Monday, July 29, 2013

Are invented numbers unconstitutional?

  I wish this were my original piece but like the post before this one, they aren’t.. Good food for thought though. Why aren’t they teaching this is School? Because government wants to control you? Why else would a government take control of education and not teach who we are as a people and as a nation and teach what the foundations of what made us so great as a nation?


It is my belief that the supreme court in its position of the separation of church and state, the biggest fabricated lie, did it to subvert our very foundations, exchanging the inalienable rights of a Creator for the fact that rights now come from government. It isnt hard to see what has happened since and through the ignorance of the people and their blind trust in the government, they bought it, hook, line and sinker! - q=Pinkerton+v+Verberg&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=ivnsb&ei=ho9ITqDTGM2tgQfwrsG5Bg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f6623b2f76b8b870&biw=1440&bih=769 



                Legislators do include some uneducated, evil, sadistic, and malicious people. Since the early vague speed-related laws were struck down, legislators have resolved on a different approach. We'll call it the Galileo approach. Invent a law that says the earth is flat! Invent a law that is not consistent with nature. Invent a number! Throw darts at a board, and say "that's the speed limit!!" Amazingly, all the darts seem to end on numbers ending with a 0 or a 5!! Call this "reasonable" (a word in law to be distinguished from "scientifically accurate"). As the range of numbers in nature is different than that, the arbitrary and capricious invented numbers are thus unconstitutional on their face! The Galileo defense.

                In Montana , when its unconstitutional system was repeatedly struck down in court, the legislators did the right thing, decided to stop passing unconstitutional laws. . . . . In your dreams! . . . . . . No, not a chance of that! Instead they passed a new law, an invented number. And in Nevada recently, when the speed limit issue came up, a bill was snuck through in the last hours of the adjourning Legislature, setting a non-fact-based invented number. Legislator "universal malice" and unconstitutionality still rule!

                Understand that it is "reasonable" to declare the earth flat. It is just not scientifically correct. Calling the earth flat is "reasonable" inasmuch as in any particular place, many places on the planet, it has that appearance, and calling it flat "works." For many practical purposes, "flat" is "reasonable." But recognize, that "reasonable" is incompetent and malicious, far too low a standard, allowing for what in science is in fact gross error.

                The old flat earth argument against the round earth notion still, to the uninformed, is "reasonable." The round earth argument says the earth is about 24,000 miles around at the equator. The day is 24 hours long. Round earth advocates are claiming the earth is spinning 1,000 mph.

               Said the flat earth advocates in rebuttal, 'the wind from that high a speed air blast would knock us all down. We find no such wind in nature. Wherefore the round earth advocates are in error. The earth IS flat!!' And, 'if you drop something, it lands beside you, not some distance significantly behind you!' Naturally, these arguments were, at the time, persuasive, in showing the "reasonableness" of the flat earth notion.

                Some might say, since Galileo, legislators, city councils, officials have gotten more sensible. Human nature among officals has magically changed. Officials are all now scientists, have a Sc.D. degree, and ALL without exception adhere rigorously, solely and exclusively to what is scientifically determined, and that only.

                Oh, is that so? You offer a rebuttal, it is untrue and foolish to think that politicans all have science degrees! and adhere strictly to science facts.

               Is it really true that legislators don't just invent numbers!! Sadly, you'd be right. Nothing has changed since the Galileo case, and his investigation and observations of Nature. Politicians still invent things, especially speed numbers, invariably slow! Let's do like Galileo, look at nature. Let's look at a few speeds occurring in nature.






Speeding, are you law abiding or am I? Ill bet your not!

  I have friends tell me "Why are you so crazy about a speeding ticket?" I say because it is something that we can fight! It is a violation of man’s most basic right to travel, ACCORDING TO OUR OWN COURTS! People will then attempt to discredit me by saying "Without speed limits or laws it would be chaos!" MY answer is thats a pretty far stretch to make such an assumption and further discredits your alleged trust in your fellow man when you just told me that you believe men are inherently good?"


The issue here is not what your opinion is, for most people, they have no concept of law or the principles of freedom or American history so their opinions in accordance with fact, should be discredited if it conflicts with the facts. We should be asking, "What are the facts" What does the law ay and what is the intent of law and how does it  coexist with the preservation of freedom without violating it, most people have no clue!


