
    As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
    Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
    Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.
    That means it is unlawful.
    The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.
    The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
    For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.
    In Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
    And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
    Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point– that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
    Other cases are even more straight forward:
    “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
    We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
    The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
    In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
    Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
    If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.
    These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
    Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
    There are basically two groups of people in this category:
    1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
    Here is what the courts have said about this:
    “…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
    There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
    (2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
    We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
    This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
    Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
    We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.
    An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
    Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling –discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
    And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one’s daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

    1. Bravo! This information should be sent to every city, every Police Officer and every court in the United States. The government relies entirely on our ignorance of our Constitution Rights. If we are not aware of our rights, we pay the penalties in fraudulently mandated registrations, licenses, insurance (a legal form of gambling), EPA checks, fines, court fees, and so forth. I’m sure we all understand and agree we need a way to deter criminal acts, but not at the expense of the citizens being slaves of the Masters of Corruption who have brainwashed us into believing our rights of travel are privileges.

  23. The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, § 3 provides that: All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable RIGHTS, among which may be reckoned the RIGHT . . . of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; . . . .
    A vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property, within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the RIGHT to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable RIGHT to acquire.
    Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. (Emphasis added). See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.

    1. Keltic Sage – People v. Nothaus voided a deposit law in Teller County. It did not challenge the right of the State to require a driver’s license or the ability of the State to suspend a license.

      In People v. Nothaus, a suspended driver hit a horse. The County imposed a deposit requirement in order for the driver to get their license reinstated. The court voided the County deposit law. That’s it.

      As for your CO State Constitution reading, again, it does nothing to impede the State’s driver’s license and registration requirements, which have been repeatedly upheld by the CO Supreme Court.

      We can keep these barracks lawyer arguments up until the cows come home but the bottom line is that NO COURT CASE HAS EVER VOIDED THE 10th AMENDMENT RIGHT OF A STATE TO REQUIRE A MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR LICENSE OR A REGISTRATION PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES PROOF OF INSURANCE AND/OR MECHANICAL INSPECTION OF VEHICLES, regardless of what you read on “right to travel” blogs. The first license/registration/right to travel case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1915 and it has never been amended or overturned.

      This is Jeffersonian Rightful Liberty:
      “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

      Read that a few times with emphasis on the “within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”.

      The 10th Amendment provides the States with the right to protect citizens from OTHER citizens with respect to the extreme hazards inherent in the use of a motor vehicle. This includes protecting them from a driver that is blind. This includes protecting them from a driver that repeatedly drives while intoxicated. This includes protecting them from drivers that repeatedly demonstrate recklessness behind the wheel. This includes requiring minimum insurance coverage in the case of an accident. This includes inspection of motor vehicles to ensure they are safe to drive and have proper lighting.

      Now before everyone jumps in with arguments like “what about using drugs?” or “what about 20 oz. Sodas?”, the operative element in Rightful Liberty is “within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”. Rightful Liberty does not include protecting citizens from themselves. The U.S. Constitution provides no mechanism for protecting citizens from their own actions, as long as those actions do not impose on the equal rights of others.

    2. I went and read this case. You very selectively quoted it. What that portion actually said is:

      “Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. The limitations which may be placed upon this inherent right of the citizen must be based upon proper exercise of the police power of the state in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Any unreasonable restraint upon the freedom of the individual to make use of the public highways cannot be sustained. Regulations imposed upon the right of the citizen to make use of the public highways must have a fair relationship to the protection of the safety in order to be valid.”

      Note the part that says: “The limitations which may be placed upon this inherent right of the citizen must be based upon proper exercise of the police power of the state in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.”

      That covers a lot of limitations.

      It goes on to say, in part:

      “[4-5] The regulation and control of traffic upon the public highways is a matter which has a definite relationship to the public safety, and no one questions the authority of the General Assembly to establish reasonable standards of fitness and competence to drive a motor vehicle which a citizen must possess before he drives a car upon the public highway.”

