Sunday, October 15, 2017

ICE’s Civil Forfeiture Guidelines LEAKED: Value of Items More Important Than Innocent Owner





 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regularly steal the property from people they come across during investigations. An internal handbook, that was recently leaked, reveals the agents are instructed to select property for “forfeiture” with the monetary value as the primary factor, with the legal status of the property not as important.
The 71-page “Asset Forfeiture Handbook”, from June 2010, governs forfeiture practices for Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of ICE, reported The Intercept.
ICE confirmed to The Intercept that it was the most up-to-date version of department forfeiture guidelines.
They justify the theft, saying it is necessary because it is “helping to fund future law enforcement actions” and covering costs “that HSI would otherwise be unable to fund.”
Civil forfeiture is the government practice of taking property from a private citizen. This is also known as legalized theft, but it is OK when the government steals.  The person never has to be charged with a crime and there is no recourse for the victim to get back the items taken.
In civil forfeiture cases, the state prosecutes a person’s property, rather than the owner themselves, and assumes the property’s guilt because property has no due process rights.
“If there is not enough net equity to justify seizure and forfeiture, is there an overriding law enforcement reason to justify the seizure (e.g., a vehicle with a smuggling compartment, a firearm in the possession of a felon)? In these cases, the value of the item may be of secondary importance,” the document reads, implying the value of the property is the primary factor when determining whether or not to steal it.
In fact, the document even directs agents to run an appraisal on private property before deciding whether to take it. Agents are to hire private contractors to run accurate appraisals and, if the property is worth enough, begin the forfeiture process, according to The Daily Caller.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put $3.6 billion into the federal forfeiture treasury between 2003 and 2013. More than $1 billion of those funds came from ICE.
The leaked handbook also lists ways for agents to prevent property owners from defending their property from forfeiture. The handbook lists four defenses that agents must “prepare for:” “‘The innocent owner’ defense; entrapment; duress; and undue delay in bringing the forfeiture action.”
The handbook goes on to say that the innocent owner defense is “by far the most frequently utilized.”  Of course when stealing from people, the government agents don’t care whether or not someone is innocent.  They are just thieves doing their job.
“Asset forfeiture is an essential element of comprehensive and effective law enforcement as it deprives transnational criminal organizations of their illicitly obtained assets,” an ICE representative told The Intercept. The forfeiture of assets can be and is utilized as a sanction in criminal, civil, and administrative investigative activities.”

