Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan’s speech to the CoCC
“The point of a gun was the only law liberty understood.”
My name is
Donald Sullivan, and I am a cynic. I was not born a cynic, but have evolved
into it. I was asked to be here today by A. J. Barker and speak to you about
“Lost Rights” and my own experiences with it, so I’ll probably be using “I” a
lot. So I don’t forget anything or go on for hours, I’ll be sticking really
close to my script. My people have been on this continent at least since the
1600s and probably since the time of Nimrod and the
I was in the military for 23 years along the way, active and reserves, and retired in 1994. I had the typical run-ins with the government in my civilian life over things like building permits and traffic violations, argued with them a little, but all in all pretty much took it in stride and tried to believe that the government was good. Neighbors became a problem. It seemed every time I tried to do something in my yard, some neighbor would complain to the government, and the battle would begin. I thought I had rights, but they knew those rights were subject to permission and liked it that way.
Oddly enough, although I was military, I never liked being told what to do. Today they call that ODD, opposition distress disorder. I think it’s normal, but normal is now a disease. So, I resisted government’s interference with my life, but never understood its significance until I dropped out.
I’m 65 years old now. I don’t
take my military pension or social security or Medicare and never have. I
might, in the future, if I ever decide that
I differentiate between my
1994 War Plans –
1972 Garden Plot – As a Contingency War Planning Officer for a military airlift
wing in the early nineties, I was privy to all the war plans of the
2. 1982 POW camp – While involved in a training scenario between me and a trained interrogator during my Air Force POW education, I called an administrative time out to determine how the interrogator knew all my personal information when he admitted he didn’t need for me to answer his questions, because he already knew all about me, my parents’ names and address; my children’s names; my civilian and military education history; my current and past assignments, my wife’s name and address, etc. He showed me an unclassified book on the table entitled “Directory of Officers of the U. S. Military” which had all the information on me he would ever need, and said it was available to anyone for $10.00 from the Government Printing Office. He also told me there is a “Directory of Non-Commissioned Officers in the U. S. Military.” My wife and I started mistrusting our government at this point in time and began the now decades-old process of hiding ourselves from the system. We would be completely hidden now were it not for my war for freedom from our oppressive government.
But the subject of my talk
today is “lost rights.” We all think we have something called “constitutionally
protected civil or natural rights.” We need to believe this to tolerate our
Godless government. Unfortunately, it is not true. We no longer have any
rights, civil, natural or otherwise. All we have are “regulated privileges,”
totally controlled by the government. This has all come about with the
realization by the courts that “Rights are not absolute. They may be regulated
for the public safety and welfare.” Even the “right to vote” is not a right.
The U. S. Supreme Court has made that very clear. The right to vote is a
regulated privilege, a benefit. By our voluntary registration to accept such a
benefit, we grant to the State total jurisdiction over us in every thing we do
and cease to be the “free Persons” mentioned in the Constitution, becoming
instead wards of the State. The
As I said, I moved back home
in 1996 to rural Pender County here in North Carolina to the middle of my 1500
acres of free and clear privately owned land and tried to avoid people and the
government. I had about three years of relative peace and freedom, but it all
ended in 1999 when my “neighbors” turned me in to the DENR and the USACE for
“illegal ditching.” Here I thought I was minding my own business cleaning out
ditches and providing interior roads on my property, when all hell broke loose.
I was “gored by the bull,” so to speak. Thus began an invasion of my private
lands by a concerted effort of the
Since this episode, I have
been doing my best to find out why my government believed it could so
arbitrarily violate my rights and to convince those in the system to respect me
and my rights so we wouldn’t have to kill each other, but I have failed to find
any evidence that we are either free or have any unfettered rights left. I also
was determined to find out who the real enemy was, and I did. While the only
reason for governments to exist is to “protect and maintain our rights,” no
branch or subdivision of our government is protecting our rights: Not the
legislative, not the executive, and certainly not the judicial. Today, I stand
before you Proud to be an American where at least I’m told I’m free. I pledge
allegiance to the Constitution of the
It was in the late sixties that Janis Joplin told us, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” and Bob Dylan came along shortly after and said, “If you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” That pretty much sums it up. Most of us have more than we need, houses, cars, land, investments, pensions, health care, etc. We’re afraid to rock the boat because it could all be taken away in a flash, and/or we would have to depend on the government subsistence or the department of corrections to take care of us. Most of us certainly aren’t going to jeopardize our jobs by standing up to our masters. But, the truth is, as far as our rights are concerned, we are in very much the same situation the Framers were in 1776 when they wrote:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
I quoted this paragraph to the
In 1861 the Southern States
found themselves in this very condition, and they justifiably opted out of the
tyranny of the Northern controlled
I’ve been writing for The First Freedom newspaper since 2004. The editor of The First Freedom has been so kind as to provide me 100 free copies of the May and June editions for you to take home with you. I have found this paper to be the most useful and informative of all the conservative newsletters out there. I read it cover to cover and feel confident in telling you that the information contained in it is far more accurate, truthful and useful than what you get in the mainstream media. Once you read your copy, I recommend you give it to someone else who needs good information.