This post is for those that believe I am out of my mind that I am crazy for stating that being busted for speeding makes doesn’t me a criminal even when I can prove within our own statutes I haven’t broken the law! So all of you that think (opinions) that I am nuts, justify your position with facts as I have or realize your thoughts are inaccurate. You are entitled to your opinions however, but in accordance with law, you also have the right to enslave yourself in a system that wants to control you, I don’t have to subject myself to it, lawfully! Do you understand the authority of the Supreme Court?


Most believe that they are supreme in authority even though our laws and history would prove that as inaccurate but to support your point, here is what  the supreme court has stated! So with just this evidence provided, if I speak in accordance with such cases and defend them because they maximize the freedom of the people, am I unlawful or are those that violate such cases the ones that are? If your government believes it can ignore these cases, then aren’t they in fact unlawful? (Clarification:  I do not believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate power, I believe their knowledge of our history and the intent of our Founders written documents and the intent behind them has been abandoned while they still remain in power which makes them no different than the king we left 237 years ago. The ignorance of the people only perpetuates the problem)

t - q=Pinkerton+v+Verberg&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=ivnsb&ei=ho9ITqDTGM2tgQfwrsG5Bg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f6623b2f76b8b870&biw=1440&bih=769 

Arguing that Speed Limits Are Unconstitutional

1. Unconstitutional enactments are not laws. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE 60 (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491;86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442;6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886).

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election." West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638; 63 S Ct 1178; 87 L Ed 1628 (1943). Compare Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; 116 S Ct 1620; 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996).

Unconstitutional enactments are treated as though they had never existed. For example, in one state alone, here are examples: Bonnett vVallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard vGoodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist vDonald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands vAnderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer vVan Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

Judges must obey and enforce the constitution and laws themselves, e.g., Matter of Hague, 412 Mich 532; 315 NW2d 524 (1982). Jurors have power to see that they do. State of Georgia v Brailsford, 3 US (Dall) 1, 4; 1 L Ed 483, 484 (1794); United StatesBattiste, 24 Fed Cas 1042, 1043 (CCD Mass, 1835); Commonwealth vAnthes, 71 Mass (5 Gray) 185, 208 (1855); United States v Spock, 416 F2d 165, 181 (CA 1, 1969); andUnited States v Johnson, 718 F2d 1317, 1322 (CA 5, 1983), etc.

2. Speed limits violate the constitutional "right to travel." One of Americans' basic "Bill of Rights" rights is “the basic constitutional right to travel,” upheld in cases such as Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed 745 (1868), Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573; 44 NW 579 (1889), and once again reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in so many words, "right to travel," in Dunn vBlumstein, 405 US 330; 92 S Ct 995; 31 L Ed 2d 274 (1974). This Constitutional "right to travel" has been used to strike down a number of politician-invented laws. The whole idea of the "Bill of Rights" is to forbid politicians to even vote on taking away our therein-protected rights, including the "right to travel."

Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," Williams vFears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908); and United States vGuest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC § 241).

The Supreme Court in Guest says of the "right to travel" that "Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 USC § 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v Moore, 129 F 630, 633 [Circ Ct ND Ala , 1904]. We reaffirm it now." The earliest known case working towards developing the concept was Smith v Turner, 48 US 283 (1849)

The "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. SeeMeyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving.

3. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Constitution, Article I § 9). A purported law must tell the citizenry IN ADVANCE, what act is contemplated. The decision cannot be retroactive. Advance notice is required. That principle is involved in the early history of speed laws.

                After automobiles first became prevalent, early speed limits were general. They merely banned any speed that would endanger life, limb or property of any person.

                Courts repeatedly struck down such general laws as unconstitutional as there is no such thing as a motor vehicle speed incapable of endangering life, limb, or property! Empire L Ins Co v Allen, 141 Ga 413; 81 SE 120 (1914); Ladd vState, 115 Tex Crim 355; 27 SW2d 1098 (1930); People v Gaebel, 2 Misc 2d 458; 153 NYS2d 102 (1956);People v Horowitz, 4 Misc 2d 632; 158 NYS2d 166 motion gr 3 NY2d 789; 164 NYS2d 41; 143 NE2d 796 (1956);People v Firth, 3 NY2d 472; 168 NYS2d 949; 146 NE2d 682 (1957);People v Price, 16 Misc 2d 71; 1698 NYS2d 200 (1957); and Armondi vJohnson, 16 App Div 2d 712; 226 NYS2d 714 (1962).

