FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

ESS Crossbow Photochromic Ballistic Eyeshield - ESS Eyepro
The ESS Crossbow Photochromic eyeshield is created using Transition Optics...

Security Policy and the Cloud

Ask The Expert

Mark Rivera

FBI-CJIS Security Policy Compliance Officer

Mark Rivera, Customer Retention Manager and CJIS Security Compliance Officer with Vigilant Solutions, served for sixteen years with the Maryland State Police, retiring at the rank of First Sergeant with thirteen of those years at the supervisory and command level. He holds a Master of Science Degree in Management from The Johns Hopkins University and Secret clearance through the FBI, Baltimore.

Top News

Wash. 'Sovereigns' Arrested After SWAT Standoff

August 10, 2012  | 

Spokane County (Wash.) Sheriff's SWAT officers arrested two sovereign citizens who refused to exit their truck after a nearly three-hour standoff in Otis Orchards on Wednesday.

The incident began after a sheriff's detective spotted a red truck with an invalid license plate. A sheriff's deputy and Liberty Lake officer provided backup, and the three officers pulled over the vehicle at North Starr Road and East Kildea Road, reports the Spokesman Review.

Michael Francis Hicks, 55, and David Ray Galland, 58, refused to exit the vehicle and were eventually taken into custody after SWAT officers cut them from their seatbelts.


Comments (14)

Displaying 1 - 14 of 14

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:50 AM

LUIS EWING EXPOSES THE DRIVERS LICENSE SCAM BEING PULLED OFF BY CRIMINALLY CORRUPT PROSECUTORS AND CROOKED JUDGES AND SHOWS YOU THE CASE THAT PROVES IT, SO READ IT AND WEEP!!!

The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the “DRIVERS LICENSE” is intended to apply only to . . . “FOR HIRE VEHICLES.”

“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ . . ." INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 141 Wash. 194, 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)

THE FOR HIRE LICENSE IS TO BE KNOWN AS A DRIVERS LICENSE, HA, HA, ALL YOU COPS ARE BUSTED!

LUIS EWING HAS JUST PROVEN ALL YOU COPS TO BE GUILTY OF NUMEROUS COUNTS OF FALSE ARREST, FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:50 AM

Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to “for hire vehicles” as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 141 Wash. 194, 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)

IT'S ALL OVER, WE WIN!!!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:51 AM

All of you COPS are being FOOLED by criminally corrupt members of all the State Bar Association Prosecutors and Judges! -- My Free Flyers at my name Luis Ewing dot com 100% absolutely and conclusively proves that ALL STATES only sell COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES! THE BIG TRICK started in 1926 in Washington State in INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 141 Wash. 194, 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.) which clearly EXPOSES THE FRAUD where the case clearly states that THE FOR HIRE LICENSE IS TO BE KNOWN AS A DRIVERS LICENSE! -- MY FREE FLYERS PROVES THAT ALL OF YOU COPS HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY ALL THE ATTORNEYS! PLEASE GO TO [ luisewing ( dot ) ( com ) ] and download my FREE NO COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIRED FLYER & my FREE RIGHT TO TRAVEL FLYER & my FREE NO REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIRED FLYER and I CHALLENGE YOU TO HAND MY FLYERS TO THE JUDGE AND LOOK HIM IN THE EYES AND ASK HIM IF THIS IS TRUE! THE JUDGE WILL REFUSE TO ANSWER!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:52 AM

It is undisputed that RCW 46.25.010 (3) definitions clearly states that the so called “regular drivers license” allegedly issued at RCW 46.20.001 (1) is in fact and law a “commercial drivers license” that has been endorsed with the requirements of chapter 46.25 RCW, authorizing the individual to . . . “drive a class of commercial motor vehicle.”

“RCW 46.25.010 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in this section apply throughout this chapter. . . .
(3) "Commercial driver's license" (CDL) means a license issued to an individual under chapter 46.20 RCW that has been endorsed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter to authorize the individual to drive a class of commercial motor vehicle. . . .”