Thursday, October 12, 2017

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH


AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Be it known to all who call themselves "government," their "courts," agents, and other parties, that I,
_____________________________________________,
am a natural, freeborn sovereign individual, without subjects. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated.
I am not a "person" as defined in "statutes" when such definition includes "artificial entities." I refuse to be treated as a "federally" or "state" created entity which is only capable of exercising certain rights, privileges, or immunities as specifically "granted" by "federal" or "state" "governments."
I may voluntarily choose to comply with the "laws" which others attempt to impose upon me, but no such "laws," nor their "enforcers," have any authority over me. I am not in any "jurisdiction," for I am not of subject status.
Unless I have wilfully harmed or violated someone or someone's property without their consent, I have not committed any crime, and am therefore not subject to any penalty.
Thus, be it known to all, that I reserve my natural right not to be compelled to perform under any "contract" that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Furthermore, I do not accept the "liability" associated with the compelled and pretended "benefit" of any hidden or unrevealed "contract" or "commercial agreement."
As such, the hidden or unrevealed "contracts" that supposedly create "obligations" to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to me, and are null and void. If I have participated in any of the supposed "benefits" associated with these hidden "contracts," I have done so under duress, for lack of any other practical alternative. I may have received such "benefits" but I have not accepted them in a manner that binds me to anything.
Any such participation does not constitute "acceptance," because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid offer, and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed "contract" is therefore void, from the beginning.
From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and intentionally whereby I have waived any of my natural inherent rights, and, as such, take notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void from the beginning my signature on any and all "contracts," "agreements," "forms," or any "instrument" which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any "government" any "authority," "venue," or "jurisdiction" over me.
Typical examples of such compelled and pretended "benefits" are:
  1. "Birth Certificate": The fact that a "birth certificate" was issued to me by a local hospital or "government" agency when I was born, is irrelevant to my sovereignty. No status, high or low, can be assigned to another person through a piece of paper, without the recipient's full knowledge and consent. Therefore, such a piece of paper provides date and place information only. It indicates nothing about "jurisdiction," nothing about property ownership, nothing about rights, and nothing about subject status. The only documents that can have any significance, as it concerns my status in society, are those which I have signed as an adult, with full knowledge and consent, free from misrepresentation or coercion of any kind.
  2. The use of national currency to discharge my debts: I have used these only because there is no other widely recognized currency.
  3. The use of a bank account: If there is any hidden "contract" behind an account, my signature therewith gives no validity to it. The signature is only for verification of identity. I can not be obligated to fulfill any hidden or unrevealed "contract" whatsoever, due to the absence of full disclosure and voluntary consent.Likewise, my use of the bank account is due to the absence of an alternative. To not use any bank at all is very difficult and impractical.
  4. The use of a "driver's license": There is no real need for me to have such a "license" for travelling in a car. However, if I am stopped for any reason and found to be without a "license," it is likely I would be unduly harassed and penalized. Therefore, under duress, I carry a "license" only to avoid extreme inconvenience.
  5. "State plates" on my car: Similarly, if I have "registered" my car with the "state" and carry the "state plates" on it, I have done so only because to have any other "plates" or no "plates" at all, causes me to run the risk of "police officer" harassment and extreme inconvenience.
  6. The use of a "passport": There is no real need for me to have a "passport" (or other associated "permits," "visas," etc.) to travel. I have the right to travel without hindrance, wherever, however, and whenever I wish, so long as I do not encroach upon the private property of others. Though without a "passport," my right to travel is unduly hindered. Therefore, under duress, I only use a "passport" to prevent extreme inconvenience and to ensure that I can travel from one "country" to another at all.
  7. Past "filing" of "tax returns": Because such "tax returns" were "filed" under threat, duress, and coercion, and no two-way contract was ever signed with full disclosure, there is nothing in any past "filing" of "tax returns" or payments that created any valid contract. Therefore, no obligation on my part was ever created.
  8. Past "enrolment" and "voting": Similarly, since no obligation to perform in any manner was ever revealed in print, as part of the "requirements" for the supposed "privilege" to "enrol" and "vote," any such "enrolment" or "voting" does not oblige me to do anything, nor grant any "jurisdiction" over me to anyone.
  9. "Citizenship": Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered "yes" to the question, "Are you a [insert name of "country" here] citizen?" - cannot be used to compromise my status as a sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is because without full written disclosure of the definition and consequences of such supposed "citizenship," provided in a document bearing my signature given freely without misrepresentation or coercion, there can be no binding contract.I am not a "[insert name of "country" here] citizen." I am not a "resident of," an "inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the "chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of" any "monarch" or any corporate "commonwealth," "federal," "state," "territory," "county," "council," "city," "municipal body politic," or other "government" allegedly "created" under the "authority" of a "constitution" or other "enactment." I am not subject to any "legislation," department, or agency created by such "authorities," nor to the "jurisdiction" of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their "authority" therefrom. Nor do any of the "statutes" or "regulations" of such "authorities" apply to me or have any "jurisdiction" over me.
    Further, I am not a subject of any "courts" or bound by "precedents" of any "courts," deriving their "jurisdiction" from said "authorities."Take notice that I hereby cancel and make void from the beginning any such "instrument" or any presumed "election" made by any "government" or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntarily elected to be treated as a subject of any "monarch" or a "[insert name of "country" here] citizen," or a "resident" of any "commonwealth," "state," "territory," "possession," "instrumentality," "enclave," "division," "district," or "province," subject to their "jurisdiction(s)."
  10. "Constitution": The document supposedly setting forth the foundations of a "country" and "its" "government," has no inherent authority or obligation. A "constitution" has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between two or more individuals, and then it is limited only to those individuals who have specifically entered into it. At most, such a document could be a contract between the existing people at the time of its creation, but no-one has the right, authority, or power to bind their posterity. I have not knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally entered into any such "constitution" contract to oblige myself thereby, therefore such a document is inapplicable to me, and anyone claiming to derive their "authority" from such a document has no "jurisdiction" over me.
  11. Use of semantics: There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as "government," and call the noises and scribbles that emanate from their mouths and pens "the law" which "must be obeyed." Just because they alter definitions of words in their "law" books to their supposed advantage, doesn't mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words "person," "address," "mail," "resident," "motor vehicle," "driving," "passenger," "employee," "income," and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.Because the "courts" have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all "courts" and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in any "law" books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any "obligation" to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the definition in the common dictionary differs from the definition in the "law" dictionary, it is the definition in the common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.
Such compelled and supposed "benefits" include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged "benefits" is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my natural inherent rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled "benefits" may be temporary, until alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.
REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
I hereby revoke, rescind, cancel, and make void from the beginning, all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in "law" or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to any "tax file/identification number" and/or "social security number" assigned to me, as it pertains to my "birth certificate," and as it pertains to any and all other numbers, "licenses," "certificates," and other "instruments" issued by any and all "government" and quasi-"governmental" departments or agencies, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my sovereignty and/or property.
I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged "benefit" or "gratuity" associated with any of the aforementioned numbers, "licenses," "certificates," and other "instruments." My use of any such numbers, "licenses," "certificates," or other "instruments" has been for information purposes only, and does not grant any "jurisdiction" to anyone.
I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in "law" or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute owner and possess allodial title to any and all such property.
Take notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void from the beginning all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, "governmental" departments, agencies or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.


