Criminal Defense Investigations: The Unvarnished Truth

Step back in time to the world of Perry Mason, where a fictional attorney wielded justice like a sword. His weapon of choice? Paul Drake, the debonair, sharp-eyed private investigator who always delivered the crucial evidence or witness to ensure Mason’s courtroom triumphs. Drake outsmarted even the LAPD’s best, leaving Lieutenant Tragg grumbling in his wake as he handed Mason the key to another victory.

But that was fiction. In the harsh glare of reality, criminal defense investigations are a different beast altogether.

As a licensed private investigator with decades of experience across California, Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, and even military court-martial cases, I’ve seen the grim truths of the courtroom. Illinois, in particular, offers a peculiar battlefield: defense attorneys often opt to waive a jury trial, gambling on the intricacies of the presiding judge’s leanings. This calculated move is rare in other jurisdictions, where juries are the standard bearers of justice. But in Illinois, the judge’s temperament and legal philosophy can tip the scales.

In the real world, defense attorneys don’t have the luxury of a fictional Paul Drake to solve cases overnight. Instead, they depend on their investigators to delve into the shadows, chasing down reluctant witnesses and unearthing hidden evidence that could shift the tides of justice. Police reports rarely tell the whole story; witnesses lie, conceal, or simply crumble under scrutiny. It’s the investigator’s job to strip away the fabrications and expose the raw truth, providing the defense with ammunition to raise reasonable doubt.

When the trial begins, the pressure mounts. The private investigator becomes the attorney’s shadow, ready to tackle last-minute revelations, pursue overlooked leads, or retrieve crucial documents. Criminal defense isn’t just about uncovering the truth—it’s about knowing how that truth fits within the labyrinth of criminal law and evidentiary rules. Every piece of evidence, every moment of testimony, must serve the ultimate goal: ensuring the accused receives a fair trial.

But let’s be clear—the investigator doesn’t lead this dance. The lawyer is always in command, making the hard calls and charting the course for the case. The investigator’s role is to supply the tools, the truth, and the tactical advantage to give the defense a fighting chance.

The courtroom may lack the glamour of Hollywood, but the stakes couldn’t be higher. Behind every accused stands a story waiting to be told, a truth begging to be uncovered—and a defense team determined to find it.

Your children and the Power of Reading

As a kid, I stunned everyone with my uncanny reading comprehension and my knack for acing written tests. Was I exceptionally smart or just a natural test-taker? Honestly, I don’t know. What I do know is that my rapid-fire speed reading came at a cost—I was a terrible speller.

So, how did I pull it off? The secret wasn’t in the classroom but in the pages of DC Comics. Superman, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane—these were my teachers. Back then, comic books were treated like contraband in grammar schools. Teachers called them “garbage” and snatched them away, insisting kids read “real literature” by celebrated authors. But to me, those dusty classics were a guaranteed snooze. I didn’t want Great Expectations; I wanted daring rescues and epic battles.

The writers of those comics, though, were sneakily brilliant. Sure, the colorful illustrations grabbed your attention, but the dialogue often included words far beyond a kid’s typical vocabulary. Words that sent me racing to a dictionary to decode what was happening. Without realizing it, I was expanding my vocabulary and sharpening my comprehension skills—all while rooting for my favorite heroes.

Teachers might have frowned, but the proof was in the grades. I landed in the top one percent of my class in reading comprehension. The takeaway? It’s not what kids read—it’s that they’re reading.

Encourage your child to dive into whatever sparks their imagination. Comics, novels, magazines—it all counts. Because the real challenge today isn’t just getting kids to read; it’s helping them learn how to navigate, and yes, outsmart, the world of AI.

Prescription Drug Advertising: A Prescription for Disaster?

When it comes to healthcare decisions, who should guide you—your doctor or your TV? The answer seems obvious, yet every day, we’re bombarded with flashy ads promoting prescription drugs, promising to solve our health woes with a simple pill. But behind the glossy visuals and upbeat jingles lies a troubling reality: advertising prescription drugs to the general public may do more harm than good.

The Risks of Pharmaceutical Marketing

Every drug on the market, no matter how beneficial, comes with potential side effects. Some are minor, but others can be worse than the condition the drug is designed to treat. Yet, television ads rarely dwell on these risks. Instead, they focus on selling a lifestyle or an ideal, leaving consumers with incomplete information and a dangerous misconception: that they can self-diagnose and self-prescribe.

