Friday, January 25, 2013

Response and challenge to Sheriff Raney

To Sheriff Raney,
Regarding the article:

I will say that it has been a pleasure having the opportunity to chat with you over the last few years. One great thing about Idaho is that if we have a concern, we can get to the top if we need to. I am grateful for the time you have taken to speak with me.

The purpose for this post is not as much to disrespect your position but to get people to consider the alternate perspective that was not covered in your article; that should be important to everyone that loves freedom, I hope my post is received this way.

First of all, the oath taken for office should have been with a proper understanding of history, for without it, the oath is worthless.

Second, the oath was taken with an understanding of where man’s rights come from

Third, the oath was taken with the understanding that government was created to protect those rights of the people, not to protect people from themselves or to protect the government.

Third, in this oath it was taken as a solemn promise to the people that you understood the limitations of government on the people so that freedom and liberty were preserved and protected not dictated or restricted by a government.

Fourth, the oath was to acknowledge that in our constitutional republic, we were a system of “self-government” and that the created government could exercise “few and specific powers” not to have the government interpret what our rights are because it is contrary to its creation.

Fifth, your oath was to honor the constitution as the Supreme law of the land, not to uphold all laws and administrative policies created by every and any political subdivision. Your oath was to render all laws repugnant to the constitution, null and void. In order for to see the repugnancy, one must understand what I have stated above.

In your article you mention the foundation of checks and balances and the separation of powers but your article is in complete contradiction to your statement. In it you state that such disregard would result in anarchy which is pure prejudicial conjecture and contrary to the entire creation of the constitution in that it was a document promoting self-government, that limits government NOT ITS PEOPLE!

In your article you state that we are the federal government, the state and local government, but you fail to mention that the states and the people are also free, sovereign and independent from the union as well. You fail to mention the phrase or any indication of the Declaration of Independence to fact that “when a government becomes corrupt to these ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it” clarifying the sovereign capacity of the people and the states.

You state that our constitution says we have a right to bear arms but that was the Bill of Rights, but fail to separate the two documents because they were created for different purposes. One expressly declared what the government could and could not do, restraining itself, and the Bill of Rights was a Declaration by the people to the government stating what rights specifically were retained and not to be subject to some government entity or Supreme Court interpreting the rights of the people.

You state that there is also a “supremacy clause” and that your oath requires you to uphold all laws passed by state and federal representatives which is false. The supremacy clause was written with the understanding that the constitution was supreme and that no state could write laws that were repugnant to the constitution and could not write laws unless it was not expressly written in the constitution. In the formation of the union, it was the one way that the states would be guaranteed that the rights of the people and the states would not be violated by the federal government. Remember the purpose of the creation of government was to protect and preserve the rights of the people not restrict our rights at our expense, telling us what is good for us or to protect us from ourselves!

You state that our checks and balances point us toward a proper remedy to be challenged by the judicial branch is if it were legitimate. Case in point, our court has “RULED” that it should be legal to kill the innocent which is not only contrary to the constitution’s first tenant to protect life but violates the creation of government because it can no longer protect the innocent.

In your article you state that the determination of executive orders is to be left by the Supreme Court, not by 44 county sheriffs and you are incorrect again in that I would challenge you then to explain what the difference is between King George and his edicts and the edicts of an emerging dictator or nine in black robes? Explain how the people that created government to protect their rights would subject them to any one government entity that the founders knew could always have the power to oppress them?

The Sheriff is Americas last hope, it is the last line of defense to protect the people against the tyranny of a federal government and the sheriffs lack of knowledge of both the power he possesses and the understanding of his oath and our history, makes him unqualified and unable to protect the people, rendering the sheep to be tended by the wolves.

Sheriff, with all due respect, you possess the power to protect those in your county, all you need to do is stand and acknowledge it, we know you can, I know you can!!

Thomas A. Munds

Tom Munds:

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Letter to congressman Labrador

Congressman Labrador,

I would like to take a moment to thank you for standing up for the good people of Idaho and through representing Idaho, also representing others when their representatives will not stand.

I received your press release “executive orders” and appreciate your communication with your constituency however I have a few comments and questions with regards to your statements.

Where did the founders give the executive branch the authority to enforce laws to protect the right to bear arms? What this expressly stated or implied?
When you said “I will review these proposals to ensure that the President's actions and proposals do not violate our constitutionally protected right to bear arms. I will also thoughtfully consider whether the laws we currently have on the books can be better enforced to safeguard our lives and our liberty.”

