I serve Constructive Notice rather than show a 'permit' to carry!

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are ONLY two State's Bill of Rights which state the following: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which he have delegated, We Declare that EVERY THING in this Bill of Rights is EXCEPTED OUT OF the general powers of government, and SHALL FOREVER remain INVIOLATE; and ALL laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be VOID." Kentucky is one of the two, which State is the other one?

What part of 'EVER THING' or 'FOREVER' or'INVIOLATE, or 'CONTRARY' or 'VOID' don't people understand?! When these words were written, THEY MEANT SOMETHING! What do they mean to those reading them today?! :confused:
 
AZTOY,

Arizona's Bill of Rights, Article II, Section 26 states: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

According to this you can carry in the open or concealed, but you or corporations are not allow to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. When the people of Arizona formed their 'civil government' they placed absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS on their inherent and inalienable right to bear arms in their own defense in regards to open carry or concealed carry and they DID NOT authorize the Legislature to regulate concealed carry, they ONLY restricted individuals or corporations from organizing, maintaining or employing an armed body of men - GET IT?!
 
Hahahaha,

Welcome to THR, Mr. Exuberant.

I assure you, AZTOY "get's it." This ain't his first rodeo.

Try to tone it down a little, though. You might surprise yourself and find out something new.

Again, welcome.
 
capt.Nemo,
The Texas Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 26 states: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself of the State, but the Legislature shall have the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

When the people of Texas formed their 'civil government' they restricted their inherent and inalienable right to bear arms by placing the bit BUT in their Bill of Rights! Their Legislature was given the lawful authority to regulate the wearing of arms - GET IT?!

INTERPRETATION of Kentucky's Bill of Rights?! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Not if the words, 'EVERY THING', 'EXCEPTED OUT', 'FOREVER', 'INVIOLATE', AND 'VOID' have any meaning whatsoever! Like I just posted, Kentucky is one of ONLY TWO States that include this in their Bill of Rights! If people would only do the research, research the documents that originally founded this country and the various States, they would see where we as a country have gone wrong, WAY WRONG! The people formed the 'civil governments' of their respective States by delegating a LIMITED portion of their sovereign power through their Constitutions, the States formed the 'Federal government' by delegating a LIMITED portion of their 'sovereign power' through the Constitution for the united States of America. Under the limited Constitutional Repbulic form of government that this country was founded on, ALL political power is inherent in the people, the sovereign power flows down from the people to their State governments, from the State governments down to the 'Federal Government'! Today it's ALL BACKWARDS, the 'Federal Government is all powerful, what little is left the States take, and virtually NOTHING is left for the people! THE PEOPLE ARE THE SOVEREIGNS, ALL POLITICAL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE - GET IT?!
 
AZTOY,
I don't 'need' Constructive Notice to carry in the open, it's my trap that I've baited to catch a wayward LEO that just might attempt to violate my right to carry in the open! The sole purpose of serving 'Constructive Notice' or should that be 'Actual Notice' (gotta think about that one!) is to remove ANY legal defence of any LEO who violates my right to carry in the open as protected by Kentucky's Bill of Rights! The way it has worked for me so far is that once they realize that they just might be held personally liable for their unlawful actions it makes them thing twice!
 
When the people of Texas formed their 'civil government' they restricted their inherent and inalienable right to bear arms by placing the bit BUT in their Bill of Rights! Their Legislature was given the lawful authority to regulate the wearing of arms - GET IT?!
Click to expand...

Um, yeah...like I explained before...We ALL here "get it."

If you don't mind me asking, when did all this come to your attention?

I only ask because Madison wrote the Federalist papers quite awhile before I was around. We here understand what "shall not be infringed" means. We understand what "powers reserved to the states" means.
 
Preacherman,
OK I got your PM, since I don't see how to PM you I'll post it here. Who are you? Are you a moderator? The Webmaster? Why did you send me that PM? Exactly what I'm I to 'tone down'? The capital letters? What I'm posting, or what? All I've posted so far are facts, I'm not into making funny faces like some people on here, I thought this was a place to seriously discuss rights, like the right to bear arms. Clue me in, please!
 
