The Real-Life Ignorance and Dangers Associated with Stockholm Syndrome.

I’ve expressed my thoughts on this video before, as it keeps being passed around and commented on by literally thousands of people who almost always side with the cop and actually cheer about law enforcement’s constant abuses of every man’s rights and liberty, all while completely ignoring the actual felony and misdemeanor crimes that the COP is actually guilty of committing in this video. It would seem that America is now the largest known population currently suffering from mass “Stockholm Syndrome.”

If you haven’t seen it, then please watch the video and then continue reading this article, as the video contains the necessary context to understand what I am about to say.

The man in the car, Scott Richardson, is NOT asking the correct questions or following the correct process. The cops, as a whole, including this one, are totally ignorant of the Texas Transportation Code laws, absolutely unequivocally, 100%. This is why I try to teach people that the side of the road is NOT the place to argue and hold court. It is the time and place to reserve YOUR fundamentally protected rights without waiving any and to make sure the record shows that is ALL that you did via the officers own cameras and audio as well as your own. So, AGAIN, this is NOT the proper way to do ANY of that.

As an ex-deputy sheriff I can say with absolute certainty that this officer is totally clueless about the limits of his enforcement authority under the Texas Transportation Code, which is NONE, because I know the officers are NOT trained on those actual laws EVER and are simply told by word of mouth from their superiors and their own personal beliefs/ opinions/ conclusions as to what they can and cannot do under the law. Meanwhile, those ‘superiors’ are equally ignorant and clueless about what the law ACTUALLY says and to whom it ACTUALLY applies, much less who is ACTUALLY authorized to enforce it and HOW they are required by law to even get authorized IF they and their city actually qualify according to law. 

Addison, Texas does NOT meet any of the requirements, designated by Texas law as a city that is authorized to maintain local “traffic” enforcement officers. Requirements such as being located in a specific geographical location within Texas or having a specific minimal population limit/range, among several other requirements, as set forth in Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code, which governs the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).

For the general edification of the public who like to think that ALL law enforcement officers can enforce EVERY law in EVERY code, it should interest you to know that the Texas DPS is the ONLY agency given direct enforcement authority over the laws being used by the MUNICIPAL officer in this video. Nor does the city of Addison have the mandatory reciprocity agreement with the Texas Department of Public Safety in the form of a “Memorandum of Understanding” that is actually required by the Texas Administrative Code in order to authorize local municipalities to certify and maintain such enforcement officers in compliance with law. 

Hence, the officer in the video is NOT legally authorized to enforce the Texas Transportation Code AT ALL, and is actually committing SEVERAL crimes by doing so, not the least of which is IMPERSONATING an officer. You see, when ANY person, even a police officer or sheriff’s deputy, who is NOT legally authorized to enforce a specific regulatory law, uses the mere appearance of authority by means of a uniform or some articulated authority under the police powers, then they ARE impersonating an officer of the agency that actually IS legally authorized, and THAT my friends is a CRIME! 

Think about it; as a civilian, you can’t yell at someone to stop and obey you because you claim to be a duly authorized police officer having that authority when you actually are not and don’t. Nor can you actively enforce via citizen’s detainment/seizure or arrest for certain kinds of REGULATORY laws BECAUSE a valid citizen’s detention/arrest can occur ONLY when the arrest is for the commission of a felony or a breach of the peace that threatens physical harm to another or property that is BEING committed in the arresting person’s presence or view. A set of facts that ALSO happens to apply to the arrest powers of public law enforcement OFFICERS as well UNLESS there is a specific authorization in the actual law providing otherwise (this has very specific limits too, but they are irrelevant for our purposes here). Unless specifically authorized, certain categories of laws are as equally beyond the power and authority of law enforcement (“peace”) officers to enforce as they are for members of the general public without specific authorization in the law itself.

Check out EVERY enforcement chapter in the Texas Transportation Code that deals with licenses, insurance, and movement of “vehicles” (Chapters 521-600, 601, and 701-720), and you will see that the ONLY governmental entity that is given DIRECT enforcement authority over those chapters and the statutes therein is designated as “the department” and “officers of the department,” with “department” being specifically defined in each of those chapters as “The Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas.” It is NOT simply ANY cop or deputy in ANY city or county located in Texas, and it NEVER has been.

So, despite Scott’s ineptitude at handling the situation at hand with the cop, he actually DOES know all of this, because I taught it to him in my classes here in Austin, or, at least, I tried to. He just isn’t doing what he should be doing with the opportunity to preserve his rights in the record being made of the illegal stop.

As you can tell by all the comments on Facebook posts of this video that are almost universally being made IN FAVOR of the cop and citing his ‘patience’ and ‘professionalism,’ none of those people know or understand anything at all about the actual law any better than the cop does. They are only speaking of what they have been [mis]led into believing and feeling from being [mis]guided around by the nose and spoon fed lies and disinformation their entire lives. Thus, proving undoubtedly that ignorance truly is bliss, and is precisely what the system counts on from the people to get away with its crimes against the general public, not the least of which is this form of extortion and fraud laughably disguised as furthering “public safety,” all while potentially being murdered for standing up for yourself and your rights by an illegal standing army comprised of armed corporate mercenary goons with no brain and mind of their own.

I’ve yet to see anyone commenting on this video in favor of the cop who is truly INFORMED and knowledgeable of the actual law itself. They all seem to only think and want to believe they are supporting the correct side because of what they’ve been indoctrinated and taught to think and believe, which, for the most part, is summed up with “it’s always been that way, like, forever!” They are simply speaking from their emotions and indoctrination, not from actual knowledge and intelligent consideration of the actual relevant facts and law.

That said, I am sure I will be “attacked” by the rabid supporters of the state as not knowing what the hell I’m talking about, but, not one of my detractors will be able to point to any specific law that actually shows I’m wrong or that proves them right. They might try, but their efforts, unlike mine, will be superficial at best, and based upon something they THINK they found in only fifteen minutes of research, if that. But, they will be wrong, because being superficial with these laws simply won’t get the job done. I have spent literally a couple of decades+ tearing apart and cross-linking and referencing these statutes and codes to see how they truly fit together so as to form the overall “bigger picture” I have and use with regularity to help people fight back against these fraudulent traffic tickets and the cities and agencies who use them to extort and defraud the public.

However, should any of my detractors actually care to realize and learn that to be the actual case, they can come here to my legal blog and start reading more, as the information contained here is all based upon the ACTUAL or preexisting law and not just a bunch of hair-brained unverifiable conspiracy theories and arguments backed by nothing more than a personal wish-list built up in their own minds.

The Problems with Being ‘Almost’ Right About the Law.

The information in the following picture, while mostly accurate only in relation to the prior case law being on-point with the argument of “nothing such as a ‘driver’s license’ exists or is recognized by Texas law,” is also incorrect in its majority of the remaining information being put forth as statements of actual legal fact. Primarily because those facts are incomplete and assert claims that are facially invalid as far as the actual law and facts on the subject are concerned.

This is the contents of the post as it appeared in one of the legal discussion groups I participate in on Facebook.



After reading this you might be thinking “Wow! This is great! I can use this to fight my traffic citations in Texas!! With this information I can WIN!!” Well, that thought process is more than just a little bit premature, and here are the facts I replied to this post with as to why:

“I hate to have to be the one to point it out to you, but you are simultaneously minimally correct and massively incorrect in your asserted facts here.

Yes, you are correct that PRIOR to 1995 there was no such term/phrase in the statutes of the Texas Transportation Code (“TTC”) defined as that of “driver’s license,” therefore, no one could be rightfully convicted of an offense that claimed an individual didn’t have a form of license that the law itself made no mention of as even being required.

However, that all changed with the alleged enactment of SB 971 by the 78th Texas Legislature in 1995 (unlawfully so, but presumptively changed nonetheless).

SB 971 created an entirely new form of license TERMINOLOGY (driver’s license), BUT, it DID NOT actually create ANY new form of license, it was only made to APPEAR that it had done so. If fact, it actually REMOVED all valid forms of existing ‘permanent’ licenses, which previously existed in ONLY three specific forms, that of “chauffeurs,” “operator’s,” and “commercial operator’s” licenses. However, you will NOT find a single reference to ANY of these previous forms of permanent license ANYWHERE in the entirety of the TTC as it currently exists.

When actually reading the definitions of “driver’s license,” “license,” and “commercial driver’s license” provided within Chapters 521 and 522 of the TTC, you will find it includes only three specific forms of “license,” a “temporary license,” “learner license,” and “occupational license.” And before you go jumping the gun by thinking you know what these terms mean in relation to either the law or a license, let me say, no you don’t.

Each of these “licenses” actually have three very specific things in common; 1) each license is only a very short-term temporary form of license in and of itself; 2) each license is dependent upon either the requirement that the holder obtain some other more permanent form of license to replace it within a certain number of days in the near future (temporary and learners licenses), or it requires the holder to have surrendered some other form of permanent license in order to obtain it after a conviction for an offense that results in the revocation of that previous form of permanent license (occupational license); and 3) each of these forms of license are specifically and individually defined in the TTC as having specific prerequisites and existing conditions for obtaining them.

The term “license” itself is defined separately from, and in a totally circular reference to, the term/phrase “driver’s license, making the two inextricably conjoined as a matter of law.

The interesting thing about these three apparently ‘new’ forms of a license is, they AREN’T new. They are EACH actually the original TEMPORARY forms of the original types of ‘permanent’ license, i.e. the “chauffeurs,” “operator’s,” and “commercial operator’s” licenses. Each of these new forms of license were actually referenced in the statutes as they existed prior to 1995, but, that reference referred to them as requisite predecessors or punitive successors to applying for and obtaining one of these specific three forms of existing permanent license.

Once you actually study the definitions of these three ‘new’ forms of license, you will plainly see these facts to be absolutely true. Which then leads us to several constitutional problems with not only the statutes themselves being vague, ambiguous and overbroad, but also that the entire enactment of SB 971 is a total fraud and 100% violative of specific requirements and prohibitions within the Texas Constitution that make the entire code absolutely unconstitutional and unenforceable. Understanding the specific details and their significance takes considerable time and effort however, and there are very few who actually have invested the time and effort required to come to that understanding to its last and finest level of detail, and I am one of them, if not the only one in the entire state of Texas.

Also, you are incorrect in assuming that your list contains ALL instances of what can and does invalidate previously existing ‘case law.’ The changing of the underlying law itself CAN and DOES invalidate prior court rulings on that specific law that are in existence prior to those changes. Hence, these legislative changes statutorily invalidate your cited case law precisely because the existing case law is now in direct conflict with the new statutory changes, albeit, this holds true only if the new statutes themselves are actually valid, which they aren’t. But, that is something you would have to prove on the record in a court of law having the power to set precedent by declaring the statutes unconstitutional. This is something that I can absolutely prove using nothing more than the actual legislative bill that comprises SB 971, certified public records, and the Texas Constitution itself. These records alone provide ample evidence that the new version of the TTC and its underlying statutes ARE 100% invalid and unenforceable in their entirety, but that is a separate issue from your statements here.

Lastly, in relation to another comment you made later on this same post, no, a “driver’s license” is NOT a commercial contract. Never has been and never will be. Mainly because the actual license itself is a CONTRIVED document that is cumulatively pieced together piece by piece from multiple OTHER documents and external information before it is assembled into the little plastic card you carry around with you, meaning that you NEVER actually signed the driver’s license directly, only a signature card from which your signature was later taken and transferred onto the front of the license itself. This is but two of many specific reasons that prove the license is NOT in any way a valid contract, commercial or otherwise.”

So, as you can see, while the poster of the original information was somewhat ‘almost’ correct about the law, it would not be enough to actually win your case or even make an argument that would survive scrutiny and challenge because it contains too many false premises and misstatements of fact and law in what it claims to be true. That’s a serious problem.

If you want to know and understand the actual law on a given subject, it takes real time and effort to learn it effectively and to consider all of the nuances and implications that may exist within its language, especially when it makes reference to multiple outside statutes in relation to what this specific statute is considered as doing or already having done. You aren’t usually going to learn this in an hour of superficially skimming over the text. You most likely aren’t even going to accomplish this with really hard study and analysis over several days, for which you could most certainly make the argument is an intentional means of layering the actual implications of the law to provide job security for attorneys and judges who love to make you feel like they are smarter and know more than you, which is only about a quarter correct. They DO know more than you about how to read and understand the law, because they have had overly expensive and specialized training in doing so. However, that is still not proof in and of itself that they are really any good and competent at it, because have proven to be substandard in virtually every way imaginable when it comes to subjects such as this.

Learning law is not easy, nor really even all that rewarding by itself. But, when you need the law, and you need to use it to protect and defend yourself from those who would use and abuse it to give them the appearance of power and control over you, you will be glad that you took the time and learned how to understand and do it all properly.

Below is an external link to a news article about someone who understood this necessity well enough to make the choice and pursue the fight sans an attorney. By refusing to use an attorney, and learning how to use the law correctly and properly, this man probably saved his own life, if not merely many decades in prison, for a crime that he didn’t commit. Shouldn’t we all care enough about ourselves and or loved ones to make the same preparations by learning and training to fight back when needed?

Statutory Interpretation 101 – Using Definitions From Another Statute or Code

There is no shortage of self-proclaimed “legal experts” on Facebook and other social media. Prior to the advent of this form of communication such people were more commonly referred to as “jail house lawyers” by the courts and prosecutors. Judges and prosecutors coined the phrase as a derogatory inference of the credibility and reliability of legal information and tactics such people attempted to impart to their peers, most commonly from within the same cell block in which the “jail house lawyers” themselves were also incarcerated as arrested or convicted criminals.

Those same prosecutors and judges have often referred to me in the same manner, as I am not a member of their elitist club. A club that, from what I have personally observed for all intents and purposes, has only minimal qualifications for being a member; 1) the ability to spend untold sums of money to obtain an education and degree in adhering to someone else’s opinions about the law rather than the actual law, 2) the innate ability to completely ignore and disregard the laws necessity of providing for and protecting the fundamental principles of right, wrong, and justice, and 3), the willingness to forgo even the most basic forms of morality and justice for a paycheck and career advancement.

In modern times, however, the vast majority of these “jail house lawyers” have not only never been in jail, they have never so much as stepped foot inside a courtroom or waged a legal battle of any kind. And those that have, of which there are damned few, usually got their asses handed to them by the prosecution and the court. Not all of them mind you, but most certainly the greatest percentage of them. Afterwards, the losers could be found standing or sitting around and complaining about how their trial was rigged and the prosecutors and judges are all corrupt and incapable of doing their jobs correctly. These are also the same losers that almost invariably did absolutely nothing right in preparing for and fighting their case properly. The even rarer number of people that actually did prepare and do everything properly, correctly, and had the law on their side from the very beginning, but actually lost their case anyway, are the only ones that have any right to complain about how they lost because of a corrupt prosecutor or court justice. All others are just idiots blaming the system for their own inadequacies and failure at properly understanding and preparing for what lay before them in the moment.

However, decades of experience in learning and doing all of these things myself has taught me quite a few things about “jail house lawyers,” the most important things being that:

  • the majority of them are completely ignorant and clueless to a mind boggling degree about how to find, read, comprehend, and then apply facts and law to their court cases; and
  • not all of them are totally wrong or incorrect in what they say and do, but those particular individuals are as scarce as hens teeth and Dodo birds.

A perfect example of one of these totally ignorant and clueless “jail house lawyers” is a gentleman on Facebook who calls himself “El Hotepsehkemwy Pero.” He has made multiple statements of fact over time about how to properly read and interpret statutes that I have challenged him on as being nothing short of intentional deception because they are so far off the mark of how to properly read and understand statutes that it borders on the ludicrous. An action and mentality for which he is, unfortunately, not at all unique in the Patrinut realm. Here, in his own words, is a perfect example of what I mean by ignorant jail house lawyer, and precisely what the prosecutors and judges were inferring about such individuals when they coined the phrase:

El Hotepsehkemwy Pero You got it…

But; let me now help you take it one step farther brother…

Can you find a; “motor vehicle lease statute” in your state…?

El Hotepsehkemwy Pero That’s where you define intent of use…

It is intended to be used for…?

“Private use” OR ” your trade or business”…?

El Hotepsehkemwy Pero And where does the State define its intended use…?

“except where otherwise defined”…

See; 26 USC 770; Definitions – (h)…

(h) Motor vehicle operating leases…

Hmmm… defined in the IRC(Internal Revenue Code – listed as title 26 in the United States Code; abbreviated as; USC – but; use US Code in search engines as it will pull up University of Southern California otherwise)…

Also note; when Congress meets to address issues – each session deals with “certain” issues and then when things are implemented upon resolution of issues we see the associated changes within the codes…
Recently the IRC has been going through updates…
Changing of wording and placement of definitions mainly…

My response to this totally incorrect reading and understanding of how statutory construction and the definitions found therein do and do not work when it comes to reading and application was fairly straightforward:

Tao Lauw El Hotepsehkemwy Pero – Uuuhh, yeah, that concept you speak of above, how to read and apply any particular statutory definition or principle found in a completely different set of statutes to another completely different set or specific of statute(s), is ALSO patently incorrect. 

You are once again attempting to equivocate or convert the definition or context of a term or phrase legally defined in one statute dealing with a totally DIFFERENT object within the law, an object that is only ANCILLARY to the actual subject matter itself (transportation/ commerce), with the meaning and purpose of a totally different object or collection of objects in another section of law. It simply does NOT work that way. Unless the ‘other’ section you are making a comparison to actually states that the definition from another completely different statutory section you are claiming applies to the section you are reading DOES apply, than it is NOT legally binding upon the meaning of the term or phrased in that other section UNLESS a court rules that it IS applicable. STOP DOING THAT!! The ONLY exception to this rule is the use of CRIMINAL/PENAL CODE definitions across other PUNITIVE statutory provisions where the same term or phrase is NOT defined locally within the statutes.

That said, you can try and use it for comparison when the section you are attempting to decipher and argue has no definition of its own, IF you can make a logical fact based argument as to why it should be interpreted that way, BUT, you CANNOT make the conclusion yourself that no other definition can be used or applied. You have to have an argument that convinces the court to do that for you, if it legally can. 

You do this by arguing that:

“The Legislature created no new or different definition in Section XX.XX for the particular term or phrase “<TERM/PHRASE>,” but, they DID define that same term or phrase over here in Section YY.YY, in which they defined “<TERM/PHRASE>” in this way:

… “<TERM/PHRASE> means blah blah blah blah.” 

“As the content and context of Section XX.XX appears very legally similar and related to the same specific statutory object as that of Section YY.YY, then it would logically appear that the same legal meaning found in Section YY.YY can and should be applicable to Section XX.XX, and I move the court to provide a judicial determination as to that point.” 

But you most certainly DO NOT do it in the manner you keep trying to do it in. Not ever.

One of the responses I received in relation to this manner and explanation of how to properly read and apply the definitions found within statutes was this:

Timothy Herries Tao Lauw I get what you’re saying. But I don’t understand what is inherently wrong with applying other code definitions, especially ones of higher authority, when the code referenced in this post specifically references “except where otherwise defined”. This would start off as any definition given in any other code until/unless rebutted.

Timothy Herries Tao Lauw 
I’m so confused. Except where elsewhere defined…. How can that be interpreted any other way? It doesn’t make logical sense to me.

My reply to this query was equally straightforward:

Tao Lauw Timothy Herries – Then try to understand it this way:

Statute Section A defines a TERM/ PHRASE in this way:

“<TERM/ Phrase> means xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxx.”

Statute Section W defines the SAME TERM/ PHRASE in this way:

“<TERM/ Phrase> means yyy yxyxyxy yyyxxyyxy yyyy.”

Now, ARE the two definitions the SAME?

The correct answer is NO!

Furthermore, Section W is precisely what is meant by the phrase “except where otherwise defined,” i.e. “Section A’s definition means THIS, except where otherwise defined, such as in Section W, where the definition means THAT.” 

In no way does this exception allow the definition found in Section W to replace the definition found in Section A, for which there are TWO very specific reasons, 1) Section A already defines the term in the manner required for Section A, not Section W, and 2), the rules of statutory construction prohibit this form of reading precisely because Section A DOES have its own LOCAL definition of the term or phrase. When a section of statute has a LOCAL definition, then THAT definition is 100% controlling UNLESS the local provision contains language specifically deferring to some other general or specific definition found elsewhere.

A perfect example of this is found in Section 521.1211 of the Texas Transportation Code, which reads:

Sec. 521.1211. DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR PEACE OFFICER. (a) In this section, “peace officer” has the meaning assigned by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, except that the term includes a special investigator as defined by Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice that the LOCAL definition of “peace officer” SPECIFICALLY states that the definition found in another section of law is controlling in this local section, BUT, it ALSO adds to the other sections definition with its own local alteration/ addition to the definition in the form of the statement “… except that the term includes a special investigator as defined by Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Therefore, Section 521.1211 of the Texas Transportation Code IS the “except where otherwise defined” local statutory exception to the definition originally found in Article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The moral of this story being, be careful whose information and advise you choose to rely on when it comes to fighting a court case or some governmental agency on your own. Not all knowledge and information is equal in relation to the firsthand court experiences, knowledge and study that has gone into formulating and developing it. Despite the popular Patrinut opinions to the contrary, there are not always multiple ways to skin a particular law like there may be for cats. Law has its fairly strict channels and procedures, which, for the wholly ignorant and inexperienced jail house lawyers and Patrinuts who may be reading this, means it is intentionally designed to not be so nearly open-ended as one might be able to practice when skinning cats or anything else.

This design is necessary to prevent wholly arbitrary or intentional misapplications of the laws by the very people responsible for knowing and upholding them properly, not to trick and deceive the unwary populace into being unaware that the Queen of England, the Pope, or the Post Master General is the ultra-super-secret none more secret super authority over all of America and its people. Yes, the majority of Patrinuts DO believe exactly one or more of those situations to be the case, thus making them the ignorant equivalent of “Flat-Earthers” in the world of law and how it works.

Vermin/Attorney, Tow-may-to/Tow-mah-to

If you have never read my written document regarding the unconstitutional Bar associations and the more-often-than-not despicable individuals that are members, then you might want to do so AFTER you read this article. I will link the document in at the bottom so you read it after you get there. This article will help you understand the reasons behind the authoring of that document in the first place.



 

‘The Rest Of The Story ‘ – by Paul Harvey Monday, August 01, 2005

If there is a stain on the record of our forefathers, a dark hour in the earliest history of the American Colonies, it would be the hanging of the “witches” at Salem.

But that was a pinpoint in place and time– a brief lapse into hysteria. For the most part, our seventeenth century colonists were scrupulously fair, even in fear.

Colonialists

There was one group of people they feared with reason– a society, you might say, whose often insidious craft had claimed a multitude of victims, ever since the Middle ages in Europe.

One group of people were hated and feared from Massachusetts Bay to Virginia. The Magistrate would not burn them at the stake, although surely a great many of the colonists would have recommended such a solution. Our forefathers were baffled by them.

In the first place, where did they come from? Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of them was aboard.

“VERMIN.” That’s what the Colonist called them. Parasites who fed on human misery, spreading sorrow and confusion wherever they went.”DESTRUCTIVE.” They were called.

And still they were permitted coexistence with the colonists. For a while, anyway. Of course there were colonial laws prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft. Somehow a way was always found around all those laws.

In 1641, Massachusetts Bay colony took a novel approach to the problem. The governors attempted to starve the “devils” out of existence through economic exclusion. They were denied wages, and thereby it was hoped that they would perish.

Four years later, Virginia followed the example of Massachusetts Bay, and for a while it seemed that the dilemma had been resolved.
It had not, somehow the parasites managed to survive, and the mere nearness of them made the colonists skin crawl.

In 1658, In Virginia, the final solution: Banishment; EXILE. The “treacherous ones” were cast out of the colony. At last, after decades of enduring the psychological gloom, the sun came out and the birds sang, and all was right with the world. And the elation continued for a generation.

I’m not sure why the Virginians eventually allowed the outcasts to return, but they did. In 1680, after twenty-two years, the despised ones were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the strictest surveillance.

How soon we forget!

For indeed over the next half century or so, the imposed restrictions were slowly, quietly swept away. And those whose treachery had been feared since the Middle ages ultimately took their place in society.

You see, the “vermin” that once infested colonial America, the parasites who prayed on the misfortunes of their neighbors until finally they were officially banished from Virginia, those dreaded, despised, outcasts, masters of confusion were lawyers.

And Now You Know The Rest of The Story…

Kill Lawyers



 

White paper the unconstitutionality of the American and State Bar Associations and the disenfranchisement of the the American people from participating in an entire branch of our own government.

A Case for Treason (The State Bar Act of Texas is Unconstitutional) White Paper (Eddie Craig)

UNDERSTANDING THE LOGICAL, MORAL, AND  ETHICAL LIMITATIONS OF DELEGATED POWERS.

The REAL question, in MY personal opinion, is not IF a government of the People can write laws, but rather, what authority can we delegate to them, which then determines what our public servants in government can write those laws to actually DO, i.e. their constitutionally proper application and impact.

I don’t see ANY authority that was delegated by either the federal OR state constitutions that allows our public servants to create laws REGULATING the behaviors or morals of men who are acting only in their private and personal capacities when those acts result in no identifiable tangible harm to another. In other words, if I have no personal authority to regulate my neighbor’s behavior or morals, then that is a power I cannot lawfully and rightfully delegate to anyone else as my agent so they may do in my stead that which I cannot lawfully or rightly do personally, ever.

Again, in MY personal opinion, when it comes to the PEOPLE, the ONLY valid laws our public servants can write are those stating a particular standard of punishment and process for the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, appeal, and the carrying out of the sentence (incarceration, death, etc.), for an unlawful or unjustifiable harm to the rights and property of any of the People.

Under the guise of the public welfare clause, therefore, the only preventative (malum prohibitum) laws that our public servants would have any valid lawful authority to write are those that are already proven by documented and historical fact to prevent harm to the public generally. Malum prohibitum laws such as “Don’t shit or dump your sewage in the public water supply” or “Don’t destroy public property as it is considered an unlawful taking of the property that deprives members of the Public in general of the benefit and enjoyment of the public property in question.” THOSE kinds of malum prohibitum laws are reasonable and just, but, most of the ones in existence today, whether regulatory or malum prohibitum, are not at all reasonable nor lawfully and rightfully applicable to the Peoples of a constitutional republic.

Furthermore, if I cannot lawfully and rightfully proffer immunity upon myself or my neighbor for the commission of crimes against the rights and property of another, then I simply cannot confer such immunity to my public servants. In the finite universe of such delegated powers and authority, it can be reasonably asserted that immunity in any form would attach to a public servant only if that public servants actions were not violative of other constitutional provisions and prohibitions as found within the Bill of Rights as well as being morally and ethically free from reasonable doubt in relation to even our unenumerated rights. Even then, such actions must be at least minimally consistent with all of those rights, even after guilt is established and punishment rendered, i.e. reasonable and humane treatment while incarcerated for the crime.

The majority of laws our public servants have enacted in the present day are goal oriented, not justice or individual rights oriented. The goals being the control of the general population in a manner suiting the desires of governmental actors, for whatever reason, and for the generation of revenue that flows into that particular government’s coffers, to its actors, and to those that are really pulling the political and “public policy” strings from the shadows. Which they do via any subversive or corporate means they can even tenuously declare as valid and lawful under the constitutions. THAT is the problem as I see it.

The very concept of “public policy” being controlling over our individual rights and privileges is, in and of itself, wholly unconstitutional, as it removes all of our individual rights and privileges and subjects them to the wayward approval or disapproval of whatever constitutes the “public policy” of the moment. The phrase “public policy” is nothing more than a pathetically cloaked euphemism for “the will of tyrants disguised as the will and consent of the governed,” and it is nothing less than the same kind of rule by majority found in a democracy and instituted via the proclamation that “the majority of the people have spoken and agreed.” In point of fact, a form of government based upon public policy is synonymous with the very same form of democratic government that our founding fathers firmly and vehemently rejected as being an acceptable form of government for the American people.

The principles underpinning the Ponzi scheme of public policy is best summarized with a line given by Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, in the movie “The Patriot,” wherein Martin says, “Tell me, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” The epiphany of that realization being that all individual rights, privileges and immunities are now subject to the majority vote of a democracy rather than being fully protected against such actions by the stringent limitations of an actual Republican form of government, which is not only our individually guaranteed right, it is the only form of authorized government to be had in any of the several states of the union, and it is in dire jeopardy of being unlawfully undermined, subverted, and dismantled by the courts and legal profession in general.

Our fundamental individual rights were never meant to be subjected to the whims of public policy or democratic vote any more than they were intended to be subjected to government licensing and regulation, as both of those political schemes serve to do nothing less than to convert individual rights into privileges granted or taken away by the ever changing winds of either governmental or public approval. Therefore, both measures are wholly violative of the very foundational concept of individual rights and immunities from governmental and public derogation and abrogation.

Of course, there are and always will be those people that will have their issues with this way of thinking. Case in point:

==========================
“Serious question though

You know I despise encroahment on past liberty rights as much as anyone.

However, I must admit that circumstances change as populations swell or change.

If the people lean on legislators to reduce drunk drivers and keep idiots off the road inclined to cause stupid wrecks and kill, do they have a duty and obligation to the people to enact something, like registration, insurance and a license?

I have to go there.”
==========================

My response to this inquiry is as follows:

==========================
“Not to my way of thinking.

HOW do ANY of those regulatory schemes change the behavior, morality, or ethics of the person who committed the act in the first place? After all, they usually already HAVE those regulatory trappings and STILL decided to endanger others by their actions, correct? So, no, I don’t see regulation or licensing as a constitutionally proper use of the delegated powers to govern.

The government CAN write laws that provides appropriate PUNISHMENT for an act that presents or results in the reckless endangerment or actual harm to the public or to specific individuals. That actually falls within the “public health and welfare” clause quite nicely and appropriately. Unlike the regulatory schemes you mentioned, that punishment WOULD have a direct impact upon the actor that might prevent future occurrences.

In essence, it once again comes down to the legislation of behavior, morality, and ethics rather than simply legislating a punishment for failing to take seriously one’s public duty to exercise due diligence to NOT violate the rights and property of others, whether that failure was knowing and willful or simply negligent to the point of criminality.
See, no registration or license required.”
==========================

John Locke’s concepts on government are all about the strictly limited nature of delegated powers and authority. You can read about the intricacies of his thought on this issue in his writings titled “Two Treatises on Government.” Locke’s philosophy and perspective regarding the finitely limited form of governmental power and authority was so strict that the premise of his thoughts on the subject could be boiled down to virtually a single phrase, “the only legitimate power of government is to articulate the laws of nature.”

I agree with Locke’s premise on limited powers and authority of our government, but only up to a certain point. Our form of government, by logical and constitutional necessity, already prescribes a very strict set of boundaries within which the powers of government are allowed and are actually required to operate in order to be constitutionally lawful, especially when those laws are being directly applied to we the People or our property. The laws of nature simply can’t and don’t account for everything that is involved and evolves when men form societies and associations for their mutual protection and interaction.

For example, Nature does not provide for the willful and wrongful acts of men against other men. The law of “survival of the fittest” is not the law of men, it is the law of the jungle. Under this form of law crimes such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, extortion, fraud, or anything else, simply do not and cannot exist. Human societies are not supposed to be jungles, and the premise of “survival of the fittest” and “might makes right” is not the foundations upon which they are conceived and built.

Furthermore, the laws of Nature are neither cognizant of nor recognize any kind of individual rights or private property interests, nor do they provide for any form of remedy for those creatures whose ‘rights’ were harmed by another. The mother antelope has no court where she may file criminal charges against nor sue the lion or cheetah for killing and eating her young, right?

Therefore, my opinion is that the only legitimate power and authority of government is to first protect my individual rights and private property from harm or destruction, and second, to provide me a way to obtain enforceable remedy from the wrongdoer if such a harm were ever perpetrated, and third, to provide for the necessary punishment of those who would commit crimes against the rights and property of others in whatever form such harm may be perpetrated. Beyond that, government and the people should have no intercourse or relationship on a day-to-day basis.

So, while some of the laws of Nature have a limited place in human society, defense of self or of others for example, I stand by my assertions as to what I believe comprises the only constitutionally lawful form of law making authority and enforcement of laws that we can rightfully empower our government to write in relation to we the People within our collection of individual sovereign Republics.

Actual Defense Motions & Criminal Complaint for Challenging Texas Transportation Code Cases.

Apologies for My Extended Absence in Posting New Content.

Hello all. I realize it has been awhile since I’ve posted on the blog, but I have been swamped with rewriting the legal due process and ‘traffic’ seminar material, organizing and preparing for the availability of on-line classes, and trying to design an upcoming greenhouse aquaponics project (which I will be starting another blog on when I get it going).

Now that my extended absence has been explained, let’s get to the grist of this new article.

 

“Yippee Ki-yay, Motherfucker.”

Yippee Ki-yay Motherfucker

For all you People that have been subjected to the highly fraudulent processes and procedures associated with being issued, and then having to deal with, a “transportation” related citation alleging the commission of a Texas Transportation Code regulated offense by some willfully ignorant and indoctrinated ‘bot minion of THE STATE OF TEXAS, I announce that it is time for you to rejoice. Below you will find three embedded documents that explain why. I hope that you never have to use them, but, if you do, that you have the best chance possible in stomping the shit out of the opposition.

 

How to Read and Use Seminar Documents…

Just like all of the documents in the seminar material, you will find colored highlighting of certain sections of text. Each color has a specific meaning and requires a specific action by you when using the document. I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to do this in a Word document so as to work just as well for those people who happen to be color blind, so please do your best.

The text that is highlighted in yellow signifies a piece of factual information that is specifically relevant to your case and its associated persons and events. These facts will take the form of dates, times, names, places, reference numbers, personal pronouns, etc., etc. For those facts that are repeated throughout the document, you can simply do a search and replace the text of the default fact to change it into the text specific to your case. This is especially easier than a manual replacement of each personal pronoun reference in the document. Personal pronouns will be terms such as I, you, he, she, it, we, they, me, him, her, us, and them.

Text that is highlighted in light blue (Cyan) signifies text that, if factually true, correct, and relevant to your specific matter, can simply have the Cyan highlighting removed and other wise left unchanged (except where there is also yellow highlighted text signifying a specific fact that needs to be changed). However, if the highlighted test is not true, correct, and relevant to your specific matter, it should be selected and completely deleted from the document.

In order to make certain that the use of search and replace didn’t confuse a personal pronoun reference for yourself with that of the officer, judge, or other party or person involved in facts of the matter as stated within the document, each personal pronoun use has its own qualifier prefix.

For instance, any personal pronoun that applies to you, as the Respondent, in the document, is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “res,” as in “reshis/her,” “reshim/her,” “ress/he,” etc., etc. By doing a search and replace for either of these strings of characters (minus the double quotes), you can choose to replace each occurrence with the appropriate personal pronoun, such as “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”, “his” or “hers”, etc., etc.

By the same token, any personal pronoun that applies to a specific officer in the document is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “off[Badge#],” as in “off[7856]his/her,” “off[7856]him/her,” “off[7856]s/he,” etc., etc. By doing a search and replace for either of these strings of characters (minus the double quotes), you can choose to replace each occurrence with the appropriate personal pronoun, such as “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”, “his” or “hers”, etc., etc.

Lastly, and just for an FYI kind of point, any personal pronoun that applies to a specific judge in the document is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “jud[#],” where the pound sign (#) represents some number associated with that particular judge, i.e. the 1st judge I saw in the case was …, and the 2nd judge I appeared before or issued some order was …,” for which I’m sure you can figure out the rest of it from the above examples.

 

What the Embedded Documents Actually Are.

“Freedom! Yeah Baby!” ~ Austin Powers

 Yeah Baby Yeah

The first document is an editable copy of a criminal complaint that YOU will be filing against the judge, in his/her magisterial capacity, who presides over the court in which your case is to be heard, if a certain condition precedent has been set, which it almost certainly will be.

This criminal complaint addresses the various highly illegal ‘form letters’ that are being used and issued as a fictitious and fraudulent legal order and summons by virtually every magistrate of every justice and municipal court in the entire Texas republic, regardless of what actual form that letter may actually take. Suffice it to say that, whatever form this letter does take, it still will not be in the form actually required by law to constitute a legally valid order and summons. The kicker is, that, the magistrate, as the head of the court and the one legally responsible for all that goes on there, by issuing these illegal form letters, is actually guilty of several high crimes and misdemeanors under both Texas and federal law. Crimes that unavoidably result in knowing and willful violations of your due process rights.

You will be filing this criminal complaint against the magistrate of the court based upon specific Texas law regarding the mandatory requirements for a specific ‘legal process’, which is the technical name for legal documents like judicial orders, warrants, summons, etc. The term usually refers to the kinds of legal documents that are required to be served at some specific point in time relevant to the progression of a prosecution, on a particular party associated with the matter before the court, and commanding some specific action from them, such as to appear in court on some stated specific date and time for instance. In this particular case, the legal process with which we are taking issue is that of imitating a legally valid summons, which the aforementioned form letter is fraudulently pretending to be.

The second document is an editable copy of a Motion to Quash the Unlawful Summons, i.e. the illegal form letter, which is to be filed jointly with the first document (criminal complaint).

When you read through this document, you will see what you need to be looking for in a valid legal summons, as well as what specific statutes govern the requirements for that specific type of legal process. Similar information will also be stated in the criminal complaint.

The third document is an editable copy of a Motion to Quash the Unlawful Citation & Complaint, which is also based upon specific legal requirements for such instruments under Texas law and the right of due process that are glaringly non-existent on the face of the citation and the criminal complaint created by THE STATE OF TEXAS.

 

Respondent’s Legal Armor, Sword, & Shield – The Documents.

The Criminal Complaint:

200(0) EC – SCS – Sworn Criminal Statement SLP, AoOC, OO

The Motion to Quash Unlawful Summons:

ETC-200(Z)-RMQS Motion to Quash Unlawful Summons

 

The Motion to Quash Unlawful Citation & Complaint:

ETC-200-(D)-RMQC Quash Citation & Complaint for Failure to State an Offense v2018-07-24-000.00

 

Use them in good health and with extreme prejudice.

The Lawful Use of “Includes” and “Including” Revisited…

“Includes” and “Including,”
They Don’t Work Like You May Think.

The use of “includes” and “including” in relation to many statutory definitions, like “motor vehicle” for example, is an important key to unlocking and understanding what a statute actually encompasses and applies to so you can then fully understand its overall meaning. When you look at how the terms are used in the language construction of a statute, you come to realize that, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. You also need to remember that the use of these terms does not serve to in any way alter or remove the specific subject matter context within which every statute must be read in order to be properly interpreted, which is the biggest failing of every modern-day attorney or judge throughout Texas and elsewhere. The courts and attorneys simply don’t or refuse to read the statutes within the specific confines of the legislative context specifically identified in the caption/title of the Bill responsible for the legislation that created it.

Surely by now you have figured out that something is off about this statutory shell game, and, hopefully, it is causing you to pause and ask yourself the question, “Does the state consider my private conveyance a ‘motor vehicle’, and if so, why?” Well, to be absolutely clear, the numerous minions of the state, based solely upon their own unsubstantiated opinions, legal conclusions, and legal presumptions, do consider your private conveyance to be exactly that, a “motor vehicle.” But, the fact is, the actual law and its related statutes do not support any of those opinions, presumptions, or conclusions as actually being true once you actually understand how to properly read them and the kind of incorrect logic and interpretations that attorneys and the courts utilize to keep this insight and understanding out of the hands and minds of the general public.

This is especially true if a statutory definition uses “includes” or “including” as its constructive formula. For as I stated a moment ago, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. If a statute does use these terms, or some grammatical variation thereof, then truly understanding the following explanation of how these terms legally work is wholly necessary to interpreting the statute correctly and in accordance with all other laws of “this state” on the same subject, pursuant Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code. This also means understanding the United States Supreme court cases that have already ruled on the following as being the only proper use and method of statutory interpretation applicable to these two terms in relation to law. Thus, the following legal argument requires a proper understanding of how the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, have declared the terms “includes” and “including” actually function in law.

“I See Incompetent People, but They’re too Incompetent to Know They’re Incompetent.”

So, when the legislature writes a statutory provision that states that the use of terms like “includes” and “including” are to be read as follows, ““Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded,” it is imperative that you understand how any type of “enlargement” (meaning expansion or generalization) of the statute must be legally construed and applied by the courts so as to not constitute a rewrite of the law itself, or the Legislature’s intent in enacting it.

However, it is readily apparent that the majority of attorneys and judges that I have had the [dis]pleasure of interacting with have absolutely no clue about how to properly do this. They simply use these terms to unconstitutionally and unlawfully encompass anything and everything, anyone and everyone, ranging from a “commercial motor vehicle” to a “tricycle” or from a “driver/operator” to your three-year old riding their “tricycle/little red wagon.” They are completely, utterly, and uncompromisingly clueless about how these terms are required to be interpreted and used in order to maintain not only the original legislative intent, but how to also properly understand and apply the law or statute in question, or, even more importantly, how to not apply it to the persons and actions of any other specific class of individuals to whom it cannot and does not lawfully or legally apply.

“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). … As judges it is our duty to 485* construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.” Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987).

Note 10 of Colautti Ibid, reads:

“[10] The statute says that viable “means,” not “includes,” the capability of a fetus “to live outside the mother’s womb albeit with artificial aid.” As a rule, “[a] definition which declares what a term `means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.” 2A C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07 (4th ed. Supp. 1978).”

Even federal statutory codes show us, albeit more clearly than those of a particular state, exactly what is meant by the congressional or state legislative decree that a statutory definition is “expansive” in relation to the use of terms so defined:

“The term ‘includes’ and ‘including’ do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.” –27 CFR 72.11. (Emphasis added).

This is irrefutable evidence of a completely unacceptable level of professional judicial and legal malpractice and incompetence in my opinion. Our lives and property are being placed into the hands of individuals that are utterly incompetent and clueless about the very thing upon which their entire career rests, revolves, and evolves, a comprehensive understanding of the proper operation of law in its entirety. Which means, although they are actually required to know how to properly read law, interpret it, understand it, and apply it, as well as how to do each of these things in a manner that remains consistent with, and entirely within, its proper legislatively intended context, they are utterly devoid of the necessary desire and/or competency to do so. If they are incapable or unwilling to do those things properly, then they shouldn’t be allowed to remain as a sitting judge or a ‘licensed’ attorney. Period.

If you ever meet an attorney or judge that isn’t unfamiliar with or incorrectly using these terms, then they are either fresh out of law school or cost so much money per hour that you would need two mortgages on your home to even hire them for a 15 minute consultation on your case, neither of which is a viable alternative for the vast majority of people that are in need of legal help. Demonstrably, every other attorney and judge you will encounter is simply flying along just below the systems “incompetence/malpractice” radar so they can steal the most money they can before their clients realize just how hard they’ve been screwed and left holding the bag in their own case because their attorney never filed a single legal pleading or did a damned thing to actually help them. If you truly wish to prove to the world that you are a gullible fool, then trust an attorney to do the right thing or act in your best interest before their own. If you don’t already know what I’m talking about from your own personal past experience, I would like to help you out by selling you this nice little toll bridge property I own that crosses over the San Francisco bay. I’m willing to let it go real cheap if that would help?

How Can a Statute be “Enlarged” by Adding Something not Written and Still Avoid Being Unconstitutionally Vague, Ambiguous, and Over-broad?

In relation to law, the term “enlargement,” when used in relation to “includes” and “including,” means that a statutory definition is not to be considered “fixed or limited” to only the exact things specifically listed, but, rather, it is to be read as generally encompassing anything not listed that would still normally be within the same object class as those objects that are. However, you must also understand that a statute that is deemed as being non-specific runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a law must be understandable by men of reasonable intelligence so as to properly understand what is being prohibited or what duty it places upon them to perform or avoid. Which means, the terms “includes” and “including” are able to be “enlarged” only in certain specific ways, and those ways require that the definition be read only as being “enlarging” so as to encompass those things that fit naturally within the same specific class of persons, objects, locations, or legal entities actually listed in the original “includes” or “including” declaration. This will remain true even when the definition contains the provision “includes, but is not limited to” as a part of its declaration, as this is simply linguistic legal trickery via camouflaged redundancy where statutory definitions are concerned.

What this basically means is that all of the items following “includes” or “including” must have an identifiable and natural class relationship in order to be considered a viable addition to the “enlargement” intent and functionality of the statute. If there is any kind of oddball item listed in that same definition that does not appear to fit in with the classification represented by the majority of the other things listed, then that oddball thing must be subjected and limited to an interpretation that actually harmonizes it with all the other listed items in the “includes/including” language framework.

An example of this of this kind of definition would be something like, “Person includes a natural person, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity,” or, “Person includes an individual, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity.”  These definitions contain the terms “natural person” or “individual” preceding what is otherwise an entire list that “includes” or is “including” only “legal entities,” i.e. they list  something/one that is tangibly real with something that is nothing more than an intangible contemplative legal fiction.

The terms “natural person” and “individual” are normally construed to be part of a completely different natural and tangibly real classification than that of all the fictional entities specifically listed alongside them, right? But, how can that be? In cases like this, the only acceptable interpretation is one that can logically harmonize everything listed into a singular classification without culminating in a “ridiculous result/outcome.” Otherwise, if this simply isn’t possible, then the rule of statutory construction relating to the proper use of “includes” and “including” has been violated, making the resulting interpretation legally unsound and inherently incorrect, thus, challengeable as being unconstitutional and void for vagueness and ambiguity .

But how would one go about harmonizing such totally dissimilar terms into a single harmonious classification that is not somehow ridiculous to conclude? Well, in this case, the one that makes the most logical sense is to try and harmonize the object term(s) that are in the minority, and whose normal classification is different than the other things listed (“natural person/individual”), into the same classification associated with the majority of the other object terms as listed (“legal entities”). In simpler terms, the logical choice for a place to begin is to reconcile the few with the many in a harmonious fashion. So ask yourself, how would a “natural person/individual” be capable of fitting into the same classification as a fictitious “legal entity,” so that the rules of statutory construction relating to the use of the terms “includes” and “including” in law are not violated? What sort of classification could that even be? Well, figuring that out is actually easier than you might think.

You first have to understand that “legal entities” have no physical existence, they are entirely fictional and incapable of acting of their own volition (no hands, arms, legs, or even a brain see), and therefore, can act only through one or more “natural persons/individuals” serving and acting as its agent(s). This is the only physical form in which such an agent can exist and function for the benefit the legal entity. The most logical examples are found and understood by asking yourself this simple question, “Isn’t every officer, agent, employee, or trustee of a ‘legal entity’ actually a ‘natural person/individual’?” Realistically, can they be ever anything else? Can a second “legal entity” act as the agent for the first “legal entity” sua sponte without a “natural person/individual” making the decisions and then acting on behalf of the second “legal entity” as well? Of course not, as that would be a “ridiculous result.” Who in their right mind would try to argue that two legal fictions somehow cooperatively acted entirely on their own to commit a crime while having no tangible form of existence by which to reason, contemplate, and perform such actions? Well, believe it or not, an attorney or a judge would, and they would not even bat at an eye at how ridiculous and insane they sound, and actually are, for insisting it’s even remotely possible.

C’mon Alice, don’t you get it now? Don’t just blindly follow the white rabbit through the looking glass and down the hole! Sure, step through and crawl down if you must, but first, make sure that you have your head out of your ass and are paying apt attention to everything else that is going on and how it works!

If you haven’t read or don’t like “Alice in Wonderland, then you can use whatever other metaphor best serves to wake you up and provide you with the understanding that the terms “natural person/individual” do not and cannot be lawfully construed in a manner that allows a statutory definition’s interpretation to add We the People to the same legal classification as that of a “legal entity” when we are acting privately on our own behalf. We must actually be acting as an authorized officer, agent, employee, fiduciary, or trustee of one or more of the specific types of legal entities specifically listed in the same definition that we are inferentially being alleged/alleging to represent. It is imperative that you realize that the use of this kind of logical reasoning is almost never the case when it comes to the statutory interpretations and applications that We the People are being unlawfully subjected to on a daily basis.

The Devil is [Always] in the Details.

This ability to create and require a specialized interpretation of a law or statute is precisely what makes “includes” and “including” into what is commonly referred to as “legal terms of art.” It is the knowing and willful misuse and abuse of the rules of statutory interpretation and application for these legal terms of art that have been and are being used to deceive people into thinking that something “included” means one thing, while the attorneys and the courts ignore the mandatory rules of interpretation so as to interpret the same term of art in a myriad of ways so as to get their own desired outcome in a particular case at hand. That is why it is so important to understand these terms, so that you do not accidentally or unintentionally leave them the means to do so.

When used in law, “includes” limits the items listed to a readily identifiable naturally occurring relationship. This is done via what you could call a “relational class,” which is simply a classification that is naturally relative to all of the things that are listed, but that also allows for “enlargement” by naturally “including” other objects that fall within that same natural relational class so as to be considered as inclusive with the other listed items, even though they are not specifically made a part of the list by actual name.

For instance:

“The term “Fruit” includes oranges, limes, and lemons.”

In THIS configuration, the term “includes” is capable of “enlargement” because ALL of the things listed have a natural class relationship, that of being members of the family of citrus “fruit.” Therefore, “fruit” as defined here, can be EXPANDED to encompass other citrus fruits like “grapefruits” and “kumquats”, but cannot ‘include’ “apples,” “watermelons,” or “bananas,” because they don’t share the fruit class relationship of “citrus” fruit.

Now, consider this variant definition, where dissimilar objects that do not share a common classification are “included” in the list together:

“The term “Fruit” includes apples, pears, oranges, limes, and lemons.”

In this configuration, the term “includes” is absolutely not reasonably capable of “enlargement” because all of the things listed do not share an identifiable natural class relationship between them which would allow anything else that is not listed to be added and matched to ALL of them, nor is there any logically reasonable way to formulate a class relationship that would allow this definition to be expanded beyond those specific types of fruit expressly listed. Thus, this list is strictly limited to only those things that are expressly listed. By explanation of this point, not only are these items not all citrus fruits, they cannot even all be classified as “fruits that must be peeled before eating.” or as “fruits with an edible skin,” In short, no other natural class relationship exists between them.

I can hear you analyzing this and thinking, “this point seems to run counterintuitive to the previous discussion on creating an interpretative relationship between “natural person/individual” and a list of only legal entities,” but, that analytical comparison would be flawed, as you have to remember that this is only because of the “ridiculous result” prohibition. Trying to logically construe these various fruits into a unified class that would allow the definition to expand to encompass other things would produce a ridiculous result (example: you decide the common class relationship should be “things you use to make smoothies,” which would not be a naturally occurring and reasonable classification of any one or more of the kinds of fruit listed, right?). After all, using the smoothie example, you could, conceivably, decide to throw some actual vegetables into that smoothie mix as well, right? Vegetables are not naturally associated or recognized as a class of “fruit,” right? So, that example would produce a “ridiculous result,” right? But, we were able to reach a naturally conclusive outcome between “natural person/individual” when these terms are being listed alongside only legal entities in a manner that did not culminate in a “ridiculous result,” right?  See, this is not something that is so difficult or contradicting after all, despite what attorneys and judges would prefer to have you believe and blindly accept as true.

Distinctions Without a Difference.

“Including” would work the same way as “includes” wherever it is used.

Now, be aware of the fact that the use of “includes” in this example would be considered an “enlargement,” because everything listed SHARES a natural trait in common. However, this “enlargement” presumes that the existing list is NOT already exhaustive of the things it lists. Which means that, in order for a particular list of “included” objects to actually be capable of “enlargement,” there must first be another object having the same natural relational class that is not already specifically listed, but is class-applicable simply because it has the same naturally occurring class relationship (see the “citrus” fruit examples above).

Therefore, if the list provided is already exhaustive, meaning there is nothing that is not listed that could reasonably be construed to match the existing classification of the other items, then the list is actually incapable of “enlargement” and is, therefore, expressly limited by default to only those things expressly listed, even though all the statutory language necessary for authorizing the list to be “enlarged” actually exists.

An example of this would be something like:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes red apples.”

Now, under this configuration, the definition of “Fruit” cannot be said to “include” any other color variations associated with apples, as it specifically limited what was to be “included” into the definition of “fruit” by two specific criteria for the class. The thing to be “included” must be an “apple,” and the only acceptable color allowing the “apple” to be considered as “fruit” is “red.” Therefore, by default, this definition specifically excludes by omission all green, orange, yellow, or other color variations normally associated with apples, even though they otherwise share 100% of all the other natural class qualities of apples that would otherwise make them appear to be reasonably “included” in this list. So, even though this definition used the term “includes,” which is to be considered a term of enlargement, not limitation, the list is not actually capable of being “enlarged” to encompass anything that does not meet the two specific criteria contained in the definition.

Now look at this example:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes red McIntosh apples.”

In this definition, we can see two different qualifiers being used that guarantees that the scope and meaning of the term “fruit,” as listed, is prohibitively limited to a single variety of red apple out of the approximately 2,500 total varieties grown in the United States, and the approximately 7,500 total varieties grown around the world, regardless of their color. As defined, not only is the list of apples that can be used to meet the definition of the term “fruit” required to be red, they are also required to be of one single specific variety, McIntosh. Which means that, no other variety of apple, red or otherwise, would be applicable and able to be ‘expanded’ into this definition. It is essentially the same as writing the definition thusly:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes only red McIntosh apples.”

Therefore, while using “includes and “including” in its constructive language, it can be logically concluded that the result of a definition having more qualifiers pertaining to the listed items is that the ability to ‘expand’ the meaning and application of the definition to encompass other class-similar but otherwise unlisted objects is being exponentially reduced.

I would also add that when the legislature intends the definition to be non-expansive from the very beginning, they will write the definition using the form, “The term ‘fruit’ means…” or “means and includes,” which then immediately limits the definition to encompassing only those specific things that are expressly stated in the list following the term being defined (full credit to my friend and media colleague Dave Champion, author of “Income Tax: Shattering the Myths,” for this clarification).

You must be aware of how these two terms work or you will never actually understand what a law or statute using them truly means, much less how it is lawfully and legally allowed to be interpreted and applied, which means that you will almost certainly lose your case, then possibly your money, your house, or your freedom.

Incompetency or Hearsay, and Does It Matter Under the Rules of Evidence?

Let’s say that you are appearing in court to defend yourself against one of the literally millions of false allegations perpetrated yearly by law enforcement personnel in the form of a “transportation” related civil infraction or criminal offense. Both are usually fine only punishments, and where they aren’t, the facts won’t differ between them in relation to the contents of this article. The rules of evidence work the same in either type of case. You just need to know them well enough to put them into action and nullify the prosecutions witness, and thus, their entire case.

When you are questioning the officer on the stand during the trial, and you attempt to ask the officer some question relating to the law, such as the legal definition of specific terminology, and it is something that the officer would logically and/or necessarily have to know in order to support reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain or arrest for an allege an offense, you will often be interrupted by the prosecution objecting with the claim that the officer is not required to know the answer to the question. The prosecution will do this despite the fact that an officer actually is required and must know the answer to the question, because it would have been legally impossible for the officer to have obtained reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the officer either does not know and/or is incapable of recognizing the essential criminal elements necessary to enforce that law and allege an offense.

Now, while this might be a proper objection where your question is asked in a way that could not be reasonably comprehended and answered (i.e. the content, context, or grammar of your question totally sucked and made no sense), it would not be true if the question was very straightforward and clear. The prosecution’s objection would also be true if the question has nothing to do with the actual laws relating to the offense or the duties and responsibilities of the officer sitting on the stand (i.e. you asked a patrol officer about how the department determines personnel policy or handles a payroll issue). Otherwise, as long as your question is on-point with the law and facts of the case at hand, the officer would have to know the answer to the question in order to have ever acquired reasonable suspicion or probable cause so as to properly make the allegation of an offense. Therefore, it is simply legally impossible that the prosecution’s claim could be even remotely true in most instances or for every question relating to the law as it pertains to the matter before the court.

There is also the issue of the prosecutor making a statement of fact from their own mouth during a trial about what the officer is or is not required to know about the law in order to testify as to exactly how the officer applied that law in order to make an allegation of an offense. The prosecutor is actually trying to testify on the record as to what the officer is or is not required to know in order to answer the question, and this the prosecutor simply cannot do. A prosecutor may not make any original statement of fact from their own mouth in place of any witness, nor make any legal determinations about what the witness is or is not allowed to respond to on the stand. Nor does a prosecutor have any lawful purpose or delegated authority to determine what a police officer is or is not lawfully or legally required to know in order to perform their duties or testify to a statement of facts that the officer allegedly observed and used to formulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime, as the officer could not possibly or reasonably formulate either if they actually don’t know the proper answer to the question s/he was asked on the stand about the legal meaning and application of certain terminology in relation to the alleged offense.

Part of the oath taken and the training received by every police officer is to uphold and enforce the State and Federal Constitutions,[1] and the laws of the state where they are employed,[2] i.e. they are required to know what fundamental rights are inherent and protected under those instruments in order to properly perform their duties. They also take an oath to know and remain current on the laws of the state[3] in which they are employed so as to properly perform their duties and serve the public.[4] These oaths and the duty to “know the law” are mandatory, as is adherence to their terms and conditions. An officer cannot reasonably claim ignorance of the content and meaning of the Bill of Rights or the legal duties inherently contained in the oaths s/he takes to uphold and protect those rights when they take them, otherwise the officer would not be employable. How then is it reasonable for some prosecutor or judge to assert that an officer can be partially or totally ignorant of the law and still be able to properly perform his or her duties in a manner that complies with that law and the individual rights of the people?

Therefore, it is simply not logically or legally possible that an officer is not or cannot be required to both know and understand the necessary and essential elements of any criminal act governed by a law they are attempting to enforce. To say that this is the case, as the prosecutor has just done, is to say that the officer is incompetent and unqualified to even understand the law, much less to enforce the law or testify to anything in relation to the specific elements of an alleged offense under that law. For example, if an officer is not required to know and understand what the proper legal definition of a “vehicle,” “driver,” or “operator” actually is, then how could an officer use these terms to acquire reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as they are essential key elements of any “transportation” related offense? How does an officer allege the element of “motor vehicle” in charging an offense without first having competent firsthand knowledge of what the legal meaning of “motor vehicle” even is? And that same question applies to each and every term and phrase that is used to construct a statute and any related offense therein.

*NOTE: As an aside, this shortcoming in legal logic is precisely why a criminal complaint is not required to be filed by a competent fact witness having firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged therein, as well as why its language is formulated as “I have reason to believe and do believe…” rather than “I have direct personal knowledge that the allegations made herein against John Smith are absolutely true.” therefore, while the person making the complaint may believe the alleged facts to be true, do they have actual competent firsthand knowledge that they really are true? This is an important point of law, for it is an irrefutable legal fact that, unless a person providing testimony absolutely does have competent firsthand personal knowledge of the alleged facts, s/he cannot legally testify to such facts under oath as actually being true, except when that person has been sworn in as an expert witness and allowed to submit opinion rather than fact, which the cop absolutely isn’t and cannot do.

It is a direct violation of the rules of evidence to allow the officer to testify to facts of which s/he does not have personal knowledge and understanding under the admissibility and hearsay rules. So, if the officer does not know the proper legal definition or meaning for each of these terms in the first place, then the officer is actually legally incompetent to testify to any of them as being an actual fact. It is illogical that a judge would accept the prosecutor’s objection as valid when logic says that a witness cannot make and testify to a statement of fact, i.e. that the accused was “operating” a “motor vehicle,” without first knowing the correct legal meaning and application of each of those terms within the governing statutes. It is a logical fallacy to assert that the facts alleged in the complaint are true and correct when the officer/witness or other Affiant on the complaint cannot reasonably be testifying from personal knowledge about those facts when they know absolutely nothing about their proper legal meaning within the statutes, especially when those specific terms are actual elements of the alleged offense.

So, the question must be asked, just how can an officer testify that “I saw the defendant operating a motor vehicle in the 1600 block of Fantasy Ave. …” when the officer cannot properly testify to what “operating” and “motor vehicle” even mean in relation to the statutory definition and the constitutionally required single subject[5] context? If the officer doesn’t know the legal definitions of the specific terms and phrases used to formulate the statute and establish the legal criteria that defines “operate” and “motor vehicle,” s/he is not testifying from personal knowledge, but from the hearsay of something or someone else other than the law itself.

Therefore, how does the officer truthfully testify that you were “operating” a “motor vehicle” by any means other than personal knowledge of the actual law under which s/he formulated the charge being made against you? Logic says that if the officer is legally capable and competent to formulate the charge itself by rationalizing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, then the officer is legally capable and competent to answer a question about the law and the specific legal elements s/he used to do it. Since there must be a written probable cause statement doing this very thing, and it must be signed by someone with actual knowledge of the facts alleged in the statement, it is incomprehensible that an officer could not and does not have to be required to know the legal definition and meaning of the statutory terms and phrases that they are signing their name to under penalty of perjury as being actual fact.

This is the same legal principle and theory that prevents an officer from testifying in a speeding case where s/he has no clue about how a radar gun works or its accuracy if s/he is not specifically trained on every aspect of the device, including how to maintain it, test it, and the specific mathematical formula it uses to perform its calculations and reaches its conclusions of speed. Otherwise, if the officer doesn’t know and can’t do the math themselves to verify the radar gun, then everything the officer does in these cases is hearsay motivated and operating by the impetus of the officer’s own personal opinion based upon unsubstantiated legal suppositions, presumptions, and conclusions of law, not the law.

In which case, when a prosecutor objects on the grounds that “the officer isn’t required to know that,” they are actually admitting that their witness is legally and factually incompetent to testify to those facts because they actually lack personal knowledge, and would be both committing perjury and violating the admissibility and hearsay rules by answering. This is why I object right back to the prosecutor’s objection with something like this:

I have a multipart objection to enter into the record in response judge:

First, I object because the prosecution is saying the officer is not required to know the specific legal criteria for the elements of the charge. Which, if true, means that the officer could not possibly provide any articulable facts supporting either reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the time of the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent. Without knowing the answer to this question, as it pertains directly to the statutory elements required to allege the commission of an offense, the officer could not possibly have had the required reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make the warrantless seizure and arrest or to charge an actual offense.

Second, I further object because I never asked the officer if s/he was required to know this information, I asked if s/he did know this information. As the court is now well aware, if the officer doesn’t know, then that means that probable cause could never have existed and the officer’s testimony is not based upon personal knowledge of any facts, but rather his/her own unsubstantiated personal opinion and legal presumptions, conclusions, and speculations, i.e. its hearsay. Which, if true, makes the officer’s testimony inadmissible under the rules of evidence, as such is not covered by any of the hearsay exceptions or the rules governing expert witnesses, especially since the officer has not been vetted and qualified to testify as an expert witness in this trial.

Third, in relation to the facts and logic of the first and second parts, what Respondent is actually understanding the prosecution’s objection to really mean is that their primary fact witness is legally incompetent to testify in response to the question, which is directly relating to specific factual elements in this case. Every relevant fact of the charged offense relates to some specific statutory element defining precisely how the commission of that offense occurs under the law. Factual elements that the prosecutor just stated the officer is not legally required to know, and, if true, now creates the legal presumption that the officer actually does not and never did know them at all, but is still being allowed to testify to them as being facts without having the personal knowledge required to do so. That violates Respondent’s right of due process and goes right back to reasonable suspicion and probable cause never having existed in the first instance, making the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent absolutely unconstitutional and illegal.

Fourth, I object to the prosecutor’s attempt to testify in this case by making a statement of fact disguised as an objection about what the witness is or is not required to know in order to testify to the facts of the case when it is legally impossible for this officer to do so without first having personal knowledge of the specific elements of any alleged offense under the laws in question, including the proper legal meaning and application of specific related terminology.

Therefore, if the court sustains the prosecutions objection, Respondent must necessarily move the court to have the witness’ testimony stricken from the record and declared inadmissible in its entirety, and to demand that the witness(es) be declared legally incompetent and unqualified to testify at all to any statutory fact element of the alleged offense for lack of personal knowledge.

In other words, most prosecutors will more often than not provide you with the means to discredit their own witness in these kinds of cases in exactly this or some very similar manner. You just have to listen and actually know how to rebut the objection that they will almost certainly make the instant that you try to prove the witness is legally incompetent to testify. Don’t let them get away with it.

Now, if the judge sustains the prosecutor’s objection, then you make yours to have the witness declared legally incompetent to testify to any facts in the case. If the judge sides with you and grants your motion, all that remains is for you to move the court to dismiss the case with prejudice for lack of evidence and/or an eyewitness with personal knowledge. Just make sure to get a signed order from the court before you leave, or get someone on record telling you when the order will be delivered to you via mail or other means.

Case closed.


Footnotes:


[1] Texas Constitution, Art. 16, Sec. 1(a) OFFICIAL OATH.

[2] Texas Occupations Code, Sec. 1701.253(e).

[3] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 1 Texas Department of Public Safety, Chapter 1 Organization and Administration, Subchapter H Professional Conduct, Rule §1.113 International Association of Chiefs of Police Canons of Police Ethics.

[4] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 7 Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Chapter 218 Continuing Education, Rule §218.3 Legislatively Required Continuing Education for Licensees.

[5] Texas Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 35 – Subjects and Titles of Bills.

CATCH & RELEASE – THE ‘NOTICE TO APPEAR’ SCAM

What actual legal authority does a properly authorized officer or agent of the Texas Department of Public Safety really have to compel you to sign a “Notice/Promise to Appear” or to take you to jail if you refuse? Well, it certainly isn’t what they tell you they can do. And what they tell you they can do certainly isn’t legal according to the statutes. And if it isn’t legal according to the statutes, then they don’t have any immunity for acting beyond their clearly stated lawful authority under any particular statutory scheme. Because their duty isn’t discretionary when it comes to what is actually made mandatory for the officer under the statutes and what is completely optional for the accused individual when it comes to obtaining a signature on the “notice/promise to appear” portion of citation for any given “transportation” offense.

So, if you really want to understand just what activity the officer is given discretionary authority over during the course of a “transportation” stop, read on. The first document is a full constitutional and legal analysis of Chapter 543 of the Texas “Transportation” Code and how those statutes actually interrelate to various other statutory provisions and processes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure and the “Art. 15.17 ‘magistration’ proceeding.

Meanwhile, as you are learning about what is discretionary versus mandatory when it comes to an authorized officer’s legal duties during a traffic stop, you will also have the opportunity to learn how to properly fight a speeding citation in Texas. The second embedded document is a complete “Plea to Jurisdiction” motion that challenges every aspect of a ‘speeding’ charge as it is both required to be stated in a criminal complaint and properly filed information, how it must be prosecuted and proven in court in order to survive a due process violation challenge, and how Texas courts and prosecutors never do either one correctly, if at all. The pleading uses only the existing Texas Statutes, the Texas Constitution, and case law on due process and certain required procedures.

What it effectively proves is that Texas does not, and never has had, a criminal offense known as ‘speeding’ within any of its statutory Codes, and why that is so important to fully comprehend when fighting the citation.

However, if you don’t have the capability to understand the arguments and issues in these two documents as they are written, then you are possibly better off just paying the ticket rather than fighting it. Because, when you lose a case by not understanding the laws, facts, and arguments you are using to support your position, you make the bar to winning higher and more difficult to reach for those that come behind you trying to fight their own case. So either dedicate yourself to learning how to really do it right, or don’t sacrifice someone else’s chances before they even get there by fucking up your own.

Legal White-paper – Notice to Appear (last updated 08/31/2017 @2000hrs):
Plea to Jurisdiction Motion – Not a Legal ‘Person’ Subject to Speeding Statutes (last updated 08/04/2017 @0230hrs):

The Tao of Law 2.0 – The Texas Courts Survival Guide

Texas How to… the “Docket Call”

This Chapter of the new traffic seminar book goes into the detailed “how to…” of handling the fictitious “docket call” proceeding that the lower courts have concocted and use to waste your valuable personal time, lose time from work, and basically cost you more in time and money in an effort to make you fold rather than fight when you receive a “uniform traffic citation.”

This information is accurate and up-to-date at the time of this writing, so you can rely on it for at least the next two years. However, be aware that legislative actions can be implemented at designated times throughout the time between legislative sessions, so it is always best to verify any statutory references with what is currently in publication in your state.

Here in Texas you can find the current versions of all state statutes on the Texas Legislature’s web site located here.

Your comments and feedback are welcome and  appreciated.