Category Archives: Declaration of Sovereignty

Tasered and Beaten by Fairview Heights Police on Feb. 17, 2009

Update: ALL CHARGES FROM ARREST ON 2/17/09 HAVE BEEN DISMISSED!

After over 5 court appearances all charges have been dismissed by order of the court. There were 4 hearings related to the challenge I made involving jurisdiction and no probable cause for the stop. I did finally get copies from the dashboard video from cars driven by Alemond and Nyman. After I received the video the cops refused to appear for the next hearing date which would have revealed the lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications in their report and how it does not match the video. I’ll arrange all this information later, but I’m providing links to the documents issued by the court as well as my motions.

Transcripts of Proceedings

Record of Proceedings 8-24-09 First Appearance

Record of Proceedings 9-30-09 Second Appearance

Record of Proceedings 10-26-09 Third Appearance

Record of Proceedings 11-30-09 Case Dismissed

Pleadings and Motions

My first pleading, a demurrer to the charges.

Associated motion to dismiss

Pretial Motion for Discovery

Motion to Reconsider

Motion to Quash Warrant

Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for no DL

Court orders dismissing charges

Order dismissing no DL

Order for fleeing and eluding dismissal

Order dismissing 4 remaining charges

Criminal complaints I will be filing against Alemond and Nyman

Civil Suit Filed Against Fairview Heights, Alemond and Nymann

Lawsuit, as filed, on Feb. 17, 2010

Summons for City of Fairview Heights, Aaron Nyman, and Joshua Alemond

Excessive Use of Force by Fairview Heights, Ill. Police for a traffic stop on 2/17/09 on Highway 159.

This is all courtesy of the arresting, and beating, “officer”, JOSHUAH M ALEMOND and AARON NYMAN

Statement of Marc MkKoy (To the best of my recollection at the time after being beaten, Tasered, and suffering blows to the head)

I got off work at 2a.m. CDT on 2/17/2009. I departed my place of work and proceeded north on Highway 159. I proceeded through Swansea, IL, and then through Fairview Heights, IL. The speed limit from Swansea to Fairview Hts. is 45mph. I maintained my speed within that limit. When I reached Fairview Hts. the limit reduces to 35mph. I continued at that speed until I reached the intersection of Highway 159 and Rt. 50. where I stopped at a light for less than a minute. Looking into my rear view mirror, I noticed headlights approaching from the rear’‚ Before the vehicle could reach me the light turned green and I resumed my travels northbound on Hwy. 159. I noticed in my rear view mirror that the approaching vehicle turned east on Rt. 50 where a police light-bar was visible on the vehicle. It was a police cruiser.

I continued north on Hwy. 159 through Fairview Hts. and reached the last traffic control light before heading out of the City. This light is at an intersection that leads to a gas station to the right and a shopping plaza to the left. Just past that light is a facility known as “The Fountains”. Past that point it is nothing but 4 lanes of Hwy. 159 leading to Collinsville, Il.

As I reached the last traffic control light I noticed another vehicle approaching rather quickly.‚ I thought might be just another person driving fast since a police car just turned west. I maintained my position in the left lane of northbound Hwy. 159, using my high-beams when possible and dimming when another vehicle approached. I proceeded north for about a half mile while noticing the vehicle I saw approaching quickly was now maintaining a distance behind me. I thought nothing of it in particular.

At a little more than a half-mile past the Fountains, that vehicle turned on emergency lights, flashing alternating red and blue. I‚ believed I was about to be pulled over. Looking to the right, there is a very narrow shoulder. Hwy. 159 has no lighting. I looked for a place to stop, but did not consider the shoulder viable, especially with prolific video of cars striking other cars on the side of the road; often when stopped by police. I knew of a lighted street down the road since I travel this route 4 nights a week. I intended to stop on that road.

Up to this time, I had only seen flashing lights and heard no horn or siren. I was over a three-quarters of a mile past the Fountains. I was approaching the lighted street and since seeing the flashing lights I reduced my speed by about 5 mph and activated my flashers in effort to acknowledge the signal and to avoid any misperception that I was attempting to flee or elude. At about this time I noticed a siren sound of “whoop whoop” emanating from the vehicle. It was only a short, reasonable time that I turned right onto the lighted way of Donald Bailey Drive, where I then pulled to the right and stopped.

Upon stopping, I rolled down my drivers side window. I called my wife and had her on my Bluetooth speaker during the stop. I told her that I was being stopped and to stay on the phone if possible. The officer was shouting for me to “show my hands”. I placed both my hands outside the drivers side window and shouted the question to the officer, “Am I under arrest?” The officer responded with “Exit the vehicle”. I responded again with “Am I under Arrest?” Another command, “Turn around and place your hands on your head. Walk backwards towards my voice”, I asked again, “Am I under arrest?” Another command, “On your knees and cross your ankles!” At this point I accepted the reality that I was under arrest since it now appeared that my freedom of movement was being restricted.

I complied with the last command and, with my back towards the officer, dropped to my knees and placed my hands behind my head and crossed my ankles. I sensed the officer approaching from the rear and expected to be cuffed. Instead, unexpectedly and suddenly I experienced a force driving my head forward and continuing to exert pressure upon my neck and head, causing great pain. It felt as if the weight of the officer was assigned to one knee which resided upon my neck and head. My face was directly upon the concrete road. I could feel my glasses give way and my lip split. Hoping that the worst was over I waited for the cuffs, but instead sensed what appeared to be a Taser placed against the base of my skull at the back. I could hear the “clack, clack, clack,… of the sparks and my neck experienced what felt like hundreds of bee stings. The sensation seemed to last forever, and I sensed no sign of letting up. Reflecting on stories of Taser deaths and injury I began to feel as if the officer cared not whether I died as a result.

My fear of death and injury took hold and I tried to reach back to knock his hand away in an act of self-defense and self-preservation. The officer pressed harder both on my neck with his knee and with the Taser. I resigned to accept whatever fate should this continue and after going limp I was cuffed and left to lay on the ground.

While on the ground, I could not see much and I believe other police showed up. I soon found myself in the back seat of the patrol car, but the timeframe between being Tased and moving to the car is fuzzy. I may have blacked out or become disoriented. I sat in the back seat and just bled for some time while other police arrived and went through my truck. My glasses were off and presumed broken so I could not discern much from where I was. It is all rather fuzzy at this point. The police attempted to ask me some questions, to which I replied since I was under arrest I would reserve any statements for counsel.

I was placed in the back of the cruiser and left for what seemed like about a half-hour. In that time I experienced an irregular heartbeat, shortness of breath, and difficulty swallowing. I believe possibly because of my neck muscles contracting from the shock and closing off my windpipe, but I’m not certain. The sensation subsided after about 10 or 15 mins, but reoccurred every so often for a minute or two. One of the patrolmen opened the driver-side rear door and asked me if I required medical attention. This was after about a half-hour of no inquiry. I requested medical attention. He asked if I wanted an ambulance at the scene or to wait for EMS at the station. I said I wanted an ambulance at the scene. The patrolman commented that my injuries appeared superficial and he would have EMS waiting at the station. He then slammed the door and walked away. There were two EMS personnel, at the station who did a cursory cleaning of debris from my facial wounds.

My wife arrived and sat on Hwy. 159 to observe from the side of Hwy. 159. I was eventually transported to Fairview Heights Police Station and processed.

The salient points of this store are;

1. I never identified myself or showed any identification. Who did this brigand believe he was beating and why would he feel this level of force is necessary? It appears to me that he preemptively ran my plates and discovered an outstanding “bench warrant”. I believe he was running plates with NO reasonable suspicion and looking for a warrant hit. There are SO many of these things out there that you can throw a rock at someone who has one for merely missing a court date, not completing the payment of a fine…… and most aren’t even seen or signed by a judge. After this brigand got a hit on a warrant he contrived “swerving” as reasonable suspicion.

2. I am essentially under arrest immediately for a traffic infraction, if there is no warrant component. Why, if the brigand was so afraid of me, did he not maintain a safe distance with his weapon and me in my truck while he called for backup?

3. Why did they pry a lock off my rear passenger-side storage compartment? The keys were on the ring with my ignition key.

4. Why kick a man to the ground from behind while he is on his knees and defenseless, as well as exhibiting no overt threat?

5. Why, when I asked if I am “under arrest”, did the brigand not answer? A simple “yes” would have sufficed.

6. The brigand’s statement to me, “If you would have pulled over when I lit you up this never would have happened.” This essentially says that “If you would have read my mind and pulled over when I thought you should you would not have suffered under punishment determined by me for transgressing my arbitrary and unannounced sensibilities.”

7. I was denied medical attention when requested. I was left alone, injured, with no inquiry as to my condition; especially after being Tased in the back of the neck.

8. After receiving a copy of the report, I know there were two patrolmen on the scene when I was beaten and Tased. Why such force when a man on his knees and hands on his head? 8. I was not informed of my rights at any time, nor was I afforded an opportunity to speak with counsel while in custody.

So, what do we have? Perjury for falsifying an “information” (ticket) in fabricating reasonable suspicion for the stop. Unlawful imprisonment for detaining me under color of law and with the threat of deadly force when the impetus for the stop was never lawful (fruit of the poison tree). Assault, battery, and cruel and unusual punishment for the injuries inflicted upon me for violating “his” law. Unlawful search and seizure. The tape from my recorder as well as the broken lock in my rear passenger compartment constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment protection from search without a warrant or probable cause. Nowhere in the stop for a bench warrant or improper lane usage did any probable cause of a “crime” arise. I was not apprised of my rights or afforded counsel. I was denied medical treatment.

I transcribed Alemond’s report for easier reading and for making notations. You are free to compare it with the PDF version to check for inaccuracies.

Transcription of Joshua Alemond’s Crime/Incident Report

On 02/17/09 at approximately 0211 hrs, I was traveling northbound on Hwy 159 in my marked patrol vehicle, when I observed a red Chevrolet pickup truck, bearing Illinois registration 96128M, traveling northbound in the innermost traffic lane, crossing over I-64. While behind the vehicle, I conducted a computer check of the vehicle’s registration, at which time it revealed it was registered to MARC MKKOY, and MS. MKKOY, of 317 Vandalia., Collinsville, Illinois, 62234. The vehicle was clear and valid, with an expiration of 03/3009. As I continued to follow the vehicle,‚ I observed it begin to weave within its own traffic lane, going from the outer far line to the inner far dash line on several occasions. Believing the driver of the vehicle to be intoxicated, I activated my overhead lights in an attempt to conduct a vehicle stop. This was conducted on northbound Hwy 159, just north of the Fountains Parkway. The vehicle refused to stop and continued to travel northbound in the innermost traffic lane, keeping to the 45 mph speed limit. After the vehicle failed to stop for my overhead lights, I activated my siren and air horn on several occasions, in an effort to stop the vehicle, however; ignoring this, the vehicle continued to travel northbound. At one point the driver activated his bright headlights and applied his hazards as he changed from the innermost traffic lane to the outermost traffic lane. It should be noted that I could not see into the cab of the pickup truck due to the heavy window tint on the rear window. I informed FHPD dispatch of the vehicle’s license plate and that he was refusing to stop. I continued to follow the vehicle past Milburn School Road, and the entrance to the Stonewolf subdivision.‚ The vehicle then made a sudden and aggressive right turn from Hwy 159 onto Donald Bailey Drive, a dead end private roadway to the Pipefitters Union Hall.

It should be noted that while following the vehicle for a mile and a half, I conducted a further computer check of the vehicle’s registration, discovering that one of the registered owners, that being MARC L. MKKOY, M/W, DOB: 08/01/64, was wanted through St. Clair County Sherriff’s department, per warrant number 06TR0058724.

As the vehicle made this sudden turn onto Donald Bailey Drive, it continued traveling forward for several feet coming to a sudden and abrupt stop. After the vehicle came to a stop, still not being able to see the interior or what the occupant or occupants were doing, and for my safety I initiated a felony vehicle stop. I drew my department issued weapon and ordered the driver of the vehicle to show me his hands. I repeated this command several times receiving the response from the driver after which he showed me his hands “Am I arrested?” I ordered the driver to exit the vehicle, keeping his hands raised, to which he eventually complied. I then had the driver walk, with his hands raised, backwards towards my vehicle. I then ordered the driver down on his knees. The driver continued to ask, “Am I under arrest?” I ordered the driver down on his knees, to cross his legs, to cross his ankles, and place his hands on top of his head. The driver initially refused every order I had given him forcing me to repeat my command. It should be noted that during the stop my commands were clear, concise, and in a loud voice. I observed the driver to be a middle aged male white.

Officer Aaron Nyman, DSN 171, responded to the scene to provide cover. I asked the driver if there was anyone else in the vehicle, to which he responded “No”. With Officer Nyman providing cover, I holstered my weapon and approached the subject. I began to lay the subject on the ground for the purpose of handcuffing, at which time he refused to give me his right hand. As he lay face down on the ground with his left hand behind his back, his right hand was lying under him near his waistband. The subject began to resist by pulling his right hand away from me; I ordered him on several occasions to place his hands behind his back, to which he ignored.

Seeing this resistance, Officer Nyman left his cover position and assisted while I struggled with the subject to place him in handcuffs. While attempting to place his hands behind his back and due to his uncooperative behavior, I struck the subject in the right side of his torso in an attempt to gain pain compliance. At this point, I was aware that Officer Nyman had initiated a dry stun to the subject with his department issued taser. The struggle continued for several seconds until Officer Nyman and I pinned the subject to the ground using our legs and body weight and successfully placed him in handcuffs. After being placed in handcuffs, the resistance ceased and the struggle stopped.

While Officer Nyman was securing the driver, I then cleared the interior of the pickup truck, finding no other occupants.

A search incident to arrest revealed no weapons or items of contraband. After picking him off the ground I observed that his face was bleeding. The subject had sustained minor abrasions and lacerations to his face and lip during the struggle. I also observed that the eyeglasses the subject had been wearing were broken and lying on the ground, along with a cell phone and Bluetooth earpiece. During the search incident to arrest, I was unable to find a driver’s license for the subject. Knowing that the vehicle’s registered owner, Marc L. MkLoy, to be wanted I asked if he was this subject. The driver refused to answer, stating “I want counsel”. During this time he did ask what he was being arrested for, at which time Officer Nyman informed him Fleeing and Eluding as well as Resisting Arrest.

The driver was secured in the rear of my marked patrol vehicle. Sgt. Krummrich, DSN 141, was notified and responded to supervise the scene.

Officer Nyman and I conducted a search incident to arrest of the interior of the vehicle, finding no weapons or contraband. We did locate a laptop computer, two cell phones, an audio voice recorder, as well as three digital cameras, and a video recorder.‚ Nyman also located several‚ anti-government and anti-police pamphlets and reading material.