I must ask where the executive branch may propose bills, actions or executive orders that constitutionally apply to the restriction of the rights of the people, when with just basic knowledge the Bill of Rights was not a document left for any government branch to interpret, it was a Declaration between the anti-federalists and the federalists that created the constitution to correct any misunderstanding and alleviate any ambiguity clarifying that OUR rights were from our Creator, were unalienable, not to be interpreted by any court or government (because it was contradictory to its purpose) and were to remain inviolate! Rights are from God not government and government has no authority to take a right and turn it into a privilege, especially then charging for it!

When you stated that you will “consider” laws on the books, looking through your constitutional and historical knowledge as a supporter of the second amendment, how much farther do you have to look than the second amendment of the Bill of Rights? How much farther do you have to look than the created purpose of government, to protect the rights of the people, not to restrict them which every provision of the constitution was created to support?

With your constitutional knowledge, where does the executive branch get the constitutional authority to create edicts that somehow apply them to the people as law like subjects when governments capacity are servants of the people?

If the executive branch has this authority, please state it and explain how this executive authority is is any different than one tyrant king, or in our case, nine in a court of black robes? Also ask yourself how is this mindset is consistent with the preservation of a free people?

If the Supreme court “Rules” on a topic, where is it said that it then becomes law? Where does it say that the Supreme Court can “rule?” Truth is the Supreme Court has been hijacked and legislates law from the bench, not no longer protecting the rights of the people but now to make law and to tell the people what their rights are!

How much farther than this do we have to go to know this is true when they have ”ruled” its ok to kill our unborn when it clearly violates the first provision of why our founding documents where established, to protect life and to protect the innocent? How much farther do we have to go when the Supreme Court INTERPRETS the BILL of RIGHTS that was not left to be interpreted? How far do we have to go when they rule that warrantless searches and drones are not a violation of our 4th amendment, I can go on and on…..

Congressman, I have no doubt in my mind you understand these concepts. This email to you is to communicate with you the fact that I believe you are the only one capable of standing on the true principles of freedom in our congress today and if you do not, knowing what you know, you not only are a disservice to your state you’re your country but enslaving us and our posterity.

The other reason I am emailing you is to get specific answers to my questions so that I may apply the answers here at a local level where the people are being criminalized by officers and government entities and a variety of political subdivisions that not only do not understand their oath or the constitution that they swore the oath to or their limitations as a government entity. It is answers to the questions I seek in response to this email, not just a “thank you” form letter with no substance, with all due respect.

The people in Idaho are angry Sir. I have done my part to contact 44 county sheriffs, local law enforcement, city mayors, councils and legislators attempting to ask my government just what the hell form of government we have that allows itself to take tax dollars and not only squander them but ignore us while they do it, then when calling with a concern they deny the issues.

My law enforcement looks at me like I am a criminal, my legislators tell me “to keep doing what I am doing”. As a free man, with partial support of two legislators, I am confident stating not only am I in fear for my life, but in fear of being criminalized for standing on what I know belongs to me and the good people of Idaho, our God given, Constitutionally protected Rights that no man can take away!

It is obvious, to me, that our president desires to create civil war on its citizens, which is part of the Alinsky model, to transfer from one form of government to another. Understanding this, I am doing everything in my power to try to prevent this from happening in Idaho but due to the lack of proper constitutional knowledge of both the citizens and in our government entities and representatives, the task appears almost impossible. Please help me any way you can.

Please forgive my anger, my frustration, and aggressive tone, but I feel I have that Right as my state and country and my fellow Idahoans and Americans are going to hell in a handbag as our representatives are playing pocket pool or hands of poker gambling with our future that looks worse every day!

If I may ever be of service, as insignificant as I am, please know I am available.

If there were ever a cry for help sir, this is it!


Tom Munds

PO box 851

Middleton, Idaho 83644


If you are having trouble viewing this message or would like to share it on a social network, you can view the message online.

January 20, 2013

Website | About Raúl | Serving You | News | Issues | Resources | Contact Me | District

From Raul:

Dear friends,

This week the President announced a series of executive actions that he would take regarding firearms laws at a theatrical press conference at which the President surrounded himself with children. Like many of you, I found the Presidents use of children to drive his agenda shameful. However, I will carefully review the President's executive actions and his legislative proposals.

Our Founding Fathers believed the right to bear arms was essential to the cause of freedom. Those same Founders also gave the executive branch the authority to enforce the laws protecting this right and our security-and this is the authority the President was asserting when he signed his executive actions.

I will review these proposals to ensure that the President's actions and proposals do not violate our constitutionally protected right to bear arms. I will also thoughtfully consider whether the laws we currently have on the books can be better enforced to safeguard our lives and our liberty.

