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.

 

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

English Language Words versus Legal “Terms of Art” – The Corruption of an Entire System of Language by the Legal Profession.

Words. Can you even imagine the state of your life, or our society, if we didn’t have words? Whether spoken or written, we could not have gotten where we are today without words. We use them to describe and define so much of our world, even to sometimes provide a voice to our innermost thoughts and ideas. As humans, we use words to add dimension to our thoughts, to convey our ideas, to communicate with one another, and to further our learning and mutual understanding of so many things. At least, most of us use them for that purpose.

But, there are those among us that have always sought to use our complex language of words in ways intended to provide themselves with some advantage over those less educated in the intricacies of our language and may not fully understand the meaning of the words and phrases used to implement it. These individuals of evil or self-serving intent, a class of people we commonly refer to as “grifters,” devised methods of writing and speaking that was geared toward intentionally deceiving particular individuals, or the masses in general, when weaving and pursuing some scheme to eventually separate the targeted individual or group from their hard-earned money, the majority of which was sure to wind up in the grifter’s pocket.

The most common vernacular for such persons are “con men” or “con artists.” The tradecraft of such individuals is not difficult to understand. They are nothing more than thieves, i.e. common criminals. But, unlike robbers and thugs, they rarely use force or weapons as the preferred tool by which they ply their trade. Instead, they use charm, wit, and words to facilitate thievery upon their intended victim(s) by fraud and deception.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, however, these types of con men haven’t disappeared, or even legally wiped out. Oh no. They still exist today, and in much larger numbers than ever before, and operate much more publicly than before. Which makes it clear to us that they have simply gotten much better at organizing and plying their trade, while becoming much less noticeable as a criminal element than they used to be. In fact, they have actually managed to legitimize themselves and their entire profession by turning their practice of fraud and deception into an actual socially acceptable and highly lucrative form of ‘legitimate’ business.

No, today, such deceitful and deceptive individuals are more commonly known by a far more prolific and nefarious singular name, attorneys. Which means that it is imperative that you fully understand that there are no bigger, better organized, and more “legal” crime syndicates on the planet than those of the National and State Bar Associations. The members of these associations have an actual license to lie, cheat, and steal in the name of “The State” and its totally corrupted form of “law” and “justice,” that truly serves no one but themselves.

What you are going to see in this book is an attempt to precisely explain how this is all designed and setup to carry out the very same plan of fraud and theft that the con men of yesteryear were so well known and notorious for. Only now, those con men are in total control of the very system that was once used to protect the public by hunting them down and prosecuting them for their actions. But, those days are now long gone.  Read on and see for yourself just how true that actually is.

 

Dealing with a Condescending Prosecutor or Judge.

Whenever a prosecutor or judge is actually arrogant enough to make the statement “I’m not going to argue the semantics of the law with you,” consider, and remind him or her that the law itself, including the statute(s) that s/he is trying to use against you, is actually comprised of nothing but legal semantics.

Remember, our American laws are not written in common everyday English, but, rather, they are written in a language known to a particular few as legalese. Legalese itself is not merely constructed of words and sentences, but is a particularized and meticulously crafted language unto itself. It is a language made up entirely of carefully chosen and defined terms and phrases that look and sound exactly like those with which you are normally readily familiar, but, they actually have an altered or alternative legal meaning and context. Which is to say, they are the legal semantics.  These terms and phrases are also known by another name, terms/phrases of art., which we will discuss in more detail momentarily.

The American Heritage Dictionary online defines legalese thusly:

le·gal·ese  (lē′gə-lēz´, -lēs´) [1]

n.

The specialized or technical language of the legal profession, especially when considered to be complex or abstruse.

The Collins English Dictionary online provides us with the Webster’s New World College Dictionary’s more expanded, and rather clarifying, definition of the term:

le·gal·ese  (lē′gə-lēz´, -lēs´) [2]

n.

The conventional language of legal forms, documents, etc., involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman.  (Emphasis added).

