Saturday, June 30, 2012


California: Anti-Gun Bills, Including an Attack on Many Semi-Automatic Firearms, to be Heard Early Next Week DURING Holiday week to avoid or reduce attention!

Contact your state Legislators immediately!

If you think it is hard to own and possess a semi-automatic firearm in California now, Senate Bill 249, if enacted, would ban the ownership and possession of AR-15s and other magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms that currently use "bullet buttons" or other tools to restrict the removal of the magazine. This anti-gun bill would also authorize civil and criminal penalties for possessing a "conversion kit!" 

Senate Bill 249 was amended from an agriculture bill to a serious anti-gun bill to eliminate the ownership and possession of most semi-automatic firearms by law-abiding Californians. SB 249, introduced by state Senator Leland Yee (D-8), would restrict any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring or possessing magazine release components in semi-auto firearms (bullet button, etc).

But this nonsensical bill does not stop there in trying to eliminate semi-automatic firearms in California. SB 249 would make the possession of a "conversion kit" a public nuisance, authorize civil and criminal penalties and require surrendering the conversion kit. According to this bill, a conversion kit is any combination of parts that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, are designed and intended to convert that firearm into an “assault weapon” as defined in the bill.

This bill is currently being amended AGAIN and no one is clear on what amended language will ultimately be voted on for SB 249. Regardless of what this bill looks like in the end, SB 249 is a pure anti-gun bill and MUST be OPPOSED.

SB 249 is expected to be heard and voted on next Tuesday, July 3 in the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety. This is also the deadline date for ALL legislation to pass or fail in the state Senate and Assembly policy committees for the 2012 legislative session. The state Assembly Committee on Public Safety needs to hear from ALL of California’s gun owners and sportsmen urging them to OPPOSE SB 249. Contact information for the Committee members can be found here. Senator Yee and his staff also need to hear from California gun owners expressing their outrage that the Senator would suggest such a bill and urge him to pull SB 249 from the agenda. Senator Yee and his staff can be reached at 916-651-4008 and by e-mail here or at Senator. .

California has over 950 firearm laws on its books and criminals do not respect any of them. California Legislators think that adding more laws will reduce criminal activity, but 950 firearm laws later, criminals are still not respecting California law. Please urge the members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety to protect the Second Amendment rights of California’s law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen and OPPOSE SB 249.

Also on Tuesday, the state Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear two anti-gun bills: Assembly Bill 2549

and Assembly Bill 2460.

AB 2549 would allow only a law enforcement officer who has been honorably retired to request to retain their personally owned and regulated firearms. If an officer should leave for any other reason their personally owned regulated firearms will be confiscated and/or surrendered for disposal. The NRA is opposed to confiscation of firearms and this will only lead to further legislation trying to confiscate firearms for whatever reason anti-gun extremists can think of to use.

AB 2460, introduced by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-9), would ban law enforcement officers from transferring handguns that aren’t on California’s approved “roster” to anyone but law enforcement officers. Currently, California law allows for the transfer of firearms that are not on the approved "roster" to be transferred to law-abiding civilians. These transfers must go through a licensed firearms dealer and are only transferred when the new civilian owner has passed a criminal background check.

Please contact members of the state Senate Committee on Public Safety and urge them to OPPOSE AB 2549 and AB 2460. Committee member contact information can be found here.

On Tuesday, Senate Bill 1315 failed in the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety. Unfortunately, it has been approved to be reconsidered by the same committee and will also be heard next Tuesday, July 3. SB 1315, introduced by anti-gun extremist state Senator Kevin de León (D-22), is just a stepping stone to completely destroying California’s firearm preemption law. Firearm preemption laws are in place to standardize firearm laws across the state. This critical law keeps law-abiding gun owners from being placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don`t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.

Please contact members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety and urge them to AGAIN OPPOSE SB 1315. Contact information for the Committee can be found here.

Lastly, the state Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife also failed to pass anti-hunting bill, Senate Bill 1221. Unfortunately, this Committee also approved to reconsider this bill next Monday. SB 1221, introduced by state Senator Ted Lieu (D-28), would ban hunting bears and bobcats with dogs. Hunting with dogs is a tradition that continues to be practiced across the country. Many dog breeds with select characteristics for hunting can be traced back for thousands of years. Seventeen states allow bear hunting with dogs. The use of hounds for hunting has never been shown to have an adverse impact on wildlife numbers. Biologists and other wildlife experts determine regulations and bag limits, just as they do with other hunting seasons.

