Attorney's views of government abuse
tort or treason?

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

As received...

On Wed, 12/16/09, Bob Hurt wrote:

From: Bob Hurt Subject: [Lawmen: 3426] Attorneys views of government abuse - tort or treason? What will YOU do about it? To: Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2023, 7:30 PM

I thought about this before posting it and nearly decided not to. But I do it because I believe ALL of us have witnessed repeated, continual, engrained abuse of the people by government employees. And we wonder what to do about it. Non attorneys differ from attorneys in that the attorneys generally see the abuse every time the enter a court fracas, and they even more acutely notice it out side of court. Either way, when they take a stand, then they REALLY get abused. So, many, if not most, back off and stop complaining out loud.

But look here. The abuse got so bad and systemic in Florida that the Florida Supreme Court just gave the governor permission to empanel a Statewide Grand Jury to investigate it.

What does that mean to you?

YOU MUST ACT NOW TO BRING THE PERPS TO JUSTICE. NOW, not tomorrow. If you do not, you will get what your lethargy deserves, and some day the hatchet of government abuse will fall on your head.

The below writings will poignantly make this point.

Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511

An attorney writes regarding a request to recommend a young wannabe lawyer for law school:

I do not know the person who wrote the letter below to the Florida Supreme Court.

I forward this to you with one question in mind for you: Assuming there is a factual basis for this man's complaint, do you really want to become a lawyer?

I ask the question because, frankly, after more than 30 years of practicing law, I am still an idealist but also an exceedingly sad, disgusted, feed up, angry, realist. The judges, as a group, are not Guardians of Liberty. Instead, with few exceptions, they are Usurpers, Apologists for Other Govt Usurpers, Unprincipled Wordsmiths, Pseudo Legal Cardsharks, Control Freaks.

An attorney with excellent professional credentials opined that the judges' hypocrisy is so thick one can cut it with a buzz saw, as in, one needs a big buzz saw to cut through it. Their hypocrisy is not a sliver of balsa wood. No, indeed! It is as big as the biggest giant redwood tree. There is an entire army of these big hypocrites sitting on the federal and state benches.

When you earn a law degree and track what these hypocrites pump out, you can detect their bull fecal matter.

I was told by US Navy officers that the best anti-sub weapon is a killer sub. By analogy, the best anti-bad judge weapon is a determined, idealistic, lawyer . . . who is not burnt out and still has the "eye of the tiger", is still in the hunt, fighting for a decisive victory.

But, . . . the uninformed average citizen is strongly inclined to think the judges are right and you, their critic, if you become one, are a nut job. Your fellow man is such a constitutional illiterate he/she does not understand the fighting issues, and, worse, could care less and will not take the time to become informed.

Sadly, I am hard pressed to identify more than a handful of lawyers who have seriously locked cerebral horns with very bad, drunk with power, judges, err, "fudges", as in, they "fudge" the law with their shennanigans under color of law.

Such a lawyer is grossly outnumbered . . . by the bad judges and by all of the simplistic govt agents who will obey the bad judges' unconstitutional orders.

Furthermore, when you join the profession, you become the brunt of jokes and people have a split reaction toward you--they loathe your job status and you, until they need a good lawyer, but the client willing to pay you who also appreciates you is as rare as a snowflake in Death Valley in August.

Baseball is not this nation's favorite past time. Loathing and railing against lawyers is. Prepare yourself for about a dozen verbal rants per year, against you, just because you are a lawyer, mainly from people who, down deep, envy you and wish they, too, were a lawyer.

Prepare yourself for gross irrationality by clients who refuse to cooperate and who stiff arm you and never pay you or who pay you with checks that bounce, if you let them pay you with checks.

Prepare yourself to work up a case for 1-7 years, relying extremely competently on controlling precedent, only to have a judge or a panel of judges inexplicably deviate from the law and rule against you. When that hits your psyche and your wallet, it will--functionally, hit, in effect, your privates with the force of a million angry mules kicking your testicles, simultaneously. When that happens to you . . . and it will, find the gumption and the raw grit to get up and get back into the contest . . . if you can.

Remember what I told you: When I stood in front of the urinal in the last half of my third and final year in law school, during a class break, my fellow male students, many of them, were suddenly discussing, openly, with no hint of remorse or shame, that they were now ready to divorce their wives and were eager to do so, because the wives had served their purpose [worked to pay the bills to get them through law school] and they wanted to shed their wives before they started to make decent money! When I heard that, I asked myself, geeezz, what the hell have you gotten yourself into? Being single, I wish I had a loving warm body to bed down with, to share the burdens and the dreams with, but these sharks were thinking only of themselves, with callous abandonment. I am sure that many of these sharks are now judges and their true character is the same.

The above is one reason I love photography. Photography is totally foreign to those multiple levels of stress, etc.

Despite the above, I will still write you a letter of recommendation for law school.

[Editor Note: I have withheld the author's to avoid retribution]

John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

December 11, 2023

Chief Justice Quince and Associate Justices
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Via Mail, Fax, and e-mail

Re: Your Total Failure to Oversee The Florida Bar

Dear Chief Justices and Associate Justices:

Today I found on the Facebook page of The Florida Bar's President Elect, Mayanne Downs, a bigoted anti-Christian rant in which Ms. Downs' friend says the following:

Scott Sokol I know the extremist evangelical righties will go wild w/ madness passion since 'it's all about THEIR Christmas', but I'm gonna wish all my friends Happy Hannukah (my mom would be happy), Happy Nonica (my brain nods w/ that), and Happy Holidays to all. And my buddy Dan Barrile reminded me to "Drink your Gin & Tonica ...& Smoke your marajuanica" a la Sandler. Holiday Cheers to ALL in a multibelief & non-belief world!

This comes after Bar Governor/President Elect Downs was caught
a) disparaging the Christian faith on her own blog and
b) referring to Governor Crist's judicial appointees as "political hacks" in clear violation of Florida Bar Rule 4-8.2(a).

Ms. Downs is a leftwing nut, and she is so stupid as to brag about it. Let's call this malady the 'Mayanne Downs Syndrome'.

I formally informed you, the Florida Supreme Court, THREE YEARS AGO, in court filings with your human paper shredder, Clerk Tom Hall, that The Florida Bar, which you are by our state constitution to oversee in all regards, was targeting me for "discipline" because of its anti-Christian bias that was offended by my faith-based activism. I REMINDED YOU that The Bar's carrier paid me money damages for having done precisely that back in 1989-1992, with the Supreme Court's participation in that illegal scheme. I now have two federal governmental rulings that completely vindicate what I said about and did to the two corporate giants that filed their SLAPP Bar complaints against me. Your disbarment order of September 25, 2008, is thus proven to be the musings of seven people who are delusional, not according to me but according to the federal government, unless, of course, you can prove to a jury that the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, which have now skewered by Bar complainants, do not exist.

This week I sued in federal court the Florida Supreme Court for its recidivist violation of Florida 's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. You have been served with this complaint, and we already have, above, smoking guns that prove the illegal motivation for what The Bar did to me. Steve Chaykin, the Florida Bar Governor who was my designated reviewer, who suffered from Mayanne Downs Syndrome and who is no longer around to criminally persecute Christians through The Bar, stated publicly on the pages of The Florida Bar News, that people with my religious views could not be allowed to practice law. That's a smoking gun in the public domain!

Here's a serious question: Are you Justices out of your minds? No sane persons, let alone those trained in the law and presumed to understand the rudiments of our federal Constitution, would have allowed this idiotic crap, this anti-Christian regulatory jihad, to go on under their lengthening noses.

Yet this is PRECISELY what you did. You were warned every step of the way, and yet, years later, even Justices Polston and Canady upbraided the Florida Supreme Court for the "abdication of its duty to oversee The Florida Bar." Thus the words of two among corroborate the gist of my federal lawsuit.

I am today DEMANDING that you, the Florida Supreme Court, get off your berobed, self-righteous, indolent duffs and designate some adult person to sit down with me to try to resolve this mess of your own making.

Either you do that, or I destroy your Florida Bar, by all legal, necessary, and proper means.

I'm not the person out of touch with reality. You are.

Sincerely, Jack Thompson

Attorney writes of police abuse

Partial Background regarding me:

  1. Accurate summary of USSC 4th Amendment jurisprudence about "unreasonable search and seizure": In the absence of a warrant for a search based upon probable cause issued by a judge, and in the obsence of objectively reasonable probable cause that a cop can articulate that makes it more probable than not that a person is somehow connected to criminal conduct, and in the absence of an authorizing statute that permits a search, or in the absence of a well recognized, established, judicially created exception to the warrant/PC requirement(s), and in the absence of a well informed, truly voluntary consent to a search, all LEO's [law enforcement officers] have no actual authority to search.

  2. In 2002, one year after 9/11, I was an air show fan with closed camera bags standing on a sidewalk outside the outermost perimeter fence to a small county airport where an airshow open to the public, subject to an admission fee, was being held. I had bought an admission ticket. I never entered the airline passenger terminal, which was 2,000 feet away from me and I never tried to board or get close to an airliner on that day.

  3. On that day there was no well recognized, established, judicially created exception to the warrant/PC requirement for a search of an "air show fan". An "air show fan" is materially different from a ticketed, pre-boarding, airliner passenger inside an airline passenger terminal who manifests intent to board an airliner by putting baggage on the X-ray machine conveyor belt and by walking through the magnetometer.

  4. The cops at this airport, at the request of a civic group that put on the air show to raise money, part of which they gave to the cops, usurped power.

  5. The cops did this by bypassing the judiciary and by expanding the "adminsitrative search exception for pre-boarding airliner passengers" and by applying that to all airshow fans standing on a public sidewalk with vague "large" bags. The cops demanded a "consent" search of such bags as condition for entry to the airshow, not for boarding an airliner.

  6. As an atty and a former prosecutor, I knew what the cops demanded of me was unconstitutional. I knew I had no duty to submit to their usurpation. I knew there they had no warrant, no PC, there was no judge created exception for air show fans, there was no authorizing statute and I refused to give consent, to make a point, hey, the constitution still matters; it did not go down with the Twin Towers.

  7. I asked a 6'6" cop if he had what he needed to search me. He admitted he did not. I told him in that case since he admitted his "request" of me was a mere "request" and not "an order", I refused his request and he should stop blocking my passage to enter and he should stop demanding a "consent" search. I got this cop to admit he did not have any of what I stated in No. 1 above. He admitted that to me--all of it.

  8. Nevertheless, this cop told me I had to obey him because he was my "boss". That was perhaps one of the worse, most counter-productive things he could have told me. [This damn cop even wrote in his official report a lie: He wrote that I asked him if he was the U.S. Constitution and he claimed, in his report, that he told me, yes, he could be the U.S. Constitution if I wanted him to be!!! Ponder that. I, a licensed atty for more than 30 years, know that the Const is a written document and the cop is a human being and the two are materially different. I never asked him if he was the Constitution. I cannot imagine a lawyer asking a cop that stupid question. But, this blue belly bastard attributed that to me in his official report and even stated in his official report, unequivocally, that he told me he could be the U.S. Constitution. How stupid! How immature! How arrogant! This cop even so testified in court . . . and the damn jury loved this guy.]

  9. When I asked him why he thought he was my "boss" he said because he was "a cop".

  10. I told him if he really was a cop, he was a public servant, and he was one of those because they all have public masters, namely, US citizens, and I am one of those, and, until he had anything constitutionally valid to hold over me, he had no authority over me, I was HIS BOSS, and, as HIS BOSS, I told him to back down and leave alone.

  11. My peaceful verbal assertion of my rights angered this cop. He became markedly different and very angry. That blue belly brute bastard govt goon seized me and forced me to the ground and arrested me for resisting him. His arguments and justification:
    A) I stood in an aggressive, "scissor" position with one leg in front of another, preparatory to attack him,
    B) when I moved an arm I intended to attack him,
    C) he had PC since it was after 9/11 at an airport, and
    D) the cop's police department's unwritten search policy was good enough because what they did was "reasonable" to promote public safety.

  12. That SOB told me "to go back". When I simply turned to look where he was pointing he seized me and used my innocent turning movement as his damn pretext for laying his paws on me and stealing from me my liberty, setting me on a long journey to the 9th Circuit, costing me more than $100,000 in lost revenue and out of pocket expenses, only to be told by a panel of 9th Circuit judges that I was not denied "a substantial right". Along the way, a federal magistrate hit me with a $2,500 sanction for "tweaking" the court system and for pursuing my habeas remedy! I took my oath to support the Const seriously. I did what I could, peacefully and legally, to support and to enforce our constitution. Osama, if still alive, some place, is laughing his damn fool head off. Our so called "protectors" are our drunk with power local "oppressors", what I call "the American Taliban."

  13. The damn prosecutor admitted she could find no controlling law and argued, however, that is not a problem because an airshow fan is analogous to a boarding airline passenger. They are NOT.

  14. Multiple lawyers of judges--state and federal, and about 35 judges in total, and multiple prosecutors, to this day, never cited a controlling law and never cited an exception for "air show fans".

  15. Even though the USSC and the CA Supreme Court, for decades, ruled that the judiciary will not tolerate cops bypassing the judiciary and circumventing the 4th's requirements that is all exactly what the damn fudges [judges who fudge the law, the non-Guardians of Liberty, the damn Liberty Thieves, the damn Traitors,] did. Piss on them. They are invited to self-fornicate.

  16. My dad served more than 20 years in the USAF for that quality of Law and Order? For that kind of a "way of life"--when you peaceful assert a right it evaporates and its is morpehed into a liability and turned against you? I ask that question because cops involved in my case, and the prosecutor, openly said or testified that my refusal of a consent search automatically gave the cops PC to search!!! They said that in front of the trial judge, who tolerated it. If I had been the trial judge, I would have called the cops and the prosecutor into chambers, admonished them, demand they tell me why I should not dismiss the case, and, absent a good reason, I would have chewed them out in front of the jury, given all a civic lesson about the great import and key points of the 4th, and I would have then dismissed the case, with prejudice.

  17. It is one thing when cops screw up. It is another thing when mulitiple layers of prosecutors and judges cover up for the cops and commit what is essentially legal fraud and treason, under color of law, and then hide behind their immunities that glosses over and shield them for their frank ururpations. This was a total break down of Checks and Balances. This was not Due Process of Law. Instead, this was naked, bold, ruthless, unprincipled, insufferable, indefensible, cover up for the damn cops--who the civic group paid to violate the 4th Amendment rights of air show fans to keep out food and beverages so their vendors could make more money, all in the guise of promoting "security".

