The California Private Investigator licensing examination is a real rabbit hole!

In 1995, actor Kelsey Grammer found himself embroiled in serious and public allegations stemming from claims of inappropriate conduct with his daughter’s 15-year-old babysitter during a 1993 trip to New Jersey. The case was presented to a Somerset County grand jury, which ultimately declined to indict Grammer due to insufficient evidence and the delayed reporting of the incident. A parallel investigation occurred in Yavapai County, Arizona, but the prosecutor, recognizing the matter as an extortion attempt, chose not to present the case to a grand jury.

I was retained to investigate on Grammer’s behalf, working alongside his legal team, led by renowned Miami attorney Roy Black. Joining me was a recently retired special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office. Out of respect, I won’t name him here, but our collaboration was both productive and enlightening.

While I managed the Arizona side of the investigation, my FBI colleague handled matters in New Jersey. At one point, he handed me his business card, which identified him as a “Retired FBI Agent” and “Investigative Consultant.” Curious about the latter title, I asked what it entailed. His response? “You don’t want to know.” Naturally, my curiosity grew. He eventually admitted that his use of “Investigative Consultant” stemmed from his struggles to pass the California Private Investigator licensing exam—he had failed it twice.

My Experience with the California PI Exam

A few years later, I decided to pursue my own California Private Investigator license. Remembering my esteemed colleague’s struggles, I prepared myself for potential failure. The exam, as I discovered, was challenging—but not because the questions were difficult. Instead, they were poorly worded, ambiguous, and sometimes outright nonsensical.

One multiple-choice question asked: Where are old newspaper articles kept? The options were:

1. Archives

2. The morgue

3. Public library

All three answers were technically correct, yet the test required only one “right” answer. This typified the exam’s frustrating nature. Despite these obstacles, I passed on my first attempt—though the process left much to be desired.

When my results were instantly graded, I was informed that I had passed. Curious about my performance, I asked for my score and the specific questions I missed. They refused to disclose either, leaving me to wonder if I had aced the test or merely scraped by. Shortly thereafter, my license arrived in the mail, accompanied by a gun permit.

Reflections on the PI Licensing Process

The FBI agent I worked with was also a licensed attorney and had risen to lead one of the largest FBI field offices in the country. His struggles with the exam underscored the test’s flawed design. Over time, I discovered that many highly qualified homicide detectives—veterans of major police departments—also carried “Investigative Consultant” business cards. They, too, had been unable to navigate California’s convoluted licensing process.

In California, there are just over 4,000 licensed private investigators. Most are employees who are not required to take the licensing exam. The test is reserved for “Qualified Managers,” those who own and operate investigative agencies. While the intention behind the exam is to ensure competency, its execution often deters even the most capable professionals.

A Call for Improvement

My experience with the California Private Investigator licensing exam revealed a system in need of reform. A test designed to evaluate investigative skills should be clear, fair, and relevant—not a frustrating exercise in deciphering ambiguous questions. Despite its flaws, I am proud to hold my license and continue serving clients with integrity and professionalism. Still, for the sake of future applicants, I hope the system evolves into something more reflective of the expertise it seeks to certify.

The face of censorship on Facebook has shifted, at least in my experience.

 

Once, I frequently found myself exiled for 30-day stints—banished to “Facebook jail” for using strong words or phrases deemed inappropriate. It was a grim routine, serving a life sentence on the installment plan. During these stretches, I couldn’t wish friends a happy birthday, comment on posts, or even click “like.” It was an odd sort of social solitary confinement.

Those who know me understand that I am an unapologetic conservative with libertarian leanings. This alone was enough to rattle Facebook’s censors. Yet, something changed. I haven’t seen the inside of Facebook jail in over a year. Oddly, this coincided with Twitter’s transformation into X under its new ownership. I want to be clear: I haven’t altered the tone or nature of my posts. I still say what I believe, whether the censors like it or not.

Perhaps Facebook realized that silencing too many of its users hurts its bottom line. When large numbers of members are locked out, traffic dwindles, and advertisers lose their precious audience. Could this shift be a business decision rather than a moral epiphany? I wonder if others have noticed the same pattern. If you have, share your thoughts in the comments below.

