Tag Archives: whetsel

Larry Pratt, GOA, Endorses Darrell Sorrells for OK County Sheriff!

November 1, 2012
Today, as Oklahoma’s Open Carry Law goes into effect and citizens across the state are exercising their right to open carry, the Sorrels for Sheriff Campaign is honored to announce that Darrell Sorrels has received the endorsement of Mr. Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. For over 30 years, Mr. Pratt has been Executive Director of GOA, a national membership
organization of 300,000 Americans that continually work to preserve their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
As Sheriff, Darrell Sorrels will be committed not only to keeping the citizens of Oklahoma County safe, but to protecting their freedoms as well. Again, we are truly honored to have the confidence and support of Mr. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America.

Dear Mr. Sorrels,
Gun Owners of America is pleased to endorse you for Sheriff of Oklahoma County. Your record of service in law enforcement, along with your staunch
commitment to uphold the Constitution, make you the best candidate for this office.
Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America

Read, Share or Download the GOA Endorsement Letter


Examiner.com: No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Kaye Beach

Oct. 26, 2012, updated Oct. 29, 2012

I hate to be an absolutist but after years of studying the International Association of Chiefs of Police, it is my firm opinion that any Sheriff candidate associated with the organization is pretty much a no go.  There are a number of police associations to choose from and a choice to band together with this one is out of them all has to be the product of a pronounced ideology that for many Americans, especially pro Second Amendment Americans, is repulsive.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, was also critical of the IACP, which he told Cybercast News Service “represents a lot of appointed police chiefs from a lot of totalitarian and dictatorship countries where human rights are constantly violated and freedom of the press doesn’t even exist.”

“There isn’t a gun-control proposal that this organization hasn’t supported. . .” 


I think that any officer of the law that does not trust law abiding citizens with a gun, doesn’t deserve our trust.

This excellent article posted today at the Examiner.com takes a look at the latest IACP anti-gun Resolutions and points out the fact that Sheriff John Whetsel was a past President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.  Whetsel, as IACP President, in 1995,  actively worked to suppress right to carry legislation in the states including Oklahoma.

No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Here is  1995 internal IACP strategic plan document to undermine or eliminate right to carry legislation.

The plan was to kill the bills if possible and if not to encumber the legislation with a number of burdensome requirements to deter lawful citizens from obtaining a permit.
For example, Item 5 on page 6 of the document suggests making it a criminal offense, a felony rather than a misdemeanor,  to carry with an expired permit.
Another example is item #14 on pg 7. Require a separate CCW permit for each individual weapon and limit permit holders to one gun purchase per month.

President Clinton thanked John Whetsel personally in 1994 for his help in passing the Brady and Crime Bills.  The “Crime Bill” that Clinton makes reference to is actually ‘The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act’  This was the Act that established a ban on “Assault Weapons” which lasted from 1994 to 2004.  Clinton Whetsel 1994

The Examiner.com looks into this a little deeper here

I have been barking about the International Association of Chiefs of Police for years.

The IACP is an international, non governmental organization accredited by the United Nations and is a ‘Member of the UN POLICE COMMUNITY’ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/sites/police/community.shtml

This organization has been instrumental in bringing about profound changes to our nation politically, technologically and culturally and not necessarily for the better.  They are the thought leaders, the change agents in American law enforcement.

You would be hard pressed to find even one of the Ten Amendments to the  US Constitution that the policies pushed by the IACP has not insulted but one of the most telling positions taken by the organization is their stance on the Second Amendment.

Steven Spingola, a well respected former homicide detective sums the IACP up very well as;

“a global organization that views the American Constitution as an obstructionist document.”

The IACP has a long history of anti-Second Amendment stances.

They have actively supported every piece of gun control legislation since the 1960’s. The organization is long time, bitter enemies with the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

IACP President, Quinn Tamm,  in 1971 actually said that a brick was a safer weapon for self defense that a handgun.

Nothing has changed since then. (See the 2012 Resolutions issued by the IACP)

For a litany of anti-gun antics from the IACP in recent times, read this.

The IACP opposes;

•expansion of concealed carry
•50-caliber rifles
•private sales of gun
•gun shows
•so-called “assault” weapons

The IACP Supports;

•Limiting the number of handguns law abiding citizens can purchase
•five-day “cooling off” or waiting periods
•Legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.
•State, local, and tribal governments mandating specific storage methods of guns
•Repealing  the Tiahrt Amendment, a federal law that protects sensitive federal gun trace data from general access.
•Gun surrender programs

This international organization is highly political.  Some of the activities of the IACP include lobbying and testifying before Congress, doing research and policy development, setting professional standards and providing accreditation for US police departments.  The IACP promotes and writes guidelines for police technology, trains and educates law enforcement as well as managing and administering numerous programs for the federal government.

But Whetsel asserts that law enforcement is not about politics.

If that is so, why choose to forge ties with an incredibly political organization like the IACP?

John Whetsel at the 2011 IACP Conference

Sheriff Whetsel has a deep and longstanding and continuing relationship with the IACP. He attends IACP yearly conferences and is a member of the IACP Executive Committee and an active member of at least one IACP subcommittee.

And it is all very convenient to say it is not about politics when he is under pressure to defend his ideology that as the Sheriff absolutely does matter!  I have spent many hours at the state capitol and have witnessed the Sheriff’s armed lobbyists working diligently on highly political matters and the Sheriff.  As you can imagine the Sheriff has quite a lot of pull up there, you know, where they make laws that impact the free exercise of your rights.  And Whetsel, like the IACP,  does not have a reputation of  being very concerned with protecting any of those Ten Amendments.

OCSO Vet. Maj. Waldenville Says Promises Broken, Donations Missing

Kaye Beach

Oct. 22, 2012

Remember Major John Waldenville?

May 21, 2011, just after midnight, Waldenville was ambushed while carrying the nightly deposit from the restaurant where he worked as a security guard to the bank around the corner. The 25-year law enforcement veteran didn’t have time to react or plead his case before the gun went off. The bullet went in just above his right eye, severing his optic nerve, and through his ear before shattering his jaw and settling in his jowls.

The bleeding and swelling caused so much trauma to his brain he has spent the past year just learning how to function again.  Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-county-sheriffs-major-to-be-honored-for-courage-after-life-changing-injury/article/3704046#ixzz2A3KdllAD

Yesterday,  Waldenville,  made several alarming allegations about his treatment after the shooting by Sheriff John Whetsel and the OK County Sheriffs Office where he has served for 25 years.

“I just felt like I’d literally been thrown to the curb.”

Among these allegations is that donations totaling thousands made towards his medical recovery were never received by him.

. . .they discovered thousands of dollars missing from various fundraisers held in his name. Read  more 

But according to  the OK County Sheriff’s Office, Waldenville received every bit of money.

the Oklahoma County Fraternal Order of Police handled the fundraising efforts. The FOP maintained detailed accounting of every penny that was raised totaling $142,205.79. The funds were deposited in a separate account and every penny raised was given to an attorney representing the Waldenville family on October 6, 2011. link

Waldenville says he  was assured by Sheriff Whetsel that  workman’s comp. would be forthcoming and has dated text messages from the Sheriff to prove it.

He said since the shooting, his wife Marjorie received several text messages from Sheriff John Whetsel, assuring them that he would receive worker’s compensation benefits. But the Waldenville’s say that never happened.

The sheriff’s office is now denying any culpability in the matter saying that;

“Issues of workers compensation, disability, and health care are handled by the Oklahoma County Human Resources Department, not the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office.”

Waldenville mentions failed attempts on his part to resolve these issues (see News 9 video report) but  the Sheriff’s Office gives an entirely different perspective on the matter implying that the Waldenville’s have not made any effort to resolve these problems;

“We would have preferred for any issues the Waldenville family had to at least contact us first so we could have sat down at the table and discussed specifics.” Link

The accounts given by Waldenville and the Sheriff’s Office are at odds here but the truth will come out.  Given the history of scandal that follows Sheriff John Whetsel,  I would put my money on Major Waldenville.

FBI and OSBI Investigates OK County Sheriff’s Department

Kaye Beach

July 26, 2012

Fox 25 OKC reported Wed. night that Oklahoma County jail inmates were put to work making signs for Sheriff Whetsel’s re-election campaign.

OK County Sheriff Admits Inmate Labor Used in Re-Election Campaign

Prisoners were involved in the work that involved  hauling rebar then cutting and painting the metal for the Sheriffs political signs.  Using county property and inmate labor for personal or political work is a violation of Oklahoma law.

According to Fox 25, the FBI and OSBI is now investigating.

OSBI Investigating OK County Sheriff’s Office Following Fox 25 Investigation


Are Oklahoma Cops Using Spy Cams to Become Super Snoopers?

Kaye Beach

June 16, 2012

Two police agencies (to my knowledge) in Oklahoma are now using Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR).  The Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Department and the Shawnee Police Department.


These cameras snap photographs of license plates and store the image along with the vehicle’s registration data plus the time date and location of every vehicle captured. ALPR can be mounted on police vehicles or in a fixed location and they can capture thousands of license plates per hour.

Shawnee Police Chief Russell Frantz is very excited about his new surveillance technology for the same reason Oklahomans should be concerned.

“For investigating, it will be phenomenal,” Frantz said. Link

ALPR is great for spotting stolen vehicles or wanted criminals but they also capture the information of completely innocent drivers.  If the information captured on non-offending drivers was immediately discarded then the concern would not be so great but that is not what is happening.  Without proper rules in place, this potentially valuable tool becomes nothing less than a nationwide tracking system.

As I have written about recently, the information is being used by a private company, Vigilant Video, to build an enormous database, the National Vehicle Location Service (NLVS).   As a private corporation Vigilant Video is not bound to any privacy requirements which (somewhat) restrain governmental entities and yet police departments nationwide are both supplying and utilizing the NLVS database.

You can watch Vigilant Video’s ticker that reveals how many records have been consumed by their national database here.  At the moment of this writing the count was 669, 699,058.

If you follow the link to view the ticker, be sure to look at the other products this company is offering.

Line Up” certainly caught my attention.

LineUp collects face images, detection times and “entire human” (full body) images — then catalogs all human face events into a centralized database. Using the LineUp Event Search, you can enter a suspect image into the system — and instantly search through a time-based history of every possible match.

This isn’t an issue of lack of privacy in public. We cannot stop ourselves from being viewed or photographed once we enter the public sphere. ALPR collecting, storing and sharing of this data is more properly understood to be much more than a simple sighting in public-it’s an investigation. (More on that aspect here)

The Electronic Police State

An electronic police state is characterized by state use of electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.

The information gathered under an electronic police state is criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial. It is gathered universally (“preventively”) and only later organized for use in prosecutions.

In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email sent, every Internet site surfed, every post made, every check written, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping…are all criminal evidence, and all are held in searchable databases. The individual can be prosecuted whenever the government wishes.


I consider it to be an assault on my autonomy as a free, independent and law abiding citizen to be entered into a tracking database.   It may surprise you to know that although I am a law abiding person, I still have plenty I would like to hide from the government.  I don’t want them to know where I go to church, who I associate with, what political events I attend or where I get my nails done.  Even though I am not doing anything wrong-they are- and it is none of their damn business! 

Lots of people have plenty to hide that is still no business whatsoever of the police or any of their cronies that they might be persuaded to share this info with.   If you happen to go to AA, have a sweetie on the side or are a politician (hello!)-you should be especially concerned and more than a little creeped out.

The only reason to track and monitor anything is for control so what does that tell you about the collection of this type of information on all of us?

I suggest that residents of Shawnee and Oklahoma County contact their Police Chief or Sheriff and ask a few questions about how this data is being used.

You have a right to receive from your chief law enforcement official;

  • A copy of their data policy and privacy policy governing ALPR’s
  • Any documents showing how the collected plate data is stored, shared and/or deleted
  • Any auditing requirements the department has to ensure appropriate data privacy, and to discover and punish any abuse of the system.

You should be able to get this information by simply requesting it.  I say “should.” It may not be that simple in which case you will want to structure your request to include reminders of Oklahoma’s Open Records Act.  Fortunately, there is an easy way to do this.  Use a template!

Oklahoma Open Records request template


About OK Open Records Act


Autonomy  is “The desire to avoid being manipulated or dominated wholly by others.

… Loss of autonomy means loss of our capacity to control our own  life

It also would be a good idea for anyone who is concerned about their privacy or autonomy to contact their local police or sheriff’s department and ask if they have or are considering using ALPR and let them know that you will cause a ruckus if they use this technology inappropriately.

Data should not be retained or shared on innocent motorists!

Friday May 18th AxXiom For Liberty Live! Guest Co-Host Craig Dawkins, OK GOP Convention Retrospective, OK County Sheriff Candidate Darrell Sorrels

AxXiom For Liberty Radio  May 18, 2012

Listen Live! 6-8 PM CST Every Friday At LogosRadioNetwork.com

Tonight on A4L – I would like to welcome Craig Dawkins as my guest co-host sitting in for Howard Houchen who busy on the campaign trail for OK Senator.

Check out Howard’s website!  http://www.howardhouchen.com/

Craig Dawkins is a tenured professor who teaches economics, personal finance and investments formerly a professional financial adviser and business owner.   His true passion lies in agitating on behalf of liberty and he advocates for the reform of the ballot access laws in Oklahoma, ending the drug war, and the importance of third parties in reforming the political process.

Hour 1

We are going to spend the first half of the show touching upon the recent Oklahoma OP State Convention but focusing on the future of the Ron Paul inspired Liberty movement and the Oklahoma GOP.

Guests include Lukas Collins, RNC Delegate, Ron Paul 2012 grassroots leader, Cheryl Williams, current State GOP Committeewoman and former GOP Vice-Chair, and John Roberts, current State GOP Committeeman and former Statewide Volunteer Coordinator for the Randy Brogdon for Governor Campaign 2010.

Mitt Romney supporters, Ron Paul partisans brawl at Oklahoma GOP convention

Oklahoma GOP continues national trend of disenfranchising Paul supporters dailycaller.com

OKGOP Chairman Matt Pinnell reflects on Saturday’s chaotic convention reddirtreport.com

The OKGOP convention – Both sides messed up. By: David Tackett

Order and Chaos Part 1 – A Republican Gathering

Order and Chaos Part 2 – A Reconvention

Hour 2

Craig and I will take your calls and discuss issues facing the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Department and jail (For a good and relatively brief overvies of some of thes issues read 2009  report by the Oklahoma County Adult Detention Advisory Committee. http://www.okpns.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/adacfinalreport.doc) and then introduce the 2012 contender for OK County Sheriff Darrell Sorrels.

Darrell Sorrel has served the citizens in Oklahoma County as a professional Law-Enforcement Officer for over 20 years.  He is currently a special Deputy for the US Marshal Service in the Western District of Oklahoma.(Check out Darrell Sorrels’ campaign website and Facebook page )

Call In Number is 512-646-1984

Listen Live! Every Friday 6-8pmCST on  LogosRadioNetwork.com

Non Partisan Sheriff? Contact Legislators and Ask them to Vote NO on SB 327

Kaye Beach

March 3, 2012

SB 327 would make the office of County Sheriff in Oklahoma a non-partisan office.  Don’t you want to know if your sheriff is liberal or conservative?  Seems like a good starting point to me.

Last week when SB 327 went before the House for a vote it failed by just one vote. It will be voted on again at any time.  Please email these representatives that voted for the bill and ask them to vote NO on SB 327 when it returns to the floor.

Not revealing one’s party affiliation will not make a Sheriff’s candidate non-partisan, it will only make it harder for you-the voter-to know where the candidate stands or hold them accountable when they stray from their party’s principles.

We elect our sheriff’s and we have a right to know the truth about the candidates who are asking us to elect them to be the top law enforcement officer of our county.

What is the rush?

This bill is simply designed to give the advantage to the current sheriff, Sheriff John Whetsel. Democrats, at the moment, are not the favored party. Is this a good reason to change our law?

Chances are it will not always be this way and should not alter our laws on a political whim.

I have yet to hear any good reason for making the sheriff’s race non-partisan. Why the rush?   If this is really a good idea our representatives can wait until after the upcoming election so as to avoid the appearance of partisan non-partisanship!

I have grouped all of the House members’ emails together who voted yes on SB 327 for you.  You can copy and paste and email them all at once.  Full contact info for all House members is at the bottom of this post if you would like to make a call.
Please email these representatives that voted for the bill and ask them to be fair and vote NO on SB 327 when it returns to the floor.

Here are the House members that voted for SB 327;

YEAS:   50

Brown              Hickman            Morrissette        Rousselot

Cannaday           Hilliard           Nelson             Russ

Casey              Hoskin             Newell             Scott

Cockroft           Inman              Ortega             Shelton

Condit             Kouplen            Ownbey             Shoemake

Cox                Liebmann           Pittman            Shumate

Dank               Lockhart           Proctor            Thomsen

Dorman             McCullough         Pruett             Virgin

Faught             McDaniel, C.       Renegar            Walker

Glenn              McDaniel, J.       Richardson         Williams

Grau               McDaniel, R.       Roan               Mr.Speaker

Hamilton           McPeak             Roberts, D.

Hardin             Morgan             Roberts, S.

brownb@oksenate.gov; ed.cannady@okhouse.gov; jwhickman@okhouse.gov ; weshilliard@okhouse.gov ; richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov; waderousselot@okhouse.gov; jason.nelson@okhouse.gov ; todd.russ@okhouse.gov ; dennis.casey@okhouse.gov ; chuck.hoskin@okhouse.gov ; tom.newell@okhouse.gov ; seneca.scott@okhouse.gov ; josh.cockroft@okhouse.gov ; scott.inman@okhouse.gov ; charles.ortega@okhouse.gov ; mikeshelton@okhouse.gov ; donnie.condit@okhouse.gov ; steve.kouplen@okhouse.gov ; pat.ownbey@okhouse.gov ; jerryshoemake@okhouse.gov ; dougcox@okhouse.gov ; guyliebmann@okhouse.gov ; anastasia.pittman@okhouse.gov ; jabarshumate@okhouse.gov ; david.dank@okhouse.gov ; james.lockhart@okhouse.gov ; eric.proctor@okhouse.gov ; todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov ; joedorman@okhouse.gov ; mark.mccullough@okhouse.gov ; rcpruett@okhouse.gov ; emily.virgin@okhouse.gov ; george.faught@okhouse.gov ; curtis.mcdaniel@okhouse.gov ; brian.renegar@okhouse.gov ; purcywalker@okhouse.gov ; larryglenn@okhouse.gov ; jeanniemcdaniel@okhouse.gov ; philrichardson@okhouse.gov ; cory.williams@okhouse.gov ; randy.grau@okhouse.gov ; randy.mcdaniel@okhouse.gov ; paulroan@okhouse.gov ; rebeccahamilton@okhouse.gov ; jerrymcpeak@okhouse.gov ; dustin.roberts@okhouse.gov ; tommy.hardin@okhouse.gov ; dannymorgan@okhouse.gov ; sean.roberts@okhouse.gov ; krissteele@okhouse.gov

You can find all contact info for your state representatives here

Oklahoma County Sheriff’s DUI Checkpoint 7/31/09 Results

Sobriety checkpoint to be held Friday

The Sun

The Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office (OCSO) will conduct a sobriety checkpoint July 31 in Oklahoma County from 11 p.m.-3 a.m. The sobriety checkpoint will focus on people who are driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Deputies will stop vehicles passing through the checkpoint and ask for driver licenses. The exact location of the checkpoint is not being released. Any driver suspected of operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be directed to a safe area off the roadway for further observation and possible testing for intoxication

The maximum penalty in Oklahoma for a first time DUI conviction is 1 year in jail, a $1,000 fine, and 6 months revocation of drivers’ license.

Results from the August 31, 2009 sobriety checkpoint.


(Del City) On July 31, 2009 the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office with assistance from Del City Police conducted a sobriety checkpoint at S.E. 44th and S. Bryant. The results of the checkpoint follow:

-12 total arrests:
*5-driving under the influence arrests.
*5-warrant arrests.
*2-driving under suspension arrests.

-51 citations were written for various traffic violations.

-28 warnings were written for various traffic violations.


-4 vehicles were impounded.

-A total of 438 vehicles were counted driven through the checkpoint.



This was Reported by Check Points on July 22, 2009

Oklahoma State Rep. Harold Wright believes DUI laws need to get tough to cut down on drunken driving deaths. The Republican lawmakers from Weatherford, Okla. wants zero tolerance laws for DUI.

People enjoying glass of wine at dinner or a bottle of beer after work could wind up in jail.

Oklahoma DUI laws currently have the legal blood alcohol limit for driving at .08%. Police also have the right to detain a driver suspected of DUI, no matter what the blood alcohol level.

The proposed legislation will be studied and discussed this fall.

Source: KOCO.com



Follow OK. County Sheriff’s office on Twitter;

Hey there! OkCountySheriff is using Twitter.

Twitter is a free service that lets you keep in touch with people through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing? Join today to start receiving OkCountySheriff’s tweets.

Oklahoma Deputies Set Up Checkpoints

From NewsOk.com


It was a busier night than usual at the intersection of N Pennsylvania Avenue and W Hefner Road on Saturday night.

At all four corners, Oklahoma County sheriff’s deputies checked driver and vehicle information during a four-hour traffic checkpoint.   About 10 p.m., deputies began donning reflective vests and erecting makeshift barricades and computer stations into the flow of traffic.  By 10:30 p.m., drivers were being diverted into the far right lane.

Sheriff’s deputies approached the vehicles and asked the drivers for their licenses and insurance information, checking the car’s tag and tail lights as the vehicles pulled up to the terminals.  Most cars held small groups of well-dressed couples and clusters of friends on their way to parties and clubs.  A few lone drivers were on their way to convenience stores, some in their pajamas, while others were on their way home from work or a night of babysitting.

What’s the response?

Many drivers bore looks of confusion as they approached the intersection but had their information in hand by the time deputies asked for it.  Most agreed that the brief delay was worth the increased safety.  No, your personal safety was just markedly lowered.

“Well, I think it is fine and dandy. It keeps the drunks off the street,” John Burbank said.

(Way to go, John! )

“It’s random, but it doesn’t bother me. I’m not in a hurry, so it’s not a big deal,” Megan Wilson said.

Hope they got all of your data entered correctly, MeganStrip Search After Traffic Stop Results In Federal Lawsuit     Woman Says Computer Glitch Led To Incident

But no big deal, besides giving the Sheriff’s Department a little peep show she only got a warning for the tail light.  Minor inconvenience at best.

“If people don’t have insurance, they shouldn’t be driving,” Trent said. His passenger, Jeff, disagreed: “I think it’s a pain in the butt, really.” Both men declined to give their last names.  (they sound suspicious, do they not?)

“Well, I guess they’ve got to do their job,” Janell Wulff said.  (that’s right, Janell!  You aren’t using your Fourth Amaendment anyways, so what the heck?  Live a little!  Besides we trust our law enforcement officers-don’t we?)





The deputies scanned the licenses and verified insurance cards. If everything cleared, motorists usually were on their way within a minute. If not, drivers were asked to pull into one of the nearby parking lots. Detained drivers, sometimes in handcuffs, were taken to the parking lot of an abandoned Texaco and questioned. The beeping of tow trucks was audible from each corner.

When traffic backed up, deputies waved cars through until the congestion eased. Officers were careful to keep the line less than 10 vehicles long.

Dodgers, beware

Sheriff John Whetsel said law officers weren’t ignoring drivers that were dodging the barricades.


“We look for turnarounds. I’ve seen two while I’ve been standing here talking to you. Our deputies are going after them. In turnarounds, usually, we find they turn around for a specific reason. They either don’t have a license, they don’t have insurance. They shouldn’t be operating a vehicle on our streets,” Whetsel said.

Whetsel patrolled Pennsylvania Avenue in his black Dodge Charger, speeding after drivers who ducked into parking lots and down streets.

In other words, upon approaching one of these checkpoints, you have no choice but to hand over your papers and  be detained

One man pulling into a parking space in front of a local pizza place was greeted by the sheriff, who quickly checked his information, then wished him a good night.

Whetsel, about 30 of his deputies and officers from The Village police department participated in the operation, the latest in a series of monthly checkpoints operated by the sheriff’s office

Are Digital Photos “Biometric”? In a Word-YES!

To directly answer to the disinfo campaign being waged on Oklahoma House members-Digital photos are specifically mentioned in SB 483 for a reason.  We have been using software since 2003 at state DMV’s to render Biometric identifiers form the digital photo taken for your license.

  Digital photo’s are a BIOMETRIC SAMPLE .  When the program (FaceExplore) is applied then it is renderd to produce your BIOMETRIC DATA.

Here is some simple explantions for how this works and evidence.  I have many volumes more if this does not suffice.

Please, make sure your Representitives have this information. 




Are photographs biometric information?

Speaking of biometrics, people often think of fingerprints, iris scans, hand geometry and DNA samples. Photographs are often viewed as not falling under the definition of biometrics as biometrics have to include some form of automated recognition system. While this view might be valid with respect to analogue photography, it is not so with digital photography. Given improvements in digital scanning technologies, even traditional photographs should be treated as biometric information.


Is biometric information necessarily associated with an identifiable individual?

Yes. It is the very purpose of biometric data to establish a connection between an individual and additional identification information, for example a name or a membership number.

The answer depends on what kind of biometric information is being collected, and under what circumstances. Also, a distinction has to be made between consensual and non-consensual collection of biometric information.

Consensual collection

Anyone can collect and store biometric data, if a person validly consents to its collection. With respect to digital photographs, this is already done on many occasions: Biometric data are being collected by credit card companies (photo credit cards), passport authorities (passports), motor vehicle departments (driver’s license), universities (student cards), libraries (patron cards), public transportation (bus passes) etc.

See also: What problems arise when biometric data are collected with consent of the individual?

Non-consensual collection

Non-consensual collection of biometric data can be divided into overt collection (with the knowledge of the individual, but against his or her will) and clandestine non-consensual collection (collection unbeknownst to the individual).

Overt non-consensual collection of biometric data occurs most frequently in surveillance and forensic contexts. The collection of data is conducted by police, court officers or representatives of government agencies and has to be mandated by statutory or common law in order to be legal.

Overt non-consensual surveillance is also conducted by private entities (e.g. CCTV systems visible to patrons). Surveillance proponents might argue that private surveillance systems that are not hidden to the customer constitute consensual collection of biometric data. However, this argument is weak as the alternative is not to enter the premises at all. This might not be a viable option if someone needs to return an item or has to contact an employee in person. In addition, unless there is a warning of the use of surveillance systems before the patron enters the premises, the collection of data potentially has already taken place by the time the patron spots the cameras.

What problems arise when biometric data are collected with consent of the individual?

There are two major problems with the consensual collection of biometric data.

Firstly, consent is not always given freely, especially in situations where the service that requires the collection of biometric data is essential. For example, if the monopolist public transportation company requires the collection of a digital photograph for issuing monthly bus passes, there is no real choice regarding collection of the biometric identifier, unless the person in question is able to afford a car or willing to pay the higher rates of single tickets. The problem of free consent also arises when biometric data is collected by employers, universities, passport authorities and motor vehicle departments. Where the alternative to giving biometric information in these cases is losing the job, not attending university, not traveling or not driving a car, consent cannot be considered meaningful.

Secondly, even if consent is given freely, problems can arise with the subsequent use of the information. Because biometric data is stored digitally, it shares the main attributes of all digital information: it is easily copied, it is easily communicated, it is easily searchable and it is easily altered. If a government agency or even a private entity take a digital photograph of an individual and store it digitally alongside with other personal information, the individual loses control over the data. Even if the individual in question initially consented to the collection of the data, what does this mean in terms of duration of the storage? Who is allowed to access the data and how is it protected against unauthorised access? To whom is it communicated and for what purpose? These and other questions remain in many cases unanswered.


Why are biometrics controversial?

Biometrics are controversial for many reasons.

The first controversial issue is the collection of the biometric data themselves. Most people regard the measuring of their bodily features as more or less intrusive. Individuals often perceive the collection of biometric data as being catalogued and ‘reduced to biometrics’ or ‘even reduced to a number’. Moreover, many people view the collection of certain identifiers such as fingerprints or facial patterns as stigmatizing and feel being treated ‘like a criminal’. While psychological factors plays an important role in these perceptions, they should not be dismissed lightly as being ‘merely emotional’. To many, the sense of privacy manifests itself in a feeling of intrusion or exposure.

Another issue has to do with the fact that biometric data are digitally stored. Digital information is easily copied, transmitted, altered and searched. Biometric databases can be merged or cross referenced with other biometric or non-biometric databases gain even more information about individuals. Biometric data are particularly useful for data mining and cross referencing of databases, since they represent a unique identifier that does not change over time. While names, addresses, membership numbers or user handles can change, biometric data stays fixed, making it an extremely reliable and thus a valuable ‘commodity’.

Another problem is posed by the fact that biometric data cannot easily be substituted because every person has only one set of biometric identifiers throughout their life. Unlike credit cards, passports and driver’s licenses, which can be relatively easily invalidated and replaced in case of loss or theft, such a replacement is not possible with biometrics. Once a biometric identifier is compromised, it stays compromised. Therefore, all attempts to use biometric identifiers instead of replaceable identifiers must raise concerns.


Read the entire paper here;


The following links and information corroborate there is a deliberate effort to collect and share American’s most personal information.  Further we can and should be expect that our personal information is being shared with other governments. .  When we do not use PDF documents we supply a web link to a specific story that corroborates a point we make or fact we state.

2)  ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), an agency of the United Nations, adopted standards for the use of facial recognition technology are the standard for the digital facial image/photo required by the Real ID Act.  Facial recognition maps your face, converts your biometric sample, the photo, to numbers which results in you facial image mathematically being stored in a database.  The standard called for is hidden in the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) issued by the DHS.  http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/index2.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=12  page 68 footnote 17, at the bottom of page 68.  Nearly no state or national lawmakers understood the significance of the aforementioned footnote.  Even today many groups that are opposed to Real ID call Real ID a national ID card.  It is much more given the standards for Real ID and the organizations that played a role in U.S. policy, law and the implementing of the law, Real ID Act 2005.  Real ID is international ID.  It’s sister, the EDL (Enhanced Driver’s License) is used in lieu of passports.   

More…if you dare;