When asked why he had refused to stop for my marked patrol vehicle, the subject stated that he was looking for a safe place to stop. It should be noted that this section of State Highway 159 is a four lane highway with a center turn lane and wide shoulder for both north and southbound traffic.

The subject requested medical attention, at which time he was informed that MedStar EMS ALS had been contacted and would respond to FHPD for treatment and evaluation.

While conducting a search of the interior of the vehicle, I located a US Passport, belonging to the registered owner and driver of the vehicle, that being MARC L. MKKOY, M/W, DOB: 08/01/64. FHPD dispatch confirmed the warrant through computer hit conformation as being active per warrant number 06TR0058724, bond amount $1,000, 10% applying.

MkKoy was transported to the FHPD after being placed under arrest for his outstanding warrant, as well as Resisting a Peace Officer. He was issued Non-Traffic Complaint 1115419 for this charge. He was also issued Illinois Traffic Citations 1159154 for Improper Lane Usage, 1159155 for Fleeing/Attempting to Elude Police, 1159156 for No Valid Driver’s License and 1159157 for Operating an Uninsured Vehicle. Copies of the Citations are attached to this report. Upon arrival at the FHPD, MkKoy was properly booked for the aforementioned charge.

Prior to his booking, MedStar EMS had arrived to treat MkKoy’s minor injuries.

While still on the scene with MkKoy’s vehicle, Officer Nyman prepared FHPD 112, this department’s Towed Vehicle Report. A copy of which was provided to MkKoy. Walter’s Towing responded and towed the vehicle to their facility.

A check of MkKoy’s criminal history indicated a total of two arrests with two convictions, including one charge with one conviction for Larceny, one charge with zero convictions for Forgery. MkKoy’s last arrest was by the FHPD on 04/16/80.

Upon completion of all booking procedures of MkKoy was released from FHPD custody after posting the required cash only bond. At this time, he was provided all his appropriate copies of the Towed Vehicle Report, Non-Traffic Complaint, as well as his Illinois Traffic Citations.

Charges

Improper Lane Usage

Attempting to Flee or Elude

Resisting A Peace Officer

No Valid Drivers License

Operating uninsured vehicle

Documents

COPY OF THE CRIMINAL/INCIDENT REPORT.

Items Discovered During Search Subsequent To Arrest
Pursuant to the warrantless search incident to arrest, the inventory of my vehicle contained:

Healing Our World, The other piece of the puzzle by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart

Asset Protection Secrets, by Arnold Goldstein J.D., LLM, Ph.D DSC Power 832 Security System

Pioneer DEH-P7700MP Stereo

Under The Hood by TechOnline

Owners Manual – 1998 Chevy S-10

http://lawfulgov.org/justsayno.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights, by Professor John E. Finn Mother Earth News, Issue No. 228

www.whoismarcmkkoy.com

American Juror, Newsletter of the Fully Informed Jury Association and the American Jury Institute, Volume 20, Issue 1 Spring 2008

The Philosopher’s Handbook, by Stanley Rosen “Essential Readings from Plato to Kant”

Philosophy for Dummies by Tom Morris, Ph.D.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America,‚ autographed by 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik

That’s it as far as “printed material” aside from some cell phone plan tri-folds and business cards.
Apparently, Alemon and Nyman have a distorted view of what constitutes “anti-government” and “anti-police”. Notwithstanding their hyperbolic and exaggerated interpretation of my reading material genre, it was in-fact police working for government who violated my rights, beat, and shocked me. Of course, to be accurate, it was ignorant, violent, oppressive, and lying men in costumes who used their delusional belief in being morally or lawfully superior to others by virtue of the color of their clothes, or possession of weapons which harmed me. Police and government are fictions, and possess no conscience. Alemon and Nyman, concordantly, are flesh who choose not to embrace their conscience, or have instead adopted despots as their external conscience.

Analysis of charges, in the order of they allegedly occurred.

The report states that, “As I continued to follow the vehicle, I observed it to begin to weave within its own traffic lane, going from the outer far line to the inner far dash line on several occasions. Believing the driver of the vehicle to be intoxicated, I activated my overhead lights in an attempt to conduct a vehicle stop.” The statute below at (a) states “…within a single lane…” which is what the report confirms, “…within its own traffic lane…”

(625 ILCS 5/11-709) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-709)
Sec. 11-709. Driving on roadways laned for traffic. Whenever any roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply. (a)‚ A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety. (b) Upon a roadway which is divided into 3 lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic control devices. (c) Official traffic control devices may be erected directing specific traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device. On multi-lane controlled access highways with 3 or more lanes in one direction or on any multi-laned highway with 2 or more lanes in one direction, the Department may designate lanes of traffic to be used by different types of motor vehicles. Drivers must obey lane designation signing except when it is necessary to use a different lane to make a turning maneuver.
(d) Official traffic control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device. (Source: P.A. 84-1311.)

(625 ILCS 5/11-204) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-204)

Sec. 11-204. Fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer.
(a) Any driver or operator of a motor vehicle who, having been given a visual or audible signal by a peace officer directing such driver or operator to bring his vehicle to a stop,‚ willfully fails or refuses to obey such direction,increases his speed, extinguishes his lights, or otherwise flees or attempts to elude the officer, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The signal given by the peace officer may be by hand, voice, siren, red or blue light. Provided, the officer giving such signal shall be in police uniform, and,‚ Such requirement shall not preclude the use of amber or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights in conjunction with red or blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights as required in Section 12-215 of Chapter 12. (b) Upon receiving notice of such conviction the Secretary of State shall suspend the drivers license of the person so convicted for a period of not more than 6 months for a first conviction and not more than 12 months for a second conviction. (c) A third or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony. (Source: P.A. 93-120, eff. 1-1-04.)

 

(720 ILCS 5/31-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31-1) Sec. 31-1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee. (a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor. (a-5) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of resisting or obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee to be sentenced to a minimum of 48 consecutive hours of imprisonment or ordered to perform community service for not less than 100 hours as may be determined by the court. The person shall not be eligible for probation in order to reduce the sentence of imprisonment or community service. (a-7) A person convicted for a violation of this Section whose violation was the proximate cause of an injury to a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee is guilty of a Class 4 felony. (b) For purposes of this Section, “correctional institution employee” means any person employed to supervise and control inmates incarcerated in a penitentiary, State farm, reformatory, prison, jail, house of correction, police detention area, half-way house, or other institution or place for the incarceration or custody of persons under sentence for offenses or awaiting trial or sentence for offenses, under arrest for an offense, a violation of probation, a violation of parole, or a violation of mandatory supervised release, or awaiting a bail setting hearing or preliminary hearing, or who are sexually dangerous persons or who are sexually violent persons; and “firefighter” means any individual, either as an employee or volunteer, of a regularly constituted fire department of a municipality or fire protection district who performs fire fighting duties, including, but not limited to, the fire chief, assistant fire chief, captain, engineer, driver, ladder person, hose person, pipe person, and any other member of a regularly constituted fire department. “Firefighter” also means a person employed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal to conduct arson investigations. (c) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this Section if a person resists or obstructs the performance of one known by the person to be a firefighter by returning to or remaining in a dwelling, residence, building, or other structure to rescue or to attempt to rescue any person. (Source: P.A. 95-801, eff. 1-1-09.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-5)
Sec. 7-5. Peace officer’s use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that: (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay. (b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid. (Source: P.A. 84-1426.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-7)
Sec. 7-7. Private person’s use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful. (Source: P.A. 86-1475.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-8) Sec. 7-8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. (a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and (2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(b) A peace officer’s discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6. (Source: P.A. 90-138, eff. 1-1-98.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13) Sec. 7-13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct. (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-14) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-14)
Sec. 7-14. Affirmative defense. A defense of justifiable use of force, or of exoneration, based on the provisions of this Article is an affirmative defense. (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

 

(625 ILCS 5/6-101) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-101) Sec. 6-101. Drivers must have licenses or permits. (a) No person, except those expressly exempted by Section 6-102, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in‚ this State unless such person has a valid license or permit, or a restricted driving permit, issued under the provisions of this Act. (b) No‚ person shall drive a motor vehicle unless he holds a valid license or permit, or a restricted driving permit issued under the provisions of‚ Section 6-205,‚ 6-206, or‚ 6-113 of this Act. Any person to whom a license is issued under the provisions of this Act must surrender to the Secretary of State all valid licenses or permits. No drivers license shall be issued to any person who holds a valid Foreign State license, identification card, or permit unless such person first surrenders to the Secretary of State any such valid Foreign State license, identification card, or permit. (b-5) Any person who commits a violation of subsection (a) or (b) of this Section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, if at the time of the violation the person’s driver’s license or permit was cancelled under clause (a)9 of Section 6-201 of this Code.
(c) Any person licensed as a driver hereunder shall not be required by any city, village, incorporated town or other municipal corporation to obtain any other license to exercise the privilege thereby granted. (d) In addition to other penalties imposed under this Section, any person in violation of this Section who is also in violation of Section 7-601 of this Code relating to mandatory insurance requirements shall have his or her motor vehicle immediately impounded by the arresting law enforcement officer. The motor vehicle may be released to any licensed driver upon a showing of proof of insurance for the motor vehicle that was impounded and the notarized written consent for the release by the vehicle owner. (e) In addition to other penalties imposed under this Section, the vehicle of any person in violation of this Section who is also in violation of Section 7-601 of this Code relating to mandatory insurance requirements and who, in violating this Section, has caused death or personal injury to another person is subject to forfeiture under Sections 36-1 and 36-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961. For the purposes of this Section, a personal injury shall include any type A injury as indicated on the traffic accident report completed by a law enforcement officer that requires immediate professional attention in either a doctor’s office or a medical facility. A type A injury shall include severely bleeding wounds, distorted extremities, and injuries that require the injured party to be carried from the scene. (Source: P.A. 94-993, eff. 1-1-07; 95-578, eff. 6-1-08.)

(625 ILCS 5/6-102) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-102)
Sec. 6-102. What persons are exempt. The following persons are exempt from the requirements of Section 6-101 and are not required to have an Illinois drivers license or permit if one or more of the following qualifying exemptions are met and apply: 1. Any employee of the United States Government or any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while operating a motor vehicle owned by or leased to the United States Government and being operated on official business need not be licensed; 2. A nonresident who has in his immediate possession a valid license issued to him in his home state or country may operate a motor vehicle for which he is licensed for the period during which he is in this State; 3. A nonresident and his spouse and children living with him who is a student at a college or university in Illinois who have a valid license issued by their home State. 4. A person operating a road machine temporarily upon a highway or operating a farm tractor between the home farm buildings and any adjacent or nearby farm land for the exclusive purpose of conducting farm operations need not be licensed as a driver. 5. A‚ resident of‚ this State who has been serving as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States outside the Continental limits of the United States, for a period of 45 days following his return to the continental limits of the United States. 6. A nonresident on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States who has a valid license issued by his home state and such nonresident’s spouse, and dependent children and living with parents, who have a valid license issued by their home state. 7. A nonresident who becomes a resident of this State, may for a period of the first 90 days of residence in Illinois operate any motor vehicle which he was qualified or licensed to drive by his home state or country so long as he has in his possession, a valid and current license issued to him by his home state or country. Upon expiration of such 90 day period, such new resident must comply with the provisions of this Act and apply for an Illinois license or permit. 8. An engineer, conductor, brakeman, or any other member of the crew of a locomotive or train being operated upon rails, including operation on a railroad crossing over a public street, road or highway. Such person is not required to display a driver’s license to any law enforcement officer in connection with the operation of a locomotive or train within this State. The provisions of this Section granting exemption to any nonresident shall be operative to the same extent that the laws of the State or country of such nonresident grant like exemption to residents of this State. The Secretary of State may implement the exemption provisions of this Section by inclusion thereof in a reciprocity agreement, arrangement or declaration issued pursuant to this Act. (Source: P.A. 86-1258.)

(625 ILCS 5/6-112) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-112) Sec. 6-112. License and Permits to be carried and exhibited on demand. Every licensee or permittee shall have his drivers license or permit in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and, for the purpose of indicating compliance with this requirement, shall display such license or permit if it is in his possession upon demand made, when in uniform or displaying a badge or other sign of authority, by a member of the State Police, a sheriff or other police officer or designated agent of the Secretary of State. However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if he produces in court satisfactory evidence that a drivers license was theretofor issued to him and was valid at the time of his arrest. For the purposes of this Section, “display” means the manual surrender of his license certificate into the hands of the demanding officer for his inspection thereof. (Source: P.A. 76-1749.)

(625 ILCS 5/6-601) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-601) Sec. 6-601. Penalties.
(a) It is a petty offense for any person to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter unless such violation is by this Code or other law of this State declared to be a misdemeanor or a felony. (b) General penalties. Unless another penalty is in this Code or other laws of this State, every person convicted of a petty offense for the violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500. (c) Unlicensed driving. Except as hereinafter provided a violation of Section 6-101 shall be:
1. A Class A misdemeanor if the person failed to obtain a driver’s license or permit after expiration of a period of revocation. 2. A Class B misdemeanor if the person has been issued a driver’s license or permit, which has expired, and if the period of expiration is greater than one year; or if the person has never been issued a driver’s license or permit, or is not qualified to obtain a driver’s license or permit because of his age. If a licensee under this Code is convicted of violating Section 6-101 for operating a motor vehicle during a time when such licensee’s driver’s license was invalid under the provisions of Section 6-110, then conviction under such circumstances shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $25. If a licensee under this Code is convicted of violating Section 6-303 for operating a motor vehicle during a time when such licensee’s driver’s license was suspended under the provisions of Section 6-306.3, then such act shall be a petty offense (provided the licensee has answered the charge which was the basis of the suspension under Section 6-306.3), and there shall be imposed no additional like period of suspension as provided in paragraph (b) of Section 6-303. (Source: P.A. 92-622, eff. 1-1-03; 92-647, eff. 1-1-03; 92-883, eff. 1-13-03.)

(625 ILCS 5/1-159) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-159) Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation. (Source: P.A. 76-1586.)

(625 ILCS 5/1-173) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-173) (a) Every‚ who resides in this state shall be deemed a resident of this State.
(b) In the case of a firm, copartnership or association, if the principal place of business of such firm, copartnership or association is located in the State of Illinois, then such firm, copartnership or association shall be deemed a resident of the State of Illinois. (c) In the case of a corporation, if the corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois or if the principal place of business of such corporation is in the State of Illinois, then such corporation shall be deemed a resident of the State of Illinois. (Source: P.A. 76-1586.)

(625 ILCS 5/1-195) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-195)
A state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a province of the Dominion of Canada. (Source: P.A. 76-1586.)

Sec. 1-138.1. Licensee. A person licensed or required to be licensed under Sections 5-101, 5-102, 5-201 and 5-301 of this Code. (Source: P.A. 83-1473.)

ARTICLE I. DEALERS (625 ILCS 5/5-101) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 5-101) Sec. 5-101. New vehicle dealers must be licensed.

Sec. 5-102. Used vehicle dealers must be licensed.

ARTICLE II. TRANSPORTERS (625 ILCS 5/5-201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 5-201) Sec. 5-201. Transporters must apply for in-transit plates.

ARTICLE III. USED PARTS DEALERS, SCRAP PROCESSORS, AUTOMOTIVE PARTS RECYCLERS AND REBUILDERS (625 ILCS 5/5-301) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 5-301) Sec. 5-301. Automotive parts recyclers, scrap processors, repairers and rebuilders must be licensed.

 

(625 ILCS 5/3-707) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 3-707) Sec. 3-707. Operation of uninsured motor vehicle – penalty.
(a) No person shall operate a motor vehicle unless the motor vehicle is covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7-601 of this Code. (b) Any person who fails to comply with a request by a law enforcement officer for display of evidence of insurance, as required under Section 7-602 of this Code, shall be deemed to be operating an uninsured motor vehicle.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (c-5), any operator of a motor vehicle subject to registration under this Code who is convicted of violating this Section is guilty of a business offense and shall be required to pay a fine in excess of $500, but not more than $1,000. However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if such person produces in court satisfactory evidence that at the time of the arrest the motor vehicle was covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7-601 of this Code. The chief judge of each circuit may designate an officer of the court to review the documentation demonstrating that at the time of arrest the motor vehicle was covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7-601 of this Code. (c-1) A person convicted of violating this Section shall also have his or her driver’s license, permit, or privileges suspended for 3 months. After the expiration of the 3 months, the person’s driver’s license, permit, or privileges shall not be reinstated until he or she has paid a reinstatement fee of $100. If a person violates this Section while his or her driver’s license, permit, or privileges are suspended under this subsection (c-1), his or her driver’s license, permit, or privileges shall be suspended for an additional 6 months and until he or she pays the reinstatement fee. (c-5) A person who (i) has not previously been convicted of or received a disposition of court supervision for violating this Section and (ii) produces at his or her court appearance satisfactory evidence that the motor vehicle is covered, as of the date of the court appearance, by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7-601 of this Code shall, for a violation of this Section, pay a fine of $100 and receive a disposition of court supervision. The person must, on the date that the period of court supervision is scheduled to terminate, produce satisfactory evidence that the vehicle was covered by the required liability insurance policy during the entire period of court supervision. An officer of the court designated under subsection (c) may also review liability insurance documentation under this subsection (c-5) to determine if the motor vehicle is, as of the date of the court appearance, covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7-601 of this Code. The officer of the court shall also determine, on the date the period of court supervision is scheduled to terminate, whether the vehicle was covered by the required policy during the entire period of court supervision. (d) A person convicted a third or subsequent time of violating this Section or a similar provision of a local ordinance must give proof to the Secretary of State of the person’s financial responsibility as defined in Section 7-315. The person must maintain the proof in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary for a minimum period of 3 years after the date the proof is first filed. The Secretary must suspend the driver’s license of any person determined by the Secretary not to have provided adequate proof of financial responsibility as required by this subsection. (Source: P.A. 94-1035, eff. 7-1-07; 95-211, eff. 1-1-08; 95-686, eff. 6-1-08; 95-876, eff. 8-21-08.)
Sec. 7-602. Insurance card. Every operator of a motor vehicle subject to Section 7-601 of this Code shall carry within the vehicle evidence of insurance. The evidence shall be legible and sufficient to demonstrate that the motor vehicle currently is covered by a liability insurance policy as required under Section 7-601 of this Code and may include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) an insurance card provided by the insurer under this Section;
(b) the combination of proof of purchase of the motor vehicle within the previous 60 days and a current insurance card issued for the motor vehicle replaced by such purchase; (c) the current declarations page of a liability insurance policy;
(d) a liability insurance binder, certificate of liability insurance or receipt for payment to an insurer or its authorized representative for a liability insurance premium, provided such document contains all information the Secretary of State by rule and regulation may require; (e) a current rental agreement;
(f) registration plates, registration sticker or other evidence of registration issued by the Secretary only upon submission of proof of liability insurance pursuant to this Code; (g) a certificate, decal, or other document or device issued by a governmental agency for a motor vehicle indicating the vehicle is insured for liability pursuant to law. An insurance card shall be provided for each motor vehicle insured by the insurer issuing the liability insurance policy.
The form, contents and manner of issuance of the insurance card shall be prescribed by rules and regulations of the Secretary of State. The Secretary shall adopt rules requiring that reasonable measures be taken to prevent the fraudulent production of insurance cards. The insurance card shall display an effective date and an expiration date covering a period of time not to exceed 12 months. The insurance card shall contain the following disclaimer: “Examine policy exclusions carefully. This form does not constitute any part of your insurance policy.” If the insurance policy represented by the insurance card does not cover any driver operating the motor vehicle with the owner’s permission, or the owner when operating a motor vehicle other than the vehicle for which the policy is issued, the insurance card shall contain a warning of such limitations in the coverage provided by the policy. No insurer shall issue a card, similar in appearance, form and content to the insurance card required under this Section, in connection with an insurance policy that does not provide the liability insurance coverage required under Section 7-601 of this Code. The evidence of insurance shall be displayed upon request made by any law enforcement officer wearing a uniform or displaying a badge or other sign of authority. Any person who fails or refuses to comply with such request is in violation of Section 3-707 of this Code. Any person who displays evidence of insurance, knowing there is no valid liability insurance in effect on the motor vehicle as required under Section 7-601 of this Code or knowing the evidence of insurance is illegally altered, counterfeit or otherwise invalid, is in violation of Section 3-710 of this Code.
“Display” means the manual surrender of the evidence of insurance into the hands of the law enforcement officer, court, or officer of the court making the request for the officer’s, court’s, or officer of the court’s inspection thereof. (Source: P.A. 93-719, eff. 1-1-05.)

Form of Charge

(725 ILCS 5/111-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 111-3) Sec. 111-3. Form of charge. (a) A charge shall be in writing and allege the commission of an offense by: (1) Stating the name of the offense; (2) Citing the statutory provision alleged to have been violated; (3) Setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged; (4) Stating the date and county of the offense as definitely as can be done; and
(5) Stating the name of the accused, if known, and if not known, designate the accused by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty. (b) An indictment shall be signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury and an information shall be signed by the State’s Attorney and sworn to by him or another. A complaint shall be sworn to and signed by the complainant; Provided, however, that when a citation is issued on a Uniform Traffic Ticket or Uniform Conservation Ticket (in a form prescribed by the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges and filed with the Supreme Court), the copy of such Uniform Ticket which is filed with the circuit court constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may plead, unless he specifically requests that a verified complaint be filed.
(c) When the State seeks an enhanced sentence because of a prior conviction, the charge shall also state the intention to seek an enhanced sentence and shall state such prior conviction so as to give notice to the defendant. However, the fact of such prior conviction and the State’s intention to seek an enhanced sentence are not elements of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury during trial unless otherwise permitted by issues properly raised during such trial. For the purposes of this Section, “enhanced sentence” means a sentence which is increased by a prior conviction from one classification of offense to another higher level classification of offense set forth in Section 5-5-1 of the “Unified Code of Corrections”, approved July 26, 1972, as amended; it does not include an increase in the sentence applied within the same level of classification of offense. (c-5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in all cases in which the imposition of the death penalty is not a possibility, if an alleged fact (other than the fact of a prior conviction) is not an element of an offense but is sought to be used to increase the range of penalties for the offense beyond the statutory maximum that could otherwise be imposed for the offense, the alleged fact must be included in the charging instrument or otherwise provided to the defendant through a written notification before trial, submitted to a trier of fact as an aggravating factor, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt is not a bar to a conviction for commission of the offense, but is a bar to increasing, based on that fact, the range of penalties for the offense beyond the statutory maximum that could otherwise be imposed for that offense. Nothing in this subsection (c-5) requires the imposition of a sentence that increases the range of penalties for the offense beyond the statutory maximum that could otherwise be imposed for the offense if the imposition of that sentence is not required by law. (d) At any time prior to trial, the State on motion shall be permitted to amend the charge, whether brought by indictment, information or complaint, to make the charge comply with subsection (c) or (c-5) of this Section. Nothing in Section 103-5 of this Code precludes such an amendment or a written notification made in accordance with subsection (c-5) of this Section. (e) The provisions of Article 33B of the Criminal Code of 1961, as amended, shall not be affected by this Section. (Source: P.A. 91-953, eff. 2-23-01.)

 

 

 

 

Relating to Search and Seizure

(725 ILCS 5/Art. 108 heading) ARTICLE 108. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

(725 ILCS 5/108-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 108-1) Sec. 108-1. Search without warrant.
(1) When a lawful arrest is effected a peace officer may reasonably search the person arrested and the area within such person’s immediate presence for the purpose of: (a) protecting the officer from attack; or (b) preventing the person from escaping; or (c) discovering the fruits of the crime; or
(d) discovering any instruments, articles, or things which may have been used in the commission of, or which may constitute evidence of, an offense. (2) (Blank). (3) A law enforcement officer may not search or inspect a motor vehicle, its contents, the driver, or a passenger solely because of a violation of Section 12-603.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Source: P.A. 93-99, eff. 7-3-03.)

(725 ILCS 5/108-1.01) (from Ch. 38, par. 108-1.01) Sec. 108-1.01. Search during temporary questioning.
When a peace officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning pursuant to Section 107-14 of this Code and reasonably suspects that he or another is in danger of attack, he may search the person for weapons. If the officer discovers a weapon, he may take it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return the weapon, if lawfully possessed, or arrest the person so questioned. (Source: Laws 1968, p. 218.)

(725 ILCS 5/108-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 108-2) Sec. 108-2. Custody and disposition of things seized.
An inventory of all instruments, articles or things seized on a search without warrant shall be given to the person arrested and a copy thereof delivered to the judge before whom the person arrested is taken, and thereafter, such instruments, articles or things shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with Sections 108–11 and 108–12 of this Code. If the person arrested is released without a charge being preferred against him all instruments, articles or things seized, other than contraband, shall be returned to him upon release. (Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

(725 ILCS 5/Art. 103 heading) ARTICLE 103. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

