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.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Sunday, August 4, 2013

4-hour 'rescue' kills another biker on the Dragon

Slower vehicles refusing to obey pulloffs, use of rear brake, failure to countersteer, lack of body armor, bankrupt 4-hour ambulance taxi service and a crooked sheriff cause many injuries and fatalities on the Dragon

Sheriff identifies motorcyclist killed on "The Dragon"

(WBIR-Blount County) The Blount County Sherriff's Department has identified the victim killed in a Saturday night crash on "The Dragon."

Sheriff James Lee Berrong said Patrick Brian Noll, 46, of Dallas, Georgia, had passed a slower bike and started slowing down for a left-hand curve when the rear wheel locked.

Noll went into a straight line skid and flew off the motorcyle into a large tree.

He was wearing a Department of Transportation compliant motorcylce helmet.

The Sheriff's Office Traffic Safety Unit is investigating the fatal crash.

Original Story:

(WBIR - Blount County) Blount County Sheriff's Department confirmed that a man driving a motorcycle was killed Saturday night after crashing on "The Dragon."

Blount County dispatch told 10News they received a call about the wreck at mile marker 9 on U.S. Route 129 around 7 p.m Saturday.

Witnesses told 10News it appeared the victim's back wheel on his motorcycle locked up. They said he then skidded off the road, went off an embankment and hit a tree.

Witnesses said they helped perform CPR but made the decision to stop shortly before first responders arrived on the scene.

Officials told 10News they believe this is the first fatality this year on "The Dragon."

WBIR Comments

Facebook Comments

ETR Comments

Sheriff Comments:

"I’ll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won’t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won’t hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?”
-Blount County sheriff James Berrong firing his secretary in the Blount County Justice Center, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005

The 4-hour ambulance "rescue" is a popular tool for killer cops who want "criminals" to die for lack of medical treatment, judging by those daily news reports, especially in East TN where THP troopers were arrested for murder by blocking rescue to crash victims. Our soon-to-be-indicted governor's family business was recently raided by 100 FBI and IRS agents and owns 10,000 acres on the Dragon for his private gated VIP resort "nature conservancy" with its maximum-security private airport, so 18 cops per 11 miles are ordered to ethnically clense all bikers and biker businesses from the Dragon, according to TDOT report at Dragonaters. Funny how European Rural Metro ambulance corporation filed bankruptcy despite trillions of dollars in annual revenue.
-The Dragonater

Rural/Metro to Burchett: Bankruptcy filing won't curtail Knox County service

August 5, 2013

Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett saw no need for alarm Monday over news that Rural/Metro Corp. announced it had filed for bankruptcy protection as it seeks to reorganize.

In a prepared statement, Burchett said he had been in touch with officials from the company that provides ambulance service to all county residents and business and fire protection for those outside the city of Knoxville.

“I have been in touch with Rural/Metro’s leadership and they’ve assured me that their operations in Knox County will continue as normal,” Burchett said. “Their contract with Knox County contains provisions in the event that they are unable to fulfill their obligations. If their obligations are not met, Knox County will take appropriate action. In the meantime, my staff and I will continue to monitor Rural/Metro’s financial situation.”

Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Rural/Metro announced Monday that it has filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This comes after Rural/Metro announced Thursday that it had elected to skip an interest payment on unsecured bonds that was due July 15. This was done as part of an effort to realign its capital structure and operations, the company said in a statement.

Mayor’s spokesman Michael Grider said Thursday that the county was keeping tabs on Rural/Metro’s situation and if the company was no longer able to provide ambulance service, the county would take steps to cancel the contract and find another provider.

In 2012, American Medical Response, another ambulance company, had sought the contract with Knox County, and contested the awarding of the five-year contract to Rural/Metro. Contacted Monday for a response to the Rural/Metro bankruptcy issue, AMR spokesman Mike Cohen said the company did not wish to comment.

In announcing its bankruptcy filing, Rural/Metro gave assurances its East Tennessee operations, including serving Knox, Blount and Loudon, counties, would continue.

“All operations in East Tennessee will continue as usual,” Rural/Metro of East Tennessee Division Manager Rob Webb said in a statement. “Rural/Metro will continue to meet all of our contractual obligations, including maintaining excellent medical and fire protection services to the citizens we serve here.”

The company said it had reached agreement in principal on a comprehensive financial restructuring plan that will reduce its funded indebtedness by about 50 percent by converting certain debt to equity and cutting its interest expense in half.

“We expect to move through this process quickly and to be a stronger, more competitive and more profitable organization,” Rural/Metro Corp. CEO Scott A. Bartos said in a statement.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Undercover speed traps at the Gap

Looks like governor Bill Haslam wants to ban all bikes again when he retires to his 10,000 VIP gated resort on the Dragon, with his private maximum-security airport. Unless teh 100 FBI and IRS agents who raided his family business Pilot Flying J want to put him in prison first.

What amazed me was the police presence on Saturday, July 7th. Nasty, heavy rain and multiple undercover units and one BCSO cruiser. Couldn't believe it. The BCRS was chilling at CROT. I got stuck behind one of the undercover units and he kept us at or below 25 mph. When he did hit the gas, he hit it hard and momma did not raise a dummy. Not going to "chase" an unmarked vehicle with gov't plates. Sure nuff... few turns later I saw BCSO ready to pull out. I waived as I rode past at 28mph. Starting to remind me of the 2007 season.
-DJFireUSA, July 2013, ETR An interesting bit of change to the gap?

They want to construct a muti-agency HQ up there as well. If they can get a 300,000 starter fund in place. Maybe Ron and Nancy will lend them some space.

The Blount County Rescue Squad is embarking on a $300,000 fundraising campaign to build a public service building on The Dragon. The building could be used by the rescue squad, Tennessee Highway Patrol and the Blount County Sheriff's Office. In 2012, there were four fatalities on The Dragon, but none so far this year.
-WATE TV, New safety measures in place on The Dragon's dangerous curves, 5 July 2013

No fatilities because nobody goes to the Dragon anymore. Guess the AMA's Million Man Boycott of Blount County is having the desired effect.

Still 10-million fatilities per year from medical doctors. USA USA USA!!! Just think of how many cops they kill?!