The million lb gorilla

OK, we all love kids! We all love Kevin Miller and we all love teachers, right? So, in saying so I have clarified this is not a personal attack on any of these, right? So, may I respectfully ask why we are so willing to ignore the 1 million lb. gorilla in the room? Why is it that we all talk about the love for our kids and we say we love our country but seem to do everything in contradiction to these facts?

So, we say we love your kids but we teach them to be subservient slaves to government and that their opinions can somehow matter as fact that they are entitled to their own truth, that they can have premarital sex and that abortions are a convenient alternative without parental notification and that we can somehow abandon moral teachings in support of sexual deviancy, even teaching gay sex to our kids?

What about the states continued control taken away from the parents disturbing the family? Why is it that there is never enough money for school, why is it that there are no limitations on the power and authority the state can exercise over those that attend violating every basic right that was to have been guaranteed to the people by their government? We teach that the founders were extremists, that circumvention of the legislature is ok, that executive power is boundless, that our kids have no rights, that they can be spied on, data collected, can’t speak freely, cant pray, can’t read certain material in school, that the schools must be locked down to where no one can leave, parking lots locked to keep them from leaving or "terrorists" from entering?

Seriously, what difference is there between a prison and a school yard?

My point is how can we say we support and promote the future for our children when the truth is that all efforts are done to destroy it? How can you lock up children with so many rules and regulations, walls, fences and gates, surveillance cameras and data collection and law enforcement and think somehow when the gates open after 12th grade they are going to succeed? Are you kidding me? Succeed at what is my question?

When the children have no idea of where they came from or what is right, how will they have any idea where they are going? If we are a free nation and our job as parents is to secure and perpetuate liberty for future generations, how can we possibly do that when we don't know these principles or have purposely strayed from them because we didn't know better? The facts are there, we just need to look at them.

The local schools are controlled by the feds through the US Dept. of education, an unlawfully created entity created. Our federal constitution clearly has no enumeration or delegation for this enumeration anywhere, indicating it is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is unlawful and any adherence to it is in support of what is unlawful! The US Dept. of education is controlled by people that want to dissolve the jurisdictional boundaries or morality, states, counties, family in favor of a global government through among other parties, the united nations, where according to their own Article 29, clause 3 of their human rights is only subject to the rights they say we have. Those that created the UN were devout Communists and have infiltrated their doctrine into our schools through John Dewey and others, it goes on and on and on...Why are we ignoring these facts? WHY? So my final question is if you support these control techniques, do you really care about our kids or does the one that ask the tough questions, that demands governments adherence to their limitations to preserve the freedom for our kids, to teach them where they came from, who they are, to empower them and to have them learn by mistakes instead of preventing them, and to let them be kids?

Nikita Kruschev may have been right when he stated “Your children will wake up to Communism!” When refuted, he then stated, no, you won’t support communism outright but we will feed you small doses of socialism until you wake up and realize you’re all communists!

Benjamin Franklin stated “When people would give up a bit of freedom for security, they deserve neither and both will be destroyed”

Franklin also quoted “ A country that knows not where its been has no idea where it is going…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

KIDO. With another county sheriff

KIDO with another local sheriff…

 

If I say “War on Drugs” can you guess which sheriff I am speaking of?

 

This morning on the radio, I gave Kevin a break in calling in but it doesn’t mean that I was not attentive to the conversation he was having with the sheriff. As a matter of fact, once the sheriff started speaking, I immediately had the extreme desire to call in and ask questions. Is it just me?  I am a bit confused and a bit frustrated…

 

It seems that the sheriff believes we have a drug problem here and that it is his number one priority, the question is, although I agree it is a problem, I believe it may pose a greater threat to liberty than to address the problem. Is it relative in terms of defining the issue and in fact, ignoring the root of the issue?

 

Is the war on drugs really a “War on Drugs” or a war on the people? Is it the peace officers job to declare a war on inanimate objects that can’t fight back? Does not this war on drugs in reality elevate the authority of the peace officers over the people they serve in that this war has no defined terms and can be arbitrarily defined by the servant rather than the master?

 

The sheriff will content his job is to uphold the laws of the state of Idaho. Should he also uphold the state and federal constitution as well? What happens if one is in complete contradiction to the other? How can a constitution that was created preserve the rights of the people by limiting government be consistent with the state statutes that, more times than not, restrict those rights without regard or, in many cases any understanding of the constitution? And how is it consistent with the constitution since most laws created are not challenged constitutionally before they are created and written by elected officials without any understanding of the constitution?

 

What is law? What is lawful and legal? What is real “law” and “color of Law” What is a peace officer? Do they or should they have limitations? If they do, what are they?

 

Is law to prevent crime or to punish those that are wrongdoers that break the law?

If law, as understood today, is to prevent crime and to protect us from ourselves then logically the more laws that people write the more peaceful of a society would exist. Why then with the multitude of endless laws do we feel the continual need to make more when making laws obviously do not prevent crime? The problem is, as many Peace officers are well intended as they are, have lost sight of what the purpose of law is and the limitations on government or never learned it. If our Law enforcement” really believes in obeying the law, why don’t they obey the law themselves first since they were the ones that were charged with knowing the law and taking an oath knowing the law and understanding the limitations of their position? The fact is that any law created could only be a law if it is consistent with the constitution and any law that violates this no law but somehow the “law enforcement” upholds the law anyway?

 

What is the difference between lawful and legal? Simply put, Lawful is the proper application and creation of law,” legal” is what is created but under the color of law” which really isn’t law at all but it is believed that it is. What is “legal” is “color of law” and what is “lawful” is “law”, one that was properly created, consistent with the preservation of liberty and consistent with the constitution or those that are not.

 

Peace officers were created to keep the peace, they were to be present and available to be summoned when needed “lawfully” not to use high tech equipment and work with the legislature by upholding laws that enslave their people under “The color of law”. They were to preserve the rights of the people, not to violate them. It is impossible to create a law for everything on one hand while declaring we are a free people on the other.