  18. At federal court I listed myself as my own attorney of record. Case was filed in the Northern District of California.


a) Did you have access to your own docket as counsel or party in pro se? Y/N --- YES

b) Were you served by mail your minute orders as counsel or party in pro se? Y/N --- LOWER FEDERAL COURT, NO; NINTH CIRUIT--YES


d) Did you have access to the Index of All Cases? Y/N --- FOR LOWER FEDERAL COURT, YES

e) Did you have access to Index of Judgments/Book of Judgments? Y/N --- I DO NOT KNOW; NEVER TRIED TO FIND OUT


g) What was the typical manner in which orders/judgment were verified (signed) by judges? (Please provide short description of problems in this area, if any.) -- TYPED SIGNATURE OR, SOMETIMES, HAND WRITTEN SIGNATURES, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT

h) What was the typical manner of attestation by clerks? (Certificate of Service and Notice of Entry/ Proof of Service, etc, Please provide short description of problems, if any.) --- WHAT YOU DESCRIBE--CofS and NoE.

QUESTION: Do you think I am mentally prepared and willing to shoot to kill cops, etc. who continue to usurp power, if necessary, to enforce my rights, when the judges fail to enforce them?

ANSWER: What do you think? What do you think when the fudges shuffle the law like a card shark shuffles a deck?

The Taliban did not do the above to me. Al-Qaeda did not do the above to me. Govts' agents, all paid for by taxpayers [suckers] did this, all under color of law.

For all of my fellow citizens who laid down on their rights, who created an atomosphere that gave these cops, these prosecutors, these judges, a virtual green light to wipe their ass with the US Constitution, they too are invited by me to self-fornicate.

We need "regime change" at home.

Citizens need to function as citizens. They need to get snarly with govts' usurping agents. They need to stop being unduly docile and compliant with usurpations.

Immunity for govts' agents is judicially created junk law. It needs to be excised from the real law.

Citizens need to re-discover their love for liberty. Rights on the law book page are not self-enforceable. Only guts, determination, courage, perserverance, and, if necessary, blood letting, will enforce them against govts' agents and a society hostile to them.



When I reflect that I in the early 1960's was willing to join the US Marine Corps and be the Marine who put a bullet between Fidel Castro's eyes, I am somewhat amazed that I wrote what I did above. I changed only in that I learned more. I am still loyal to the idea of "America", but I distrust and despise large aspects of our government and large parts of what its agents do and say. I speak out as a form of "patriotism" because I am arrogant enough to believe that my dissent and criticisms are meritorious. I changed only in the sense that I learned more, grew older, and changed my opinions and see this nation [a gaggle rushing toward death and destruction] anew. I did not abandon the country. The govts' agents usurped and committed treason against the nation, We the People, and, along the way, little ol'e me.

I purposefully blind copied some govt employees to try to sensitize them as to how tough it is to be a citizen nowdays.

This is part of why I champion an unbroken bond between the US Military Community and the US Civilian Community, united and joined in pursuing one goal: functioning with fidelity to the US Constitution's commands, its text, as written, not as interpreted away by govts' agents.

I champion this because I fear the odds are high there will be civil war between the US Military and the Militia. That fear is not hyerbole.

-- Peter Mancus

Whether the above abuses constitute treason.


1. There were plenty of ordinary common as dirt air show fans around, all of whom are constitutional illiterates who just observed, and went about their business.

2. The proscecution even called two of them--two older gents, misguided super citizens, to testify against me. One was upset that I verbally challenged the cop's authority and opined that that mere verbal challenge made me a bad person. The other was, in context, supportive of me because he said I merely turned as if I was going to look back, where the cop told me to go, which was true, in the process of just turning my upper torso to look where the cop pointed, the damn cop construed that as if I was getting ready to assault him. That SOB.

3. People can't figure out the OJ Simpson verdict. Well, I was a prosecutor in Southern CA. As such, I had cop friends who had LA cop and LA sheriff friends. My local cop friends told me that their LA cops/sheriff friends toward them that when they stopped a car full of Black or Latino young males their standard practice was to approach the car, key it [ruin the paint job], to "show dominance" and to goad the occupants into a rash act so they could murder them under color of law. How long would you tolerate that cop attitude?

4. The cop who arrested me told me periodically for about 45 minutes, referring to himself, "This is my country. You are in my country. When you are here you play by my rules. That is my rule. If you don't like it, get out. That, too, is my rule." He said that, or something similar, over and over . . . with a big smile as he looked at me, his trophy arrest. He denied saying any such thing in court, even though he said it numerous times as we waited for a patrol car to come get me, a long wait because of the big crowd. In the interim, I had hand cuffs on me for about two hours, so damn tight they crushed flesh down to the bone, cutting off circulation. The jailer who took them off said my hands were purple. I had urged several cops before to loosen the damn cuffs. They refused to do so, even though they knew I was a lawyer with no criminal record and no warrants. Those collective and individual bastards knew exactly what they were doing--dispensing their damn street justice because I had the audacity to question a cop about his authority and tell him-correctly--that he was not my damn boss merely because he was a cop.

5. I strongly disagree with Wolfgram. That cop's conduct amounted to treason. Nothing in the law supported what he did. Just look at what he did and how it affects my orientation. I would not shed a tear if I was told a criminal killed that cop. Ditto the prosecutor. Ditto the judges.

6. It is painful to recall these events and communicate them. It is a fire in the mind that burns white hot with rage, contempt, disgust. The fing fudges white washed all of this to ingratiate themselves to the damn cops and to circumvent the 4th Amendment. Even when I quoted to them controlling holdings from their own case precedents they still used their intellect to flim flam and razzle dazzle and gut the law. One CA Supreme Court decision even held that the search rule for ticketed boarding airline passengers inside an airline terminal CANNOT BE EXPANDED AND APPLIED TO OTHERS. I RELIED UPON THAT PRECEDENT. THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAID ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING--ALL BEFORE MY ARREST. THE COURTS EVEN HELD THAT IT IS INTOLERABLE TO MORPH A PEACEFUL ASSERTION OF A RIGHT INTO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST. BUT, IN MY CASE, IT DID NOT MATTER. THE COPS VIOLATED ALL OF THAT, THE PROSECUTORS DID THE SAME, AND THE DAM LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL JUDGES IGNOred ALL OF THAT LAW IN MY FAVOR. I WAS WORSE OFF KNOWING THE LAW AND RELYING UPON IT. I WAS DENIED "DUE PROCESS OF LAW". THEY SHUFFLED THE LAW LIKE A CARD SHARK SHUFFLES A DECK AND THEY GAVE ME ONLY "THE PROCESS" THEY ARBITRARILY THOUGHT I WAS "DUE", ALL CALCULATED TO ENGINEER A GUILTY VERDICT BROUGHT BACK BY A BUNCH OF CONSITUTIONALLY ILLITERATE JURORS.

7. If one half million Communist Chinese invaded that county in CA, I'd do nothing to stop them from butchering the power structure in that damn CA county. Sometimes a common enemy can provide a useful function.

8. Do cops who TESTILIE -- commit perjury? I am convinced many of them function as professional perjurers, fudging the truth.

9. Wolfgram is 100% correct about what the judiciary has done to the right to petition and immunity has got to go. But, I doubt that those in power will voluntarily reform and surrender that perceived advantage. Thus, I think the odds are high that while a peaceful, rational, resolution of these big issues is certainly strongly preferable and the civilized way to resolve them, those in power will not yield; therefore, we either tolerate this and fall victim to it, one by one, or we do what needs to be done, exactly as JFK opined: THOSE WHO MAKE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE MAKE VIOLENCE INVEVITABLE [parapharased]. JFK was correct on that point.

10. I was recently looking at some pictures I took of a dirty, beared, unkempt, WWII US airborne historical re-enactor, with a M-1 Garand rifle slung over his shoulder, and I thought A) and the judges want to disarm the millions who fought for freedom who are still alive, and B) most of those combat vets are willing to go along with that, and C) that re-enactor is dressed up as a warrior but what does he really think--what is really between his ears, behind his breastbone?, and D) frankly, since I expect it is going to happen, one way or another, I look forward to either of two days: preferably, when those in power renounce the immunity doctrine and the judicial supremacy doctrine or, second, with zeal, the day armed Americans stop treating their firearms as recreational sticks and use them as Liberty's Teeth, just as the Minutemen did, damn the consequences. Wolfgram is repealed by my willingness to be so confrontational, but, his no violence approach needs the other paddle, that seriously entertains result to violence; otherwise, he is like a guy in a canoe who paddles on just one side. I've never done it that way but I suspect you end up just going in a circle, especially if you don't change the angle of the oar in the water. The oppressor will oppressed until they met resistance. Hell, Obama at Olso articulated "just war". If we are not justified in demanding a return to constitutionalism [objeying its commands, as written, not as interpreted away by govt's agents], I do not know what is "a just war". Per our July 4th Declaration, it would be just. Wolfgram has admitted modern Americans have more cause to regel than the 1776 colonials did, yet he opposes violence. I LOATHE violence, but I see the need for it, I want to feel FREE in my lifetime, and it is worth risking my life to achieve that feeling because I do not feel free now and I loathe that feeling.

11. A brand new attorney friend told me, when I asked him, do you feel "free", said, "No." Think about that. He busts his gut to earn a law degree. He was born and raised here, and he does not feel free.

12. I say: Put the constitutional collar back on the damn govt and its agents, and, if they resist or twist, if you have to break their neck to get them to wear the damn collar, break it. Better that collar on their neck that their chains on yours and mine.

13. Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me Liberty or give me death.", but, Patton said it even better, "Don't die for your country. Kill the enemy. Kill that SOB. Make him die for his. My vision of America exist where there is no Judicial Supremacy and where Govts agents do not have immunity for their wrong-doing. If Govt's agents want to fight for their vision of America, let them. Since they cheat and cover up for one another under color of law, they are liars, traitors, and deserve a serious comeuppance. Since they have rigged the system so heavily in their favor they make a resort to lethal force look attractive, despite the horrific problems arising from that option.

14. Prediction: Wolfgram will not rail against resort to violence . . . and the usurpers will thank him for pointing out all of those pitfalls, and the sheeple will continue to function as same, and the usurpers will contract Liberty more and more and the judges will continue to pump out plausible rationalizations for why another level of freedom had to be gutted to promote security.

15. One thing is an undisputed fact: There is not a documented instance in history of a dead usurper usurping again.

-- Peter Mancus

----- Original Message -----

From: "John Wolfgram"
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2023 1:35:24 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: RE: Peter's answer to Joseph's questions, and explanation of cop abuse

Bob, you cannot bootstrap ordinary violations of constitutional rights or usurpations into "violations of oath" and "therefore Treason". Treason is a constitutionally defined term and ought not be misused. Treason is when a military psychatrist sworn to support the Constitution and obey the commander in chief, adheres to and aid and abets the enemy while claiming a religious duty to gun down thirty fellow soldiers about to embark to the frontlines. If they do not charge that son of a bitch with treason, and put him in front of a firing squad, I will never know why. But it is not for ordinary violation of constitutional duty. See Art. III, Sec. 3 US Const.


Further to the subject of treason

1. A "civil rights violation" is a big deal--an enormous big deal, bigger than the "big ditch", the Grand Canyon, if you are the person who experienced the wound.

2. I agree with Wolfgram, but only in a limited way, to a certain level.

3. Simultlaneously, I also agree with the words one of Shakespeare's character said in one of his plays, "He who mocks the scar never felt the wound."

4. When a cop, or any govt agent, persists with flaunting this nation's well established laws, doing serious harm, ururping power, they deny that person Due Process of Law, making it increasingly difficult to believe that this nation, and its misleadership, really gives a damn about such things as Due Process of Law. Doing anything that gives birth to that idea does indeed give aid and comfort to this nation's enemies because it motivates this nation's citizens to refrain from defending this nation's government from a foreign attack.

5. I cannot think of a more effective way to kill a nation's citizen's loyalty to the nation and to its government/leadership, than by abusing its citizens to the point that they so despise the damn home grown usurpers that they want regime change at just about any price, and, in that since, since sheeple continue to elect them and re-elect them, perhaps an invasion by a hostile third party that would remove [euphenism for kill] the usurpers has a certain limited appeal. Perhaps then most people would unite against the common foe and we could start over, this time being certain to eradicate Immunity and Judicial Supremacy from the new legal structure.

6. I might be mistaken but I think I recall accurately a USSC decision about 20-30 years old where the majority held that the dollar value for a civil rights violation is zero. If my memory is correct, that holding amazes me. What's it all about, Alfie? . . . if "rights" have zero value?

7. I was under the impression that things of no value tend to be thrown away.

8. For those of us who are collectors, are the objects we collect more valuable than our rights? Our Liberty? Due Process of Law?

9. We spend billions/trillions on "defense" and "security" to protect our way of life, our rights, which, if I am correct, our USSC has held have no value in terms of money! King George, III wanted a pittance compared to what Washington, DC and the state/local tax man want.

10. We are figuratively sodomized daily with abandonment by our callous as cold steel bastard misleaders.

-- Peter Mancus

----- Original Message -----

From: "John Wolfgram"
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2023 3:27:31 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: RE: Peter's answer to Joseph's queations, and explanation of cop abuse

In response to Peter's disagreement with me, consider the difference between treason, when the Nation is the victim, and "treason" when Peter is the victim, living to tell of his victimization. If you say that every time a person is wronged under color of law and the wrong doer protected by color of law, it is treason, you have reduced the crime of Treason to nothing more than a civil rights violation, and like in the French Revolution, the guillitine will become awfully busy for slight reason.

I say again: Treason is a very special crime. Keep it so.


And further

Mr. Hurt,
1.You are well reasoned in my judgment.

2.Better than the Mafia, I would prefer to hand these public serpents over to the Apaches of the 1800's. [Kidding.] I would be content to give them a legitimate trial with full Due Process of Law and, if they were found guilty, lock them up for a long time or execute them. I would even be willing to do the necessary acts for execution. A certain message needs to be sent, namely, constitutional torts and treason will not be tolerated.

-- Peter Mancus

And yet further

Below is text that I posted to my Internet site to accompany the attached JPEG picture, which can be found in the Non-Aviation Galleries in the Historical Re-Enactors Gallery.

This is part of my effort to revive history, to make history relevant, to put it in context with perspective, to stimulate thinking anew, to tie it to constitutionalism, and to avoid a civil war.

Please do three things: Read; forward; and go to the site and post your own comments.

-- Peter Mancus

Look at the rifle slung on this U.S. Army World War II soldier re-enactor's shoulder. Does sight of that rifle make your nervous? Uncomfortable? Is that rifle a bad gun? Would it be a "bad gun" if it was slung over the shoulder of a Nazi soldier? An Imperial Japanese Army soldier? A Soviet Army soldier? Would it be a "good gun" if an American cop had it? Precisely how can an inamiate object made of wood and metal be "good" or "bad"?

Is there a single documented case in the entire history of the world were a firearm
A) formed the intent to commit an "assault",
B) loaded itself,
C) aimed itself, and
D) pulled its own trigger?

If not, does one have to suffer from some kind of mental illness to pejoratively call firearms "assault weapons"? In the alternative, do the people who call firearms "assault weapons" have an agenda? Are these people Liberty Thieves? Freedom Haters? Tyrant Wannabees? Useful Idiots for Tyrant Wannabees? Control Freaks? Usurpers?

Why should any reasonably constituted person obey or support anyone so mentally ill that they would call a non-living object incapable of forming an intent to commit an assault "an assault weapon"?

Why should any reasonably constituted person obey or support anyone with an agenda that should set off alarm bells?

Question: What is the only thing a firearm can do without human intervention?

Answer: Self-destruct via a mechanism called "rust" [which is the opposite of commiting an "assault".]

Assuming the man in this picture was a real American soldier who had come off a battlefield [or was ready to go into battle to protect "our way of life",] what do you think he would--or should--tell a judge or a panel of judges or Congress critters or state lawmakers or a local cop, if those public servants told him, in that situation, when he got home and was an ordinary civilian, or when he retired honorably from the US Armed Forces, he had no individual right to a firearm and governments' agents could legally defang [disarm] him? And such officials would make it a crime for him to buy a gun? Would make it a crime for him to have a gun for lawful self-defense? Defense of others? Defense of community? Defense of the nation?

I am positive that what I will write next will infuriate many and will cause some to experience a mental vapor lock. Nevertheless, I will write it regardless.

If only as a matter of a "Dirty Harry" type fantasy, my preference would be for our combat vets [ex-military with combat experience, our activde duty Armed Forces service members, and ordinary armed civilians to tell the Usurpers, the Liberty Thieves, the Freedom Haters, the Control Freaks, the Self-Anointed Elitists, the Tyrant Wannabees, and their Useful Idiots, "Hell no! If you want to disarm me, you have to take my gun by the hot barrel first."

Seriously, if these usurpers persisted, and acted in such a way that they could not be given a legitimate, full fledge, trial, with all of the earmarks of a meaningful Due Process of Law, on a charge of treason, I would experience great comfort if our combat vets [discharged or active duty] and/or if ordinary armed Amercian civilians became proactive and, if necessary, to stop our free fall toward tyranny, used their firearms as Liberty's Teeth to put an end to usurpations and to restore constitutionalism, namely, a return to functioning with fidelity to the U.S. Constitution's text's commands, as written, not as interpreted away by judges who fudge on the law who no longer function as Guardians of Liberty.

If the usurpers would not yield to a show of armed resistance to their usurpations, if they would not put back on their necks their constitutional collars, if they would not remain tied down by the chains of the constitution's commands, I would experience further comfort if the U.S. Armed Forces, American combat vets, and armed ordinary citizens removed from power the Usurpers and incarcerated them, and, if the usurpers did not peacefully yield to that outcome, I am receptive to the use of lethal force against the Usurpers to send a message:
A) Public Servants who morph into functioning as Public Serpents will no longer be tolerated;
B) every word in the U.S. Constitution's text has importance and an established definition;
C) every definition has meaning;
D) every meaning has consequences;
E) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." has consequences;
F) the armed American citizenry is the world's largest, potentially most lethal and effective, latent guerrilla force;
G) only a damn fool would stir up that citizenry to take up arms;
H) before you can occupy and impose tyranny in the U.S. you must first disarm Americans;
I) that will never happen; and
J) usurpations have consequences.

The U.S. World War II generation, with its allies, won World War II. That war ended with GIs occupying Berlin and Tokyo. That generation earned that accomplishment, to their credit; however, after they won that war they failed to exercise adequate citizen oversight control over their home grown Usurpers and they lost the Battle for Constitutionalism at home. They not only lost that war they helped to lose it by
A) electing and re-electing public serpents who wipe their ass with the U.S. Constitution and
B) by not exercising oversight control over public serpents who they elect and re-elect and who they obey, willy-nilly.

America's combat vets and active duty Armed Forces have not told these public servants: you put a gun in my hand in World War II, during the Korean War, during the Vietnam War, during Bosnia, during the Caribbean adventures, during the invasion of Panama, during Desert Storm I, during the Iraqi occupation, and for Afghanistan. You told me, here's a gun; fight; kill the enemy, but, now, you bastards, you bitches, you serpents, your traitors, you judicial scumbags, you blue belly cop bastards, all of you who give lip service to the "Rule of Law" and to our veterans and fighting men and women, you dare to tell us now that we are civilians, taxpayers, home owners, and voters, you have lawful authority to defang us, to make us totally dependent on you to protect our mortal existence on Earth. Hell no! Rights codified in the Constitution are not self-enforceable, but, I breathe life into them. My rifle speaks for me. Bang. And the traitor is dispatched.

As unpleasant, as snarly, and as problem filled as that scenario is, it is an undisputed fact that a dead usurper never rose from the dead, never usurped again, some usurpers are so flagrant and so repetitive and so unrepetant they are virtually begging to be killed, there is evil in the world, and traitors do not need to be suffered and should not be suffered.

From that perspective, I have serious issues with our combat vets, our active duty Armed Forces, and most American civilians. Point: Reasonably constituted people comprehend hostility when a foreign power crosses an international border with arms to subjucate a defeated nation, but many such people do not comprehend that home grown traitors wage aggression with words, with language, with twisted concepts, and by claiming they uphold the law the most when they violate it the most, and, when they do that, they shuffle laws like a card shark shuffles a deck, e.g., "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means, allegedly, that ordinary American citizens have no right to any firearm or that government and its agents may impose "reasonable limits" on a "right" that "shall not be infringed." Well, logically, even God cannot impose "reasonable limits" against a right that "shall not be infringed."

There is a material difference between a "right" and a "privilege". To "permit" is to "control". Control is the antithesis of liberty. "Gun control" never disarmed an armed criminal. "Gun control" is "people control" in the guise of "crime control".

The local news said last night that the State of California spent $43 million dollars last year to pay for body guards for six senior State of California officials! That is approximately $7 million dollars per individual. Those individuals were instrumentall in running this state, the so-called "Golden State" into the ground, financially, and they have the audacity to trigger another $43 million in red ink to protect them! These senior officials hate the Second Amendment and they hate the concept of an armed citizenry. They are flaming hypocrites. They think their hides are special and are worth $43 million in annual bodyguard proctection. No wonder. By setting themselves up as Self-Annointed Elitists, above and agaisnt the U.S. Constitution and We the People, they made many enemies for themselves.

A compelling argument can be made that the U.S. went way out of its way to send its Armed Forces to Iraq to pull down from power Saddam. There are a lot of public serpents in this nation that need to be pulled down from power [by the vote, by impeachment, by public rebuke, and, if necessary, by a rope or by a bullet.

This is not merely a matter of a difference of opinion. This is a matter of constitutional text and constitutionalism, namely, obeying our Constitution's text, as written. Why? Because A) that is what the Framers and the Ratifiers agreed to, B) our Constitution declares it is the Supreme Law of the Land, C) its commands are good ones, and D) the problems do not start with our Constitution's text; instead, they start with our officials' deviations from that text and citizens' constitutional ignorance and willingness to submit to public serpents' usurpations.

For advance study, read (1) Harvard Law School graduate Edwin Vieira, Jr.'s "Constitutional 'Homeland Security' Volume 1: The Nation in Arms; (2) attorney John Wolfgram's "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition" [available for free on the Internet]; and (3) Larry D. Kramer's [Dean, Stanford Law School], "The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review."

Americans do not need to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to find Talibans. The United States is plagued with home grown American Talibans, many of whom hold an elected or an appointed government job. These people function as domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution.

There are more domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution than there are foreign ones. These domestic ones are worse than the foreign ones. They are worse because they are already here, they hold positions of high public trust, they have abused that public trust by their usurpations, they have morphed into public serpents, they have committed treason with abandonment, they are unrepentant, they are working to accomplish their unconstitutional agenda, they are an enemy within the gates, they are clever, they are disengenuous sworn oath violators, and they are heretics.

The core essence of Talibanism is twisting a decent or good concept [e.g., the Koran, the Bible, and/or the U.S. Constitution] beyond recognition to promote an uncivilized and unlawful agenda, for selfish, indefensible reasons, by means of ruthlelss, unprincipled, force.

In the United States, the real battle is not between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, government agents and citizens. The real battle is between Constitutionalists and the Anti-Constitutionalists.

Do not be surprised if the United States implodes. The Constitutionalists' patience and tolerance for the Anti-Constitutionalists' usurpations is not unlimited.

The United States is currently like a giant oak tree, but it is dead on the inside. It is vulnerable to catching fire or to simply falling down. Why? Because most of its citizens have lost their love of liberty, prefer comfort and "security" to liberty, and are so docile they are willing to step into cattle cars and be hauled off to detention centers or worse. Some citizens, however, are willing to fight and will fight.


Questions: Do you have the courage to defy usurpations? To publicly rebuke usurpers? To demand that your rights be upheld? To use lethal force, if necessary, to enforce your rights? To obey the Constitution's text and commands, as written? To renounce your usurpations? To embrace a return to constitutionalism?

-- Peter J. Mancus, Attorney at Law; Owner, Cloud 9 Photography,

NOTICE: Presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel related
AntiShyster MagazineVideo
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generaly presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commecial enterprise and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct; use the service in a way that harms us or anyone connected with or whose work is presented; damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site) or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.
All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2023
All Rights Reserved