In this definition, you can see where legalese is both known, and intended, to be incomprehensible to the layman, i.e. the non-attorney, thus, giving the legal profession a monopoly control, use, and understanding of its own language, which it uses to the utter detriment of all those who themselves fail to become adequately fluent in the language.

You see, the very explanation of legalese itself is an example of legal semantics in operation. For lack of a better suited and simplified explanation of the issue as to what legalese is, just remember the following; legal semantics is the simultaneous process of altering the common language meaning of words and sentences, thereby converting them into the legalese format of terms and phrases, and then applying an alternative legal meaning and context rather than the normal common meaning and context, regardless of the fact that the terms and phrases you see and hear may look, sound, and are spelled, the same way that you normally recognize and are familiar with.

In which case, the only proper response to such a statement from ANY attorney would be:

I know you won’t argue with me about it, because you are legally and linguistically incompetent to do so, and would lose that debate within a matter of minutes if you tried. Therefore, I suggest that you just stand over there quietly and remember why it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool rather than to open it and remove all doubt.

 

Terms/Phrases of Art.

So, what exactly is a term/phrase of art, and why is it important to recognize the difference between such terms and phrases when compared to the common English usage of similar appearing and sounding language?

The online version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines “term of art” this way:

A word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession. [3]      (Emphasis added).

While the online version of West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, Edition 2, defines the phrase in this way:

A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context. [4]   (Emphasis added).

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law then goes on to provide us with some clarity as to exactly why this differentiation of language is important to know and fully understand, as it is the precise avenue by which the perversion/corruption of our understanding of our common language use has taken place.

A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.

The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.

The legal system constantly and subversively construes our every use of language as being legal terms of art rather than the real common meaning and usage. The primary reason that there is any misunderstanding at all about this fact is because those professionally operating within the system are constantly telling the rest of us that, unless the law creates a specific definition for a given term or phrase, then, they too are always using regular English words and sentences in their everyday common and ordinary meaning and context, rather than legal terms and phrases of art having an entirely legal meaning and context.

However, we know, and can logically prove, that this claim is totally false. We know it is false because, unless there is an actual legal issue, they have no reason to be communicating with us at all. In other words, whenever an attorney or judge makes the statement that they are construing a term or phrase in its common and ordinary meaning and context, they actually mean its common and ordinary meaning and context in relation to law, not common English.

Therefore, whenever they communicate with us, regardless of their purported reason, they are still using legalese terms and phrases, not common English words and sentences. Which, in turn, means they are actually always communicating with us using only the common legal meaning and context as commonly defined by a particular term or phrases legal usage, not its common everyday English usage. The governmental and legal systems simply cannot communicate with us in any other way or language, as the only language and context they know and understand is that of the law itself, i.e. legalese. Which makes the terms and phrases of legalese within the law the only means by which they can communicate and interact with us at all.

For those people that want to fight every single court battle as if it were a contractual agreement and obligation involving waiver and mutual consent, this understanding is paramount to achieving any level of actual success in resolving whatever issue(s) they are bringing to your door. Why do I say this is true and necessary? Well, consider this example:

How do you enter into a contractual negotiation with someone else, and how exactly do you define and satisfy the necessary terms of that contract as far as offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds?

How do you know exactly what is being offered and exchanged, and contractually required, if not by the terms of the contract itself?

How do you know what the other party is promising to offer, do, or deliver to you in return for your consideration, and what must that consideration be comprised of, federal reserve notes, gold or silver, or a bushel of potatoes every week for ten years?

Now, what if none of the parties attempting to enter into this contract spoke the same language, and couldn’t communicate in any way so as to directly understand one-another? Before you could move forward with establishing the contract, you would need either an interpreter, or, you would both need to learn one or the other’s language, correct?

So, if you are going to argue that the system is trying to contract with you, don’t you think it beneficial to be able to understand the language so as to comprehend precisely what the offer is, as well as the potential penalty for either party if they fail to fulfill their individual part(s) of the agreement? Wouldn’t that same understanding also be useful in exposing and renegotiating or refusing the unfavorable or unacceptable terms or unconscionability of the agreement as offered?