I have always defended the Second Amendment and will continue to do so with my heart and soul. I look forward to having a thoughtful, honest and straightforward discussion about these issues in the Judiciary Committee over the next few months.

The gun control press conference capped off a busy period in Washington, D.C. The House recently elected a Speaker and organized for the 113th Session of Congress. Among the items of business for the House and for the Judiciary Committee will be immigration reform. I have worked hard to have what Politico describes as "a leading GOP voice on immigration changes," and want you to know that I want changes to our immigration laws that reflect our conservative values and heritage. That means no amnesty and no special pathway to citizenship. We must find a solution that is fair to immigrants who have done things the legal way, fair to those who are struggling to achieve their dreams but are caught within our broken immigration system and, most importantly, fair to our American citizens who demand fidelity to the law. I look forward to continuing the discussion with you as immigration bills are introduced and debated in Congress.

Finally, I wanted to share with you an article that explains my involvement in the organization of the 113th Congress and my goals and philosophy moving forward over the next two years.

Washington, D.C.
1523 Longworth HOB | Washington, DC 20515 | Phone: (202) 225-6611 | Fax: (202) 225-3029
Hours: Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:30PM ET
Coeur d'Alene
1250 Ironwood Drive
Suite 243
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Phone: (208) 667-0127
Fax: (208) 667-0310
Hours: Monday-Friday
313 D Street
Suite 107
Lewiston, ID 83501
Phone: (208) 743-1388
Fax: (208) 743-0247
Hours: Monday-Friday
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Suite 251
Meridian, ID 83642
Phone: (208) 888-3188
Fax: (208) 888-0894
Hours: Monday-Friday

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6037 - Release Date: 01/16/13

Monday, January 21, 2013

A few words about the healthcare debate

Healthcare post

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to fellowship with my fellow patriots this morning with Kevin Miller on location for the healthcare debate at the Boise Convention Center.

We had a great turnout and on our side, those in opposition to the state exchange were in true form, well informed and hammered those in support, nice job to wayne hoffman, Steve Ackerman and Loel Fenwick.

The debate went on for hours and rather than boring you with the trivialities, ill post a few of the topics that concerned me about those in support of the exchange.

Those in support say Supreme court has "ruled" and so we must submit to their authority. Are the people to believe that the supreme court determine our rights? If so, how is this different from King George except we have traded one tyrant for nine?

Those in support, including the governors spokesman previously said they picked the best of three choices made by the feds? Are the people to believe that the people must submit to government authority and submit to choices made my the federal government when it is clearly out of their jurisdiction?

Those in support say that they are for a private exchange, When has that happened and that once we have accepted the exchange will we be able to move into a private exchange? Are we the people to believe that government will ever relinquish its power it has taken from the people or the states? And can anyone give an answer to when they have?

Those in support of the exchange say we have a better chance of control? Where is the constitutional provision that allows the feds to control the states or its people?

Those in support of the exchange admit the feds are overreaching and inefficient but also numerous times admitted we are a socialist system. How are the people to justify its implementation and support this exchange when by their own admission the constitutionality of it proves supreme court is not constitutional because it has authorized a socialist healthcare system?

This exchange is developed by healthcare corporations, and is corporate fascism. the creation of this beast benefits those that created it with funding from the feds collection of tax dollars as well as the cozy relationship the healthcare industry has with our government.

Those in support say we get to choose three options mandated by the government? How are mandates constitutional in that the government has the authority for the people to be forced to buy something they dont want?

How much do healthcare industries get from the people by force and secured by our govt?

They say there are Federal fees? More fees? Are the people to believe that the federal government has no limitations on its taxing authority on the states or its people? Cost is not the issue, as much as it is principal!

Those in support say taking care of yourself will be encouraged and beneficial? Are the people to believe that the government is interested in the well being of the people while the feds poison our food, water, and air and blood?

Fda approves drugs to make us sick, corporations with government control healthcare rising its costs to increase profits meanwhile government takes our tax dollars and incomes poisoning us and making money through the care given by a system it controls?

Those in support of the exchange keep saying they know the choices ate oppressive and bad, that there are many unknowns, that the system is a socialist pig but support the Feds telling us what to do while they say they support the mandate with the least control like its the only options we have? Were forced to abide by federal deadline? What constitutional provision allows the feds to place mandate deadlines on the people or the states with regards to healthcare?

Why are the people given options /restrictions by government when the duty of government to protect our right to choose without mandates? Fees and unknown provisions in a bill they refused to disclose?

