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.

It is a 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.

 

When in Rome…

I am surprised by how many people there are that seem to view the right to self-defense as being something strictly associated with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Soldier vs. The Gladiator.

I’m surprised because I cannot understand the mindset that, when it comes to being able to defend oneself, or someone else who can’t act for themselves, why would you knowingly limit yourself to only being able to do so with a gun or other physical forms of combat? No soldier goes into battle untrained in at least some form of hand-to-hand combat, because it would be utterly foolish to rely on the fact that your gun, or ammunition for it, will always be available on a battlefield when you need them most. To think this way is severely limiting to how well one is likely to do when having to improvise in battle. Ask any United States Marine or Special Forces soldier what his most important weapon is, and to a man they will answer “my mind.” These soldiers know that it is their mind, their ability to critically analyze, plan, and act in an instant on the available information is what will keep them alive and fighting.

Soldiers are also taught how to think strategically and pre-plan their course of action to the best extent possible. The smart soldier also plans for multiple contingencies that account for both the success and possible failure of the primary and secondary mission objectives. But the truly wise soldier plans not only for all for these things, but also with the constant reminder of the primary rule of war, that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

The ability to plan ahead-of-time is the primary difference between a soldier of war and a gladiator of the Colosseum. While a soldier will usually have the opportunity to survey the field of battle beforehand, or at least to study a map that will provide some sort of useful information and intelligence about the terrain and what does or may exist there, a gladiator rarely has such an opportunity. A true gladiator would be forced to enter into the arena without any idea of what was on the other side of the hypogeum doors until they were opened. He was usually driven onto the killing grounds at spear point if he would not enter willingly to face whatever was awaiting him and his companions there. Sometimes it would be other men, sometimes animals, sometimes machines, and sometimes it may be any combination of these. Sometimes the gladiator would have comrades to battle beside him, and at others he would have to battle and kill those he had come to know as friends off the field. A gladiator had to be truly adaptable and willing to do whatever it took to win, because it was the rarest of occasions when he would step into the arena with the odds of survival and victory already in his favor.

In addition to the real gladiators and battles that the Colosseum accommodated, it was also host to the Praegenarii, or ‘mock gladiator,’ who served as a fill-in act during intervals and scenery changes between battles. They usually conducted their mock fights in a comical and clownish manner for the entertainment of the crowd and the Emperor during the lulls between games. They would conduct mock recreations of the days highlights in the gladiator games or other historical battles of other legendary gladiators. They even sometimes performed mock versions of great historical Roman campaign battles, that is, when the Emperor was not forcing real gladiators to shed real blood to reenact them. It was not even unheard of that, if the Praegenarii were particularly displeasing to the crowd or the Emperor in their antics, the next battle to be watched could very well be between the clownish and unskilled Praegenarii and the real gladiators.

The Original Roman Colosseum.

In ancient Rome, the Colosseum was a huge open arena that covered approximately six (6) acres. Its seating capacity allowed it to hold between 50,000-80,000 Roman spectators. The arena floor of the Colosseum had 36 individual trap doors installed, allowing for what was then considered some very elaborate special effects by modern standards. But these trapdoors could also contain hidden dangers that were yet to be unleashed on the combatants, or even be rigged as a trap to injure or kill them. It is said that more than 700,000 people of all races, religions, and descriptions, died on the bloody arena floor over the years that it was active. The Colosseum of Rome was an extremely dangerous and ugly place to be a combatant, whether voluntary or involuntary.

 

The New American Colosseums.

Ancient Rome may have had the Colosseum, but modern America has its own smaller scaled version of this dangerous battlefield, we just have a less grand name for them, courts. This new form of the ancient Colosseum has guards and games masters, just like the original. Also just like the original, they are each presided over by their own little black toga-wrapped Emperor that thinks him or herself to be a god in their own right. Despite the egocentric nature of their own self-importance, we normally just call them judges.  By Comparison, if you think the Colosseum was a rigged game against the original gladiators, you haven’t seen anything that compares to the rigged game that is the American court system.

The New Gladiators.