(725 ILCS 5/103-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-1)
Sec. 103-1. Rights on arrest. (a) After an arrest on a warrant the person making the arrest shall inform the person arrested that a warrant has been issued for his arrest and the nature of the offense specified in the warrant. (b) After an arrest without a warrant the person making the arrest shall inform the person arrested of the nature of the offense on which the arrest is based. (c) No person arrested for a traffic, regulatory or misdemeanor offense, except in cases involving weapons or a controlled substance, shall be strip searched unless there is reasonable belief that the individual is concealing a weapon or controlled substance. (d) “Strip search” means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the genitals, buttocks, anus, female breasts or undergarments of such person. (e) All strip searches conducted under this Section shall be performed by persons of the same sex as the arrested person and on premises where the search cannot be observed by persons not physically conducting the search. (f) Every peace officer or employee of a police department conducting a strip search shall:
(1) Obtain the written permission of the police commander or an agent thereof designated for the purposes of authorizing a strip search in accordance with this Section. (2) Prepare a report of the strip search. The report shall include the written authorization required by paragraph (1) of this subsection (f), the name of the person subjected to the search, the names of the persons conducting the search, and the time, date and place of the search. A copy of the report shall be provided to the person subject to the search. (g) No search of any body cavity other than the mouth shall be conducted without a duly executed search warrant; any warrant authorizing a body cavity search shall specify that the search must be performed under sanitary conditions and conducted either by or under the supervision of a physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches in this State. (h) Any peace officer or employee who knowingly or intentionally fails to comply with any provision of this Section is guilty of official misconduct as provided in Section 103-8; provided however, that nothing contained in this Section shall preclude prosecution of a peace officer or employee under another section of this Code. (i) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common law rights of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief. (j) The provisions of subsections (c) through (h) of this Section shall not apply when the person is taken into custody by or remanded to the sheriff or correctional institution pursuant to a court order. (Source: P.A. 81-1509.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-2) Sec. 103-2. Treatment while in custody. (a) On being taken into custody every person shall have the right to remain silent. (b) No unlawful means of any kind shall be used to obtain a statement, admission or confession from any person in custody. (c) Persons in custody shall be treated humanely and provided with proper food, shelter and, if required, medical treatment. (Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-2.1) Sec. 103-2.1. When statements by accused may be used.
(a) In this Section, “custodial interrogation” means any interrogation during which (i) a reasonable person in the subject’s position would consider himself or herself to be in custody and (ii) during which a question is asked that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. In this Section, “place of detention” means a building or a police station that is a place of operation for a municipal police department or county sheriff department or other law enforcement agency, not a courthouse, that is owned or operated by a law enforcement agency at which persons are or may be held in detention in connection with criminal charges against those persons. In this Section, “electronic recording” includes motion picture, audiotape, or videotape, or digital recording.
(b) An oral, written, or sign language statement of an accused made as a result of a custodial interrogation at a police station or other place of detention shall be presumed to be inadmissible as evidence against the accused in any criminal proceeding brought under Section 9-1, 9-1.2, 9-2, 9-2.1, 9-3, 9-3.2, or 9-3.3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or under clause (d)(1)(F) of Section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code unless: (1) an electronic recording is made of the custodial interrogation; and (2) the recording is substantially accurate and not intentionally altered.
(c) Every electronic recording required under this Section must be preserved until such time as the defendant’s conviction for any offense relating to the statement is final and all direct and habeas corpus appeals are exhausted, or the prosecution of such offenses is barred by law. (d) If the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of this Section, then any statements made by the defendant during or following that non-recorded custodial interrogation, even if otherwise in compliance with this Section, are presumed to be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding against the defendant except for the purposes of impeachment. (e) Nothing in this Section precludes the admission (i) of a statement made by the accused in open court at his or her trial, before a grand jury, or at a preliminary hearing, (ii) of a statement made during a custodial interrogation that was not recorded as required by this Section, because electronic recording was not feasible, (iii) of a voluntary statement, whether or not the result of a custodial interrogation, that has a bearing on the credibility of the accused as a witness, (iv) of a spontaneous statement that is not made in response to a question, (v) of a statement made after questioning that is routinely asked during the processing of the arrest of the suspect, (vi) of a statement made during a custodial interrogation by a suspect who requests, prior to making the statement, to respond to the interrogator’s questions only if an electronic recording is not made of the statement, provided that an electronic recording is made of the statement of agreeing to respond to the interrogator’s question, only if a recording is not made of the statement, (vii) of a statement made during a custodial interrogation that is conducted out-of-state, (viii) of a statement given at a time when the interrogators are unaware that a death has in fact occurred, or (ix) of any other statement that may be admissible under law. The State shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one of the exceptions described in this subsection (e) is applicable. Nothing in this Section precludes the admission of a statement, otherwise inadmissible under this Section, that is used only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence. (f) The presumption of inadmissibility of a statement made by a suspect at a custodial interrogation at a police station or other place of detention may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntarily given and is reliable, based on the totality of the circumstances. (g) Any electronic recording of any statement made by an accused during a custodial interrogation that is compiled by any law enforcement agency as required by this Section for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of this Section shall be confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying, as provided under Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act, and the information shall not be transmitted to anyone except as needed to comply with this Section. (Source: P.A. 93-206, eff. 7-18-05; 93-517, eff. 8-6-05; 94-117, eff. 7-5-05.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-3) Sec. 103-3. Right to communicate with attorney and family; transfers.
(a) Persons who are arrested shall have the right to communicate with an attorney of their choice and a member of their family by making a reasonable number of telephone calls or in any other reasonable manner. Such communication shall be permitted within a reasonable time after arrival at the first place of custody. (b) In the event the accused is transferred to a new place of custody his right to communicate with an attorney and a member of his family is renewed. (Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-4) Sec. 103-4. Right to consult with attorney.
Any person committed, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty for any cause whatever and whether or not such person is charged with an offense shall, except in cases of imminent danger of escape, be allowed to consult with any licensed attorney at law of this State whom such person may desire to see or consult, alone and in private at the place of custody, as many times and for such period each time as is reasonable. When any such person is about to be moved beyond the limits of this State under any pretense whatever the person to be moved shall be entitled to a reasonable delay for the purpose of obtaining counsel and of availing himself of the laws of this State for the security of personal liberty. (Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-5) Sec. 103-5. Speedy trial.)
(a) Every person in custody in this State for an alleged offense shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless delay is occasioned by the defendant, by an examination for fitness ordered pursuant to Section 104-13 of this Act, by a fitness hearing, by an adjudication of unfitness to stand trial, by a continuance allowed pursuant to Section 114-4 of this Act after a court’s determination of the defendant’s physical incapacity for trial, or by an interlocutory appeal. Delay shall be considered to be agreed to by the defendant unless he or she objects to the delay by making a written demand for trial or an oral demand for trial on the record. The provisions of this subsection (a) do not apply to a person on bail or recognizance for an offense but who is in custody for a violation of his or her parole or mandatory supervised release for another offense. The 120-day term must be one continuous period of incarceration. In computing the 120-day term, separate periods of incarceration may not be combined. If a defendant is taken into custody a second (or subsequent) time for the same offense, the term will begin again at day zero. (b) Every person on bail or recognizance shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 160 days from the date defendant demands trial unless delay is occasioned by the defendant, by an examination for fitness ordered pursuant to Section 104-13 of this Act, by a fitness hearing, by an adjudication of unfitness to stand trial, by a continuance allowed pursuant to Section 114-4 of this Act after a court’s determination of the defendant’s physical incapacity for trial, or by an interlocutory appeal. The defendant’s failure to appear for any court date set by the court operates to waive the defendant’s demand for trial made under this subsection. For purposes of computing the 160 day period under this subsection (b), every person who was in custody for an alleged offense and demanded trial and is subsequently released on bail or recognizance and demands trial, shall be given credit for time spent in custody following the making of the demand while in custody. Any demand for trial made under this subsection (b) shall be in writing; and in the case of a defendant not in custody, the demand for trial shall include the date of any prior demand made under this provision while the defendant was in custody. (c) If the court determines that the State has exercised without success due diligence to obtain evidence material to the case and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence may be obtained at a later day the court may continue the cause on application of the State for not more than an additional 60 days. If the court determines that the State has exercised without success due diligence to obtain results of DNA testing that is material to the case and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such results may be obtained at a later day, the court may continue the cause on application of the State for not more than an additional 120 days. (d) Every person not tried in accordance with subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this Section shall be discharged from custody or released from the obligations of his bail or recognizance. (e) If a person is simultaneously in custody upon more than one charge pending against him in the same county, or simultaneously demands trial upon more than one charge pending against him in the same county, he shall be tried, or adjudged guilty after waiver of trial, upon at least one such charge before expiration relative to any of such pending charges of the period prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this Section. Such person shall be tried upon all of the remaining charges thus pending within 160 days from the date on which judgment relative to the first charge thus prosecuted is rendered pursuant to the Unified Code of Corrections or, if such trial upon such first charge is terminated without judgment and there is no subsequent trial of, or adjudication of guilt after waiver of trial of, such first charge within a reasonable time, the person shall be tried upon all of the remaining charges thus pending within 160 days from the date on which such trial is terminated; if either such period of 160 days expires without the commencement of trial of, or adjudication of guilt after waiver of trial of, any of such remaining charges thus pending, such charge or charges shall be dismissed and barred for want of prosecution unless delay is occasioned by the defendant, by an examination for fitness ordered pursuant to Section 104-13 of this Act, by a fitness hearing, by an adjudication of unfitness for trial, by a continuance allowed pursuant to Section 114-4 of this Act after a court’s determination of the defendant’s physical incapacity for trial, or by an interlocutory appeal; provided, however, that if the court determines that the State has exercised without success due diligence to obtain evidence material to the case and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence may be obtained at a later day the court may continue the cause on application of the State for not more than an additional 60 days. (f) Delay occasioned by the defendant shall temporarily suspend for the time of the delay the period within which a person shall be tried as prescribed by subsections (a), (b), or (e) of this Section and on the day of expiration of the delay the said period shall continue at the point at which it was suspended. Where such delay occurs within 21 days of the end of the period within which a person shall be tried as prescribed by subsections (a), (b), or (e) of this Section, the court may continue the cause on application of the State for not more than an additional 21 days beyond the period prescribed by subsections (a), (b), or (e). This subsection (f) shall become effective on, and apply to persons charged with alleged offenses committed on or after, March 1, 1977. (Source: P.A. 94-1094, eff. 1-26-07.) (725 ILCS 5/103-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-6)
Sec. 103-6. Waiver of jury trial. Every person accused of an offense shall have the right to a trial by jury unless (i) understandingly waived by defendant in open court or (ii) the offense is an ordinance violation punishable by fine only and the defendant either fails to file a demand for a trial by jury at the time of entering his or her plea of not guilty or fails to pay to the clerk of the circuit court at the time of entering his or her plea of not guilty any jury fee required to be paid to the clerk. (Source: P.A. 86-1386.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-7) Sec. 103-7. Posting notice of rights.
Every sheriff, chief of police or other person who is in charge of any jail, police station or other building where persons under arrest are held in custody pending investigation, bail or other criminal proceedings, shall post in every room, other than cells, of such buildings where persons are held in custody, in conspicuous places where it may be seen and read by persons in custody and others, a poster, printed in large type, containing a verbatim copy in the English language of the provisions of Sections 103-2, 103-3, 103-4, 109-1, 110-2, 110-4, and sub-parts (a) and (b) of Sections 110-7 and 113-3 of this Code. Each person who is in charge of any courthouse or other building in which any trial of an offense is conducted shall post in each room primarily used for such trials and in each room in which defendants are confined or wait, pending trial, in conspicuous places where it may be seen and read by persons in custody and others, a poster, printed in large type, containing a verbatim copy in the English language of the provisions of Sections 103-6, 113-1, 113-4 and 115-1 and of subparts (a) and (b) of Section 113-3 of this Code. (Source: Laws 1965, p. 2622.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-8) Sec. 103-8. Mandatory duty of officers.
Any peace officer who intentionally prevents the exercise by an accused of any right conferred by this Article or who intentionally fails to perform any act required of him by this Article shall be guilty of official misconduct and may be punished in accordance with Section 33-3 of the “Criminal Code of 1961” approved July 28, 1961, as heretofore and hereafter amended. (Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

(725 ILCS 5/103-9) (from Ch. 38, par. 103-9)
Sec. 103-9. Bail bondsmen. No bail bondsman from any state may seize or transport unwillingly any person found in this State who is allegedly in violation of a bail bond posted in some other state. The return of any such person to another state may be accomplished only as provided by the laws of this State. Any bail bondsman who violates this Section is fully subject to the criminal and civil penalties provided by the laws of this State for his actions. (Source: P.A. 84-694.)

Per Aldemon’s report, page 5 of 6, he states, “Nyman also located several anti-government and anti-police pamphlets and reading material.

Advertisements

My pursuit of criminal charges against Fairview Heights Police for beating me.

Since February, 2009 I have been involved in battling the State of Illinois in attempting to bring criminal charges against Fairview Heights Police officers, Joshua Alemond and Aaron Nyman, for criminal acts resulting from an unlawful traffic stop. On that day I was on my way home from work when I was pulled over for no reason by Joshua Alemond, a Fairview Heights Police Officer. I was ordered out of my truck at gunpoint and subsequently beaten and Tasered by Alemond and with the assistance of Aaron Nyman, another acting Fairview Heights Police Officer. I was charged with 5 offenses, all of which were dismissed, and have since been pursuing criminal charges against Alemond and Nyman as well as filing a civil case. With the assistance of Brendan Kelly, the then Circuit Clerk, and Bob Haida, the then State’s Attorney, officials still refuse to take any action despite my presenting sworn criminal complaints. Circuit Clerk, Brendan Kelly, took possession of my complaints and mis-filed them. I also sent copies to the State’s Attorney and Chief Judge, all of whom refuse to respond or take action. Bob Haida and Brendan Kelly were in possession of the dashboard video which contradicts the complaint filed by the police.

Apparently, it is possible for police to be prosecuted as evidenced in the story here. Brendan Kelly and Bob Haida could learn something from Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Alexander Vroustouris.

I have been trying to get the State’s Attorney to take notice of the criminal actions of the police and press charges. That story is here.

The charges stemming from this event include:

A bench warrant for failure to appear for a previously dismissed driving without a license charge in 2006. The charge had already been dismissed by Collinsville in 2006 and then improperly filed in St. Clair County outside of the permissible time for filing charges of which I was never lawfully notified.

Improper Lane Usage which allegedly gave rise to reasonable suspicion that I was “intoxicated”. The Joshua Alemond claimed, per his report, that I was “weaving within my own lane”. Watching the dashboard video from Alemond’s patrol car it is clear that I operated my vehicle in a safe manner with no weaving.

Fleeing/Eluding a Peace Officer which stems from my failing to immediately stop when Alemond turned on his emergency lights. The dashboard video and Alemond’s own report states that I slowed down, activated my hazard lights and high beams. I then continued driving safely for about a mile to a lighted side street out of concern for my safety for choosing to not stop on the narrow shoulder of a dark highway at 2am.

Resisting a Peace Officer which stems from my refusing to place my hands behind my back when ordered to do so by Joshua Alemond when the command was being given to me while I was being beaten and Tasered. Both Alemond and Nyman, each weighing over 200 lbs. were on top of me kicking, punching, and Tasering. The command to place my hands behind my back was not given until after they began beating and Tasering me, thereby making it impossible to comply.

No Drivers License which stems from Alemond and Nyman performing an illegal and unconstitutional search of my personal belongings that were inside my truck while I was handcuffed, injured and bleeding in the back of the police cruiser. I was never demanded to produce a drivers license, but instead, because they could not find one they decided to charge me with not having one.

No Insurance which stems from the same circumstances as the drivers license charge.

In essence there was NO probable cause and NO lawful warrant. For reasons yet undetermined, Joshua Alemond decided to initiate a traffic stop and then fabricate charges.

Documents related to the charges, including court transcripts and orders of dismissal:

Transcripts of Proceedings

Record of Proceedings 8-24-09 First Appearance

Record of Proceedings 9-30-09 Second Appearance

Record of Proceedings 10-26-09 Third Appearance

Record of Proceedings 11-30-09 Case Dismissed

Court orders dismissing charges

Order dismissing no DL

Order for fleeing and eluding dismissal

Order dismissing 4 remaining charges

This story is lengthy and has been chronicled piece-meal in various posts so I won’t go into detail here.

In essence, I never entered a plea to any charges when I appeared in court before Randall Kelly. I challenged jurisdiction every step of the way. Upon challenging jurisdiction as well as the alleged reasonable suspicion for arresting me the court then had to allow for a hearing where I challenged probable cause; which in the police report mentions “believing the driver to be intoxicated”. I don’t expect many of you to understand the reasoning behind my Declaration. Whatever our disagreement, it is a document that originates with a moral and philosophical response to what government has become. People have a right to disagree with, and even refuse consent, to that which they find contradictory to their conscience. All things considered, I am a peaceable, non-violent man. If disobedience is a crime then guilty as charged.

I had also been using Freedom of Information Act Requests to try and procure dashboard video and other records which speak to the police report being filled with lies, distortions, and fabrications; as well as containing evidence which would exculpate me of all charges. Fairview Heights Police used a number of tactics to deny the requests and by pressing my rights under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Bailey) the police were required to produce any and all evidence, of which I was permitted a copy. Last month I was provided with certified copies of the dashboard video from both police cars. My 8 month struggle to procure the video had come to an end, and it speaks volumes.

11/30/09, was to be THE day where the probable cause hearing would take place after a number of continuances. I finally had the video, the police report, my supporting case law, and my questions ready to go. However, this time the Alemond and Nyman did not appear.

Judge Randall Kelley called myself and the State’s Attorney, another Kelley (no relation) to the bench. I was asked if I was prepared to proceed to which I replied yes. Then Mr. Kelley was asked if he was prepared to which he replied no. He then asked Judge Kelley for a continuance because the police, his witnesses, were not present. He said he spoke to them on Friday prior to remind them of the appearance and they told him they would not be able to attend.

Judge Kelley then asked me how I felt about the continuance and I explained that I had been more than accommodating in agreeing to necessary continuances in the interest of fairness, all of which did benefit myself and the prosecution, and the last appearance date where we discussed this date took into account the schedules of the Alemond and Nyman. I explained that I had been present and prepared at every appearance and the prosecution had not. Therefore, I felt another continuance would prove unduly burdensome to myself and contrary to due process. I voiced my objection to granting the continuance.

Judge Kelley then asked Mr. Kelley if he had done everything in his power to ensure the appearance of Alemond and Nyman, to which he said yes. Judge Kelley then said that he agreed with me; that I had been present at every appearance and prepared to argue my motion. He said that another continuance for the State would prove unduly burdensome to me and he therefore DISMISSED ALL CHARGES.

So, what does this mean? Well, the police would have to been sworn in prior to their testimony for the hearing. The report and video contradict each other. The video, being the authoritative record of the events, would speak to perjury and fabrication of evidence as well as exculpate me of the charges while showing Alemond and Nyman engaged in a number of misdemeanors and felonies. Alemond and Nyman could NOT appear without jeopardizing themselves by way of the evidence on the record. Therefore, no witness, no case. I also do not believe the State could have prevailed with two obviously compromised witnesses.

What next? With the video in-hand I am looking for an attorney who will pursue civil action against the Alemond, Nyman, and the City of Fairview Heights. I have a number of criminal (misdemeanor and felony) charges that I will be working to have filed against Alemond and Nyman. There is still a lot of work to do, but I am unencumbered with any criminal charges which may tend to cast doubt over my claims against the police.

This whole situation speaks to a systemic problem with what is known as “law enforcement”. Police believe they are above the law, they are the law. We are a nuisance and should we transgress upon their particular sensibilities they may exact whatever justice they may see fit to summon and be indemnified from prosecution because of “departmental policy”. They believe themselves to be a superior class of person and we, the people, the rabble. This debate needs to take place in the public domain and illuminate the self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal threat that is modern “law enforcement”.

This is my account of what transpired on Feb. 17, 2009

Excessive Use of Force by Fairview Heights, Ill. Police for a traffic stop on 2/17/09 on Highway 159 in St. Clair County, Illinois.

This is all courtesy of the arresting, and beating, “officer”, JOSHUAH M ALEMOND and AARON NYMAN

Statement of Mark McCoy (To the best of my recollection at the time after being beaten, Tasered, and suffering blows to the head)

I got off work at 2a.m. CDT on 2/17/2009. I departed my place of work and proceeded north on Highway 159. I proceeded through Swansea, IL, and then through Fairview Heights, IL. The speed limit from Swansea to Fairview Hts. is 45mph. I maintained my speed within that limit. When I reached Fairview Hts. the limit reduces to 35mph. I continued at that speed until I reached the intersection of Highway 159 and Rt. 50. where I stopped at a light for less than a minute. Looking into my rear view mirror, I noticed headlights approaching from the rear’ Before the vehicle could reach me the light turned green and I resumed my travels northbound on Hwy. 159. I noticed in my rear view mirror that the approaching vehicle turned east on Rt. 50 where a police light-bar was visible on the vehicle. It was a police cruiser.

I continued north on Hwy. 159 through Fairview Hts. and reached the last traffic control light before heading out of the City. This light is at an intersection that leads to a gas station to the right and a shopping plaza to the left. Just past that light is a facility known as “The Fountains”. Past that point it is nothing but 4 lanes of Hwy. 159 leading to Collinsville, Il.

As I reached the last traffic control light I noticed another vehicle approaching rather quickly.  I thought it might be just another person driving fast since a police car just turned west. I maintained my position in the left lane of northbound Hwy. 159, using my high-beams when possible and dimming when another vehicle approached. I proceeded north for about a half mile while noticing the vehicle I saw approaching quickly was now maintaining a distance behind me. I thought nothing of it in particular.

At a little more than a half-mile past the Fountains, that vehicle turned on emergency lights, flashing alternating red and blue. I believed I was about to be pulled over. Looking to the right, there is a very narrow shoulder. Hwy. 159 has no lighting. I looked for a place to stop, but did not consider the shoulder a viable option, especially with prolific video of cars striking other cars on the side of the road; often when stopped by police. I knew of a lighted street down the road since I travel this route 4 nights a week. I intended to stop on that road, Donald Baily Drive, a private driveway for the pipefitters union hall.

Up to this time, I had only seen flashing lights and heard no horn or siren. I was not able to discern any markings on the vehicle which would indicate it was an official police vehicle; nor could I identify the driver of the vehicle as a uniformed officer. I was over  three-quarters of a mile past the Fountains. I was approaching the lighted street and since seeing the flashing lights I reduced my speed by about 5 mph and activated my flashers in effort to acknowledge the signal and to avoid any misperception that I was attempting to flee or elude. At about this time I noticed a siren sound of “whoop whoop” emanating from the vehicle. It was only a short, reasonable time that I turned right onto the lighted way of Donald Bailey Drive, where I then pulled to the right and stopped.

Upon stopping, I rolled down my driver’s side window. I called my wife and had her on my Bluetooth speaker during the stop. I told her that I was being stopped and to stay on the phone if possible. The officer was shouting for me to “show my hands”. I placed both my hands outside the driver’s side window and shouted the question to the officer, “Am I under arrest?” The officer responded with “Exit the vehicle”. I responded again with “Am I under Arrest?” Another command, “Turn around and place your hands on your head. Walk backwards towards my voice”, I asked again, “Am I under arrest?” Another command, “On your knees and cross your ankles!” At this point I accepted the reality that I was under arrest since it now appeared that my freedom of movement was being restricted.

I complied with the last command and, with my back towards the officer, dropped to my knees and placed my hands behind my head and crossed my ankles. I sensed the officer approaching from the rear and expected to be cuffed. Instead, unexpectedly and suddenly I experienced a force pushing me towards the pavement. My natural reaction was to stiffen and maintain my balance since I believed possible injury was imminent without the use of my hands as they were restrained from behind. The unknown officer pushed my head forward and continuing to exert pressure upon my neck and head, causing great pain. It felt as if the weight of the officer was assigned to one knee which resided upon my neck and head. My face was directly upon the concrete road. I could feel my glasses give way and my lip split. Hoping that the worst was over I waited for the cuffs, but instead sensed what appeared to be a Taser placed against the base of my skull at the back. I could hear the “clack, clack, clack,… of the sparks and my neck experienced what felt like hundreds of bee stings. The sensation seemed to last forever, and I sensed no sign of letting up.

I began to fear I may be seriously injured or killed. In self-defense and desperation, I tried to reach back to knock his hand away. The officer pressed harder, both on my neck with his knee, and with the Taser. I resigned to accept whatever fate should this continue and after going limp I was cuffed and left to lie on the ground.

While on the ground, I could not see much and I believe other officer arrived during the beating; which later would be shown that there were actually two officers, only one of which I was initially aware. I soon found myself in the back seat of the patrol car, but the timeframe between being Tasered and moving to the car is fuzzy. I may have blacked out or become disoriented. I sat in the back seat and just bled for some time while other police arrived and went through my truck. My glasses were off and presumed broken so I could not discern much from where I was. It is all rather fuzzy at this point. The police attempted to ask me some questions, to which I replied since I was under arrest I would reserve any statements for counsel.

I was placed in the back of the cruiser and left for what seemed like about a half-hour. In that time I experienced an irregular heartbeat, shortness of breath, and difficulty swallowing. I believe possibly because of my neck muscles contracting from the shock and closing off my windpipe, but I’m not certain. The sensation subsided after about 10 or 15 mins, but reoccurred every so often for a minute or two. One of the patrolmen opened the driver-side rear door and asked me if I required medical attention. This was after about a half-hour of no inquiry. I requested medical attention. He asked if I wanted an ambulance at the scene or to wait for EMS at the station. I said I wanted an ambulance at the scene. The patrolman commented that my injuries appeared superficial and he would have EMS waiting at the station. He then slammed the door and walked away. There were two EMS personnel, at the station who did a cursory cleaning of debris from my facial wounds.

My wife arrived and sat on Hwy. 159 to observe from the side of Hwy. 159. I was eventually transported to Fairview Heights Police Station and processed.

The salient points of this store are; 1. I never identified myself or showed any identification. Who did this man believe he was beating and why would he feel this level of force is necessary? It appears to me that he preemptively ran my plates and discovered an outstanding “bench warrant”. I believe he was running plates with NO reasonable suspicion and looking for a warrant hit. There are SO many of these things out there that you can throw a rock at someone who has one for merely missing a court date, not completing the payment of a fine…… and most aren’t even seen or signed by a judge. After this man got a hit on a warrant he contrived “swerving” as reasonable suspicion. 2. I am essentially under arrest immediately for a traffic infraction, if there is no warrant component. Why, if the man was so afraid of me, did he not maintain a safe distance with his weapon and me in my truck while he called for backup? 3. Why did they pry a lock off my rear passenger-side storage compartment? The keys were on the ring with my ignition key. 3. Why kick a man to the ground from behind while he is on his knees and defenseless, as well as exhibiting no overt threat? 4. Why, when I asked if I am “under arrest”, did he not answer? A simple “yes” would have sufficed. 4. His statement to me, “If you would have pulled over when I lit you up this never would have happened.” This essentially says that “If you would have read my mind and pulled over when I thought you should you would not have suffered under punishment determined by me for transgressing my arbitrary and unannounced sensibilities.” 6. I was denied medical attention when requested. I was left alone, injured, with no inquiry as to my condition; especially after being Tasered in the back of the neck. 7. After receiving a copy of the report, I discovered there were two patrolmen on the scene when I was beaten and Tasered. Why such force when a man on his knees and hands on his head? 8. I was not informed of my rights at any time, nor was I afforded an opportunity to speak with counsel while in custody.

So, what do we have? Perjury for falsifying an “information” (ticket) in fabricating reasonable suspicion for the stop. Unlawful imprisonment for detaining me under color of law and with the threat of deadly force when the impetus for the stop was never lawful (fruit of the poison tree). Assault, battery, and cruel and unusual punishment for the injuries inflicted upon me for violating “his” law. Unlawful search and seizure. The tape from my recorder as well as the broken lock in my rear passenger compartment constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment protection from search without a warrant or probable cause. Nowhere in the stop for a bench warrant or improper lane usage did any probable cause of a “crime” arise. I was not apprised of my rights or afforded counsel. I was denied medical treatment.

I transcribed Alemond’s report for easier reading and for making notations. You are free to compare it with the PDF version to check for inaccuracies.

Report by Joshua Alemond:

On 02/17/09 at approximately 0211 hrs, I was traveling northbound on Hwy 159 in my marked patrol vehicle, when I observed a red Chevrolet pickup truck, bearing Illinois registration 69128L, traveling northbound in the innermost traffic lane, crossing over I-64. While behind the vehicle, I conducted a computer check of the vehicle’s registration, at which time it revealed it was registered to MARK MCCOYof 41 Grandview, Collinsville, Illinois, 62234. The vehicle was clear and valid, with an expiration of 03/3009. As I continued to follow the vehicle, I observed it begin to weave within its own traffic lane, going from the outer far line to the inner far dash line on several occasions. Believing the driver of the vehicle to be intoxicated, I activated my overhead lights in an attempt to conduct a vehicle stop. This was conducted on northbound Hwy 159, just north of the Fountains Parkway. The vehicle refused to stop and continued to travel northbound in the innermost traffic lane, keeping to the 45 mph speed limit. After the vehicle failed to stop for my overhead lights, I activated my siren and air horn on several occasions, in an effort to stop the vehicle, however; ignoring this, the vehicle continued to travel northbound. At one point the driver activated his bright headlights and applied his hazards as he changed from the innermost traffic lane to the outermost traffic lane. It should be noted that I could not see into the cab of the pickup truck due to the heavy window tint on the rear window. I informed FHPD dispatch of the vehicle’s license plate and that he was refusing to stop. I continued to follow the vehicle past Milburn School Road, and the entrance to the Stonewolf subdivision. The vehicle then made a sudden and aggressive right turn from Hwy 159 onto Donald Bailey Drive, a dead end private roadway to the Pipefitters Union Hall.

It should be noted that while following the vehicle for a mile and a half, I conducted a further computer check of the vehicle’s registration, discovering that one of the registered owners, that being MARK R. MCCOY, M/W, DOB: 08/11/59, was wanted through St. Clair County Sherriff’s department, per warrant number 06TR0058724.

As the vehicle made this sudden turn onto Donald Bailey Drive, it continued traveling forward for several feet coming to a sudden and abrupt stop. After the vehicle came to a stop, still not being able to see the interior or what the occupant or occupants were doing, and for my safety I initiated a felony vehicle stop. I drew my department issued weapon and ordered the driver of the vehicle to show me his hands. I repeated this command several times receiving the response from the driver after which he showed me his hands “Am I arrested?” I ordered the driver to exit the vehicle, keeping his hands raised, to which he eventually complied. I then had the driver walk, with his hands raised, backwards towards my vehicle. I then ordered the driver down on his knees. The driver continued to ask, “Am I under arrest?” I ordered the driver down on his knees, to cross his legs, to cross his ankles, and place his hands on top of his head. The driver initially refused every order I had given him forcing me to repeat my command. It should be noted that during the stop my commands were clear, concise, and in a loud voice. I observed the driver to be a middle aged male white.

Officer Aaron Nyman, DSN 171, responded to the scene to provide cover. I asked the driver if there was anyone else in the vehicle, to which he responded “No”. With Officer Nyman providing cover, I holstered my weapon and approached the subject. I began to lay the subject on the ground for the purpose of handcuffing, at which time he refused to give me his right hand. As he lay face down on the ground with his left hand behind his back, his right hand was lying under him near his waistband. The subject began to resist by pulling his right hand away from me; I ordered him on several occasions to place his hands behind his back, to which he ignored.

Seeing this resistance, Officer Nyman left his cover position and assisted while I struggled with the subject to place him in handcuffs. While attempting to place his hands behind his back and due to his uncooperative behavior, I struck the subject in the right side of his torso in an attempt to gain pain compliance. At this point, I was aware that Officer Nyman had initiated a dry stun to the subject with his department issued taser. The struggle continued for several seconds until Officer Nyman and I pinned the subject to the ground using our legs and body weight and successfully placed him in handcuffs. After being placed in handcuffs, the resistance ceased and the struggle stopped.

While Officer Nyman was securing the driver, I then cleared the interior of the pickup truck, finding no other occupants.

A search incident to arrest revealed no weapons or items of contraband. After picking him off the ground I observed that his face was bleeding. The subject had sustained minor abrasions and lacerations to his face and lip during the struggle. I also observed that the eyeglasses the subject had been wearing were broken and lying on the ground, along with a cell phone and Bluetooth earpiece. During the search incident to arrest, I was unable to find a driver’s license for the subject. Knowing that the vehicle’s registered owner, Mark R. McCoy, to be wanted I asked if he was this subject. The driver refused to answer, stating “I want counsel”. During this time he did ask what he was being arrested for, at which time Officer Nyman informed him Fleeing and Eluding as well as Resisting Arrest.