My first articles were written about a family in South Carolina whom I befriended in 2004 and their plight with the State Law Enforcement Division, “SLED” for short. They were accused and convicted for premeditated murder of two Sheriff’s deputies in December, 2003. That accounts for two of the “six or eight” killings of cops by so-called “sovereigns” over the past 12 years that you may have heard about. The killings were self-defense, in reality a father and son defending their fourth amendment rights; but LEOs are not responsible for their actions. The father and mother died in prison in September, 2011, and the son is on death row. The mother was not even home at the time of the killings, but she was given two life sentences by a jury for being an accessory. Her crime: She homeschooled her son Steve and taught him to be a killer by instructing him on his Constitutional rights and his duty to defend them by force of arms if necessary. The father was never tried, but died in prison after being held for nearly eight years. You can Google “Bixby” and “Abbeville” for details.
After a time I began relating
examples in my articles of how the government was summarily stripping me of my
rights. I have entitled that series “Lost Rights.” The following is a brief
summary of the articles I’ve written over the past several years. I will
present them in the same order of the Bill of Rights so we are all on the same
page. But, first, I want to relate to you what I consider the most egregious (I
like that word; lawyers use it all the time) violation
of rights next to murder I have ever seen. In 1984, the
FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS; RELIGION;
PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE; PETITION FOR REDRESS
– For freedom of the press and to peaceably assemble, I must direct you to this
month’s The First Freedom for you to read the articles regarding the assault on
its editor by the Montgomery Police Department in response to a complaint by
none other than the Sons of Confederate Veterans because he was standing with
others on a public street handing out free copies of The First Freedom, a paper
which has been very supportive over the years of the
My own freedom of speech was first challenged in a county commissioners meeting when I mentioned the Bible and quoted the Holy Scriptures. I was told, “Those comments are not appropriate for this forum. You’ll have to stop or step down.” Then, in May of 2011 I gave a presentation to a class of high school students on my experience with electric vehicles. In the process the students picked up on my views about the government and asked me some very good questions which I answered honestly. I was nearly arrested by the school resource officer because my truck with a Confederate flag license plate was parked on school property. I later sent copies of the pocket Constitution to the teacher to hand out to the students. When I contacted him to find out if he had received them, he told me that he had but wouldn’t be able to hand them out because he was afraid he would lose his job for doing so. He told me he had been called before the Board of Education and reprimanded for allowing me to speak to the children.
Freedom of religion has been eliminated by the cunning coercion of the expansion of the income tax during and after WWII. The churches, which were already exempt by divine right from taxes and any other kinds of State regulation, began to stand in line to incorporate and get their 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax exempt designations to protect the clergy from lawsuits and allow their parishioners to deduct their donations. The churches of the Lord God voluntarily chose a new master and became legal entities created and controlled by the State. Furthermore, with the advent of the “separation of Church and State” doctrine, which is contained nowhere in the Constitution, or any organic document of the United States of America, the Lord God and the religion upon which this country was founded have been totally eliminated from government.
Most of you know the Right to Petition doesn’t include a right to an answer. The “right to petition (government) for redress” and “governmental immunity from redress” are direct contradictions. The former is our First Amendment. The latter is the progressive result of Supreme Court decisions aimed squarely at denying us our right in deference to shielding government agents (judiciary, et al) from the people. I have filed a number of civil rights cases in both State and federal courts. All were dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” or Rule 12(b)(6), which means in English that all the defendants had some sort of immunity. This is called “summary judgment” and has been used extensively by the courts for the past thirty years to deny us our right to a trial by jury in petition for redress cases. I’ll discuss trial by jury further under the Seventh Amendment.