Why America’s Fake News is Rapidly Dying

The old adage, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” has lost its relevance in the digital age. The internet has rendered traditional ink and printing presses obsolete, transforming how information is shared. Once, it required massive financial resources to broadcast news—television networks invested millions in equipment to reach the masses. Today, a smartphone can capture, edit, and distribute news at a fraction of that cost, leveling the playing field.

This shift was evident during the recent election cycle. Legacy mainstream media no longer holds a monopoly on influence. Independent bloggers, podcasters, and alternative media platforms are reaching larger, more engaged audiences than major newspapers and TV networks.

For years, the corporate media operated as a unified, left-leaning establishment, promoting a narrow set of narratives. But competition has exploded from unexpected places—kitchen tables, basements, and garages across the nation. The barriers to entry for content creation and distribution have vanished, allowing an unprecedented diversity of voices to emerge. The stranglehold of the legacy media is being challenged by millions of independent creators, bringing real competition to the marketplace of ideas.

The fight now is over control—big tech and legacy institutions have turned to censorship, targeting conservative voices in particular. However, the First Amendment remains a critical safeguard. As long as Americans continue to cherish and defend free speech, these new voices will remain a powerful force in reshaping the media landscape. The era of centralized control over information is fading, and the future of news is being written by everyday Americans.

How to Keep Up with Fast-Changing Gun Laws

 

As Americans, we enjoy a unique right that most people in other countries don’t—the Second Amendment. This amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms, allowing us to defend ourselves, others, and resist tyranny.

The Second Amendment precludes the government from infringing on this right. Historically, however, the judiciary has failed to adequately protect it. Politicians and courts have unlawfully prioritized their interpretation of “public safety” over constitutional rights. If the Founding Fathers intended to balance public safety, they would have written it into the Constitution. Instead, they guaranteed an absolute right for the people to keep and bear arms.

Regarding the militia, the Second Amendment was not referring to a government-controlled entity but to “we the people” forming militias to combat tyranny or respond to emergencies. The government already wields immense military power and never needed the Second Amendment—it was explicitly reserved for the people.

In recent years, cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), have brought new clarity to the right to bear arms. However, litigation continues to shape gun rights across the nation.

How to Stay Informed

With gun laws and court decisions evolving rapidly, staying informed can be daunting. Fortunately, several excellent resources simplify this process.

1. Supreme Court and SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court’s official website provides information on all cases the Court is handling, including those on gun rights. Additionally, SCOTUSblog offers real-time updates and expert analysis.

2. Mark Smith – Four Boxes Diner

Mark Smith, a top-tier attorney and author, provides clear, insightful analysis on Second Amendment issues via his Four Boxes Diner website and YouTube channel. His content delivers timely and accurate information without unnecessary sensationalism.

3. Armed Scholar

Armed Scholar offers daily updates on gun laws and court actions. While the channel’s clickbait headlines and repetitive monologues may be off-putting, it consistently delivers accurate information. Despite its flaws, it remains a valuable resource.

A Note on YouTube

While YouTube’s algorithm-driven ecosystem often rewards sensationalism, it also facilitates free speech and broad dissemination of information. That said, the platform’s censorship policies and political bias have raised significant concerns about their impact on public discourse and elections.

Final Thoughts

For a straightforward, professional approach to gun law updates, Mark Smith’s Four Boxes Diner stands out as the most reliable source. Although Armed Scholar has its quirks, it’s worth following for regular updates. Together, these resources ensure that you can stay informed on the fast-changing world of gun rights.

Donald Trump and the Battle Against Washington’s Swamp

Washington, D.C.—A city notorious for its corruption and entrenched power, long referred to as a swamp teeming with self-serving bureaucrats and ideological zealots determined to reshape America into a Marxist state.

Since the Clinton era, our intelligence agencies’ leadership has increasingly betrayed their mandate to protect the nation, instead becoming adversaries to the very citizens they are sworn to defend. Whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning exposed the depth of this betrayal, revealing widespread illegal surveillance on every American by our own government.

Washington insiders boast of their “experience,” yet it often translates to little more than enriching themselves at taxpayers’ expense. Unfortunately, Donald Trump allowed too many of these career insiders into his first administration, compromising loyalty and effectiveness. These individuals—steeped in D.C. politics—have shown they are not only untrustworthy but also adept at sabotaging genuine reform efforts.