Even more alarming, history has shown us a disturbing pattern. First, a drug is heavily advertised, touted as a groundbreaking solution. Then, months or years later, we see legal ads from attorneys soliciting claims from people harmed by those very drugs. The cycle repeats, raising questions about whether public health is being compromised for corporate profits.

A Double Standard in Advertising

Decades ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) banned the advertising of tobacco and liquor products on television. The rationale was clear: these substances posed significant risks to public health. If the FCC has the authority to curb such advertising, why can’t it extend the same logic to pharmaceutical drugs? After all, the stakes are equally high, if not higher, when it comes to the misuse or overuse of prescription medications.

The First Amendment Debate

Some argue that advertising, including for prescription drugs, is protected under the First Amendment. While the Constitution safeguards free speech, it doesn’t guarantee an unrestricted platform for all commercial interests—especially when public health hangs in the balance. If we can limit advertising for harmful substances like tobacco and alcohol, shouldn’t we at least reconsider how we approach pharmaceutical marketing?

Putting Health Back in the Hands of Doctors

Healthcare decisions should be based on expertise and trust, not marketing campaigns. Your doctor, armed with medical knowledge and an understanding of your specific health needs, is far better equipped to recommend treatments than a 30-second TV spot. Encouraging consumers to “ask their doctor” about specific drugs undermines this relationship and shifts the focus from care to commerce.

Time for Reform?

It’s time to question whether advertising prescription drugs to the general public truly serves the greater good—or just the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies. While the First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, there must be a balance between free speech and protecting public health. Perhaps the solution lies in stricter regulations or even an outright ban on direct-to-consumer drug advertising.

In a world where health should come before profit, it’s worth asking: are we doing enough to ensure that the information guiding our medical choices is trustworthy and unbiased?

Racking your pump shotgun—a sound so glorified, it’s overrated.

An intruder breaches the sanctuary of your home. You reach for your trusted pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. It holds eight rounds, but the chamber is empty,so seven shells is all you have. As the intruder advances, you make your move. You rack the slide, chambering a round with a metallic clatter that cuts through the silence like a blade. It’s loud. It’s unmistakable.

What happens next?

Two possibilities—and neither is in your favor.

First: the intruder is inexperienced, ignorant of the ominous sound’s meaning. You’ve just wasted precious time banking on intimidation that might not even register.

Second: the intruder is skilled, perhaps more so than you. He hears the sound, and now he knows your position, your intentions, and your hesitation. Worse, he knows the fight has started—and you’ve given him the opening move. He will act swiftly and decisively to neutralize you.

In both cases, you’ve sacrificed your element of surprise. And in the high-stakes chaos of defending your life, that could cost you everything.

It’s time to rethink your strategy. Consider a semi-auto shotgun. Load a round in the chamber and engage the safety. With proper trigger discipline, you eliminate the risk of a negligent discharge while keeping yourself ready to respond without hesitation. semi automatic shotgun is actually more effective than a submachine gun when using buckshot.  

The sound of a shotgun racking may thrill audiences in action movies. But in real life, when it’s your life—or the lives of your loved ones—on the line, tactical precision must trump cinematic drama. Keep the chamber loaded, the safety on, and leave the theatrics to Hollywood.

The maximum effective range of a 12-gauge shotgun with an 18-inch barrel and 00 buckshot depends on several factors, including the choke and ammunition quality. Generally:

• Effective Range: For most 12-gauge shotguns using 00 buckshot, the effective range is around 30-50 yards. At this distance, the pellets are capable of producing effective stopping power and penetration.

• Maximum Range: The maximum range of the pellets is typically up to 300-400 yards, but accuracy and lethality are greatly diminished beyond the effective range.

Notes:

• The pattern spread and energy loss increase with distance, making it less effective for hunting or defense at long range.

• A tighter choke (if present) can extend the effective range slightly.

For tactical or defensive use, engagement within 30 yards is ideal for controlled accuracy and stopping power.

Because in your home, there’s no time for second chances.

Urgent Action Needed: Protecting the Innocent Children Left Vulnerable by the Border Invasion

 

Right now, thousands of innocent children—some as young as infants and under the age of 12—are being swept into the chaos of the ongoing border crisis. Many of these children are trafficked, abandoned, or exploited during the perilous journey to the U.S., victims of a system that has failed them at every turn. They are not at fault; they are vulnerable, scared, and in desperate need of protection.

This is an issue that cannot wait. These children are being scattered across the country, often with little oversight. Their futures hang in the balance, and without immediate action, they risk further victimization—either at the hands of human traffickers, neglectful systems, or sheer abandonment.

We must act now to provide these children with stability and safety. One urgent solution is the creation of a streamlined, compassionate adoption program. Such a program would connect these children with loving families across the United States who are ready to provide the nurturing homes they need to heal and thrive.

There is no shortage of compassionate families in this country willing to step forward. By fast-tracking adoption laws and resources, we can turn a dire crisis into a second chance for these children. This isn’t just about their survival; it’s about giving them the opportunity to grow into productive and fulfilled adults.

These children have already endured unimaginable trauma. It is our moral and humanitarian duty to ensure that they are not further harmed. Every moment we delay is another moment these children remain at risk.

Let us rise to the challenge and address this issue with the urgency, compassion, and responsibility it demands. The time to act is now. These children deserve nothing less.

On Sovereign Citizens and Liberty

The so-called “sovereign citizen” phenomenon reflects a yearning for the vision of freedom and limited government that our Founding Fathers originally enshrined. Their ideals—minimal taxation, boundless personal liberty, and a government limited primarily to national defense—stand in stark contrast to the expansive, intrusive state we see today.

The freedoms we once cherished have been eroded over time, chipped away by an ever-growing regulatory state. Sovereign citizens are often mocked and marginalized, not because their principles are inherently flawed, but because they clash with the modern reality of government overreach and dependence.

Many in the sovereign citizen movement mistakenly believe that today’s courts will safeguard their liberties. Tragically, this faith is misplaced, as those very courts frequently uphold the Malum prohibitum laws—arbitrary statutes criminalizing victimless behavior—that sovereign citizens refuse to recognize. Their defiance often lands them in prison, a consequence not of malice but of a steadfast refusal to comply with a system they see as illegitimate.

Rather than ridicule these individuals, we should approach them with understanding. Their hearts are in the right place, driven by a desire for genuine liberty. The lesson here is not to dismiss them, but to reflect on how far we’ve strayed from the ideals of a free society. Instead of regulating one another into submission, we should strive to reclaim the spirit of freedom that built this nation.

The Second Amendment: Gun Control for Dummies.

 

The Second Amendment is not merely a line of text in the Constitution; it is the battle cry of a free people—a shield against the dark inevitability of government overreach. It is the ultimate safeguard of liberty, and without it, freedom will crumble. Today, as political elites and authoritarian forces conspire to strip Americans of this fundamental right, we stand on the precipice of a defining moment in history.

In 1791, the Founding Fathers—fresh from the blood-soaked battlefields of revolution—crafted the Bill of Rights as an unyielding defense of human liberty. The order of these rights was deliberate. The Second Amendment, following the First’s guarantee of speech and assembly, stands as a declaration of power: the people, not the government, hold the ultimate authority in this republic.

A Warning to Tyrants

The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was forged in the fires of rebellion, designed to ensure that no government—foreign or domestic—could oppress the American people without fear of resistance. It is not merely about self-defense; it is about the defense of a free state.

Tyrants fear armed citizens because they cannot enslave those who refuse to be disarmed. History has proven this truth time and again. Every dictatorship, every genocide, and every atrocity begins with disarmament. Those who claim otherwise are either ignorant of history or complicit in repeating it.

The Founders saw the writing on the wall. They witnessed tyranny firsthand: soldiers raiding homes, confiscating weapons, and silencing dissent. They knew that a disarmed population is a controlled population. This is why the Second Amendment is an explicit prohibition—not a suggestion—against any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

The War on Freedom

Today, politicians cloak their disarmament agenda in the guise of “public safety.” They peddle fear, exploiting tragedies to advance their cause. But make no mistake: their ultimate goal is not safety—it is submission. An unarmed population is easy to control. It cannot fight back, it cannot resist, and it cannot hold its government accountable.

Over decades, they have woven a web of gun control laws, each more draconian than the last. They demand registration, licenses, fees, and waiting periods—all designed to whittle away the Second Amendment until it is nothing but a hollow promise. They know the truth: the more hoops they create, the fewer people will exercise their rights.

Meanwhile, these same politicians insulate themselves behind walls, armed guards, and layers of security. They live in fear of the very people they claim to represent. They know that their power is illegitimate and that, one day, the people may rise to reclaim their freedom.

The Second Amendment Is Not Negotiable

Let us be clear: the Second Amendment is not up for debate. It is not subject to the whims of politicians or the fears of the uninformed. It is not contingent upon crime rates, technological advancements, or public opinion. It is an absolute right—a cornerstone of our republic.

The language of the Second Amendment is unambiguous. It does not permit regulation, taxation, or licensing. It does not restrict the arms that citizens may bear. It does not bend to the demands of bureaucrats. It is a line in the sand, and it cannot be crossed.

The Cost of Disarmament

The consequences of disarmament are written in the blood of the innocent. From the Holocaust to the killing fields of Cambodia, unarmed populations have been systematically slaughtered by their governments. To deny this reality is to deny history itself.

Gun control is not about saving lives—it is about consolidating power. Those who advocate for it are not protectors of the people; they are enablers of tyranny.

A Supreme Victory for Liberty

Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have always known: the Second Amendment is a first-class right. It is not a privilege to be licensed, taxed, or regulated. It is a right that stands as a bulwark against government overreach.

The Court has made it clear: gun ownership is not negotiable. The government has no authority to dictate the terms of this right. The Founders did not leave room for compromise, and neither should we.

A Call to Arms—Literally and Figuratively

This is the fight of our generation. The battle to protect the Second Amendment is the battle to protect freedom itself. We cannot afford to be complacent. Every inch we concede is an inch closer to tyranny.

The Second Amendment is the line between freedom and slavery, between dignity and submission, between life and death. We must defend it with everything we have, for once it is lost, it will never be regained.

Let the tyrants tremble, for the Second Amendment will stand. The people will remain armed. And liberty will prevail.

You’re charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon in California. What you need to get the blatantly unconstitutional case dismissed

 

Let me begin to say that I am not a lawyer, but I do have my many years of understanding the law when it comes to the second amendment of the United States Constitution.  Will your trial judge have the balls to actually follow the constitution rather than cater to those leftist people who got him placed on the bench?

Should you find yourself arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in California, I promise you most lawyers don’t have a clue about the second amendment. They will walk you into a plea agreement most likely ending in your conviction of a misdemeanor.  Here is a motion to dismiss that covers all the bases that would get you through the  court.  Not only would you file this but you’ll get a hearing and you’re going to have to argue this against an experienced prosecutor.  Is it simple? I’m not going to suggest for a moment it is simple even for a lawyer. Here is the Motion:  

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The People of the State of California,

Plaintiff,

v.

Ted Savage,

Defendant.

Case No. [Insert Case Number]

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Defendant, Ted Savage, Pro Se, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the charges against him for carrying a firearm in an automobile pursuant to California Penal Code §25463, on the grounds that the statute and its application in this case violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

The Defendant, Ted Savage, was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm in an automobile following a routine traffic stop, during which he voluntarily cooperated with law enforcement. The Defendant asserts that his conduct falls within the core protections of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

The statute under which the Defendant is charged impermissibly infringes upon the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defense, and further, its enforcement is barred by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, this Court must dismiss the charges.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Supremacy Clause Requires Dismissal of the Charges

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land,” and state laws in conflict with federal constitutional protections must yield. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.) In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (561 U.S. at 750.) State statutes or their application that conflict with these constitutional protections are invalid.

California Penal Code §25463, as applied to the Defendant, conflicts with federal constitutional protections under the Second Amendment and is therefore unenforceable.

B. California’s Statute Imposes an Unconstitutional Restriction on the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry firearms for self-defense. (554 U.S. at 595.) The Court emphasized that this right is “fundamental” and not limited to service in a militia. (Id. at 628.)

In Bruen, the Court established a framework for evaluating Second Amendment claims, holding that any restriction on the right to bear arms must be consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (597 U.S. ___, slip op. at 15.) Restrictions lacking historical precedent are presumptively unconstitutional. (Id. at 25.)

California Penal Code §25463 criminalizes the act of carrying a firearm in an automobile without regard to whether the firearm is being carried for lawful purposes such as self-defense. This categorical prohibition lacks any historical precedent and fails under the Bruen standard.

C. The Defendant’s Conduct Is Protected by the Second Amendment

The Defendant’s act of carrying a firearm in his automobile falls squarely within the Second Amendment’s core protection of carrying arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to bear arms includes carrying firearms in public for lawful purposes. (Heller, 554 U.S. at 628; Bruen, slip op. at 23.)

Absent a specific showing that the Defendant’s conduct posed a threat to public safety or was otherwise unlawful, the statute’s application in this case is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

D. The Statute Violates the Equal Protection Clause

In addition to infringing on the Second Amendment, the statute also raises concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by disproportionately impacting law-abiding citizens who seek to exercise their constitutional rights.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the charges against him. California Penal Code §25463, as applied, violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

DATED: [Insert Date]

Respectfully submitted,

[Name]

[Address]

[City, State, ZIP]

[Phone Number]

[Email Address]