If a lawyer takes your case
and makes arguments in your defense that the judge doesn’t like, he can
sanction the attorney thousands of dollars and even take his license to
practice law. In my
I have pushed several of my rights cases all the way to the U. S. Supreme court, but they don’t get heard. Since the advent of the 14th amendment, the number of cases reaching the Supreme court have snowballed, and the Court just can’t handle them all. The reality is that the Supreme Court only agrees to hear about 5% of the cases brought before it. When you make the rules, you do what you want. There is no right to petition for redress.
SECOND AMENDMENT: RIGHT TO
In my case, I was arrested and
jailed for openly carrying a sidearm in a building which housed the
More recently, as you will see from the May, 2013 issue of the paper, I was ticketed for “carrying a concealed weapon off my premises” while wearing my sidearm on my right hip when I was stopped without probable cause on a country road by three State troopers. Although I was completely compliant and respectful, I was threatened with guns pointed at my face because the trooper recognized me and identified me verbally as a “sovereign”; roughly pulled out of my truck; handcuffed; I and my truck illegally searched; and all they could find was that I had a gun on my hip and in my holster. That case will be in court later this month.
FOURTH AMENDMENT – “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,…” As I just stated, my right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated this past March during the illegal stop just described. Of course, those searches were allegedly in the “interest of officer safety.” That’s hard to figure when I’m standing at the rear of my truck in handcuffs and have objected to both the body search and the vehicle search. Recently, my private residence was searched from the air by the county property tax assessor who discovered untaxed property on my land from the pictures he had taken. I’ve been setting up a federal lawsuit against the county’s taxing my private property for several months. I suspect the searches were in retaliation. When I protested the illegal search, he was able to produce a U. S. Supreme Court case, California v. Ciraolo (1995), in which the Court ruled that visual evidence gained in an aerial search of Mr. Ciraolo’s yard for marijuana plants by the local LEOs based upon an anonymous tip, which later was used to get a search warrant for his property, was not “unreasonable.” This event is described in the June issue of The First Freedom.
FIFTH AMENDMENT: “No person shall…answer for a…crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Justice Scalia labeled the Grand Jury as the “Fourth branch of government.” We lost our Fourth branch of government, State and federal, in 1946, when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted, and the word “presentment” went away. Repeat a lie often enough, and the lie becomes truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment, the power of the grand jury to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a U. S. Attorney, Attorney General or District Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the “path of evidence to a grand jury shall always be open,” that is not the case. Many times I’ve tried to take charges against government employees to both State and federal grand juries only to be told that, “We’re not going to prosecute that case.”
“The right to remain silent” is known by everyone. This is the right against self-incrimination in a criminal action. It begins at the scene of the crime and never goes away, supposedly. My son was arrested for refusing to answer questions from a State trooper in 2009, mostly because he has the same name as I do. It was a typical license checkpoint, and he had given the trooper his valid driver’s license. When he politely and respectfully refused to answer any questions, he was arrested, charged, jailed under $50,000 cash bond, tried, convicted by a jury and sentenced to a fine and jail time. The trooper testified that the only reason he arrested my son was that he refused to answer questions. He had no prior record, other than a traffic violation. His federal lawsuit against the government employees involved in this denial of rights was dismissed last year because they all have immunity.
On Due Process, I am currently in a civil battle with the
I have had my liberty cavalierly denied me by law enforcement for very simple, non-threatening situations like trying to pay an appeal bond when the magistrate was at lunch, when I spent three hours in lock-up with rapists and child molesters. Being released on ones’ own recognizance is very nearly a thing of the past, since the norm today is just to put us in handcuffs and lock us up. The most recent example of this denial of liberty being the one described earlier when I was charged with having a concealed weapon. I was in handcuffs for thirty minutes on the side of the road.
As far as private property not being taken for public use without just compensation, I’ll throw the arguably never ratified 14thAmendment’s protection of property in as well. What about the property tax foreclosure, or the paying of property taxes at all? I’ve argued two cases against the constitutionality of property tax on my private property and lost up to the NC court of appeals. As I said, I’m currently pursuing a third case which will be filed in federal district court.