Those in support acknowledge there are penalties for failure to sign up? Penalties? Are we the people to believe that the federal government is acting in its limited authority as it utilizes coercion in an effort to force submission by the people and he states? What constitution does the federal government adhere to? What constitution does the supreme court use when it ushers obvious unconstitutional mandates?

Those that support it acknowledge that healthcare pays for all that are here. are we the people to believe we save money funding illegal mexicans and their kids while our president opens the flood gates lessening care for those tht fund it?!

Those in support of this exchange acknowledge our personal information to be mandated into a federal database? Are we the people to believe that mandates are necessary by a government to protect the freedom of its people?

Those in support say Free market will have to conform? What part of free markets involves requirements set by the feds with imposed penalties and taxes?

Those in support say that we would have to sue the feds?Are we the people to believe we need sue against the feds when it forces the people to pay twice to have their rights protected which should have been done he first time?

We the people understand that through history governments use deception to cooers people to submit then force interpretations of law to expand their powers. Once laws like this are in place and the people have been rendered powerless, the truth finally comes out and its never efficient nor a benefit to the people. Governments have always ended up "enslaving its people for their own good"

Those in support say we must stay with the black letter meaning of the law? So what is this law that trumps the protection of our rights by a written constitution?

The problem is that we the people have denied the church its proper role and instead, chosen to be controlled by the state instead of supporting the churches which were the charity arm of the state which is why they were tax exempt to begin with.

Those in support urge submission to the IRS "or else?"
Are we the people standing in a room with neutered "experts" in support of the exchange that do not even question the authority of the IRS? If they wont ask, allow me to. Where is the power of the IRS derived from? Where is the constitutional provision that allows them to forcefully collect taxes threatening the loss of liberty and property? If there is no constitutional provision, where is the congressional mandate to allow them to collect or utilize force? Are these not ex lost facto or bills of attainder or perhaps a denial of every provision and intent by the creation of government though a constitution? Does the IRS when it collects taxes pay down the national debt? If so, why does the debt continue to grow and if not where does the money go, to the crown of England, the IMF? The global elite bankers?

We the people have a choice! We are the inherent power in a constitutional republic Were not under the authority of a king, a tyrant dictator or in our case nine judges! if governments were created by the people, to protect their rights, not to interpret them, how then has the master become servant and the servant the master?

This debate was clear to me like all other mandates that this is not about caring for the people but to subject them to slavery to a system that will destroy not only the individual wealth but the wealth of the states and the nation! Measures like these are done on purpose to destroy a nation, its freedom and bringing our nation to what the president said in 2008, "that no one nation should be above another"

Does more really need to be said?


Thursday, January 10, 2013

Is it me?

Is it me or does no one know the law?

Many of you know, or should know that in my activism, the last thing I want to do is make people angry. Knowing my aggressive and abrasive nature, I try to be as respectful as I can but am willing to respond according to the proportional respect I receive which is never warmly accepted, why?

Why should someone that disrespects you deserve respect? More specifically, why should you, as a taxpayer, paying their salary and benefits for life, be treated with such disrespect unless they have the idea that somehow they rule over you.

Do our government officials rule over you? And if they do, how is this possible under oath or lawful in a constitutional republic?

If the power is inherent in the people in a constitutional republic and the governments are the servants that pathetically beg for your vote, have not the servants become ruler over his master?

The issue I post today, although it could take me millions of places has to do with my personal pet peeve, the understanding of law and in this case, public school, Americas "sacred calf" and the one place that can take a great part of the blame for the way society is today.

Did you know according to the constitution, that all legislative powers or the power to make laws must be in the legislature?

If this is so, how can any and all political subdivisions make law or even enforce the law?

If you wanted to know what the scope and limitations of each political subdivision and how much power they possessed, where would you look if you couldn't find it in the statutes? If you cant find them, are they hiding it and if so why?

Did you know today, your public school is doing the following?

Schools are telling parents that vaccinations are mandatory under law;

Schools reprimand children for an issue between two students that happened the previous summer;

Teachers are monitoring social media sites acting as law enforcement and reprimanding children for “cyber bullying” then taking the authority to detain and punish them without parental notification;

Parents are told that administrative policy has full force and effect of law;

Parents must pay to enter into school;

Parents must pay parking lot fees to park on campus;

School districts are using COERSION to scare parents by stating the minor offenses of the child have been submitted to the local law enforcement for legal action;

That children’s cars gets hit in the parking lot, but somehow the surveillance cameras that under the impression of the tax payers to catch criminals somehow don’t have any evidence of this issue and that

Because no one saw the accident the injured party must claim it on their insurance, instead of the school claiming on theirs? Did you know the school has its own insurance?