               The courts made the right decision. Otherwise, all driving is illegal!! The American economy would collapse.

4. Vague speed limits are likewise unconstitutional. Banning driving without having the vehicle under control or without speed at a reasonable and proper rate is unconstitutional for vagueness, depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.State v Lantz, 90 W Va 738; 111 SE 766; 26 ALR 894 (1922). Such vague words create an unconstitutional dragnet, enabling police and jurors' retroactive ad hoc decisions. Hayes vState, 11 Ga App 371; 75 SE 523 (1912); Carter v State, 12 Ga App 430; 78 SE 205 (1913); Howard vState, 151 Ga 845; 108 SE 513 (1921);Ex parte Slaughter, 92 Tex Crim 212; 243 SW 478; 26 ALR 891 (1922); Ex parte Carrigan, 92 Tex 309; 244 SW 604 (1922); Phillips v State, 60 Ga App 622; 4 SE2d 698 (1939); andState v Campbell, 196 A2d 131 (RI, 1963).

The flaw in such vague laws is that they have no standard or criteria by which to determine lawfulness in advance Ladd v State, 115 Tex Crim 355; 27 SW2d 1098 (1930).

               Vague laws with numbers that cannot be known in advance have long been struck down, for example, a law controlling future prices. Obviously manufacturers and sellers are not gifted with magical future-casting abilities and cannot "know" future prices. Int'l Harvester Co of America v Com of Kentucky, 234 US 216; 34 S Ct 853; 58 L Ed 1284 (1914). The Court said about the mandated numbers,

"To compel [people] to guess, on peril of indictment, what the community would have given for them [here, what the speed should be] if the continually changing conditions were other than they are, to an uncertain extent; to divine prophetically what the reaction of only partially determinate facts would be upon the imaginations and desires of purchasers [here, other drivers], is to exact gifts that mankind does not possess."

               The same concept protects drivers from vague speed laws, where speed limits, especially at speed traps, suddenly change without notice. For example, in the writer's own area, there is a 45 mph sign, followed a few feet later, by a 35 mph sign!

               Don't feel that the old precedents cited here rejecting the general safety law, the so-called basic speed limit, drive safely, are just that, old. No, the concept of striking down the general vague rules is still alive and well and being used. That concept was used as recently as inState of Montana v Stanko Case No. 97-486, 1998 MT 321 (23 Dec 1998) (case details); State of Montana vStanko, Case No. 98-049, 1998 MT 324N (24 Dec 1998) (finding the "basic law" unconstitutional); andState of Montana v Leuchtman, Case No. 97-134. 1998 MT 325N (30 Dec 1998) (giving the benefit of theStanko decisions to the next litigant on the same issue). Note that the officer did not even pretend to be following the law's criteria on factors such as vehicle condition. This is an obvious violation of one's oath of office, to respect the constitution and laws, not flout them.





Thursday, July 11, 2013

KIDO with Sheriff Raney

KIDO call with Sheriff Raney

As I listen to your supremacy clause and statements about giving the Feds authority over the states, It brings the desire for me to question you about your knowledge of full power you possess to protect the people in your county from federal tyranny as the anti federalists were so concerned about.

You stated that we are a states rights nation on one hand and state that the feds are the laws that govern us on the other. You state again the state laws trump the fed laws and the fed laws trump the states in some cases without any expansion on your statements. From what I have heard, was it intentional to confuse or do you really believe what your saying?

The historical records show the separation of powers that you did mention but you never stated why it was important and in that statement is why it is important.The checks and balances were instituted for the express purpose of protecting the rights of the people from federal tyranny. Our founders clarified clearly that Fed law governs issues between the states and issues with trade and foreign issues not fabricated wars on drugs and spending millions of tax dollars expanding federal authority with uncongressional acts all which  destroys the purpose of those checks and balances

You stated that the supreme court interprets the law but you failed to mention its obvious subversion of it or where the checks and balances were on the Supreme Court? Don't checks and balances apply to all branches not just two? The written constitution was not written so that we could delegate authority to someone else like the bar association or courts to know what is lawful, it was the job of the people to be vigilant and know the law. 