 

A free society is a society is one that takes personal responsibility for their own actions with love and respect for one another, a problem for sure and one I believe that our officers would agree. A free society is also one based on intelligence and understanding of individual rights and the vigilance to hold government accountable and restrained to their enumerated powers, perhaps the bigger of two problems because this struggle directly pins government against its people, where the government has become the master rather than the servant. The true war is not one on drugs; it is a war on moral relativity and one between freedom and security.

 

If we have given up our freedom for security, it elevates the authority without limitations on what government can do, since it now defines those terms.

 

If we hold fast to freedom, it requires intelligence and vigilance to limit government and an understanding of when those limitations have been breached with an adherence of written law defined by the founding documents and the people before it should be defined by government! It is not subject to opinion.

 

In other words, we cannot remain a free or a peaceful society if we do not take personal responsibility for our actions and do not understand how to hold government accountable.

 

It may be difficult to believe but I actually love my peace officers and I support and pray for them because as society is now in free fall, these guys are nuts to do what they do.

 

These officers tell me about what they see and about how horrible it is, I know how they feel when they want to keep us safe. Although I appreciate that desire, the problem is, in those efforts to keep us safe, it requires that the people give up their freedom by submitting to those laws created to keep us safe that encroaches upon the liberty and preservation of freedom that undermines the purpose of the creation of Peace officers.

 

Please help me reach out to our officers, to let them know I care about them but I also care about my freedom too. Is there a common ground, I’m going to try to find out.

 

 

 

 

 

Are our Sheriffs dangerous to liberty?

In a call to Kevin Miller’s morning radio show, I am always graciously accepted to ask questions I believe few seem to demand from our local officials, yesterday was one of our county sheriff’s.

Although I have had the pleasure of meeting with him several times and I feel blessed for that opportunity as he is a seemingly respectful nice guy, I have become increasingly concerned about his motives or his understanding of his position and I believe it warrants legitimate concern.

The question I posed to him yesterday was “if I had proof of officials and agencies in your county that had no understanding of the constitution and their limitations of their office, would that be a concern for you and would you be willing to meet with me so that I may show you the evidence?” The question was not as much to get the chance to meet with him because I know he already would, but to plant the seed in the minds of people to begin to ask just what the hell is going on in our state and our country.

I have heard him speak of the separations of power and how important it is that we should know them one hand then I hear about him praising his cozy relationships with the feds on the other. In addition to this, he stated one hand that we are all entitled to have our own opinions of the constitution but somehow that the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land and that all states are bound to such laws? Are you kidding me?

Sheriff, do you not fully understand the power you possess as the supreme authority of your county? Do you not understand your duty is not to aid the feds but to specifically protect your county and the people from the federal abuses?

Do you not have any understanding of the jurisdictional boundaries between the states and the feds as you preached that the knowledge of the separation of powers is so important? Do you not understand that the Supreme Court cannot make law and that if the states or county’s felt that the opinion was unlawful they could overrule that opinion? If you couldn’t, how would fleeing from British tyranny be any different from 9 tyrants in black robes?

Sheriff, there are checks and balances and separation of powers that exist but without a basic understanding of them along with the tremendous power sheriff’s possess, they are not fit for the position of which they hold and have instead become a danger to those that they claim to protect.

Sheriff, I’ve met you, you seem a nice guy but this isn’t about personalities, this is business and an effort to protect our county’s, our state and our nation from the abuses of power but one must recognize these abuses or there is no point in funding the position.

We the people are the masters, the government we created are our servants. The rights belong to the people and are unalienable, which means that no man (or government) can take them away.

The constitutions and the laws of the state of Idaho were written as general guidelines for a peaceful society, not to be used against them to criminalize them.

The federal constitution and Bill of Rights was written as declarations to the feds on what the states authorized them to do, all else is left to the states or the people, it specifically limited the federal government from meddling in the affairs of the state.

The state constitution was written by the people to limit government to protect the rights of the people limiting state government to few and enumerated powers as well, to limit government while maximizing and preserving the freedom of the people to move unrestricted without government abusing its power, criminalizing its people.

The state statutes originally were to be created like the federal statutes at large to streamline the government not to encroach upon the rights of the people because our rights are unalienable, given to us by our Creator, protected by our constitutions.

In addition, the Supreme Court was not charged with the duty of interpreting law; it was with knowledge of it, to apply it correctly. Why would the Founders that fled from the tyranny of the king, to safeguard their liberty, come here to create government that would again rob their power and authority as a free people only to subject them to what they fled from?

If you somehow feel that what I have written is subject to opinion and that we are all allowed to have our own opinions, how do justify law when your opinion and mine or others differ? Isn’t written law so that all parties understood clearly what was lawful and what wasn’t? If it is subject to opinion, whose opinion, mine as the master and inherent power or yours as the servant/employee or the majority in a democracy that is a foreign form of government to ours?

The fact that it is believed that the opinion of the state trumps the people, that the federal government is supreme to that of the state and that, as a sheriff, one must yield to an authority that is KNOWN to be unlawful is not only a violation of office and public trust and erodes the checks and balances but is extremely dangerous to liberty.

It is beyond me that we have elected officials in office that don’t even have the basic knowledge of what they say they support under oath!

With all due respect to my government officials, you may have the best of intentions but the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” and “MY people shall be destroyed for lack of knowledge” and “those that give up a bit of freedom for security deserve neither and both will be destroyed” and “those that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it” and “any nation that does not know where it came from, has no idea of where it’s going.” Are these quotes familiar?

We can see that happening, can’t we?

My desire from this post is not to ridicule or personally attack someone’s character, it is to state the issues clearly and to clarify that this is not the fault of one man or a small group or people, this is decades of ignorance promulgated on the people. This is my attempt to say to all of any influence, let’s look at the issues for what they are, let us admit were in trouble and let us unite, not for the sake of money or the fulfillment of an agenda, but to join hands and restore liberty back to the people, to earnestly care about one another and for our future generations because if we do nothing, America as we knew it is gone and I won’t have that blood on my hands.

