Death of free speech? The treasonous "law enforcement" bureaurats in Renton WA think so!

One recent glaring example of what egregious lengths various and sundry police-state scum1 are willing to go to deliberately violate the 1st Amendment and suppress dissenting speech is found in the following linked news stories and videos. Five of the offending cartoons, in addition to being linked, are also embedded below for viewing convenience. Some of them are also embedded in the linked Seattle Times article. It seems some fascist2 politicians3 and bureaurats are slow learners when it comes to freedom of speech, hence your humble webmaster's decision to help spread the story and hopefully facilitate their learning process.

Cartoonist Targeted with Criminal Probe for Mocking Police with Online Animation - MRCTV video

To read up on the specifics as to how the U.S. Supreme Court believes the 1st Amendment protects political speech (including parody and exposure of police criminality and incompetence), all you have to do is go to the "Legal Disclaimer" section of this website. When researching the constitutionality of statutes, it is crucial to remember that “A statute (or rule, regulation, policy or police action — your humble webmaster) may be unconstitutional as written, as applied, or as explained by the state courts.” Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 US 399 (1966), Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931), Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886). In the Renton prosecutor-judge-arrogance case, the unconstitutional overreaching is virtually self-evident. That would seem to be an unconstitutional "as applied" situation.

Regarding political speech, which in my view the cartoons at issue clearly are, see the cases of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). Regarding deliberately embarrassing someone publicly, see Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Regarding the statute under which the treasonous police-state B.S. is fraudulently being perpetrated, see (Revised Code of Washington) RCW 9.61.260 Cyberstalking. Regarding the statute under which the fraudulent and manipulative affidavit claims the search warrant is being sought, see (Revised Code of Washington) RCW 10.96.020 Production of records.

Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the UCLA School of Law, wrote: "Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge is James Cayce.) A search warrant can only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that it will uncover evidence of a crime; since the material described in the affidavit can’t be made criminal under the cited statute, given the First Amendment, the warrant ought not have been issued. The government is not permitted to use its coercive power to identify the author of this constitutionally protected video." (Emphasis added.)

As Professor Volokh noted, "the theory is that the videos are criminal because they described alleged police sexual misconduct using “lewd” or “indecent” words with the intent to torment or embarrass particular officers." Since I am not a lawyer or law professor, I don't have to use benign language when referring to treasonous police-state scumbaggery1. In a situation where the cops' behavior is itself, by objective standards, lewd, indecent, incompetent and/or illegal, it is quite likely that some of the words used of necessity to ACCURATELY describe the police scumbaggery1, and bring it to the attention of the public so they could take legal and/or political action against it, would themselves be lewd or indecent. The idea that using plain and accurate language to describe THE TRUTH ABOUT police scumbaggery1 should itself somehow be illegal is worse than arrogant, stupidly incorrect in the law, and immoral. It is cynical, diabolical, satanic and generally treasonous against the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In other words, it is altogether evil and without excuse.

In my view, the affiant, police officer Ryan Rutledge, is under the same legal obligation to know what the law is as the prosecutor and judge. Remember how much judges and prosecutors LOVE to remind ordinary citizens that " ignorance of the law is no excuse." Given that long-established wannabe-clever mantra/axiom, why then should "ignorance" (they would be lying through their scumbag1 teeth to make such an assertion) of the law be an excuse for cops, prosecutors, and judges. Short answer: it shouldn't. "Trial judges are presumed to know the law, and to apply it in making their decisions." See Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990). See also Canon 1 of the Washington state code of judicial conduct, which in pertinent part says: "RULE 1.1 Compliance with the Law. A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct." "RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." "The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge." See also Canon 2 of the Washington state code of judicial conduct, which in pertinent part says: "RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially...COMMENT[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule." "RULE 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation. (A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties, competently and diligently...COMMENT [1] Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge's responsibilities of judicial office."

Professor Volokh's analysis is very good, but, as I said, in my view much too nice. Let's look at the facts. First, the affidavit is virtually all hearsay, consisting of snippets such as "I was provided information...," "I was advised...," "I was forwarded more information...", etc. Sounds suspiciously like somebody higher on the authority food chain with more first-hand information should be making out the affidavit, doesn't it? One has to actually read the affidavit in its entirety to really grasp how completely devoid of pertinent probable-cause-related facts it truly is.

Second, the potentially relevant part of RCW 10.96.020 under which the search warrant is being sought says, "This section shall apply to any criminal process (emphasis added) allowing for search..." As Professor Volokh has pointed out, controlling 1st Amendment law (which Judge Cayce is legally obligated to obey) prohibits the cartoons in question from being made illegal. See e.g.Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). The fair logical inference from that fact is that RCW 10.96.020 Production of records is totally inapplicable to the situation (which is non-criminal). An essential element of criminal process is probable cause. The law regarding the oaths constitutionally necessary to the issuance of a warrant of search or arrest is well settled. The language of Ex Parte v. Burford, 7 U. S. 448 (1806) is "The Judges of this court were unanimously of opinion that the warrant of commitment was illegal for want of stating some good cause certain, supported by oath." The language of United States v. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274 (1911) is "The Fourth Amendment furnishes the citizen the nearest practicable safeguard against malicious accusations. He cannot be tried on an information unless it is supported by the oath of someone having knowledge of facts showing the existence of probable cause. Nor can an indictment be found until after an examination of witnesses, under oath, by grand jurors -- the chosen instruments of the law to protect the citizen against unfounded prosecutions, whether they be instituted by the government or prompted by private malice." A determination of probable cause by a neutral magistrate is a prerequisite to the sufficiency of an application for a warrant. Johnson v. United States, 333 US 10, 92 L Ed 436, 68 S Ct 367 (1948), Giordenello v. United States, 357 US 480, 2 L Ed 2d 1503, 78 S Ct 1245 (1958), Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 29 L Ed 2d 564, 91 S Ct 2022 (1971), Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 US 25, 32 L Ed 2d 530 (1972), Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103. 43 L Ed 2d 54, 95 S Ct 854 (1975). It is established law that a warrant affidavit must set forth particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable cause, so as to allow a magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter. Nathanson v. US, 290 US 41, 78 L Ed 159, 54 S Ct 11 (1933), Giordenello, supra, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 US 108. 12 L Ed 2d 723, 84 S Ct 1509 (1964), Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154, 57 L Ed 2d, 98 S Ct 2674 (1978). Snippets such as "I was provided information...," "I was advised...," "I was forwarded more information...", etc, do not constitute facts stating the existence of a crime. They are hearsay.

Third, the potentially relevant part of RCW 9.61.260 says, "Cyberstalking. (1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party: a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act..." If I were in a situation where I needed to make an exhaustive presentation, I would also research what is called the "legislative intent" of RCW 9.61.260. I would be willing to bet that you'd find the intent of the statute was to criminalize things like anonymous and obscene threatening phone calls to a private person, NOT shield gubmint scumbags from public exposure of their lewd, lacivious, indecent, obscene and/or illegal behavior. It seems obvious to me that the Renton speech-Nazi conspirators, like Cinderella's ugly stepsisters trying to force their huge feet into the tiny glass slipper, simply parroted the language of the cyberstalking statute in an effort to get 1st-Amendment-protected cartoons to fit criminal process. Doing that unarguably violates the cartoonist's constitutional rights. Doing that, if there was in fact a conspiracy to do the deed, constitutes a federal felony. See 18 U.S.C. §241. Knowing about the felony and failing to report it to the proper authorities would be a federal misdemeanor. See 18 U.S.C.§4 Misprision of a felony.

Fourth, is the issue of whether or not Judge Cayce's "error" in the law is so egregious as to constitute, not an honest "good faith" mistake, but a violation of Washington state's Code of Judicial Conduct. The issue of Judge Cayce's "good faith" goes to his intent. "Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law." "A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does." See Reynold v. U.S., 98 US 145 (1878). "Acts should be judged by their tendency under the known circumstances, not by the actual intent which accompanies them." The Common Law, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. As a matter of law, the consequences of Judge Cayce's illegal search warrant is the violation of the anonymous cartoonist's civil rights. Therefore, as a matter of law, it was Judge Cayce's intent to accomplish that result of his illegal behavior.

Regarding prosecutor Shawn Arthur: "A prosecutor who directs that an investigation be carried out in a way that is patently illegal is not immune." See the dissent in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982).

It is my view that, taken in context of the totality of the surrounding circumstances, combined with the obviousness of the relevant controlling law, Judge Cayce's signing a search warrant he had no legal authority to sign does constitute a bad faith politically-motivated deliberate manipulation, which would fall within the purview of 42 U.S.C. 1983, see also the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Best case, Judge Cayce is so utterly incompetent in the law — remember Professor Volokh said "the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this" — that his removal from the bench is necessary to serve the purposes and intent of Washington state's Code of Judicial Conduct. Worst case, I believe a fair inference from totality of the available documentation would be that the judge, the prosecutor and the chief of police all conspired as to how to circumvent due process and abuse the law and court process to violate the 1st Amendment rights of the anonymous cartoonist. If true that behavior would constitute a prima facie criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §241. It is entirely logical for criminal-minded legal professionals to think that if they could discover the cartoonist's identity, perhaps they could pressure or otherwise intimidate or force him to implicate himself criminally as well as reveal the identity of the anonymous police department whistle blowers they no doubt would love to crucify. They could also use all their political connections to destroy the cartoonist and any whistle blowers financially. Having read the relevant law and the affidavit, this latter scenario is the one I most strongly suspect.

The reason I say that is because in my own situation — as a nonbar pro se litigant I successfully challenged illegal federal behavior in John R. Wilkenson v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, et al, 634 FS 1265, a full-blown federal trial with over 200 exhibits - one of the Mesa County Commissioners had his plumbing supply business and ranch literally stolen by various local corrupt political scumbags in retribution for agreeing with me and providing political assistance (the Mesa County Commissioners joined my lawsuit) for my court victory. He had never missed or been late with a payment on either. Using a corrupt special interest statute, the corrupt local political scumbags1 simply had the bank "reassess the equity position" of the loans and call them due. Perhaps something similar to that is what the Renton scumbags1 had in mind for the the cartoonist, "Mrfuddlesticks", and the police department whistle blower/s.

The particularly pernicious part of what the Renton gubmint speech Nazis are doing is that, even though flagrantly and deliberately incorrect in the law, it would be a lot easier and cheaper for "Google Legal Investigations Support" to simply give the government criminals what they want than to oppose Judge Cayce's prima facie illegal search warrant through the judicial processes. Then, possessing his identity, the Renton gubmint speech Nazis could illegally drag the hapless cartoonist in front of a grand jury and demand to know who the police department whistle blowers are. Although prima facie devoid of all procedural due process, this wannabe-clever tactic would force the cartoonist to incur huge legal expenses to defend against, unless he was lucky enough to have an organization such as the ACLU represent him pro bono.

THEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, Shawn Arthur, James Cayce, and affiant Ryan Rutledge should all be fired forthwith for their self-evident flagrant and inexcusable disregard for currently controlling binding precedents in 1st Amendment case law. In my opinion, Shawn Arthur, James Cayce, and affiant Ryan Rutledge should have to pay the cartoonist's legal expenses out of their own pockets.

It is logical to presume that Judge Cayce's arrogant criminality has its roots in what is called "absolute judicial immunity." Long ago, America's judiciaries, under the pretense of "judicial independence," arrogantly anointed themselves with an absolute extra-constitutional immunity from their "judicial acts", even when that behavior is malicious and criminal. For a real eye-opener, of which the average voting citizen is completely unaware, read the U.S. Supreme Court's judicial immunity decisions of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 335 (April 8, 1872), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). This absolute immunity was extended to prosecutors in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), and to presidents in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). For easier reading, pdf files of the Bradley, Pierson, and Stump dissents have been created and linked to this essay. This tryanny-friendly "official immunity" needs to be abolished root and branch on moral, self-ownership, and equal-protection-of-law grounds. From a moral point of view, gubmint operatives (including politicians, officers, bureacrats, and employees) should be no less liable for their criminal behavior than the average citizen. The notion that government needs to be free to engage in criminal behavior to serve the best interests of the people is sheer insanity dreamed up by tyrant-minded closet criminals. In fact, hindsight has clearly shown that for justice to be truly served, behavior standards should be higher and punishment should be even harsher for the abusers of gubmint power than for "ordinary" non-government private-citizen criminals. Unfortunately, even if the legislatures were politically motivated to abolish official immunity, the judicial branch would thwart them, using phony "separation of powers" arguments. Accordingly, a judicial reform amendment, such as the one I have proposed on this website, will be necessary to settle the judges' treasonous-to-the-U.S.-Constitution hash. The autonomous legal profession, (aka "gubmint") would never permit that. Corruption and catering to moneyed special interests is how they maximize the amount of money they make off the rest of naive, gullible and ignorant society.

The foregoing analysis is my 1st-Amendment-protected opinion. It is to be construed purely as POLITICAL commentary (speech), NOT legal advice or any sort of intimidation or threat, whether implied or express, against any arrogant law-breaking scumbags1 in so-called "law" enforcement in gubmint. See also the "Legal Disclaimer" section of this website.

Death Of The Freedom Of Speech - Making South Park Style Videos Mocking The Police Now Illegal - YouTube video

Video being investigated for cyberstalking - Brightcove video

Video being investigated for cyberstalking - Brightcove video

Video being investigated for cyberstalking - Brightcove video

Video being investigated for cyberstalking - Brightcove video

Video being investigated for cyberstalking - Brightcove video

Video being investigated for cyberstalking - Brightcove video

Web cartoons making fun of Renton taken seriously - The Seattle Times

The "Affidavit For Search Warrant" - The Seattle Times - Read the affidavit for yourself and see how it is virtually all hearsay and "bootstrapping B.S. designed to "shoehorn" the control-freak accusation to fit the cyberstalking statute. Obviously, since the cartoons make no specific references, Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur and Judge James Cayce are apparently obsessed with wanting to know the identity of the person or persons responsible for airing police department dirty laundry.

Is It a Crime to Publish Parody Videos That Use “Lewd ... Language” Meant to “Embarrass and Emotionally Torment” Police Officers? - The Volokh Conspiracy - Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the UCLA School of Law, wrote: "If the prosecutor is right that the statute should be interpreted this broadly, then it’s clearly unconstitutionally overbroad. Speech to the public doesn’t lose its constitutional protection because it’s intended to torment or embarrass."

Behead Those Who Insult The Renton Police Department, Piece Be Unto Them! - Popehat

Cartoonist Faces Prosecution for Videos Mocking Police - The Wall Street Journal

Cartoonist Targeted with Criminal Probe for Mocking Police with Online Animation - Breitbart TV

Renton Police Want Man Jailed For Mocking Police Department In Cartoon Parody - KIRO7 News

Renton police investigating cartoons mocking cops, city workers - KOMO News

Police: Mock us in Cartoons, go to Prison - Daily Tech - "The local American Civil Liberties Union has offered to defend the cartoonist if they stands trial. An ACLU representative said, "[The charges are] ludicrous. People do have the right to anonymous speech on the internet.""

Renton Police Shopped Prosecutors To Make Case - KIROTV - "Renton police Detective Bob Onoshi told KIRO Team 7 Investigators he was ordered earlier this year by his commander, police Chief Kevin Milosevich, to try to make a cyberstalking case against the anonymous cartoonist."

UPDATE: Renton Police Department Struggles With Morale, Personnel Issues - Renton Patch

Washington Police Are Trying To Charge Creator Of This Cartoon Mocking Cops - Business Insider

Renton police search for cartoonist who mocked cops - SeattlePI

WA cops say parody of them is crime - NWCN

Renton Police Department investigating possible cyberstalking of three police employees - Seattle PI

Renton Police Respond To Parody Videos Investigation - KIROTV

Police, City Use Ridiculous 'Cyberstalking' Claim To Try To Identify & Jail Creator Of Mocking Videos - Tech Dirt

Criminal probe targets cartoonist who mocks police - PoliceOne

Shawn Arthur, Renton Prosecutor, Wants to Jail Person Who Made Fun of Police - Seattle Weekly

VIDEO: Chief Milosevich Discusses Renton's Cyberstalking Investigation - Renton Patch

'The Department Does Not Like Laundry Being Aired in Public' - Reason

WA police open criminal probe of Internet cartoons - Seattle Times


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

State of Florida vs. United States Department of Human Services - The 11th Circuit CCApp's decision in the "Obamacare" case. The individual mandate is declared unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote of a 3-judge panel.

Explosive Jackie O tapes 'reveal how she believed Lyndon B Johnson killed JFK and had affair with movie star' - Daily Mail Online

Jackie Kennedy Believed Lyndon B Johnson Killed JFK As Evidence Of Johnson’s Complicity Continues To Mount - The Intel Hub

Jackie O. Tapes Open New Chapter in JFK Conspiracy - DeathAndTaxes

SECRET Tapes reveal Jackie O: LBJ 'at heart' of JFK killing..! - Project Avalon Forum

How Should We Then Live 1-1 - YouTube video

How Should We Then Live 1-2 - YouTube video

How Should We Then Live 1-3 - YouTube video

How Should We Then Live 1-4 - YouTube video

How Should We Then Live 2-1 - YouTube video

How Should We Then Live 2-2 - YouTube video

How Should We Then Live 2-3 - YouTube video

1982 Sermon by Francis Schaeffer - Part 1

1982 Sermon by Francis Schaeffer - Part 2 - YouTube video

To rob a country, own a bank - YouTube video

To rob a country, own a bank Pt2 - YouTube video

To rob a country, own a bank Pt3 - YouTube video

To rob a country, own a bank Pt4 - YouTube video

To rob a country, own a bank Pt5 - YouTube video

9/11 The Myth and The Reality - David Ray Griffin - YouTube video

The Secret Right - Volume One - Josh Reeves - YouTube video

Bill Buppert: The End of America "The Coming deSovietization of These United States" - VodPod video


1. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate, treasonous-to-the-U.S.-Constitution, control-freak "scum" what it is.

2. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag2 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones, the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions.

3. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

Under construction . . .