The idea that the Supreme Court is the only entity that has constitutional understanding should be challenged at every turn because not only does it presently undermine the freedom of the people and the sovereignty of the states but mimic and return the problem we first ran from in the creation of this nation. Ask yourself what guarantee do the people have that their freedom will be preserved while we all bow to the nine tyrants in black robes that make it really no different from that full submission to the king also without checks land balances. 

If  we believe today that our system promotes justice, the war on drugs should be fought by the people questioning what drugs our government officials are on!

I believe the only way to get this out in the open is to challenge it. When it is reduced to opinions, it then becomes time to research our history books to find the real meaning and intention of the laws and pull out congressional records to see whom then is lawful and stand on the evidence, not some guy on the radio like me spouting off even some elected official that may have never been challenged on his knowledge, let history decide.

As for telling me I am wrong on the radio and then not allowing me to challenge you on that statement I find not only a bit disrespectful but cowardly.

These issues are my absolute passion so please note that this post is not a means to disrespect anyone but to promote people to think about what is happening to our country. At creation we had a constitution created to limit government today that is used to limit the people? How far does anyone need to go into the records to see how contradictory and illogical this is?

The facts are clear, any time a government has disarmed people through weapons and though education, it has demanded submission and control over the people it was created to serve its desire has always been incrementally used to return the people to bondage as servants to them at their expense.

As sheriffs of the counties, I explore you to clearly cut through the crap, cut through the political rhetoric and stand clear of the enforcement arm of the federal government and their bribery of funds to control your county. Your job as the supreme authority in the county was created to protect the people in your county from the encroachment of the central government, not for political posturing!

Sheriffs, law enforcement and other political subdivisions that now have (unconstitutional) law making authority I ask again for you and yours to open communication with me and people like me, we have done our homework, we do have solutions and desire a peaceful outcome but want more than anything for us to be on the same side, we are not your adversary like your are being told by the Feds.

I am available anytime to chat about anything. This is my country too dammit and the fight is on to save it from itself!

Friday, July 5, 2013

Filing a complaint on principle

I know some of you would never imagine this but I absolutely hated feeling like I had to file a complaint. It’s that gut wrenching feeling I get when I really never intended on disrupting someone’s job or their life? As a matter of fact before I filed its I called and told them how bad I felt to feel like I had to but as many things in my life, I didn’t do it to disrupt anyone’s life, I did it as respectfully as I could, on Principle not to harass but to challenge the continual over encroachment that is so prevalent these days. I just hope the complaint was taken the way it was intended.
 Dear Canyon County Sheriff and local law enforcement,

It was Tuesday, July 2, about 10:30 am, a beautiful glassy day at Lake Lowell, no one, we could see, was on the lake but nine of us on a ten passenger boat. It was a peaceful day looking like many days where we come during the week to avoid conflict and separate ourselves from the hustle and bustle of the weekend boaters. As stressful as life is, it is good to avoid conflict whenever possible. We are seasoned boaters, we believe in personal responsibility for our own actions in everything we do, we have respect for others but we also know the proper role of government and the proper role of not only the family but government entities including law enforcement. This letter is to share that what happened on the lake that Tuesday afternoon that was an outrage and turned my smile, enjoying my family on the lake to a frown wanting to scream at someone exercising authority I feel they did not possess.

For years, we’ve been teaching friends to wakeboard and wake surf which is what we enjoy doing and part of that has always typically to stay as far away from other boats as possible. This day, it wasn’t hard to do, not a boat to be seen until…

I was in the water getting ready to be pulled up by my wife when an officer came up to us way too fast and flexed his superior muscle over us as we were peacefully minding our own business as he commands authority rudely stated that my wife did not raise her flag fast enough and rudely drove off!? This was an officer I don’t remember seeing before and know it was not Anderson because I know him well and believe we have mutual respect for one another; this it was an older heavier set guy. After his behavior and his demeanor I will say clearly that I find both intolerable! I do not like his attitude or the way he treated us because it was absolutely unnecessary creating such a disruption!

In case you don’t know who I am, ( I am sure you do) I am a lover of the law, history and yes, the Constitution, (Ridiculously, labeled a right wing terrorist by our beloved Federal government that was to have the same acknowledgement to the same documents?) I know my history and I know the proper role of government and what jurisdiction they have and when, this officer was out of line and I want this dealt with ASAP!