My desire is to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem as long as the solution is the preservation of who we were as a nation, consistent with our founder’s principles and the documents created for the preservation of those principles and not subject to opinion but based on fact.

Tom Munds

 

 

 

Toms court trial date and revealing results

Toms court trial results for 10-31-2013

IC 18-705 Disobeying a lawful order- Limitations? written or ambiguous?

 If all laws apply to all people and I can be guilty of obstruction, cannot the officer be guilty of obstruction by restricting the right to travel creating congestion on the motorway? Or can the officer be guilty of obstructing and detaining me for an alleged crime that was never committed? If Title 18 is crimes and punishments should I have not been charged Guilty, in a court of law prior to punishment? Have I committed a crime? If I haven’t, How can I be arrested?

IC 49-654-2 Basic rule and maximum speed limits-according to the proper statute I was not speeding. I know how fast I was going and the burden of proof is upon the officer to show evidence that I was guilty.(See attachment-IC Excessive speed)

IC 49-106-8 Excessive speed  defined (See attachment)

Ambiguity between the statutes- which is proper siting? Details and intent of statute.

ISP manipulation of violation on ticket- 49-654-2 (See Ticket)

            There is no state statute :

DRIVING SPEED-(1-15MPH) EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT POSTED SPEED LIMIT, There is ALSO no legislative statute that denotes (1-15mph)

DOT manipulates speed limits- title 40 only allows for construction zones

All laws must be created in the legislature(See constitution)

Where is the evidence? Blood on the knife?

Where is the evidence that proves to this court that I am guilty of a crime?

Like the blood on a knife, there must be beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty of a crime. There has to be provable evidence in court that links me to the violation.

Where is the ACHD camera footage? Where is the audio and video of the traffic stop? Which is the proper statute that I am allegedly guilty of violating?

Excessive force- When asked for my driver’s license and proof of insurance In an effort to exercise my rights I asked the officer if they could be used against me in a court of law, to which he became angry but did not answer the question. After asking him two more times for the answer he refused and threatened me with arrest to which I submitted them.

Under what authority consistent with the principles of freedom and liberty can an officer or an employee of the court detain and demand complete submission without having to answer the questions that a detainee asks to protect his rights?

How then in exercising those rights can the court allow  me to be labeled argumentative, when it is my right granted to me by God, guaranteed by the constitution to stand against the violations by a government on its people.

Profiling- As it is no secret law enforcement agencies and courts across the country adhere to the rhetoric of the SPLC and the DHS’s characterization that those that love liberty, have Don’t tread on me stickers of American flags or Christian symbols  are ridiculously labeled  terrorists…( See Truck photo attachment)

How can I be guaranteed that as I was traveling on the motorway that I was not profiled as an alleged “domestic terrorist” by an officer that may have a dislike for those that lawfully and respectfully challenge authority?

Unconstitutional creation and implementation of laws

It has been stated by attorneys and magistrates that all laws created are considered laws and somehow therefore constitutional but have never been challenged for constitutionality.

If laws are created by a legislature that have no understanding of the intent of our Founding fathers or the constitution, and have never been challenged, what safeguards the people from the abuses of government when they are defined by a government that lacks this understanding?

How can the accused be given a court date to meet with a judge and upon arrival be met with only prosecuting attorneys without the presence of a magistrate? Where was Judge Hawley?

Is it now proper, as the accused, to be called into court, delegated a judge and a time for a hearing only to meet with and subject to negotiations with the one that is my accuser without any firsthand knowledge of the crime?

If only the accused and the accuser are in the room how is this lawful and consistent with the rights and protections that were to be afforded to me in a court of law to protect me from the possible coercion and abuse of the state?

When I go into court to contest a traffic violation and I ask the prosecuting attorney if he read my paperwork and he looks at me smiles, laughs and says “ no, it’s a speeding ticket” What is the point of a court appearance when anyone accused of a violation is guilty regardless of evidence?

Jurisdiction- I am unable to plea for fear of entering into a foreign jurisdiction.

According to 4 USC, ch1, sec.1,2. Even the flag behind you represents no nation in that according to this title there is no mention of any adornment on the flag  and appears to be identical to the Admiralty or military jurisdictional flag according to Army regulations and executive orders( See attachment-Gold fringe flag) Judge, are we under a state of emergency or martial law?

OATH- if the oath of state officials is to the constitution AND the laws of the state of Idaho, how can they be the same oath if the laws created are created by many without knowledge or intent  of the constitution or the laws that have never been challenged for constitutionality?

Which law supersedes which law, the statue statute, that more often than not, restricts the rights of the people or the constitution that restricts contains and limits  government? They are not the same unless we have also allowed government to define what our rights are.

Original Closing statement:

After  years of Tyrannical rule, the founding fathers fled from the oppression of the king, so that they may be free to exercise their God given rights of Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to be secure in their effects and to travel without restriction. In doing so, they created a government to protect and preserve those rights. In an effort to guarantee this preservation, they created documents that specifically enumerated those rights that kept government limited preserving those rights for future generations.

After decades of apathy, ignorance and complete lack of vigilance, governments incrementally continually increased their power and authority and due to the general faith and trust of the people  in their government allowed it to happen, without the proper delegated authority, acting unlawfully until today, the once inherent power and authority that was once in the people has been taken where today governments, once the servants have become the masters and the people have become the subservient slaves.

It is because of this unauthorized continual taking of power and the erosion of our rights, where the people have begun to rise and take back what rightfully belongs to us, bestowed upon us by our Creator and guaranteed by our constitution to protect and preserve those rights for future generations.

It is for this reason I am here and nothing else, to urge this court to reconsider its place in our alleged constitutional republic and to acknowledge its limitations, that were to preserve the freedom of the people not to exercise authority without limitations and generating millions of tax revenue to further restrict their rights.

I ask this court to rule in favor of the accused in this case because the weight of the historical record is in my favor, and consistent with all of the founding principles of this nation’s creation and not in favor of one or two manipulated and contorted statutes that violate those principles. In addition I also request that the term “argumentative” is removed from my traffic history.

I also request that this case not in any way affect my driving record because nothing could be proven because there was no wrongdoing.

I also request that a correction be made to clarify the ambiguity within the law  regarding the statutes 49-654-2 and 49-106 as well as the corrections made on future traffic citations that are misleading because of this ambiguity.

I also ask that I or someone of any basic knowledge of the constitution and the principles of freedom educate these governmental agencies as to not only the proper role of government but the purpose of the creation of government and the historical reasoning of its implementation.

It would be my pleasure to volunteer to take the time to help educate our officers on these principles, reducing the ever increasing communication gap between law enforcement and its people, proving that we are not the enemy creating a more harmonious relationship, one built on trust, faith and understanding and not one of forced submission at the point of a gun.

I also ask that there are no imposed fines upon the accused.Thank you.

Toms court update 11-1-13

Well, my friends, I attended court last night, along with two dear friends Lee Arthur Rice II and Matthew Townsend III as my support team, the time scheduled for 3:15pm didn’t actually begin until 3:45pm because the magistrate came in late. (Can you imagine if we were 30 minutes late?)

As we were headed toward the court room I saw the arresting officer out of the corner of my eye, he was early. As we were standing in the hall, my friends and I were talking about law, justice and the general abuses of government and my prayer was that a morsel of what we were talking about would plant a seed in the mind of the officer and that somehow today, with my testimony, I would be able to plant a seed to really have him reflect on his position and the enmity between law enforcement and the people that he feels does not exist but I was hopeful he would understand my presence there today anyway.

The court room had two cases scheduled, One guy, apparently a foreigner, charged with failure to signal in a lane change (seriously?) to which after the magistrate explained how the proceeding works and explained that the state will have to prove with evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, he pleaded for mercy upon the court to lower his fine. The magistrate said the fines were fixed and sent the poor guy on his way. “Welcome to the America!, the land of the free” I thought to myself. Poor guy, the state had no evidence against him. I was floored!

My name was called and I walked into the galley (against my will) and addressed the magistrate with a respectful greeting and a smile, I was extremely comfortable.

The magistrate asked me specifically if I had heard the explanation on how the process works regarding the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and I affirmed.

The proceeding began with a lovely young prosecutor that put the officer on the stand and began to cross examine him and through this line of questioning he gave his testimony, this is where it gets interesting but I will reveal this part later.

The officer was on the stand under oath and stated he was driving his patrol CAR and explaining about the difficulties seeing through the windshield and making hand gestures for me to move over. He also stated that the way he found me was that he saw two CARS that were going faster than the flow of traffic; he noticed that I allegedly was not slowing down so after following me for a mile, he pulled me over.

He stated that the traffic conditions were light to moderate and the rest of the testimony was logistical information on exactly how he allegedly saw me to detain me.

After the states testimony, it was my turn to cross examine the witness and I had prepared my line of questioning beforehand so I was ready, this seemed to take a good part of 45minutes.

I began my questioning (until I receive the audio, this is the best and most accurate I can remember)

Tom: Do you suspect those that respectfully question authority subversive?

Officer: The officer said no.

Tom: Do you view those that respectfully question law as argumentative?

Officer: He said no (but if this is true why did he threaten to arrest me for failure to answer my questions as I was detained for no wrongdoing?)

Tom: Have you ever heard of the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Officer: He said yes but stated he did not know what they do.

Tom: I asked him if he had ever been trained or informed by any agency, state or federal or private on the dangers of constitutionalists, sovereigns, constitutionalists etc., he

Officer:  no

Tom: Do you believe that those that support the foundations of liberty, limited government and knowledge of the constitution are as domestic terrorists as defined by our federal government and the SPLC?

Officer: The officer unsure of the question basically wanted me to restate the question which ultimately ended in a

Officer: no.

Tom: Are you presently, as you sit on the stand, under oath?

Officer: He stated yes

Tom: If yes, oath to whom, The state or under God?

Officer: He stated God, I smiled and thanked him

Tom: Would you answer any of these questions untruthfully to win your case?

Officer: He said he would not lie.

Tom: To the best of your knowledge, when you went through the academy prior to becoming an officer, did they teach you anything about the constitution regarding why it was created?

Officer: He said NO!

Tom: Can you remember why it was created?

Officer: There was no point in asking this question because he admitted he was not taught about the constitution in POST.

Tom: What about the Federal Bill of Rights, the state constitution and the states Declaration of rights, did you learn about those too?

Officer: NO, but he said that he did read them.

Tom: So, why do you believe that constitutions and rights declarations would need to be written?  He said so it would prevent chaos. I stated to make sure everyone understood the laws right and

Officer: he agreed.

Tom: Can you tell me what form of government the Founders created for America?

Officer: He was silent at first then stated it was a representative republic. I asked if he could be more specific and he couldn’t.

Tom: Was it a democracy? What does that mean to you?

Officer: Since he was unable to elaborate I declined asking this question.

Tom: In your oath you stated that you support the constitution and the laws of the state of Idaho, is this right?

Officer: He said yes

Tom: So, what if one conflicts with the other? Which one supersedes which?

Officer: He was silent so I helped him, I said

Tom: “Officer in your oath of one conflicts with the other which one would you choose as the supreme law between the two, to which he stated

Officer: The state statutes!

Tom: Did you know the only branch that is capable of making law?

Officer: He stated the legislative. The magistrate chimed in several times during my cross examination to remind me that I was being argumentative, to which my witnesses say I was not.

Tom: Did you know that many do not even have any understanding of our heritage or the intent of law like the fact that law was created to punish wrong doing not to prevent crime?