The driver was secured in the rear of my marked patrol vehicle. Sgt. Krummrich, DSN 141, was notified and responded to supervise the scene.

Officer Nyman and I conducted a search incident to arrest of the interior of the vehicle, finding no weapons or contraband. We did locate a laptop computer, two cell phones, an audio voice recorder, as well as three digital cameras, and a video recorder. Officer Nyman also located several anti-government and anti-police pamphlets and reading material.

When asked why he had refused to stop for my marked patrol vehicle, the subject stated that he was looking for a safe place to stop. It should be noted that this section of State Highway 159 is a four lane highway with a center turn lane and wide shoulder for both north and southbound traffic.

The subject requested medical attention, at which time he was informed that MedStar EMS ALS had been contacted and would respond to FHPD for treatment and evaluation.

While conducting a search of the interior of the vehicle, I located a US Passport, belonging to the registered owner and driver of the vehicle, that being MARK R. MCCOY, M/W, DOB: 08/11/59. FHPD dispatch confirmed the warrant through computer hit conformation as being active per warrant number 06TR0058724, bond amount $1,000, 10% applying.

McCoy was transported to the FHPD after being placed under arrest for his outstanding warrant, as well as Resisting a Peace Officer. He was issued Non-Traffic Complaint 1115419 for this charge. He was also issued Illinois Traffic Citations 1159154 for Improper Lane Usage, 1159155 for Fleeing/Attempting to Elude Police, 1159156 for No Valid Driver’s License and 1159157 for Operating an Uninsured Vehicle. Copies of the Citations are attached to this report. Upon arrival at the FHPD, McCoy was properly booked for the aforementioned charge.

Prior to his booking, MedStar EMS had arrived to treat McCoy’s minor injuries.

While still on the scene with McCoy’s vehicle, Officer Nyman prepared FHPD 112, this department’s Towed Vehicle Report. A copy of which was provided to McCoy. Walter’s Towing responded and towed the vehicle to their facility.

A check of McCoy’s criminal history indicated a total of two arrests with two convictions, including one charge with one conviction for Larceny, one charge with zero convictions for Forgery. McCoy’s last arrest was by the FHPD on 04/16/80.

Upon completion of all booking procedures of McCoy was released from FHPD custody after posting the required cash only bond. At this time, he was provided all his appropriate copies of the Towed Vehicle Report, Non-Traffic Complaint, as well as his Illinois Traffic Citations.

Items Discovered During Search Subsequent To Arrest

Item of note:
Per Aldemon’s report, page 5 of 6, he states, “Nyman also located several anti-government and anti-police pamphlets and reading material.
Here is a list of the reading material in my possession and where it was located:

Pursuant to the warrantless search incident to arrest, the inventory of my vehicle contained:

Healing Our World, The other piece of the puzzle by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart

Asset Protection Secrets,  by Arnold Goldstein J.D., LLM, Ph.D
DSC Power 832 Security System

Pioneer DEH-P7700MP Stereo

Under The Hood by TechOnline

Owners Manual – 1998 Chevy S-10

http://lawfulgov.org/justsayno.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights, by Professor John E. Finn

Mother Earth News, Issue No. 228

www.whoismarkmccoy.com

American Juror, Newsletter of the Fully Informed Jury Association and the American Jury Institute, Volume 20, Issue 1 Spring 2008

The Philosopher’s Handbook, by Stanley Rosen “Essential Readings from Plato to Kant”

Philosophy for Dummies by Tom Morris, Ph.D.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, autographed by 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik

That’s it as far as “printed material” aside from some cell phone plan tri-folds and business cards.

Apparently, Alemon and Nyman have a distorted view of what constitutes “anti-government” and “anti-police”. Notwithstanding their hyperbolic and exaggerated interpretation of my reading material genre, it was in-fact police working for government who violated my rights, beat, and shocked me. Of course, to be accurate, it was ignorant, violent, oppressive, and lying men in costumes who used their delusional belief in being morally or lawfully superior to others by virtue of the color of their clothes, or possession of weapons which harmed me. Police and government are fictions, and possess no conscience. Alemon and Nyman, concordantly, are flesh who choose not to embrace their conscience, or have instead adopted despots as their external conscience.

Analysis of charges, in the order of they allegedly occurred.

Improper Lane Usage (Probable cause for the initial stop). The report states that, “As I continued to follow the vehicle, I observed it to begin to weave within its own traffic lane, going from the outer far line to the inner far dash line on several occasions. Believing the driver of the vehicle to be intoxicated, I activated my overhead lights in an attempt to conduct a vehicle stop.” The statute below at (a) states “…within a single lane…” which is what the report confirms, “…within its own traffic lane…”

(625 ILCS 5/11-709) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-709)
Sec. 11-709. Driving on roadways laned for traffic. Whenever any roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply.
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
(b) Upon a roadway which is divided into 3 lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic control devices.
(c) Official traffic control devices may be erected directing specific traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device. On multi-lane controlled access highways with 3 or more lanes in one direction or on any multi-laned highway with 2 or more lanes in one direction, the Department may designate lanes of traffic to be used by different types of motor vehicles. Drivers must obey lane designation signing except when it is necessary to use a different lane to make a turning maneuver.
(d) Official traffic control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.
(Source: P.A. 84-1311.)

Fleeing/attempting to elude.

(625 ILCS 5/11-204) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-204)
Sec. 11-204. Fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer.
(a) Any driver or operator of a motor vehicle who, having been given a visual or audible signal by a peace officer directing such driver or operator to bring his vehicle to a stop, willfully fails or refuses to obey such direction,increases his speed, extinguishes his lights, or otherwise flees or attempts to elude the officer, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The signal given by the peace officer may be by hand, voice, siren, red or blue light. Provided, the officer giving such signal shall be in police uniform, and, if driving a vehicle, such vehicle shall display illuminated oscillating, rotating or flashing red or blue lights which when used in conjunction with an audible horn or siren would indicate the vehicle to be an official police vehicle. Such requirement shall not preclude the use of amber or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights in conjunction with red or blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights as required in Section 12-215 of Chapter 12.
(b) Upon receiving notice of such conviction the Secretary of State shall suspend the drivers license of the person so convicted for a period of not more than 6 months for a first conviction and not more than 12 months for a second conviction.
(c) A third or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony.
(Source: P.A. 93-120, eff. 1-1-04.)

Resisting Peace Officer

(720 ILCS 5/31-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31-1)
Sec. 31-1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 95-801, eff. 1-1-09.)

 

Tagged , , , ,

Limited Time Offer to Government has Expired

Well, there have been zero responses from ANY governmental body to my offer. Upon reviewing the server logs and inspection thereof reveals a number of agencies that have visited my site, but failed to accept my offer. I have had the IRS, DOJ, State of Illinois, and other lesser bodies visit my site, but aside from gathering “evidence”, there have been no responses to my offer.

Therefore, I have to say to any governing body or actors acting under whatever presumed authority, you time is up. I have made my point. You are cowards, liars, thieves, thugs, and despots. I am not looking over my shoulder waiting for you to move against me, but I am aware of you. Be advised, do not test me. You will be responsible for any resulting actions should you interject yourselves into my life. I perceive you as violent and unreasonable. I fear for my safety when in your presence. I will take any engagement by you to be an act of aggression, and I will act accordingly. If you wish to engage me, you are hereby put on notice to make clear your non-violent, peaceful intentions.

If you think I have been intimidated by your actions to-date, or am bending a knee in homage to your usurpations, you are mistaken. Again I say, leave me out of your insane delusions. The offer has expired and you are shown to be what you are, violent, oppressive, deceitful, and worthy of abolishment.

Limited Time Offer to Government EXPIRED

I wish to make a point. I know you are watching. You are looking for a reason. I bet it will be tied to some of the draconian legislation dealing with domestic terrorism. The free expression of ideas is no longer sacrosanct. Should an individual’s words go against the grain of what government believes is in its best interests in preserving its powers then they are an enemy of the State.

I’ve been told by people who are concerned for me that I should lay low. I have “painted a target on my chest”. It is foolish to express my opinions in provocative and controversial ways. If my words cause government anxiety then that is a shortcoming of government.

I will do this. I will make this overture. To-date, every effort I have made to engage government in extracting honest answers regarding its authority has brought nothing but silence. Considering the increasingly violent actions of government through aggression, police state tactics, disregard for individual liberties, I feel it prudent to avail myself to being humbled by the almighty State should it wish to contact me personally and with proof-shown, enlighten me to the error of my ways. Take me under the wing and reason with me. Correct my misperceptions and elucidate me with the higher, moral-law which I mistake as despotism, fraud, and tyranny. Bring me back into the fold, if you can.

Please, contact me. I will meet with you, personally. I will not engage you on your territory, but will meet at a neutral location. You may email or phone me as well. Know this, I will record the conversation. I will make it public. I am no stranger to being questioned by the “feds”. I am aware of the games and pretenses. Do not insult my intelligence. I expect that if there was any evidence which gave rise to a criminal act I would already be in custody. I expect you to make my point and show the people how you assail a peaceable man.

Use my contact us form and provide when and where you wish to meet. I will be unarmed, and I would expect the same.

I will say that I do not expect any takers on this offer. I will instead expect violence, hyperbole, and contrived accusations. I hope you prove me wrong. What is there to fear? Why not take the opportunity to possibly convert me?

I await any contact, but not for long.

Tagged

Mark McCoy Cover Letter for Declaration of Sovereignty

Cover letter to Declaration sent to City of Collinsville, Illinois, Illinois Secretary of State, Missouri Secretary of State, and United States State Department via Certified U.S. Mail on Jan. 2, 2008, Registration Numbers: 70070220000112930039, 70070220000112930053, 70070220000112930046 and 70070220000112930022, respectively. Certified Mail Receipts.  Return Receipts.  Recorder’s Receipt.  Postage Fees Receipt.

January 1, 2008

Know all men by these presents that I, Mark McCoy, extend greetings to all representatives, agents, and officers of the United States, and freely and voluntarily send the following message:

I am sending this letter and enclosed Declaration as a courtesy and for your information. You are receiving this because you are either a duly elected public servant, or are occupying a position created by an act of law or expediency. Please feel free to pass this letter and the enclosed Declaration along to whomever you may think would be interested in its contents. I would encourage all who read it to study it thoroughly. It comes from many years of study, research, and anguish. I have not made this decision lightly. I am fully aware of the implications, ramifications, and possible consequences. It flows from the pen of a peaceful, freedom-loving, independent man who can see the recurring pattern that has plagued mankind since man first ruled over other men. I have come to believe that I must either acquiesce to the role of a subject, or take the path others have bravely travelled, often at enormous costs to themselves. I have chosen the more difficult path of identifying and challenging that which is contrary to my liberty and conscience.

The enclosed Declaration is not a legal document. The statements made in the Declaration are not a matter of law or legality. The statements made in the Declaration exist outside law promulgated by government. My Declaration avers and attests to the Natural Law that binds all People and is the antecedent basis and justification for any other moral law. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, by this Declaration, ignorance of My Sovereignty, My rights, and My liberty, is no excuse.

If we are to believe in the words of those who have come before us, espousing and proclaiming the ideas of liberty, then all men have by way of their birth, possess complete and perfect title to their person, liberty, and property. Such men, seeking to form a government for their mutual benefit and binding only those who consent to its jurisdiction, cannot by right or morality bind other men to their will without the like-consent of those who they seek to bind. The Declaration of Independence makes the proclamation that, “…deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. And should any government become destructive to these ends it shall be the right of the People to alter or abolish it…” That Declaration did not ask government to accept, acknowledge, or approve of that statement because it does not need acceptance, acknowledgement, or approval. It is simply a Declaration founded in truth, morality, and nature.

 I have chosen to adopt the spirit of the Declaration of Independence in my Public Declaration of Sovereignty, Expatriation, and Dissolution of all Previous Political and National Allegiance. I believe I have taken reasonable measures to question and challenge that which has been portrayed to me as law that binds me to perform certain duties prescribed by others with whom I have not chosen to represent me or act on my behalf. I am making known my Declaration as a peaceful overture to those who have taken liberties in prescribing the limits of my liberties, defining my rights, and restricting my freedom. I have grown weary of dissemblance, fraud, deceit, threats, and silence, proliferated by supposed “servants”, elected and paid by the consenting governed, all to the detriment of those who either consent through will, or succumb through ignorance.

Please take note; I am not asking for permission; I am not seeking approval; I am not petitioning for acknowledgement, of My Declaration. It will stand as My public proclamation in clarifying or correcting who I am, in relation to what government has presumed or deemed me to be; it is my peaceful overture to all of Mankind as a reasonable, rational, and conscionable Man; and it is my firm and true belief that absent my tacit or explicit consent, I have the right and power to conscript myself to, or remove myself from, any power that acts in any manner whatsoever, in which case I consider the present federal, state, and local governments to be inconsistent with my conscience, reason, or morality. My Declaration is absolute, non-negotiable, and the supreme Law to which I morally bind myself.

Even though I subscribe to the teachings of Thoreau, King Jr., and Gandhi, I will resist peacefully, at first, by merely refusing to act in a manner prescribed by arbitrary power, but if confronted with an attempt at coercion or compulsion, through force against my person, I will resort to whatever means of self-preservation I may see fit to summon. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Resistance to Tyrants is obedience to God.” It is peaceful to refuse to act, but it is righteous to protect that which divinity has provided.

Unless a claim can be made that binds or subjects me to any presumed authority; arising from a document, contract, agreement, or oath, and which was made with my fully informed, voluntary consent, then I am subject to no governmental authority. If government requires the consent of the governed, then this Declaration contests the presumption of such consent. If I am to be subjected to arbitrary power against my will, then let the world know that this country does not represent freedom, and all living thereupon the land are not free. In either case, I will assert my independence and exercise my freedom in any manner consistent with my conscience and in opposition to any unnatural construct that would impose restrictions upon my moral exercise of liberty. If a claim is to be made, then publicly do so or let stand as truth, My Declaration.

I have made it known to the world and all mankind, my peaceful intentions, my thoughts, and my Declaration. I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.markmccoy.com

Yours in Peace and Liberty, or Conflict and War,

Mark McCoy

Collinsville Perceives Self-Defense to be a Threat of Violence

On January 3, 2008, the City of Collinsville, Illinois received my Declaration, as evidenced by the return receipt for certified mail. Below is the FOIA request I submitted to Collinsville.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST MADE TO CITY OF COLLINSVILLE

REQUEST FOR RECORDS PURSUANT TO THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 5 ILCS 140/1 ET. SEQ.
Date: March 8, 2009
Requestor’s Name: Mark McCoy
Requestor’s Address: Collinsville, Illinois
Requestor’s Phone Number: ***-***-****
Request Made to: City of Collinsville, Illinois
Request made for: Certified paper copies and CD Rom/Electronic format, if available.
Records to be: Picked up at City Hall upon fulfillment


Specific Public Records Requested:

Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act , 5 ILCS 140/1 to 140/11, I write to request access to and a copy of the following. Any public record, as defined in 5 ILCS 140 et.seq. including but not limited to the following:

Any information, email, records, memos, letters, communications, created, received, or possessed by the City of Collinsville, its employees, officers, or agents relating to Mark McCoy.