Personally, I think it would be tantamount, as compulsory contracts are nothing new when it comes to governmental coercion and corruption of the rule of law. But, unless they want to start an outright civil war, they are not quite ready and willing to abandon any and all semblance of complying with certain rules and requirements of certain contractual agreements as they relate to substantive and procedural due process.

Be aware, I am not saying that contractual arguments are the arguments to make in many of these cases that we are forcibly compelled to endure and get through, but, it is a good example of how to think about what is actually happening in relation to lawful and legal process and procedural requirements, as they are also specific contractually obligating terms already agreed upon by the very construct of government and the creation of the laws that contain them. Making a violation of those laws by those within the system a very big deal, even though it may not look or feel like it at the time.

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=legalese.

[2] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/legalese.

[3] Oxford Living Dictionaries, English  “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/term_of_art.

[4] West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Term+of+Art.

How to Control [and Legally Embarrass] a Bad Judge – Episode 1

When you have a prosecutor and a judge conspiring and acting to further a case despite a lack of jurisdiction, especially when that lack of jurisdiction is based upon an insufficient complaint and charging instrument or lack of admissible evidence by which to prove ALL of the necessary elements of the alleged offense(s), just how are you supposed to deal with it?

Such little circus sideshows are usually played out by the judge and prosecutor in a tag-team performance during the motions hearing, which is where the judge will most certainly attempt to deny your motions without ANY legal basis or rebuttal relevant to a single thing in your motion(s). What the judge is failing to provide in this denial is what we call the necessary “findings of fact and conclusions of law” that provide the supporting legal grounds for the denial. Neither of which they actually ever have in such cases.  This is why you should ALWAYS file a supporting “Motion to Reconsider,” or, in certain circumstances, a “Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” with any other actual motion that you file that results in an appealable negative order, ruling, or judgement.  DO NOT put either of these motion requests into the same motion that initiated the action order, as they will be automatically denied when the actual motion itself is denied.

Now, once you make ANY form of argument that the statutes are being legally misapplied to you and your private activities, you are most likely going to prompt the prosecutor or judge to say something like “Are you saying the code/ statutes/ laws don’t apply to you?” At this point the prosecution is going to chime in and supply some totally irrelevant and idiotic example claiming that some five-to-ten year-old child will suddenly be able to take off in mommy and daddy’s car any time they want because licenses aren’t really required. An example which is not only moronically stupid on its face, but also has absolutely NOTHING to do with the facts and evidence of the case before the court.

The prosecutor’s little forays into fantasy land, along with their side trip to ridiculous park, will be fully sanctioned by the judge if you fail to object properly. However, these little stories are NOT testimony per se, as this is only a motions hearing, but they ARE completely ludicrous fabrications and are not at all relevant to the facts and case before the court. So, when you object to this moronic commentary DON’T say stupid Patrinut shit like “I object, s/he’s testifying and misstating the facts judge!” Instead, stick to the commentaries total lack of relevance and the prosecutor’s dumb-assery for having made it as your basis for making the objection:

OBJECTION!  How badly the prosecutor would allow their child to behave if these statutes never actually applied to the Accused or the general public is completely irrelevant to the matter before the court, and serves no legitimate purpose other than demonstrating that the prosecutor should probably be sterilized and not allowed to care for children in general. That idiotic example of coulda’ shoulda’ woulda’ is not the law, it cannot be substituted for the law, and it has nothing to do with the actual law and facts before this court.  Therefore, I move that if the prosecutor wishes to engage in the fabrication of delusional and irrelevant fantasies that s/he resign and either write fiction books or run for public office in the legislature. Otherwise, I move that the prosecutor be instructed to stick exclusively to the facts and evidence relevant to this matter rather than their red herring theories on ‘possibility’.