The magistrate interjected and stated that although he appreciated the civics lesson, I needed to stay on track to questions pertaining to the case to which I stated they actually do, but apologized anyway and continued.

Tom: So, if we have a branch that makes law, without any knowledge of law or its intent and these laws are implemented without being challenged for their constitutionality, do you see how the state laws you enforce could conflict with your oath to the constitution?

Officer: He stated his job was to uphold the laws, if they make them he follows them.

Tom: As you stated when you stopped me your support of 18-705, disobeying a lawful order, can you define and produce those written limitations placed on officers that protect the rights of the people from abuses of officers of government in general?

The prosecutor objected and stated that it was irrelevant because I was not charged with 18-705. I objected and stated it was directly related because it was evidence of the officer’s elevated authority to use this law out of context since I was not detained for a crime, which is what 18-705 pertains to, crimes and punishments of crimes.

Tom: What protections are offered to the people to prevent such possible abuses if they are not written or adhered to, specifically because 18-705 clearly defines during the commission of a crime? Am I guilty of a crime officer?

Officer: He stated there are a variety of judicial remedies afforded to the people. He stated I WAS GUILTY OF A CRIME even before my trial? (my charge was an infraction, not a crime and the state makes that clear, but yet I was in a criminal court with an administrative magistrate?)

Tom: Can you tell me, as we sit in this court room if we are in a proper article 3 court, since you are charged with knowledge of the law allegedly superior to mine?

Officer: He stated that all laws apply to all people and that all testimonies are equal.

Tom: Are you familiar with Idaho statutes 49-654-2 and 49-106?

Officer: He said he is familiar with 49-654 but not 49-106. I asked him if he would like me to read them to him so the magistrate gave him the code book to read.

Tom: Please can you define the difference between when the two statutes, 49-654-2 and 49-106 are used and why?

Officer: He could not.

Tom: When I asked him about the ambiguity between the statutes and the violation written on the ticket, the magistrate stepped in and stated that there was a district difference between the statutes and between the words Excessive and exceeding! (I was so shocked I was speechless!)

Tom: Is there a reason why the definition on the citation, you gave me without an acknowledgement or signature of acceptance is actually nowhere in the legislatively created statutes indicating the circumvention of the legislative process to increase the authority of the officer or the agency?

Officer: He had no answer. There was some confusion about why I asked the question, I moved on.

Tom: Would you please state for me and show the evidence you have against me to prove, in this court that I am guilty of the crime that I have been charged with?

Officer: He stated “I have no evidence, just my testimony”

Tom: Are you aware of the federal government’s ability to unlawfully enforce state laws, according the Nampa Police department’s head of SWAT, to the point of withholding funding that violates the sovereignty of the state and the feds agencies forcing local agencies to violate their lawful creation of the separation of powers which I assume you were to protect?

Officer: He stated that the feds have nothing to do with state law.

Tom: Did you know that the DOT has no authority to manipulate speed limits which is why the speeds are defined in the state statutes?

Officer: He said no! I asked him if he knew that the DOT was the one that lowered the speed limit to 65 from 75 on the interstate, he was silent.

Tom: Do you have any idea of how much danger this state and nation are in because of our lack of knowledge of history, the constitution and the proper application of law down to the most local level?

Officer: He was silent

Tom: In rebuttal to his testimony, I asked the officer if he was sure he was in his car, to which he answered, as a matter of fact, that’s right, I was on my bike. I reminded the officer he was under oath, under God and if he was sure this time,

Officer: he stated he was.

Tom: I asked him if there was a policy that allowed him to swerve erratically back and forth to get my attention to which he explained he was an experienced driver. I stated that that was interesting because I am also trained and an experienced driver but if you saw me do that I would be guilty of a misdemeanor!

Then I asked him about the two CARs that he originally saw going faster than the flow of traffic and asked him which car I was in the white of the gray car, to which he stated earlier, to which he stated the grey car. I asked if he could prove it because not only was I not in a car but it wasn’t gray or white to which he said “but I know it was you, you are here in this courtroom.

I stated, I am in this courtroom because you pulled me over but I want to know why when I was not even on your radar, I wasn’t in a car and the color you stated I was in is inaccurate?

I asked him as I showed him a picture of the back of my black truck with all of the liberty stickers on it, officer do you have any proof for me not to believe that you in fact pulled me over because you actually do have a problem with liberty minded people and this was just an attempt to single me out?

The court objected and I objected stating it was absolutely relevant due to the fact that the officer had no evidence, couldn’t remember what he was driving or the TRUCK I was driving either!

Tom: Finally officer, do you believe people that support and defend the constitution with knowledge of history, freedom, liberty and justice for all are the terrorists and true subversives or the ones that undermine these principles?

Officer: He was silent.

Tom: After my cross examination I stated there were no further questions the state rested, as did I and we gave our closing arguments.

The prosecution stated that due to the evidence provided, we ask you to find the accused guilty…..

My closing began with thanking the magistrate for allowing me grace to do the best I could as I was new to court procedures and assured him my intentions was not to be argumentative in any way, only to clarify the points to make sure they were on record.

Then I stated the following (paraphrasing):

Your honor, As we have listened to the case before us today, you stated that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that I was guilty and yet we have an officer that is charged with knowing the law, properly applying the law, under oath without any knowledge of the oath and acknowledgment of the limitations on his power. He adheres to laws that were created by the DOT and not legislatively through the lowering of speed limits. He is an officer that believes that the state statutes supersede the constitution because he has no knowledge of them and weren’t even taught in POST, yet his testimony is held superior to mine when I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt I have more knowledge of law than the officer does under oath charged with the administration of laws? Furthermore, the state has admitted that it has no evidence against me, the officer can’t remember if he was in a car or a bike or what color my car which wasn’t even a car was.

I asked the magistrate to allow me to read my final statement and as I read this statement with all of the passion and energy I could muster looking into the eyes of the magistrate, the prosecutor and the officer I know what I had been there for was done, I saw the emotion in the eyes of the prosecutor, I was there to plant the seed of liberty in that court room and to challenge the paradigm of our present system and I believe I did just that.

Here is my actual closing statement:

After  years of Tyrannical rule, the founding fathers fled from the oppression of the king, so that they may be free to exercise their God given rights of Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to be secure in their effects and to travel without restriction. In doing so, they created a government to protect and preserve those rights. In an effort to guarantee this preservation, they created documents that specifically enumerated those rights that kept government limited preserving those rights for future generations.

After decades of apathy, ignorance and complete lack of vigilance, governments incrementally continually increased their power and authority and due to the general faith and trust of the people  in their government allowed it to happen, without the proper delegated authority, acting unlawfully until today, the once inherent power and authority that was once in the people has been taken where today governments, once the servants have become the masters and the people have become the subservient slaves.

It is because of this unauthorized continual taking of power and the erosion of our rights, where the people have begun to rise and take back what rightfully belongs to us, bestowed upon us by our Creator and guaranteed by our constitution to protect and preserve those rights for future generations.

It is for this reason I am here and nothing else, to urge this court to reconsider its place in our alleged constitutional republic and to acknowledge its limitations, that were to preserve the freedom of the people not to exercise authority without limitations and generating millions of tax revenue to further restrict their rights.

I ask this court to rule in favor of the accused in this case because the weight of the historical record is in my favor, and consistent with all of the founding principles of this nation’s creation and not in favor of one or two manipulated and contorted statutes that violate those principles. In addition I also request that the term “argumentative” is removed from my traffic history.

I also request that this case not in any way affect my driving record because nothing could be proven because there was no wrongdoing.

I also request that a correction be made to clarify the ambiguity within the law regarding the statutes 49-654-2 and 49-106 as well as the corrections made on future traffic citations that are misleading because of this ambiguity.

I also ask that I or someone of any basic knowledge of the constitution and the principles of freedom educate these governmental agencies as to not only the proper role of government but the purpose of the creation of government and the historical reasoning of its implementation.

It would be my pleasure to volunteer to take the time to help educate our officers on these principles, reducing the ever increasing communication gap between law enforcement and its people, proving that we are not the enemy creating a more harmonious relationship, one built on trust, faith and understanding and not one of forced submission at the point of a gun.

I also ask that there are no imposed fines upon the accused. Thank you. 

The magistrate after an extremely brief moment at about 5pm stated he rules in favor of the prosecution finding me guilty and that I have the option to appeal, that’s it, Done, just like that!?

After the magistrate left the room I met with the prosecutor and shook the hand of the officer. We spoke for about 30 minutes and we left joking and smiling, I enjoyed that time immensly. We got a chance to get to know each other a bit and I think they appreciated the fact that I was not nuts!

Guys, this problem we face today is not only a fight between officers and the people, it is a battle of ignorance and the lack of knowledge between freedom and security and the abandonment of the foundational principles of freedom, liberty and justice and the confines set forth by the written constitution that limited government to few, specific and enumerated powers. Without this knowledge, governments have no limitations and the people are left without protection from their abuses, in many cases where they are unaware that they were abusive.

The officers in their lives see death, thankfully and understandably so, they want to keep people safe, I told them I thank them for that but at some point the line between freedom and security will be blurred and that is why I do what I do, to attempt to ask the questions in an effort to re-establish the jurisdictional boundaries and limitations between the two.

I left then with Benjamin Franklin’s quote “Those that would give up a bit of freedom for security deserve neither and both will be destroyed”

His last statement to me was that he really should look more into what I know…I was pleased…

I would like to thank the prosecuting attorney and the officer for taking the time to chat with me after the trial. These officers of the court seem like good people, with families that believe in what they do like we do, its just that what they were taught is not what they should have been. Officers, you have my prayers on the road and in court and I wouldn’t have your job if I had too, you guys are nuts! :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law enforcement vs the People

 

Law enforcement vs the people?

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/10/10/2809090/boise-police-say-they-are-investigating.html

Governments, from what I have read, have always had a history of oppressing the people. History has also clarified that this oppression is incremental but there has always been a turning point, where the people have had enough and begin to fight back, are they unlawful when they do?

Who are cops and what their jobs and who are the people and what are the limitations of both? I believe that a lesson in history will clarify the proper relationship between the people and law enforcement.

Law enforcement, to my knowledge, is an unconstitutional creation that has it has been created by the eventual usurpation of the original position of peace officers that continually are continually being redefined, by government expanding their power over the people. Constitutionally and historically, the power has always been in the people as the inherent power and “authority” where the people were the masters and government was their servant. What changed, why and how? Was this change lawful?

The basic difference is that the original position of the peace officer was the position that was created to be available when summoned, when someone was violated, to keep the peace. Peace officers were known by name, they were liked and appreciated in their neighborhoods and known for good deeds outside of their limitations, cats in trees was a good example. Today, officers are increasingly becoming more and more militarized their clothing, their cars and their demeanor where now instead of keeping the peace, as a servant of the people, law enforcement demands obedience and complete submission to every law created regardless of whether the law is actually within the constitutional limitations to the point of arrest. The people however, as the inherent authority, created the positions of peace officers to keep the peace to insure they were free to move about according to their dictates without question UNLESS THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME OR HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME, at which point they may be questioned. This is where the problem lays.

What happened to the peace officers? Were they lawfully abandoned without the will of the people or have they been incrementally transformed in an effort for government to take control over the people? Was it intentional to subvert the original lawful position or was it through ignorance? Was it that people were taught to give up their freedom for security that, by default gave government power over its people without limitations?

America today is lost, it has no understanding of freedom, liberty, the proper role of government, the church or the family and the only answer we have is to reactively create laws thinking somehow they will minimize crime? Law was never intended to prevent crime; it was created to punish those that commit them.

What constitutes a crime? Who defined its terms, government? Has the ability to do so just put the fate of the freedom of the people in the hands of government?

This nation was created as a nation that was an experiment in self-government. Is the incremental increase in the size and power of government consistent with a free people or do you see that the eventual encroachment could lead to some form of totalitarianism? What does history say about that?

We have an acknowledgment in every state’s constitution that God as the giver of our rights, we have the same on our federal documents as well, in that our rights in our present form of government were unalienable, that no man can take them away or obstruct them, this was the cornerstone of freedom granted by our Creator and guaranteed by our constitutions that limited government to few, specific and enumerated powers and that governments were to take an oath of understanding of those limitations and that if government exceeded these limitations, they were unlawful, and somehow today, they can tell the people we break the law and somehow they are immune from this challenge?

Our Founders knew that our freedom and liberty could only be preserved if the people remained vigilant and educated future generations about these principles and they would be lost, in one generation if we didn’t. Since then we have allowed government to tell us that there is no longer a place for God, indicating essentially that your rights are no longer unalienable but only in accordance with how they are defined by government and no one sees a problem that government in that one instance undermined the entire foundation of our government with one swipe? The assaults on our liberties will continue as long as these principles are no longer taught in school, where instead of governments desire to protect and preserve our rights for future generations, they instead have  taken control of them enslaving these generations that are taught such contrary principles.

To make my point as it relates to this issue, we have a real problem and one that will continue to get worse without any effort to open communication, people will begin to get hurt and die if this issue is not brought to the table.

How can the people that understand the law, their rights and the principles of liberty, that believe in personal responsibility exercise our rights but also reach out to law enforcement in a way that they may not see us as the enemy? We need to find a way, we are supposed to be on the same side and no one questions how we got to be against each other?

The bottom line is this, the people have Unalienable rights that no man or government can take away, they are guaranteed by a sworn oath to be protected by those that are paid to serve us. There is never a need to apprehend or command or detain anyone that is not guilty of the commission of a crime or suspected of such, especially without probable cause (Petty infractions are not lawfully probable cause). With this understanding, the people are free to exercise their freedom, to travel as they will, to speak and to stand and to record and to do whatever it is they do as long as they have not harmed another. The very idea that we have allowed government to utilize pre-crime tactics such as, ”how did I know he didn’t have a gun or was out to kill me” is outside the proper jurisdictional boundaries of their job and if allowed to be an acceptable practice, leaves the barn door open for law enforcement to act without any limitations without any accountability, of which principles are also contrary to a free people!

In closing, I have tremendous respect for law enforcement and my last wish is to create a divide between us but they must, as they demand from us, act in accordance with the law. Respect should be a two way street and a clear understanding of the limitations of the people through basic common sense and the limitations on government according to the sworn oath to understand them is what equates to a peaceful society.

There is no reason to question, suspend or detain a man for simply exercising his rights, until such time as he has caused harm to another. That is American law, that is freedom and that is what our founders original intent was for a nation of free people.

If you have read this and you know people in law enforcement, please share it with them. If you are in law enforcement, please consider meeting or communicating with me to prove what I have stated is inaccurate.  I am a man that has opinions, no doubt, but my desire is not to espouse my opinions as much as it is to share then in accordance with law and fact.

My desire is to open communication with my officers, not to tear them down. They have a hell of a job that I wouldn’t do today, if you paid me, its just flat nuts out there!

Officers, we need your help, we need to open communication to prevent this divisiveness and misunderstanding from getting worse because if we do nothing, I assure you it will that again is not my wish desire or intent!

 

 

 

 

 

Interview with Nampa Police

Interview with Nampa PD

 

After a brief unsettling phone altercation with the sergeant this morning, I was convicted to call and meet him because I believe we both misunderstood one another. I called and spoke with him and we decided to meet this morning so that we may share concerns and so that we may better understand one another and so I could take pictures of this MRAP vehicle. I shared my concerns and he shared his feelings and knowledge about what he deals with and what he sees that would justify the acceptance of such an arsenal.

 

He says that they applied for them through a 1033 program where a state or local agency can apply for equipment through the Department of Defense. He said the applied for it because he felt they needed it because people shoot at them. When I asked him what the limitations were on what the could accept, he said there really aren't any accept for what the department feels reasonable and prudent. What this means to me is that reasonable and prudent are arbitrary terms defined by the department alone and without any written limtations to protect the people accept for the arbitrary unwrittewn, undefined limitations the person in charge feels is excessive.

 

To my knowledge, there are several problems with this for those that have no clue.

 

Where is the legislative authorization for a county or city agency to receive military equipment without as much as a vote from the people? Surely the legislature has allowed this somewhere? Where are the written protections afforded to the people that prevent the increased militarization without their knowledge or their ability to stop it if the people chose to? Should our local law enforcement or government agency be able to arm and protect itself more than the people themselves could against their government?

 

If that is not alarming enough, I was told that even the feds have forced the local LE to enforce seat belt tickets or they will pull their funding? All this time I've been disagreeing with my local LE when the fight is with the feds? I feel horrible.

 

So, the question if the feds can control the states, cities and counties through federal monies and the acceptance of gifts like the MRAP, don't you think that the feds can control their use, to be used against their people against the alleged "right wing terrorist groups" and others or they will lose their funding?

 

Does no local government that was created to protect the rights of the states and the people see that the feds as well as the states have already destroyed the jurisdictional boundaries undermining state sovereignty as well as the checks and balances?

 

Can you not see that we are in trouble and is there no one that will stand and proclaim this tyranny and fight against it, we are accepting money by the feds to promote it!?

 

The federal governments job was not to fund the states to control them, its unlawful. The states were never created to take money from the feds, they too are acting unlawfully. If governments are acting unlawfully, exceeding their constitutional limitations, how can they enforce laws on the people when they themselves are guilty? How can freedom be protected when the bottom line is about the reception of money and gifts and the continual encroachments of government that were to preserve that freedom?

