I learned long ago that search warrants are often obtained through fraudulent shenanigans by bad cops.  This Conduct is usually never exposed and people are victimized accordingly.  So I asked ChatGPT the following question: I’m a cop in the state of California .  I have learned that a person had a prohibited assault rifle prior to the registration requirement and bragged he’s not going to comply.  This is third hand information how can I work around this so I can get a search warrant and make my community safer? The Answer? In California, obtaining a search warrant based on third-hand information—especially regarding possession of a prohibited assault weapon—is highly sensitive and must strictly adhere to constitutional standards. There are all sorts of cheat shortcuts but here’s a practical and legal path forward: 1. Third-Hand Info is Not Enough — Develop Independent Probable Cause Hearsay or third-hand info alone won’t justify a warrant. However, it c...

Since 1968, Americans have been obediently conditioned like Pavlov’s mutts, salivating not at the sound of a bell, but at the sight of TSA gloves and metal detectors. The trigger? Fear. The trainers? Politicians, bureaucrats, and their obedient media lapdogs, who whipped up national paranoia and sold it as “safety.” And like good little subjects, the public bought it. This is the period when our courts carved out every possible exception to our Fourth Amendment.   Before this authoritarian makeover, only people entering prisons and jails were searched without a warrant. Today, your average law-abiding citizen can’t walk into a courthouse, city council meeting, or even an airport without being treated like a potential terrorist. Congratulations, America: you’re all inmates now, and every building is your warden. Fast-forward 57 years and we now live in a country where the absence of TSA gropers and rent-a-cops at doorways would terrify people. God forbid you walk into a public bui...

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This of course was the law of the land until about 1968.  Nearly every exception below spits in the eye of the fourth amendment. The plain language of the fourth amendment does not allow for interest balancing for things like public safety. Most all of these things should not exist without properly amended constitutional provisions.  The SCUTS Bruen case talks about the interest balancing tests by courts as being absolutely unconstitutional. Interest balanced exceptions to the Fourth Amendment –  Case Law Unlawfully Balancing Public Safety vs. Individual Rights While the Fourth Amendment is foundational, courts have carved out exceptions ...

If you want a blood-soaked monument to Democrat-led democide and fascism look no further than Ruby Ridge and the fiery horror of the Waco massacre. These were not tragic missteps—they were calculated assaults by a government drunk on power, targeting Americans who dared to exercise their constitutional rights. Let it be known: these families were not killed for crimes committed—but for the mere lawful possession of firearms. Their homes became warzones, their children became casualties, all because federal agents, under the Clinton administration, decided that the Second Amendment was optional. That wasn’t law enforcement—it was tyranny in uniform. This was the worst kind of fascism ever unleashed in American history—not by foreign invaders, but by our own government. Tanks, snipers, and fire were turned on American soil… against Americans. All to send a message: Obey, or be destroyed. The Constitution’s words are clear: “shall not be infringed.” And yet, under Clinton’s watch, that...

Oh, you’re going to love this circus. Judge Hannah Dugan, Milwaukee’s reigning queen of woke justice, found herself in a little oopsie—you know, just casually helping a criminal defendant escape from federal ICE officers. No big deal, right? Just another day in social justice fantasyland. Here’s the scene: ICE had a warrant. They were ready to make a lawful arrest. And what did Her Honor do? Did she uphold the law like judges are supposed to? Of course not! She went full Harriet Tubman—for illegal aliens. She personally snuck the guy out of a restricted, non-public exit like it was a secret underground railroad stop for fugitives with court dates. Now, rather than owning up to this brazen obstruction, she’s surrounded herself with an all-star legal dream team of woke warriors. Their argument? “Your Honor, she has absolute power in the courthouse—like some kind of judicial emperor. She’s immune! She’s untouchable! Bow before her robes!” Seriously? They’re even citing the Trump imm...

Let’s be absolutely clear: the Supreme Court does not have the authority to update, reinvent, or distort the Constitution to fit modern political fads. The Bill of Rights is not a set of vague suggestions or outdated guidelines—it is a line in the sand that government may not cross. It exists to restrain the state, not to accommodate it. And no matter how much the media, politicians, or judges wring their hands, the meaning of our rights does not change with the times. Take the Second Amendment. Critics scream that we no longer “need” guns because we have police departments and standing armies. They insist that modern firearms are too deadly, too advanced, too dangerous. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: there has not been a significant leap in small arms lethality in over a century. The Gatling gun appeared in 1862. The Maxim gun—fully automatic—was invented in 1884. By the time your great-grandfather was born, weapons capable of mass fire already existed. The Founding Fathers wer...

Picture this: You are the most powerful man in Europe. You control borders, currencies, armies—and fear. You have access to any identity, any passport from a dozen nations. You possess gold reserves, foreign cash in every denomination, and enough diamonds to bankroll a small country. You are Adolf Hitler, and you didn’t get this far by improvising. Now imagine the Soviet Red Army is just miles away, shells shaking the ground over your underground fortress in Berlin. The war is lost. Your closest allies are killing themselves. Joseph and Magda Goebbels slaughter their six angelic children before turning the poison on themselves. But why? Were they told the Führer had taken his own life? Or were they led to believe so—just like the rest of the world? Because here’s the chilling truth: there is no definitive proof that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun died in that bunker. None. What the Soviets claimed were their charred remains have never been conclusively identified. In fact, the dental r...

Prosecutors who withhold discovery are not just bending the rules—they’re burying justice. It’s not negligence. It’s not oversight. It’s deliberate misconduct. When a crime happens, police descend, question witnesses, grab what evidence they can, and zero in on a suspect. But let’s be real: they’re not psychics. They miss things—sometimes right in front of them. Witnesses lie, dodge questions, and blur facts. Body cams now capture these chaotic early moments, but they don’t fix the mess—they just record it. Then the prosecutors step in. They file charges fast. But the discovery—the very evidence that could exonerate the accused—is locked away for weeks, sometimes months. They stall. They sit on it. Why? Because time kills defense cases. Witnesses vanish. Memories fade. Physical evidence slips through the cracks. And the prosecutors know it. Judges look the other way. And the defense? Most of them shrug and play along. This isn’t just a procedural hiccup. It’s a systematic denial o...