Please contact the members of the state Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife and urge them to AGAIN OPPOSE SB 1221. Contact information for the Committee members can be found here.

Don’t forget to forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners in California asking them to contact members of the above state Assembly and Senate committees, urging them to OPPOSE SB 249, AB 2549, AB 2460, SB 1315 and SB 1221.

This alert is posted to California: Anti-Gun Bills, Including an Attack on Many Semi-Automatic Firearms, to be Heard Early Next Week


The attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”
As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”
Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue –Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether nominated or not.”
“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”
“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.
Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.”
Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.
For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.
Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.
The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.
Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.
The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.
Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.
The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.
Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.
The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.
Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.
WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:
On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.
The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.
The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.
Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.
“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.
But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.
“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.
Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”
“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”
Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.
“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”
He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.
“It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.”


Be it known, that the undersigned sovereign states do hereby declare our intent to remove ourselves from the union known as the United States of America.

Reason 1. You have infringed on the individual rights of the citizens of these states undersigned.

Reason 2. You have infringed on the personal property rights of these individual citizens of these states undersigned contrary to the constitution.

Reason 3. You have infringed on the free exercise of religion of the individual citizens of these states undersigned contrary to the constitution.

Reason 4. You have infringed on the rights of the citizens of these states undersigned, to be safe from criminals acting illegally according to your own laws upon your own books contrary to the constitution.

Reason 5. You have enacted laws contrary to the rights of natures law, infringing upon these states, costs unsustainable to the citizens of these states undersigned.

Reason 6. You have become utterly corrupt and no longer can be trusted with the general administration of the governance of the citizens of these states undersigned.

You have become a stench in our nostrils and we wish to no longer be part of this union of states and wish to part and go our own way. Your corruption has caused us much anguish and we no longer wish to contribute to your self serving desires for oligarchical control over the citizens of these states undersigned. We wish you fare well in your future without us, and therefore declare our intent to become independent from you.

The undersigned representatives of the citizens of the sovereign states do hereby sign seal and pledge.


Rule 44. Rehearing 1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. 

The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. 

The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. 

A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. 

2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. 

The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. 

The petition is not subject to oral argument. 

3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response. 

4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule. 5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing. 6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. 

A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk’s letter will be deemed timely.



Has he already agreed with Egypt's new  Moslem Brotherhood president Morsi to free the "blind mullah" condemned to life in prison for the first (failed) New York Trade center bombing? Otherwise, why would this be the FIRST public ACTION Morsi declares as an aim of his presidency?

Obama has senior Moslem Brotherhood activists operating OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE! So Morsi has an inside line and Egypt was forced by Obama to declare Morsi the  new president OR lose billions of American aid dollars if the DARED OPPOSE the  Moslem Brotherhood!

This video shows what to expect if Obama gets back in the White house and allows the Moslem Brotherhood (as he has promised them) to IMPOSE Islamic Sharia law and customs - after they help him back into power.


The Value of American Citizenship ’..Failing to defend the rights and interests of the citizenry is an inappropriate dereliction of duty on the part of our Supreme Court’

Fast & Furious on radar in March 2009! (Several videos)

Turning ObamaCare's Lemons into Federalist Lemonade In the long run, conservatives may have won more than they lost.  The court strengthened (click here) federalism by limiting the federal government's ability to coerce the states and establishing principled limits to the scope of the Commerce Clause.  These legal victories will remain in place long after the political branches repeal ObamaCare

The Supreme Court ruling and any ruling can be challenged within 30 days of the release of its decision..26 states & their AGs that were party 2 OC lawsuit, can do this

Report of Investigation Fast & Furious: The Path to the White House:


John Roberts' cocktail party..'ObamaCare will by 2014 force all 50 states into a suicide pact of economic bankruptcy with itself'

Christians Under Siege From Islamists Across Muslim World…

Alfonzo Rachel: Examining Black Loyalty to Dems


Romney Vision on Health Care: Tax Breaks and Competition


15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America


SCOTUS Got it Wrong… Again

Palin: Congress Should 'Rescind' ObamaCare Mandate Tax

The Day After: Glenn rallies the troops; recaps 3.5 years of Obama’s lies – Glenn Beck