      This is a due process of law case over suspension of a driver’s license absent due process of law. It doesn’t strike down any common requirement to maintain a driver’s license in good standing, proper registration tags and titling of vehicles, etc. The defendant didn’t even challenge the requirement of a license, only the suspension of said license absent due process of law.

      All this said, I see nothing in this case that indicates that if one disagrees with an arrest warrant being issued, one may lawfully resist police trying to serve said warrant with a shotgun or fire shots at police with said shotgun.

  24. i saw the videos.

    that lady was crazy.

    if you want to be able to drive a car down the road, you have to have a license plate.

    if you don’t want to use a license plate on the front and back of your car, the police are going to cite you for you that.

    when you fail to appear for a court summons a warrant is issued.

    when the police get time to come to your house to arrest you and bring you into the court house to answer for your petty moving violations, if you point a shotgun at them and tell them you’ll kill them, you’re escalating the situation.

    this is no overbearing law enforcement, it’s no violation of your rights.

    it’s basic accountability. we’re expected to use simple things like license plates, and driver’s licenses to make our identities readily available, should we have a terrible accident, or commit a crime with a car.

    a driver’s license is not a right. it’s a privilege.

    i learned this when i was 18 years old.

    we’re a nation of laws and we are all beholden to them.

    yes there may be some evil wealthy terrible people who are able to get out of the laws. that’s wrong and we all know it.

    this lady was wrong, she put her child at risk, and that in of itself shows me she has no consideration for her own flesh and blood.

    she created an armed stand off with the police over moving violations.

    this is no hero, this is a crazy person who committed suicide by cop. it’s best she’s gone before she killed someone.

    1. Wow! You really are married to tyrannical thinking. I wonder how you will react when a “law,” takes YOUR constitutional of freedom away. Tell me how many laws are unconstitutional? would that be none? Sense when did any law be constitutional just because a legislative body passed it, or an agency wrote it or a court up held it? Think! Cheers!

      1. many laws are unconstitutional.

        license plate laws aren’t unconstitutional. they’re basic controls to make sure our roads are used appropriately and safely.

        a driver’s license isn’t a right. it’s a privilege.

        you need a driver’s license, and registered license plates – not some soverign citizen garbage on some cardboard.

        anyone who thinks the laws don’t apply to them, should probably go some place where there are no laws and maybe they’d be happier.

        ever seen what traffic looks like india? or in africa? or in egypt?

        if those are the conditions people would prefer to live in, there’s plenty of flights headed there every day.

        if you don’t appear before a judge to answer for why you don’t feel license plates are for you, then the police have got to come to your house to escort you there. if you tell the police you’re going to kill them, you just escalated a non threatening, very low priority issue into a SWAT response.

        that’s your fault. not mine.

        i register my plates, and i don’t drive without a license. that’s why i get to continue to drive where i please. and when i get in trouble for minor moving violations, i pay the fine, and i appear before court and answer for my decisions. that’s why SWAT doesn’t have to show up at my house and shoot me.

        pretty simple.

        this is no confiscation of weapons, or violation of your rights. it’s a minor moving violation she escalated into a deadly situation.

      2. Sorry, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. The fact is history shows we all traveled on public roads without license or fee long before any unconstitutional regulations were imposed.

        Rather than issue a fee based license, we need an education system that makes and produces superior skills. The state cons people via false propaganda that somehow fees and fines are saving us from ourselves. License fees, road rules and regulations and insurance do not prevent bodily harm and property damage. The state is only interested in the collection of our money through fees and fines. Death insurance does not prevent anyone from dying.

        Statemens like …”license plate laws aren’t unconstitutional. they’re basic controls to make sure our roads are used appropriately and safely.” are an example of brainwashing misinformation. What makes a road safe is aa combination of driver training and education, elimination of reasonable risk in road construction, quality equipment and superior road construction.

        Just as ignorant is the statement “speed kills.” So does falling of a roof. Do we have a license fee to be on a roof to prevent accidents? We live in a country that is filled with ignorance which is used by a tyrannical government to fleece our bank accounts and other wealth.

