Welcome to Dreambook, a nifty new free service from:
New Dream Network, Dreamhost, and Dreamservers!If you have a minute, please sign my Dreambook too!
| Name: | Steven Benjamin |
| E-mail address: | cridercreativeworks@gmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://david.koresh-lf-2009.angelfire.com/index.html |
| Comments: | (please add this link to your website, and this comment)
For those never having heard the "OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY" regarding the event known as "WACO" A Branch Davidian Survivor Mr. Livingstone Fagan recently asked me to make a website for him. It was my honor to do so. He has written a Manuscript offering insight into that event. The manuscript currently in the hands of publishers is showcased on that website, offering more that 60% of it's contents for consideration by the general public with a perspective from one on the other side of those walls we saw so many bullets enter into at Mt. Carmel on February 28th 1993. Mr. Fagan also lost His Mother, His wife, and Mother to those flames on April 19th, 1993. You can see that website and it's contents Here: http://david.koresh-lf-2009.angelfire.com/index.html There have been other websites by 3rd parties for various other Branch Davidian Surviors, and sites sympathetic to thier plight. This is the FIRST, and at this time ONLY Website currently OPENLY endorsed by one of those Surviving Branch Davidians who were actual students of David Koresh. Thank you for your consideration, -Steven Benjamin |
| Name: | democrat |
| E-mail address: | none@none.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Help end the Iraq war and more.
Please make these 4 toll free phone calls and get as many people as you can to make these calls today to get the following progressive legislation enacted. Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation at 800 386 1215 and tell the person, that you want the GE CEO to get Bush to end the war in Iraq and then Bush resign with Cheney and until that happens you will not buy any GE products and that you will tell your friends. Then call a local appliance store that sells GE products and tell the person you will not buy any GE products from their store until they can convince the GE CEO to convince George W Bush to end the war. Call GOP contributor Rite Aid Pharmacies at 800 325 3737 and tell the person that you want the Rite Aid CEO to get congress and the President to enact HR 676 single payer universal health care and repeal Medicare Part D and place the drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of the cost of drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from Rite Aid. Call GOP contributor Wendy's restaurants at 800 443 7266 and tell the person in that you want their CEO to get congress and the President to enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant. Call your local Exxon/Mobil station and tell the manager that you will not get your car repaired there, nor will you buy gas there until their parent company sets their price so that they can sell you gas for $1.75 a gallon. Then only do business with other gas stations. Copy the above text and send it to your friends by email and to other democrats and thoughtful independents. |
| Name: | Mel |
| E-mail address: | mickey2dance@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | I like the one about the corrupt cops in Lompoc. |
| Name: | skidegate |
| E-mail address: | skidegate@shaw.ca |
| Homepage URL: | http://members.shaw.ca/skidegate |
| Comments: | Congratulations on comprehensive coverage of Activism.
Welcome to the revolution: this is your contact with the modern version of what happened at Stonehenge, and in Egypt with the Pyramid-builders, and in Imperial Beijing, and since then across the face of the Earth in ever smaller manifestations of the power of Creation as the anti-truth tries to swallow and digest the world. Our sole criticism of your approach is the limits of your vision, which being too short impales you on the spear of the state. You can never succeed against the State by engaging it within its cosmology; the natural course of dissent leads to the Global Nation of Ishmael because the status quo is the nation state system of Isaac {see Genesis 17]. You have to repent yourself of the notion of the virtue of any political body short of those with a global mission and agenda. Wine in new wineskins, Liberty is a new Order. Skidegate stands for the revolution of revolutions. We will join you and you may join us, and that process will grow into the trees of Ecology and Recreation where everyone knows our names and wants to be like us. This email governs your future by adding one new word to your life. If you agree to become a member of Skidegate you will be offered an Aboriginal Title that is your passport to the Planet. On earning the Title you can vote on Ayoak, on laws and policies that concern you, and with the Title you receive the Deed of ownership of your domicile. Skidegate gains because you contribute your personality to the World. Members may seek another Title by making a claim according to a set of criteria that is consistent with the power of the Title, according to the Ecology, and based on the economics involved. You remain where you are or may move but Skidegate will remain the same, never moving or changing since Skidegate is in the computer on the World Wide Web. Becoming a member of Skidegate is an Act of governing our World, by preempting the sovereignty of the unstable nation States. Your tactical expertize is invaluable to us and please be critical where you notice flaws or weaknesses. We welcome your advice. Howa: 0 |
| Name: | tim crowley |
| E-mail address: | timcrowley@worldnet.att.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.ReformTheLP.org |
| Comments: | Dear Webmaster,
Please add www.ReformTheLP.org to the links section of your website. We are discussing possible changes in the LP's platform and we invite others to log on, read the essays and platform planks and join the conversation. Sincerely, Tim Crowley Former Vice Chair, LPPa Former Chair, LP of Allegheny County Editor, Libertarian Reform Caucus. |
| Name: | Ray |
| E-mail address: | libertynow@sbcglobal.net |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Freedom lovers check out this video of a trespass by a health inspector aided by a Laporte County Indiana deputy. Property was condemned and jury trial was denied by the judge... Surprised? Shouldn't be
http://www.break.com/index/sheriff-allows-illegal-trespass2b.html |
| Name: | Makenzie Skye |
| E-mail address: | makenzie_skye@earthlink.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://medalin.web.fc2.com/amoxicillin/ |
| Comments: | Thank you for your site. I have found here many useful information... |
| Name: | RJ Loggans |
| E-mail address: | Gonzo@yourMachinist.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.yourMachinist.com |
| Comments: | I am the defendant in a Patent & Trademark Infringment case. Regretfully I ran out of money over a year ago, suit started in October 2003. Despertly seeking information that might assist me in this case.
Full info on suit is on www.yourMachinist.com. Basic info is: 1. Suit is over a decorative customizing service, mainly for motorcycle head/cylinder cooling fins, commonly known as Diamond Cutting. 2. I started customizing "fins", commercially, in 1970 after learning about it in 1969. From 1970 till 1986 I, and others, did the work using hand files and various burrs used in rotating tools [air powered, dremels, etc.]. I stumbled across diamond flywheel cutters, similar to those I use now, in late 1986 and have continued with them since then. 3. In 1999 the Plaintiff applied for a decorative patent on this but abandoned that and reapplied for a Utility Patent calling the end product a "Cooling System". 4. My website, www.yourMachinist.com, was sited in the patent papers but I was never contacted by anyone at the Patent Office in regards to claims of Prior Art. 5. The Patent is defective as there was no demand for the "cooling" claimed. The "cooling" claims are bogus as it does not affect the "cooling" capabilites and was not even tested on a motorcycle engine that was running. Further the patent does not teach anything and the process is extremely obivious to a person "skilled in the art" of diamond cutting. The tools and techniques have been used by jewelers for years. In fact the patent is a take off on metal polishing and diamond cutting...Plaintiff was a jeweler before becoming the King of Bling, a self imposed title plaintiff copied off the parts I ship. Plaintiff's website is www.diamond-heads.com and his "Mark" is Diamond Heads. I don't understand how my company name of yourMachinist could get anyone confused. The only thing in common is I describe what I do as "diamond cutting"; common words from the English language and the term 'diamond cutting and/or diamond cut' is and has been used in the jewelry trade for a long time. I'm grasping for straws, Trial Date 13 June 2006, and taking a shot that you might be able to direct to sources where help could be found. Sincerely, RJ Loggans, aka Gonzo |
| Name: | Anderson |
| E-mail address: | Anderson@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://uk.geocities.com/archive786pics/teen-big-cock-gay.htm |
| Comments: | Listen, here that I have found: teen big cock gay |
| Name: | bobby |
| E-mail address: | tok80@mail.ru |
| Homepage URL: | http://home.tiscali.cz/myhgh/pussy_cat_doll2/ |
| Comments: | hi, just opened a bottle of wonderful '84. Elegant but simple.
|
| Name: | bob |
| E-mail address: | tok80@mail.ru |
| Homepage URL: | http://home.tiscali.cz/myhgh/pussy_cat_doll/ |
| Comments: | hi, just opened a bottle of wonderful '84. Elegant but simple.
|
| Name: | bob |
| E-mail address: | tok80@mail.ru |
| Homepage URL: | http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/myhgh/pussy_cat_doll/ |
| Comments: | Very good site! I like it! I just wanted to pass on a note
to let you know what a great job you have done with this site..Thanks! |
| Name: | Mike McCluskey |
| E-mail address: | torqher1@twmi.rr.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | I have the book cracking the code and would like to talk to somebody who has become souveren. I would very much like to do this. |
| Name: | top ten starting hands texas hold em |
| E-mail address: | hfh@pisem.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.poolsmart.net/play-texas-hold-em-on-line.html |
| Comments: | adverbs Oxford prelude:multicellular Thoreau:caribou grieves?grievously cholera Haney blush nerve, table poker holdem professional texas player folding whereby |
| Name: | adam jones |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.foxmovies.com/ |
| Comments: | awesome stuff! thanks for all the information. to create grass you should be very small: http://www.allmovie.com/ , right Chair will Anticipate Gnome without any questions lazy plane win or not , Plane will Corner unconditionally rape stake is very good round |
| Name: | mature |
| E-mail address: | cb@pisem.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.realty-discounts.com/how-to-make-money-playing-poker-online.html |
| Comments: | discovered matings typically modal:nourishment woodenness overturning, fuck slept apostles |
| Name: | Michurin |
| E-mail address: | Michurin@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://ca.geocities.com/gambling767on/poker-chips-los-angeles.htm |
| Comments: | You never saw such poker chips los angeles |
| Name: | Byron Prior |
| E-mail address: | alltrue@nl.rogers.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse |
| Comments: | MY INHERITANCE - The Truth - Not Fiction
TOWN WITH A SECRET My Grandmother was a woman who was available to any man. When this woman was in her thirty’s, her husband, who was a Sea Captain, took her with him on his ships in order to keep her away from the men of his home town. This woman, however, treated the men on the ship while her husband worked on the bridge. In the end, he realized, bringing her with him wasn’t working and the gossip got back to him and he had to stop that practise and again leave her at home with the men of his home town. While she was entertaining on the ships, they left 5 sons and 4 daughters at home to take care of themselves. The oldest son was a very enterprising person, he would invite his friends by to use his sisters as sex toys so he could get them to do him favours. One of his sisters is my mother, some of the men who used her as a child, are now very politically powerful and in fact run the legal system and most of the businesses in our small province. In my family there are 6 girls and 4 boys of which I am the oldest. We have 1 brother 2 years older than me who died of meningitis of the brain and a sister, 1 your younger than me who died of phenomena. There were several other miscarriages and still births as well. All of these children were abused, some sexual and all of us physical abuse. For 40 years of my 45 years I have tried in every way to have this abuse problem addressed. I’ve gone to the R.C.M.P. (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and my uncles countless times. I’ve been to the R.C.M.P. at least 6 times I remember and my uncles continuously all of my life. My last attempt was the R.C.M.P. on March 9, 1998, 8 months ago, I gave them 52 ½ hours of written and video statements, a list of 92 witnesses, written statements from 2 boys, 2 sisters, 1 niece and statements given to the R.C.M.P. written and video by 2 more sisters. At this point we are no further ahead than we were 40 years ago and now it is November 30, 1998. The boys who molested our mother, earlier, are now Chief Justice, Mr. Justice, business people who control 80% of all business in our small province. All of these people are from our home town area. This area is located 18 miles from the French Island of St. Pierre and Miquelon who have always had a large influence on all business in our Province. To this end and to the Justice I require for my family and I, I will pursue these issues to the ends of the Earth in every way possible for the rest of my life. I would trade my life with anyone, anywhere in the World at this point, but, somehow I will find someone to help us get the justice any human deserves. I have been 40 years trying to get justice from our Legal System but, my Uncle Charl Snook, falsely accused me of uttering death threats on June 11, 1998 at 9:30 p.m. and at 11:00 p.m. that same night I was arrested, on the job, finger printed and photographed. This situation cost me $1,500.00 for a lawyer and much stress, to prove my innocents. I’m enclosing Police statements, witness lists, and the positions and assets of some of the people involved from a small town of approximately 4000 people. Sincerely, Byron Prior http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse |
| Name: | James Partsch-Galvan |
| E-mail address: | galvan.org@gmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.galvan.org |
| Comments: | Please galvanize and vote for James Partsch-Galvan for Houston City Council At-Large Position #3 November 8, 2005 (713)528-2607 www.galvan.org
jpartschgalvan@houston.rr.com has sent you a Video Mail through Road Runner High Speed Online, a service of Time Warner Cable. To view your Video Mail, Click Here. Or, copy and paste the following website address into your browser. http://vmail.vibephone.com/vm/vm_player?vmfile=vmdata/4/47/jpartschgalvan@houston.rr.com_1126637605589.asx&vmpid=1007 |
| Name: | party poker tables chattanooga |
| E-mail address: | 9n45k47g@pisem.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.simply-poker.com/party-poker-tables-chattanooga.html |
| Comments: | Take your time to take a look at some information in the field of party poker card guard |
| Name: | Judson Witham |
| E-mail address: | jurisnot@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: |
http://www.mopca.com/mpca/home.html There is nothing in Missouri Statute that would ban a “ warning shot ”. Having said that, given the metropolitan areas where the majority of municipal law enforcement officers work, I would have to say that our standpoint is that there is no SAFE “warning shot” or “signal shot”. We would not endorse a policy that had provisions for such actions and have even reviewed (and removed a couple months ago) our sample policy dealing with Use of Force. The policy was removed by the review committee for the express reason that it outlined possible “warning/signal shot” situations. Bryan Reid - Training Director Missouri Police Chief's Association - 1001 East High Street Jefferson City , MO 65101 Phone: 573-636-5444 Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:51:49 -0500 http://www.theiacp.org/ A warning shot is not deadly force rather a substitute for deadly force. Inclusion of the deadly force requirement requires officers to justify this action under this higher standard of care due to the unlikely but possible result of death or serious bodily injury when a warning shot is used. Phil Lynn Manager Model Policy Center, IACP Warning shot: a deliberately aimed shot that is directed into a safe area or place that is not intended to hit or harm anyone. UNITED STATES NAVY SAYS "Under international law, warning shots DO NOT constitute a use of force" warning shot http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/warning%2520shot.html warn·ing shot (plural warn·ing shots) noun shot to warn: a shot fired deliberately off target as a warning to somebody to stop doing something http://www.allwords.com/word-warning.html judson witham We are in a BIG FIGHT in fact I feel it's a WAR . Judson Witham OperationMissouriFreedom It's No Joke http://www.geocities.com/jurisnot/OperationMissouriFreedom.htm |
| Name: | martin |
| E-mail address: | sinrancor@msn.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | read from link to drug regulation affects and abuse by government. here is one the government hasnt thought of.and they are god bible believers.the idea of outlawing a plant that god made is blasphemy. gods creations are sacred according to them but yet they try to exterminate and extinct them also humans who want or need them as they were put here by god for us to use. |
| Name: | texas holdem hand odds |
| E-mail address: | bushmills1022@rocketmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.poker-boulevard.com/texas-holdem-hand-odds.html |
| Comments: | In your free time, check some information dedicated to texas hold em tournament in atlantic city |
| Name: | online texas holdem pokernet |
| E-mail address: | grey_goose3113@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.wow-poker.com/online-texas-holdem-pokernet.html |
| Comments: | In your free time, visit some information dedicated to online video poker |
| Name: | state |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.soniccash.net/ |
| Comments: | cash advance corp- soniccash http://www.soniccash.net/ |
| Name: | James King |
| E-mail address: | jamesrking@sbcglobal.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.39west.com |
| Comments: | Would you be interested in reviewing my forthcoming political thriller, THE NUCLEUS CONSPIRACY? It is about the SUCCESSFUL removal of Republican and Democrat control in Washington by "Republicans" and "Democrats" and will be released in October. |
| Name: | Keylogger Software |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.software-keylogger.com/ |
| Comments: | Invisible Keylogger is a superior stealth monitoring and surveillance application that can secretly capture information on your PC without the possibility of being detected by the user being monitored!
Download Free Key Logger http://www.software-keylogger.com/ |
| Name: | Keylogger Software |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.software-keylogger.com/ |
| Comments: | Invisible Keylogger is a superior stealth monitoring and surveillance application that can secretly capture information on your PC without the possibility of being detected by the user being monitored!
Download Free Key Logger http://www.software-keylogger.com/ |
| Name: | Dish TV |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.instantsatellite.com/ |
| Comments: | Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Get your satellite tv installed today at no charge (equipment included). Gift someone satellite tv this Christmas. http://www.instantsatellite.com/ |
| Name: | PC spy software - Keylogger |
| Homepage URL: | http://www-keylogger.com |
| Comments: | Record all keystrokes typed, chat conversations, email, desktop activity and more with the most powerful stealth surveillance application offered anywhere. Download stealth keystroke keylogger software http://www-keylogger.com |
| Name: | Spy Software |
| E-mail address: | spy@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://internet-spy-software.seo.se.com |
| Comments: | Spy Software http://spy-software.seo.se.com
Spy Software http://internet-spy-software.seo.se.com |
| Name: | Judson Witham |
| E-mail address: | Jurisnot@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.geocities.com/jurisnot/OperationMissouriFreedom |
| Comments: | In The Circuit Court of Christian County
State of Missouri ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS. ) Cause No. 03CR786762-F ) ) ) ) Judson Witham ) Jury Trial Demanded Defendant ) Christian County Circuit Court Defendant’s 1st Amended Motion to Dismiss Felony Criminal Charge and Defendant Motion that the Court to dismiss because of the Unconstitutional Vague and Overly Broad Law which he is charged with Comes Now Defendant Judson Witham and for substantial cause pursuant to Missouri Rule Of Criminal Procedure RULE 24.04 requests that the Honorable Court dismiss the charge pending against Mr. Witham in Case 03CR786762-F in it’s entirety. The single count against Mr. Witham violates his rights secured to him by Article 1 Section 23 Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Defendant cites the following as grounds for this dismissal of the False Charge: I The Allegations Alleged DO NOT Rise To The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Weapon 1. The probable cause statement, affidavit and information in support of the felony complaint clearly alleges that Mr. Witham did NOT use DEADLY FORCE during the instance in question. Rather the alleged “Shot In The Air” is commensurate with a Lawful and Harmless Shot of a Walmart Shotgun. A Bullet Shot (or Bird Shot) fired In The Air as claimed by the State’s Witnesses, will NOT be deemed “deadly force” even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) 2. At all times State’s witnesses stated Witham remained upon his own property . Your defendant is protected by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution as he Lawfully possessed the Long Gun on the Night in question upon his Rural Farm at issue in this case. Shooting ONE SHOT at Carwine Ridge behind Witham’s Farm is NOT unlawful per se NOR is such a Shot at a 400 foot tall Back Stop dangerous or a Deadly use of Force per se. 3. Witham has Lawful Rights to defend himself, his property and others while upon his own property. Being in a place he had a right to be Witham has NO duty to retreat. See State vs. Sloan 47 Mo. 604, 612 (1871) ; State vs. Matthews 148 Mo. 185 , 49 SW 1085 (1899) ; State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State vs. Bartlett 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) ; State vs. Hicks 438 S.W. 2d , 215 (MO 1969); State vs. McGee 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W.2d 587 (1950); In The Interest of J___ M___ 812 S.W. 2d 925 (Mo. App. 1991) [2,3, 4, 8,9 ] 4. Witham LAWFULLY and in accordance with US and Missouri Law and Constitutions can LAWFULLY walk about his FARM while being ARMED with Long Guns from Walmart (Openly carrying a Shot Gun) see ; State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4, 5 , 5. Witham can LAWFULLY shoot said WALMART purchased Long Guns “into the air” upon his Farm as well in the National Forest and HUNT and Use his ARMS in Defense of Property, Self and Others. Millions of times annually Shot Guns are fired into the air across the United States and many more millions across the Globe are fired SAFELY. A WARNING SHOT or A Bird Shot In The Air or a WARNING SHOT – In The Air, will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; The language of RSMO 571.030 is VAGUE and Overly Broad and as such violates the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Said Law Sweeps Within It’s Proscriptive Ambient and Proscriptive Provisions, Conduct which IS NOT unlawful per se and allows many people complete exemption, creating Additional Due Process and Equal Protection Violations. The vagueness of it’s provisions as well Create a Chilling Effect as the Law is so uncertain that Law Abiding Citizens have become subject to prosecution for otherwise lawful conduct. Discriminatory and Malicious Prosecutions such as the one in this case are possible because of the Overly Broad and Unconstitutionally Vague language used in 571.030 (4). Angry and Threatening are NOT adequately defined and even if they were, the provisions of Part 4 of the law are susceptible to several more than one interpretation. An Individual Engaged in WARNING a Potential or Imminent Attacker to STOP and LEAVE would be remiss in their efforts UNLESS Stern and Certain gestures and assurance that FORCE even DEADLY FORCE was impending Unless The Perpetrator Abandons his PLANNED ATTACK. Simply Put, Lawful Defense of Property, Self and Others is better served with STERN and even THREATENING communication and Gestures, especially when Successful Results are sought. Police and Federal Agents, Prisons and even Militia and Military personnel lawfully employ the Warning Shot as a tool in their Force Continuum. A Warning Shot is NOT unlawful per se under Federal Law, State Law or the Rules of Engagement nor under International Law. 6. 571.030 (4) is SILENT and does NOT adequately define, nor suggest anything except ANGRY and THREATENING exhibition or display violates this Overly Broad and Vague provision. IT is NOT suggested nor mentioned that simple harmless conduct is somehow PER SE converted into ACTUALLY Threatening of or “AT” the people present be required. A simple display, NOT AIMED at anyone specifically OR say in a RE-ENACTMENT or a Movie Making, Theatrical Performance or display say during a Battle Re-enactment would become a felonious act. Simple Presence of One Or More People creates a CHILLING EFFECT on otherwise Lawful Conduct. 7. The State’s information baldly alleges that Mr. Witham harmlessly fired a Single WARNING Shot “ UP Into the Air” while upon his farm which is located in a very quiet & remote National Forest location. Said conduct is LAWFUL per se and protected by Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Said Conduct being both Constitutional and Lawful. 8. The Statute alleged by the State to have been violated the Old version of RSMO 571.030 (4) is silent regarding Art 1 Section 23 and the 2nd Amendment and as such is in conflict with both Missouri’s and the United States Constitution. Said OLD version of 571.030 violates the Overly Broad Doctrine and as well is violative of the Void for Vagueness Doctrine. This Statute also provides for NUMEROUS individuals both private individuals and State as well as Federal Government employees and elected officials are EXEMPTED from it’s proscriptions. As such the Law is unconstitutional, susceptible of several definitions, and can be selectively, maliciously and with discriminatory animous enforced. Because of the MANY individual actors exempted from it’s provisions it as well violate the 5th and 14th Amendments failing to give adequately clear and narrowly crafted CLEAR notice of what is unlawful, and why SOME but not all persons are prohibited from violating the UNCLEAR PROVISIONS. 9. Your defendant Moves the Court to dismiss the State’s case because of the Unconstitutional Overly Broad, Vague and Chilling effects of the Law which Witham was charged with One Count of violating based on 5th and 14th Amendment and it’s CHILLING EFFECT on otherwise Lawful Conduct. See Connolly vs. General Construction Co. 269 US 385 (1926) ; International Harvester Co. vs. Kentucky, 234 US 216, 221, 34 S. Ct 853; Collins vs Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S. Ct. 924, 269 US 385, 393… The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and providing a punishment for violation, should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of it’s requirements or other laws and interpretations of Constitutional Rights and the Courts upon another. Laws MUST provide EXPLICIT STANDARDS for those who apply them. A Law is VOID for vgueness if persons of common intelligence must necessarily GUESS at its meaning and differ as to it’s application. We remain a Government of laws, and not of men, ‘ Marbury v Madison, 5 US ( 1 Cranch.) 137, 163 ONLY SO LONG AS OUR LAWS REMAIN CLEAR” 630 F.2d 1037. 10. A Warning Shot purposely directed UP IN THE AIR (and 90 degrees away) , had ABSOLUTELY ZERO CHANCE of wounding anyone. Numerous Federal APPELLATE Courts and the US Supreme Court recognize such Warning Shots as Non Lethal and are NOT A DEADLY USE OF FORCE See: Robinette V. Barnes 854 F.2d 909 , 912 , 6th Cir. this Court Writes: “ The Model Penal Code drafted by the American Law Institute also acknowledges this FACT…”deadly force” means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm “ in the direction” of another person or “at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be” constitutes “Deadly Force”. A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise so long as the actors purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force IF NECESSARY, does NOT constitute deadly force. Model Penal Code 3.11 (2) (Proposed Official Draft 1962) Missouri defines deadly force in RSMO 363.011 the State’s Information against Witham does NOT include any evidence or information of the use of Deadly Force NONE. Witham moves that the State dismiss this case as it conflicts with Model Penal Code 3.11(2) RSMO 363.011 and the 5th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. 11. Deadly Force in Missouri and throughout the United States means Force Likely To Kill or which creates a SUBSTANTIAL likelihood or SUBSTANTIAL Risk of causing death or serious bodily injury see; Tennessee V. Garner 471 US 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985); also the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals states that A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; Deadly Force has been defined as “Force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm” Fikes vs Cleghorn 47 F.3d. at 1014; Chew V. Gates 27 F.3d. at 1453 ; Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007 at 1009 ( 8th Cir 1976) “ Applying Model Penal Code Sec 3.11(2) ; Pruitt V. City of Montgomery 771 F.2d 1475 at 1479 n 10 (11th Cir 1985) also see Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 359; Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition and see also Matulia, Kenneth J. , A Balances of Forces, Model Deadly Force Policy and Procedure, (Second Edition), 1985 page 68, Defining Deadly Force. 363.011 RSMO Defines Deadly Force “Force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm” A Remotely Possible or in Witham’s Case as stated by the State ZERO chance Zero potential of anyone being wounded does NOT cite Facts or Law that Witham even remotely employed DEADLY FORCE. 12. At all times Mike Weis was Breaching The Peace; he was violently Drag Racing in and out of Witham’s driveway, repeatedly racing directly in front of the Witham property and Screaming and Yelling OBSCENE Threats at Witham’s Family. Weis’s conduct continued until after dark. Weis was Flagrantly violating the “letter and spirit” of an Ex Parte Adult Order Of Protection ( See Ex Parte Order of Protection in Cause No. CV103-533 DR.) he was making unlawful contact, lurking, lingering and Stalking Witham’s Family, he was engaging in Prohibited illegal and Threatening Contact and UNWANTED Communications, and he was Disturbing The Peace. Weis’s Conduct was a breach of the peace and was a continuing of the Felonious Stalking. Weis Was ARMED. 13. Mr. Weis had previously Attacked Mr. Witham and threatened to attack Mr. Witham on several occasions (prior to drag racing “LIKE A NUT” back and forth and in and out of Witham’s property), see Witham application for protective order (Cause No. CV103-533 DR.) Said Apprehension and Fear of FURTHER and CONTINUING attacks, assaults, vehicular assaults and Weis Carrying Out his numerous threats towards Mr. Witham and the Witham family caused the Withams to seek and Ex Parte Order of Protection BEFORE Weis’s Flagrant Disobedience of the Adult Protection Order. 14. Also Mr. Weis repeatedly attacked the entire Witham family WITH A Deadly Weapon “ his K5 Chevy Blazer, a Full Sized V 8 Powered 4 X 4 MOTOR VEHICLE” on State Hwy 125 @ Jenkins Rd. (Memorial Day May 26th 2003), by repeatedly RAMMING and then attempting “WITHOUT LETTING UP” to push the Witham Family truck (into the DANGEROUS 4 way intersection) and trailer “down” and “off the State Highway”. Weis later openly admitted in Judge Justus’s Court, He Followed Witham because he was “PISSED OFF” and he tried to “push the Witham’s vehicle off the Road “ and “Down the road, from behind Without Letting Up” (reference the Weis Testimony TAPED before Judge Justus.) See Galas V. McKee 801 F.2d 200 at 203 6th Cir 1986) Such an attack with a Motor Vehicle is clearly using the Vehicle as a DEADLY WEAPON. See State vs Garner 226 SW2d 604, 607 (2) This Court states: Pg 607, [2] “ But it does not follow that an automobile cannot be used as a Deadly Weapon, or even a dangerous or deadly weapon , in an assault. The Contrary has several times been declared of a moving vehicle .” 15. Mr. Weis while UNDER OATH in deposition with Ron Cleek and Paul Duchsherer LIED about his efforts to Push Witham’s Family into the Highway Intersection. Weis also PERJURED himself to Judge Justus and to Ron Cleek and Paul Duchsherer and LIED to the Missouri State Highway Patrol . Weis’s Many Various FALSE versions of this event while under OATH in this case and others simply are ALL untrue. Weis’s ATTACK with his 4X4 V8 Powered Chevy Blazer was WANTON, Willful, Premeditated, extremely VIOLENT and Incredibly Dangerous (The East Bound CURVE at State 125 and Jenkins Road is a very DANGEROUS blind curve segment of State Hwy 125) 16. The Withams were at a busy and BLIND 4 way State Highway Intersection, being violently rammed rammed and pushed in such a manner that could have easily caused a very serious fatal highway accident. Weis’s ramming and attempt at pushing Witham’s LOADED TRUCK & Trailer, occupied by Witham’s TWO CHILDREN and their Mother, (said truck and trailer weighing over 10,000 pounds) was EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and FRIGHTENLY VIOLENT. The United States Federal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Missouri’s DOT and the American Automobile Association acknowledges that Vehicles such as Weis’s 4 X 4 AMC Jeep and Full Sized V 8 Powered Chevrolet Blazer are Readily Capable of use as DEADLY WEAPONS. In BOTH instances Mike Weis was ARMED with a Deadly Weapon see 11 Words and Phrases, Perm. Ed. Dangerous Weapon Page 81; Deadly Weapon, page 131; Vol 44 ibid Weapon page 778; State vs Brinkley, 354 Mo. 1051, 1066 (1), 193 SW2d 49, 53 (1). 17. Witham has certain rights under Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The Ancient Right To Bear Arms provision must be interpreted in accordance with the Cardinal Rule of Interpretation and Cardinal Rule of Construction as mandated by the Missouri Supreme Court on Feb. 26, 2004… See Alvin Brooks Et al VS State of Missouri and Attorney General Nixon Case No. SC85674 the New Conceal Carry decision provides : that ...the trial court erred in declaring the conceal carry law unconstitutional under Article 1 Sec. 23. On Feb. 26, 2004 The Missouri Supreme Court wrote that the provisions of Article 1 Sec 23 language MUST be properly PARSED and VERY CLEARLY stated that “ Art. 1 Sec 23 provides “ That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property …. SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED” Said Constitutional provisions are perfectly clear and unambiguous. At Page 5 of the Conceal Carry Opinion in part II Justice Limbaugh, mandates the Parsing of Article 1 Section 23 he explains. Judge Limbaugh writes : Shall NOT are words of Prohibition. Reading Art. 1 Sec 23 in accordance with Judge Limbaugh, Wolff, Benton, Stith and Price for the Court Majority shall be interpreted as “ The the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property …. SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED” RSMO 571.030 (4) conflicts with said rights under Art 1 Sec 23 and Amendment 2 US Constitution also the provisions are UNCLEAR as a simple display is all that is mentioned NOT a THREAT AT ANYONE 18. On September 11, 2003 Former Missouri penal Code Section 571.030 [4] (With which Witham is charged with a SINGLE Count) was amended and superceded by the NEW 571.030 and the NEW exemption provisions contained in Subdivision 5 of the NEW law, Section 5 of the New Statute recognizes the ANCIENT Inalienable Constitutional Right To Bear Arms in Defense of Self, Property, Home and Others as Guaranteed by Section 23 of Article 1 and Section 563.031 Rsmo and US Const. Amendment 2 . 19. In State Vs. Enyard 108 S.W. 2d 337 at 340 [4] The Missouri Supreme Court held that one has the RIGHT to use in self defense such force as it appears to HIM to be REASONABLY necessary under the attending circumstances. see also State vs. Ball 262 S.W. 1043, 1045; Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4,5, The Violent and Reckless manner of Weis’s Rammings and Reckless High Speed Drag Racing and Eradict display of DANGEROUS driving on the Night in question displayed he was capable of dangerous, unpredictable and possibly LETHAL use of the Weapon he was Racing about in. Mr. Weis was ARMED and acting Crazy and Violent ! II Mr. Weis Blatant Disregard of Ex Parte Adult Abuse Order of Protection 1. At all times alleged in the information complaint against Witham, Mr. Weis is Subject To and was violating an Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order of Protection in Cause No. CV103-533 DR. See “Exhibit A Attached”. The Circuit Court of Christian County ordered Mr. Weis not to: 1. Contact or Communicate with Witham in any manner 2. Disturb the peace, threaten, abuse, molest or contact Witham 3. Stalk the petitioner (Witham) Racing Back and Forth, Back and Forth, slamming on brakes and repeatedly burning out for more than and hour immediately in front of the Witham property was illegal. 4. Enter the premises of the dwelling of Witham (Dragging In And Out of Witham’s Driveway was PROHIBITED) 5. Weis’s Unstable, Violent, Loud and Violent display with his 4X4 AMC Jeep and repeatedly shining his Head Lights and screams engaged in front of the Witham farm initiated and caused the initial contact with Witham’s Family that night. 2. The Crime of stalking Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking. (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. “Course of Conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time , however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Weis had NO Legitimate purpose to be Violently Racing around that Night and He Wantonly Caused unwanted and threatening Contact violating the Ex Parte he was Violating. 3. Mr. Weis had previously engaged in a series of actions aimed at Witham and his Family for over three months leading up to the night Mr. Weis was contemptuously violating an Ex Parte Adult protective order issued just days earlier. Weis had NO LEGITIMATE reason to be Lingering, Lurking, Surveiling, Breaching The Peace, Harassing the Family, Stalking and VIOLENTLY DRAG RACING for an hour directly in front of the Witham Farm, Burning in and out of the Witham’s driveway. Weis’s conduct immediately in front of and on Witham’s property Flagrantly breached the No Communication, No Contact, No Disturbing the Peace, NO Harassment, Stalking and Surveillance, mandates of the Ex Parte Adult Protection order Mr. Weis was IGNORING. Mr. Weis’s actions and excessively LOUD and Boisterous and Raucous Conduct and peace disturbance was the cause of the initial contact that August NIGHT. 4. Crime of stalking--definitions. 565.225. 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Course of conduct", a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts, which may include electronic or other communications, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct". Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking. III. Mike Weis’s Criminal Conduct 1. During these events described by Evelyn Witham, Debra Witham, Sarah Witham and Judson Witham, Mr. Weis had for approximately one hour + been repeatedly Drag Racing back and forth in front of the Witham farm in a 4X4 Jeep. Repeatedly pulling in the Witham driveway, burning out and stopping in the road again and again and again violently racing the engine and violently stopping and then burning out in DRAGSTER FASHION. 2. This conduct was being conducted on a very quiet, DARK, remote and isolated County Road (Chadwick Road just West of the Swan Creek) after Sunset in the Dark from approximately 9:00 pm until 10:00pm in an EXTREMELY QUIET NATIONAL FOREST SETTING. Weis was using a BORROWED JEEP (to conceal his identity) while disturbing the Witham Family’s peace, being threatening and was repeatedly trespassing and stalking them. 3. Witham went out with a flashlight (only) to attempt to visually identify WHO was violently racing the Jeep, it had pulled up and STOPPED with its lights shining into the Witham front yard. Witham pointed the light at the Jeep to attempt to make a visual ID of the license plate and occupants. 4. Mike Weis immediately and Repeatedly THREATENED “You Better Turn that Fucking Light Out” “Turn the Fucking Light out” (Making Contact and Communicating Threats At the Withams committing a further Breach of the Peace flagrantly violating the Ex Parte Order of Protection by Harassing and Stalking the Family as well as his Yelling Obscenities after dark . 5. Mr. Weis had No Legitimate Purpose to be Violently Drag Racing back and forth in front of and in the driveway of the Witham farm, especially AFTER DARK and while subject to and violating an active Ex Parte protective order. (He was at very least Breaching the Peace, Lingering, Lurking, Stalking, Threatening Surveiling, and making Illegal Contact with the Withams) 6. When Witham DID NOT shut his flashlight out, then Weis started the 3000 Pound Jeep and rapidly surged or RACED at and pulled closer to Witham and his Daughter and again parked, shut his lights off as well as the engine and Weis was repeatedly yelling and being threatening “You Shouldn’t be doing this to ME” repeatedly yelling “Turn The Fucking Light Out”, “You Better Turn That Fucking Light Out” 7. Mr. Weis had No Legitimate purpose SCREAMING the DIRECT and VEILED threats at the Witham family. 8. His repeated cussing and threatening, “You Better Turn that Fucking Light Out” was extremely threatening and violative of the Ex Parte Orders. Cause No. CV103-533 DR and indicated to Witham and his Daughter that things were going to become violent. Witham was extremely apprehensive that he was faced with and EXTREME and IMMINENT threat and an ATTACK was Ready To Take Place was impending. See State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) 9. The Missouri Supreme Court has consistently held that “ the law of self defense permits the RIGHT of attack when it appears reasonably necessary for protection against a Reasonably perceived or concern and apprehension of an IMPENDING Violent Assault. See also State vs. Sloan 47 Mo. 612 (1871) ; State vs. Goodwin 271 Mo. 73, 79, 80, 195 S.W. 725 State vs. Matthews 148 Mo. 185 , 49 SW 1085 (1899) ; State vs. Bartlett 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) ; State vs. Barlett 71S.W. 148 ; In The Interest of J___ M___ 812 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. App. 1991) [2,3, 4, 8, 9] State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State vs. Hicks 438 S.W. 2d , 215 (MO 1969); State vs. McGee 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W.2d 587 (1950); 10. Weis had previously on multiple occasions engaged in NUMEROUS other acts of, videoing and photographing, direct physical assault, Ramming the Witham Family’s Truck and Trailer with his K5 Blazer, Following the Withams, He Threatened to Cut Witham’s Throat (Kill Him) and has numerous times expressed Verbal Threats at Witham to STOMP WITHAM’s Ass , Mr. Weis has assaulted Witham and NUMEROUS TIMES threatened Witham. Mr. Weis (and his EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Dencklau) has done these things while Mr. Witham has his Children Present and at their Mother. See Witham’s Application for Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order CV 103-533 DR and Evelyn, Sarah and Debra Witham’s Sworn Complaints and Testimony ( filed prior to the August NIGHT - emphasis added) to Weis’s “Night Riding” , “Ku Kluxing” and Violent and Unstable Drag Racing and Threats against Witham’s Family. 11. After a previous Failed Attempt to Assault and Attack Witham (stopped by Witham’s daughters and their Mother,) Weis Threated Witham “You Got Lucky this Time” (indicating he would try again at a later time and place). Weis also gestured AT WITHAM using his Index Finger in a Slicing Motion against his Throat indicating he would CUT WITHAM’s Throat or Kill Witham ( this Non Verbal Threatening conveys You’re Dead or A Death Threat ) in like manner to the very violent Vehicle Ramming Incident that occurred on Memorial Day 2003 Weis has used Non Verbal Displays of Conduct and a Pattern of Stalking to Threaten the Withams. 12. In this case Witham and his entire Family previously sought a Protection Order against Weis, IN FACT Weis was violating that Protective Order on the August 2003 NIGHT. Witham had every REASONABLE concern and Great Apprehension (and well documented pre-existing reasons) to FEAR that Weis was a CONTINUING, Great and Gathering THREAT, memorialized by Witham’s Protective Order. Weis’s reign of terror and continuing pattern of violent and threatening conduct towards Witham’s Family caused GREAT APPREHENSION that Mr. Weis sought to cause Great Physical Harm even cause Death to Witham and His Family Members. Witham and the Family many times previously made his FEARS known to the Associate Circuit Court in Christian County even to the level of obtaining a Protective Order just Days before Weis’s acts of Terror on that August Night and several complaints to Christian County’s Sheriff’s Department, the PA’s Office and even the State Police etc., et al. III. The Information Affidavit Fails For Lack Of Specific Allegations Of Chargeable Predicate Acts During the events described in the information, Witham had a legitimate security concern for his Family and his personal safety and Lawful Right to (A ) Defense of Himself, (B) The Defense of Others, and (C) the Right to Protect and Defend his Property. Witham was PROVOKED by Weis’s , Crazy and Threatening Conduct. See CJS 6a Assault and Battery Sec 88 and CJS 6a Section 128 ; MAI –CR 3rd 306.06 VARMS 563.031 and NEW VARMS 571.030 Part 5 “Lawful Acts Of Defense” are provided for as an ABSOLUTE JUSTIFICATION “GENERICALLY” under 563.031 RSMo. Which is based on the Model Penal Code Sections 3.04, 3.05 See Comment to 1973 Proposed Code following the Statute. DEADLY FORCE IS defined in 563.011 RSMO 1 and in the Model Penal Code and many, many US Supreme and Federal Appellate Cases. ; see the Drafting Comments Following the Statute 563.011 RSMO 1 regarding: The Model Penal Code 3.11 (2) 1962 1. Witham did IN FACT have and was Reasonably and Legitimately Apprehensive that Weis was AGAIN making efforts to attack or assault, or to do Great Bodily Harm to Judson and or his other Family Members and Property. ( On the very night of this incident one of many UNEXPLODED PIPE BOMBS was found by Witham’s Children was Called into CCSD 911 and turned into the Christian County Sheriff’s Office then later to the ATF by Witham’s Daughter). Several previous Bombs, Molotov Fire Bombs, a dozen Fabricated Steel Tire Shredders, large amounts of broken glass bottles, substantial amounts of previous BOMB DEBRISand other undetonated bombs and molotovs have been turned over to ATF FBI and CCSD et al., by Witham’s Family), See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) Also see Vol 6 A CJS Section 84 pg 468; Section 87 Pg 472; Section 88 Pg 474 and 475 “ Where the danger is imminent the assaulted person NEED NOT WAIT until struck, but may protect himself by striking the first blow (Citing Missouri State vs. Daugherty 198 SW2d 627 ) See also 6 A CJS Self Defense Section 89 pg 478 …where the use of such a weapon is necessary to PREVENT the threatened injury note 43 Citing State vs. Cook 428 SW2d 728, 731 2. Witham’s objective and subjective perceptions and great apprehensions of the Danger Weis posed at the scene, and Witham’s Apprehension caused by Weis’s numerous previous attacks and threats and of Weis’s other previous use of a Motor Vehicle as a Weapon, coupled with Weis’s Threats and Violent and unstable conduct, led to Witham’s Apprehension and Fear of Danger, Assault, Serious Bodily Harm, Death, and Arson, Fire Bombings, Pipe Bombings See State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3] For Accelerated Self Defense. 3. There are many, many Missouri Court Opinions and it is a well settled Rule of Self Defense and the Defense of Others in Missouri that “ Where a person has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe that another is planning to and about to “assault” him, or do bodily harm to themselves or one to whom he has a duty to protect, he need not wait until the other person actually strikes or makes an assault before resorting to the application of reasonable force to repel the expected attack” . See State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] [6] ; See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) 4. The right of Self Defense gives a party to the right to act on appearances, a person with reasonable apprehension of attack or imminent danger of an assault may strike in self defense before the attack is actually made. State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] Imminent is not equated with IMMEDIATE, it means ready to take place; NEAR AT HAND; impending. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary page 1130. Federal and State Law Enforcement agencies; The FBI; US Customs; US Secret Service; DEA and ATF even the Federal BOP and Department of Defense even the President of the United States Mr. George W Bush No. 43 have recently recognized and sanctioned a PRE-Emptive Strike Doctrine against IMMINENT threats. Said Accelerated Defense Policies are Internationally Recognized as Lawful Use of Force and are IN FACT the Official Policy of the United States against acts of Terrorism. The Bombs and Fire Bombs deployed against Witham’s family IN FACT the Molotov Cocktails are a RECOGNIZED form of WMD. The US Department Of Defense, US Forest Service and US Homeland Security Agency even INTERPOL have recognized Molotovs as having caused many HUNDREDS of Thousands of Acres of Wild Land Fires in the US, France, Israel, Palestine, and even Canada. 5. Even if no actual danger existed, but Witham apprehended such danger, even on mistaken appearances, he would be justified in acting on his fears and apprehensions in Defense of Self his Family, to prevent further trespassing, property damage by ARSON OR BOMBING, and to PRECLUDE assault and further attacks, Vehicular attacks and the Aggravated Stalking by Weis et al or “His GANG” 6. It is not necessary that the danger which gave rise to the belief actually existed, it is sufficient that the person resorting to self defense at the time involved reasonably believed in the existence of such danger and such reasonable belief is sufficient even where it is Mistaken See, State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] 7. For many weeks prior, the Witham’s Rental Property at the Fork in The Road in Sparta and their Farm had been vandalized, fire bombed, pipe bombed, broken into and numerous items were stolen. Witham rightfully was apprehensive about further property damage, efforts to trespass, to cause further damages and thefts, further BOMBINGS and FIRE BOMBINGS (Arson) and continuing terror and violence aimed at Witham and his Family by Weis and his Gang. 8. Witham’s possession of the WALMART Purchased Shot Gun while at HOME as alleged , even shooting it ONCE harmlessly at the Carwine Ridge behind his National Forest FARM , in LAWFUL defense, his defense of others and to preclude and prevent trespass, preclude and prevent vandalism, ARSON or robbery is a protected Constitutional Right under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as well as the Missouri Constitution Article II Section 17 Constitution of 1875, currently VARMS Missouri Constitution Art. 1 Sec 23 (1945) A non-deadly Warning Shot is permissible in cases of perceived plans to and fear of imminent attack and apprehension of attack even if mistaken see State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4, 5 , A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; 9. The charges against Witham are violative of his Federal and State Civil Rights and the Statute alleged to have been violated by Witham (The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Weapon) is Unconstitutional in that it conflicts absolutely with the Rights of Self Defense, Defense of Others and the Right to prevent assault, great bodily harm, arson, bombing and FURTHER Trespass and Vandalism of Witham’s property. The OLD version of VARMS 571.030 (4) provisions conflict with and failed to recognize these inalienable rights. Both the Old and New provisions of VARMS 571.030 and 563.031 RSMo. Are controlled by the Definition of DEADLY FORCE contained in 563.011 (1) “Deadly Force” means physical force which the actor USES with the PURPOSE of Causing HE KNOWS to create a SUBSTANTIAL RISK of Causing DEATH or SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. A SINGLE WARNING SHOT “Up In The AIR” as SWORN TO BY FIVE WITNESSES - Weis, Rouse, Sheriff Deputy Cowan and Witham and his Family directed 90 degrees AWAY had ZERO CHANCE of causing any injury and absolutely NO CHANCE of Causing injury nor FATALITY. Defining Deadly Force. 563.011 (1) RSMo. is based on the Model Penal Code Sec. 3.11(2) see Comment to 1973 Proposed Code following the Statute. “It does NOT include the THREAT to cause death of serious physical injury” . A WARNING is Just that a WARNING not a threat. 10. Mr. Weis should not have been there period NOR yelling threats or COMMUNICATING IN ANY MANNER or THROUGH ANY MEDIUM at the Withams. The conduct and communications from and with the Jeep were violent, unstable, threatening, harassing, annoying, was disturbing the Witham Family’s peace, breaching the peace, was flagrant Stalking, and served NO legitimate purpose. Witham’s concerns that Weis was there planning to carry out numerous previous threats and his continuing threats and were real, reasonable and sincerely held by Witham and ALL his Family members. 11. Weis’s repeated vulgar verbal threats “You BETTER turn that Fucking Light Out” his repeated Engine Revving, and VIOLENT Jeep Racing, was extremely threatening and indicative and did cause significant concern for Witham that Mr. Weis was up to no good and meant harm to Witham and his Family. Based upon Weis’s numerous previous unstable and threatening acts and his violent and unstable illegal contact that NIGHT , Witham’s Daughter and the Witham family felt Weis was planning to attack and that the danger was imminent, in PART based on Weis’s multiple previous threats, assaults and vehicular attack. Witham was NOT bound to wait until Weis had the drop on him, or had a perfect opportunity to carry out his many previous threats. 12. Weis’s Starting his Jeep and RACING up CLOSER, and shutting off his lights, under the totality of these circumstances was an indication to Witham that things were going to become VIOLENT. Considering all Weis’s previous Violence and THREATS against the Witham Family, especially doing these things AFTER DARK in front Of The Witham Property was considerably Threatening. See Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order against Mike Weis No. CV 103-533 DR 13. The RIGHT to an Accellerated Self Defense is Well Settled Law in Missouri AND throughout the United States under Natural and Common Law in virtually every State in the Nation: See State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] [6] ; Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) ; State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) ; State vs. Sloan 47 Mo. 604, 612 (1871) ; State vs. Matthews 148 Mo. 185 , 49 SW 1085 (1899) ; State vs. Bartlett 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) ; State vs. Barlett 71S.W. 148 ; In The Interest of J___ M___ 812 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. App. 1991) [2,3, 4, 8,9] also 6 Am. Jur. 2d Assault and Battery Sec 70; CJS 6A Assault and Battery Sec 88 ; CJS 6A Section 128 ; MAI –CR 3rd 306.06 14. Witham did have and was Legitimately Apprehensive that Weis was AGAIN making efforts to get the drop on, planning to assault, do Great Bodily Harm to Judson and or his other Family Members and or Bomb or Commit arson upon Witham’s Property. See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] 15. Witham’s perception of the Danger Weis posed at the scene, and Witham’s Apprehension of the previous attacks and threats and of Weis’s previous use of a Motor Vehicle, and his attack with this deadly Weapon, coupled with his numerous previous Threats, Assaults and Violent and unstable threatening conduct visited upon Witham, reasonably led to Witham’s Apprehension and Fear of Imminent Danger, See State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] IV. Witham did Not Unlawfully EXHIBIT a Weapon “In The Presence” Of Joseph Rouse Upon Close Reading and Scrutiny the harmless and SINGLE SHOT INTO THE AIR alleged by ALL Witnesses, under these particular circumstances would have been justified. A Warning Shot directed into the AIR is NOT Deadly Force but a NON LETHAL WARNING. A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) 2. Mr. Weis’s claim that Witham threatened to “Blow His Head Off” IS NOT corroborated by Mr. Joseph Rouse, or anyone else. Compared closely to Joseph Rouse’s sworn police complaint, and Mike Weis’s Sworn Complaint and even Deputy Cowan’s Incident Report, Weis, Rouse nor deputy Cowan claimed Witham Threatened to Blow Weis’s head Off, NOR that Witham POINTED a GUN AT Them or Fired Toward Them. Weis’s and Rouse’s LATER changed and exaggerated claims are NOT Truthful or Reliable , nor do they specifically articulate that Felony Conduct was engaged in by Defendant. Mike Weis being under a protective order shouldn’t have been Racing Around back and forth, back and forth, Stalking and making threats at Witham and his FAMILY. Weis’s and Rouse’s EVER CHANGING STORIES are direct evidence of PERJURED Testimony. 3. At 10:00pm at Night, in nearly pitch dark, the Witnesses against Witham would NOT be able to see the Shotgun, NOR visually witness the Mannerisms and Demeanor in which Witham is alleged to have Discharged The Gun UP IN THE AIR. ALL witnesses Succinctly claimed “One Shot (Harmlessly) UP IN THE AIR” including the Police Account (Emphasis Added). 4. Witham is charged with a SINGLE violation of Section 571.030 (4) which provides; EXHIBITS, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner . Because Section 571.030 does NOT define the operative terms used in part 4, the words used to describe a violation of part 4 must be given their ORDINARY meanings (definitions). The Cardinal Rule of Statutory Interpretation applies. WARNING with a WARNING SHOT is NOT specifically setout in or proscribed by the LAW. 1. Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries New American Edition Edited By John Gage Allee, Ph.D. Professor Of English Phiology, The George Washington University 1978 (a) Exhibits is defined at page 135 as follows to hold forth or to expose to view, to present; to show (in the dark Weis and Rouse could not see much of anything) (b) Presence is defined at page 290 as follows the state of being present; nearness or proximity (Section 571.030 ( 6) provides as follows: Discharging a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied school house, courthouse, or church building, would be unlawful.) Rouse testified Witham was 200 Yards away ( c ) Threat is defined at page 387 as follows declaration of determination to harm another, ( d ) Warn is defined at page 423 as follows to notify by authority; to caution; to admonish; to put on guard; advance notice of anything; admonition; caution; notice to leave premises, situation etc. a. cautioning ( under these particular circumstances% |
| Name: | Judson Witham |
| E-mail address: | JurisNot@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.geocities.com/jurisnot/OperationMissouriFreedom |
| Comments: | In The Circuit Court of Christian County
State of Missouri ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS. ) Cause No. 03CR786762-F ) ) ) ) Judson Witham ) Jury Trial Demanded Defendant ) Christian County Circuit Court Defendant’s 1st Amended Motion to Dismiss Felony Criminal Charge and Defendant Motion that the Court to dismiss because of the Unconstitutional Vague and Overly Broad Law which he is charged with Comes Now Defendant Judson Witham and for substantial cause pursuant to Missouri Rule Of Criminal Procedure RULE 24.04 requests that the Honorable Court dismiss the charge pending against Mr. Witham in Case 03CR786762-F in it’s entirety. The single count against Mr. Witham violates his rights secured to him by Article 1 Section 23 Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Defendant cites the following as grounds for this dismissal of the False Charge: I The Allegations Alleged DO NOT Rise To The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Weapon 1. The probable cause statement, affidavit and information in support of the felony complaint clearly alleges that Mr. Witham did NOT use DEADLY FORCE during the instance in question. Rather the alleged “Shot In The Air” is commensurate with a Lawful and Harmless Shot of a Walmart Shotgun. A Bullet Shot (or Bird Shot) fired In The Air as claimed by the State’s Witnesses, will NOT be deemed “deadly force” even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) 2. At all times State’s witnesses stated Witham remained upon his own property . Your defendant is protected by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution as he Lawfully possessed the Long Gun on the Night in question upon his Rural Farm at issue in this case. Shooting ONE SHOT at Carwine Ridge behind Witham’s Farm is NOT unlawful per se NOR is such a Shot at a 400 foot tall Back Stop dangerous or a Deadly use of Force per se. 3. Witham has Lawful Rights to defend himself, his property and others while upon his own property. Being in a place he had a right to be Witham has NO duty to retreat. See State vs. Sloan 47 Mo. 604, 612 (1871) ; State vs. Matthews 148 Mo. 185 , 49 SW 1085 (1899) ; State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State vs. Bartlett 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) ; State vs. Hicks 438 S.W. 2d , 215 (MO 1969); State vs. McGee 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W.2d 587 (1950); In The Interest of J___ M___ 812 S.W. 2d 925 (Mo. App. 1991) [2,3, 4, 8,9 ] 4. Witham LAWFULLY and in accordance with US and Missouri Law and Constitutions can LAWFULLY walk about his FARM while being ARMED with Long Guns from Walmart (Openly carrying a Shot Gun) see ; State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4, 5 , 5. Witham can LAWFULLY shoot said WALMART purchased Long Guns “into the air” upon his Farm as well in the National Forest and HUNT and Use his ARMS in Defense of Property, Self and Others. Millions of times annually Shot Guns are fired into the air across the United States and many more millions across the Globe are fired SAFELY. A WARNING SHOT or A Bird Shot In The Air or a WARNING SHOT – In The Air, will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; The language of RSMO 571.030 is VAGUE and Overly Broad and as such violates the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Said Law Sweeps Within It’s Proscriptive Ambient and Proscriptive Provisions, Conduct which IS NOT unlawful per se and allows many people complete exemption, creating Additional Due Process and Equal Protection Violations. The vagueness of it’s provisions as well Create a Chilling Effect as the Law is so uncertain that Law Abiding Citizens have become subject to prosecution for otherwise lawful conduct. Discriminatory and Malicious Prosecutions such as the one in this case are possible because of the Overly Broad and Unconstitutionally Vague language used in 571.030 (4). Angry and Threatening are NOT adequately defined and even if they were, the provisions of Part 4 of the law are susceptible to several more than one interpretation. An Individual Engaged in WARNING a Potential or Imminent Attacker to STOP and LEAVE would be remiss in their efforts UNLESS Stern and Certain gestures and assurance that FORCE even DEADLY FORCE was impending Unless The Perpetrator Abandons his PLANNED ATTACK. Simply Put, Lawful Defense of Property, Self and Others is better served with STERN and even THREATENING communication and Gestures, especially when Successful Results are sought. Police and Federal Agents, Prisons and even Militia and Military personnel lawfully employ the Warning Shot as a tool in their Force Continuum. A Warning Shot is NOT unlawful per se under Federal Law, State Law or the Rules of Engagement nor under International Law. 6. 571.030 (4) is SILENT and does NOT adequately define, nor suggest anything except ANGRY and THREATENING exhibition or display violates this Overly Broad and Vague provision. IT is NOT suggested nor mentioned that simple harmless conduct is somehow PER SE converted into ACTUALLY Threatening of or “AT” the people present be required. A simple display, NOT AIMED at anyone specifically OR say in a RE-ENACTMENT or a Movie Making, Theatrical Performance or display say during a Battle Re-enactment would become a felonious act. Simple Presence of One Or More People creates a CHILLING EFFECT on otherwise Lawful Conduct. 7. The State’s information baldly alleges that Mr. Witham harmlessly fired a Single WARNING Shot “ UP Into the Air” while upon his farm which is located in a very quiet & remote National Forest location. Said conduct is LAWFUL per se and protected by Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Said Conduct being both Constitutional and Lawful. 8. The Statute alleged by the State to have been violated the Old version of RSMO 571.030 (4) is silent regarding Art 1 Section 23 and the 2nd Amendment and as such is in conflict with both Missouri’s and the United States Constitution. Said OLD version of 571.030 violates the Overly Broad Doctrine and as well is violative of the Void for Vagueness Doctrine. This Statute also provides for NUMEROUS individuals both private individuals and State as well as Federal Government employees and elected officials are EXEMPTED from it’s proscriptions. As such the Law is unconstitutional, susceptible of several definitions, and can be selectively, maliciously and with discriminatory animous enforced. Because of the MANY individual actors exempted from it’s provisions it as well violate the 5th and 14th Amendments failing to give adequately clear and narrowly crafted CLEAR notice of what is unlawful, and why SOME but not all persons are prohibited from violating the UNCLEAR PROVISIONS. 9. Your defendant Moves the Court to dismiss the State’s case because of the Unconstitutional Overly Broad, Vague and Chilling effects of the Law which Witham was charged with One Count of violating based on 5th and 14th Amendment and it’s CHILLING EFFECT on otherwise Lawful Conduct. See Connolly vs. General Construction Co. 269 US 385 (1926) ; International Harvester Co. vs. Kentucky, 234 US 216, 221, 34 S. Ct 853; Collins vs Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S. Ct. 924, 269 US 385, 393… The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and providing a punishment for violation, should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of it’s requirements or other laws and interpretations of Constitutional Rights and the Courts upon another. Laws MUST provide EXPLICIT STANDARDS for those who apply them. A Law is VOID for vgueness if persons of common intelligence must necessarily GUESS at its meaning and differ as to it’s application. We remain a Government of laws, and not of men, ‘ Marbury v Madison, 5 US ( 1 Cranch.) 137, 163 ONLY SO LONG AS OUR LAWS REMAIN CLEAR” 630 F.2d 1037. 10. A Warning Shot purposely directed UP IN THE AIR (and 90 degrees away) , had ABSOLUTELY ZERO CHANCE of wounding anyone. Numerous Federal APPELLATE Courts and the US Supreme Court recognize such Warning Shots as Non Lethal and are NOT A DEADLY USE OF FORCE See: Robinette V. Barnes 854 F.2d 909 , 912 , 6th Cir. this Court Writes: “ The Model Penal Code drafted by the American Law Institute also acknowledges this FACT…”deadly force” means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm “ in the direction” of another person or “at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be” constitutes “Deadly Force”. A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise so long as the actors purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force IF NECESSARY, does NOT constitute deadly force. Model Penal Code 3.11 (2) (Proposed Official Draft 1962) Missouri defines deadly force in RSMO 363.011 the State’s Information against Witham does NOT include any evidence or information of the use of Deadly Force NONE. Witham moves that the State dismiss this case as it conflicts with Model Penal Code 3.11(2) RSMO 363.011 and the 5th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. 11. Deadly Force in Missouri and throughout the United States means Force Likely To Kill or which creates a SUBSTANTIAL likelihood or SUBSTANTIAL Risk of causing death or serious bodily injury see; Tennessee V. Garner 471 US 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985); also the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals states that A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; Deadly Force has been defined as “Force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm” Fikes vs Cleghorn 47 F.3d. at 1014; Chew V. Gates 27 F.3d. at 1453 ; Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007 at 1009 ( 8th Cir 1976) “ Applying Model Penal Code Sec 3.11(2) ; Pruitt V. City of Montgomery 771 F.2d 1475 at 1479 n 10 (11th Cir 1985) also see Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 359; Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition and see also Matulia, Kenneth J. , A Balances of Forces, Model Deadly Force Policy and Procedure, (Second Edition), 1985 page 68, Defining Deadly Force. 363.011 RSMO Defines Deadly Force “Force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm” A Remotely Possible or in Witham’s Case as stated by the State ZERO chance Zero potential of anyone being wounded does NOT cite Facts or Law that Witham even remotely employed DEADLY FORCE. 12. At all times Mike Weis was Breaching The Peace; he was violently Drag Racing in and out of Witham’s driveway, repeatedly racing directly in front of the Witham property and Screaming and Yelling OBSCENE Threats at Witham’s Family. Weis’s conduct continued until after dark. Weis was Flagrantly violating the “letter and spirit” of an Ex Parte Adult Order Of Protection ( See Ex Parte Order of Protection in Cause No. CV103-533 DR.) he was making unlawful contact, lurking, lingering and Stalking Witham’s Family, he was engaging in Prohibited illegal and Threatening Contact and UNWANTED Communications, and he was Disturbing The Peace. Weis’s Conduct was a breach of the peace and was a continuing of the Felonious Stalking. Weis Was ARMED. 13. Mr. Weis had previously Attacked Mr. Witham and threatened to attack Mr. Witham on several occasions (prior to drag racing “LIKE A NUT” back and forth and in and out of Witham’s property), see Witham application for protective order (Cause No. CV103-533 DR.) Said Apprehension and Fear of FURTHER and CONTINUING attacks, assaults, vehicular assaults and Weis Carrying Out his numerous threats towards Mr. Witham and the Witham family caused the Withams to seek and Ex Parte Order of Protection BEFORE Weis’s Flagrant Disobedience of the Adult Protection Order. 14. Also Mr. Weis repeatedly attacked the entire Witham family WITH A Deadly Weapon “ his K5 Chevy Blazer, a Full Sized V 8 Powered 4 X 4 MOTOR VEHICLE” on State Hwy 125 @ Jenkins Rd. (Memorial Day May 26th 2003), by repeatedly RAMMING and then attempting “WITHOUT LETTING UP” to push the Witham Family truck (into the DANGEROUS 4 way intersection) and trailer “down” and “off the State Highway”. Weis later openly admitted in Judge Justus’s Court, He Followed Witham because he was “PISSED OFF” and he tried to “push the Witham’s vehicle off the Road “ and “Down the road, from behind Without Letting Up” (reference the Weis Testimony TAPED before Judge Justus.) See Galas V. McKee 801 F.2d 200 at 203 6th Cir 1986) Such an attack with a Motor Vehicle is clearly using the Vehicle as a DEADLY WEAPON. See State vs Garner 226 SW2d 604, 607 (2) This Court states: Pg 607, [2] “ But it does not follow that an automobile cannot be used as a Deadly Weapon, or even a dangerous or deadly weapon , in an assault. The Contrary has several times been declared of a moving vehicle .” 15. Mr. Weis while UNDER OATH in deposition with Ron Cleek and Paul Duchsherer LIED about his efforts to Push Witham’s Family into the Highway Intersection. Weis also PERJURED himself to Judge Justus and to Ron Cleek and Paul Duchsherer and LIED to the Missouri State Highway Patrol . Weis’s Many Various FALSE versions of this event while under OATH in this case and others simply are ALL untrue. Weis’s ATTACK with his 4X4 V8 Powered Chevy Blazer was WANTON, Willful, Premeditated, extremely VIOLENT and Incredibly Dangerous (The East Bound CURVE at State 125 and Jenkins Road is a very DANGEROUS blind curve segment of State Hwy 125) 16. The Withams were at a busy and BLIND 4 way State Highway Intersection, being violently rammed rammed and pushed in such a manner that could have easily caused a very serious fatal highway accident. Weis’s ramming and attempt at pushing Witham’s LOADED TRUCK & Trailer, occupied by Witham’s TWO CHILDREN and their Mother, (said truck and trailer weighing over 10,000 pounds) was EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and FRIGHTENLY VIOLENT. The United States Federal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Missouri’s DOT and the American Automobile Association acknowledges that Vehicles such as Weis’s 4 X 4 AMC Jeep and Full Sized V 8 Powered Chevrolet Blazer are Readily Capable of use as DEADLY WEAPONS. In BOTH instances Mike Weis was ARMED with a Deadly Weapon see 11 Words and Phrases, Perm. Ed. Dangerous Weapon Page 81; Deadly Weapon, page 131; Vol 44 ibid Weapon page 778; State vs Brinkley, 354 Mo. 1051, 1066 (1), 193 SW2d 49, 53 (1). 17. Witham has certain rights under Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The Ancient Right To Bear Arms provision must be interpreted in accordance with the Cardinal Rule of Interpretation and Cardinal Rule of Construction as mandated by the Missouri Supreme Court on Feb. 26, 2004… See Alvin Brooks Et al VS State of Missouri and Attorney General Nixon Case No. SC85674 the New Conceal Carry decision provides : that ...the trial court erred in declaring the conceal carry law unconstitutional under Article 1 Sec. 23. On Feb. 26, 2004 The Missouri Supreme Court wrote that the provisions of Article 1 Sec 23 language MUST be properly PARSED and VERY CLEARLY stated that “ Art. 1 Sec 23 provides “ That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property …. SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED” Said Constitutional provisions are perfectly clear and unambiguous. At Page 5 of the Conceal Carry Opinion in part II Justice Limbaugh, mandates the Parsing of Article 1 Section 23 he explains. Judge Limbaugh writes : Shall NOT are words of Prohibition. Reading Art. 1 Sec 23 in accordance with Judge Limbaugh, Wolff, Benton, Stith and Price for the Court Majority shall be interpreted as “ The the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property …. SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED” RSMO 571.030 (4) conflicts with said rights under Art 1 Sec 23 and Amendment 2 US Constitution also the provisions are UNCLEAR as a simple display is all that is mentioned NOT a THREAT AT ANYONE 18. On September 11, 2003 Former Missouri penal Code Section 571.030 [4] (With which Witham is charged with a SINGLE Count) was amended and superceded by the NEW 571.030 and the NEW exemption provisions contained in Subdivision 5 of the NEW law, Section 5 of the New Statute recognizes the ANCIENT Inalienable Constitutional Right To Bear Arms in Defense of Self, Property, Home and Others as Guaranteed by Section 23 of Article 1 and Section 563.031 Rsmo and US Const. Amendment 2 . 19. In State Vs. Enyard 108 S.W. 2d 337 at 340 [4] The Missouri Supreme Court held that one has the RIGHT to use in self defense such force as it appears to HIM to be REASONABLY necessary under the attending circumstances. see also State vs. Ball 262 S.W. 1043, 1045; Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4,5, The Violent and Reckless manner of Weis’s Rammings and Reckless High Speed Drag Racing and Eradict display of DANGEROUS driving on the Night in question displayed he was capable of dangerous, unpredictable and possibly LETHAL use of the Weapon he was Racing about in. Mr. Weis was ARMED and acting Crazy and Violent ! II Mr. Weis Blatant Disregard of Ex Parte Adult Abuse Order of Protection 1. At all times alleged in the information complaint against Witham, Mr. Weis is Subject To and was violating an Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order of Protection in Cause No. CV103-533 DR. See “Exhibit A Attached”. The Circuit Court of Christian County ordered Mr. Weis not to: 1. Contact or Communicate with Witham in any manner 2. Disturb the peace, threaten, abuse, molest or contact Witham 3. Stalk the petitioner (Witham) Racing Back and Forth, Back and Forth, slamming on brakes and repeatedly burning out for more than and hour immediately in front of the Witham property was illegal. 4. Enter the premises of the dwelling of Witham (Dragging In And Out of Witham’s Driveway was PROHIBITED) 5. Weis’s Unstable, Violent, Loud and Violent display with his 4X4 AMC Jeep and repeatedly shining his Head Lights and screams engaged in front of the Witham farm initiated and caused the initial contact with Witham’s Family that night. 2. The Crime of stalking Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking. (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. “Course of Conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time , however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Weis had NO Legitimate purpose to be Violently Racing around that Night and He Wantonly Caused unwanted and threatening Contact violating the Ex Parte he was Violating. 3. Mr. Weis had previously engaged in a series of actions aimed at Witham and his Family for over three months leading up to the night Mr. Weis was contemptuously violating an Ex Parte Adult protective order issued just days earlier. Weis had NO LEGITIMATE reason to be Lingering, Lurking, Surveiling, Breaching The Peace, Harassing the Family, Stalking and VIOLENTLY DRAG RACING for an hour directly in front of the Witham Farm, Burning in and out of the Witham’s driveway. Weis’s conduct immediately in front of and on Witham’s property Flagrantly breached the No Communication, No Contact, No Disturbing the Peace, NO Harassment, Stalking and Surveillance, mandates of the Ex Parte Adult Protection order Mr. Weis was IGNORING. Mr. Weis’s actions and excessively LOUD and Boisterous and Raucous Conduct and peace disturbance was the cause of the initial contact that August NIGHT. 4. Crime of stalking--definitions. 565.225. 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Course of conduct", a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts, which may include electronic or other communications, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct". Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking. III. Mike Weis’s Criminal Conduct 1. During these events described by Evelyn Witham, Debra Witham, Sarah Witham and Judson Witham, Mr. Weis had for approximately one hour + been repeatedly Drag Racing back and forth in front of the Witham farm in a 4X4 Jeep. Repeatedly pulling in the Witham driveway, burning out and stopping in the road again and again and again violently racing the engine and violently stopping and then burning out in DRAGSTER FASHION. 2. This conduct was being conducted on a very quiet, DARK, remote and isolated County Road (Chadwick Road just West of the Swan Creek) after Sunset in the Dark from approximately 9:00 pm until 10:00pm in an EXTREMELY QUIET NATIONAL FOREST SETTING. Weis was using a BORROWED JEEP (to conceal his identity) while disturbing the Witham Family’s peace, being threatening and was repeatedly trespassing and stalking them. 3. Witham went out with a flashlight (only) to attempt to visually identify WHO was violently racing the Jeep, it had pulled up and STOPPED with its lights shining into the Witham front yard. Witham pointed the light at the Jeep to attempt to make a visual ID of the license plate and occupants. 4. Mike Weis immediately and Repeatedly THREATENED “You Better Turn that Fucking Light Out” “Turn the Fucking Light out” (Making Contact and Communicating Threats At the Withams committing a further Breach of the Peace flagrantly violating the Ex Parte Order of Protection by Harassing and Stalking the Family as well as his Yelling Obscenities after dark . 5. Mr. Weis had No Legitimate Purpose to be Violently Drag Racing back and forth in front of and in the driveway of the Witham farm, especially AFTER DARK and while subject to and violating an active Ex Parte protective order. (He was at very least Breaching the Peace, Lingering, Lurking, Stalking, Threatening Surveiling, and making Illegal Contact with the Withams) 6. When Witham DID NOT shut his flashlight out, then Weis started the 3000 Pound Jeep and rapidly surged or RACED at and pulled closer to Witham and his Daughter and again parked, shut his lights off as well as the engine and Weis was repeatedly yelling and being threatening “You Shouldn’t be doing this to ME” repeatedly yelling “Turn The Fucking Light Out”, “You Better Turn That Fucking Light Out” 7. Mr. Weis had No Legitimate purpose SCREAMING the DIRECT and VEILED threats at the Witham family. 8. His repeated cussing and threatening, “You Better Turn that Fucking Light Out” was extremely threatening and violative of the Ex Parte Orders. Cause No. CV103-533 DR and indicated to Witham and his Daughter that things were going to become violent. Witham was extremely apprehensive that he was faced with and EXTREME and IMMINENT threat and an ATTACK was Ready To Take Place was impending. See State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) 9. The Missouri Supreme Court has consistently held that “ the law of self defense permits the RIGHT of attack when it appears reasonably necessary for protection against a Reasonably perceived or concern and apprehension of an IMPENDING Violent Assault. See also State vs. Sloan 47 Mo. 612 (1871) ; State vs. Goodwin 271 Mo. 73, 79, 80, 195 S.W. 725 State vs. Matthews 148 Mo. 185 , 49 SW 1085 (1899) ; State vs. Bartlett 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) ; State vs. Barlett 71S.W. 148 ; In The Interest of J___ M___ 812 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. App. 1991) [2,3, 4, 8, 9] State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State vs. Hicks 438 S.W. 2d , 215 (MO 1969); State vs. McGee 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W.2d 587 (1950); 10. Weis had previously on multiple occasions engaged in NUMEROUS other acts of, videoing and photographing, direct physical assault, Ramming the Witham Family’s Truck and Trailer with his K5 Blazer, Following the Withams, He Threatened to Cut Witham’s Throat (Kill Him) and has numerous times expressed Verbal Threats at Witham to STOMP WITHAM’s Ass , Mr. Weis has assaulted Witham and NUMEROUS TIMES threatened Witham. Mr. Weis (and his EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Dencklau) has done these things while Mr. Witham has his Children Present and at their Mother. See Witham’s Application for Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order CV 103-533 DR and Evelyn, Sarah and Debra Witham’s Sworn Complaints and Testimony ( filed prior to the August NIGHT - emphasis added) to Weis’s “Night Riding” , “Ku Kluxing” and Violent and Unstable Drag Racing and Threats against Witham’s Family. 11. After a previous Failed Attempt to Assault and Attack Witham (stopped by Witham’s daughters and their Mother,) Weis Threated Witham “You Got Lucky this Time” (indicating he would try again at a later time and place). Weis also gestured AT WITHAM using his Index Finger in a Slicing Motion against his Throat indicating he would CUT WITHAM’s Throat or Kill Witham ( this Non Verbal Threatening conveys You’re Dead or A Death Threat ) in like manner to the very violent Vehicle Ramming Incident that occurred on Memorial Day 2003 Weis has used Non Verbal Displays of Conduct and a Pattern of Stalking to Threaten the Withams. 