Did you know that there were more than twenty (20) different types of gladiators that appeared and fought in the Roman Colosseum. But despite all of that diversity, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the diversity of new American gladiators that exist today.

It should go without saying that, considering the potential consequences of having to fight in the Roman Colosseum, it would be hard to imagine that someone would actually choose to voluntarily become a gladiator to do battle there, much less to do so on an ongoing basis. This wasn’t really a problem in the days of the Roman empire, as most gladiators were prisoners, slaves, or otherwise conscripted into service. It is in this sense that the American People have been compelled to participate in the ‘just-us’ system as one of these new types of gladiator. This happens because they are being forced to enter into this new American Colosseum we call the courts, where they have to defend themselves against an often much more powerful foe. One who is well known for not fighting fair or following the rules in order to win its battles. This foe is the State, its agencies, and its actors.

This means that the American people now face a choice much like that faced by those who were unfortunate enough to have been conscripted into the role of the Roman gladiator. Learn, train, fight, win, or perish (lose).

 

The New Praegenarii.

The only bright side of this new system is that the role of the gladiator victim is not the only one that has been carried forward in a new form, there is also a new kind of Praegenarii. Be aware that the new Praegenarii in our modern version of the Colosseum comes in two different forms, that of attorneys, and the other as Patrinuts. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both are usually pretty reliable for providing the crowd with a good laugh or eyeball roll at their antics and stupidity.

The Attorneys.

The attorneys act more seriously and gladiator-like, much as the Praegenarii who were reenacting true-to-life versions of Rome’s most glorious campaigns and battles, but would still do so with some small comedic elements if one watches closely, and, occasionally, even with a grand explosion of clownish and ignorant behavior. The truly nefarious thing about the attorneys as modern Praegenarii is not really their level of actual skill in the use of the normal weapons, but rather their unscrupulousness and totally underhanded methods of combat, which is usually done by completely twisting and corrupting the weapons themselves beyond recognition. While most attorneys that you will encounter in these arenas have all the skills necessary to look and act like real gladiators, they almost never have the skills and expertise necessary to engage in a real fight and win it. The key is in knowing how to tell just when and how a battle is winnable, and what tactics will work best to accomplish that end, which you can best learn and apply by watching and listening to other attorney(s) and comparing what you hear and see them do to what you should have already taken the time and effort to know for yourself about the proper way to engage in these fights, and that is through the learning the rules of engagement and other information described below.

The Patrinuts.

Then we have the Patrinuts. When a Patrinut dons the garb of a gladiator, it is truly a sight to behold. Not because of how awe-inspiring and fearsome they look, sound, or conduct themselves in battle, but because of how the complete massacre of the Patrinuts that usually ensues more closely resembles that gaggle of foppish and totally unskilled clowns and buffoons with inferentially poor acting skills who pissed off the crowd of Roman spectators or disappointed the Emperor to such an extent that they were forced to fight to the death against a group of real and battle-hardened gladiators. A gladiatorial battle involving a Patrinut will almost always provide some level of entertainment, usually ranging from sheer cross-eyed boredom, to slack-jawed disbelief, to outbreaks of belly laughter so uproarious and voluminous that the Emperor orders the entire Colosseum cleared until he can decide upon a course of action. Which usually winds up being that the Patrinut is stripped naked and thrown to the lions for the sheer entertainment and appeasement of the crowd.

 

How to Survive the Colosseum and
Retire as a LIVE Gladiator.

If you wanted to survive the Colosseum as a gladiator, you had to learn how to be the best and most awesomely skilled gladiator you could be. This means that those men and women had to become skilled in every manner of weapon, shield, and hand-to-hand combat technique they could learn and master in whatever time they were allotted to make ready. They not only had to master the weapons of war, but also the accompanying accouterments by becoming masters of horse and chariot, conventional and unconventional battle tactics, and thinking and acting on their feet in the heat of battle. It meant learning how to think, act, and react very differently than they once did, or ever would again.

This leads us to the as-yet unrealized problem faced by most Americans today, that these preparatory requirements have not actually changed for any of us as the new American gladiator. Why you might ask? Well, like it or not, there is always the possibility even today, a much greater one in fact, that, just like it was possible in the days of Rome, you could just as easily be conscripted to appear in one of these newfangled Colosseums and coerced into engaging in a fight you never asked for or wanted.

Learning how things worked on the arena floor, and how to adapt to whatever situation or enemy that may arise, was extremely important to a gladiator’s survival. In our modern-day arenas, just like the gladiators of old, you need to learn several things before you have to enter if you are to survive to see another day. The longer you have to prepare and train to sharpen your skills before that day arrives the better. The wise gladiator is one who knows that, even though he has yet to actually enter into the theater to engage in a real battle, he should take advantage of the time he has to make himself as battle-ready and survival -prone as possible.

By studying the rules and tactics necessary for waging these new kinds of engagements, you can be far more successful than you might otherwise think. The primary rules and weapons used on today’s field of battle are the Federal and State Rules of Evidence, Procedure, and Judicial/Professional Conduct. These are formidable and trustworthy weapons in the hands of a skilled gladiator. Augment those skills with an irrefutable understanding of the multitudinous variations of the other weapons and skills of war used on the battlefield, meaning the modern laws and statutes, and you become an awesome gladiatorial force to be reckoned with. It is not nearly as difficult as many would have you believe to become equally or superiorly skilled compared to most of the attorneys that you will face in this arena. Remember, far more of them are really just a bunch of clowns and buffoons who are merely playing at the role of being a real gladiator than even they tend to realize. This usually makes them overconfident and foolish in how they will try to duel and deal with you more often than not. Which means that the better you prepare and hone your skills at being a real new American gladiator now, even if you currently feel that you have no need of such skills, the more likely it will be that your newfound talents will enable you to more quickly draw your opponent within reach of your legal weapons for a quick and clean kill if and when the time to fight finally arrives.

But, beware still the fickle and spiteful Emperor, for he is the most dangerous opponent of all. His is the power to overrule everything, even your hard-won victory, at least for a time. However, the better you handle these weapons and yourself, the more likely that the Emperor is not going to be willing to risk angering the crowd when they are showing overwhelming support for you as the victorious gladiator, no matter how much the Emperor might secretly wish to do you harm. The more knowledge and skill you have, the more likely the Emperor will not act upon his own capricious whims or out of sheer envy and jealousy over your popularity with the People when you finally stand as an uncoerced and free man at the end of the day.

Just try to avoid stepping in all of the Patrinut blood pooling on the ground as you leave the arena.

State Administrative Agencies Regulate Only “Legal Persons.”

The bane of all fundamental human rights in America today is the rise to power of an unconstitutional institution known as “administrative law.” It permeates every area of our lives in ways that even a Korean Kimche fart in a tiny room with no windows can do.

Administrative law is unconstitutional because it is used to violate every single rule of due process that exists to protect our individual rights. It allows punishment without judicial review, and legalized extortion as a legitimate power of government that the People never intended or approved. In short, it is legalized theft backed by the power of the State.

The Patrinuts all think that the only remedy to be had in such instances is to use what they refer to as “commercial processes.” For example, legal remedy based upon unsubstantiated theories such “Accepted for Value (A4V),” “Commercial Liens,” or “U.C.C. Redemption.” Not only have I never found any lawful merit in these processes as the Patrinuts try to apply and use them, but they usually wind up making matters much worse for those people that try to do so. I also say that these theories are unsubstantiated based upon the fact that 1) I have never seen any of them work as described, 2) I have never seen them produce results that are repeatable in multiple instances, 3) I can find no law or authoritative documentation that establishes any of them as valid legal remedies for anything the Patrinuts try to use them for, 4) more people lose, and lose worse by using them, than those that are not using them.

It also doesn’t help that you pretty much have to swallow a whole sheet of LSD-laced postage stamps to have any of the Patrinut theories even begin to make any sense, which is why they can only EXPLAIN to you how they think it is all supposed to work, but cannot actually PROVE or document any of it from an authoritative verifiable source. This is compounded by any attempts they may make to convince you by posting links to statutes and small sections of case cites from questionable internet resources, and then you reading them only to find out that the case citations are completely fake, totally out of context, or not at all on-point for the issue at hand. Then, the pièce de ré·sis·tance turns out to be that Patrinut guru that’s been providing this information to the public forum has the reading comprehension and interpretation skills of a cardboard box, with the box itself actually being far more useful than this Patridiots so-called information. At least you can take all the stupid documents, videos, recordings, and other crap you got from the Patrinut and carry it all to the trash in the box.

So, while the Patrinut crowd is so busy over-complicating everything, even how to be stupid and proud of it, I almost always have found that the best real remedy in the law that one could possibly seek out and rely upon, is one that already exists in the law itself. Especially one that is verifiable, reusable, reliable, and produces repeatable and consistent success in multiple instances. This is something that I have never seen any of the Patrinut’s alleged  remedies accomplish.

What does this all have to do with administrative law you may ask? Well, believe it or not, despite its unconstitutionality in so many ways and areas when it comes to due process, it very often also provides you with an immediate remedy to any administrative issue you might currently be having to contend with. Administrative law generally supplies this remedy in the form of what is commonly referred to as an “affirmative defense” against any administrative allegation(s) and the related monetary fine(s), fee(s), or penalty(s) that might otherwise follow if left unrebutted by an answer to said allegation(s). The downside being that any failure on your part to provide and answering rebuttal results in you actually losing the issue by default and then having to seek remedy anew at a greater cost and effort to yourself.

Affirmative defenses are not strictly limited in availability to administrative law. Many areas of law, including criminal, have statutorily provided affirmative defenses for certain types of criminal allegations.  For example, in this screen shot you can see all of the individual chapters of the Texas Penal Code where the phrase “affirmative defense” can be found in relation to certain crimes. If you click the picture it should take you to the Texas Legislatures web site, where you can follow the individual returned search links to see how an affirmative defense applies to a particular crime and how to use it for your defense if you are accused of the crime and the defense applies.

Search Results - Penal Code 'affirmative defense'

This is pretty much the same way it works in administrative law as well. The one caveat is that administrative statutes don’t always specifically state that an affirmative defense exists. In which case, you have to know not only how to read and comprehend the statute, but also how to determine if such an affirmative defense is actually available as a remedy.

Which brings us to the actual purpose of this article. Texas has what is known as the “Texas Commission on Environmental Quality” or “TCEQ” for short. The TCEQ is a State administrative agency, and one of their areas of jurisdiction is the oversight of “irrigators,” which is really a shorter and more fancy term for “underground sprinkler installer and repairman.” Now, the TCEQ, like any other State administrative agency, is all about the money, which normally comes through the form of licensing, such as those who wish to be state licensed irrigators. But, also like any other State administrative agency, they like to abuse their power and authority. Which also means that the legal counsel for the TCEQ is more than willing to intentionally pervert the administrative laws to those very ends. Usually for the purpose of extorting excessively exorbitant administrative fees, fines, and penalties, from those who are unlucky enough to fall within their jurisdiction and/or invoke the ire of any of the petty bureaucrats therein.

I have a friend who is an irrigator and owns his own irrigation business. A business he has worked in for more than 40+ years. He started this business long before there even was a TCEQ and before it was necessary to obtain a license to simply earn a living by burying plastic pipes in the ground to run water through so your lawn doesn’t turn brown and blow away.

Needless to say, the TCEQ decided to set their monetary extortion sights on my friend, to the tune of over $6,000.00, per allegation, per day of alleged violation. In other words, to extort enough money to either force him out of business or to fund their whole budget for the next six years. My friend is almost 70, and runs a crew of 3-4 people from a single pickup truck and trailer. Needless to say, that kind of money simply doesn’t exist for him. There is also the slight problem that comes from there being a constitutional protection against “excessive fines imposed” in the Texas Bill of rights, to wit:

Sec. 13.  EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW.  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.  All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Administrative law agencies and their legal counsel would have you believe that these protections are not available or applicable to you if they have set their sights on getting your money. They are patently wrong on that front. These protections are available to the People, but, they are not available to the “legal person” that the statutes regulate. In the ‘legal’ eyes and presumptions of administrative law, these two ‘beings’ are not the same, and have totally different existences and rights. Which, believe it or not, is actually a correct interpretation of the law.

However, what happens to that legal presumption when it is being applied to one of the people that is not also one of its “legal persons?” What happens when the TCEQ tries to apply its regulatory codes, which clearly state that they apply only to the legal person who is one of their licensed irrigators, but not to the living being who is not one who possesses its license?

Well, in this case, what happens is the statutory inference of an unbeatable affirmative defense that ensures that we can prevent the TCEQ from accomplishing its goals of either extorting my friend out of all of his money, or forcing him out of business altogether because he won’t kowtow and allow himself to be forced into acquiring their license. In other words, his remedy, and yours, is actually already built into the law itself. They just hope that you don’t know that or how to find it, much less make use of it.  The key to it all is to never leave them an ‘out’ that they can use against you, whether now or later.

Statists Gonna’ State, and Almost Always Incorrectly.

What happens when an alleged “investigative journalist” only ‘investigates’ the alleged facts and history of their news and articles from the very sources that taught them to think only from the inside of society’s socialized and collectivist brainwashing box?

In an article written by Barton Deiters (“Deiters”) titled “Law Talk: Who says driving is a privilege and not a right?,” which you can read in its sullied entirety here, we can see some commentary by a former prosecutor turned criminal defense attorney that should be of considerable concern to every American. Why? Because it really shows you just how totally backwards the mindset is of a good many attorney’s, and, therefore, many judges, regarding the People’s unalienable rights.

Understand that I say “many,” because I cannot recall ever having a conversation with any attorney or judge that really sees our individual rights as anything other than “negotiable privileges.” But, I also can’t say that I’ve talked to all or most of them in existence. Still, the chances that the aforementioned mindset is not the “gold standard” across the majority of both attorneys and judges is minuscule at best.

According to Dieters, one Gerald Lykins (“Asshole”), the aforementioned Asshole, is quoted as saying the following:

bio-lykins.jpgGerald Lykins, a criminal defense attorney who once served as an assistant prosecutor in Kent County, says “rights” are regulated by the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions and must be explicitly listed – such as freedom of religion or the right against self-incrimination.”

Now, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I take considerable issue, several in fact, with any attorney that actually believes and says that, ““rights” are Dos Equis - Numero Dos 00000regulated by the U.S. or Michigan [or other state] Constitutions and must be explicitly listed – such as freedom of religion or the right against self-incrimination.”

Any normal person reading this comment would think this Asshole is actually claiming that this is how the People’s individual rights are actually formulated and are to be recognized.  If so, then I must also assume that he believes that government has always existed in the universe, is actually responsible for the creation of light, water, the firmament, the People themselves, and operates completely autonomously outside of the People’s consent and control.

Now, this is a rather big issue to me personally, as this Asshole, and most like him, appears to actually believe that the Bill of Rights contained in the various state and federal constitutions are the original and only source of our individual rights, and that’s just as scary a thought all by itself as it is just plain-ass wrong.

However, that particular misinformed and idiotically myopic  perspective is not why I chose to write this today. Rather, I chose to do so because of the specific subject matter of the aforementioned  so-called ‘investigative journalist’s’ article. Which essentially boils downDos Equis - Numero Dos 000000 to that of two issues, whether or not it is ‘legal’ to “drive” in any state of the union without acquiring a “driver’s license” and various other accouterments associated therewith, or, whether or not the People individually have the right to tell the mis-educated traffic cop to go to hell and learn to do his job correctly. The truly correct answer relies very heavily on legal semantics vs. actual common sense when coupled with verifiable world history, custom, and practice, even since before time immemorial.

Without lending any credence whatsoever to the theory of evolution, and just for the sake of example, we will start with the apes. Before the arrival of man, we must presume that apes could and did travel all over the land mass of whatever continent upon which they lived as it pleased them and their needs and desires moved them to do. They were free to come and go as they chose to wherever they desired, and by whatever means each of the individual apes might choose to travel there, whether by groups that moved in slow meandering foot steps, lengthy marches, or ‘flying’ through the tree tops from tree to tree where such mode of movement was available. And I am fairly certain that it never once occurred to any one or more of them anywhere to require that all apes should get a license for permission to use the trees or forest floor before they could do so.

Fast forward to the ‘cave-man.’ Now, he (and she) was migratory out of necessity, as they had to follow the food, because there wasn’t any farming in those days (Monsanto hadn’t yet arrived to provide BC-Riding-Highcommercial GMO seed vendors to sell them any seeds or gardening tools). Nor were there any supermarkets with frozen mammoth steaks and sabre-tooth tenderloins located just down at the corner of the local watering hole and mammoth graveyard.

It is also more than likely that the most prevalent form of locomotion available was once again by foot. But, that does not rule out the possibility that they may have learned at some point how to tame and ride animals of some sort. However, even though that would have constituted the birth of an entirely new level of technology and method of travel, I’m still pretty certain that no one thought they needed a license to engage in either the capture, training, outfitting, or riding of anything they might have decided to try and use for locomotive purposes. Not even if it was something they figured out how to build and mass-produce for themselves or each other and the contraption resembled the B.C. Comics “wheel-n-stick cycle” or Fred Flintstones “car.”

Fast forward once again to the time of ancient Rome, where men have mastered the use of donkeys, mules, horses, carts, wagons, fancy golden litters, and chariots of all kinds for personal locomotion and use upon the land….Roman Centurion Stopping Chariot 002

… and yet, I simply cannot for the life of me seriously picture a Roman Centurion standing with his foot on the wheel of someone’s wagon or chariot like a city beat cop while he writes them a uniform traffic citation for “no license” and “no registration” on a scroll of papyrus.

Now we get to the late 19th Century. Better known as the latter part of “the old west.” We arrive at a time when both the “motorcar” and the “motorcycle” have just come onto the scene here in America. Most folks couldn’t afford them, and didn’t understand why they would even want one if they already had a good horse. After all, it’s not like there was a Texaco or Shell station selling gasoline in every town or on every third street corner back then. But, more importantly, not even this new technological advancement that allowed one to move so much more freely and faster about the entire land mass of the continent required any form of government approval, license, or permission to purchase, own, and make use of upon any road, open prairie, or wilderness area anywhere.

So, if the People already had the fundamental right to sell, purchase, and/or use this new level of technology, how could the government suddenly put so many burdens on the exercise of those very same rights by we the People in modern America? Because the normal red herring response, “there are more cars now and more people have and use them,” is not only totally stupid, it is also without merit of any kind when you consider that the very same assertion is as equally true in relation to guns, and we haven’t let them totally take away the right to keep and bear arms have we?

Therefore, the short answer is, they couldn’t take away or diminish those rights by converting them into privileges, and they actually didn’t. It only appears that way because of the introduction, nay, more like lethal injection, of what has become a never-ending sea of legal semantics into the mainstream of our daily lives. It is being used to perpetrate and perpetuate a profoundly pervasive pollution of the People’s preferred prosaic English parlance while being profusely forced down our throats or shoved up our asses in prolific proportions rivaling that of the Biblical flood. (See what I mean?).

MEME - My Rights Are Not Subject to Technological Advances 1920x1080

Question: If the government couldn’t lawfully destroy the 2nd Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms by simply using the advancement of time, technology, and proliferation as an excuse, then how could they use that same reasoning as the basis to destroy the fundamental right to liberty through locomotion in modern America? Is it not true that the ability to freely move about as our own inclinations and will dictates has always been every bit as much an integral part and necessity of our very way of life as the right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation and protection from thugs, thieves, criminals, ne’er-do-wells, and our own government, at the risk of being redundant?

So, even after all of this discussion of history, custom, practice, and common sense logic, the real question of the hour still remains, “Do the People actually require state permission in the form of fees and licensing of themselves and their private property to simply exercise their common law right to liberty through locomotion by personal use of the public right-of-way for their own private business and pleasure?

In a word, “no.”

Time-and-time again over the years, I have told folks that listen to my radio show that the real truth is that the federal laws are the actual source of all of the People’s trials and tribulations when it comes to exercising our Dos Equis - Numero Dos 0000000fundamental right to be left the hell alone when we are simply moving about on the public right-of-way without causing harm to anyone.

Bring this perspective of rights, liberty, and law up to a cop in a friendly discussion, or with a prosecutor or judge in a court of law, however, and they quickly demonstrate their complete lack of willingness to question what they only think they already know, while steadfastly brushing off every legitimate effort you make to try and show them that the law itself actually disagrees with them. The history, custom, and practice of the fundamental right to liberty through locomotion simply supports our version of the facts and reading of the law far better than it does theirs. Their enthusiasm over being challenged to prove that they are in the right, or actually proven wrong, reminds me of a TV studio crowd watching the most boring game show ever.

Now, the fact that the “transportation/ motor vehicle” laws don’t actually apply to folks that are simply exercising their right to liberty through locomotion on the public right-of-way, is not to say that there are no laws that validly apply to us. Nor am I making any claim or argument that, just because the “Transportation” Code doesn’t apply to us, we are now somehow relieved of our individual duty to exercise our personal rights and use of our property in ways that do not interfere with the equal rights and property of others. The argument is simply one of common sense; just as the rights of all men are to be considered and treated as equal when exercised justly, we naturally and inherently have the individual duty to exercise self-control and restraint so as to avoid unjustly harming others, regardless of the existence or absence of any man-made law. We commonly refer to this concept of individual liberty as exercising the “Golden Rule” of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The fact is, as free and self-sovereign individuals, we are simply bound by a different set of laws than those which apply to our government servants and all the other legal entities that they create. The natural laws that are relevant to we the People could rightfully be argued to apply only to our individual duty to not interfere with or do an unjust harm to the equal rights and property of others under the concept of that Golden Rule. That would mean that no man has any claim or right to act against any other for any purpose outside of a common law tort for an unjust breach of either the Golden Rule or a contract. Which is actually a hell of a lot more liberty than the average modern-day man or woman has ever experienced or will ever be accustomed to in their lifetime. Very few have ever known the feeling of joy and purpose that comes with true personal freedom and liberty.

Even those who have just been released from years of imprisonment will never truly know this joy. Because all they have really done is leave one prison with solid bars and walls for another. Where the only difference is that the new prison’s bars and walls are invisible. This new prison is certainly no less formidable in how it is used to contain and control these people, and it is used just as well against the rest of us.  This new prison is not built of brick and mortar. It is formed by a virtually innumerable and impenetrable number of slyly constructed terms and phrases, which are all stored in volumes of thick leather-bound officious-looking books. This new prison is entirely dynamic in nature. Its walls, bars, windows, and doors are all constantly shifted about to new locations at the whim of the prison guards and the wardens. This new prison is the gelatinous ‘legal’ system, and it understands and cares about our individual rights, freedoms, and liberty about as well and as much as Chris Christie understands self-control and proper eating & exercise habits, which is to say, not in the least fucking bit at all.

Regardless of how much those in control of our government really want us to believe and accept that they are the sole power and authority that gets to determine what our rights are or how we may use them, it is, and always has been, our individual inherent right to take any action necessary to sustain and live our lives, protect our selves, family, and property, and to make use of that property, as we see fit. Which we may do, just so long as we take due care to stay within the parameters of the Golden Rule, as that is the only true limitation upon the free exercise of our individual rights. Such exercise is not a mere privilege to be granted or taken by the whims or majority vote of the People as a political body or state, or by any constitution, or by our various and numerous agencies of government at any level.

The right to liberty though locomotion is just one of the fundamentally inherent rights necessary to maintaining our very existence on this planet. History and custom not only proves this to be the case the world over, it is what is supposed to be the very basis of the People’s rights and liberty in what was once the wild and untamed frontiers of common law America, just as it once was when we were a part of England as the Colonies. Both English and American history makes it very clear, it is history, custom, and practice that makes the law and binds the People, regardless of how many modern day statist-minded attorneys and judges try to tell you different.

This should have never really been open to any form of negative debate. The People have always had and do have an absolutely fundamental individual right to liberty through locomotion upon the public right-of-way for personal business and pleasure versus the privilege of ‘driving’ for the purpose of commercial business intended to generate private profit or gain by an extraordinary use of the public right-of-way as a “transportation highway.” One is a common law protected inherent right, the other is a privileged profession or occupation. They are not in any way synonymous other than they both utilize the same public resource, the public right-of-way, albeit for very different purposes.

I will remind you once again that it is federal law that is the original source of this controversy, not because of how federal law actually reads or what it does, but rather, how the states have tried to completely hide what it actually says and does in a way that allows them to interfere with and control our individual rights, while illegally taxing us for the free exercise and enjoyment of numerous fundamental rights ancillary thereto.

But what is your evidence proving any of that to be true!!” you say? Well, would you be more willing to take the word of a previous United States President about it rather than simply trusting mine?  Would you believe me any more readily if that President told you himself that this is exactly what has happened, that the legislatures, courts, and executive departments of every state of the union, have knowingly and willfully acted fraudulently and criminally to convert the free exercise of every individual’s right of liberty through locomotion into a taxable privilege so that they could sell it back to us for a fee and use it to control and monitor our every movement about the entire continent? Really? That would make you feel better about believing me on this subject? Well, okay, then that is what I’ll do.

I now turn you over to the obliging hands, and words, of President Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States from April 12, 1945-January 20, 1953, who tells us the following:

Harry S. Truman – Speech to Fraternal Order of Eagles on Automobile Safety 08-14-1937.
Harry S. Truman – Speech on CBS  Announcing the Passage of the Drivers’ License Bill (S. 25) on  02-07-1939.

Now, I’m not going to call Mr. Gerald Lykins a liar or anything……… , well, actually…, yes…, yes I am going to call him a liar! Because he is a liar!! A big fat statist liar that should be disbarred, sued, and jailed for legal malpractice and incompetence. Not to mention just being an elitist asshole and total menace to individual rights and the public health and welfare. Which, in reality, makes him absolutely no different than any of the rest of the attorneys that engage in a profession that is soooo corrupt, diseased, immoral, unethical, and dishonest, that it makes professional prostitution seem completely healthy, moral and ethical by even the most prudish of Catholic standards. This particular class of persons are so unbelievably low that earthworms can shit on their heads as easily as birds shit on cars.

Attorneys are precisely the reason that we should always begin any “Transportation/ Motor Vehicle” Code case with a Motion of Special Appearance as being the absolute very first thing we do in the matter. Even if the cop does what the law actually requires them to do by taking you immediately before a magistrate, which is mandatory here in Texas Dos Equis - Numero Dos 0000pursuant Sec. 543.002, Texas “Transportation” Code, the FIRST and ONLY words out of your mouth before anything else must be “On and for the record judge, I am here by Special Appearance to challenge this law enforcement officer’s and your court’s unsubstantiated legal presumption of personal jurisdiction over me in this matter, for which I will be filing a written challenge moving the court for a signed written order ruling solely on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, until such time as that challenge has been filed and answered, and an order ruling upon it has been signed by the court, I cannot answer any questions or provide any documents that could possibly be used against me in a court of law or to potentially incriminate me in some way of which I am not currently aware. Therefore, I do not knowingly and voluntarily waive any of my fundamental or protected rights whatsoever, and I demand my right to assistance of counsel who is to serve in an advisory capacity only. Further Respondent sayeth not.

So, the next time you see or hear an attorney open their mouth with an opinion about what rights you do or don’t have, or even as to how they work, just hand them a shovel and tell them to not leave that pile of shit that just came out of their mouth lying around for some unwary individual to step in. Dos Equis - Numero Dos 000

Then, when they are done cleaning up their mess, take back the shovel…….

… and slam them with the flat side of it really hard, right in the face!

You won’t believe the feeling of immense joy and satisfaction you will get from finally understanding that the only true benefit that attorneys provide to society is that feeling the rest of us get when we have the chance to beat on one of them like a $3.00 piñata at a Mexican fiesta or for target practice to sight in our new gun.

.

Remember……

MEME - Rope, Tree, Attorney 1920x1080