The Dream of Freedom Is Over: SCOTUS Says You’re No Longer Free..These 9 People Just Told You To Take Your Medicine


Top Lawyer Arguing v ObamaCare Says Dems Committed “Major Fraud” By Not Honestly Representing OC As Massive New Tax


America Is NOW A Socialist Police State: We are about to see a revolution in America.  It is crystal clear that Obama has delivered on his promise to “fundamentally CHANGE America”..changed us from a free constitutional republic to a tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country “wanna-be” almost overnight.  The SCOTUS made the transformation complete by not striking down ObamaCare


The Pelican Brief with a Twist: ‘Who occupies the White House? Could it be that Chief Justice Roberts, through threat or duress, or some other knowledge or circumstance was compelled to make this decision in the same manner we now know the 2008 bailout decision was made - by the threat of domestic economic Armageddon? Economic collapse is on the horizon, although most refuse to believe that financial Armageddon is a certainty. This, despite the unsustainable growth of our debt. And what about all of those Executive Orders? How about the passage of a bill that defines all of the U.S. as a battleground?  How about the 450 million rounds of ammunition ordered by DHS? The bullet proof booths, the VIPER teams, the TSA, and so on. What about the most recent Executive Order, signed by Obama this week, that places the U.S. in a state of national emergency?

Justice Roberts May Have Done Us a Big Favor..’Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court.. Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledge that he broke a promise, and raised taxes.. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal ObamaCare and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future’

The Pelican Brief with a twist: ‘Could it be that Chief Justice Roberts, through threat or duress, or some other knowledge or circumstance was compelled to make this decision in the same manner we now know the 2008 bailout decision was made - by the threat of domestic economic Armageddon? Economic collapse is on the horizon, although most refuse to believe that financial Armageddon is a certainty. This, despite the unsustainable growth of our debt. And what about all of those Executive Orders? How about the passage of a bill that defines all of the U.S. as a battleground?  How about the 450 million rounds of ammunition ordered by DHS? The bullet proof booths, the VIPER teams, the TSA, and so on. What about the most recent Executive Order, signed by Obama this week, that places the U.S. in a state of national emergency?

Rush: 'Freedom just met its death panel'

Nullified: Obama Says It’s Not a Tax Increase – Roberts Says It Is

Elected Officials Should Have to Pass a Test on the Constitution before Running for Office

The Day The Constitution Died - Michael Connelly-Constitutional Attorney

White House  Website Still Says Individual Mandate Not A Tax (thus illegal)!?

Palin: OC Ruling “A Harbinger Of Things To Come” From Obama

Gingrich: Obamacare Repeal 'Defining Issue of Fall Campaign'..“This ruling could go down as a major mistake by Roberts or as an extraordinarily clever move and we won’t know for a long time which it is. He clearly has upheld the law, which must make Obama and his supporters happy, but on the other hand, he’s upheld the law on the worst possible grounds for them.”

Roberts forces us to deal with health care politically:

Elected Officials Should Have to Pass a Test on the Constitution before Running for Office

Transparency, Hypocrisy, Executive Obama DOESN'T Pass the Straight Face Test

We The People Have To Fight And Win..'..Those of us who took an oath to “defend and protect the Constitution (and America) against all enemies foreign and domestic” will remember it had no expiration date'

Mark Levin: The Supreme Court DID NOT limit the reach of the commerce clause

Hat tip Netty

Friday, June 29, 2012


Alan note: posted as received and as educational on the rights of Sheriffs everywhere. We know little about Delaware so defer in our opinion to the opinion and viewpoint of the author, upset and angry though it appears to be.  We report, you decide.

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden = Treason.
Mark S. McGrew
June 27, 2012

Author’s note: If any of the links in this article do not work, please copy the phrase in (parenthesis) and paste into the search window.
The Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Beau Biden has a very good reason to want to take away the powers of arrest from the sheriffs in Delaware: FEAR.

            Absolute fear is the motivation. The Attorney General and a host of Delaware politicians and government employees are terrified of one lone sheriff.