The problem is that governments have hijacked the minds of the people, taking it upon themselves to “properly educate” them to direct the future, not for the benefit of the people but forced submission through fear tactics to achieve control.

The other problem is that once the young “properly educated” people become adults they do exactly as they were programmed to do and teaching our children what they know walk right into the trap where they not only become the servants to the master but enslave our kids. This concept is in complete diametric opposition to Americans originally established foundation and intentions and has dangerous consequences.

Today we have no proper understanding of our role, whether it is government agency, parent, church or child or school. It isn’t to say that these people are bad, to the contrary many of these people are the most heartfelt passionate people on the planet but without the proper knowledge of law and history and a complete understanding of their limitations, it would confirm that the road to hell may be paved with even the best intentions.

Parents, you need to wake up! You need to pay attention to what is happening to your future and that of your children.

I have made a pledge to my family and my fellow Idahoans out of love and respect, which is to continue to warn and stand against the further stripping of our rights challenging every government entity not because I have any degree of malicious intent for them but to prove to not only the people behind the desk but to every day Americans that we have, in fact, been hijacked by the well-intended ignorance of the people that are through their lack of knowledge endangering the people they, in many cases truly love.

Finally, the written law is, constant, equally applicable and unbiased and not to be interpreted. If law is to become interpreted it simply changes the reason why it was written, which then would be degraded to nothing more that random opinions, instead of constant, would be ever changing where knowing the law would be impossible.

I hope you found this post challenging and that in reading it, you may become active and begin to challenge every position where one attempts to rule over another because in most cases, you will find, they never had the right or the authority.

I am always available for comment or to be debated and challenged. I will never claim to have superior intellect, Im just a guy that cares.

Tom Munds:

Facebook( personal page):!/profile.php?id=1476006822&ref=ts
Website email:
Youtube channel:

“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not a cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write with moderation. NO! NO! Tell a man who’s house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of a ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from a fire into which it has fallen;- but urge me not to use moderation in a case like the present. I am in earnest-I will no equivocate- I will not excuse- I will not retreat a single inch- and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection from the dead”
William Lloyd Garrison “ To the public” from the Inaugural editorial 1 January 1831 The Liberator

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Dear military personnel

Dear military personnel,
Many of we the people respect you more than you know but with all the confusion and uncertainty, we fear you as well.
We see your commander in chief as unbecoming of such and feel he will use his dictatorial power to use you against us.
Please know we love and respect you but more importantly please remember your oath was to the people not a dictator pretending to be a president.
As i recall the oath sworn was a dual oath in that it included enemies foreign and domestic! How long will you adhere to one side of your oath abandoning the other?
Have you forgotten that your own dictator in chief has declared you and the people you've sworn to protect terrorists in their own homeland?
If people are declared the enemy, isn't that also a declaration of war against those people?
Why has no one said a word?

Dear friends, patriots and government agencies

Dear Fellow Americans and government agencies,

There are many of us that have watched this country decline for decades, there are more that have awakened more recently, in the last few years like me and hopefully there are those that are waking daily to the horrors that we face in this once free country. As this country faces mounting uncertainty, the government does what it can to re-assure the people we are in recovery; I assure you we are not!

I have made the decision years ago, as many that know me will attest to, that I will be as increasingly vocal as the oppression increases. I have drawn my line in the sand, am willing to take the ridicule and the scrutiny in my most sincere effort to help do my part to save this country, or save Idaho from what many people cannot yet see or die trying. I do not view myself as special, elevated in authority or self-serving but rather someone that just cares enough to put my money where my mouth is to ask what no one else seems to be asking: “Just what the hell is happening to America?” and stand alone, if necessary in doing so!

For those that do not know me, I do speak aggressively and may, at times, am abrasive but I assure you I mean no malicious intent nor do I have any ill-will toward any person or agency on the contrary, because I understand that many of us, including myself, have been brilliantly bamboozled. Due to this fact I have given the state the benefit of the doubt that these state agencies are not aware of the endgame as they work to protect their people. The simple fact of the matter is, there are people in our government entrusted to protect our rights, that do not have the best interests of the people at heart and it is time to make sure that people understand this.

The purpose of this email is to share a message from my heart as well as to share a video that I believe is important. In my opinion, this video is worth watching because it is a compilation of media sources and stories over time that when brought together; show that the direction our federal government is taking. Our federal government has been propagandizing and among other things, giving money to the states to gain incremental control and when clearly seen through this video, will reveal the dangerous intent while they continue to cleverly do it under the guise of “in the name of safety.” for which there are no longer any limitations on any government agency or political subdivision.

