Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Your FREE photos from the Dragon

Easter Sunday 2014 at Deals Gap shot by Dragonater John Lee, who finally caused his first crash cuz that's wat photogs do on the Dragon lol... Failure to countersteer and target fixation had nuttin to do wit it!

Tail of the Dragon hostess Here's Leighann's latest this week, wish it wuz by me... Leighann was my first ever model shoot more like GWVC lol:

All photos shot by The Dragonater, see my portfolio below:

First Dragon fatality of 2014 (actually the 2nd but who's counting)

Investigators look at a 2013 Ford Focus that collided with a motorcycle on “The Dragon” Monday afternoon. The motorcycle rider, identified as William Alfred Adamchik, 56, of Hamburg, Pa., was killed in the accident.

Dragon Strikes: Pennsylvania motorcycle rider killed on The Dragon

Tom Sherlin | The Daily Times
May 20, 2014

ALCOA, TENN. -- A 56-year-old Pennsylvania man was killed in a motorcycle-car collision on “The Dragon” Monday afternoon, the Blount County Sheriff’s Office reported. William Alfred Adamchik, of Hamburg, Pa., driver of the motorcycle, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The driver of the other vehicle involved, Timothy Penley, 38, of Canton, N.C., was not injured.

In a news release, the BCSO said the accident occurred shortly after 3 p.m. Adamchik was riding a 2007 Yamaha Sport Bike FZ6 south in a stretch of U.S. Highway 129 nicknamed “The Dragon.”

He came around a curve at mile marker 11 and the rear end of his motorcycle slid around and struck Penley’s vehicle, a 2013 Ford Focus, head-on.

Adamchik and his motorcycle landed about 15 feet away on the roadway. Bystanders performed CPR on Adamchik until Rural/Metro Ambulance Service arrived.

Adamchik was wearing a Department of Transportation approved full-face helmet. Penley was wearing his seat belt, and the air bags in his vehicle deployed.

No charges were filed immediately as the Sheriff’s Office Traffic Safety Unit investigation continues.

Monday’s accident was the first fatality on “The Dragon” this year, according to The Daily Times archives. The last fatality occurred in December 2013 at mile marker 2. A Knoxville man riding in an open-top Miata convertible was killed when the car missed a curve, went down an embankment and struck a tree.

A Vonore man was found dead May 8 on Calderwood Highway a few days after his motorcycle left the road, but officers said the location of the accident is not considered part of “The Dragon.”

ETR so dead it don't even have a separate posting (new threads r banned), not even an eyewitness.... No mention of countersteering, nor safety gear, the typical 4-hour rescue time, nor the car or cars crossing a centerline....

At least the Police State censorship aint dead in 'Murika....

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Officer Jack McLamb RIP

Jack McLamb radio show archives at GCN Radio Network

It is with much deep sentiment that we write to advise that our much beloved friend and brother, Jack McLamb, passed away on Saturday, late afternoon, Indiana time. Though he is missed far more than any words can say, all who loved him are grateful to know that Jack is at last freed from the physical disabilities that increasingly plagued him, especially in these past few years. For the blessed relief that has come to him, we certainly have great reason to rejoice.

We now join with Jack’s wife, Angie, and all his family in extending our deepest gratitude to each and all of you who, by means of your continuous outpouring of love and prayer, provided such comfort and upliftment, particularly during this past very difficult week – - and we can’t help but feel somehow that all of that love and blessing was received personally by Jack as well, on the level of his inner spirit. Now that “Officer Friendly” is once again “back in the greatest of form” himself, be ready to receive the thanks and Blessings he’s likely to send you!

A number of memorial services are being planned for Jack, the most immediate one taking place this coming week in SW Indiana. Should anyone be close enough to that area and wish to attend, feel free to contact us, by way of this email address or by calling (208) 935-7852, for further information. Concerning the other memorials to be held, we will advise later on.

Thank you again, and may God richly bless you all.

Bob and Theresa Huebner
Jim and Jean Hisaw, and
Carol Asher

Right to Travel


By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

  1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
  2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

  1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
  2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.