Their petty squabbling and power plays undermine America’s policies and standing on the world stage. The prospect of non-insiders finally leading the government offers a glimmer of hope—a chance to dismantle the stranglehold these career politicians and bureaucrats have on the nation.

The swamp creatures recognize the threat to their unchecked power and lavish lifestyles, making them more dangerous than ever. To restore the nation’s integrity, these entrenched forces of corruption must be confronted and removed from positions of influence once and for all.

Glock Switch Panic: Much Ado About Nothing

Phoenix, AZ—Before the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, anyone could legally own a machine gun. You could even order one by mail and have it delivered right to your door. After 1934, machine guns were regulated, requiring a $200 tax stamp for legal ownership—a steep price at the time. Some folks complied, but many didn’t, leaving plenty of unregistered machine guns in circulation. And guess what? They haven’t been a problem, with most serving as a quiet fuck you to government overreach.

The NFA’s registration and taxation requirements are afundamentally at odds with the Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), underscores this by reaffirming that firearm regulations must align with the historical tradition of the Second Amendment—not arbitrary, burdensome schemes like those imposed by the NFA.

That said, I’ve never been a fan of fully automatic firearms. They’re an expensive way to burn through ammunition. If I were to use one, it’d be limited to two- or three-round bursts. Prolonged full-auto fire not only wastes ammo but also accelerates destruction of the firearm itself.

In the 1950s through the 1970s, converting firearms to full-auto was straightforward. The M1 .30-caliber carbine, for instance, could be modified with just an easily obtained selector switch and a spring. Despite how simple this was, these converted carbines were rarely, if ever, used in crimes.

Fast-forward to today, and the so-called “threat” is the Glock switch—a small piece of metal or 3D-printed plastic that converts a semi-automatic Glock into a fully automatic weapon. The designs for these switches are freely available online, and 3D printers are becoming more affordable and effective. China has long been producing high-quality metal switches, and despite Customs and Border Protection’s efforts, plenty of these devices slip through and wind up in the U.S.

The BATFE has gone full tilt on Glock switches, treating their possession as a major crime and judges are handing out draconian sentences. But let’s not kid ourselves—these devices are only popular because they’re considered by BATFE as illegal.

In practical terms, using a Glock switch is more trouble than it’s worth. You can’t take it to a local gun range , and firing one outdoors almost guarantees a police response. Without practice, good luck using it effectively in a real-world scenario. The uncontrollable recoil of a fully automatic pistol makes accuracy laughable, and at today’s ammunition prices, it’s just not worth it. A semi-automatic handgun is far more practical and effective.  

The BATFE’s obsession with Glock switches is just another overblown panic. Yes, seizures of these devices are increasing, but their use in actual crimes remains rare. This isn’t about public safety; it’s about inflating the government’s authority and control.

For those serious about self-defense, stick with a semi-auto handgun and focus on proper training. And don’t forget, criminals are generally clueless. These are people who couldn’t hack it in middle school, let alone master the mechanics of a firearm.

Reality bites:  I’ve made an Internet search for the necessary programs to make a Glock switch with a common 3-D printer, and there was no shortage of them whatsoever.  These sites and their information are protected, of course by our First Amendment.  

So, to the BATFE and their self-righteous crusade: calm down. This is a manufactured issue. Fuck you and your unwarranted hysteria.

The Biden Administration’s Assault on the Constitutional Rights of January 6 Demonstrators

The Biden administration, through its Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys, has shown utter disregard for the constitutional rights of January 6 demonstrators. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every defendant the right to a speedy and public trial. This is not a suggestion—it is a cornerstone of justice in America. The amendment clearly states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 reinforces this constitutional guarantee by imposing strict time limits in federal criminal cases:

1. Indictment Timing: Defendants must be charged within 30 days of arrest.

2. Trial Timing: Trials must begin within 70 days of the indictment or the defendant’s first court appearance.

Although certain delays are permissible under extraordinary circumstances, these delays must have legitimate justification. When these time limits are violated without good cause, the law demands that charges be dismissed.