12. In this case Witham and his entire Family previously sought a Protection Order against Weis, IN FACT Weis was violating that Protective Order on the August 2003 NIGHT. Witham had every REASONABLE concern and Great Apprehension (and well documented pre-existing reasons) to FEAR that Weis was a CONTINUING, Great and Gathering THREAT, memorialized by Witham’s Protective Order. Weis’s reign of terror and continuing pattern of violent and threatening conduct towards Witham’s Family caused GREAT APPREHENSION that Mr. Weis sought to cause Great Physical Harm even cause Death to Witham and His Family Members. Witham and the Family many times previously made his FEARS known to the Associate Circuit Court in Christian County even to the level of obtaining a Protective Order just Days before Weis’s acts of Terror on that August Night and several complaints to Christian County’s Sheriff’s Department, the PA’s Office and even the State Police etc., et al. III. The Information Affidavit Fails For Lack Of Specific Allegations Of Chargeable Predicate Acts During the events described in the information, Witham had a legitimate security concern for his Family and his personal safety and Lawful Right to (A ) Defense of Himself, (B) The Defense of Others, and (C) the Right to Protect and Defend his Property. Witham was PROVOKED by Weis’s , Crazy and Threatening Conduct. See CJS 6a Assault and Battery Sec 88 and CJS 6a Section 128 ; MAI –CR 3rd 306.06 VARMS 563.031 and NEW VARMS 571.030 Part 5 “Lawful Acts Of Defense” are provided for as an ABSOLUTE JUSTIFICATION “GENERICALLY” under 563.031 RSMo. Which is based on the Model Penal Code Sections 3.04, 3.05 See Comment to 1973 Proposed Code following the Statute. DEADLY FORCE IS defined in 563.011 RSMO 1 and in the Model Penal Code and many, many US Supreme and Federal Appellate Cases. ; see the Drafting Comments Following the Statute 563.011 RSMO 1 regarding: The Model Penal Code 3.11 (2) 1962 1. Witham did IN FACT have and was Reasonably and Legitimately Apprehensive that Weis was AGAIN making efforts to attack or assault, or to do Great Bodily Harm to Judson and or his other Family Members and Property. ( On the very night of this incident one of many UNEXPLODED PIPE BOMBS was found by Witham’s Children was Called into CCSD 911 and turned into the Christian County Sheriff’s Office then later to the ATF by Witham’s Daughter). Several previous Bombs, Molotov Fire Bombs, a dozen Fabricated Steel Tire Shredders, large amounts of broken glass bottles, substantial amounts of previous BOMB DEBRISand other undetonated bombs and molotovs have been turned over to ATF FBI and CCSD et al., by Witham’s Family), See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) Also see Vol 6 A CJS Section 84 pg 468; Section 87 Pg 472; Section 88 Pg 474 and 475 “ Where the danger is imminent the assaulted person NEED NOT WAIT until struck, but may protect himself by striking the first blow (Citing Missouri State vs. Daugherty 198 SW2d 627 ) See also 6 A CJS Self Defense Section 89 pg 478 …where the use of such a weapon is necessary to PREVENT the threatened injury note 43 Citing State vs. Cook 428 SW2d 728, 731 2. Witham’s objective and subjective perceptions and great apprehensions of the Danger Weis posed at the scene, and Witham’s Apprehension caused by Weis’s numerous previous attacks and threats and of Weis’s other previous use of a Motor Vehicle as a Weapon, coupled with Weis’s Threats and Violent and unstable conduct, led to Witham’s Apprehension and Fear of Danger, Assault, Serious Bodily Harm, Death, and Arson, Fire Bombings, Pipe Bombings See State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3] For Accelerated Self Defense. 3. There are many, many Missouri Court Opinions and it is a well settled Rule of Self Defense and the Defense of Others in Missouri that “ Where a person has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe that another is planning to and about to “assault” him, or do bodily harm to themselves or one to whom he has a duty to protect, he need not wait until the other person actually strikes or makes an assault before resorting to the application of reasonable force to repel the expected attack” . See State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] [6] ; See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) 4. The right of Self Defense gives a party to the right to act on appearances, a person with reasonable apprehension of attack or imminent danger of an assault may strike in self defense before the attack is actually made. State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] Imminent is not equated with IMMEDIATE, it means ready to take place; NEAR AT HAND; impending. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary page 1130. Federal and State Law Enforcement agencies; The FBI; US Customs; US Secret Service; DEA and ATF even the Federal BOP and Department of Defense even the President of the United States Mr. George W Bush No. 43 have recently recognized and sanctioned a PRE-Emptive Strike Doctrine against IMMINENT threats. Said Accelerated Defense Policies are Internationally Recognized as Lawful Use of Force and are IN FACT the Official Policy of the United States against acts of Terrorism. The Bombs and Fire Bombs deployed against Witham’s family IN FACT the Molotov Cocktails are a RECOGNIZED form of WMD. The US Department Of Defense, US Forest Service and US Homeland Security Agency even INTERPOL have recognized Molotovs as having caused many HUNDREDS of Thousands of Acres of Wild Land Fires in the US, France, Israel, Palestine, and even Canada. 5. Even if no actual danger existed, but Witham apprehended such danger, even on mistaken appearances, he would be justified in acting on his fears and apprehensions in Defense of Self his Family, to prevent further trespassing, property damage by ARSON OR BOMBING, and to PRECLUDE assault and further attacks, Vehicular attacks and the Aggravated Stalking by Weis et al or “His GANG” 6. It is not necessary that the danger which gave rise to the belief actually existed, it is sufficient that the person resorting to self defense at the time involved reasonably believed in the existence of such danger and such reasonable belief is sufficient even where it is Mistaken See, State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] 7. For many weeks prior, the Witham’s Rental Property at the Fork in The Road in Sparta and their Farm had been vandalized, fire bombed, pipe bombed, broken into and numerous items were stolen. Witham rightfully was apprehensive about further property damage, efforts to trespass, to cause further damages and thefts, further BOMBINGS and FIRE BOMBINGS (Arson) and continuing terror and violence aimed at Witham and his Family by Weis and his Gang. 8. Witham’s possession of the WALMART Purchased Shot Gun while at HOME as alleged , even shooting it ONCE harmlessly at the Carwine Ridge behind his National Forest FARM , in LAWFUL defense, his defense of others and to preclude and prevent trespass, preclude and prevent vandalism, ARSON or robbery is a protected Constitutional Right under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as well as the Missouri Constitution Article II Section 17 Constitution of 1875, currently VARMS Missouri Constitution Art. 1 Sec 23 (1945) A non-deadly Warning Shot is permissible in cases of perceived plans to and fear of imminent attack and apprehension of attack even if mistaken see State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4, 5 , A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; 9. The charges against Witham are violative of his Federal and State Civil Rights and the Statute alleged to have been violated by Witham (The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Weapon) is Unconstitutional in that it conflicts absolutely with the Rights of Self Defense, Defense of Others and the Right to prevent assault, great bodily harm, arson, bombing and FURTHER Trespass and Vandalism of Witham’s property. The OLD version of VARMS 571.030 (4) provisions conflict with and failed to recognize these inalienable rights. Both the Old and New provisions of VARMS 571.030 and 563.031 RSMo. Are controlled by the Definition of DEADLY FORCE contained in 563.011 (1) “Deadly Force” means physical force which the actor USES with the PURPOSE of Causing HE KNOWS to create a SUBSTANTIAL RISK of Causing DEATH or SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. A SINGLE WARNING SHOT “Up In The AIR” as SWORN TO BY FIVE WITNESSES - Weis, Rouse, Sheriff Deputy Cowan and Witham and his Family directed 90 degrees AWAY had ZERO CHANCE of causing any injury and absolutely NO CHANCE of Causing injury nor FATALITY. Defining Deadly Force. 563.011 (1) RSMo. is based on the Model Penal Code Sec. 3.11(2) see Comment to 1973 Proposed Code following the Statute. “It does NOT include the THREAT to cause death of serious physical injury” . A WARNING is Just that a WARNING not a threat. 10. Mr. Weis should not have been there period NOR yelling threats or COMMUNICATING IN ANY MANNER or THROUGH ANY MEDIUM at the Withams. The conduct and communications from and with the Jeep were violent, unstable, threatening, harassing, annoying, was disturbing the Witham Family’s peace, breaching the peace, was flagrant Stalking, and served NO legitimate purpose. Witham’s concerns that Weis was there planning to carry out numerous previous threats and his continuing threats and were real, reasonable and sincerely held by Witham and ALL his Family members. 11. Weis’s repeated vulgar verbal threats “You BETTER turn that Fucking Light Out” his repeated Engine Revving, and VIOLENT Jeep Racing, was extremely threatening and indicative and did cause significant concern for Witham that Mr. Weis was up to no good and meant harm to Witham and his Family. Based upon Weis’s numerous previous unstable and threatening acts and his violent and unstable illegal contact that NIGHT , Witham’s Daughter and the Witham family felt Weis was planning to attack and that the danger was imminent, in PART based on Weis’s multiple previous threats, assaults and vehicular attack. Witham was NOT bound to wait until Weis had the drop on him, or had a perfect opportunity to carry out his many previous threats. 12. Weis’s Starting his Jeep and RACING up CLOSER, and shutting off his lights, under the totality of these circumstances was an indication to Witham that things were going to become VIOLENT. Considering all Weis’s previous Violence and THREATS against the Witham Family, especially doing these things AFTER DARK in front Of The Witham Property was considerably Threatening. See Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order against Mike Weis No. CV 103-533 DR 13. The RIGHT to an Accellerated Self Defense is Well Settled Law in Missouri AND throughout the United States under Natural and Common Law in virtually every State in the Nation: See State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] [6] ; Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) ; State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) ; State vs. Sloan 47 Mo. 604, 612 (1871) ; State vs. Matthews 148 Mo. 185 , 49 SW 1085 (1899) ; State vs. Bartlett 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) ; State vs. Barlett 71S.W. 148 ; In The Interest of J___ M___ 812 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. App. 1991) [2,3, 4, 8,9] also 6 Am. Jur. 2d Assault and Battery Sec 70; CJS 6A Assault and Battery Sec 88 ; CJS 6A Section 128 ; MAI –CR 3rd 306.06 14. Witham did have and was Legitimately Apprehensive that Weis was AGAIN making efforts to get the drop on, planning to assault, do Great Bodily Harm to Judson and or his other Family Members and or Bomb or Commit arson upon Witham’s Property. See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] 15. Witham’s perception of the Danger Weis posed at the scene, and Witham’s Apprehension of the previous attacks and threats and of Weis’s previous use of a Motor Vehicle, and his attack with this deadly Weapon, coupled with his numerous previous Threats, Assaults and Violent and unstable threatening conduct visited upon Witham, reasonably led to Witham’s Apprehension and Fear of Imminent Danger, See State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] IV. Witham did Not Unlawfully EXHIBIT a Weapon “In The Presence” Of Joseph Rouse Upon Close Reading and Scrutiny the harmless and SINGLE SHOT INTO THE AIR alleged by ALL Witnesses, under these particular circumstances would have been justified. A Warning Shot directed into the AIR is NOT Deadly Force but a NON LETHAL WARNING. A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) 2. Mr. Weis’s claim that Witham threatened to “Blow His Head Off” IS NOT corroborated by Mr. Joseph Rouse, or anyone else. Compared closely to Joseph Rouse’s sworn police complaint, and Mike Weis’s Sworn Complaint and even Deputy Cowan’s Incident Report, Weis, Rouse nor deputy Cowan claimed Witham Threatened to Blow Weis’s head Off, NOR that Witham POINTED a GUN AT Them or Fired Toward Them. Weis’s and Rouse’s LATER changed and exaggerated claims are NOT Truthful or Reliable , nor do they specifically articulate that Felony Conduct was engaged in by Defendant. Mike Weis being under a protective order shouldn’t have been Racing Around back and forth, back and forth, Stalking and making threats at Witham and his FAMILY. Weis’s and Rouse’s EVER CHANGING STORIES are direct evidence of PERJURED Testimony. 3. At 10:00pm at Night, in nearly pitch dark, the Witnesses against Witham would NOT be able to see the Shotgun, NOR visually witness the Mannerisms and Demeanor in which Witham is alleged to have Discharged The Gun UP IN THE AIR. ALL witnesses Succinctly claimed “One Shot (Harmlessly) UP IN THE AIR” including the Police Account (Emphasis Added). 4. Witham is charged with a SINGLE violation of Section 571.030 (4) which provides; EXHIBITS, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner . Because Section 571.030 does NOT define the operative terms used in part 4, the words used to describe a violation of part 4 must be given their ORDINARY meanings (definitions). The Cardinal Rule of Statutory Interpretation applies. WARNING with a WARNING SHOT is NOT specifically setout in or proscribed by the LAW. 1. Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries New American Edition Edited By John Gage Allee, Ph.D. Professor Of English Phiology, The George Washington University 1978 (a) Exhibits is defined at page 135 as follows to hold forth or to expose to view, to present; to show (in the dark Weis and Rouse could not see much of anything) (b) Presence is defined at page 290 as follows the state of being present; nearness or proximity (Section 571.030 ( 6) provides as follows: Discharging a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied school house, courthouse, or church building, would be unlawful.) Rouse testified Witham was 200 Yards away ( c ) Threat is defined at page 387 as follows declaration of determination to harm another, ( d ) Warn is defined at page 423 as follows to notify by authority; to caution; to admonish; to put on guard; advance notice of anything; admonition; caution; notice to leave premises, situation etc. a. cautioning ( under these particular circumstances% |
| Name: | ed |
| E-mail address: | edatthebenson@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://members.aol.com/edsfreedom/myhomepage/politics.html |
| Comments: | I JUST ASK THEM.... agressivly ask them and show what they are doing?
This will be my last blast in the free world, without your help, I will be in jail http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phproductstaxrevolt/ I ask my friends to help stop crime. My brother told me your Army came for me with a warrent. Steve you silly goose, I want to go in but answer my questions first, Steve. It makes me sad that you are so far gone that the truth is beyound your comprehention range. My hardest choice is how many ways to beat you, how many illusions can I smash of yours? How many of your people will miss this knowledge to help North Dakota because of your actions? How many lives will you destroy in your power trip to get this bad guy? How long will you ignore it? I wonder How many lawsuits I can do for accomplice? Most important is How far can I use you for advertising Steve Dawson? When the Police come again, have them have there papers filled out and add all yours. It is a federal crime and I will pursue justice just as hard as Steve. I will bill you All from my arrest until I face a jury. I have nothing to say to them fakes in black dressess pretending to be the law I will remain mute until there is a jury at your expense. They robbing this country blind and you are just the mindless army. NOTICE TO ARRESTING OFFICERWITH MIRANDA WARNING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: The man or woman you have placed under arrest and have in your custody is working in the capacity of a Civil Rights Investigator. He demands all his rights at all times and does not waive any of his rights, including the right to personal time and property, at any time. You are hereby Noticed and Warned that from the time you detained him or her your actions have been scrutinized. Every illegal and/or unlawful action you take will be documented for civil and criminal prosecution forthcoming under USC Title 18, Title 28 and Title 42 ß1983. This NOTICE is made in good faith. AS TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS: After you have given your name, badge number, rank and proof of agency, you will have the right to remain silent. Anything you say from that point forward can and will be used against you in the form of criminal affidavits and civil sanctions. You have the right to have counsel present during any interrogation or civil disclosure. DEMANDS TO BE MET BY ARRESTING OFFICER TO AVOID CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES. WARRANTLESS ARREST: You are not to arrest me unless you have seen me commit an arrestable act or omission or have exigent circumstances to cause the arrest. If you are arresting me without a warrant you must immediately take me before a judicial officer of competent jurisdiction, to determine whether the arrest was lawful, or if there was probable cause for the arrest, pursuant to clearly established law. This Demand must be met prior to booking. The Supreme Court has held that the courts are open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty-five days a year. If you do not comply with this Demand you can and will be sued. If you improperly arrest me without a warrant in your possession, or with a warrant that does not comply with the Fourth Amendment requirements, you can and will be sued, in your INDIVIDUAL capacity .ARREST UPON WARRANT: The arrest warrant must be in your possession. It must be supported by an affidavit and probable cause statement attached to the warrant, as subscribed in the Fourth Amendment. The arrest shall not be based upon hearsay, unless supported by a warrant accompanied by a bona fide affidavit. Said warrant and affidavit must be based upon first hand knowledge of the affiant charging me with a felony or other infamous crime. I must be allowed the right to face my accuser. If you deny me that right it will be a Sixth Amendment violation, and if you act unreasonably in your investigation or use excessive force, it will be a Fourth Amendment violation, both of which violate clearly established law (stare decisis). If it is later determined that the arrest was invalid you can and will be held liable for false arrest and sued, in your OFFICIAL capacity. You may not take any of my property or wrongfully convert any of my property, such as my personal photograph or my fingerprints, without written authority and only after an adversary proceeding which complies completely with Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, concluded with a signed order by a judicial officer of competent jurisdiction ordering the taking of said property I must be given a phone call forthwith to contact my outside counselor friend. I must be given pencil, paper and adequate access to a law library, to prepare my "habeas corpus." IF YOU IGNORE THESE WARNINGS, it will show bad faith on your part and constitute prima facie evidence of your deliberate indifference to Constitutionally mandated rights. A copy of this instrument will be prima facie evidence of your bad faith. You are a Public Servant, and as such you are expected to treat me with due respect This NOTICE has been submitted upon the demand of a driver license, a registration, proof of insurance, or any other State issued privilege permit or license and therefore is a mandatory part of the official record of any ensuing action and MUST be introduced as prima facie evidence in said action. IT SHOULD BE NOTED that willful suppression of evidence is a felony. Any cause for action will result in a lawsuit under USC Title 18, Title 28 and Title 42 ß 1983. Signed Ed Curtis Belligerent Claimant and one more Steve! Private Re-Affirmation of Oath of Office and Security Agreement Notice of Felony (To protect unalienable rights - non-statutory) Serial Number: _____________________ WARNING: If you do not understand your rights, or my rights, pursuant to this agreement, then you are hereby advised to consult with competent legal counsel. I, ____________________________, individually and as a public or private officer, employee, or official of (employer's name) Ed Curtis , do solemnly swear, affirm, and attest under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America (Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746), that I will support the Constitution for the united States of America and the Constitution for the North Dakota republic, and all the laws promulgated thereunder in conformance with the Constitution for the united States of America and the above named republic, and will extend and protect the unalienable rights, benefits, and privileges contained therein to the undersigned Accommodation Party, and will faithfully perform all the duties of my office as it relates to the undersigned Accommodation Party in compliance with the above Constitutions to which I acknowledge that I have already taken an oath to perform said acts and actions to the best of my ability. That I, have knowledge that under Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1986, that failure to extend or protect any unalienable rights secured by the above named Constitutions and failure to correct any violations of said unalienable rights brought to My attention is a civil rights violation actionable against Me under Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 as a cause of action and under Title 42, Sec. 1983 as a right of action. That furthermore, I am aware that if I fail to sign this Oath of Office, as it applies to the undersigned Accommodation Party, and if I violate the Accommodation Party's unalienable rights secured thereby, or fail to take corrective action if other persons known to Me violate said rights, that I can be charged with the Federal Crime of "Perjury of Oath of Office", since I am presumed to have already taken an oath of office to protect rights secured under the above named Constitutions, as set forth under Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621, which carries a five year felony prison sentence and a $2,000.00 fine, under Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, or both, and that I will be liable personally to the Accommodation Party for civil damages in the amount of one million dollars in silver coin for each count of said violation. That I am aware that if I conspire with another to violate the rights of the Accomodation Party, that under Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241 I may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results, I shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. That I know that I have no immunities against said charges. That I am aware that this "Oath of Office" is a private security agreement with the Accommodation Party, that it is enforceable in a court of Common Law venue. That if I should fail to sign said agreement and then commit, or witness the commission of a willful violation of the Accommodation Party's rights, then the Accommodation Party may sign on my behalf, and that said violation shall be a prima facie cause of action when placed into the common law. http://members.aol.com/edsfreedom/myhomepage/politics.html |
| Name: | Pete Maletto |
| E-mail address: | dpnwarp9@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.dynapurenutrition.com |
| Name: | Search Engine Optimization |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.searchtypo.com/search_engine_optimization/index.html |
| Comments: | Search Engine Optimization |
| Name: | WWW.TECHCOMGLOBAL.COM |
| E-mail address: | sales@techcomglobal.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://WWW.TECHCOMGLOBAL.COM |
| Comments: | Look you can screw around with all these people promising you low prices or you can buy from the Biggest Nike Wholeseller in Los Angeles CA. TECHCOM GLOBAL INC. Is the biggest Nike Wholeseller in LA. Check us out at Techcomglobal.com by clicking on the link Wholesale Nike Air Jordans or you can give us a call directly at 562 234 1814. We can supply you with wholesale Jordans for as low as $55 a piece minimum order 10. Just check out the website and look at our full selection. We can also be contacted on MSN instant messenger at: illomatic@msn.com
|
| Name: | SEO - Doorway Pages |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.doorway-page-software.com/ |
| Comments: | Every time I close the door on reality it comes in through the windows.
----------------------------- Search Engine Positioning http://www.doorway-page-software.com |
| Name: | ASP.NET Web Hosting |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.efextra.net |
| Comments: | What other problems do you have besides being unemployed, a moron and a dork?
-------------------------------------------------- Website Hosting Packages - Windows 2003 Server Web design hosting site http://www.efextra.net |
| Name: | RS |
| Comments: | We are pleased to announce that your site has been voted one of the top 100 worst website of 2004 and will be listed in the Worst Websites Hall Of Fame. Thank you for participating and congratulations! You can not alter your listing however webmasters may submit a comment via email which will be edited to our liking and then linked to from our main page (hidden link). Public comments and webmaster comments can be sent to WorstSites.com / Rick Schwartz / Email Address: webfather@aol.com |
| Name: | Porn.Womir.Com |
| E-mail address: | joseph_racine65@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Hey!! I like this guestbook!! |
| Name: | Plasma |
| Homepage URL: | http://plasmatv.4t.com |
| Comments: | Want an awsome deal on a plasma Tv?
buy plasma tv plasma plazma buy hdtv tv hdtv tv flat-screen tv buy a plasma tv high def tv |
| Name: | Plasma |
| Homepage URL: | http://plasmatv.4t.com |
| Comments: | Want an awsome deal on a plasma Tv?
buy plasma tv plasma plazma buy hdtv tv hdtv tv flat-screen tv buy a plasma tv high def tv |
| Name: | Penis Enlargement Pills |
| E-mail address: | jack@pepills.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.usa-penis-enlargement.com/ |
| Comments: | penis enlargement pills penis enlargement pills and penis enlargement products will help raise your confidence. Just like they helped to raise mine! |
| Name: | Texas Holdem |
| E-mail address: | texas@holdem.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.texas-holdem-poker-casino.com/ |
| Comments: | This is a lot easier then you might think. The first time I went to a poker site, like most of you, I was very eager to get started immediately. |
| Name: | Inkjet Cartridges |
| E-mail address: | davidmiller@skydiverz.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.discountprinterrefill.com |
| Comments: | Inkjet Cartridges - Inkjet Cartridge |
| Name: | Levitra |
| E-mail address: | mommamohodo@bigbutts.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.levitra-medication.com/ |
| Comments: | Levitra - Buy Levitra |
| Name: | Payday Loans |
| E-mail address: | mark@coleman.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.uscashloan.com/ |
| Comments: | Payday Loans - Cash Advance |
| Name: | Party Poker |
| E-mail address: | dave@hurricane.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.party-poker-player.com/ |
| Comments: | Party Poker |
| Name: | Judson Witham |
| E-mail address: | JurisNot@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.geocities.com/jurisnot |
| Comments: | I am in a REAL FIGHT over a SINGLE WARNING SHOT "ALL WITNESSES" claim was Directed "UP IN THE AIR". We live in a pretty remote area of the Mark Twain NATIONAL FOREST outside Springfield Missouri. Our Local Sheriff's Department has 2 and 3 Hour response times IF they come at all AND ARE VERY CORRUPT. Below is basically my story. I need ALL the CASES on the LEGAL use of a WARNING SHOT I can find. The Shot up in the air was my CHOICE, IF I were a JERK, and I am NOT, I could have been a MUCH BIGGER threat ! I am incensed because the BOMBING and FIRE BOMBING and other ASSAULTS against myself and FAMILY have been IGNORED by the Not So Christian County SO and the Public Prosecutor RON CLEEK and TWO previous SPECIAL PROSECUTORS are simply head hunting me. I have EXPOSED SOME LOCAL CORRUPTION and in short I am being attacked for SPEAKING OUT. See http://www,geocities.com/JurisNot and http://www,geocities.com/jurisnot/OperationMissouriFreedom.htm IN SHORT Freedom of Speech MY ASS !