To be clear, I am not one that is submissive to an alleged” authority” when they do not possess it, however, If I am wrong I have no problem admitting it and will act accordingly.

The reason for this letter is to state what my case, clearly and without any misunderstanding.

As I recall, law enforcement has been on the water mainly on weekends although I’m not sure how long. Do you suppose that crime only happens when officers are present? I also noticed that there are only officers at the Nampa dock and not anywhere else? Am I to assume that crime does not occur when officers are not present or that officers don’t care about what happens at other locations? It is the thought of officers that people can no longer self-govern and that peace can only exist when officers are present? What part of this is consistent with American principles of Liberty and limited government when any entity can not only make law but can come up to people and disturb the peace rather than to protect it while harassing people that fund their existence?

So far, in all of my political activism, I see few, if any, checks and balances on governments power and all I see are more law enforcement  at the increased taxpayer expense “in the name of safety” that feel they can exercise their authority to not only apprehend us, harass us on the lake and force us to submit to possible laws that do not even exist or to themselves violate the alleged “laws “ that exist by coming up to us so fast to us in the water, not to mention creating  a wake that may disrupts our boat ( with babies on board) and our beloved wildlife?

As I see it, I am forced to ask what in God’s name are they teaching in academy?  Are they teaching the principles of Liberty on which clearly through an oath limits government through a written constitution protecting the people from an either rogue or ignorant government or teaching that they must obey any law created no matter how it violates the protection of the people from it?

In case it is not taught or known, law, originally was to punish those who commit evil toward another while praising and rewarding those that obey law. Officers evolved from the Shire Reef but were peace officers, not law enforcement! The position of Peace officers was to be available for those to be summoned when needed, not to disrupt people’s lives. If this was the foundation of law and it is still consistent with the oath of the preservation of freedom for future generations, how are the actions of overzealous officers consistent with the oath to support and defend the constitution when the constitution was written to limit government not to create endless laws to give government the authority to restrict the rights of the people anywhere and anytime without limitations?

As angry as I am about this issue, the anger was not necessarily generated as much by this issue alone, but the incremental paradigm shift in power from the preservation of the people’s freedom to an increased commanding presence demanding submission that does more to disturb the peace than to protect it.

My wish and intent of this letter, was not to chastise my local law enforcement, because I do have tremendous respect for what they do (believe it or not) but to hold my government accountable because it is my duty as a citizen and to question when I believe something is wrong. If this behavior is typical for every officer not only on the lake but everywhere else and people are not aware of the law and how it protects them, it is nothing less than harassment without limitations and no protection at all.

Why is law enforcement that was created to punish evil and to protect and reward good, today violate the rights of the people just because people don’t know what their rights are? Should not Peace officers be more protective of the rights of the people, educating them on the proper role of government than to educate and ENFORCE laws that is many cases have never been challenged constitutionally? Of course not, because in this education process, the officers would have to submit to the inherent power of the people as servants, rather than the tyrannical rule of government over its people. Please let me be clear, I am no fool, I am a believer in government and its proper role, I understand the value in a society of those that are personally responsible and believe that peace officers should be keeping the peace not disturbing it!

I believe what happened to me on the lake was extremely wrong for the reasons I stated above and I want it corrected. I have no problem making my voice heard or respectfully challenging authority because if there is no one that is looking out for the rights of the people, including mine, we are forced to fight for them ourselves and I will not only for myself but for others. How is it when one challenges authority, as citizens of this nation are called to do, they are considered argumentative, when we were minding our own business?

Overall, I am tired of the harassment, the surveillance, the mismanagement of funds, the lies with regards to “in the name of safety”, the adherence to an oath that no one even understands, and the continual criminalization of the people government was meant to protect. What blows my mind is that no one even stops to realize that many of the problems we face today have been created in an effort to alleviate others only compounding the issue. The solutions to these problems, in many cases are not that difficult.

If government’s true desire was to keep the peace and to function efficiently, even with the best intentions, it must be run by people with no understanding of the law or it indeed has changed its mission and its purpose and freedom and liberty as we know it are truly  no longer in existence.

I welcome any communication, to ask or to answer any questions and have no ill will or intent toward anyone.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas A. Munds