The right to own property is a complete sham in this country. If we owned it, we wouldn’t pay rent on it. If we owned it, we wouldn’t have to ask permission to use it any way we wanted so long as we didn’t offend the rights of others in the process. As I said earlier, I came home to NC in 1996 and moved onto my 1500 rural acres of timberland and tried not to be bothered. I immediately began to build my house out of timber I cut off the property and sawed into boards on a portable sawmill. It took me five years to build my house, and I put every nail, every wire, every pipe and every bit of duct work in it myself. Unfortunately, I didn’t ask the State for permission to build it. Now, I am under court order not to occupy it until I get the necessary permits. That will never happen. The county has been authorized by the court to demolish it at my expense if they so choose. NCGS 143-138 says I don’t need a permit on any building or structure that costs less than $20,000, but the judge said that was irrelevant because “Everybody knows you have to have a permit to build a residence.” That logic is referred to in law as “legal memory,” or the “everybody knows” principle. All appeals on that one were denied also.
The instance where I was initially “gored by the bull” above was a
right to property case. The DENR was going to fine me thousands of dollars for
digging on my own property, and the USACE was threatening to fine me $25,000
a day and put me away for three years, per offense, if I didn’t do what they
said. Just as in the present
SIXTH AMENDMENT: Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury…and to have the assistance of Counsel” – There is no such thing as an impartial jury in this country, State or federal. The U. S. Constitution says that all executive and judicial officers, both State and federal, must take an oath to support the Constitution. Jurors don’t take that oath. I discovered this in my own research. The NC Constitution specifically states in Article VI, Section 7, that all officers of the State, elected and appointed shall take an oath to the constitutions, and contains the actual oath to be taken. NCGS 11-11 says that jurors must take that constitutional oath as well, but they don’t. I made this argument to the NC Court of Appeals in my weapons case, but they ruled that the present oath to be impartial taken by jurors was sufficient under the law which is a bald faced lie. Yet another example of the judicial conspiracy to deny us our rights. Therefore, the judge can do as he did in my weapons case above and deny the jurors access to the Constitution because they are not sworn to it. This is why jury nullification does not work. The jury is improperly set and does not exist. Not only is there not an impartial jury, there is no jury at all for all legal purposes. The sheriffs, DAs, clerks, FBI, U. S. Attorneys, etc., with whom I have shared this information don’t want to make any procedural change that might affect past cases. You can readily see that anyone who has had a jury trial can immediately appeal its constitutionality for lack of jurisdiction and walk out the door, but no one has tried it yet. This fraud is present nationwide, in every court.
We certainly can’t get a fair and impartial trial, especially in
an income tax case, because the judges are all employees of the State, which is
a party to the action. In an
The right to the assistance of counsel also does not exist. I have tried many times to get the court to allow me my counsel of choice to assist me, but they will only allow us to be assisted by licensed attorneys, who are nothing less than State political officers. I have argued that I don’t need representation by counsel, only the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution, but the courts don’t see it that way. Here again, it’s “legal memory.” If one accepts a lawyer to represent him, he ceases to exist in the eyes of the court and can only speak when spoken to. He literally becomes a ward of the State. The lawyer will not make any defenses to the court that are not sanctioned by the court, and he will not be adversarial to the court, if necessary, as required in the rules of procedure. He has bills to pay and will not jeopardize his job, especially at the local level. The judges, DAs and lawyers have lunch together, so whose side do you think the lawyer is really on? Lawyers are after plea bargains, not trials.
The Supreme Court has told us that each clause in the Constitution that protects our rights is a “fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh.” So, when we hire an attorney, we literally waive all our rights and become wards of the State.
there is a small bit of good news in this area of counsel. Almost by accident
and with the help of a good friend of mine, I found one way the right to a
lawyer may still work in our favor. Notice I didn’t say the right to “counsel,”
but a right to a licensed, State regulated, privileged attorney-at-law. What we
found was that lawyers will not defend us in a manner adversarial to the court.
They will not defend our “frivolous common law” rights arguments knowing that,
if they do, the court will probably sanction them, or even pull their privileges.
No lawyer would take my friend’s case, not even two court appointed attorneys.
The judge took it upon himself to find him a lawyer and failed. It took over
two years in a right to travel case, but the court finally dismissed all
charges because of its concern with the “counsel issue.” If handled properly,
this defense will always work. I will be using it in my current
SEVENTH AMENDMENT: In suits at common law…where the value…[is over] twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved. This right is completely gone when it comes to suing a government employee, or anyone else. Since the rules of procedure were adopted in 1946, the court has empowered itself to overwhelm the Constitution in the interest of judicial efficiency. The right to a trial by jury, whenever we demand one, was guaranteed, but somehow the warranty has run out. If a judge decides the case shouldn’t proceed, it doesn’t. We can demand our jury trial all we want, but we cannot get it. As I said earlier, this is called “summary judgment,” and for the past 25 years or so this judicial conspiracy has worked in civil cases nearly as well as plea bargains in criminal cases.
Quoting directly from my article in the November edition of The First Freedom: “Certain procedural devices and administrative procedures used today by the courts absolutely infringe upon a litigant’s right to a jury trial and eliminate it. These procedural devices (motions to dismiss, for example) and administrative procedures (Rules of Procedure) prevent juries from resolving disputes and, consequently, have infringed on the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial. Although conflicting with the seventh amendment’s guarantee to a jury trial, these tools, nevertheless, have withstood constitutional challenges.
“Summary judgment” violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. These core principles of the common law reveal that summary judgment, or its equivalent, is unconstitutional. Under summary judgment, a court decides whether a “genuine issue as to any material fact” exists or, in other words, whether “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Under this standard, in contrast to under the common law, the court decides whether factual inferences from the evidence are reasonable, applies the law to any “reasonable” factual inferences, and as a result makes the determination as to whether a claim could exist. In other words, the court decides whether the case should be dismissed before a jury hears the case. Under the common law, a court would never engage in this determination. Cases that should be decided by a jury under the common law and the Seventh Amendment are now dismissed by a judge under summary judgment. Such power was never granted by the Constitution.
The bottom line is, the courts have been relentless in their efforts to
severely restrict or to completely eliminate our rights and to accelerate the
moral decay of
“The position assumed here is that, however
clear [Lee’s] rights, no remedy can be afforded to him when it is seen that his
opponent is an officer of the
The judicial tribunals no longer protect our rights. I supposed that not to be true when I started out on this crusade, but I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true. The judicial conspiracy, or tyranny if you prefer, coupled with the sovereign, absolute, governmental, judicial, and qualified immunity enjoyed by all government agents, excluding municipal officers, provides the perfect basis for the complete disregard of our rights.
EIGHTH AMENDMENT – Excessive bail shall not be required. As I said above, the bail in my son’s case was set at $50,000 cash. By comparison, an illegal alien Mexican arrested the following week for no license, identification, name or address, as well as being so drunk he was in and out of ditches, was released on a $1,000 cash bond and never heard from again. I’d say that $50,000 bail by comparison is excessive.
I leave you with two final quotes, the first from a NC District Court judge named Marion Warren, one of the most knowledgeable men on the Bible and the Constitution I’ve ever met, regarding the right to travel case mentioned just above; and the second from the senior District Court Judge for the EDNC, Judge James C. Fox, in my own case which I filed in March, 2003, in an attempt to prevent or stop the Iraq conflict before it started.
Judge Warren said: “No court is going to do anything to disrupt the revenue stream of North Carolina.”
Judge Fox said in EDNC Case #03-CV-39: “I will say I think, you know, Colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance, I believe I’m correct on this, I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of States never ratified that amendment; and, nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don’t think any court would ever, would set it aside. Well, I’ve seen that – I’ve seen somewhere a treatise on that, and I think it was – I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred. Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason, although I wouldn’t mind filing for a rebate myself.”
If we do not eliminate the income tax, the property tax and elect all judges, we will never have any freedom. We must also eliminate the electoral college which guarantees a two-party system. With our two party system, the people will never be in control. It’s the old Hegelian dialect at work, the thesis and anti-thesis rubbing together to create the desired synthesis. The electoral college insures this will not change. Anyone who watched the party conventions last year will recognize the effects of the two-party system. Your vote is meaningless.
Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. “I am proud to be an American, where at least I’m told I’m free.”
“The point of a gun was the only law liberty understood.”