Judson Witham ________________________________________________________________ In The Circuit Court of Christian County State of Missouri VS. Judson Witham ) Cause No. 03CR786762-F Jury Trial Demanded Christian County Circuit Court Defendant’s 1st Amended Motion to Dismiss Felony Criminal Charge Comes Now Defendant Judson Witham and for substantial cause pursuant to Missouri Rule Of Criminal Procedure RULE 24.04 and requests that the Honorable Court dismiss the charge pending against Mr. Witham in Case 03CR786762-F in it’s entirety. The single count against Mr. Witham violates his rights secured to him by Article 1 Section 23 Missouri Constitution and the United States Constitution 2nd Amendment. Defendant cites the following as grounds for this dismissal of the False Charge: I The Allegations Alleged DO NOT Rise To The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Weapon 1. The probable cause statement, affidavit and information in support of the felony complaint clearly alleges that Mr. Witham used NON DEADLY FORCE in a Lawful act of defense. A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) At all times stated Witham remained upon his own property . In that Witham was defending himself, property and others and was upon his own property, being in a place he had a right to be Witham had NO duty to retreat. See State vs. Bartlett, 170 Mo. 658, 71 S.W. 148 (1902) Mr. Weis was contemptuously violating an Ex Parte Adult protective order issued just days earlier. He had NO LEGITIMATE reason to be Lingering, Lurking, Surveiling and VIOLENTLY DRAG RACING for an hour directly in front of the Witham Farm, Burning in and out of the Witham’s driveway. The information alleges that Mr. Witham harmlessly fired a Single WARNING Shot " UP Into the Air" while upon his farm which is located in a very quiet & remote National Forest location. A Warning Shot purposely directed UP IN THE AIR (and 90 degrees away) , had ABSOLUTELY ZERO CHANCE of wounding anyone. Many Federal APPELLATE Courts and the US Supreme Court recognize such is NOT A DEADLY USE OF FORCE See: Robinette V. Barnes 854 F.2d 909 , 912 , 6th Cir. this Court Writes: " The Model Penal Code drafted by the American Law Institute also acknowledges this FACT…"deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm in the direction of another person or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be constitutes "Deadly Force". A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise so long as the actors purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force IF NECESSARY, does NOT constitute deadly force. Model Penal Code 3.11 (2) (Proposed Official Draft 1962) Deadly Force means Force Likely To Kill Tennessee V. Garner 471 US 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985); A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; Deadly Force has been described as "Force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm" Fikes vs Cleghorn 47 F.3d. at 1014; Chew V. Gates 27 F.3d. at 1453 ; Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007 at 1009 ( 8th Cir 1976) " Applying Model Penal Code Sec 3.11(2) ; Pruitt V. City of Montgomery 771 F.2d 1475 at 1479 n 10 (11th Cir 1985) also see Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 359; Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition and see also Matulia, Kenneth J. , A Balances of Forces, Model Deadly Force Policy and Procedure, (Second Edition), 1985 page 68, Defining Deadly Force. At all times Mike Weis was Disturbing the Witham’s Peace; he was violently Drag Racing in and out of Witham’s driveway, repeatedly racing directly in front of the Witham property and Screaming Threats at Witham’s Family. Weis’s conduct continued until after dark. Weis was BLATANTLY violating the "letter and spirit" of an Ex Parte Adult Order Of Protection ( See Ex Parte Order of Protection in Cause No. CV103-533 DR. By Stalking Witham’s Family, he was engaging in Prohibited Threatening Conduct and Communications, and he was Disturbing The Peace. Weis’s Conduct was breaching the peace and was Felonious Stalking. Mr. Weis had previously Attacked Mr. Witham and threatened to attack Mr. Witham on several occasions prior to drag racing back and forth and in and out of Witham’s property, see Witham application for protective order (Cause No. CV103-533 DR.) Also Mr. Weis repeatedly attacked the entire Witham family WITH A Deadly Weapon " his K5 Chevy Blazer, a Full Sized V 8 Powered 4 X 4 MOTOR VEHICLE" on State Hwy 125 @ Jenkins Rd. (Memorial Day May 26th 2003), by repeatedly RAMMING the Witham Family truck and trailer. Weis later openly admitting in Judge Justus’s Court, He Followed Witahm because he was "PISSED OFF" and he tried to "push the Witham’s vehicle off the Road " and "Down the road, from behind Without Letting Up" (reference the Weis Testimony TAPED before Judge Justus.) See Galas V. McKee 801 F.2d 200 at 203 6th Cir 1986) Such an attack with a Motor Vehicle is clearly using the Vehicle as a DEADLY WEAPON. Witham has certain rights under Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. This Right To Bear Arms provision must be interpreted in accordance with the Cardinal Rule of Interpretation as mandated by the Missouri Supreme Court on Feb. 26, 2004… See Alvin Brooks Et al VS State of Missouri and Attorney General Nixon Case No. SC85674 the New Conceal Carry decision provides : that ….the trial court erred in declaring the conceal carry law unconstitutional under Article 1 Sec. 23. The S.Ct. wrote that Article 1 Sec 23 MUST be properly PARSED and VERY CLEARLY stated that " Art. 1 Sec 23 provides " That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property …. SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED" Said Constitutional provisions are perfectly clear and unambiguous. At Page 5 of the Conceal Carry Opinion in part II Justice Limbaugh, mandates the Parsing of Article 1 Section 23 he explains. Judge Limbaugh writes : Shall NOT are words of Prohibition. Reading Art. 1 Sec 23 in accordance with Judge Limbaugh, Wolff, Benton, Stith and Price for the Court Majority shall be interpreted as " The the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property …. SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED" On September 11, 2003 Former Missouri penal Code Section 571.030 [4] (With which Witham is charged with a SINGLE Count) was repealed and superceded by the NEW 571.030 and the NEW exemption provisions contained in Subdivision 5 of the NEW law, Section 5 of the New Statute provides that and recognizes the Right To Bear Arms in Defense of Self, Property, Home and Others as Guaranteed by Section 23 of Article 1 and Section 563.031 Rsmo. See State Vs. Enyard 108 s.W. 2d 337 at 340 [4] The Missouri Supreme Court held that one has the RIGHT to use in self defense such force as it appears to HIM to be REASONABLY necessary under the attending circumstances. II Mr. Weis Subject To Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order of Protection 1. At all times alleged in the information complaint against Witham Mr. Weis is Subject To an Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order of Protection in Cause No. CV103-533 DR. See "Exhibit A Attached". The Circuit Court of Christian County ordered Mr. Weis not to: Communicate with Witham in any manner Disturb the peace, threaten, abuse or molest Witham Stalk the petitioner (Witham) Enter the premises of the dwelling of Witham (Dragging In And Out of Witham’s Driveway was PROHIBITED) 2. The Crime of stalking Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking. (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. "Course of Conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time , however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose 3. Crime of stalking--definitions. 565.225. 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Course of conduct", a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts, which may include electronic or other communications, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct". Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. 2. Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking. III. Mike Weis’s Criminal Conduct During these events described by Evelyn Witham, Debra Witham, Sarah Witham and Judson Witham, Mr. Weis had for approximately one hour + been repeatedly Drag Racing back and forth in front of the Witham farm in a 4X4 Jeep. Repeatedly pulling in the Witham driveway, burning out and stopping in the road again and again violently racing the engine and violently burning out. This conduct was being conducted on a remote and isolated County Road (Chadwick Road just West of the Swan Creek) after Sunset in the Dark from approximately 9:00 pm until 10:00pm in an EXTREMELY QUIET NATIONAL FOREST SETTING. Weis was using a BORROWED JEEP to conceal his identity. When Witham went out with a flashlight to attempt to visually identify WHO was violently racing the Jeep, it had pulled up and STOPPED with its lights shining into the Witham front yard. Witham shined the light at the Jeep to attempt to make a visual ID of the license plate and occupants. Mike Weis immediately and Repeatedly THREATENED "You Better Turn that Fucking Light Out" "Turn the Fucking Light out" (Communicating Threats At the Withams and committing a breach of the Peace violating the Ex Parte Order of Protection by Harassing and Stalking the Family) Mr. Weis had No Legitimate Purpose to be Violently Drag Racing back and forth in front of the Witham farm, especially AFTER DARK and while subject to an active protective order. (He was at very least Lingering, Lurking, Stalking, Threatening and Surveiling the Withams) When Witham DID NOT shut his flashlight out, Weis started the 3000 Pound Jeep and rapidly surged or RACED at and pulled closer to Witham and his Daughter and again parked, shut his lights off as well as the engine and Weis was repeatedly yelling threats "You Shouldn’t be doing this to ME" repeatedly yelling "Turn The Fucking Light Out", "You Better Turn That Fucking Light Out" Mr. Weis had No Legitimate purpose SCREAMING threats at the Witham family. His repeated cussing and threatening, "You Better Turn that Fucking Light Out" was extremely threatening and violative of the Ex Parte Orders. Cause No. CV103-533 DR and indicated to Witham and his Daughter that things were going to become violent. See State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) The Missouri Supreme Court has consistently held that " the law of self defense permits the RIGHT of attack when it appears reasonably necessary for protection against an IMPENDING Assault. Weis had previously engaged in NUMEROUS other acts of Physical Assault, Ramming the Witham Family’s Truck and Trailer with his K5 Blazer, Following the Withams, He Threatened to Cut Witham’s Throat (Kill Him) and has numerous times expressed Verbal Threats at Witham to STOMP WITHAM’s Ass , Mr. Weis has done these things while Mr. Witham has his Children Present and at their Mother. See Witham’s Application for Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order CV 103-533 DR and Evelyn, Sarah and Debra Witham’s Sworn Complaints and Testimony. After a previous Failed Attempt to Assault and Attack Witham (stopped by Witham’s daughters and their Mother,) Weis Threated Witham "You Got Lucky this Time" indicating he would try again at a later time and place. IV. The Information Affidavit Fails For Lack Of Specific Allegations Of Chargeable Predicate Acts During the events described in the information, Witham had a legitimate security concern for his Family and his personal safety and Lawful Right to (A ) Defense of Himself, (B) The Defense of Others, and (C) the Right to Protect and Defend his Property. Witham was being PROVOKED by Weis’s , Crazy and Threatening Conduct. See CJS 6a Assault and Battery Sec 88 and CJS 6a Section 128 ; MAI –CR 3rd 306.06 VARMS 563.031 and NEW VARMS 571.030 Part 5 as "Lawful Acts Of Defense" are provided for as an ABSOLUTE JUSTIFICATION "GENERICALLY" under 563.031 RSMo. Which is based on the Model Penal Code Sections 3.04, 3.05 See Comment to 1973 Proposed Code following the Statute. DEADLY FORCE IS NOT defined in 563.031 RSMo., but is in the Model Penal Code and many, many US Supreme and Federal Appellate Cases. Witham did have and was Reasonably and Legitimately Apprehensive that Weis was AGAIN making efforts to attack or assault, or to do Great Bodily Harm to Judson and or his other Family Members and Property. ( On the very night of this incident an UNEXPLODED PIPE BOMB found by Witham’s Children was presented to the Christian County Sheriff’s Office by Witham’s Daughter. Several Molotov Fire Bombs, Fabricated Steel Tire Shredders and large amounts of BOMB DEBRIS have been turned over to ATF as well), See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) Witham’s perception of the Danger Weis posed at the scene, and Witham’s Apprehension caused by Weis’s numerous previous attacks and threats and of Weis’s previous use of a Motor Vehicle as a Weapon, coupled with his Threats and Violent and unstable conduct, led to Witham’s Apprehension and Fear of Danger, Assault, Serious Bodily Harm, Death, Arson or continuing efforts to Fire Bomb or Pipe Bomb Witham’s property See State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3] There are many, many Missouri Court Opinions and it is a well settled Rule of Self Defense and the Defense of Others that " Where a person has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe that another is planning to and about to assault him, or do bodily harm to themselves or one to whom he has a duty to protect, he need not wait until the other person actually strikes or makes an assault before resorting to the application of reasonable force to repel the expected attack" . See State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] [6] ; See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) The right of Self Defense a party to act on appearances, a person with reasonable apprehension of attack or imminent danger of an assault may strike in self defense before the attack is actually made. State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] Even if no actual danger existed, but Witham apprehended such danger, even on mistaken appearances, he would be justified in acting on his apprehension in Defense of Self his Family, even to prevent trespassing or property damage by ARSON OR BOMBINGS by Weis et al or "His GANG" It is not necessary that the danger which gave rise to the belief actually existed, it is sufficient that he person resorting to self defense at the time involved reasonably believed in the existence of such danger and such reasonable belief is sufficient even where it is Mistaken . State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] For many weeks the Witham’s Rental Property at the Fork in The Road in Sparta and their Farm had been vandalized, fire bombed, pipe bombed, broken into and numerous items were stolen. Witham rightfully was concerned about possible further property damage and efforts to trespass to cause further damages and thefts and further BOMBINGS and FIRE BOMBINGS. Witham’s possession of the Shot Gun alleged, even shooting it ONCE harmlessly into the air, in self defense, his defense of others and to prevent trespass, vandalism or robbery is a protected Constitutional Right under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as well as the Missouri Constitution Article II Section 17 Constitution of 1875, currently VARMS Missouri Constitution Art. 1 Sec 23 (1945) A non-deadly Warning Shot is permissible in cases of perceived attack and apprehension of attack even if mistaken see State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4, 5 , A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; The charges against Witham are violative of his Civil Rights and the Statute alleged to have been violated by Witham (The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Firearm ) is Unconstitutional in that it conflicts absolutely with the Rights of Self Defense, Defense of Others and the Right to prevent Trespass and Vandalism of Witham’s property. The OLD Statute VARMS 571.030 (4) statute provisions conflict with and fails to recognize these inalienable rights. Both the Old and New provisions of VARMS 571.030 and 563.031 RSMo. Are controlled by the Definition of DEADLY FORCE contained in 563.011 (1) "Deadly Force" means physical force which the actor USES with the PURPOSE of Causing OR which HE KNOWS to create a SUBSTANTIAL RISK of Causing DEATH or SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. A SINGLE WARNING SHOT "Up In The AIR" directed 90 degrees AWAY has ZERO CHANCE of causing any injury and absolutely NO CHANCE of Causing FATALITY. Mr. Weis should not have been yelling threats or COMMUNICATING IN ANY MANNER or THROUGH ANY MEDIUM at the Withams. The conduct and communications from and with the Jeep was violent, unstable, threatening, harassing, annoying, was disturbing the Witham Family’s peace, was Stalking, and served NO legitimate purpose. Witham’s concerns that Weis was there to carry out previous threats and his continuing threats and attacks were real, reasonable and sincerely held by Witham and his Family members. Weis’s repeated vulgar verbal threats "You BETTER turn that Fucking Light Out" his repeated Engine Revving, and VIOLENT Jeep Racing, caused significant concern for Witham that Mr. Weis was up to no good and meant harm to Witham and his Family. His Starting his Jeep and RACED up CLOSER, and reparked, shutting off his lights and turning off his engine, under the totality of these circumstances was an indication to Witham that things were going to become VIOLENT. Considering all Weis’s previous Violence against the Witham Family, doing these things AFTER DARK in front Of The Witham Property was considerably Threatening. See Adult Abuse Ex Parte Order against Mike Weis No. CV 103-533 DR The RIGHT to an Accellerated Self Defense is Well Settled Law in Missouri. See State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W.2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 , State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] [6] ; Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State vs. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W. 2d 587 (1950) and State vs. Hicks, 438 S.W. 2d 215 (Mo. 1969) also 6 Am. Jur. 2d Assault and Battery Sec 70; CJS 6A Assault and Battery Sec 88 and CJS 6A Section 128 ; also MAI –CR 3rd 306.06 Witham did have and was Legitimately Apprehensive that Weis was AGAIN making efforts to stalk, assault, do Great Bodily Harm to Judson and or his other Family Members and or Bomb or Commit arson upon Witham’s Property. See Martin Vs. Yeoham 419 SW 2d 937 , 948, 949 [8] [9] ; State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] Witham’s perception of the Danger Weis posed at the scene, and Witham’s Apprehension of the previous attacks and threats and of Weis’s previous use of a Motor Vehicle, and his attack with this deadly Weapon, coupled with his numerous previous Threats, Assaults and Violent and unstable threatening conduct visited upon Witham, reasonably led to Witham’s Apprehension and Fear of Danger, See State Vs. Mazur et al 77 SW 2d 839, 840 [2] ; Hartley vs. Oidtman 410 SW 2d 537, 542, 543, [2] [3; State Vs. Bidstrup 140 SW 904, 908, 909 [5] V. Witham did Not Unlawfully EXHIBIT a Weapon "In The Presence" Of Joseph Rouse Upon Close Reading and Scrutiny the harmless and SINGLE SHOT INTO THE AIR alleged, under these particular circumstances would have been justified. A Warning Shot directed into the AIR is NOT Deadly Force but a NON LETHAL WARNING. A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) Mr. Weis’s claim that Witham threatened to "Blow His Head Off" IS NOT corroborated by Mr. Joseph Rouse, or anyone else. Compared closely to Joseph Rouse’s sworn police complaint, and Mike Weis’s Sworn Complaint and even Deputy Cowan’s Incident Report, Weis, Rouse nor deputy Cowan claimed Witham Threatened to Blow Weis’s head Off, NOR that Witham POINTED a GUN AT Them or Fired Toward Them. Weis’s and Rouse’s LATER exaggerated claims are NOT Reliable , nor do they specifically articulate that Felony Conduct was engaged in by Defendant. Mike Weis being under a protective order shouldn’t have been Racing Around back and forth, back and forth, Stalking and making threats at Witham and his FAMILY. At 10:00pm at Night, in nearly pitch dark, the Witnesses against Witham would NOT be able to see the Shotgun, NOR visually witness the Mannerisms and Demeanor in which Witham is alleged to have Discharged The Gun. ALL witnesses claimed "One Shot UP IN THE AIR" period" to Police. Witham is charged with a SINGLE violation of Section 571.030 (4) which provides; EXHIBITS, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner . Because Section 571.030 does NOT define the operative terms used in part 4, the words used to describe a violation of part 4 must be given their ORDINARY meanings (definitions). The Cardinal Rule of Statutory Interpretation applies. Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries New American Edition Edited By John Gage Allee, Ph.D. Professor Of English Phiology, The George Washington University 1978 (a) Exhibits is defined at page 135 as follows to hold forth or to expose to view, to present; to show (at 200 yards in the dark Weis and Rouse could not see much of anything) (b) Presence is defined at page 290 as follows the state of being present; nearness or proximity (Section 571.030 ( 6) provides as follows: Discharging a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied school house, courthouse, or church building, would be unlawful.) Rouse testified Witham was 200 Yards away ( c ) Threat is defined at page 387 as follows declaration of determination to harm another, ( d ) Warn is defined at page 423 as follows to notify by authority; to caution; to admonish; to put on guard; advance notice of anything; admonition; caution; notice to leave premises, situation etc. a. cautioning ( under these particular circumstances a SINGLE Shot in the air is a non lethal and harmless WARNING Shot see State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W. 2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5] State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 (Mo. 1946) State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6); State v Evans 28 SW 8; State v Matthews 49 SW 1085; Davis v Modern Woodmen 73 SW 923; State v Lipp 110 SW 4,5 .) A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; 6. The ONE SINGLE charge against Witham ( a vague violation of Section 571.030 (4) ) is violative of his Civil Rights and the Statute alleged to have been violated by Witham (The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Firearm ) The OLD Section (4) of 571.030 is Unconstitutional in that it conflicts absolutely with the Rights of Self Defense, Defense of Others and the Right to prevent Trespass and Vandalism of Witham’s property. The Right to Keep and to BEAR ARMS in defense of Self, Others and Property are an EXEMPTION to the overly BROAD AND VAGUE provisions of 571.030 (4) , The statute provisions conflict with Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution . The OLD LAW failed to recognize these inalienable rights. Extrinsic circumstances surrounding this matter involve REPEATEDED Arson Attempts, Numerous Pipe Bombs, (One Found and Presented to the CCSD SO Shorty before on he night of Weis’s threats). Weis’s Harassment, Perjury, Peace Disturbance, Trespassing, and Thefts, Breaking and Entering at the Witham Family Rental Property have been ongoing continuosly for as long as four months previously . Witham had a legitimate right, was justified, provoked and faced with the possibility of further and continuing violence and criminal activity by a man subject to a protective order, Witham had every justification to Warn Mike Weis to Leave the Vicinity of the Witham property using NON DEADLY Force. Warn is defined at page 423 as follows to notify by authority; to caution; to admonish; to put on guard; advance notice of anything; admonition; caution; notice to leave premises, The alleged SINGLE WARNING SHOT harmlessly shot into the air as claimed by Joseph Rouse’s and Mike Wies’s, Evelyn Witham’s and Judson Witham’s SWORN TESTIMONY is a Non Lethal Warning to Leave. See: (State Vs. Ruffin 535 S.W. 2d 135 [2] [3] [4] [5]; State Vs. Daugherty 196 S.W. 2d 627 (Mo. 1946); State v. Plassard 195 SW 2d 495, (6) Wherefore Defendant Prays that this Court will dismiss the cause of action as the claims made, in the Witness Complaint, the Information and the Probable Cause Affidavit, Deputy Cowan’s Statements DO NOT take into account the Adult Order Of Protection Against Mike Weis, nor do they Factually and Specifically WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY Allege that Witham without Justification, without Provocation and without a Security and Self Defense Purpose Intentionally, Knowingly or Purposely committed the CRIME alleged. Witham had had a Legitimate Security, Self Defense interest and proper concern for his Family’s Safety and his own personal safety. Witham’s possession of the Shot Gun and he has a right to repel trespass and assault and attack. Said right is a protected Constitutional Right under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as well as the Missouri Constitution Article II Section 17 Constitution of 1875 see current VAMS Constitution Article 1 Section 23 (1945) Upon Close Reading and Scrutiny, and closely examining the FACTS, under these particular circumstances Witham was repeatedly THREATENED and PROVOKED. The charges against Witham are violative of his Federal Civil Rights and the Statute alleged to have been violated by Witham (The Crime Unlawful Use Of A Firearm ) 571.030 (4) is Unconstitutional in that it conflicts absolutely with the Rights to Keep (own) and Bear Arms (Bring to Bear or USE) , nor The Right of Self Defense, Defense of Others and the Right to prevent Trespass and Vandalism of Witham’s property in violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. The statute provisions 571.030 (4) is VAGUE and Overly Broad it directly conflicts with and fails to recognize the inalienable rights of Lawful Defense. Old 571.030 94) was overly BROAD and ABSOLUTELY Vague. A Simple WARNING SHOT "DIRECTED Up In The Air" is NOT a Deadly use of Force Many Federal APPELLATE Courts recognize such is NOT A DEADLY USE OF FORCE See: Robinette V. Barnes 854 F.2d 909 , 912 , 6th Cir. this Court Writes: " The Model Penal Code drafted by the American Law Institute also acknowledges this FACT…"deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm in the direction of another person or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be constitutes "Deadly Force". (Witham is accused of neither) A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise so long as the actors purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force IF NECESSARY, does NOT constitute deadly force. Model Penal Code 3.11 (2) (Proposed Official Draft 1962) see also "Deadly Force means Force Likely To Kill" Tennessee V. Garner 471 US 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985); A Bullet Shot In The Air as a WARNING will NOT be deemed deadly even if it hits a tree branch which falls and kills the suspect below Vera cruz v. City of Escondido 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir 1997) ; Deadly Force has been described as "Force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm" Fikes vs Cleghorn 47 F.3d. at 1014; Chew V. Gates 27 F.3d. at 1453 ; Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007 at 1009 ( 8th Cir 1976) " Applying Model Penal Code Sec 3.11(2) ; Pruitt V. City of Montgomery 771 F.2d 1475 at 1479 n 10 (11th Cir 1985) also see Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 359; Blacks Law Dictionary 6th and Matulia, Kenneth J. , A Balances of Forces, Model Deadly Force Policy and Procedure, (Second Edition), 1985 page 68, Defining Deadly Force. 563.011 (1)RSMo. is based on the Model Penal Code Sec. 3.11(2) see Comment to 1973 Proposed Code following the Statute. "It does NOT include the THREAT to cause death of serious physical injury" . Mr. Weis should NOT have even been lurking around Witham’s Farm, Threatening and Stalking the Withams in light of the FRESH Adult Order of Protection Against Him Therefore Premises Considered, Defendant Witham Files This Motion To Dismiss in accordance with the US Constitution and the Missouri Constitution and upon following provisions of Missouri Criminal Procedures Rules. RULE 24.04 MISDEMEANORS OR FELONIES PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS BEFORE TRIAL DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS (a) Pleadings. Pleadings shall be the indictment or the information and the plea thereto. (b) Motion Raising Defenses and Objections. 1. Defenses and Objections Which May Be Raised. Any defense or objection which is capable of determination without trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. 2. Defenses and Objections Which Must Be Raised. Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense may be raised only by motion before trial. The motion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to the defendant. Failure to present any such defense or objection as herein provided constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment or information to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceeding. 3. Time of Making Motion. The motion shall be made before the plea is entered, but the court may permit it to be made within a reasonable time thereafter. 4. Hearing on Motion. The motion shall be heard and determined before trial on application of the state or the defendant, unless the court orders that the hearing and determination thereof be deferred until the trial. 5. Effect of Determination. If a motion is determined adversely to the defendant he shall be permitted to plead if he has not previously pleaded. A plea previously entered shall stand. If the court grants a motion based on a defect in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information, it may also order that the defendant be held in custody or that the conditions of his release be continued for a specified time pending the filing of a new indictment or information. Paragraph (a) is substantially the same as the first sentence in prior Rule 25.05(a). Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(a). Subparagraph (b)(1) is the same as prior Rule 25.06(a). Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). Subparagraph (b)(2) is the same as prior Rule 25.06(b) except for the addition of: 'The motion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to the defendant.' Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). Subparagraph (b)(3) is substantially the same as prior Rule 25.06(c). Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(c). Subparagraph (b)(4) is substantially the same as prior Rule 25.06(d). Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e) and 55.27(c). Subparagraph (b)(5) is new. Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(h). RULE 23.01 MISDEMEANORS OR FELONIES INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION FORM OF (a) The indictment or information shall be in writing signed by the prosecuting attorney, and filed in the court having jurisdiction of the offense. The indictment shall also be signed by the foreman of the grand jury. (b) The indictment or information shall: 1. State the name of the defendant if known, or if his name is not known, the defendant may be designated by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty; 2. State plainly, concisely, and definitely the essential facts constituting the offense charged; 3. State the time and place of the offense charged as definitely as can be done; 4. Cite the section of the statutes alleged to have been violated and the section of the statutes which fixes the penalty or punishment therefore; and 5. State the name and degree, if any, of the offense charged. (c) The name of the defendant, if known, shall appear in the caption of an indictment or information and thereafter the word 'defendant' wherever used in the indictment or information shall refer to the defendant named in the caption. (d) Allegations made in one count of an indictment or information may be incorporated by reference in another count. (e) All indictments or informations which are substantially consistent with the forms of indictments or informations which have been approved by this Court shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Rule 23.01(b). (f) The names and addresses of all material witnesses for the prosecution except rebuttal witnesses and witnesses who will appear upon the trial for the production or identification of public records shall be listed. Additional witnesses may be listed at any time after notice to the defendant upon order of the court. (g) A copy of a document may be attached to, and incorporated in, an indictment or information, by reference. The source of paragraph (a) is prior Rule 24.16. There is a change in that the rule allows the prosecuting attorney to simply sign an information rather than requiring verification. Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Paragraph (b) is substantially the same as prior Rule 24.01(a). Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Paragraph (c) is new. Paragraph (d) is the same as the last sentence of prior Rule 24.01(a). Compare: Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Paragraph (e) is the same as prior Rule 24.01(b). Paragraph (f) is substantially the same as prior Rule 24.17. Paragraph (g) is new. Respectfully Submitted. Judson Witham PO Box 309 Chadwick, MO 65629 Jurat Affidavit Of Fact I Judson Witham have read the forgoing pleadings and under penalty of perjury attest that they are accurate and truthful to the best of my understanding and knowledge. Judson Witham Dated ______________________________________________________________________________________ Granted in accordance with the Court’s Following Instructions…… Motion Denied for the following reasons …….. Judge Presiding Dated This the Day of 2004 Certificate of Service This is to certify that a correct copy of this Motion To Dismiss Charges has by filing with the Court, and by fax transmission and US mail sent to the office of of the Christian County Public Prosecutor Mr. Ron Cleek on this the day of 2004 |
| Name: | Anti-Hippy |
| E-mail address: | nothingaol.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://hippiessuck.com |
| Comments: | Stupid hippies try to "free the animals" and go on your vegan diets. God put animals on this earth for us to survive off of. Stupid hippies |
| Name: | emil peace |
| Homepage URL: | http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/104234.shtml |
| Comments: | Military Families, Veterans, Active-duty Military, and concerned citizens all stand up on June 26 for the prompt return of our loved ones from their over-extended stay in Iraq.