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:53 AM

I LUIS EWING CHALLENGE ALL CITY POLICE OFFICERS, ALL COUNTY SHERIFFS AND ALL WASHINGTON STATE PATROL TO GO TO MY WEBSITE LUIS EWING DOT COM OR [ luisewing ( dot ) ( com ) ] and download my FREE NO COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIRED FLYER, my FREE NO REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIRED FLYER and my FREE RIGHT TO TRAVEL FLYER and hand a copy to ANY PROSECUTOR or ANY JUDGE, LOOK THEM STRAIGHT IN THE EYES AND ASK THEM "IS THIS TRUE" AND ALL OF THEM WILL GET PISSED OFF AND REFUSE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND WALK AWAY FROM YOU! -- IT'S ALL OVER, LUIS EWING HAS PROVEN THAT ALL CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL UNDER THE ORIGINAL 1878 WALLA WALLA CONSTITUTION WHICH IS THE ONE AND ONLY WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS EVER APPROVED BY CONGRESS ON JANUARY 28, 1889! -- MY FREE FLYERS PROVES THAT ALL THE PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES ARE LYING TO ALL OF YOU COPS!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:54 AM

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS CHANGED THE DRIVERS LICENSE FOUR (4) TIMES BECAUSE OF LUIS EWING?

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT THE OLD DRIVERS LICENSES USED TO SAY COMMERCIAL CLASSES ON THE TOP OF THE BACK OF THE OLD DRIVERS LICENSE AND SAID CLASS A, CLASS B AND CLASS C ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BACK OF THE OLD DRIVERS LICENSE?

RCW 46.25.080 to wit:
“RCW 46.25.080 License contents, classifications, endorsements, restrictions, expiration--Exchange of information.
(1) The commercial driver's license must be marked "commercial driver's license" or "CDL,"
...(a) Licenses may be classified as follows:
(i) Class A . . .
(ii) Class B . . .
(iii) Class C . . .”

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT THE CROOKED ATTORNEYS REMOVED THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OFF OF ALL SO CALLED REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSES?

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT RCW 46.25.080 IS THE ONE (1) AND ONLY LICENSE CLASSIFICATION STATUTE IN TITLE 46 RCW???

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:57 AM

I CHALLENGE ALL POLICE OFFICERS, ALL COUNTY SHERIFFS AND ALL WASHINGTON STATE PATROL TO GO TO MY WEBSITE AND DOWNLOAD MY FREE RIGHT TO TRAVEL FLYERS, MY FREE NO COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIRED FLYER, MY FREE NO REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIRED FLYER AND MY FREE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FLYER AND HAND A COPY TO ANY PROSECUTOR AND ANY JUDGE, LOOK THEM STRAIGHT IN THEIR EYES AND ASK THEM "IS THIS TRUE"? - ALL PROSECUTORS AND ALL JUDGES WILL REFUSE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND WALK AWAY FROM YOU BECAUSE LUIS EWING HAS NOW PROVEN TO THE WORLD THAT ALL CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE AND THAT THE STATES ONLY SELL COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSE THAT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE! GO TO LUIS EWING DOT COM AND YOU COPS WILL ALL BE PROVEN 100% WRONG AND ALL CITIZENS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITH LUIS EWING'S FREE FLYERS!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 2:58 AM

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT IF I DECLARE MY SO CALLED "MOTOR VEHICLE" TO BE A "RECREATIONAL VEHICLE", THE RCW STATUTE AND THE WAC SAYS THAT I AM EXEMPT FROM BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE?

“RCW 46.25.050 (1) Drivers of Commercial motor vehicles shall obtain a “commercial driver’s license” . . . HOWEVER, this requirement does not apply to any person: (c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for non commercial purposes.”

“(WAC) 308-100-210 Recreational vehicle–Definition. For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050(1)(c), the term “recreational vehicle” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, OR TRAVEL USE."

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT WASHINGTON LAW SAYS ALL TRAVELERS ARE EXEMPT FROM BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE???

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 3:10 AM

DID YOU COPS KNOW THAT THE SPOKANE COUNTY (SWAT) OFFICERS HAD AND HAVE NO AUTHORITY UNDER RCW 10.31.100 (2)(a)(b)(c)(16) AND RCW 46.64.015 TO ARREST AND TAKE ANYONE INTO "CUSTODY" FOR RCW 46.20.342 DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED AS CLEARLY STATED IN BOTH STATE v. STORTROEN, 53 Wn.App. 654, 659, 769 P.2d 321 (March 20, 1989) AND STATE v. REDING, 119 Wn.2d 685, 688, 835 P.2d 1019 (September 10, 1992) as clearly stated in my FREE LUIS STOP ARREST NOTICE that is available at my website: [ luisewing ( dot ) ( com ) ]

Michael Francis Hicks, 55, and David Ray Galland, 58, CAN FILE A CrRL 2.1 (c) Citizens Criminal Complaint against your NEGLIGENTLY TRAINED SWAT TEAM MEMBERS FOR VANDALISM OF THEIR VEHICLE, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, SECOND DEGREE PERJURY, ETC.