Uh, excuse me.........

But I think that the reason they backpedaled and apologized was NOT because of your notice, but because they could not articulate "reasonable suspicion" to detain you. (See Terry v. Ohio.)

If open carry is legal in your State, then what's the point?

I ran into a person once who served Notice that they were not required to possess or display a valid license plate on their vehicle. They also believed that they were not required by law to have an operator's permit.

I then served Notice to him that he was under arrest.

Two snaps of the handcuffs, a citation for NVOL, and it was on the way to jail.

At his hearing, when he served Notice to the Court, the Court served Notice that he had to pay a fine, serve a little bit of confinement, and get plates for his vehicle along with an operator's permit. Last time I saw his vehicle, he was sporting some fresh Washington State plates.
 
Let me help...you're talking down to people who can quote the legislation you've posted off the tops of their heads...and have been able to for years. You aren't educating anyone here.

Again, we're on your side. Why are you talking to folks in such a contentious manner?

All caps on a webpage is considered yelling. Tone it down means exactly that. Tone it down...we're friends here.
 
AZTOY,
I looked at those sites you posted, I guess I don't see what you're point was by posting them. What I posted in responce to you was your State's Bill of Rights. The Constitution for the united States of America is 'supposed' to be the supreme law of all 50 States, then comes (in your case if you're in Arizona) Arizona's Bill of Rights and/or Constitution, this is the fundamental law of your State. The Bill of Rights are the prior reservation of rights that the people made when they formed their 'civil government' through their Constitution. If we are indeed a nation under 'the rule of law' then the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution is the foundation of that 'rule of law', all 'laws' passed by the legislature must conform to that or they are unconstitutional. I'm attempting to point out that each of the 50 State's Bill of Rights make different reservations when it comes to the people's inherent and inalienable rights, that's all I'm attempting to do.
 
Suijurisfreeman, yes, I'm a moderator. Please read about PM's under the "F.A.Q." button at the top of the THR screen. To reply to a PM, simply scroll down to the "Reply" button beneath the message.
 
Powderman,

That's interesting, I've been down that road, started in 1993 although my results were much different! Let me quote you a certified copy of a court case I just happened to be involved in back in 1994.

State of Michigan, In the District Court for the County of Hillsdale, The People of the State of Michigan, File No. 94-2225 FY, Winston Ward Johnson, SR., Defendant. Non-Jury Trial, before the Honorable Donald L. Sanderson, District Judge, Appearances: For the People: Mr. Michael R. Smith (P308665) Prosecuting Attorney, 61 McCollum Street, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242 (517) 439-1419 Recorded by: Kristina Shaneour - CER 3177: Hillsdale, Michigan, Tuesday, January 10, 1995 - at 9:44 am (PX1, PX2 and PX3 marked prior to commencement of non-jury trial) THE COURT: This matter involveing Winston Ward Johnson, Sr., file 2225. This matter's been scheduled for a trial this morning involving several charges relating to the operation of a motor vehicle. Mr. Smith, is the prosecution ready to proceed? MR. SMITH: We are, you Honor. THE COURT: The record should reflect that Mr. Johnson is not present. You've checked in the outer hall for Mr. Johnson? MR. SMITH: There is no sign of Mr. Johnson, Sr., -- Winston Ward Johnson, Sr. at all, your Honor. THE COURT: Any comments you wish to make for the record, Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Simply to indicate, your Honor, I believe that Mr. Johnson was quite aware of this trial. In fact, it's come to my attention that he appeared in the court building here in the last week to two weeks. He asked at that time whether he was going to still require his jury trial. It's my understanding that he indicated at that time that he had never demanded a jury trial and the he -- it was very possible that he was not going to appear for this morning's trial. Obviously, he has confirmed that representation by not appearing here in court this morning. We will be issuing a warrant for his arrest, your Honor, for absconding on a misdemeanor bond and I would leave it to the Court to take such action as it would deem appropriate on its own for failure to appear. THE COURT: I'm not sure if Mr. Johnson ever did sign a bond. I believe he was released without bond being posted. But, that would reflect the fact that Mr. Johnson was in custody for -- for twenty-seven days, refusing to post bond. Because of the fact he's been in jail for some twenty-seven days already on this, I'm not going to issue a bench warrant. But there'll be steps taken under statute to prohibit Mr. Johnson's operation of a motor vehicle in this state. If he has a license, that license would be suspended. If he does have -- does not have a license, his privileges would be suspended. The -- if Mr. Johnson does appear and wish to have a trial, there'll be further sanctions taken at that point. But we're not going to forcibly detain him on this. Court stands in recess. MR. SMITH: Thank you, your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 9:46am)

I never posted bond, I never signed any court papers, I never hired or accepted an attorney (see Black's Law Dictionary, page 937 under IN PROPRIA PERSONA: " It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court. and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction."), I refused to acknowledge that I was a 'defendant'. By posting bond you've given the court jurisdiction, don't think so, read the entire bond form! I was only held for 27 days because I refused to post bond, this little episode would take pages and pages to post all of it. It's all about jurisdiction, without which they cannot lawfully proceed, the problem for most people is that they just don't understand how the courts get that jurisdiction! They must acquire both personum jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction to lawfully proceed, otherwise the court lacks lawfull jurisdiction to proceed!
 
According to this you can carry in the open or concealed, but you or corporations are not allow to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. When the people of Arizona formed their 'civil government' they placed absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS on their inherent and inalienable right to bear arms in their own defense in regards to open carry or concealed carry and they DID NOT authorize the Legislature to regulate concealed carry, they ONLY restricted individuals or corporations from organizing, maintaining or employing an armed body of men - GET IT?!
Click to expand...

Your first post you made to me /\

The 3 link are organizing, maintaining and employing armed group in AZ, TX ,CA and NM.
 
Last edited:
AZTOY,

Again I'm only stating what the Arizona Bill of Rights states, what you're involved in is your business. I personally don't have much use for any of the 'militias' that I saw in Michigan, in fact Randy Gephardt, the head of the Hillsdale County chapter of the Michigan Militia had the nerve to threaten me one time when he came over to my property south of Hillsdale. He asked if I intended to 'join' the Michigan Militia, I told him that I had absolutley no intention of joining, he responded that being the case that when the %#@& hit the fan, they would 'take me out also', because if I wasn't with them I must be against them! And like I told him, you better get me on the first shot, 'cause I sure won't miss! Needless to say, he was no longer welcome on my property!

Looking at your picture there kinda reminds me of my 'gear', I guess I've got more than my share of it! Even know how to make use of it!
 
Last edited:
suijurisfreeman

welcome to THR!
I am kinda new here despite the "senior member"
tag near my name :D
I wish some one would serve that notice to the SFPD!
or NYPD!
Kentucky sounds like a nice state,here or NY
the cops wouldn't even take the time to read it.
To the cops I know (including family sometimes)
rights are something courts decide,& they lock you up
if you don't have a permit:(
I pray for the day when the only permit I need
is the Constitution
 
What we're all forgetting here is that Kentucky is where this is occuring, and Kentucky is an OPEN CARRY state without a permit. There was a court case in the late 1950's which the Kentucky Supreme Court said that the Commonwealth of Kentucky, nor any subdivision, could NOT regulate firearms in a general manner that are carried openly in a holster.

This would be no different than a Phoenix police officer in Arizona detaining him in this fashion for openly carrying a handgun, or the Minneapolis Police running around drawing guns on open carriers who are Permits to Carry holders, when in reality, state law allows them to carry a firearm in the open (MN Pistol Permit statute is similar to Tennessee's.).
 
Lonnie Wilson,

Precisely, the sign on the Monroe County courthouse reads: "Concealed weapons prohibited'. Whoever posted that sign knew that it couldn't lawfully read: "Weapons prohibited" because that would violate Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 1, No. 7! When my son went to the Sheriff's Department, it's located in the Monroe County courthouse, to get his apology from deputy Ford he was carrying his Glock 23 at his side, nobody said anything. However about a year ago when I was reading the minutes of the Monroe County Fiscal Court I saw where they had passed an ordinance that all weapons were prohibited in the courthouse, with the exception of LEO'S. I intend to serve them Constructive Notice that's a violation of Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 1, No. 7! They need to repeal it!
 
AZTOY.

Kentucky has had 4 Constitutions, 1791, 1799, 1850 and the current 1891 Constitution. The 1791 and 1799 Constitutions, Bill of Rights both stated: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, shall not be questioned." Why did this change in the 1850 Bill of Rights? Or did it really change? I will again state that I am not a racist, so no one needs to go there, but what are the 'historical facts' concerning the apparent change in the right to bear arms in Kentucky's Bill of Rights? Based on my research, the 1850 Bill of Rights was changed to read: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." Why is the word 'persons' used instead of freeman or citizen? Why is the word weapons used instead of arms? Anyone care to hazard a guess? It is a historical fact that the persons that the Kentucky Legislature were trying to prevent from carrying concealed weapons were Negroes, Mulattoes, and Indians. This is not some racial statement, it is a historical fact! If you check Kentucky's Constitution these three were also barred from serving in Kentucky's militia. Since Negroes, Mulattoes, and Indians were already prevented from 'bearing arms' they resorted to carrying 'concealed weapons'- knives, etc. and Kentucky's Legislature changed Section 1, No. 7 to prevent 'persons' from carrying concealed weapons! This is a historical fact! I personally believe that all of us, White, Black, Yellow, Red, Male, Female, all are equally human, with equal natural, inherent and inalienable rights!

I claim absolutely no rights under any Bill of Rights and/or Constitution! That's right, absolutely none, zero, zip nada! None of my rights are derived nor dependant on any Constitution! My rights are natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable, as Kentucky's Bill of Rights states: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned ......" However I do have the reasonable expectation that public officials who have sworn an oath to support said constitutions will not violate any of my natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights! That being the case, none of my rights are dependant upon either a court's or judge's interpretation! They are my rights, I declare them, I exercise them, and I will defend them - period! By doing so over the past ten years I have harmed absoluttely no one!

The right of self-defense is probably one of the most fundamental that a Free Human Being can exercise! If you do not exercise this right, you will more than likely lose all other rights! It is a natural right, it is a absolute right, it is a inherent right, it is a inalienable right! And as James Otis stated, "only idiots or madmen would even consider surrendering or alienating that right." Just because you may have 'entered into society' does do mean that you have given up any essential natural rights! Certainly not the right of self-defense! Looking at your picture, you and your 'friends' exercise this right collectively, for your common defense! This is a natural right of Free Human Being to exercise!
 
sjfreeman,

If I'm reading your post correctly, you have been driving without a license since 1994, and other than serving 27 days in lockup until they got tired of feeding you; you ultimately prevailed? So my question is: What kind of official notice (court judgement or whatever) did you obtain? Or, as in the case of many who choose to assert rights using a technical approach, district courts sometimes just do not pursue...but the person actually has some warrant hanging out there, which the authorities can enforce any time they choose to drop the hammer.
 
hammer4nc,
I do not engage in the commercial activity of 'driving', haven't since June 3, 1993. My 'driver's license' expired in May of 1993, I never bothered to renew it, I have traveled in excess of 2,000,000 miles since 1965 and never had an accident that was my fault. I exercise my right of locomotion, the right to travel, and I've already posted the certified transcript of 'my two minute trial' with Donald and Michael. Donald said that if Mr. Johnson 'wished to have a trial further sanctions would be taken at that point.' I just never 'wished to have a trial'. Judge Donald L. Sanderson, of the 2nd District Court for the County of Hillsdale, Michigan changed his mind about that bench warrant in the spring of 1995, I along with about 25 others were demonstrating in front of the 2nd District Court building for about two weeks, but no one would come out and arrest me. One of the signs that I carried read, "Donald L. Sanderson, you think I need a license to drive, where's your license to practice law?"

You see Michigan's Constitution requires that all judges in court's of record be licensed to practice law, guess what?! I have a letter from the Michigan Supreme Court that there does not exist in the State of Michigan a 'license to practice law'! Their 'license' is their bar number, and the fact that they have been admitted to practice law in a Circuit Court of Michigan. I have a copy of a court case from Kalamazoo, Michigan in which the judge admits that lawyers and therefore judges in the State of Michigan only have a 'de facto' license to practice law. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 513 defines 'de facto' as: "In fact, in deed, actually. this phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional ......." Humm! We have Donald L. Sanderson, the 'de facto' judge telling me that I need a 'driver's license' when he is in violation of Michigan's Constitution!

Anyway, my oldest son was arrested for no operator's license about this time, I went into 2nd District Court to help him with his case, during the course of my son's hearing a Sheriff's deputy entered the courtroom and stood close to me, then another and another and another, finally there were 8 of them! After Donald finished with my son's hearing he spoke up and said , I have a warrant for the arrest of Winston Ward Johnson, he then directed the deputies to arrest me, the one was a SGT, he said, "and you thought that you were above the law!" I looked at him and said, "you've got the guns, what can I do? Do you think you've got enough men with you, or do you need to call for back-up?" I was hauled off to the 'Fillsjail' County jail again! That evening I hand wrote a writ of Habeas Corpus and instructed my wife to file it with the Circuit Court the following day, they tried to tell her that no judge was available to hear my writ and that she would have to file it in Lansing (about 100 miles away) and that it would cost her $250 in filing fees to do so. She insisted, as I had instructed her, that the Hillsdale Circuit Court receive my writ, they did and around 5:30 pm that afternoon two LEO's came to take me to my hearing. Of course, being that I was a dangerous criminal, I was hand-cuffed and shackled for my trip to see Harvey Moes, the Circuit Court Judge!
Judge Moes, read my writ, I also orally presented my case for release and Judge Moes ordered my release! That same Hillsdale County Sheriff's deputy, the SGT was one of the two that brought me to the courtroom that afternoon, he said that he would remove my handcuffs and shackles when they got me back to the jail, Judge Harvey Moes said NO, this man is a free man as of now, remove the shaclkles NOW! I just know that SGT. had to be thinking to himself, how does he do it? As I walked out a free man I said to the SGT., "see ya, have a nice day!" :D god I just love it when a plan comes together! :D
 
Last edited:
Interesting,

Do you have insurance, or are you independently wealthy enough to cover all the damages a vehicle can inflict?
 
Thumper,

There are other proofs of financial responsibility than just insurance, check it out! Back in 1994 when I did my research, bought and read the entire Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, which was no small accomplishment, one section in there states that if you've not had an accident in the past three years you are entitled to apply to I believe it was the Secretary of State for a waiver of the 'requirement' of insurance. I think people would really be shocked if they actually knew what's being done to them under 'color of law'!
Another thing that I found while reading Michigan's Motor Vehicle Code was that if you've had a valid driver's license within the past three years, that had not been revoked or suspended then a 'charge' of no operator's license would not be valid. I pointed this fact out to the assn't prosecutor, No Deal, Neal Brady, his responce was, obviously you've got more time to study the law than I do! Now that makes alot of sense, the assn't prosecutor doesn't even know what the 'law' states! If I remember correctly Neal's face turned slightly red!
 
If Jerry Gee had not resolved this matter as he did, assault charges would have been filed against deputy Ford and a Title 42 lawsuit would have been filed against deputy Ford, Jerry Gee, Monroe County, and the Monroe County Fiscal Court
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like "ignoring the State" to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Hats off to Jerry Gee, Sheriff of Monroe County!
Replies
6
Views
1K
TheeBadOne
T
D
  • Locked
(MN) Conceal carry law raises questions for construction industry
Replies
5
Views
584
zahc
Z
D
  • Locked
Oaths: I do solemnly swear...
Replies
3
Views
677
Zander
Z
S
  • Locked
RKBA Constitutional Provisions / Conceal Carry by State
Replies
7
Views
578
Aguila Blanca
A
E
  • Locked
(CO) If you can own a gun, why can't you carry it?
Replies
4
Views
706
Bob Locke
B
Back
Top