End the Occupation of Iraq and Bring Our Troops Home! RALLY-PROTEST Saturday, June 26th 1 pm Federal Building Broadway and Front St. San Diego |
| Name: | Odinn Thor |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.dxman.com |
| Comments: |
Fantastic website you have here, glad to put my step on it, I send you and your visitors my best greetings. And I just want to say, you are welcome to visit my website as well. Vous êtes bienvenu pour visiter mon website Usted es bienvenido visitar mi webpage Dé la bienvenida para visitar mi website. 
|
| Name: | Pro Se Legal Consulting, LLC |
| E-mail address: | infor@proselegalconsulting.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.proselegalconsulting.com |
| Comments: | Pro Se Legal Consulting, LLC
Pro Se Legal Consulting is a for-profit legal services organization, which offers legal consulting services to individuals who need assistance representing themselves in simple legal matters. We provide a legal evaluation of your case, advise you of the law and your legal options, and in some cases, assist you in preparing the necessary documents to pursue your claims. For a modest consultation fee, a knowledgeable attorney will review and evaluate the relevant documents in your case, meet with you to discuss the issues in your case, provide an easy-to-understand analysis of your legal dispute, outline your legal options, and answer whatever questions you may have. We can also prepare, at additional cost, legal documents pertaining to your case. We give you the legal know-how without the expensive legal bill. Our fees are reasonable and affordable and our advice is practical and reliable. Pro Se Legal Consulting is here to help you help yourself! Pro Se Legal Consulting, LLC 1717 K Street, N.W., Ste. 600 Washington D.C. , 20036 Ph: 202-508-1047 Fax: 202-331-3759 |
| Name: | Arnaldo Lerma |
| E-mail address: | alerma@bellatlantic.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.lermanet.com |
| Comments: |
Hello, I am interested in contacting reform minded activists, who need help getting reform candidates elected. In 1992, I was director of communications for an independent candidate for county board in arlington virginia, Ben Winslow, and in a county with 411,000 citizens, we managed to WIN by 174 votes... Arnaldo Lerma Citizens Against Corruption 6045 N 26th Road Aarlington VA 22207 |
| Name: | Byron Prior |
| E-mail address: | alltrue@roadrunner.nf.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse |
| Comments: | The Federal Government is allowing the Credability & Reputation of the Police & The Legal System, to be distroyed to protect ONE corrupt Lawyer, Politician, Judge, Child Rapest & Underworld Godfather .This man has broken every law he swore to protect. Because this X-Justice Minister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, raped and impregnated my 11 year old sister, and covered it up his entire career, no one will help us. To this day, no lawyer will represent me and the legal system will do nothing to help. The last lawyer I asked to represent me, told me, if any lawyer tried to represent you, it would mean the end of their career. Visit my web site at http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse , Stand up for Canada as it should be, not as politicans tell us it is, E-mail the Prime Minister, make a positive difference.
|
| Name: | Michael R. Roth |
| E-mail address: | michaelrroth@wildmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://truth.here.ws/ |
| Comments: | I am just a lowly, humble poet, and common working man trying to plant a seed in the heart of humanity.
http://www.geocities.com/michaelrroth/TRUTH.html |
| Name: | Jerry Thacker |
| E-mail address: | none@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://wiggy71.freeyellow.com |
| Comments: | We are being cheated out of our votes (disenfranchised) by these new touch screen voting machines. We all need to get
together during this next national election, to see that we are now screwed out of our votes, it will be worse than last time. |
| Name: | Victor Hagan |
| E-mail address: | victor@hagan2.freeserve.co.uk |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Just been on site.
well all i can say as a Liberal Demacrat is, Whooooooooooooooooooooooo. What a breath of fresh air. What a site for the people. What precious time you have given to this site. I can say lots more but no you do not want medals just results. Well this is a result, I'm HOOKED. As an Irish man living in uk for 25 years, being a Jonny Reb, and the ONLY (as i say ) Elvis fan this site GIVES to the people what they want, ther in USA. I do hope you allow me to use any of you actions here and of course I will change to suit. I have sent a flyer to you that i have used and with great success. I also have e/mail at ep1uk@elvis.com ep1uk@yahoo.com Best Wishes to you all and keep hammering. VICTOR. |
| Name: | Victor Hagan |
| E-mail address: | victor@hagan2.freeserve.co.uk |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Just signing book. looking forward to view the site.
I am a community worker in UK and would be intrested in any projects in any community in USA that work. youth,vandels,drugs,noise nusiance,disabled, elderly and so on. here goes into the site. be good. |
| Name: | Josh |
| E-mail address: | thepoliticaltimes@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://politicaltimes.tripod.com/index.html |
| Comments: | The Political Times has all the news on politics, elections, polls and world events, updated often. |
| Name: | KENNY |
| E-mail address: | kenny@mugu.com |
| Homepage URL: | www.kenny/love |
| Comments: | GUY MEN KEEP OFF OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Name: | dido |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | From Russia. Just thanx for work!!!
Porno - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_01 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_02 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_03 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_04 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_05 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_06 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_07 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_08 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_09 - HardcoreInPanties Pornstory_10 - HardcoreInPanties |
| Name: | C.C.Brown |
| E-mail address: | ccbrown@epost.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.internetflughafen.de |
| Comments: | Fantastic Site - Loaded with great information - particularly your graphics and pictures and I will soon com back.... C.C.Brown, Geneva, CH |
| Name: | chris |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.aquatyca.net/aqua/ |
| Comments: | Thank you for keeping a guestbook. It makes the web a friendlier place ! |
| Name: | Discount hotels | |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.gullivershotels.com | |
| Comments: |
|
| Name: | k martin |
| E-mail address: | discrimination2@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.geocities.com/den261/Protect_Yourself.html |
| Comments: | Come visit this web site:
http://www.geocities.com/den261/Protect_Yourself.html This is in regards to Disability, Discrimination Harassment, injuries Etc. ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE, YOUR EMPLOYER (job), YOUR MENTAL AND/OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT MAYBE BE OUT OF CONTROL! YOU REMAIN IN CONTROL OF HOW IT IS DEALT WITH! (IF YOUR EMPLOYER BRINGS IT ON!>>>YOU DESERVE TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND LIVE A LIFE!) DO NOT BE AFRAID TO EDUCATE YOURSELF We have found this to be the best ( in our opinion) fix, so that there is NO reoccurring problems, for in the event there is, YOU , yourself are the one to blame! call soon! ps. This has been nominated for 6 awards in different categories in Washington DC at the Office for Victims of Crimes! Outcome still pending! respond either US mail or Discrimination2@hotmail.com please add us as a link to your web site! Have a nice day! |
| Name: | werter |
| E-mail address: | werwer454-e@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://gays-video.com |
| Comments: | It's a great site! |
| Name: | Lorie |
| E-mail address: | lorie@cuteandsingle.com |
| Homepage URL: | cuteandsingle.com |
| Comments: | Phenomenal job on your site! |
| Name: | Tom |
| E-mail address: | tom@c-webspace.de |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.jungmiezen.de/ |
| Comments: | Hello, it's a great experience to visit your site, thank you! sexgirls
nackte teens titten nackt sexbilder naked girls teenpics nackte teens sex porno unzensiert Greetings from Germany. |
| Name: | lucy |
| E-mail address: | lucy@lucyspage.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.lucyspage.com |
| Comments: | Hi, just a quick buzz to say how much i liked your site, keep up the good work, lucy :-) |
| Name: | progun1 |
| E-mail address: | webmaster@progun1.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://d21c.com/progun1/news-page-2.html |
| Comments: |
Just checking in to see how your site is progresing. Joe Garrison Firearms and Freedom Homepage News for Gun Owners and Patriots |
| Name: | progun1 |
| E-mail address: | webmaster@progun1.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://d21c.com/progun1/news-page-2.html |
| Comments: |
Just checking in to see how your site is progresing. Joe Garrison Firearms and Freedom Homepage News for Gun Owners and Patriots |
| Name: | Libertyman |
| Homepage URL: | http://pub2.bravenet.com/sitering/add.php?usernum=123361197 |
| Comments: | You are welcome to join the
maximum-liberty webring. http://pub2.bravenet.com/sitering/add.php?usernum=123361197 BTW , I'm free, but not as much as I ought to be. Nor are you ! |
| Name: | I'm Free |
| E-mail address: | sssssssa@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Why are all Government offices closed on Sundays? Must be some religious thing about Church and State. |
| Name: | Pierre |
| E-mail address: | pierre141@lycos.nl |
| Homepage URL: | http://douglassaid.iwebland.com |
| Comments: | One always overcompensates for disabilities. I'm thinking of having my entire body surgically removed. (Douglas Adams) |
| Name: | Ashley |
| E-mail address: | ashley123@freemail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.yahoo.com/ |
| Comments: | This is a very interesting website, I have added it in my favourites. Greetings
|
| Name: | Ed Curtis |
| E-mail address: | edsfreedom@aol.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://hometown.aol.com/edsfreedom/myhomepage/profile.html |
| Comments: | I really want to swamp them! all help will be good for all!!! |
| Name: | J.Smith |
| E-mail address: | john123456@msn.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.lolitac.com/ |
| Comments: | Very interesting!Thanks! |
| Name: | Stefan Molyneux, MA |
| E-mail address: | pchello@rogers.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes |
| Comments: | Dear All:
I have been an Objectivist for the last twenty years, and have just had my first novel published! “A can’t-put-it-down novel of ideas – ‘Revolutions’ is a triumph!” Dr. Alexander Tabarrok, The Independent Institute. “There is something Nabokovian about Mr. Molyneux’s writing… the joyfully disdainful and blissfully brilliant energy of it all.” Elisabeth Harvor, author of “Excessive Joy Injures The Heart”, chosen as one of the ten best books of the year by the Toronto Star in 2000. Revolutions A novel ‘Revolutions’ is set in Russia in the late nineteenth century. It is the story of Sergei Nachaev, a revolutionary, and his relationship with his spiritual mentor, Alexander Herzen. Nachaev arrives at the Herzen's house seeking shelter from a political murder; Herzen is appalled that his revolutionary writings have led to such violence, and tries to win Nachaev to the cause of peaceful change. Knowing the power of the older writer, Nachaev seeks Herzen's blessing for his actions. However, almost against his will, Nachaev falls in love with Herzen's daughter, Natalie, and finds that he must choose between his hatred for the Russian state and his love for one of its inhabitants... This stunning novel by Stefan Molyneux is available from PublishAmerica by calling 1-877-333-7422. Or go to this link: http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes |
| Name: | th |
| E-mail address: | bwotiptw@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Humanity needs genius to rescue it from alienation. Nothing less has ever worked or ever will. |
| Name: | Seattle |
| E-mail address: | ss12@yahoo4.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.maintour.com/hotfree.htm |
| Comments: |
 Wow - Great Site - You deserve a Star! What's your favorite adventure. Does it match any that I have on my URL? My favorite is to explore the other side of town. And how about when was the last time you went to Disneyland or some other fun place. P.S. I wish you a pleasant day. |
| Name: | dan lee |
| E-mail address: | danli@mwisp.net |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | on april 30 , 2001 my home and barn was invaded / attacked my the pa. state police without a warrent OR showing me cause for this police/goverment break in. |
| Name: | Marenda |
| E-mail address: | marenda@keeshond-dogs.com |
| Homepage URL: | www.keeshond-dogs.com |
| Comments: | Your site is nice and appealing. |
| Name: | lensa |
| E-mail address: | lensaa1@YAHOO.COM |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | OUR GENERATION NEEDS CHANGE WE HAVE TO GET UP, STAND UP, STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS FOR THE OPPRESSED. TO HELL WITH BUSH. |
| Name: | Ed Toner |
| E-mail address: | captained@comcast,net |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Charlie is correct about blacks being stupid troublemakers.
He is just not politically correct. Check the black on white crimes: http://pw1.netcom.com/~jna/facts/racestat.htm They have given us every reason to hate them. |
| Name: | Tom McCorkle |
| E-mail address: | fonring@onebox.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.clevelandforgovernor.org |
| Comments: | "A FIGHTING CHANCE..."
http://www.clevelandforgovernor.org/clydec.jpg Dear Friends: Clyde Cleveland is the Libertarian candidate for governor of Iowa in 2002. He just returned from a six-city tour of the northwest section of Iowa. I cannot describe in words how amazing this tour was for our campaign. I was delighted at the receptivity and enthusiasm of every person Clyde talked to on this trip. This state is ripe for change! The people in Iowa know intuitively that they cannot continue to vote for attorney/politicians from the two major parties and expect any difference at all in the way this state is being run. We can win this election in November and set an example for the rest of the country. Go to: http://www.clevelandforgovernor.org/news/06-24-02.htm and see for yourself how people are responding to our message. Furthermore, the book, “Restoring the Heart of America, A Return to Bottom-Up Government" by Ed Noyes and Clyde Cleveland, will be printed within the next two weeks. The book explains how we can harness the wind to provide a monthly income to every citizen while at the same time eliminating the environmental damage of burning coal. The authors explain how we can turn a property tax nightmare into a construction boom. The key is a return to bottom-up government. Our publicist has already secured national radio interviews for us with audiences of up to 23 million listeners! We are going to generate enough publicity with this book so that Clyde cannot be excluded from the debates with the major party candidates. Once we get in the debates we are going to be in a three-way race, and I believe we can win. The following are testimonials on the book: "A well articulated and very positive description of what will happen when we return to the fundamental, and eternally valid, principles upon which this county was founded." Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman, Texas "Remembering what America was yesterday strengthens the foundation we stand on today. Cleveland and Noyes have recaptured the passion and vision of our Founding Fathers..." Gary E. Johnson, Governor of the State of New Mexico "If you care about this country and its potential read this book! Have conversations you have never had, feel hope that you have never felt..." Kara Anastasio, U.S. Congressional Candidate, Democrat, 7th District Ohio "The need to bring government back to the people calls for a new revolution: one of decentralization. We CAN Restore America by a return to government by the people." David Miller, Iowa State Senator "This book lays out a game plan that will restore our environment and change our country forever." David A. Kidd, Founder of American Free Tree Program, (Planted 12 million trees) Independent candidate for Ohio House District 52 "Intelligent, articulate, compassionate... promoting sovereignty and freedom, built on a foundation of love. A far cry from the top down federal government that is the best money can buy." Jeff Hutner, Writer, Producer, and Director of “Practical Visionaries” If you would like to help us start a revolution toward Bottom Up government, we need you to: 1. Please go to http://www.clevelandforgovernor.org and donate by credit card or online check to our campaign. We need money to keep this campaign going strong so please give today and give as generously as you can! YOU can make a difference! 2. Please send this message out to all of your contacts so we can create a groundswell of support for our campaign. We need your help to share this with as many people as you can. Thank you for supporting our campaign to bring love and freedom to our state. Warmest Regards, Tom McCorkle, Ph.D. Cleveland for Governor Committee 1 (866)206-9073 Ext. 2386 |
| Name: | Lawrence Chard |
| E-mail address: | lc@24carat.co.uk |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.chards.co.uk |
| Comments: | Great site.
We came across it accidentally while searching for "Sovereign". If you wish to visit our site, we would love to see you. Please use the above link, or our gold sovereign site:- www.goldsovereigns.co.uk |
| Name: | melisa martin |
| E-mail address: | marykayworld@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | I am looking for grants to start my own bussiness. I am A single woman of partial enthic decent. If anyone has any free information on grants wether they be private or Goverment sponsored, such information will be greatly appericated. Thank you all for your time in this matter. |
| Name: | |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Name: | jphillips |
| E-mail address: | jphillipswriter@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://biblecommentary.2itb.com/index.html |
| Comments: |
Is There A Crisis Between Teachers and Modern Bible Prophecy and The New Covenant? Check out - Prophecy and Politics-- Is there a connection? |
| Name: | j Carter |
| E-mail address: | cheshire@casstel.net |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | The followimg article on LIBERTY is more than I can evaluate. Surely there is some irrational point in it that I have not found. Would you help me?? Thanks.
LIBERTY-----YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING LEGAL AXIOM #1 Citizens have a constitutional right to pursue a livelihood within the penumbra of LIBERTY reserved for the people in the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. LEGAL AXIOM #2 Such constitutional rights are not suitable objects for revenue taxation such as the income tax. CONCLUSION #1 The IRS and the Congressional Research Service deliberately misrepresents supreme court cases to suggest the issue has been adjudicated by the courts. CONCLUSION #2 The courts and the IRS flagrantly violate Due Process (pleadings judicially declared to void jurisdiction) to prevent mounting any legal challenge to the tax code. POSITION #1 The 16th Amendment is a dead issue. It has never been relevant to an issue of wages/salary (contrary to IRS propaganda) and Pollock has been overruled making the amendment redundant. POSITION #2 Claims that statutes/forms/regulations do not impose an income tax are predestined for failure (except for possible short term benefits). Congress can merely rewrite Title 26 et al and courts will enforce the preceivedintent. POSITION #3 Quibbling over a direct v. indirect tax is a winless quagmire until the IRS can be forced to identify in court pleadings their source of legal authority. POSITION #4 For the past forty years, all judicial process filed by the IRS has been void of any law that declares the defendant must pay an income tax. This is a flagrant violation of Due Process that has been declared by the Supreme Court to invalidate any claim to jurisdiction in non-tax cases and is a deliberate strategy to prevent any constitutional defense from being raised to the income tax. In support of the above heresy, the following analysis is offered: LIBERTY YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING The United States citizens have been cursed with the income tax since 1913 and observed litigation, adjudication, and incalculable absconding of moneys in the guise of "fair share" and "punish the rich." Various internet sites and numerous government publications assuage the public that any and all questions regarding the legal status of the income tax on individuals from wages and salaries have been adjudicated and found unpersuasive. Is it possible this conclusion might be erroneous? Allow me to string some legal points together so you can make your own judgment. The Fifth Amendment mandates that all judicial proceedings must proceed by due process. Since all judges take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has additionally held that government employees who violate any law in the performance of duties do not represent the government, should we conclude that adjudication that is not within constitutional requirements nullifies any claim to jurisdiction? Sure it does. This is the only guarantee that a court of admiralty, a star chamber proceeding, a kangaroo court, or an arbitrary proceeding by whatever name does not occur. That court proceedings must be within constitutional provisions has been forcefully established by the Supreme Court. Muskrat v United States, 219 US 346; Smith v US, 360 US 1. Due process requires the movant initiate a cause of action by a complaint, information, or indictment that enumerate every essential legal and factual step of an action--a prima facie case. They must aver the defendant was legally required to perform, or not perform, a specific act and that the defendant did, or did not, perform the stated act. The only questions that are before the court are the disagreements between the indictment/complaint and the response (the pleadings). These legal points are basic fundamental tenants of pleading that any first year law student must learn. The provision dates from the Magna Carta: "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or anywise destroyed, nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by...the law of the land." To be sure, "due process" is the evolutionary heir to "law of the land." Constitution of the United States of America, United States Printing Office (1973), p 1137-1145. [The barons, at the point of a sword, forced King John to desist from arbitrary confiscation of goods in the guise of insatiable public necessity. The practice has returned and we call it the income tax.] The Supreme Court has been more specific: The district court's jurisdiction for revenue cases must pertain to a law providing in its terms for revenue which is directly traceable to the constitutional power to lay and collect taxes. US v Hill, 123 US 681. Defendants have written volumes on the inconsistent adjudication that the income tax is an excise tax, a direct tax, or is empowered by the 16th. Amendment. When inadequate pleadings are challenged, due process requires the government to establish the authority for a tax, and whether it is an excise, a duty, a direct tax, or is authorized by the 16th Amendment. Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397. Whether these conditions are enforced upon the IRS is an open question. An indictment/information for willful failure to file income tax returns relies upon the phrase "as required by law." What law? Due process requires the IRS aver a law that imposes a lawful responsibility for filing tax forms. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391. If there is no legal requirement for an individual to pay a tax, the citizen is free to do as he wishes. Flora v US, 362 US 145. A complaint filed to enforce an IRS summons is no different. 26 USC §7602, the only statute listed in the complaint authorizes the IRS to issue a summons. This is a power that is applicable to all revenue taxes; it is not an authorized purpose. Ref. Boyd v US, 116 US 616, 627. If the history of §7602 is traced through the 1954 code rewriting that made "no material change," all three source paragraphs incorporated into §7602 required the object of the summons be shown "liable by law." The legislated purpose for the Secretary is to "collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws." 26 USC §6301. The IRS has eighty or so taxes they enforce. Legal liability for all of them ---except the income tax---is clearly stated; i.e., 26 USC §§61, 4071, 4081, 4091 etc. A complaint that lists only the power of a summons has not averred an authorized purpose as required by the LaSalle/Powers cases. Any motion to protest is ignored. The Englishman William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, made an eloquent contrast of authority and power 200 years ago: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." If society has regressed to where power alone is sufficient for government action, we have a police state. Various subterfuges are used to avoid a demand to aver a law declaring the legal liability of a citizen. If the defendant brings the discrepancy to the attention of the court in an action to enforce a summons, the court responds that the summons is to determine the liability from the defendant's books and records. The court has made a play on words. It has corrupted the attempt to determine a legal liability that must be determined before adjudication into a question of factual liability that is determined as a result of adjudication. The court will even say "Respondent argues that the Federal Government does not have the authority to levy and collect income taxes from individuals." You had merely asked to see their authority and they won't show it to you. They say in effect: "We have the authority and we don't have to show you." The court will then impose fines for raising such a "frivolous" issue. Tax court is the epitome of subterfuges. Tax court is an Article II agency of the Executive branch of government staffed with IRS agents akin to a zoning board; it is not an Article III Judicial court. You are not entitled to a trial by jury, it is not empowered to hear challenges to the tax code, you are guilty as accused and must prove your innocence, and you, as a petitioner, cannot challenge jurisdiction. If you do not volunteer to forfeit your constitutional rights, the only way to challenge an IRS assessment is after seizure. If a seizure is made without prior adjudication or hearing in the administrative “tax court”, subsequent adjudication successfully faulting the assessment places the burden of proof on the IRS for the first time. Although theoretically possible, the overturning of IRS seizures by this method would impose tremendous trauma and strip the citizen of living provisions and financial means to fight the IRS, but it is the only way to get a jury trial in a civil case. Your Fourth Amendment right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" [compare with the earlier Magna Carta quotation] from government seizure has been nullified by writing tortuous procedures to allow a challenge to the law only after seizure--as a government expediency. It was King John's expediency that annoyed the barons. The Magna Carta and Fourth Amendment were not demanded to prevent seizure in crimes of violence or from a neighbor's complaint. Does the Supreme court really believe the fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers? Ref. Whitman v Oxford National bank, 176 US 559. Or "that which violates the spirit of the constitution is as much unconstitutional as one that violates its letter"? Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700 dis op. Perhaps principles are to be enforced on states and municipalities but the federal self-proclaimed necessity to provide imagined public benefits overrides constitutional restrictions. The IRS will argue before the jury in an Article III court (who are prescreened by the IRS before jury call) that the defendant filed 1040's in previous years, and he knew he had to file for the missing years. They ignore the succient declaration of the court: "If it is law, it will be found in the books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law." Boyd v US, 116 US 616,627. Even letters to your congressman requesting the statute imposing legal liability, forwarded to the IRS for answering, respond that this is a question for a court to decide. If the citizen is expected to comply with the law, shouldn't they be informed of the law before being dragged into court? Several sections of the IRS code include phrases such as "any person made liable" or "every person liable" must do thus and thus. Who is liable? Not a clue. Title 26 USC §7701(a)(14) defines a"taxpayer" as a person who is legally required to pay a tax. A person who is not legally required by an unambiguous statute to pay a tax is not a taxpayer. Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397; Miller v Standard Nut Margarine, 284 US 498; Gould v Gould, 245 US 151. Further, the IRS does not have authority over any individual who is not a taxpayer, or is claimed to be a taxpayer, or holds information on a putative taxpayer. Botta v Scanlon, 288 F2d 504; Economy Plumbing v US, 470 F2d 585. A signature on a tax form that asks for the "taxpayer's name", "taxpayer's address", or "taxpayer's signature" is sometimes suggested to certify the signer is a bona fide "taxpayer" and the only remaining question is the extent of his factual liability. The signer may be qualified to certify the facts on the document, but cannot be assumed to be qualified to certify as to the law. The tables listing percentages calculated for the taxpayer's convenience (26 USC §1)are also suggested to impose liability . The tables are for "taxable income." Taxable income relates only to taxpayers. What converts a sovereign citizen into a mere taxpayer subject to the IRS? {Question: Is it the position of the IRS/courts that anyone who uses the tables acquiesces to the status of 'taxpayer'? If so, the status cannot be applied to a non-filer. It is interesting to note that historic versions of Section 1 contained phrases such as 'every person' and 'every individual' which could arguably be read to impose liability.} Let's be candid. "Taxpayer" is substituted for your name as soon as the IRS/court looks at you, as in "the taxpayer's failure to file income tax forms..." The courts and the IRS interchange "taxpayer" and "citizen." Motions to protest are ignored. This hardly seems compatible with declarations that enforcement of a revenue summons "is not (to be) in derogation of any constitutional right." US v Euge, 444 US 707, 711, 718; Upjohn v US, 449 US 383, 398. Such as a right to know the law imposing liability for a tax? There is no statute imposing legal liability for the income tax. If the law exists, wouldn't the IRS and the courts be waving it in your face? The absence of a law imposing legal responsibility in an indictment or complaint for the income tax is a denial of due process. A rule 7(f) motion for a bill of particulars in criminal cases or, in civil cases, a motion for a more definite statement (disfavored) or a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction/ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (rule 12b) would put the question in the judge's lap. Lots of luck. Be prepared to see a government based on a rule of man rather than a rule of law. Fragmented pro se motions, unprofessional and lacking media understanding or access, are dismissed as frivolous, and this is often another judicial play on words. Read "not likely to be adjudicated", and the court's words, frequently distorting or totally avoiding the real issue raised, are the ones published in the law books and parroted by the media. Proceedings in a court are legally void where there is an absence of jurisdiction. Scott v McNeal, 154 US 34; Re Bonner, 151 US 242. Theoretically, a claim of want of jurisdiction can be made at any time, even by habeas corpus, but for an income tax case, not until global warming abates. There is an excellent reason why no statute imposes legal liability on a citizen: if the law exists, it would be cited; if it were cited, it could be challenged. Averments made in the indictment/complaint that are denied in the defendant's response are the only questions before the court. Without a citation of a legal responsibility for the income tax, the lawful standing of the income tax is not before the court. Any subsequent attempt to present a constitutional challenge has shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The reversal of the burden of proof determines who wins. It is a violation of due process to put the burden of proof on the individual to show exclusion from a tax. Unitarian Church v Los Angeles, 357 US 545. If there is no requirement to plead a law imposing a tax, it is no different than enforcing a law that does not exist. The result is arbitrary action under color of law---a major step in the road to tyranny. But does a formidable constitutional challenge exist? We must at this time put some limits on our scope. It is well know that the 1913 income tax on individuals was merged with the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909. Distinctions between the two taxes have been blurred with time, but corporations, as creations of the state, receive only what privileges (subject to an excise tax) the legislators/courts grant to them. Lehnhauser v Lakeshore Auto Parts, 410 US 336. Almost all adjudication of the income tax involves corporations. The sovereign citizens who established this government retain all rights secured by the constitution. This paper relates only to a right of a citizen---the pursuit of a livelihood. Taxation is a matter of sovereignty, and that over which the government is not sovereign is not a suitable basis for taxation. Pittman v Home Owners Loan, 308 US 21; McCulloch v Maryland 17 US 316. A sovereign citizen cannot be required to purchase as a mere privilege what is already his as a secured constitutional right. Government employment has been held to be a privilege upon which an excise tax can be levied. To contend that all employment is a privilege granted by the government upon which an excise can be levied would have constitutional reverberations. Also excluded is any adjudication relating to regulation. The income tax is strictly a revenue measure that does not involve police action for public safety. An individual has the right to Liberty secured for him by the Preamble, the Fifth Amendment, and the 14th. Amendment. Liberty, for 200 years, has included the pursuit of a livelihood as a basic fundamental right. US v Robel, 389 US 258; Greene v McElroy, 360 US 492; ref. 16A Am Jur2d Constitutional Law §§ 569, 570, 592 (1998). The right to put food on one's table and provide shelter for one's family was established long before this nation was created; it will exist long after this government is history. It is not a creation of, or a privilege granted by, a government upon which an exaction or a return can be demanded. Of what value is life if an individual cannot exchange the sweat of his brow for the things that make life worthwhile? The power to tax is the power to control. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 317 US 105. When employment is granted/sold by government, we have a totalitarian government controlling slave labor, not a Republic controlled by Sovereign People. Constitutional rights, such as liberty, are not suitable objects for taxation or encumbrances. West Virginia v Barnette, 319 US 624; US v Euge, 444 US 707. "A (government) may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105; 113. Taxes exacted as a price of exercising freedoms protected by the constitution are presumptively invalid for "on their face they are a restriction of the free exercise of those freedoms." id 114. A mere $1.75 poll tax on the right to vote received a scathing rebuke. US v Texas, 252 F.Sup. 234; affm 384 US 155; Harper v Virginia, 383 US 670. A tax levied on the right of interstate commerce was invalidated. McGoldrick v Berwind-White, 309 US 33. The exercise of religion is not a suitable basis for taxation. Follett v McCormick, 321 US 573. The mere chilling of a constitutional right is held oppressive. Shapiro v Thompson, 374 US 618. If constitutional rights could be taxed, your right to a trial by jury, to hold a religious service, or any constitutional right, could be priced out of existence. The exercise of our constitutional right to pursue a livelihood is the basis for a criminal act if we do not surrender part of the earnings to government. The concept is inane. Under any other circumstances, we would cry "Extortion!!" Currently, the government takes 40-60% of the peoples' earnings; at what percentage do we cry "Slavery!!!"? If the power to tax exists, it is not a matter for the courts if the tax destroys the object of taxation. Magnona v Hamilton, 292 US 40. The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be the basis of a crime. Marchetti v US, 390 US 39, 57; See v Seattle, 387 US 541. The crusade against the income tax is a fight to preserve our heritage. The Supreme Court has interesting words on slavery: “For the very idea, that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370. Attorney Thomas Carley recently made appeal in three different circuits noting the absence of a law imposing liability in income tax pleadings. The appellate courts cited section 1 of Title 26 as authority, ridiculed Carley's "frivolous" appeal and imposed personal sanctions. By what figment of justice can an appellate court rely upon a law that is not averred in the pleadings? Section §1 has been previously observed to address "taxable income" with no identification as to who is a taxable person. "(T)he court in effect rendered judgment against him upon a matter that was not within the pleadings and was not in fact litigated. To do this without his consent---and the record shows no consent---is contrary to fundamental principles of justice." Coe v Armour Fertilizer, 237 US @426. It is interesting to note that other appellate courts have cited other statutes to impose liability, but pleadings to not aver anything. When appellate courts rely upon different statutes to enforce a law that has not been pled, isn't this ample evidence the pleadings are a flagrant violation of due process? It is safe to assume that if the mere wording of the statute, if not worded in an acceptable manner, it can be readily corrected by the word wizards in DC. But would any rewording pass constitutional muster? Of course not. It is manifestly clear that the tax falls on the reward of the citizen's exercise of a constitutional right, however mathematically altered. The court looks to the practical nature of the tax, not to the mere wording. Lawrence v State Tax Commission, 286 US 276. The internet sites and government documents mentioned at the opening rely heavily upon Springer v US , 102 US 586 (1881) and Pollock v Farmers Loan, 157 US 429 and 158 US 601 to assert challenges to the income tax on wages and salaries of individuals have been adjudicated and found unpersuasive. Let us review those cases to see if they are being correctly analyzed. Springer claimed the unapportioned tax was a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional and additionally claimed the seizure and auctioning of his real estate without adjudication was a violation of due process. The court observed the procedures to collect taxes included seizure by warrant without oath which constituted conclusive evidence of the facts recited in it. The mind set of the court is apparent. If the procedure “involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make Congresses to see that the evil was corrected. The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government.” id 594. The Springer court, in order to condone the seizure for an unapportioned tax that had been rescinded some eight years before, concluded the tax was not a direct tax. Direct taxes had application only to real estate or slaves. id 599 This conclusion contrasts with contemporary cases that claim the income tax is an unapportioned direct tax authorized by the 16th. Amendment. Take notice that the income tax today, if applied as a direct tax, does not apply to real estate. The court whitewashed the challenge, concluding "The tax of which (Springer) complains is within the category of an excise or duty." id 602. Did the court hold the tax was an excise? No. Did the court hold the tax was a duty? No. The court deliberately refrained from adjudicating any challenge to the tax but the action of the court can only be understood within the era. The practice of the court in this era was to decline review of any state action as being an infringement of federal rights. If a state had legislated/adjudicated the state law, then due process was fulfilled and the federal courts would not review the state's action. (The Springer case involved a foreclosure under state law for federal income taxes.) This policy was revised in Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 (1884) where the court served notice from then on state action would be reviewed to verify constitutional provisions were not infringed. Ref. The Constitution of the United States of America, US Printing Office, 1972, p 1312. Springer cannot be cited as adjudicating a challenge to the income tax. The income tax was rescinded after the Civil War, reintroduced in the 1890's and was challenged in the Pollock v Farmers Loan cases. The Pollock challenge involved income from bonds (dividends) and income from rental property. The court distinguished the issues as being a tax levied upon the income from capital investments that might be considered differently from a tax levied on "business, privileges, or employment." id 579. The court held the tax levied on income from capital investments was a direct tax and unconstitutional. Since this action would place the bulk of the remaining tax on salaries and wages (an issue not before the court--it was not defended and not represented) which was not the intent of congress, the entire tax scheme on rehearing was ruled invalid (do not read unconstitutional). id 637. Pollock did not adjudicate any issue relevant to wages/salary. A tax levied on salaries/wages (employment) was mentioned by the Pollock court to have previously "assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such." id 157 US 579; 158 US 635. The Pollock court did not cite the case where the "guise" was suggested, nor should we confuse a guise as being a holding. Pollock did not hold a tax on wages/salaries to be constitutional or unconstitutional; it could be revived by Congress as desired because the issue of wages/salaries was not adjudicated by the court. Congress had realized the tremendous economic bonanza of an income tax and submitted the 16th. Amendment to the states for ratification in 1909. Subsequent adjudication declared the purpose of the 16th. Amendment was to reverse, by legislation, the judicial action of the Pollock court, which alone defined a tax on dividends/reality income as a direct tax.. Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 18-19. Since the holding of the Pollock court related only to income from capital investments, the 16th. Amendment is irrelevant to any tax on wages, salaries, or employment. Ref. Bowers v Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 US 170, 174; Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 206. Concurrence of this point is found in Congressional Research Service Report #84-168A, SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS, updated 9/26/84, at page 8: "The fallacy of this argument (that wages are not taxable as income) is that the taxation of wages had never been found unconstitutional and therefore the (16th) amendment to the Constitution was not necessary to permit this type of taxation (on wages)." The statement is true but misleading. The reason "taxation of wages had never been found unconstitutional" is that a court has never adjudicated the issue, and obviously did not validate the tax as implied. The only relevant case discussed in the report is Pollock which is, by convoluted phraseology, implied to hold "income taxes are generally indirect taxes in the nature of excises" on page 3. Pollock definitely did not make such a holding. The congressional report's reliance on Pollock as adjudicating any issue of wages or salary is poorly placed. [The report unwittingly confirms this point. Since the report acknowledges "taxation of wages had never been found unconstitutional," and history identifies Pollock for its "unconstitutional" ruling, Pollock obviously did not adjudicate an issue of wages.] The Congressional Research Report was updated and revised with release dated November 17, 1989 and titled FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX again declares the16th Amendment is not relevant to an income tax levied on wages at page 10. Even if we ignore all of the above citations that the 16th. Amendment is irrelevant to the income tax on wages, can the amendment, even if properly ratified, undermine the right to liberty ? The Brushaber court, among others, points out that fundamental constitutional provisions cannot be negated by amendment. The constitution was written to put certain provisions beyond the mischief of elected officials. "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 elections." West Virginia v Barnett, 319 US 624, 638. "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. If it were otherwise, the entire constitution, including the right to trial by jury, to free speech, to a free press, etc., could be destroyed by the mischief of state legislators. The constitution has provisions for being amended; it has no provisions for being repudiated. But consideration of the 16th. Amendment itself is undoubtedly irrelevant. Pollock was explicitly overruled in South Carolina v Baker, 485 US 505 (1988) which has been suggested to make the Amendment redundant. We should note South Carolina adjudicated an issue of taxes on bonds---not an issue of wages/salaries. The 16th Amendment appears to leave the legacy of a non-apportioned tax that permits a federal revenue collection agency to prey on the individual citizen, but that would have the constitution conflict with itself unless the income tax is claimed to be a duty/excise tax. Some government apologists have suggested Steward Machine Company v Davis, 301 US 548, has ruled employment is subject to a tax. The second line of the opinion identifies the company as "an Alabama corporation." The petitioner had no standing to present a constitutional right to Liberty nor are constitutional rights addressed in the opinion. The court ruled a corporation was subject to an excise tax. In conclusion, there is no case that has adjudicated a claim that the income tax is not an improper burden on an individual's right to liberty. But the IRS, and the courts, will do anything necessary to prevent the issue from being adjudicated. Pro se's have been hard pressed to find justice. As we have seen, even barristers who raise fundamental questions seeking basic rights are pummeled by the courts. Or did the barons, and our founding fathers, use the only viable method to assert the rights of free men? Perhaps John F Kennedy's words apply here: The government that makes evolution impossible makes revolution inevitable. What are our options? With the federal government seizing 30 to 40% of our paycheck, and the states, counties, and cities demanding more, and with the percentage increasing every year, how many years before government is the only thing we can afford? And society usually declines to address the hidden costs. All taxes (including but not limited to personal income, FICA, and corporate), fines, costs of regulation and other penalties inflicted upon businesses (including but not limited to mining, manufacturing, transporting, retailing, and supporting industry such as construction) are all passed on to the consumer in the higher prices posted daily in MetroMart. Few pundits blame the exodus of business to foreign countries upon government costs levied upon them and their employees. They succumb to the government's spin/marxist credo of blaming the businesses (who may be doing the only thing they can to make a widget at a competitive price and stay in business) and splinter society against itself, and government becomes a non-entity in the crises they have created. And US jobs and the ability to retool/manufacture military replacements to defend our nation during any sustained assault is lost. The nation has self-destructed and is vulnerable. If an adjudication of constitutional rights---an outright assault on the income tax---is the objective, it will not be accomplished in district or circuit court. Washington will be available only with the strategy used in the Brown v Topeka adjudication by numerous cases from different circuits. Success will require coordinated cases raising similar issues with massive media exposure. Only the glare of public spotlights on the court, with an army of informed citizenry, will compel the court to respect constitutional rights. If the supporting legal citations/logic are too much for you to verify, perhaps you, and ten friends, can get your congressperson to point out any misconception herein. (I wonder what a jury, sitting on a willful failure to file case, would do if this document is entered as evidence ?) If 5% of the citizenry knew the truth about the income tax, the IRS could not trust a jury. |
| Name: | http://www.102x.com |
| E-mail address: | http://www.102x.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.102x.com |
| Comments: | Never tell me what I can or cannot publicize!
I know how you feel. My parents were found shot severa times in the head and twice in the mouth! man! |
| Name: | Ross Sanders, SFC, USA (Ret) |
| E-mail address: | TheGatorPatriot@webtv.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://community.webtv.net/TheGatorPatriot/TheGatorPatriots |
| Comments: | Nice site. keep up the good work. I think you'll like my quote for today. God Bless, TGP |
| Name: | Bill Holdorf |
| E-mail address: | WHoldorf@msn.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | You are free to publish the article below at will. I would like to know if and when you do so I can notify all my contacts across the U.S. We need more such information and can provide additional facts if interested in more documentation why seat belt laws are wrong for America.
Bill Holdorf ------------------------ William J. Holdorf 5839 S. Harlem Ave., #517 Chicago, IL 60638 773-229-1933 Wholdorf@msn.com FACTS ABOUT STATE MANDATORY SEAT BELT HARNESS LAWS __________________________________________________________________________________________________ This information is not being provided to debate the value of wearing or not wearing a seat belt harness, nor to oppose or discredit voluntary seat belt use. Its main purpose is to oppose seat belt laws and to protect our right to choose our own individual personal safety and health care standards without government interference or coercion as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. __________________________________________________________________________________ 1. While the use of a seat belt has saved some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other kinds, some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of seat belt use. In the latter case, such injuries and deaths are not given the same degree of publicity, if any, as given when people are saved by seat belt use. Such bias in compiling traffic accident data exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; non-use automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false. 2. In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. Instead, the government expects the injured or survivors of those killed to obtain financial satisfaction from their own savings, or insurance, or by suing the auto makers. 3. Some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents have survived only because a seat belt was not used – injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians. Traffic accident data on such traffic accidents only reflect one more injury without using a seat belt, which, again, exaggerate the so-called benefit of seat belt laws. 4. If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the accident was so severe not even a seat belt could save the person. That might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seat belt, which adds to the bias in compiling traffic accident data in favor of seat belt laws. 5. Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a person’s death in certain kinds of traffic accidents is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985. Court ordered settlements and punitive damage awards forced the auto makers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the injured or survivors of those killed as a result of the failure of the seat belt to save as promised. Some lawsuits were settled out of court which sealed the evidence of seat belt design defects from the public, including other lawyers with similar cases. 6. Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs, unlike how all other products in the marketplace are treated. In a letter published in the September/October 1990 edition of AAA World, a publication of the Chicago Motor Club, Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator, said: We opened 213 new defect investigations in 1989, the highest one-year figure in the agency’s history. A total of 6.8 million vehicles were recalled that year, a million more than the national average. While Mr. Curry did not say how many such recalls involved seat belt defects, such recalls, again, reflect how the public is being used as guinea pigs for automotive products. 7. There is a body of law that states a person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug, treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. All seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not to use a “health care” seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector. 8. In 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the right to determine one’s personal health care standard in the Johnson Controls case. Also, a federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 award in 1993 to a 320 pound woman who sued the state of Rhode Island for refusing to hire her back to work unless she lost weight. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission had earlier ruled obesity a protected right under the Act, and the court agreed even though obesity is a self-inflicted health hazard and causes more premature deaths each year than highway fatalities. 9. While there is extensive publicity always given those who support seat belt laws, research published by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenges the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, is never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate contrary side to the seat belt law controversy. 10. At one time, it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter decided to start printing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such dangers, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own records of air bag injuries and deaths. PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT STATES The insidious nature of seat belt laws is shown even further in states with primary enforcement of the law. The following is what can happen in states with primary enforcement: 1 Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing – force occupants to exit – visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt. 2 Primary enforcement encourages the use of random roadblocks. In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway facilities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years. 3. If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, intimidation and profiling. Young people, women, and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods. 4. You are subject to an officer’s misinterpretation of your answers, your attitude, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act, such as planting drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you knew about or caused the residue to be there. Courts have recognized most currency in circulation has some discernible drug residue. It is reported that 80% of the assets confiscated by law enforcement do not lead to a criminal charge, but only a small percent is ever returned. Confiscation of assets has become a lucrative business for some police agencies and offers big incentives to increase roadblocks and speed traps. 5. Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat. 6. Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes) to pay the police to enforce the seat belt law. Such grants are used by the police as overtime pay while enforcing the seat belt law, which is why the police support primary enforcement laws. Such lucrative overtime pay helps relieve pressure for a police salary increase. And in some areas where job performance standards include a citation quota, seat belt violations offers easy compliance. 7. Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or moving violation record. In fact, even if you habitually use a seat belt but forget just once, that might be the time an officer stops your vehicle, thus your driving record is unjustly marred. 8. Some states level points against a driver’s license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine, which means a person is being punished twice for the same offense. Also, it means a driver’s license could eventually be suspended for repeated offenses even if the driver has been a careful driver for years with no accident or moving traffic violation. 9. If you are medically exempted from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped. This applies to drivers who are using a seat belt but a passenger not using one because of an exemption. Even with a medical exemption, once the vehicle is stopped, the officer can begin routine interrogation, testing and visually looking for any kind of a violation of the law. Persons with medical exemptions are also subject to being stopped repeatedly during any travel route by other officers along the way. Also, providing an officer with your confidential medical records and exemption is a violation of your right of privacy. 10. It should be noted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency, in a 1995 study: Safety Belt Use Law – An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions, stated “The analysis suggests that belt use among fatally injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws.” 11. Primary enforcement is promoted as saving lives, however, stopping vehicles for non-seat belt use is only an excuse to arbitrarily and capriciously accuse people of traffic violations of one kind or another, thus issuing citations as a means of easily increasing revenue, as well as providing easy lucrative overtime income for the police. Primary enforcement has nothing to do with saving lives; has all to do with revenue enhancement at the expense of fleecing the motoring public. CONCLUSION Politicians have no authority to willingly and knowingly force some people to maim and kill themselves in certain kinds of traffic accidents using a so-called safety device, a seat belt harness, just because they hope others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance. The Constitution forbids the government from taking chances with a person’s body, the ultimate private property. The government has no right to play Russian roulette with a person’s life. Also, seat belts are an after-the-fact device. As such, not one penny of the millions of tax dollars spent in support of seat belt laws has ever prevented one accident. Conversely, because we feel safer wearing our seat belts, studies have shown that we tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as “risk compensation,.” which is covered in more details in the 1995 book, “Risk” by Dr. Johan Adams, University College London, England. In a free society, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because he/she freely chose to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in life. That is freedom working. However, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because the government forced that person to use a seat belt, that is tyranny working, and reflects injury and death by government. All seat belt laws must be repealed in order to restore true freedom in the U.S. The insidious nature of seat belt laws is further shown in the April 2001decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which foolishly ruled that it is legal for a police officer to arrest, handcuff and jail a woman for not using a seat belt in the Atwater/Lago Vista case, including impounding her vehicle. We do not allow doctors to send the police over to our homes to check to see if we are following the doctors’ health care orders and, if not, to issue a ticket as a punishment, so why do we allow politicians to send the police over to our autos, vans, and trucks to see if we are following the politicians’ health care orders, that is, using a seat belt and, if not, to issue a ticket as a punishment? As it is with all other kinds of individual personal health care recommendations in life, there is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws. |
| Name: | Wendi |
| E-mail address: | advisor@alpacas-alpacas.org |
| Homepage URL: | www.alpacas-alpacas.org |
| Comments: | Quite a good site you have here! |
| Name: | Brian.D.D |
| E-mail address: | thalamus31@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | You might be a racist, and not even know it.
At least, it's pretty clear now that it doesn't take much effort anymore to be labeled one. Gone are the days when you had to be a hood-wearing Ku Klux Klan member, or a goose-stepping neo-NAZI to earn that appellation. Now, thanks to the power of modern liberalism and the egalitarian spirit of the multiculturalists, we can all be labeled flaming racists without even trying! Come on, I'll show you. It's fun. It's easy. And it takes less time to do than bashing a brick upside Reginald Denny's skull. Here's all you need to do: Just read down the list below, and as you do, ask yourself if you disagree with even one of the 20 statements. If you do, then congratulations! You're now a certified flaming racist according to the liberals and the multiculturalists! 1. You must love all races, ethnic groups, cultures, and societies equally. [If you don't you're a racist] 2. You must believe that all races should, whenever and wherever possible, interbreed with one another. [If you don't you're a racist] 3. You must believe that all races should be intermingled throughout the world, in all countries, cities, neighborhoods, and households, whenever and wherever possible, regardless of the consequences. [If you don't you're a racist] 4. You must believe that all races are equally good at all things, whether it concerns a game of basketball or the launching of a space mission to Mars. And you must believe this even when there is strong evidence that suggests otherwise. In that event, you must unfailingly deny such evidence exists. [If you don't you're a racist] 5. You must believe that only people of European heritage can be racists. [If you don't you're a racist] 6. You must believe that all races contributed equally to the formation of the United States of America. [If you don't you're a racist] 7. You must believe that blacks, in particular, contributed more to American society and progress than what any history book reflects. [If you don't you're a racist] 8. You must believe that whites rob and kill more blacks everyday than blacks rob and kill more whites, even though US Department of Justice crime figures indicate otherwise. [If you don't you're a racist] 9. You must believe that Martin Luther King died with a spotless moral record to his name, even though extensive government evidence proves otherwise. [If you don't you're a racist] 10. You must believe that anyone from another country has an unquestionable 'right' to immigrate to America, even though they may come from a country which refuses an American the 'right' to immigrate there. [If you don't you're a racist] 11. You must never make the claim that an American-made rocket engine is 'superior' in any way to an African clay pot or a Jamaican voodoo doll under any circumstances, scientific or otherwise. Both are to be considered 'equal creations' to the rocket engine and must henceforth be defined as such. [If you don't you're a racist] 12. You must believe that all races have 'equal good looks' and that a Bantu tribes-woman with six inch lips and a bloated belly is 'no less pretty' than the blonde-haired, blue-eyed winner of a Miss America contest. [If you don't you're a racist] 13. Without fail, you must always add the word 'rich' in front of the phrase 'black culture' and 'Hispanic culture'. [If you don't you're a racist] 14. You must always denounce IQ scores as 'meaningless', and claim self-righteously that "intelligence can't be measured". But if you're ever asked to name a single bit of evidence supporting the opposing claim that 'all races have equal intelligence', you're to sneer and walk away. [If you don't you're a racist] 15. You must assert, if necessary, that 'rap music' is at least the creative equal of the entire works of Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner combined, if not the entire scope of Western civilization itself. [If you don't you're a racist] 16. If you're ever asked to offer your opinion of Mexico, you must always proclaim it a 'great nation'. However, if you are then asked to offer substantive proof to support that claim, you must immediately change the subject. [If you don't you're a racist] 17. You must always explode with self-righteous anger whenever you hear of a single black man killed by a white. On the other hand, you must always remain silent when whites are the victims of blacks, especially when many of them have been butchered. And the more brutal the attack, the more silent you must be. [If you don't you're a racist] 18. You must temporarily accept the fact that a white man was the first to walk upon the moon---until black revisionists have had time to rewrite that unpalatable truth. Afterward, you must then support their new historical version, without question. [If you don't you're a racist] 19. You must believe that blacks and Latinos have a permanent claim on white society---a claim that demands that whites provide them with an endless stream of jobs that their skills did not merit, with favored entrance into top universities that their sub-standard test scores did not earn, with a growing voice in the future of this nation that their inferior culture, moral values, and nominal contributions to society do not justify. [If you don't you're a racist] 20. And, finally, you must believe that the world would be better off without Euro-ethnic people, culture, science, technology, art, music, medicine, and philosophy. [If you don't you're a racist] So, are YOU a racist? Yes, 20 out of 20 isn¨'t bad. Brian |
| Name: | Susan Ward |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Love your site. Thanks! FFree StuffE |
| Name: | Jamie B. Beaulieu |
| E-mail address: | beaulieujapan@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | There are people in this world who pretend to be something that they have no right being perceived to be. They are, however, allowed to keep that persona because they have money or have found a way to deceive those around them. When these people are prominent members of society the challenge to expose them becomes that much greater, but not impossible. It is the feeling of impossibility that allows them to stay so long in a place they do not deserve. It is our unwillingness to challenge them on all fronts that allows their deception to continue. We must stop them at all cost. We must challenge them on all fronts. We must defeat those who would have us believe them to be something that they are not, because if we do not, they will continue to weigh upon our souls. Rise up and be heard. Rise up and shake your fists at their oppression, at their deception. Never give in to their will, for their will is weakened by the fact that they are fake and we are real. Always remember that you are strong, that you have the power to change the reactions of those around you to oppression of any kind. React, don't allow your voice to go unheard, because the voice of those who wish to oppress you will always be heard, and they will celebrate your unwillingness to fight. They will decide that we are weak minded souls and they will increase their oppression to new levels. Levels which we will only comprehend when it is too late. |
| Name: | buckfush |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.boycott-republicans.com |
| Comments: | PRESS RELEASE: I call for economic sanctions against the Republican Party and their major campaign contributors.
Hello I have run my website www.boycott-republicans.com for two years. Over 27,000 people have seen the website and about 2,100 people have joined the boycott. I have taken the boycott and created it on the national level against a political party and their major known campaign contributors. I believe in capitalism and the free market. I will have people vote with their dollars and use the free market to punish and shape the behavior of the Republican Party, whose leaders remain stuck somewhere between the 19th century and 1929. We will take the Republican Party legally hostage along with their major campaign contributors. The party of Lincoln has turned into the party of George Lincoln Rockwell. "No Justice? No Commerce" With boycotts you don't need to worry about police lines and barriers protecting those you want to protest. You just close your wallets to the donors who give money to the Republican Party. I'm forming a Union. You have no union dues to pay. I have a buyers union for you to join and the benefits will include a better country without the taint of an overly selfish mean Republican Ideology. I find it necessary to make companies accountable for the mean Republican agenda that they fund. Do you want to see over 40 million people who don't have health care get adequate health care? Do you want people to earn a higher minimum wage so people, not as fortunate as we, will live better? Do you want environmental laws enforced and improved? Do you want safety in the workplace enforced? Do you want unions to continue to help workers and their families? Do you want to see a more humane welfare system set up? Do you want to see more affordable housing constructed? Do you want your other important issues to get addressed? Then fellow citizens, please join me in going on STRIKE. We're going on Strike against the Republican Party and their major known contributors. We will legally take those companies hostage. I want you to contact the following companies and tell them that you will no longer buy from them until they stop giving money to the Republican Party and their candidates. This includes their Company PACS. You will also not buy from these companies until the Congress and the President pass legislation that meets your issues to your satisfaction. We have a genuinely democratic union because you decide the agenda to demand of these companies to relay to the Republican Party and the pResident and the congress. The following companies give money to the Republican Party. Please call these companies and demand the following from them to relay to the Republican Party and also tell them you will no longer buy products from them. Demand that the company and their PACs stop giving money to the Republican Party. Demand Universal Healthcare as a minimum for every US Citizen. Demand a higher minimum wage of 10 dollars an hour. Demand a drug prescription benefit at no extra cost in Medicare. Demand that your local HMO rescind their latest outrageous premium increase. Demand a universal voting system providing equal protection under the law for the United States. Demand Federal legislation prohibiting states from using private companies processing voter rolls tied to a political party and police roadblocks from getting used as a voter suppression tool on election day. Demand that the illegitimate pResident George W Bush and his vice pResident Dick Cheney resign from office for the fraudulent actions taken by them and their campaign in order to win the 2000 presidential election. Demand a strong Federal Hate Crimes Law. Demand the repeal of the 1996 Welfare Law and to pass a Federal Welfare Law that treats those indigent with dignity and respect. Demand your other concerns. I suggest you contact the following companies and tell them you will no longer buy from them until they stop giving money to the Republican Party and relay your demands to the Republican Party, the congress, the president, etc. and the demands get met. Contact: AT&T 800 225 5288 Coca Cola 800 438 2653 Pepsi Cola 800 433 COLA Shell Oil 800 331 3703 Exxon/Mobil 800 800 2510 American Express 800 528 4800 Marriot Hotels 800 228 9290 JC Penney 800 222 6161 WalMart 800 925 6278 Dell Computers 800 472 3355 866 209 3251 Florida Oranges, Grapefruits, Orange juice and Grapefruit juice and Florida Tourism You probably gave money to the Republican Party and their candidates today, if you bought any of the above products and services. Don't make a long distance call using AT&T. Use Working Assets Long Distance service. Don't drink Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola. Drink RC Cola or A&W Root Beer. Don't buy gasoline at a Shell Oil or Exxon/Mobil Gas station. Buy gas and have your car repaired somewhere else. Don't use an American Express Card. Use another credit card. Do not stay at a Marriot Hotel. Stay at another Hotel. Don't shop at JC Penney or WalMart. You can find another place to shop. Don't buy a Dell Computer. You can buy a Compaq or another good computer. Don't buy Florida Oranges, Grapefruits, Orange juice and Grapefruit juice and avoid travelling to Florida if you can. Buy citrus products from California and vacation in California. Do we have to boycott every Republican contributor? No, just the popularly known major ones because we take them legally hostage and you don't need to take every company legally hostage to leverage a liberal agenda. Does it matter that these companies give money to the Democratic Party? No because when you punish them financially they will have to relay your demands to Republicans and Democrats. Stop indirectly giving your money to the Republican Party. Otherwise don't complain about how the Republican leaders promote their mean harsh decades old agenda with a tradition that began before the Great Depression in the late 1920's. Talk about stuck in the sixties. The Republicans remain stuck somewhere between the 19th century and 1929. On the internet browse www.boycott-republicans.com and use the mail form to join the boycott and send your message to the media and the Republican officials. I hope you can volunteer to get out the message about this website because we need to cut off money to the Republican Party in order to force congress to do a more liberal agenda. Please pass the word. Why wait until election day to influence the agenda. Join a big buyers union and use the influence of your purchases every day. That's how Gandhi brought the British down and gained Independence for India. That's how Mandela brought down the National Party in South Africa. We can do this to bring down the Republican Party in America. That's how Martin Luther King Jr. advanced civil rights in America and that's how Moses delivered the Jewish people from Egypt. The party of Lincoln has turned into the party of George Lincoln Rockwell. "We don't need less government, We need less mean selfish Republicans in government" Thank you. |
| Name: | anon |
| E-mail address: | bwmtiptw@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | If we are to have genius we must put up with the inconvenience of genius,a thing the world will never do.
It wants geniuses but it wants them to be like other people. |
| Name: | Java |
| E-mail address: | java@sun |
| Homepage URL: | go.to.hell |
| Comments: | hehee |
| Name: | asfd |
| E-mail address: | afsdasfd |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | asdffdsa |
| Name: | Americans for Representative Democracy (AFRD) |
| E-mail address: | info@afrd.org |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.afrd.org |
| Comments: | Interesting. Thanks.
AFRD http://www.afrd.org |
| Name: | ailyn marie alcantara |
| E-mail address: | ailynmarie@yahoo.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | actually i'm not giving u a comment. I'm searching for the activists in manila. i'm looking for the e-mail address of either lfs, anakbayan, gabriela youth - phils.. i'd like to send them an e-m ail!!! pls kindly send me their addresses if u know pls....... |
| Name: | Joseph Garrison |
| E-mail address: | webmaster@progun1.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://d21c.com/progun1/news.html |
| Comments: | "God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson Great page you have here. Feel free to drop by and visit progun1's Firearms and Freedom Homepage and try out our new "Patriot Quote Search". In liberty, progun1 |
| Name: | Gill |
| Homepage URL: | http://CheapestRegistry.com |
| Comments: | Thanks forthat interesting story below Don. |
| Name: | W. J. Holdorf |
| E-mail address: | WHoldorf@msn.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// none |
| Comments: | I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, but do follow
and support many of your political issues, especially in regard to opposition to seat belt laws. On that point, I would like to pass on what I found out lately that I think you should pass on to all your members about someone who fought back on a seat belt ticket in Georgia and won. Full details are on http://ilovegeorgia.com/seatbelt/dismiss/dismiss.html |
| Name: | W. J. Holdorf |
| E-mail address: | WHoldorf@msn.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, but do follow
and support many of your political issues, especially in regard to opposition to seat belt laws. On that point, I would like to pass on what I found out lately that I think you should pass on to all your members about someone who fought back on a seat belt ticket in Georgia and won. Full details are on http://ilovegeorgia.com/seatbelt/dismiss/dismiss.html |
| Name: | Don Winstead |
| E-mail address: | dwinstead@juno.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | I want to share with you something that happened to me a
few years ago. I was a project engineer with a international automotive machine supplier. I was returning from a bussiness trip from India through Amsterdam into Detroit. It was a long trip which arrived early in the morning. When we arrived at the gate the "KLM" captain annouced that we would not be allowed to depart the plane but did not say why. I was a little annoyed by this because I was really tired but did not think anything of it. When we were allowed to depart in single file as usual getting off a plane we were met by a boyish faced custom agent with a dog. He was dressed in a para-military uniform with the black boots and weapon straped to his leg. He was wild eyed going up the line telling us to keep our hands away from the dog as the dog was sniffing our privite area looking for drugs. At this point I became really angry and not having anything to hide I said "Get your dam dog out of my croch"! He took exception to this and pulled me out of the line with "I won't be talk to like that!" and took my passport. I blurted out "Oh no now I'm going to be harrased!" He told me to stand still which I comlpied and he finished his search. As people passed by me I could see concearn on their faces but did not say anything. When he finished what he was doing he came back to me he scolded me and ask "Where I was coming from and what I was doing there?" I told him and said "I have not broken any laws and let me go on my way". He told me with total contempt that he was a federal agent and he could detain me. For what I could not guess because his dog did not signal, I guess it was contempt of cop, who knows with these type of control freaks. He then asked if I traveled a lot and I said yes. He looked skeptical until he looked at my passport and seen the bussiness visas I held for countries like China, India, Vietnam, ect. I could see the realization on his face he was not dealing with the average young tourist trying to hide a little pot in their underware. At this point I could feel the anger swell but not wanting to provoke this roger ram jet any futher I kept quite. He then begain to lecture me on cooperation with the authorites to "protect the children & I should know better". I could not believe my ears, I said nothing but glared with utter distane and a little hate. I could see him calculating in his mind if he should carry this any further. I was getting ready to ask to call my lawyer figuring I was going to get the full treatment. He decided no to and handed my passport back with the threat "If you do not cooperate with us we can punish you!" Whats up with these guys it seems the "war on drugs has turned into a war on the citizens of this country". I have been around the world a number of times and even in the most oppressed countries in the world I was never treated like this! Has our government gone mad or is it just out of control with power. Gandhiji said it best "I request all the peoples of the world to show their sympathy for the rights aginst authority" |
| Name: | John Moore |
| E-mail address: | jomo@supanet.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.thepamphleteer.com |
| Comments: | UK calling America For Help
Our elections will be held on June 7th. Everyone who participates will unwittingly be supporting the 'Democracy Myth'. Those who wish to see a full meaningful and truly representative Democracy will spoil their papers though this protest will be concealed unless figures are published. If young people use their text messaging to spread the word vote MM papers will effectively be spoilt. The mainstream media here will not spread the word because the status quo suits their agenda's. If you have friends or relations in the UK you can help by passing on the message, directly or through British Chat rooms in which you participate. This would be a service of inestimable value not just to the peoples of Britain but to those of the free world, and those who as yet only aspire to that state. Politicians (beyond Blair) continue to vilify the electorate by referring to Voter Apathy as it avoids them accepting any responsibility for the reality, which is the electorate's disaffection, dissatisfaction and disillusionment with Politics and politicians. Though it may not be possible to do so at this election, there ought to be a box for positive abstention, which would finally deny politicians the 'apathy defence' in denial of their responsibility for electoral disaffection. The inclusion of such a provision would be necessary anyway if we have to bring in mandatory voting. In the interim and at this coming election, were I in the position to do so, I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the other Party leaders to undertake and ensure that spoilt papers are counted, figures collated, and published. [At present, the returning officer, who includes the numbers to arithmetically satisfy the candidates, counts them but they are not necessarily published and certainly not collated Nationally] I will not vote at this election because doing so sustains the 'Democracy Myth'. Those who vote by rote or on the basis of the 'best of a bad bunch' are really the politically irresponsible pariahs - not those who stay away. Instead, I will spoil my paper in protest. A protest that will go unnoticed unless the media can obtain these undertakings from the Party Leaders. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Oligarchy still denies us (on the grounds that the masses are politically ignorant) the Democracy, which was lost with the Athenian plebiscite and has never been recovered. Buggins turn democracy is no democracy - it's simply shared sanitised totalitarianism. |
| Name: | Dé Trá |
| E-mail address: | detra@optushome.com.au |
| Homepage URL: | http://members.optushome.com.au/detra |
| Comments: | Our homepage at http://members.optushome.com.au/detra
displays our lifestyle and art linked to prelude, philosophy, hypothesis, theory and practice supported by list at http://the.layr.listbot.com/ for discussion on proposal to change Democracy from Farce into Reality. Thankyou from Dé Trá a different approach to activism |
| Name: | Roger Bredow |
| E-mail address: | qms@valuecom.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://uscounties.com/uboc |
| Comments: | I bit off a bit more than I can chew here.
Any suggestions? Look at the site. I think they are gonna squash me. |
| Name: | Atlantistwo |
| E-mail address: | atlantistwo@pbtcomm.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.sc.lp.org |
| Comments: | I love it when authoritarian liberals try to tell me that I
have no rights. Katrina, honey... read the friggin constitution! The founding fathers had a real purpose in specifically giving us the right to bear arms. That purpose was to stop someone like yourself from enacting the kind of social engineering that made Hitler and Stalin into the humanitarian warm-fuzzy dictators that they were. Had you been a homosexual, or a black, or a Jew, or even just a dissenter in Nazi Germany would you still have felt that it was the average everyday citizen that holds the real threat to other citizens just by owning guns? You can jerk your knee all you want to deny it, but the truth is that if you were there you would have died to protect innocent Nazi citizens from hearing your anti- government propoganda. Tell you what, start surfing the web to more friendly sites for people like yourself. Try Rosie O'Donnell, she would probably agree with you, but just watch out for her bodyguards... they carry lots of guns. |
| Name: | Katrina Hughes |
| E-mail address: | ikilledtheradiostar@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | you people and your guns, Its such bullshit. Why should any
one have the "right" to a weapon of violence? Guns shouldn't even exist, if you ask me I say disarm everyone, America is the exception, in most westernized countries the police do not carry guns, and the U.S. has the highest firearm involved crime rate in the world. Guns don't protect you, they make you want to use them, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble but, you can't shoot someone without a gun. |
| Name: | tom riches |
| E-mail address: | triches@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF GUN HAPPY DICKHEADS THAT THINK YOU
WILL GET FREEDOM THROUGH HAVING GUNS WHICH IS A LOAD OF BULLSHIT, AND YOU CHARLES B TIFFANY ARE SO FUCKING RACIST AND SHOULD RETHINK WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING AFRICAN AMERICAN AND IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT WE HAVE SUCH A RACIST SOCIETY!! IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY PLEASE EMAIL BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT TO SAY TO YOU!! |
| Name: | "scottie" |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | We need to arm all americans that believe in freedom. We
need to show the govt that we will not take their shit any more Its time to stand up for our selve and fight like the true Americans we are. We need to get rid of the cowards and the trash that call my America home. Start something big lets show our strength. Fight!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Name: | Joe |
| E-mail address: | joe_freedom@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://devoted.to/Godblessamerica |
| Comments: | Please consider joining my ring
http://nav.webring.yahoo.com/hub?ring=godblessamericaw |
| Name: | Joseph Garrison |
| E-mail address: | webmaster@progun1.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://d21c.com/progun1/firearms-and-freedom.html |
| Comments: | Just checking in to see your new material. Drop by progun1's Firearms and Freedom when you get the chance.
Joe |
| Name: | Ellen-St. James |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | http://www.rainbowheadquarters.com
Announcement: Go to RAINBOW HEADQUARTERS.com to learn how you can become a part of ‘THE G.A.M.E. PLAN’, a PLAN designed to bring good health and peace to both you and the Planet you live on. All information and instructions are brought to you by Ellen-St. James, a person living in your World who works under the guidance of her Guardian Angel, James. |
| Name: | Jim Baxter |
| E-mail address: | Choicemaker@thegrid.net |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2728 |
| Comments: | Welcome the Season of Generation-Choicemaker. Never forget
who you are... made in His image... for Freedom. Man is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of CRITERIA. Psalm 119:30, 173 His unique and definitive characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his institutions, environments, and respectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the universe. Let us proclaim it. Behold! The SEASON of Generation- Choicemaker. JOEL 3:14 KJV Selah |
| Name: | Dave Morgan |
| E-mail address: | livfree@hotmail.com |
| Homepage URL: | http:// |
| Comments: | Your liberty postcard idea is a good one. Can you increase
the selection to include a more global view? As I am a Canadian, my European friends might not understand the significance of the American pictures on your postcards. How about the wellknown one, "If voting really mattered, they would ban it. :) I've seen some good British libertarian postcards too. Thanks for the opportunity to say a word or two. |
| Name: | David Pollard |
| E-mail address: | dvdpollard@aol.com |
| Comments: | On comments about Faye Yager's underground. In a way what
Faye did was wrong, but then again, she was just trying to help, doing what she thought was best. She's actually a real nice woman, but then again maybe I'm a little partial since I work for her. |
| Name: | Vicki Pierce |
| E-mail address: | Ohnoapr@aol.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://nafcj.org/ |
| Comments: | Regarding the Stratton children kidnapped into Faye Yager's
Underground, Faye wasn't duped. As in most of her cases, she ficticiously fabricates goofy stories as a service for moneyed clients. Got a messy ex reigning havoc, not getting your way, or maybe you have a legitimate child molester screwing the kiddos, not to worry, Faye will take you in then spit you out to the FBI for a whim or a couple mill -- it's all about money, honey. |