Please take the time to watch this video and consider the fact that if you discredit this email and what I am saying has any validity, understand the blood of the people and the destruction of this country for future generations may be on your hands.

What I am asking each of you to do, if you support what I am saying, is to:

1. Forward this email to others you know.
2. To speak to people you know at work or at play to find out if there are people willing to stand against the destruction of your freedom;
3. To contact your local law enforcement, your mayor, your county commissioners, police both city and state,
4. To write letters and make calls or to meet with our officials in person to express your concerns;
5. And to ask them point blank, what they plan on doing about this continual encroachment not only on the people but the attempt by the federal government to diminish the local control and power of the cities, counties and states and to force total submission to a federal or perhaps global government.

If you have information or need assistance or have any questions of my motives, I challenge anyone to call me and discuss the issue/s. This is not an attempt to subvert our intended form of government but to prevent it! I love my country, I love my military and law enforcement but when the founders intended form of self-government, or limited government has been overcome by tyrants with unrestricted, unlimited power, its time to stand and say enough is enough.

Americas dying hand is in the hands of its people. Will we rise as Americans to save this great country from its peril or will we, submit in fear, allowing it to slip away subjecting our kids and ourselves to bondage? The choice is ours, the path is unclear, the road will be rough and undefined and danger could be a distinct possibility. Are you up to the call?

As i recall, christ was the only one that could perform miracles alone.

Tom Munds:

Our law and a simple public records request

MY son was attending a basketball game at Middleton High school, you know the new prison with an unlimited budget and surveillance cameras to catch criminals?
As it turns out, my son was one of the last leaving the school, when reaching his car, he finds, the door had been smashed in with no note and no word about who did it, so much for teaching responsibility in that place! Anyway, the police report was taken and I had requested the video be preserved for the case should I decide to pursue one.

What I did find out about a case like this is that although no one wants to take responsibility for the accident, AND THAT THE TAX DOLLARS FOR THE SURVIELLANCE CAMERAS DO NOT COVER THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT, the school has an insurance policy but guards it with their life, like a sacred cow. When asking their insurance company why I couldn’t file a claim on their insurance rather than mine, their only answer was that no one had ever done it before! The records request was written to send to the insurance company.

The below post, is a public records request to the county for information regarding the accident. In this request, the lady I spoke with stated that I needed to submit my drivers license and somehow I felt something was wrong with this, so I looked into it. I felt, with what I just found out, being a bit agitated by this, since I was filing a public records request I would ask some information on how our government creates power and immunity over its people within itself and its political subdivisions without legislative authority.

Remember, I am not a a legal scholar, just a guy that has an inquiring mind and is tired of being forced to submit, jumping thorough endless hoops to fight for my rights, when governments were instituted to fight for them for me rather than create strife which they are increasingly good at!

Im mad as hell and will question everything. When I receive an answer, I will post it, you know I will!

NAME: Tom Munds
Phone #
Report #
Date of incident: 12/4/2012

To whom it may concern,

As I am the parent and responsible party for my son, I am requesting any and all information regarding the police report taken on the above date to be mailed to my address or to be notified as to when I may pick up this requested information. If you need further information, Please let me know.

To my knowledge, for this request to be satisfied, I was told that there is an administrative policy that requires me to submit my license number with this request, even as I was not a party to the action, so in addition to the requested report, I am also requesting the following:

Where administrative policy has full force and effect of law and somehow applies to the people and not the agency for which it was written.
Why my license number is necessary in requesting a public records search, when according to the Idaho statutes no name needs to be given except for the purposes of mailing or contacting the requestor when information is ready or to be mailed.( Idaho code 9-337(5))
Why this request would need to go through an attorney before submitting it to the party requesting the information, unless there was public information that the requesting party is somehow not privy to.
Please also state the legislative enactment where the government has granted itself constitutional immunity from having to follow the same ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, it enforces upon its people when administrative procedures apply to the administrative agency of which is was created and when in fact, properly applied was never meant to apply to the people as law?
And how is this request, and its immunities granted to government consistent with the power inherent in the people rather than the government?
in addition, please provide information stating that we, according to your written policy below, are “Citizens of a democratic society” and that we are, in fact, Citizens.

In my passion for law, and in the interest of public trust, the answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated. With all due respect in advance, the above questions are not seeking “legal advice” they are asking for the policies and procedures and/or statutes that apply to this request.