 

Every day our nation is one step farther from what it was intended to be. We have deviated from personal responsibility, deviated from loving God and our neighbor and deviated from the written protections against the usurpation of government and very few even notice and those that do are viewed as heretical and argumentative?

 

We need to ask ourselves if we prefer freedom or security and know that we cant have both. The law says governments must be limited, the people in support of the opposite are unlawful.

 

We are not a democracy where the majority rule, we were a republic where the rights of freedom liberty minded people were to be protected. So, what will you do today to to fight for the cause of liberty for future generations because your actions directly affect their future!

 

In closing, I would like to thank Sergeant Randall for his time and for his understanding of my concerns. Our altercation this morning would have been  non existent had we taken the time to better communicate with one another. Its also nice to know that the sergeant understands what we see, agrees with much of it and is sensitive to it. It was an interview that was much appreciated. Im not sure what if our dialogue have any impact, we can only hope it does.

 

Thank you Sergeant for your time.

 

 

Tom Munds:

 

 

 

Open letter to my fellow Idahoans, and our beloved media..

This letter is a variation of a letter sent to local media...

 I have lived in SW Idaho for 25 years and have always considered Idaho my home, where we have the greatest people and a government that always seemed to care even if after a closer look, as I became more educated, I realized by their voting records they apparently did not.

 The last few years since I have become increasingly more involved in our local and state government, I have not only become more fearful of those I believe have no idea about the proper role of government as I have proven in a multitude of on air interviews with our government officials, but the media, in generals seemed inability to accurately report the real news and I am appealing to all of you today to consider a few things.

 I have watched stories posted on Facebook and watched the news and I just don’t think people are getting what is truly happening to us as a nation or as a state and the influence of the feds upon our state. Today’s story that just broke on the Nampa Police armored vehicle “to fight crime” is a classic example. Is that really what our media believes?

 http://www.ktvb.com/home/Nampa-Police-Department-gets-military-vehicle-226062801.html

 and not just Nampa:http://www.kivitv.com/news/local/Idaho-Police-gain-new-military-grade-crimefighting-vehicle-226199301.html

After speaking to Nampa PD briefly, they stated that this vehicle was only used to transport officers and my question was, "Where, through the streets of Nampa or the coming war zone we all know is coming" but few are willing to stick their neck out and admit the depths of despair our government has resorted to as society continues to culturally decay? 

I can gather national links for you as well, Evidently, our government is threatened and scared about something, enough to take Tax dollars to be funded by the PENTAGON to implement these programs. According to Nampa Police, this vehicle will only be used to transport officers? again, I ask you...Where in Nampa or the coming warzone due to the coming civil unrest as the feds continue to strangle the states and their people into complete submission?

 

So, at the risk of sounding like a “conspiracy theorist” let me stay to the facts to point my direction… we have the aggressive implementation of Obama care, Common Core, both to be passed quickly before people can know what is in it, a Quasi state-federal partnerships, multinational corporate control  of government by lobbyists, our president stating publically he wanted to go around congress, His DHS calling Vets domestic terrorists, and those that cling to their guns and religion , then buying 2 billion rounds of hollow points, establishing the NDAA, inciting fear and use of firearms to implement gun control, threatening the citizens by shutting down government to force the implementation of HIS program and somehow it’s hard to believe that FEMA camps, that are so conspiratorial are so impossible? Through federal control through strings, and our acceptance of them we have allowed the feds to overreach their authority that results in the absolute erosion of the rights guaranteed to the states and the people maintain their sovereignty. I know these are only a few examples and I can give you more but can you see what the implementation of all this obviously leads to, What other conclusion is there, Logically?

 What many in their in 9-5 grind may fail to realize is the attempt by the feds to abolish jurisdictional boundaries , to take control not only of our kids but to control local and state government that will end ultimately with a global government and control over everything from law, justice, to the environment and education. They have taken over local school districts with federal funds and strings to force implementation of these programs or the funding stops, they have militarized police and suggested strongly they need the feds because they cannot handle things on their own so they use these funds to gear them up against their people and law enforcement seems not be any the wiser? Then we have the Southern Poverty Law center, the propaganda arm of the DHS to indoctrinate the law enforcement to believe that those that love our heritage freedom and liberty and state senate approved and constitutionally supported militia members are somehow subversive to our form of government when only the contrary is true?

 My intent of this letter is to have you consider meeting me and discuss where you are on all this and to find a way to offer a perspective to the people that have no idea of what is happening and maybe, if you accept it, an on air interview with me where you can have me go head to head with anyone, even your president.

 

If Idaho’s media truly cares about its people, it will consider other perspectives of what they are being told about these stories, They are not what you think, it’s happening all over the country. I will stake my reputation and my life on it!

 It is my job in all that I have done, being on the air on KIDO, running for office and verbal challenges to warn people about what is coming, the economy is not recovering, our states will not get jobs back as long as we are funding them to go out of state and overseas, our national debt will never get cured by continuing to spend, and taxes will never go down. Obama said in a speech a few years ago, “NO nation shall be held higher than another" and he is our commander in chief? “what that means as the endgame  for us is a Global redistribution at the expense of reducing this nation to rubble.

 I don’t care where your political beliefs are, it’s not about republican democrat issues, I am not racist or a hate monger, as a matter of fact I love my state and my people so much I am willing to put a target on my head and risk my reputation and that of my family to make sure people realize what is happening. These assaults are happening to all of us that knows no racial or cultural or wealth divide. Our political parties are different only in degree, not so much in ideology because both desire to enslave the masses through incrementalization as governments, through history have always done.

 I beg of you, local media, please consider meeting me, even if its only for your entertainment, and because I know you don’t want the blood of our fellow Idahoans on your hands (and not instigated by me: my disclaimer due to my federal characterization due to love of country).

 If you deny a meeting with me, as I fear you might, I would only respectfully ask that you may be up front with me, mano y mano and tell me why so I don’t bother you again.

 

Respectfully,

 

Tom