Adding to this constitutional crisis is the administration’s disregard for Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors are constitutionally required to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense—evidence favorable to the accused that could affect the outcome of the trial. Suppression of such evidence, intentional or not, violates the due process protections enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. As the Court stated:

“Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”

Yet, prosecutors under the Biden administration have weaponized procedural tactics to undermine these protections. They have employed deliberate delays in disclosing evidence to defense attorneys, forcing defendants into a no-win situation: either waive their right to a speedy trial or proceed without having received critical evidence necessary for their defense. This coercive strategy not only violates the letter of the law but strikes at the heart of fundamental fairness in criminal proceedings.

This pattern of abuse has left January 6 defendants languishing in prolonged pretrial detention, stripped of their constitutional rights, while the government leverages every delay to weaken their defense. These actions amount to a direct assault on the Constitution, turning the criminal justice system into a political weapon.

Americans must demand accountability for these flagrant abuses of power. By ignoring constitutional guarantees, suppressing evidence, and manipulating procedural rules, the Biden administration jeopardizes the very principles of justice and fairness upon which this nation was founded. Such violations cannot go unchecked if the rule of law is to survive.

The NRA Is Dead to Me!

Arlington, VA—Wayne LaPierre, who became Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National eRifle Association (NRA) in 1991, announced his resignation on January 5, 2024, effective January 31, 2024. This marks the end of a shameful reign marred by corruption, greed, and betrayal.

It has become glaringly clear that LaPierre embezzled millions of dollars in dues paid by loyal members for his personal extravagance. During his decades-long grip on the NRA, he used the organization as his personal piggy bank, leaving members disillusioned and betrayed.

The true scope of this misconduct came to light in August 2020, when New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the NRA. The lawsuit exposed a staggering level of financial corruption under LaPierre’s leadership. It revealed that millions of dollars meant to defend the Second Amendment were instead spent on LaPierre’s lavish lifestyle, sweetheart deals for cronies, and contracts to silence former employees. These allegations include outrageous spending on personal luxuries, no-show jobs, and blatant mismanagement of funds.

The NRA’s once-proud reputation was shattered as members learned that the state of New York had to step in to expose the rot within its leadership. The lawsuit even sought to dissolve the NRA, citing violations of nonprofit laws that destroyed its charitable purpose.

One glaring example of LaPierre’s mismanagement was the NRA’s relationship with Ackerman McQueen, an Oklahoma City advertising firm. By 2017, the NRA was bleeding $40 million a year into this partnership. How much of that money found its way back into the pockets of LaPierre and his associates? The deal was so toxic that the two organizations eventually severed ties—but not before irreparable damage had been done.

Prominent celebrities once proud to stand with the NRA—like Tom Selleck, Ted Nugent, R. Lee Ermey, and Chuck Norris—walked away in disgust, unwilling to be associated with LaPierre’s toxic regime.

Until April 2024 John Frazer was General Counsel and Secretary. He held that title for nine years with a crazy salary of $400,000 a year.  The problem was that Frazer had no experience and only enjoyed the title.   Frazer was reelected as secretary, but he was removed from the general council position by the incoming CEO Doug Hamlin. In 2018 Bill Brewer was hired and seemed to handle the bulk of the legal work for the NRA bleeding the treasury to death.  It remains to be seen what the board is going to do now.  

I have some serious, unanswered questions:

1. What steps has the current NRA board taken to recover the millions LaPierre stole from its members?

2. Who is footing LaPierre’s legal bills? Are members still paying for his defense?

3. Can you tell me why the NRA has consistently been paying millions of dollars to the law firm of Brewer and Associates that hasn’t won a single case for the NRA yet?

4. Why is John Frazer still on the payroll? He was moved from General Counsel to Secretary, yet faces a serious State Bar complaint. Why hasn’t he been removed?

5. What accountability has been imposed on the board members who enabled and protected LaPierre’s cabal?

6. Has the NRA taken any meaningful steps to clean house and refocus on protecting gun rights, or is it still a personal ATM for corrupt leadership?

Members should also be deeply concerned about the NRA Museum, which holds countless priceless exhibits. At this rate, those treasures could be lost in a bankruptcy sale to pay for leadership’s failures.

Until every last parasite is removed, held accountable, and brought to justice, I will not rejoin the NRA. The organization I once supported has been hijacked by corruption, and its current leadership shows no signs of redemption.

Update: I’m hearing the Virginia State Bar complaint against Frazer was dismissed just last week.