Below, You will find the policy for the public records request of where my information was obtained.

By the way, “Please also include in my request, the information stating that we, according to your written policy below, are “Citizens of a democratic society” and that we are, in fact, Citizens.

America, as our founders stated, was never intended to be a democracy, but founded as a “CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,” not by rule by the majority but by the written law, our constitution!

Have your attorney look into this and tell me who knows the law!!!

To clarify, in closing, This is my formal request for the information and to provide answers to the questions included herein.

Thank you for your time,

Tom Munds

Public Records Request Policy

I. Introduction
All citizens in a democratic society are entitled to openness in government. Idaho's Open Meeting and Public Records laws, ensure that state and local government business is conducted in the open, that citizens have access to public documents, and at the same time the privacy of citizens is protected.

Idaho Code § § 9-337 through 349 contains provisions of the Idaho Public Records Act. I.C. § 9-339 requires that public records requests be granted or denied " within three (3) working days of the date of receipt of the request for examination or copying." If necessary, the public agency may take up to ten (10) working days to provide the information. The research analyst should be notified of such determination immediately so proper notice may be provided. It is policy that as a public service agency every effort will be made by the State Controller's Office to fully comply with the Public Records Act by responding in a timely, accurate and courteous manner.

II. Denial of Request
A public record request may be denied in whole or in part only by the legal administrator of the agency or his/her designee and only after legal consultation (i.e. Office of Attorney General). Such determination must be provided in writing to the requester stating the statutory authority for denial, stipulating clearly the right to appeal and the time for doing so.

III. Procedures
(In order to ensure full compliance with the law, policies and procedures must be in effect and are discussed here.)
The Act does not require the requester to reveal their name, the purpose of the request or complete a written request except to verify the identity of the requester in accordance with I. C. § 9-342 to ensure the record or information will not be used for a mailing or telephone list prohibited by law (I.C. § 9-348). However, by completing the Public Record Request Form details such as date and time received are documented in the event questions arise later. Furthermore, a copy of any records, materials, reports, correspondence, etc., transmitted to the requester should be attached to the form. If the material is too bulky or copying is not practical, a copy of the first page and/or a list of the enclosed materials and their source(s) should be attached to the form. The completed form and all accompanying materials shall be filed with the research analyst.
Inter-Agency Requests. Any state agency requesting routine information about itself or another state agency may be handled by appropriate division staff without following the procedure outlined above.
Private Sector Business and Quasi-Official Agencies and Organizations Requests. Any routine requests received from banks, credit unions, insurance companies, etc., may be handled and recorded as outlined (Reference A above) .
Legislative, General Public, Media Requests. Any requests received from legislators, elected officials, legislative staff, congressional delegates, private individuals, newspapers, etc., shall be referred directly to the research analyst. If the research analyst is not immediately available, inform the requester of the research analyst's name and extension number (Research Analyst, ext. 8702).

NOTE: Requests may be received by mail, telephone, fax or in person. If the research analyst is away from the office for an extended length of time, (vacation, sick) and unable to respond in a timely fashion, please refer the requester to the appropriate division administrator for assistance. It is the responsibility of the staff person forwarding the request to record the date and time received and then follow up to make certain the research analyst or division administrator is aware of the request.

In most cases, the research analyst will refer requests to the appropriate division administrator or designated staff person for assistance. It is the responsibility of the research analyst to deliver the final product, log and maintain the records of the request.

IV. Compiling Information
It is the responsibility of the division administrator (or designee) to research and compile the necessary records, reports or data. It is extremely important that these requests be given priority so we can comply within the statutory three days requirement. If this cannot be accomplished, notify the research analyst immediately with an explanation of the reasons the records cannot be provided within that time limit. It will be the responsibility of the research analyst to notify the requester, in writing, of the delay.

NOTE: If additional time is needed, the law allows up to ten (10) working days following the date of the request.

V. Confidential and Exempt Records
Certain information contained in reports generated by this office must remain confidential (i.e. vendor identification numbers, social security numbers, etc.). Make certain all confidential information is deleted, redacted, blocked out or otherwise not visible before releasing to the public. Refer to I.C. § 9-340 for the list of records that are exempt from disclosure.

VI. Fees and Charges
It is legislative intent of the Act that examining and copying public records is part of the public business, already funded by taxpayers. Therefore, § 9-338(8) provides that the fee charged for copying " ...may not exceed the actual cost to the agency of copying the record...The actual cost shall not include any administrative or labor costs resulting from locating and providing a copy of the public record."