I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am competent to make this Affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my inalienable rights and my specific right not to be bound by any "contract" or "obligation" which I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, intentionally, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.
The use of notary below is for identification only, and such use does not grant any "jurisdiction" to anyone.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and with all rights reserved,
(Printed Name:)________________________________.
Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.
Signed:_________________________________
Date:_______________________
 
 

On this ________day of______________, ______, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for ________________________, personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same.
Signed:_______________________________________
Printed Name:__________________________________
Date:_________________________________________
Address:_______________________________________

FREEDOM FROM THE GOVERNMENT; EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS


YES! I FINALLY ORDERED MY MOTORCYCLE AND AUTOMOBILE PRIVATE EXEMPT PLATES.   No more paying for DMV fees for registration, no more yearly tags fee, no more monthly insurance fees.  Its all legal in all states.  To all people who said you can't do that, enjoy paying your next registration fees. Don't say I didn't warn you about the DMV FRAUD against us. My two months of research was well worth it. Anyone interested in how to complete process send me a comment.




Have a look at this Supreme court caselaw: "NOTICE the use of the word "motorist", not "traveler".

"We hold, therefore, that a random stop of a motorist in the absence of specific articulable facts which justify the stop by indicating a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has occurred is constitutionally impermissible and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. It follows that a random stop solely for the purpose of a documents check is an unreasonable and unconstitutional detention of those in the stopped vehicle. Because the stop in the present case was arbitrary, and not based on justifying facts, it was illegal, and the evidence gathered as a result of the stop must be excluded from defendant's trial. The Superior Court order granting defendant's motion to suppress was correct as a matter of law.