            Sheriff Jeffrey Christopher believes that sheriffs do have the power to arrest and always have had that power. Here, you will learn that he is correct.
            New Castle County Sheriff Trinidad Navarro is a liar, a coward and a traitor.
            Kent County Sheriff Norman Wood is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

            Georgetown Delaware Chief of Police William Topping is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

            Any other government employees that say a sheriff has no arrest powers or wants to eliminate those powers is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

            They are playing a treasonous game to try to eliminate the arrest powers of a sheriff because, right now, today or tomorrow morning, any Delaware Sheriff has grounds to arrest the Attorney General and some of the legislators of Delaware for Fraud, Sedition and Treason, because of Biden’s and your legislators attempt to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Delaware and lying about it. That is deadly business and they know it. That is why they must get rid of the sheriffs.

            Sheriffs are employed by the voters, citizens of their county, charged with the duty to support and defend the Constitutions of America and the State of Delaware. They can and should arrest anyone, government employee or otherwise, who attempts to violate those constitutions.

            Your sheriff can arrest an FBI agent, DEA agent, IRS agent, any State Trooper, the Georgetown Chief of Police or any government employee if he is breaking the law in your county. Go to and type in …sheriffs resist the federal government. All over the country sheriffs are telling federal agents to pack sand.

      This explains the power of your sheriff: (Oregon Sheriff Gil Gilbertson Gives Federal Agents The Boot: Feds Have No Jurisdiction!)

This is an excellent 8 minute video on (the movement of Sheriffs to take back America.) That is what Biden and his co-conspirators are afraid of.

            The City police won’t even dream of risking their career and paycheck by arresting a corrupt mayor. A State trooper is too much of a coward to put his career on the line by trying to arrest a corrupt politician or government worker. His supervisor doesn’t want to lose his job and the head bosses of the Delaware State Police will not risk losing their cushy jobs, their pensions and their power. ALL law enforcement officers in the State of Delaware are sufficiently bribed and cowed to do what they are told, “Or else.”
            Who’s going to fire a sheriff for doing the job that cops don’t want to do? The only people who can fire him are the citizens of his county. The only reason they are going to fire him is because he abuses them or refuses to protect them from the criminals.

            Truthfully, if Sheriff Jeffrey Christopher went on a sweep and arrested every crooked politician with his hand in the cookie jar, Beau Biden would have to close his windows to not hear the cheering coming from the citizens down in Sussex County.

            Nobody likes crooked government employees. The Sheriff is the only law enforcement officer who can actually arrest those thieves and not worry about losing his job, benefits and pensions, like very other person carrying a badge and a gun in the State.

            Of course a crooked government has to get a crooked Attorney General to wipe out the Sheriffs. Sheriffs are the only effective enemy a crooked politician has.

2,000 years ago, a man respected by 70% of Americans, made these statements: “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

For all the church leaders reading this and want to tell their congregation that Jesus never said that, look it up. All I will tell you is, you can find it in the book of Luke.

For all the lawyers who will refuse to believe it, you’re no different than hundreds of lawyers I have told that to and refused to confirm it……just like Jesus said you wouldn’t.

Here, I will prove to you that nothing has changed in 2,000 years.

            The Sheriff of Sussex County and the other two Sheriffs have the legal and constitutional Right to convene a Common Law Grand Jury, composed of Sussex county citizens at 9am, totally apart from the State’s oversight. It is NONE of the State’s business.
Once the Grand Jury begins to hear the evidence, the Sheriff can go outside and deputize 200 citizens. They can drive to Wilmington and when they arrive, make a call to the Grand Jury and ask if an indictment has been given against Biden. If the answer is “Yes”, the Sheriff can then proceed to the location of Biden and arrest him and transport him to the Sussex County jail and incarcerate him until trial. Anybody, including State Police officers who interfere, will do so at their own risk.

            Then the Sheriff can convene a Common Law trial with a citizen jury, without a judge or prosecutor allowed. If that trial finds Biden guilty of Sedition or Treason, the Sheriff can apply whatever penalty that jury determines, up to, hanging by the neck until dead, one Beau Biden.

            It is all legal and completely in standing with the United States Constitution and the Delaware Constitution. We have over 300 years of precedence in Delaware to support that action against corrupt government employees.

            Sound crazy? Then you need to call US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and have him committed.

He ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”

              “In fact, the whole theory of it’s foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it’s institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office”.

And in an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

After Biden’s body is cut down, the Sheriff can lead his deputies to arrest every legislator who supported Biden’s Treasonous act and prosecute them the same way and hang every one of them. And the “State” has nothing to say about it. The State is the citizen’s of Delaware. Politicians, judges, Attorney General and his deputy attorneys are nothing more than part time employees of the citizens.

And they make a heck of a lot of money lying to you.

852 of your Delaware government employees make over $100,000 a year. Look at (salaries of Delaware state employees) .

Compare their salary to your salary at the (Delaware per capita personal income.)

            The State of Delaware, like most nations on Earth, recognizes the citizen’s Right to make arrests against law breakers. Citizen’s arrest is as old as cave men. Figure it out: What came first? People or lawyers? People or cops? People or judges. It is not rocket science. It is just that you have been lied to for so long that you’ve been trained to believe a lie.

            The 1987 Delaware Attorney General’s office issued an opinion written by State prosecutor Eugene Hall and Deputy Attorney General Peggy Hanrahan, which the Attorney General, Charles B. Oberly III, signed off on, giving his approval, regarding the powers of arrest that security guards may have. You can see it here: (Attorney General Oberly citizens arrest in Delaware)  On that site, scroll down to see the Attorney General’s answer to the letter.

            In that opinion, the Delaware Attorney General’s office said:
 “We conclude: 1. Private security guards only have the same common law power of arrests as private citizens, 2) security guards can detain individuals pursuant to 11 Del. C 840, 3) some hot pursuit may be permissible under the common law but it is not advisable and 4) their [private security guards] investigation and interrogations are limited by 24 Del. C. 1301. There is no statute in Delaware regulating the arrest powers of private citizens.”

            In 1964 in the case of State vs Hodgson, Del. Super, 200 A.2d. 567, the court stated:
  “at common law a private citizen could make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence which amounted to a breach of a peace…or which threatened a breach of a peace”

              Attorney General Oberly further stated, “As a private citizen, the security guard can make arrests for breaches of the peace or threats of such breaches. A breach of the peace is defined as, a public offense done by violence, or one causing or likely to cause an immediate disturbance of public order. The necessity for prompt on the spot action in suppressing and preventing disturbances of the public peace justifies arrest without warrant in cases involving a breach of the peace.”

              “Examples of breach of the peace include, 1) an affray or an assault, 2) disorderly conduct. 3) a refusal to depart premises and 4) swearing at another. At common law the arrest power included the power to detain the individual.

              A sheriff is classified as a “Conservator of the Peace”, under Article 15 of the Delaware Constitution, written in 1831, it says:

ARTICLE XV. MISCELLANEOUS §l. Conservators of the peace.
Section l. The Chancellor, Judges and Attorney General shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State; and the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.

            In the recent opinion from the Attorney General’s office, which was NOT signed by and approved by Biden, probably because he does know it is treason, we see State Solicitor Mr. Lawrence W. Lewis stating, “The Constitution does not define the powers of a "conservator” of the peace," and dictionary definitions offer little guidance”.

            Well Larry, here’s what they must have left out at your law school: The constitution is not a dictionary. The constitution was written by men who wrongly assumed that lawyers in the future would #1. Know how to read, and #2. Would know how to look up big words in a dictionary. And #3. Not be getting their legal instruction from watching COPS and CSI.

            He says the “conservator of the peace has never been defined” That “dictionaries offer little guidance. See Black’s Law Dictionary (rev. 4th ed. 1968 at 368”

              Lawrence W. Lewis is a blatant liar. By association, so is Beau Biden. I did look it up in Black’s, Larry. Jesus was referring to the Beau and Larry show when he said, “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” 
By the way, Lawrence Lewis gets paid $119,000 a year to lie to you.

Here is the text from Black’s Law dictionary that Beau and Larry are hiding from you. Notice the 3rd sentence says: 

Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace

Here we go to Black’s: CONSERVATORS OF THE PEACE. Officers authorized to preserve and maintain the public peace. In England, these officers were locally elected by the people until the reign of Edward III, when their appointment was vested in the king. Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace, but they had no power to arraign and try the offender until about 1360, when this authority was given to them by act of parliament, and “then they acquired the more honorable appellation of justices of the peace.” 1 Bl. Comm. 351.

Even after this time, however, many public officers were styled “conservators of the peace,” not as a distinct office but by virtue of the duties and authorities pertaining to their offices. In this sense the term may include the king himself, the lord chancellor, justices of the king’s bench, master of the rolls, coroners, sheriffs, constables, etc. 1 Bl. Comm. 350.

 See Smith v. Abbott, 17 N.J.L. 358. In Texas, the constitution provides that county judges shall be conservators of the peace. Const. Tex. Art. 4, § 15; Jones v. State, Tex. Cr. App. 65 S.W. 92. The Constitution of Delaware (1831) provides that:

“The members of the senate and house of representatives. the chancellor, the judges, and the attorney-general shall, by virtue of their offices, be conservators of the peace throughout the state; and the treasurer, secretary, and prothonotaries, registers, recorders, sheriffs, and coroners, shall, by virtue of their offices, be conservators thereof within the counties respectively in which they reside. [Black’s Law Dictionary (rev’d. 4th ed.) (1968), p. 378 (emphasis added).] 

            THAT is what Lawrence Lewis kept you from seeing.

            He goes on to say, “In Darling Apartment v. Springer,22 A.2d 397 (Del. 1941), the Delaware Supreme Court said "when the framers of the Constitution created an office by name only they had reference to that office with those generally recognized legal powers, duties and functions belonging to the office in the jurisdiction in which the Constitution was to operate and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution." Id. at 407 (Rodney, J., concurring).

              Larry, Larry……Larry. You throw out these quotes, but is it really too much of a leap for you to connect the dots, that after 2,000 years, all over the world, conservators of the peace were knocking people over the head and putting them in a locked room, when they disturbed the public peace, which for thousands of years, in reality was those generally recognized legal powers, duties and functions belonging to the office in the jurisdiction”?

            Then Larry says, “Common law powers were never intended to be immutable, cast in stone forevermore.Actually Larry, they were, until lawyers were dropped off on this planet by a very evil race from some unknown galaxy far, far away.

Have you never heard of The Ten Commandments? Written on stone tablets? Intended to be immutable? And so far, they still are. Still used as the basis of every law in the Christian world? 10 simple rules that most every child learns before he is 12 years old?

            This is why we say, “Opinions are like [lawyers]. Everybody has one.” And Larry is a serious [lawyer].

            Lawrence W. Lewis is not making ignorant statements. He is just a liar.

In any law dictionary, TREASON is defined The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.”

            ENEMY, under international law: By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. It also signifies a citizen or subject of such a nation, as when we say an alien enemy. In a still more extended sense, the word includes any of the subjects or citizens of a state in amity with the United States, who, have commenced, or have made preparations for commencing hostilities against the United States;

By their actions and words, Beau Biden and Lawrence W. Lewis are consciously and purposely acting to aid enemies of the Constitution of The State of Delaware, which is the exact same as acting to aid Delaware’s enemies.

It is really aggravating trying to educate a lawyer. Like trying to get an illegal alien to learn English. Lawyers think that just because they know how to read on an 8th grade level, they are the all knowing superior species.

            2,000 years ago the arrest powers of sheriffs were recognized in the days of the Roman Empire. Sheriffs were called Vitae Republicae – The Life of the Republic.
            1,000 years ago, the arrest powers of sheriffs were recognized by England.

            350 years ago, in the land area now known as Delaware, the people recognized the arrest       powers of a sheriff.

            225 years ago, the arrest powers were recognized by the Constitution of Delaware.

            All over America sheriffs arrest people and put then in jails.

            So, let me figure this out. It’s an extremely complicated legal quagmire: A citizen can arrest somebody, a security guard can arrest somebody, a city policeman can arrest somebody, a state policeman can arrest somebody, all across America a sheriff can arrest somebody, all around the World, for the past 2,000 years, a Sheriff could arrest somebody, but now all of a sudden, Little Boy Beau comes in and says that out of all the inhabitants, residents, and visitors, every single human being in the State of Delaware can arrest someone, except for three people, just because their counties pinned a badge on them and called them Sheriff.

            Now why is that? What do you suppose that means?

            Biden knows he is committing Sedition and Treason. He grew up with a professional liar. His father, Vice president Joe Biden has been spewing the same lie for 40 years that his wife was killed by a drunk driver.

 She died, because she was not paying attention and a Tractor Trailer ran into her vehicle. Although Joe Biden continues this lie, the Delaware State Police still testify that there was no alcohol involved in that crash.

            Joe Biden and his son Beau, have milked that poor woman’s tragic death for 40 years to gain the “sympathy vote”. That innocent truck driver died because Beau’s mother made a fatal mistake, not the driver.