        No need to respond. Cheers!

      3. Requirements to have a valid driver’s license or tags on your car are not unconstitutional. There’s also no constitutional right to challenge police attempting to serve a warrant with armed force either. In point of fact people like this woman with her blatantly criminal and irresponsible use of firearms are the reason our second amendment rights are so frequently under serious attack. If nobody misused firearms, how much popular support do you think there would be for restricting them? She was part of the problem not the victim people like you want to portray her as.

    2. Which law states that a right can be converted to a privilege? Then allows fees to be mandated for such? The Constitution trumps all laws, statutes and codes… even in a police state

  25. The cops don’t write the laws and they may not agree with them but they’re PAID to enforce the law.

    1. Yep. You are right. They are paid with tax-payer dollars, to protect and serve the tax payers who pay them. But before they can take their cop jobs they have to swear [or affirm] an Oath to the highest law of the land, which includes written and other implied “unalienable rights” which the highest law of the land protects for all tax payers (and even those who are not tax payers). Oath Keepers expects all who take that Oath to honor that Oath. All damned “statutes” and “codes” created under the umbrella of that highest law of the land MUST be pursuant to that highest law of the land, and presently, in modern times, there exist a boatload of so-called “laws” which are totally and completely NOT compliant with the spirit and wording of the highest law of the land. All of the damned “drug war” laws, for example, are totally outside the parameters of the highest law of the land and are in violation of the highest law of the land — because the highest law of the land guarantees all citizens within its jurisdiction full right of self-ownership, and when any damned man-made government asserts some made-up “right” to tell a citizen what one may or may not put into one’s body, that government is implying direct ownership over one’s body; and if a damned man-made government can own one’s body, one is not a self-owner. Self-ownership of the individual is the basic principle of a self-governing free people under our Constitution, because self-ownership is the direct opposite of being a slave. If you own you, you’re a free person; if the government owns one, then one is a slave, no matter how comfortably that government bestows upon one the conveniences, entertainments, and rewards necessary for one’s cooperative participation in the government’s sly and subtle slavery racket.

      That is one example. We could also look into licensing “laws” or statutes, which are studied and sometimes contested by thoughtful scholars of the Constitution. There are a number of others, but I’m a bit short on time here so will hope that just this much helps readers see the hidden truths which underwrite the so-called “war on drugs”, just as a seemingly unrelated example. So that is lodged as a side note in this case — that “laws” should be looked at more closely, especially by those hired to enforce laws under this nation’s Constitution. The taking of a life is no light matter, but I totally agree that our cops need that authorization in certain circumstances and I want our cops to be empowered to protect society as well as protect themselves while doing a very dangerous job. This woman, with what many deem to be a righteously-based objection to the whole “license” scam, was not a threat to anyone, but was only a threat to some abstraction called “authority”. For that she did not deserve to die. When “authority” knocked at her door, it was her option to refuse to answer the door. The authorities could simply wait her out, finally capture her when she came out, and condemn her to her day in court. Killing her was not really necessary, for she held no hostage and posed no threat to anyone while sitting in her home.
      Elias Alias, editor

      1. It is encouraging to see such a clear description of the Constitution’s proper role written by a person who is a “public face” of Oathkeepers. As long as “the Constitution” remains a nebulous concept whose details remain obscured and only vaguely defined, there will be many potential allies in self-owning liberty that remain bound up in authoritarian thinking because they remain confused over what the limits of the concept of “Constitutionality” are.

        As a small supplement to your post, Elias Alias, may I add the following?

        Absent consent, which can be revoked at any time for any or no reason: the maximum authority of law within the united States of America is limited to that of a single individual’s. The Constitution’s sole source of authority is from delegated powers from individual people, and a power not already possessed by an individual person cannot be delegated to anyone else.

        “If I don’t have the authority to do a given thing to another person, neither can I delegate authority to do that same thing to any government, agent, nor enforcer.”

Comments are closed.