AFFIRMED." - https://casetext.com/case/state-v-prouse?passage=QSrS9l5YYfgLZ1PsTRX-yw

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. –Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
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 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 conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
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 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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 another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”
This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.
THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.
The first of such questions may very well be – 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 canlegally put restrictions, such as – licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?
For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
“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 U.S. 22, 24.
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 Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.)
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).
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 not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)
In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments 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;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.
We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.
Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.
In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. 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 that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a 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 the fact 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 in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), 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, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
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 up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).
#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived the ir right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)
We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states 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 filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. 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 vs. Rights”. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., 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”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.
OUR SWORN DUTY
An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”
What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)
Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!
Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.
As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.
Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice andvigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”
Every police officer should keep the following court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:
“THE CLAM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME.” – Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of almost basic right.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Stephen Paddock shot a security guard in the hallway outside his Mandalay Bay suite





Holly Bailey
National Correspondent

Las Vegas police offered new details Monday about the days and minutes leading up to last week’s deadly mass shooting, raising new questions about the police response and their investigation of the still unexplained massacre.
In a significant revision to the original timeline of the Oct. 1 massacre, authorities revealed that Stephen Paddock shot a security guard in the hallway outside his Mandalay Bay suite six minutes before he opened fire out the window on concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500.
In their initial account, police said the security guard, Jesus Campos, was shot around 10:15 p.m. — about 10 minutes into the attack — when Paddock discharged a volley of gunfire through the door of his room after seeing Campos approach on a baby monitor the shooter had placed on a room service cart. Police had portrayed Campos as a hero, telling reporters he had interrupted and stopped the killing, and alerted law enforcement about the location of Paddock’s room.
But on Monday, police said Campos, who was unarmed, was shot and wounded at 9:59 p.m. as he investigated an apparently unrelated alarm for an open door on the floor — six minutes before Paddock began firing out his window at 10:05. Police now say they have no idea why Paddock, who had a large quantity of ammunition and other loaded weapons in his room, stopped his rampage 10 minutes later.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Las Vegas sheriff Joseph Lombardo offered little explanation for the discrepancy in the accounts, although he implied that Campos, who was wounded and “extremely shaken up by what happened to him,” may have misremembered the details.
“As I have conveyed to you from the very beginning … in your zest for information and my zest to ensure the public’s safety and the calming of their minds … some things are going to change,” Lombardo said.
But the revised timeline raised new questions about why it took police so long to ascertain Paddock’s location as they scrambled to figure out where the bullets were coming from.
On Monday, Lombardo said Campos had alerted Mandalay Bay security that he had been shot, but police hunting for the gunman only learned this when they found him lying wounded in the hallway after the gunman had stopped firing at concertgoers below.
According to the updated timeline released Monday, police officers reached the 31st floor of the resort and casino at 10:12 p.m. — where, they reported to colleagues, they could hear shots being fired above them. Officers reached the 32nd floor, where Paddock was staying in Room 135, at 10:17, two minutes after he stopped shooting. They found Campos a minute later, at 10:18 p.m., and the security guard pointed them to Paddock’s room.
Police have offered no details about communications between their officers and officials at Mandalay Bay, who presumably would have reported the shooting of one of their employees. MGM Resorts, which owns Mandalay Bay and several other casinos that Paddock frequented, has repeatedly declined to comment on the specifics of the incident, citing the ongoing investigation.
Officers did not enter the Paddock’s suite until 11:20 p.m. — more than an hour after he fired his last shots. They found the shooter dead of what they described as a self-inflicted gunshot wound. It’s unclear when Paddock shot himself, or what he was doing during those 65 minutes. Lombardo has repeatedly said, and reiterated Monday, that he believes Paddock — who had 50 pounds of explosive material and another 1,600 rounds of ammunition in his car, parked in the casino’s garage — intended to escape.
Police have explained that hourlong gap by saying the shooting had already stopped and they wanted to safely evacuate nearby hotel guests before breaching Paddock’s room.
View photos
Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo discusses the Route 91 Harvest festival mass shooting at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department headquarters on Oct. 9, 2017. (Photo: Erik Verduzco/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP)
Lombardo also acknowledged Monday that authorities had another key fact wrong. Paddock checked in to Mandalay Bay on Sept. 25 — three days earlier than originally reported. That means the 64-year-old gunman had been staying in the hotel for nearly a week before the Sunday night attack.
Witnesses have told police they spotted Paddock — a real estate investor and avid gambler with no history of violence — playing video poker, his game of choice, in the days leading up to the attack. Police say they have reviewed video footage from the casino, but have not revealed what it shows.
The latest revelations are likely to raise new questions about what employees saw and heard, and about other security measures at the hotel where Paddock brought 23 guns — including long rifles — and thousands of rounds of ammunition into his room, apparently without attracting attention.
And police have released new details from the scene that raise more questions about how Paddock operated undetected as he meticulously planned his savage attack — apparently in full view of hotel security cameras that line the hallways of the resort.
In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” officers who responded to the scene said Paddock had apparently used power tools to barricade the door to the stairwell closest to his room, anticipating officers would use the route to gain entry to his floor.
“He had screwed shut the door … with a piece of metal and some screws,” Sgt. Joshua Bitsko, one of the responding officers, told “60 Minutes.”
On Monday, Lombardo revealed that Paddock had also started drilling a hole next to the door of his suite in the hallway, but didn’t finish, and authorities were not sure what that was for.
When police broke into Paddock’s room, they found a room filled with ammunition and guns. “It just looked almost like a gun store,” Dave Newton, another officer who responded, told CBS. There were “all kinds of monitors and electrical equipment … a few phones … a couple of laptops. A lot of drills, drill bits — all kinds of tools.”
Officers also found a note with numbers that appeared to calculate the distance between the Route 91 Harvest festival site and Paddock’s window, as the gunman plotted the trajectory of his bullets. Lombardo also confirmed again Monday that Paddock also appeared to aim at two fuel tanks just beyond the concert site near the runway of the McCarran International Airport. The tanks were pierced by two bullets but did not explode — averting even further tragedy for thousands of concertgoers who ran for their lives in that direction.
More than a week after the attack, the revelations only seem to add to the mystery of why Paddock did what he did. Lombardo indicated that police were no closer to understanding a motive, in spite of the cooperation of his friends and family — including his younger brother, Eric, who arrived in Las Vegas on Sunday to speak with authorities.
Though authorities have zeroed in on October 2016, when Paddock began assembling most of his arsenal for the attack, police still have yet to identify a single event that might have put the gunman on a path to murder.
“I’m frustrated,” the sheriff acknowledged. “This individual purposely hid his actions leading up to this event, and it is difficult for us to find the answers to those actions.”

Sunday, October 8, 2017

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your ...

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your ...

Las Vegas Massacre..NBC caught editing and adding voice clips to live video footage.



ANOTHER FALSE FLAG

The official narrative pushed by the Government and mainstream media regarding the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas is that one lone gunman, using multiple semi-automatic rifles fitted with “bump stock” accessories to simulate automatic fire, committed the horrific mass murder and then turned a gun on himself prior to authorities arriving at his hotel room-turned-sniper’s nest. 

Sorry but the truth be told from videos, wittiness's, recorded police radio scanners, this shooting was not done by one person. It's nothing more then another try at taking guns away from citizens. 

Wake up America. Wake up America. Wake up America. Wake up America. 

Why would NBC need to edit the video footage which was taken by Vegas taxi cab driver Cori Langdon. Why would NBC need to edit/cut her voice to seem like she saying something different. Reason is simple. Media-controlled narratives and the tendency of the government to not be forthcoming with pertinent facts or evidence is just a form of brainwashing for the still uneducated, disbelievers, of the American citizens who refuse to believe their Government is not working for them. 

NBC is caught again along with all the other news media editing voice and hyper-cut clips of live video footage. 



NBC edits original taxi driver live footage of shooting.



Footage from a Las Vegas cab outside Mandalay Bay shows the moment drivers realized a gunman on the 32nd floor was shooting into a crowd: pic.twitter.com/3MmJV9uUTh 
— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 6, 2017

Wake up America


Crisis Actor on Dr. Phil.