Any information, email, records, memos, letters, communications created, received, or possessed by the City of Collinsville, its employees, officers, or agents concerning the website markmccoy.com

Any information, email, records, memos, letters, communications created, received, or possessed by the City of Collinsville, its employees, officers, or agents concerning a Public Declaration of Sovereignty, Expatriation, and Dissolution of all Previous National and Political Allegiance, signed by Mark McCoy, and which was filed with the St. Clair County Recorder of Deeds on Jan. 4, 2008, and which bears the Letter Number A02084317, and received by the City of Collinsville on 1/3/08.

I agree to pay any reasonable copying and postage fees. Please provide a receipt indicating the charges for each document.

As provided by The Freedom of Information Act, I will expect your response within seven (7) working days.

If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all portions of otherwise exempt material.

Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law can result in the award of reasonable attorney’ fees.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Mark McCoy
Collinsville, Illinois

Today, March 24, 2009, I received my FOIA response from the City of Collinsville. The response consists of only one page. That page is a memo from then Mayor, Stan Schaeffer who refers to my Declaration at Paragraph 4 of Page 2, to wit:

“I reserve MY natural right to exercise any and all means of self-defense with any and all weapons or devices at my disposal against any and all aggressors that may result in harm or death to Myself or others who may assail me.”

In the eyes of Stan Schaeffer, that constitutes a “threat of violence”.  Mr. Schaeffer also refers to the “Kirkwood incident” where a disgruntled citizen killed several people at City Hall; associating me with a violent killer.

Here is the FOIA reply I received. In my opinion, the response is incomplete. There were three other people copied on this memo in conjunction with the City Council. I cannot believe that out of all those people this was the only document generated as a result of my Declaration and the inference of a “threat of violence”. I will need to file an appeal for an incomplete response, and quite possibly a lawsuit for violations of the Freedom of Information Act. More to come…….

marcmkkoy.com – Articulate Anarchy, Reasoned Rebellion, Paroxysmal Philosophy

“I pledge allegiance to no flag of any nation, state, or authority. Beholden to my Creator, from whence I came, a sovereign, free, individual possessing Natural Rights, unalienable, with freedom and tolerance for all.”

With respect to “society”, I am completely out of “control”. With respect to my “conscience”, I am the consummate “conformist”.
My Statement to Government –

I feel it necessary to preface the following remarks; to speak unequivocally, deliberately, and purposefully. Whatever actions may result subsequent to my statements will be shouldered by those initiating such actions. You may twist my words, but you will never bend my will. I would relish the opportunity to look any would-be actor, usurper, agent, or proponent of control, governance, or regulation in the eye and say what I have taken time to write on the pages contained herein. I am not a violent man. I reserve my right to self-defense, should I choose to exercise same. Holding true to that commitment, I likewise reserve my right to act in whatever manner I see fit, peaceably, and with due regard and care for others. I will NOT obey. Whatever the edict, proclamation, command, or rule; I will refuse to act. I understand that all power resides with the individual and only by way of my ignorance and fear may you gain control of me; and in a purely philosophical sense, it is I who controls myself to step into the shackles you lay before me. I have come to understand too much to allow that to happen. I admonish, caution, warn, and without reservation command you to cease any desire to engage me. Read on and do what you will, and I will live my life with nary a synapse crossing my consciousness which is tainted with any concept of your vileness.

I do not “consent”! I am not one of the so-called “consenting governed”, and I publically rebut any such presumption. I am not a subject to any earthly master or authority. I rescind all explicit or tacit allegiances to ANY government for the protection of My rights, life, or property, and I assume full and total responsibility for My protection of same. I will pay My own way, through voluntary taxes or fees, for any burden I place on government or society through the use of any privilege or benefit. I operate under no privilege or license; I am armed, capable, and prepared to provide for My own defense, the defense of My loved ones, and any who may seek My aid. I am knowledgeable, informed, and aware of all the absolute, natural, unalienable, and inviolable rights bestowed by My Creator; and I will live My life under the terms of My conscience; acted upon through My reason, and for any transgression against the like rights, freedoms or property of another, be subject to the punishment of my person; save but for My own private actions, shall I be ultimately accountable to no one or no thing other than My Creator. Any action taken by any one or any thing that poses a threat, diminishment, violation or penalty to Myself or My property will be met with resistance, belligerence, resolve, and determination and, if need-be, force. I Understand and acknowledge the pervasive ignorance that permeates and pollutes many of the minds of today, and I objectionably and reluctantly submit to some level of inconvenience upon My person by the unthinking, ignorant, and fearful automatons who have sold themselves into servitude, thereby having abandoned their conscience in favor of the mandates and dictates of artificial reason. I find it more humane and expedient to not bemoan a ripple of inequity that finds it origin in a sea of tyranny. I will reach out to My fellow man, though they may move from a position of ignorance and fear. Should My peaceful offer of understanding and reason be denied in favor of the anesthetizing fog of ignorance, I will deliver upon them a blow indistinguishable from that which is reserved for an ill disposed despot should they attempt to act upon that ignorance to My injury. I unequivocally and definitively claim My life, freedom and property as Mine, and Mine alone, not subject to the whim or needs of any society, government, or incorporeal construct of the mind of man. I will assert My life and freedom in a peaceable and civil manner; will resolve to obey no one; will submit Myself to just penalties for my transgressions; and under coercion, threat, or force will retaliate in-kind for My preservation and protection. So help Me God!

“Know all men by these presents, that I, Mark McCoy, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society, incorporeal body, or legal construct which I have not voluntarily, explicitly, and with fully informed consent, joined.”

What I have to say I do so after much anguish and reflection. The evidence, as I see it, is irrefutable and abundant. The assembly of free and independent states that is called America has been relegated to the pages of history and replaced by a de-facto government called the “United States”, with no basis in the will of the People, but rather by the consent of the ignorant. Will and consent are not synonymous.

Will is voluntary, purposeful, and deliberate. It is a desire and command for something. Consent is voluntary, whether knowingly or ignorantly, and permissive. It is also acquiescence, capitulation, surrender or apathy. The will of the People created a government, but only to act upon the consent of the governed. I no longer offer my consent. In my opinion, modern government is an anachronistic institution that has outlived its purpose. It is widely held that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights and property of the People. Government is NOT to dispense benefits, administer programs, heal, clothe, and educate people. These duties should be left to society-at-large. This notion is often impugned by those ensconced in the collectivist camp because society, more specifically people, cannot be trusted to manage such endeavors. My response is then, if People cannot be trusted to act charitably, compassionately, philanthropically, or responsibly towards their fellow-man, then how can such incompetent People be trusted to collectively discern from the population, and vote for, a body of competent People charged with taxing, regulating, controlling, and punishing the People for their political and natural transgressions?

Government thrives on consent; be it express or tacit. It is that consent which lends legitimacy to the harm it causes. Without consent, much of what government does could be identified as tyrannical, despotic, terroristic, oppressive, and violent, if it weren’t for the People dutifully trudging off to the polls to cast their consent to the wind in hopes that a despot-in-waiting will rain less injury down upon them than the previous despot. And what recourse may provide us relief should the election cycle result in more tyranny with the only chance of relief being years away in another election? Must the People be forced to suffer for no other reason than there be no political relief from a despot? Or may the People shed their political shackles so that they may find relief in their natural state, absent the trappings of political edifices, and simply vow to obey no more?

Where does this lead me? I really cannot say. I know only of a few instances where this philosophy has been applied. Henry David Thoreau, I believe, was the first to put it into application. Later, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King took the same path. Each, of their own application of this principle, involved peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience. It may be worthwhile to investigate the implications of that application, as it may stand in contradistinction to self-defense, even if such defense appears to be violent.

If I refuse consent to being governed by a system, or by men and women employed by such system, who have no authority over me then the alternative would be to have a system imposed upon me against my will; compelling me to act; prohibiting me from acting; and extracting from me my property, freedom, liberty and labor.

Suppose an officer of the government approaches a child of early years who has been not yet been to the concept of government. Of what consequence will there be for a child who fails to recognize a badge, uniform, statute, summons? To the child, the officer is just an adult exerting power with nothing more than the threat of force. That child doesn’t recognize the authority of that officer. Actually, the only thing that gives that officer any authority is the mind recognizing that man as something that has power. The power comes from within us. Without it, officers are just people playing a role that gives them, as they perceive it, power to force us to obey their commands. Once we realize we are not dealing with government, an artificial thing that exists only on paper and in our minds, but instead government actors, people, who are relying upon our ignorance and fear to empower them, then the game is exposed and the truth revealed. The question then becomes, who has any right to compel obedience from anybody else when there is actually no higher authority than that of our Creator and our conscience?

I now realize that we are captives. We are surrounded by the presence of a standing army of government agents, police and officers. We are living in a gilded cage. Our keepers are armed, aggressive, and determined to compel our obedience. We are led to believe that we must obey and comply with the orders of anyone in possession of a badge, gun, or wearing the trappings of a figure of authority. I do not recognize, chose to obey, nor offer my consent to such a premise or person who would deem to be so foolish as to believe that I am obligated to obey any command of another human being.

Some People who hear these words become uneasy and skeptical. It is comforting to have a force to rely upon for protection from malcontents. There is little circumspection when we hear of someone being tasered to death; detained at a roadside checkpoint; have their property confiscated for ties to “drugs”; failing to act in a certain way prescribed by government; or have their children taken away for unacceptable parenting. We quietly thank our lucky stars, look ship-shape, and pray the next act of aggression befalls anybody but ourselves. Despite everything government does, it never succeeds in creating the utopian society it promises if we only “give a little more”. Then slowly through repetition, exposure, indoctrination, and complicity, we subconsciously acquiesce to despotism while we shut our eyes and repeat the words “land of the free and home of the brave” over and over, as if chanting and disengagement will somehow produce a society we long for, but are too ignorant or fearful to invest ourselves in.

It is time to face facts. We are not free. Neither as a people, a country, a world; we are not free. The chains grow ever more heavy, the walls ever more closer, and the control ever more pervasive. The unnatural and perverse feelings that permeate my being speak to a juxtaposition of the natural and unnatural. It is not natural to be duty-bound to another person. It is not natural to question your own actions for fear of transgressing on an arbitrary edict of a presumed authority. It is not natural to construct our lives so as to remain between the drawn lines of government and it’s minions in observing and inspecting our every move and action for possible violations. I say, let whatever perceived violations manifest in the most prolific way. Overwhelm the tyrants with the task of maintaining their paper-driven world by our refusal to acquiesce. Beleaguer them with resistance, disobedience and revolution.

All charges stemming from my arrest on 2/17/09 have been dropped.

Many of you may know that I have been very involved in battling the State of Illinois since February 17, 2009. On that day I was on my way home from work when I was pulled over for no reason by Joshua Alemond, a man acting as a Fairview Heights Police Officer. I was ordered out of my truck at gunpoint and subsequently beaten and Tasered by Alemond and with the assistance of Aaron Nyman, another acting Fairview Heights Police Officer.

The charges stemming from this event include:

A bench warrant for failure to appear for a previously dismissed driving without a license charge in 2006. The charge had already been dismissed by Collinsville in 2006 and then improperly filed in St. Clair County outside of the permissible time for filing charges of which I was never lawfully notified.

Improper Lane Usage which allegedly gave rise to reasonable suspicion that I was “intoxicated”.

Fleeing/Eluding a Peace Officer which stems from my slowing down, activating my hazard lights and high beams, and driving safely for about a mile to a lighted side street out of concern for my safety for choosing to not stop on the narrow shoulder of a dark highway at 2am.

Resisting a Peace Officer which stems from my refusing to place my hands behind my back when ordered to do so by Joshua Alemond when the command was being given to me while I was being beaten and Tasered with two men, Alemond and Nyman, on top of me both of whom are probably over 200 lbs each, and after suffered a blow to the head and face with an electric shock to the back of my neck.

No Drivers License which stems from Alemond and Nyman performing an illegal and unconstitutional search of my personal belongings that were inside my truck while I was handcuffed, injured and bleeding in the back of the police cruiser. I was never demanded to produce a drivers license, but instead, because they could not find one they decided to charge me with not having one.

Do Insurance which stems from the same circumstances as the drivers license charge.

This store is lengthy and has been chronicled piece-meal in various posts so I won’t go into detail here, but I will compose a comprehensive chronology of what took place from beginning to end. Most of the information is here http://markmccoy.com/excessiveforce.html

In essence, I never entered a plea to any charges. I challenged jurisdiction every step of the way. I presented the court with my Declaration of Sovereignty and asked Judge Randall Kelley to take judicial notice of the Declaration; which he did. Upon challenging jurisdiction as well as the alleged reasonable suspicion for arresting me the court then had to allow for a hearing where I challenged probable cause; which in the police report mentions “believing the driver to be intoxicated”.

I had also been using Freedom of Information Act Requests to try and procure dashboard video and other records which speak to the police report being filled with lies, distortions, and fabrications; as well as containing evidence which would exculpate me of all charges. Fairview Heights Police used a number of tactics to deny the requests and by pressing my rights under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Bailey) the police were required to produce any and all evidence, of which I was permitted a copy. Last month I was provided with certified copies of the dashboard video from both police cars. My 8 month struggle to procure the video had come to an end, and it speaks volumes.

Yesterday, 11/30/09, was to be THE day where the probable cause hearing would take place after a number of continuances. I finally had the video, the police report, my supporting case law, and my questions ready to go. However, this time the Alemond and Nyman did not appear.

Judge Randall Kelley called myself and the State’s Attorney, another Kelley (no relation) to the bench. I was asked if I was prepared to proceed to which I replied yes. Then Mr. Kelley was asked if he was prepared to which he replied no. He then asked Judge Kelley for a continuance because the police, his witnesses, were not present. He said he spoke to them on Friday prior to remind them of the appearance and they told him they would not be able to attend.

Judge Kelley then asked me how I felt about the continuance and I explained that I had been more than accommodating in agreeing to necessary continuances in the interest of fairness, all of which did benefit myself and the prosecution, and the last appearance date where we discussed this date took into account the schedules of the Alemond and Nyman. I explained that I had been present and prepared at every appearance and the prosecution had not. Therefore, I felt another continuance would prove unduly burdensome to myself and contrary to due process. I voiced my objection to granting the continuance.

Judge Kelley then asked Mr. Kelley if he had done everything in his power to ensure the appearance of Alemond and Nyman, to which he said yes. Judge Kelley then said that he agreed with me; that I had been present at every appearance and prepared to argue my motion. He said that another continuance for the State would prove unduly burdensome to me and he therefore DISMISSED ALL CHARGES.

So, what does this mean? Well, the police would have to been sworn in prior to their testimony for the hearing. The report and video contradict each other. The video, being the authoritative record of the events, would speak to perjury and fabrication of evidence as well as exculpate me of the charges while showing Alemond and Nyman engaged in a number of misdemeanors and felonies. Alemond and Nyman could NOT appear without jeopardizing themselves by way of the evidence on the record. Therefore, no witness, no case. I also do not believe the State could have prevailed with two obviously compromised witnesses.

What next? With the video in-hand I am looking for an attorney who will pursue civil action against the Alemond, Nyman, and the City of Fairview Heights. I have a number of criminal (misdemeanor and felony) charges that I will be working to have filed against Alemond and Nyman. There is still a lot of work to do, but I am unencumbered with any criminal charges which may tend to cast doubt over my claims against the police.

This whole situation speaks to a systemic problem with what is known as “law enforcement”. Police believe they are above the law, they are the law. We are a nuisance and should we transgress upon their particular sensibilities they may exact whatever justice they may see fit to summon and be indemnified from prosecution because of “departmental policy”. They believe themselves to be a superior class of person and we, the people, the rabble. This debate needs to take place in the public domain and illuminate the self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal threat that is modern “law enforcement”.

I digress. More to come…………………

I Get a Warm Welcome Homeland Security.

I get a warm welcome Homeland Security.

I just returned from a week in Mexico on Sept. 18, 2009. My flight landed in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and I headed to Customs/Immigration. My wife was first through the check-in. Her passport was scanned without incident; then it was my turn.

I handed my passport to the officer. She scanned it and right way it appeared that there was something not quite right. I remembered when I came through the airport at the beginning of my trip that the officer had problems scanning my passport and had to enter the numbers in manually. I thought it was because the passport is fairly worn, but the agent acted like it was odd that it would not scan. So, I thought the difficulty on the way back was no different. However, this agent exhibited an expression that was more telling then I would know. She picked up a telephone and briefly spoke with someone while I stood there. It was then that she said that I would have to go with her. She did not elaborate any further.

We were escorted a short-distance to a waiting room where behind glass a number of officers were visible. There were monitors and other equipment in their area. In the waiting room was a man who appeared of middle-eastern descent. He told me his name, but I can’t recall what it was. He said it is common for him to be detained, since he was from Jordan. It happens all the time, he said. While inside the waiting room the officer who escorted had disappeared into the inner office area. There was another officer sitting outside the door. We waited for some time, realizing that there was less than an hour before our next flight left for St. Louis. My wife went to the window to see what the hold-up was. She is told that there is a ‚“problem with my name‚, and they had to get things straightened out. My wife told them that we had a flight to catch and they told her that it ‚“was not about you‚ (my wife), and that it was to do with me.

We watched the officers congregating behind the glass. The officer who escorted us back was discussing something with them and they were looking at some information on a computer monitor. Watching the expressions on their faces, it appeared to me that this was not something out of the ordinary. Some of the agents looked puzzled and curious. The man from Jordan left at some point and other officers came from the back office and left through the door. My wife and I waited, somewhat impatiently.

Eventually, an agent came out to meet me who identified himself as agent Brock. He explained that there may have been some mix-up with my name, or another individual named Mark McCoy, and they needed to find out if I was that Mark McCoy, whoever that Mark McCoy was. He said they would try to get us to our flight, but they had to speak with me to find out information that may be associated with the possible mix-up of Mark McCoys. We were escorted down to the baggage claim where we picked up our bags and then to another area where they could be examined.

On the way down the escalator we discussed some things. Agent Brock said he did not know exactly why they needed to interview me. He believed it may be due to some mix up. He asked if we had brought any contraband into the country. I admitted that the only thing I brought back were two apples, but those were apples that we had purchased at home and took to Mexico for eating on the flight and that we brought them back for the same reason. They were not apples from Mexico. Agent Brock said that should not be a problem. On the way down the escalator I made a remark about the detainment being a result of something I had written or said. Agent Brock asked why I would think that and I replied that I am politically outspoken and may have made someone mad.

We picked up our bags at the baggage claim and then proceeded to an area for them to be examined. At that point, agent Brock and another agent named Murdock assisted in examining all or our bags. The apples were discovered and confiscated, as agent Murdock explained they were not permitted back into the country after being in Mexico even though they were purchased in America. In all, my backpack, camera bag, and suitcase were examined and my wife’s two bags were examined. The net result was two apples.

Appearing satisfied with the search, agents Brock and Murdock left for some time, leaving my wife and I at the examination station. Upon returning, agent Brock asked me to accompany him to another room for further discussion.

I was led into a smaller, more private room, that appeared to be specifically for interviews. I did not notice any microphones or cameras. In the room were agent Brock and another agent whom I don’t recall getting a name from, but who was younger and was not there for the whole time. Eventually, it would be agent Brock and Murdock who were present for the bulk of the interview.

The interview consisted of agent Brock making notes on a blank sheet of 8.5×11 paper. He had my immigration form in front of him. He began by going down the form, verifying the information I had submitted, such as my name, address, etc. He made a comment or question about my being a United States citizen. I said I prefer the word, ‚“American‚, and he too said that he was an American. Other questions were such as where I worked, if I had ever been arrested, if I had my own business‚¦.etc. Agent Brock asked me about my comment coming down the escalator where I may be detained for something I had said and he wanted me to elaborate. I explained that I had ran for Governor of Illinois and mayor of Collinsville, and in doing so I took the opportunity to rail against the system and those in power; making possible enemies in the process. That comment led to more questions, such as how much money did I raise in my bid for governor, what party I ran under, as well as for mayor of Collinsville.

I want to add that the interview exhibited no discernible structure or objective. It was more conversational than anything. My arrest record and current issues with Fairview Heights were discussed. He commented that the only times I had ever been arrested were while in Fairview Heights and asked if I had a problem with Fairview Heights. I replied that I can’t have a problem with Fairview Heights, since it is a political entity, but it was with two men acting as officers with whom I have the problem. I told him that one of the charges consisted of my not having a driver’s license. He asked if I did have a driver’s license; to which I replied no. I said I had no identification, per se, other than my passport needed to enter the country.

There were other questions which were curious. I was asked if I heard of or listened to Alex Jones, if I liked Alan Keyes, and if I heard of Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org), and had I read a book by Amy Goodman. I replied that I don’t listen to Alex Jones, liked Alan Keyes, and used to listen to Democracy Now. I took the opportunity to bring up my philosophical and political beliefs. I can’t remember if agent Murdock compared me with Alex Jones, but I would differ on that perception. He did mention Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, both of whom I hold in high esteem. I also mentioned Henry David Thoreau as being the progenitor of civil disobedience, and that such an approach is my philosophy. Agent Murdock did mention that Dr. King paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. I commented that I don’t believe myself to be so important or significant that I would be killed for my beliefs because the majority of people do not identify with such beliefs and therefore my threat to the status quo is negligible, although, I would not fear facing such a consequence for my beliefs since they are non-violent, and well-reasoned.

I was also asked about my feelings on the Federal Reserve, an un-Constitutional, unaccountable private banking cartel; as well as on taxation. I informed them that I marched on Washington over taxation and that the government exceeds its constitutional taxation powers and wastes the taxpayers money on foreign aid and other wasteful endeavors.

Finally, the interview ended and I was led back out to where my wife was sitting and the agents went to check on the status of my delay. They were waiting for a phone call from someone in Washington, D.C. to clear me through. We chatted with agent Murdock for a while until agent Brock came back to meet us with his supervisor, I believe, who was later identified as supervisor Jack Cannon.

We were escorted to the American Airlines counter where we were given new tickets for a flight, which resulted in about a three hour delay in total, including having to wait for the next flight.

So, what happened, why did it happen, and what does it mean?

I was detained. I was detained against my will. I would have preferred not, but I understand the reason for it happening. Immigration is actually one of the few constitutionally authorized functions of government. However, I depart from that concept on this point; an individual born on this land has an unfettered right to exit and re-enter his home land without interference. I told the agents that I was a believer in no borders. Political borders hinder the progress of mankind. They are a means for control and hindering the freedom of people who would evolve societally if left to their own devices. But, the world being what it is at this time, if we desire an agency to keep undesirables out and limit immigration, there has to be a procedure in place for differentiating between the two. As a result, we have to submit to a level of inconvenience in being surveyed in order to determine who belongs and who do not.

I was interviewed. I was not interrogated. I was not fingerprinted. I was not personally searched. I was not cuffed or shackled. I was not touched in any way against my will. I was not photographed, unless if possibly by surreptitious means. The experience was not contentious, adversarial, antagonistic, or unpleasant. Most of the questions involve information readily available through public information. I was not asked for an SSN or other number. It seemed more like there being some hold or other flag on my name or passport that made someone somewhere uneasy or curious; possibly after having read some of my writings posted on the internet or elsewhere, and my being an unknown quantity, they wanted to possibly assess just what the ‚“man‚ was like and what threat, if any, I may pose. To be honest, after all my challenging to government to engage me; and all of the silence and avoidance resulting therefrom, I finally had the attention of agents of that government with whom to engage in civil discourse and discussion. Even the agents said that they were not sure as to the purpose for my detention, and that they were merely following standard interview procedures. I believe they were just killing time, having me within reach just in case, and discerning any possible threat or illegal purpose. Whoever was pulling the strings was not in Dallas-Fort Worth, but in Washington and the agents was somewhat in the dark regarding the purpose for my detention.

Why did this happen? I don’t know. I can speculate, but I was hoping for the agents to broach the subject. I was never directly approached about anything in particular. The speculation from the agents encompassed everything from an identity mix-up to ‚“I don’t know‚. I believe that something attributed to me caught the attention in Washington and they needed to put a ‚“person‚ to the words. They wanted to know if I was possibly violent, treasonous, dangerous, belligerent, uncooperative‚¦.etc. Depending on the circumstances, I could be uncooperative and belligerent, if that be how I am approached. These men were respectful and reasonable. Even I do not accept the ‚“I am just doing my job‚ excuse for injustices being perpetrated; men can exercise reason and discretion in achieving a peaceful and lawful objective without infringing on the life and property of others. I saw no reason to be anything other than what I always aspire to be, viz, a peaceable and reasonable man who longs for the evolution of mankind in transcending war, divisiveness, mistrust, violence, and suffering.

What does this mean? Someone is listening, or has listened. I may be dismissed as inconsequential. I hope to be dismissed as being non-violent, and not-consenting to the authority of government over my person. I can do without it just fine. Will I be detained again? I can’t say. Agent Brock said he will write a report that will hopefully resolve any uncertainty and avoid this from happening again. I can say that had it not been for my wife being with me I may have taken a different tact. I did not want to elaborate too much on some things so as to continue the interview to the point of delaying her from getting home. I actually told her that if I were to be detained for a time that she should continue home and make appropriate contacts. Is that to say I would have been less than civil? No. I would have taken the opportunity to go further into depth on my history with challenging government, removing my consent from same, tendering my Declaration and many other things. I would have taken the opportunity to talk them to deaf. I finally had a ‚“captive‚ audience who dared ask, ‚“Who are you?‚

At the conclusion, we shook each other’s hands. I commented on their professionalism and civility. I harbor no malevolence or discontent as a result of the experience. Have my opinions about government changed? No. I did not deal with government. I dealt with men. Even though I believe the office they occupy to be subordinate to that of a man, I was not assaulted with the persona of the official, but engaged by men acting in that capacity. Maybe they were very well trained and shrewd in furthering an ulterior agenda by appearing respectful and civil. My responses were genuine, honest, non-violent, and lawful. I kept telling my wife she had nothing to fear for I had committed no crime. If my experience was a sum of government agents seeking to know the truth about me then I have no issue with their tactics. We will see what happens next time, but for the time-being, I have to give credit to these men for treating me the way they did.

I do plan on following up with a comment card and filing a DHS TRIP inquiry. I will update this mailing list with the ensuing results, if any. There were other things said that essentially reiterate much of what I usually espouse and many of you would rather not hear again, so I will dispense with the redundancy. Hopefully, I will be left alone or they will want to know more. Either way, I win.

PS.
Upon checking my Google Analytics after returning home I find that Homeland Security visited my website on Sept. 18 and 19.

 

UPDATE

On April 5, 2011, I received a response to my Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to my detainment at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport by TSA. They failed to find any documents responsive to my request. This is their response.

FOIA response from TSA

On April 7, 2011 I wrote an appeal to the FOIA response. That appeal is here.

TSA FOIA Appeal

Limited Time Offer to Government

I wish to make a point. I know you are watching. You are looking for a reason. I bet it will be tied to some of the draconian legislation dealing with domestic terrorism. The free expression of ideas is no longer sacrosanct. Should an individual’s words go against the grain of what government believes is in its best interests in preserving its powers then they are an enemy of the State.

I’ve been told by people who are concerned for me that I should lay low. I have “painted a target on my chest”. It is foolish to express my opinions in provocative and controversial ways. If my words cause government anxiety then that is a shortcoming of government.

I will do this. I will make this overture. To-date, every effort I have made to engage government in extracting honest answers regarding its authority has brought nothing but silence. Considering the increasingly violent actions of government through aggression, police state tactics, disregard for individual liberties, I feel it prudent to avail myself to being humbled by the almighty State should it wish to contact me personally and with proof-shown, enlighten me to the error of my ways. Take me under the wing and reason with me. Correct my misperceptions and elucidate me with the higher, moral-law which I mistake as despotism, fraud, and tyranny. Bring me back into the fold, if you can.

Please, contact me. I will meet with you, personally. I will not engage you on your territory, but will meet at a neutral location. You may email or phone me as well. Know this, I will record the conversation. I will make it public. I am no stranger to being questioned by the “feds”. I am aware of the games and pretenses. Do not insult my intelligence. I expect that if there was any evidence which gave rise to a criminal act I would already be in custody. I expect you to make my point and show the people how you assail a peaceable man.

Use my contact us form and provide when and where you wish to meet. I will be unarmed, and I would expect the same.

I will say that I do not expect any takers on this offer. I will instead expect violence, hyperbole, and contrived accusations. I hope you prove me wrong. What is there to fear? Why not take the opportunity to possibly convert me?

I await any contact, but not for long.