A fee for actual labor costs associated with locating and copying documents may be established and/or charged if (1) the document exceeds 100 pages or (2) non-public information must be deleted or (3) actual labor to locate and copy the record exceeds two (2) hours. EXCEPTIONS: The public agency may not charge any cost or fee if the requester demonstrates an inability to pay or the public's interest or understanding of operations of government would suffer by any assessment or collection of a fee. [I.C. § 9-338(8)(c)].

Necessary costs will be applied in compliance with the guidelines set forth in the Act. If a copying fee is to be charged, the following policies will apply:
There shall be no charge for copying records less than 100 pages. A per page cost of five cents ($.05) will be charged for copied documents exceeding 100 pages.
There shall be no charge for computer generated records less than 250 pages. A per page cost of two cents ($.02) will be charged for computer generated reports exceeding 250 pages.
Postage costs shall be charged, if mailed.
Payment is expected prior to releasing the public record. Payment shall be by cash or check only.

VII. AD-HOC/On-Demand Reports
Pursuant to attorney general opinion, June 1993, " ...when a member of the public requests public records in a form that does not yet exist and that may require computer programming to create, the agency may charge for the costs of the computer programming..."
The division administrator must make the determination whether the report requested requires computer programming and/or manipulation of data, necessitating certain computer costs to create. Such costs may be charged to the requester.
When it is determined that an ad-hoc/on-demand report is necessary, the request should be submitted in writing to the division administrator. The division administrator will notify the research analyst immediately with an estimate of the cost. The research analyst will inform the requester who must make the decision to continue or discontinue the report processing.
2. Postage costs shall be charged, if mailed.
3. Payment is expected prior to releasing the ad-hoc/on-demand report. Payment shall be by cash or check only.

BPD- discouraged and disappointed in Boise

Disappointed in Bpd visit this morning

I have been frequenting a particular area in Boise for the last few months and have noticed for several hours a day, several days a week, a Boise city officer parks closely to a railroad track, behind a building and appears to be hiding in order to write citations.

After several weeks of watching this guy, this morning i decided to go pay him a visit and strike up a conversation.

In my attempt to pull up next to him, i realized i couldn't because he was too close to the tracks on one side and the building on the other.

Why is he hiding? Why is he endangering himself parked so close to the railroad tracks? What if the vehicle wouldn't start amidst an oncoming train? Wouldn't he get hurt? Would the tax payers then be held liable for his medical bills as well as a new vehicle? If he can pArk there, can the people should we decide to? And if its too dangerous for the people, does this officer have super powers that he would somehow not be just as endangered as a private person?

Questions like this run through my veins as i drive up in front of him as he gets out to meet me on the passenger side of my vehicle.

When he reaches my vehicle, he was obviously not happy, not cordial and cold when he asked what i wanted. I smiled at first and asked him why he was there. The officer stated he was there to look at the stop sign. When i asked him again and suggested he may be there to write tickets he again stated he was there to watch the stop sign, to which i responded, " i dont think the stop sign is going to do much" maybe i could get him to laugh, nope!

After establishing why he was there, i told him that i was concerned about the increasingly widening communication gap between law enforcement and its people and that i travel daily attempting to communicate with law enforcement in an effort to reduce the apparent animosity and to narrow this gap.

He still was not happy, was not welcoming and looked like i was torchering him.

When i moved into asking about government limitations and excessive force and topics related to such, he got uncomfortable and stated this is not a good time to discuss this and that he had to go back to work.

I asked him why he felt it was so important to go back to work when the stop sign hadnt moved, there was nobody violating the law, he had no calls and that he was by himself with no one to answer to?

It was obvious by his demeanor either he is having a bad day, as we all do for a multitude of reasons, he does not like the public or does like to be questioned or interrupted as he sits behind a building wasting tax dollars to generate revenue for the city by those he swore to protect but instead criminalizing us at our expense!

To be clear, i have tremendous respect for law and law enforcement but anything beyond the scope of rights protection that elevates their authority over the people to force submission to laws that restrict every move we make i find intolerable and worth challenging...

... At least greet me with a smile and show some gratitude for the fact that we still pay you for treating us the way you do!

Incidences like this are more and more common. I have decided that until more of us do this, our treatment will continue to get worse and i will now due to the disgust i feel continue to visit with my law enforcement in an effort to still reduce the communication gap.

Should someone challenge me on the reality if this post, i welcome it!

In the meantime i have also decided to make more frequent calls to the ombudsman or the chief if he takes my calls to express my concern asking the question i find myself asking quite frequently:

What the hell is happening in this county?