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 3:13 AM

At most, RCW 10.31.100(3)(e) gives the officer the authority to arrest; it does not require that he take an offender into custody, where, as here, the officer determines correctly that there is no reason to do so. . . . the Ninth Circuit recently held that detention in a police car after a stop for suspicion of driving with a suspended license did not constitute a “full custody arrest”, and therefore a warrantless search of the driver’s passenger compartment could not be upheld as incident to an arrest. United States v. Parr, 843 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1988).” STATE v. STORTROEN, 53 Wn.App. 654, 659, 769 P.2d 321 (March 20, 1989).

YOU MIGHT WANT TO FIRE YOUR PROSECUTOR AND HEAD SHERIFF FOR NEGLIGENT TRAINING OF YOUR POLICE OFFICERS!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 3:17 AM

It contrasted this language with that in the preceding subsection, RCW 10.31.100(2), which states that a police officer “shall arrest and take into custody” an individual who has committed some act of domestic violence. The court felt that such a difference in language could not be inadvertent. Therefore it concluded that RCW 10.31.100(3) did not authorize custodial arrests. ...Although RCW 10.31.100 may use the word “arrest” in a generic fashion, RCW 46.64.015 ANSWERS THE SEPARATE QUESTION OF WHAT FORM A TRAFFIC ARREST MUST TAKE. It provides that the detention arising from such an arrest must generally be no longer than “reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice”. RCW 46.64.015. We conclude that the legislation codified our rule in Hehman that officers generally may not perform custodial arrests for minor traffic offenses.” STATE v. REDING, 119 Wn.2d 685 (Sept. 10, 1992).

NO CUSTODIAL ARRESTS ARE ALLOWED FOR RCW 46.20.342 DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 3:29 AM

I CAN PROVE TO ALL OF YOU POLICE OFFICERS, ALL COUNTY SHERIFFS AND ALL STATE PATROL THAT ALL THE ATTORNEYS, ALL THE PROSECUTORS AND ALL THE JUDGES ARE LYING TO YOU AND ARE GIVING ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT FALSE LEGAL TRAINING! -- I CAN PROVE TO ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IT IS ALL THE ATTORNEYS, ALL THE PROSECUTORS AND ALL THE JUDGES WHO ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS IF YOU SEND ME YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESSES TO LUIS EWING AT: [ rcwcodebuster ( at ) aol ( dot ) com ] or [ rcwcodebuster ( at ) yahoo ( dot ) com ] or [ rcwcodebuster ( at ) gmail ( dot ) com ] or just start reading all of my FREE FLYERS at my website named after me LUIS EWING DOT COM or go to [ luisewing ( dot ) com ]

SERIOUSLY, ALL OF YOU COPS SHOULD BE ARRESTING AND FILING CRIMINAL FEDERAL RICO CHARGES AGAINST ALL THE PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES WHO FALSELY TRAINED YOU TO ARREST PEOPLE FOR ENGAGING IN THEIR RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A SO CALLED REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSE WHICH IS REALLY A COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE AND IS NOT REQUIRED!

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 3:47 AM

THIS WASHINGTON STATE CASE DISTINGUISHED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO USED THE HIGHWAYS FOR GAIN VERSUS TRAVELING!

If ever an American Judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Judge Tolman of the Washington State Supreme Court.

Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see THE MOST SACRED OF THEIR LIBERTIES taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment, ...Section one (Rem. 1933 Sup., 6381-1), in part, reads: The BUSINESS OF OPERATING AS A MOTOR CARRIER OF PROPERTY FOR HIRE ALONG THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE IS DECLARED TO BE A BUSINESS AFFECTED WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST." Roberton vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133- 147 (Dec. 21, 1934).

Luis Ewing @ 2/13/2016 3:51 AM

THIS WASHINGTON CASE SAYS THE STATE CAN PROHIBIT OR REGULATE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS FOR GAIN!

If ever an American Judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Judge Tolman of the Washington State Supreme Court.

MUCH OF OUR TRAFFIC IS FOR PLEASURE ONLY, AND IT IS NOT FOR THE STATE TO SAY WHAT IS PLEASURE AND WHAT IS FOR PROFIT. . . . I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, BUT I AM DEEPLY INTERESTED IN THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC TO USE THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS FREELY FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES." WE KNOW OF NO INHERENT RIGHT IN ONE TO USE THE HIGHWAYS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate...the use of the highways "FOR GAIN." Roberton vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133- 147 (Dec. 21, 1934).

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine