No Driver’s License, No Plates, Not Guilty

The following article was published in 2010 by a news station out of Omaha, Nebraska so I believe that it is biased against everyone who does not do what the rest of the sheep do. With that being said; they would have you believe that everyone loses every time, but it is simply not true.

We all need to take a moral evaluation of everything we do in our lives, and go with the “SPIRIT” of the law over “LETTER” of the law (I think I need to write another article about that in itself). Anyway here is the article –

Screencapture from WOWT 6 Omaha website headlines 10/20/2010
Screencapture from WOWT 6 Omaha website headlines 10/20/2010

A routine traffic ticket caused a Papillion man to draw a line in the legal sand. It’s a challenge of certain licensing laws that resulted in a surprising outcome in court.

“Motorist does not have a license plate on his vehicle,” said La Vista Police Chief Bob Lausten. The driver of a car didn’t have plates or a license and he refuses to get either one.

“This is an unlawful stop, I believe,” said Ernest Kubr on the cruiser cam video.

“You don’t have license plates on your vehicle, sir,” said the officer.

“Am I required to?” asked Kubr. “It’s my property.”

Kubr surrendered his license last year and didn’t plate the car he purchased in September. “I pay all of the lawful taxes I’m obliged to pay, but a right cannot be licensed, taxed or registered.” Continue reading “No Driver’s License, No Plates, Not Guilty”


[UPDATE: For even more evidence of how corrupt and out of control the government is at the federal level and how they are willing to fabricate evidence see this recent article – Federal Case Against Patriots Full of Constitutional Violations]

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.

A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure.
A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure.

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
nonviolent felony.

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.

This was a completely intentional, inappropriate use of deadly force. It was in conflict with the US Dept of Justice’s Restrictive policies for High Speed Police Pursuits (

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

POLICE Magazine Community for Cops

Rainwater Holt & Sexton Law Offices

Case History
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.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] 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:

Since When Does OSP Wear Blue Jeans On Duty?

Cops Breaking Cover Confirm LaVoy Was No Threat

We must dispel myths surrounding Oregon protest


Who are the good guys?

Top 10 things we learned from the Malheur Refuge Protest in Harney County Oregon

Don’t Talk About “Posse comitatus” and Burns, Oregon

The FBI’s Ties to Private Sector Mercenaries (Burns, Oregon)

The Secret That NO ONE Wants You To Know About The Standoff in Oregon

Your Story Just Doesn’t Add Up FBI…

The Gun Is Civilization.
Article By Brad Steffey 02/13/16
Oregon Wide Open


Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel

Author Unknown

Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.
Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.

The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of “driving without a license.” It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a “win” in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

Time to get your hands on your BRAND NEW tags that NEVER EXPIRE! Click here!


NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this “BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,” stating as follows:


If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.


The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. 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 the 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 interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

and further …

“Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”

Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

Know your Right-to-travel! (click image to enlarge)

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. Continue reading “Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel”