I was a few miles east of Chiloquin Oregon in the woods getting some rest when I was rudely awakened by gunshots. I got out of there because I didn’t want to hang out. Then I was followed, and you will never guess what happened??? (Wait for it…)
These videos are from my dual channel dashcam blackbox with GPS available here (http://shop.freedomfromgovernment.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=65). I have traveled thousands of miles up and down the west coast this year without incident and I want to tell you that you can do it too. All it takes is some courage and some patience, they have us all controlled through our on fears. I walk with God though, so I have no fear. Actually, God rides shotgun with me because I am on a mission to help people learn how to attain liberty and happiness, while living their life.
I am writing you this letter today acting in the capacity as assistance of counsel for multiple People that your subordinates have been targeting and victimizing for attempting to exercise their inherent, non-negotiable rights, and unlawful code and policy enforcement over those whom it does not apply. (1)
The problem arises when your officers initiate improper traffic stops over individuals who are not operating under a licensing agreement with the department of motor vehicles, and are not acting in commerce and therefore are not subject to the commercial vehicle code or any statutes unless you can show how they agreed to be bound by these codes with full disclosure and meeting of the minds. To have a policy and/or custom of committing felonies because of a traffic safety issue is not only ludicrous, but lawless and unacceptable. (2)
These actions by alleged “peace officers” of Aggravated Kidnapping, Grand Larceny, Fraud, Identity Theft, Extortion, Armed Robbery, Malicious Prosecution, Barratry, Personage, Trespass, Assault, Securities Fraud, Conspiracy, Unlawful Arrest and Imprisonment to name a few are not becoming of those wishing to uphold peace and protect the communities which they serve. To make an unlawful traffic stop for the purposes of revenue generation in the name of “keeping you safe” is wrong in itself, but then to add to that criminal behavior consisting of multiple aggravated felonies is unfathomable and something needs to be done about it, and if you refuse to take action, you will be implicated and included by your inaction. Make note that I will be sending evidence of these crimes to the California Attorney General’s office to open an official investigation into these matters, along with your response (if any) to this communication.
I would strongly advise that if you are aware and have knowledge of these high crimes being committed against people in the community with whom you are entrusted to keep the peace and also to protect and serve, that you do the honorable thing and look into these matters immediately instead of victimizing those whom you are supposed to be protecting by proxy.
The one point and question I have for you in this entire message is to simply find out if you are also involved in these unlawful policies and procedures, customs and behavior. So, I must ask you if you condone (ratify) this rogue behavior by the officers that you supervise. Please send your response in writing to the return address listed above, a simple response is acceptable, as long as it is written and signed by you.
If you do not condone this behavior you would be wise to open an investigation so that you are not thought of to be participating or even directing these criminal activities. I would honorably ask that you immediately open an honest and transparent investigation immediately into this matter as a significant number of the officers under your command are currently liable for substantial violations of rights under both the Constitution for the California Republic and also the Constitution for the United States of America, and will not only be subject to a criminal investigation by the State Attorney General’s office for violations of title 18 USC section 241, 242 and 245 among other federal crimes, but also by civil title 42 USC 1983 causes of action.
Please also be aware that we are actively collecting any and all evidence to support our case/s so please act accordingly.
If you fail to respond to this communication, it will be presumed that you are tacitly acquiescing by your silence and you will also be subject to being named individually and officially in pending litigation for encouraging and possibly even directing the actions of the officers that you manage.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter,
(1) – The People of the California Republic are not subjects of government; they are the creators and grantors of the government, whom are entrusted with the sole objective of protecting our rights and liberties.
(2) – “governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure.” – Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581
“…at the revolution the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereign of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and joint tenants in the sovereignty.” – Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 440, at pg. 471.
This is a rough draft of a letter I plan on sending to elected officials in the future.
One of the most egregious infractions by authorities in the Finicum shooting besides the shooting itself is the roadblock with which he was forced off the road.
Having run driving tests at the site at the same specific time of day as the actual incident in the same weather and road conditions, I could not stop before the point of impact where the vehicles were parked blocking the road. I attempted three times and was unsuccessful each time. It is worth noting that my vehicle was smaller and lighter wieght. I also had 400 lbs less cargo.
This is appropriately deemed a Deadman’s Roadblock because there was no alternative course of travel and the Roadblock was placed at the end of a blind turn in which the driver could not see the roadblock with sufficient time to react and effect a stop before colliding with the components of the roadblock.
A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure. In the eventual civil trial and hopefully criminal trial against the officers responsible, It will definitely be argued that the roadblock was either ;
1. In violation of Police policy
US DEPT OF JUSTICE – Restrictive policies for High Speed Pursuits
“Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”
“…As can be seen from appendixes A through D, the four departments severely restrict, if not prohibit, these tactics.”
“Roadblocks are dangerous and difficult to properly establish. No roadblock may
be established until both dispatcher and pursuing officer have been notified.”
Stationary Road Block — The placement of one or more police vehicles in the traveled portion of the roadway, in order to partially block the road, and to indicate a denial of passage to the violator’s vehicle. Although not absolutely necessary, officers frequently leave a restricted route through the roadblock. When the road is totally blocked, so that even a slow moving vehicle cannot go around—or through—safely, the degree of risk is heightened. When a complete blockage of the roadway is undertaken, officers should ensure that the oncoming suspect has a clear view of the roadblock, and has ample time to stop safely, should he or she decide to do so. This complete blockage usually represents a higher level of control, and could be constitutionally unreasonable unless properly managed.
Pursuits will be immediately terminated when:
• A sworn supervisor orders pursuit terminated.
• Suspect is known to officer and offense is traffic infraction, misdemeanor. or
2. In violation of his 4th amendment rights ( Search and Seizure)
Legal Aspects of Law Enforcement Driving Objective 1.4
Chapter 6 – Module 1 – Page 50
Case Thirty-One: Deadman’s Roadblock
BROWER v. CONTY OF INYO, 489 U.S. 593, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).
The family claimed that police had erected a “deadman’s roadblock” by positioning an 18-wheel tractor-trailer across both lanes of the driver’s escape route, concealing the roadblock behind a curve in the road and leaving it unilluminated…
…roadblock can result in a fourth amendment seizure if it can be established that it was an unreasonable seizure. Thus, the trial court was directed to reconsider critical fact…
Fourth Amendment Seizure, by Roadblock: The court noted that the Brower Estate alleged that Mr. Brower’s death was caused by a concealed roadblock installed by the police whereby the suspect was stopped by crashing into the road block, the very instrumentality put in place to achieve that result. Since a 4 Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied,” the Court concluded that the Complaint state a valid constitutional claim that had to be decided by a jury. Brower v. Inyo County, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).
3. So offensive and egregious as to “Shock the conscience”
BROWER v. CONTY OF INYO, 489 U.S. 593, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).
“Police pursuits that “shock the conscience” may not only expose the pursuing officers to liability but also may expose the governmental employer and the pursuit supervisor to liability.”
“ An employing town, city, or county may be directly responsible under 42 U.S.C. §1983 when an employee executes a governmental policy or custom that inflicts Constitutional injury. “
This allows a Judge some latitude in a finding on a case where statutes may not exist or are inappropriate to the graphic nature or a particular case. The Judge may impose the shock the conscience rule to establish merit in his or her decision.
Such was the case in the original Hammond sentence when Judge Hogan said that to impose the mandatory minimum sentence of five years would shock the conscience thereby giving him authority to impose a lighter, more appropriate sentence. Even though his sentence was overturned in the 9th circuit it was still and is still a viable rule in assessing fault or findings.
From all which is seen in the video, he clearly applied brakes and kept them on until his vehicle came to a stop 40’ past the point of intended impact with the vehicles used to block the roadway. His brake lights come on midway between the two sign posts and stayed on. He simply could not stop and averted a horrific impact which would have injured and killed the other occupants of the vehicle as well as the officials standing behind and around the trucks.
It caused not only physical Injury to Mr Finicum but also Constitutional injury by violation his 4th amendment rights regarding search and seizure, in particular the unlawful seizure of himself and the occupants of the truck.
Beyond all of the laws and regulatory infractions on behalf of the FBI and OSP in this boondoggled mess of a pursuit, they were in graphic violation in the court of common sense and rationality IF their cause and objective was to detain Mr. Finicum and try him under due process.
The preponderance of evidence in this incident gives credence to the notion that they willfully and purposefully violated his rights with the predetermined intent to kill him and his passengers. Intent is a challenging pursuit against members of law enforcement and the likelihood of a much lessor plea bargain if any charges at all. But this is just the issue of the roadblock. The shooting itself in my opinion, will have good standing for a charge of murder and or a host of other criminal charges against those who surrounded him with gunfire and shot him to death unmercifully, unlawfully and with no regard to the lack of threat that he posed to anyone.
This has cost us the public trust of our law enforcement. Rarely a day goes by since this shooting in which I don’t hear someone portraying fear of their “protectors” It doesn’t seem to matter which branch, we all tense up when seeing a police vehicle near us and subconsciously view it as a threat. This for many is a new and uncomfortable experience. It breeds the sensation that we are no longer free at all. We are subject to slaughter or imprisonment if we are bold enough to exercise our bill of rights.
The mere mention of a tyrannical Government can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Bundy) Starting a controlled backburn fire to protect your home from a wildfire can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Hammonds) Reporting on a story with truth can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Santilli)
Are we nearing a place where teaching the constitution will also be an act of terrorism? Talking to your neighbor over the fence?
Voicing an opinion on Facebook?
Some will say this is just spreading fear. Less than a month ago, the thought of FBI shooting you for protesting them seemed far fetched. Now, we know otherwise. There was no risk to officers that they didn’t wrongfully impose upon themselves such as diving in front of Mr. Finicums truck and shooting at him or placing themselves in a Deadmans Roadblock around a blind turn, or firing upon a group of gospel singers hiding their heads with their arms in the truck.
There was intent here plain and simple, and it was not intent to prosecute him under due process.
US Department of Justice
The Police Policies Study Counsel
NCJRS – National Criminal Justice Reference Service
1] Graham v. Connor, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989) — In Graham, the Court set forth standards for evaluating the reasonableness of the use of force. There were three criteria stated: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing.
 Tennessee v. Garner, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985) — In Garner, the Court opined that deadly force could be used to protect officers or others from the immediate threat of serious physical harm, or to prevent the escape of dangerous individuals, after other means have been exhausted, and a warning has been given, where feasible.
 Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 417 Mich. 461 (1983) — In Fiser, the Michigan Supreme Court provided guidelines for evaluating the reasonableness of a police pursuit.
 National Driver Training Reference Guide — International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1989.
 Brower v. County of Inyo, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (1989) — The Brower Court held that a seizure is a, “…governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied…” (emphasis added), and further opined that a seizure has occurred when force is used. The Court defined force as an intentional act which leads to a stop or an arrest.
Please also see the following for more information on this:
My (very interesting) conversation with a couple of Washington County District Attorneys
Last week when my sister was being held illegally against her will, I went and handed out free copies of my new book “Freedom from Government; How to Reclaim Your Power” around the courthouse and jail area. I had nice pleasant conversations with many people, but I had one book left and I happened upon a male and female attorney having a casual conversation and even playing on a recently felled old growth in front of the courthouse.
I approached them and asked “Are you attorneys?”
They replied, “Yes, we are.”
And I said, “You don’t mind me asking you a few questions do you?”
And the male attorney standing on a large log says, “You don’t already have an attorney do you?”
I replied, “Definitely not.” as I removed the last of my books that I had brought with me from my briefcase, flipped open to chapter 2, titled “Attorneys and Representation“.
Have a look at the correspondence I made to the Chief of police for the city of Hillsboro, Oregon today commending him for the honorable actions of his agents (must read!):
Dear Hillsboro Chief of Police,
This message is meant to be routed to the Hillsboro Chief of Police, and/or any senior officer with command over the person who identified himself to me yesterday as an “Officer Brenner” with a badge number of “OR”. Near Jackson St. in downtown Hillsboro around 9pm yesterday (July Twenty-First, Two Thousand and Thirteen), here is a link to a video of the incident – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUcjuV2Aca4
Not sure what “Officer Brenner” and another unidentified person were doing at this house, all I know is that my sister is 6 months pregnant and this “Officer Brenner” guy was harassing and trying to intimidate her, and “Officer Brenner” also denied knowledge of the law.
“Officer Brenner” was with another apparent officer whom remained unidentified. This other officer was the one to act with honor and commence a retreat with his partner, and I wanted to write this message and offer a commendation to the unidentified officer for acting with honor (although he never did produce adequate identification).
I wish to cause no controversy, yet I would like to ask you and your officers to examine the importance of properly identifying themselves ESPECIALLY if acting under COLOR of LAW. With the notice on the door of the house in which this incident occurred, failure to read and/or heed the directives of the notice could possibly result in the use of “reasonable force” to remove them as at that point they were criminally trespassing.
The notice on the door included quotes of USC TITLE 18, PARAGRAPH 13, SECTIONS 241 and 242.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights ”If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
I would recommend advising your officers of the ramifications of these CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS and DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW violations, remedy will be sought in the form of civil lawsuits in both PUBLIC and PRIVATE capacities of each offending individual.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that you or your officers may see myself or others traveling in my car with tags that read “PRIVATE PROPERTY”, “NOT FOR HIRE”, “FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY”. This is formal notice that you may not violate UNITED STATES CODE when I am traveling in my car either, ESPECIALLY if I am displaying private tags. Or countless Supreme Court decisions on the right to travel. For more information, refer to – http://freedomfromgovernment.org/driver-licensing-vs-right-to-travel/ If you disagree with this assertion of my duty to be honorable, to honor all my contractual obligations made without fraud, and to be honorable means that I must do the right and moral thing, without causing harm or using unnecessary force when required regardless of what I am told; I will offer that it is your duty to honor my wish as a peaceful inhabitant of this land.
If you dispute anything in this message or do not provide witnesses with first-hand knowledge and/or evidence that any code, statute, policy, or constitution is applicable to my body without my first having sworn a binding oath, you need to provide this feedback, testimony, or evidence within TEN (10) days of receipt of this message or acquiesce to this notice.
In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as a party in this matter. If I, AND/ OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT or anyone acting as a HILLSBORO POLICE officer/agent in their private capacity or the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to believe by responding to “You” and or “TRENT’, and or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS OFFICER HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive me. As I have no knowledge of who “You” and/or “TRENT” and/or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THESE OFFICERS OR AGENTS HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT/DEPARTMENT ADDRESSING me as such?
As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT/DEPARTMENT, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the TRUST have any SURETY in this matter? As the GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME.
WHAT EVIDENCE does the POLICE DEPARTMENT / COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America corporation? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to contract? Notice: Failure by CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF HILLSBORO in their private capacity to respond within ten days from receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims.