Get your Trifolds and 5th Amendment Cop Cards on www.DeleteLawZ.com
Thanks,
Chille
@ChilleDeCastro PayPal
@Chille-DeCastro Venmo
$ChilleDeCastro Cashapp
ZELLE: sohi90069 AT gmail dot com
source
Get your Trifolds and 5th Amendment Cop Cards on www.DeleteLawZ.com
Thanks,
Chille
@ChilleDeCastro PayPal
@Chille-DeCastro Venmo
$ChilleDeCastro Cashapp
ZELLE: sohi90069 AT gmail dot com
source
Comply you fools.
I'm also pretty certain that by law, she had the right to unalive this officer legally the moment he started breaking her window. Constitutional law states you have the right to be secure in your person. She is not engaging in commercial activity so this is literally just a maniac breaking his oath and commiting treason, breaking and entering, and threatening her life. Revoke your contracts people. These officers like this have no right to our oxygen and need to be euthanized like the rabbid dogs they are.
Never let them desensitize us to their tyranny
Have your trifold,license, registration, and insurance ready, and on your visor. And always invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent.
So why didn’t the tyrant simply issue the citation? Because he wanted to escalate the stop and go hands on.
How can you resist before your even arrested
I’m with the cop on this one, dude. All she was going to get was a citation, peacefully. Then she played the 5-year-old game of “I’m just gonna pretend you’re not here”… is the cop just supposed to be like walk away from the stop? All she had to do was sign a piece of paper, which isn’t an admission of guilt anyways!
ROAD PIRATES
That's a terrorist
Update on my case — VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO (CA federal case challenging the CCW scheme).
I’ve kept this low-key for a reason: I’m not here to fundraise or stir drama — just to share a significant legal update that matters for anyone who cares about the Second Amendment in California and beyond.
The news: Attorney Cam Atkinson has stepped in to help represent me. The goal isn’t a headline; it’s a clean record, a strong appellate posture, and a ruling that forces California to abandon discretionary gatekeeping in its CCW regime — a path that points toward constitutional carry by precedent, not by press release.
Why this case matters
What’s being challenged: California’s CCW framework that hinges on subjective standards (e.g., “good moral character,” “may be a danger”) plus compulsory training/fees that convert a constitutional right into a licensed privilege.
Post-Bruen reality: Under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the state must justify restrictions using text, history, and tradition. Open-ended “character” screens and inquisitorial interviews (I was literally asked about my religion) don’t have founding-era analogues consistent with a right of the people.
On its face and as applied: The challenge is both systemic and specific — this isn’t just my story; it’s about dismantling a structure that predictably yields arbitrary denials and unequal access.
What Cam’s involvement changes
Strategic depth: Cam brings federal-appellate experience, tight issue framing, and disciplined records — exactly what you want when you intend to set precedent instead of winning a one-off exception.
Roadmap to impact: Secure clear holdings on (1) the unconstitutionality of discretionary “moral character/danger” screens, (2) the impermissibility of identity-based interrogation and retaliation, and (3) the mismatch between compelled fees/training schemes and the Bruen test.
Beyond California: A principled Ninth Circuit decision constraining discretion doesn’t just fix one county; it constrains the entire state and influences jurisdictions nationwide that still treat carry as a privilege for the well-connected.
For those new to this:
I pushed this legal pathway before it was popular. When I laid it out, some folks stopped replying, some spread rumors about me, and a few tried to make me the story instead of engaging the legal arguments. That’s fine. Courts don’t rule on rumors; they rule on records and law.
The objective here isn’t to “own” anyone — it’s to force durable constitutional compliance so ordinary, law-abiding people don’t have to beg bureaucrats for permission to exercise a right.
What to watch next
Procedural steps: briefing schedules, potential oral argument, and any motions related to injunctive relief.
Substantive issues: whether the court requires objective, narrow, historically grounded criteria; whether it rejects amorphous “character” screens; whether it curbs fee/training structures that function as financial barriers to a right.
Bottom line
This case aims to do what should have been done post-Bruen: end the era of discretionary gatekeeping and align California with the Constitution. If we do this right, the result will travel — not because of viral posts, but because of binding precedent.
Disgusting-breaking into citizens cars for an ego trip
Fuck the police
The tyranny will not stop until their families are targeted.
Quit pimping
Do the police realize that they are being PlGS?