Joe and Joe and built their political careers atop the grave of that good woman who simply made a mistake that we all have at one time or another, by pulling out too soon. These guys are as ruthless as a lizard in the desert eyeing a fly for breakfast.

            Beau Biden has committed the crime that can earn him an execution at the hands of the very people he conspired against in committing his Treason and Sedition.

            Get this straight: Beau Biden, as much as he fantasizes, is not the Lord of the Manor and you are not his Sharecroppers. You do not work for Biden. He works for you. Biden does not pay your bills. You pay his. You pay for his office, his car, his clothes, his food and the food that goes down his ungrateful children’s throats. You pay for his toilet paper, if he even bothers to use any.

            You are not in this World to please him. He is here to please you. Get it straight.

            If you, the citizens of Delaware allow him and your elected employees, the legislators, to strip the Sheriffs of their arrest powers, you will experience a level of corruption that you have never dreamed could exist.

Nobody will be safe. Your property will not be safe. Every last one of your Constitutional Rights, that millions of people have died for, to preserve those Rights for you, will vanish over night.

            For Christ’s sake! Your fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sons, husbands, daughters, wives, mothers left home and went to war, got injured or killed fighting corrupt dictators like these people. And you are just going to let this little sissy daddy’s boy strip you dry?

            You have got to get up and take a direct stand against these people now. Organize and sue. Organize and fight. Organize and chant outside their homes. REVOLT against this lawlessness. File criminal charges against them. Organize around your Sheriff and arrest these leeches. They steal your money, your property and your freedoms. They are destroying your lives. Organize. Quit being wimps. Get off your duffs and fight these traitors.

            Don’t waste your time with a stupid “protest”. A protest to stop the criminal actions of your government employees is as effective as stopping a charging Grizzly Bear with a BB gun.

            Don’t sell them food or gasoline. A town in California stopped serving US Forest Service employees and it scared the Feds so much they quit wearing uniforms and driving government cars.

            You can not refuse service to a particular class of people, including police officers. But you can refuse to serve people that you feel uncomfortable with or are a nuisance to your business. You do not have to take this treasonous behavior from your politicians.

            Look at the money they’re making, lying to you, making laws against normal behavior, and criminalizing you and your children. And you want to give them food? You want to give them the gasoline to go back and forth to do their treasonous work against you? You’re a bunch of suckers. Beau and his crooked friends are guzzling champagne on your money while they rip off your kids.

            Look at your towns. Did you invite all these illegal aliens in to trash out your once beautiful towns? Did you invite them in to take your jobs and throw their used diapers in your yards?

Don’t cut their hair. Don’t sell them anything. Do not even acknowledge that they exist if they come into your business. Don’t service their cars. Don’t repair their homes. Don’t baby-sit their kids. Don’t throw them a life preserver if they are drowning in the St. Jones River.

And stop thinking of them as some version of royalty. They are not.

 They are nothing more than Temporary Labor. You can go to any town and pick up a load of illegal aliens, that these people forced into your communities, and use them to run your governmental affairs. At least the illegal aliens don’t know how to read well enough to pass laws against you every single day. These politicians of yours, as in the rest of the country, are liars, cheats and thieves. They are human trash. You should spit on them when you see them.

I have read that the children of Sheriff Jeffrey Christopher have been getting harassed and taunted at school. That’s nuts taking it out on kids. Their parents should be ashamed of themselves.

As to Georgetown, Delaware Chief of Police William Topping, he’s lucky he’s dealing with a trained and experienced police officer with Sheriff Christopher. If I was the sheriff there and he made a public statement saying he was going to arrest me if I did anything, since he is an armed man and obviously out of touch with reality, I would interpret it as a threat against my life.
I would take a few deputies and go visit him at 4 in the morning and arrest him for threatening my life and liberty. I’d play by his Rule of Force mentality and do a “No Knock Warrantless Entry” and drag him out in cuffs. I may even be tempted to mimic his actions and forget my oath to the constitution and process him under the The National Defense Authorization Act. No phone call, no lawyer, no trial and ship him down to Guantanamo. But. it’s not that easy.

I would just arrest him in the dead of night, let him make his calls and get himself bailed out. Then I would wait for him to sue me and let the case proceed through every corrupt court in Delaware until it ends up at the US Supreme Court and let them tell him what the real law is.

But, Sheriff Christopher is far more tolerant and resonable than I would be in that situation. He’s smart. He’s got the best Sheriff’s lawyer in the country working with him.

Carson J. Tucker, is an honest lawyer who believes in the Constitution and is willing to put his life, fortune and honor at risk to defend your Constitution in Delaware. He has represented County Sheriffs in their various battles with the federal government, state government and county commissions. 

Mr. Tucker won a mandamus action in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Michigan (Detroit) on behalf of the Wayne County Sheriff who challenged the County Commission’s and County’s Chief Executive Officer’s attempt to fire and/or replace his executive staff, jail correctional officers and deprive him of the funds he needed to perform his constitutional duties.  He also successfully defended an appeal of this case.

He has successfully defended the Menominee County Sheriff against similar attacks by his County Commission (He did not have to litigate because of his prior case in Wayne County – the County Commission backed down from the legal battle).

He also represents the Barry County Sheriff and Eaton County Sheriff in ongoing matters with their respective county commissions and has successfully defended the Barry County Sheriff’s common-law powers and duties against attacks by his County Commission (again no lawsuit because the County backed down and paid the Sheriff legal fees all the same).

He regularly represents individual law enforcement officers.  He has argued the Odom v. Wayne County case in the Michigan Supreme Court which reversed the Court of Appeals decision against a Sheriff’s Deputy and clarified that law enforcement officers acting in good faith and performing their sworn duties are not subjected to intentional tort claims, such as malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, etc. 

This was a 4.5 million dollar claim by a woman who claimed malicious prosecution and false imprisonment against his client, the Sheriff’s Deputy, who wrote the woman a ticket for alleged “flagging/disrupting the flow of traffic”; essentially a ticket for engaging in suspected prostitution.

On the heels of this decision, he also won in the Court of Appeals Gentry v. Deputy Daniel Carmona, a case in which the plaintiff sought millions in damages after he was shot by Mr. Tucker’s client, the Deputy, during an altercation in which four deputies from the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office attempted to arrest the plaintiff.  Because of Odom, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that Deputy Carmona was acting in good faith when he shot the suspect after another deputy exclaimed he thought the suspect was going for his weapon.

Carson J. Tucker routinely advises other County Sheriffs on issues concerning their roles as constitutional officers and on potential liability issues associated with the performance of their duties and that of their deputies. Contact him at the 100 year old law firm of Lacey and Jones, LLC, phone number 248-433-1414.

His web site is:  (
 Mr. Tucker is the foremost attorney in America protecting the Sheriff’s Rights to enforce their Constitutions.

Establish a fund for citizens to donate to cover Mr. Tucker’s expenses to come to Delaware and stomp Beau and his friends into the mud.

            The entire country is watching you. It is up to Delaware to put a screeching halt to the constant assaults against our freedoms. If you think only your government employees in Delaware are corrupt, you’re wrong. This corruption, like an enemy occupying force, is everywhere.

            If you don’t put a stop to this, you and your children will never be able to question the actions of a politician again. They will continue to take your religion away from you, destroy your ability to speak openly, eliminate any news organization that says something they don’t like. Your guns will be confiscated and your Right to defend yourself will be criminalized.

            Think I’m reaching? Wrong again. All of these things and more are rolling across America like a tidal wave.

            It is this serious: Get behind your sheriff, legally, with guns, arm yourselves to the teeth and confront these treasonous rabid dogs. Tell them to obey YOUR constitution or get out.

You, the people of Delaware still have that Right. If they want a gun fight over their attempts to lie to you, cheat you, steal from you and ruin your lives, let them be the first to fire a shot. Let them show the entire World how blatantly corrupt and evil they are. Call their bluff. Don’t fire unless they fire at you and then finish off every last one of them. Because that is what they are doing to you.

            And if you do that, you won’t be the first to confront a corrupt local government. Go to or and type in: Battle of Athens Georgia

            What they did then, you can still legally and constitutionally do. Let Beau Biden get away with this assault against your God given Rights, and your ability to defend your lives, your fortunes and your honor will cease to exist.

            You are not fighting laws or men. This current illegitimate government does not operate under a Rule of Law. It operates under a Rule of Force. You are fighting evil. Pure and simple as that.

Mark S. McGrew may be reached at  More of his articles can be found at

When re-publishing, please include a link to the Russian Free Press at