Take note, as there was no actual admissible and countermanding evidence and/or any legal brief(s) filed by the prosecution alleging any opposing statutes, facts, or law that serve to rebut those contained in your own motion(s), the judge and the prosecutor have no legal leg to stand on for denying them, especially with the judge acting biasedly for the prosecution by simply denying them without legal grounds. Their imaginary “what if” example scenarios are NOT the law, nor are they the basis of the law. Just as they are NOT evidence of anything whatsoever, other than as an example of a vivid and totally irrelevant imagination.

So, one possible response to a judge that makes such an obviously prejudicial and biased statement of this nature would be:

Judge, I believe the burden of proving that the specific regulatory statutes at issue in this matter actually DO apply to the Accused rests upon the Prosecution, rather than upon the Accused to prove that they do not. It’s called “the presumption of innocence.” I would move the court to look it up in the Code of Criminal Procedure under Arts. 2.01, 2.03(b), 11.43, 35.17.2, and 38.03.

Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to allege even a single fact in the complaint and/or charging instrument that the Accused was actively engaging in some form of commercial “transportation” activity upon the highway, which is the ONLY way that these specific regulatory statutes legally CAN apply. On these grounds I move that the court take judicial notice of Article 38.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads:

Art. 38.03. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.

Further still, SB 971 as enacted by the 74th Legislature in 1995, which is the enactment that created the entire “transportation” code in its current recodified form, including the various statutes at issue in this matter, regulates a specific type of business or business related activity, that of “transportation.” An activity in which the Accused was NOT and never has been engaged, the allegation and proof of which is an essential  required fact element that the prosecution cannot presume to be true or legally prove due to a lack of admissible evidence relating to and proving said activity.

The prosecution is duty-bound to set forth EVERY element that is required to be proven at trial IN the complaint AND the charging instrument, AND must prove EVERY element at trial with ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, not hypothetical and overly ridiculous red herring arguments and contrived situations that have no relevance or bearing upon the facts of the case.

Finally, neither this court nor the prosecution may simply presume ANY required fact element of an alleged offense to be true, as that subverts the right of the Accused to the presumption of innocence of EVERY element of an alleged offense, which is fatal error, being a clear violation of the Accused’s right of due process and all. There can be no reasonable legal debate as to whether or not the act of “transportation” is a necessary fact element of the alleged offense considering that it is the specifically stated subject matter of the very legislation that created the recodified “transportation” code and the statutes therein.

There is no such fact element alleged in the complaint and charging instrument, and the state has no admissible evidence that would serve as proof of that necessary element. This lack of admissible evidence also proves that the arresting officer could not possibly have had any articulable facts or evidence supporting reasonable suspicion or probable cause, thus making the warrantless detention, seizure and arrest of the Accused completely unlawful in the first instance. Which, in turn, makes it more than clear that the state is attempting to unlawfully apply the “transportation” code and its regulatory statutes to a completely unrelated subject matter activity to which it simply and legally does NOT and CANNOT apply as said activity is entirely OUTSIDE of the code’s subject matter jurisdiction and application.

Therefore, the state has no case, as the prosecution simply cannot prove that these statutes apply without first proving that the Accused was engaged in the regulated activity of “transportation.” Which is legally impossible to do using only a law enforcement officer’s personal or professional opinion during testimony absent other admissible substantive evidence supporting that conclusion, as the officer is not qualified to make such legal determinations and conclusions and then offer them as factual opinion and evidence through testimony at trial.

Whereby, on these legal and constitutional grounds, I move for your immediate disqualification for bias, prejudice, judicial incompetence, and multiple violations of state law, the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, the rules of judicial and professional conduct, and criminal offenses constituting felony violations of Abuse of Official Capacity and Official Oppression under Sections 39.02 and 39.03 Penal Code.

In other words, ‘judge,’ fuck you, fuck the prosecutor, and fuck the rest of the dirty wharf rats whose asses and nut sacks you both kiss every day to hold onto your corrupt lying-ass jobs.

“It’s Only a Few Bad Apples…”

As you all should be aware of by now if you listen to the radio show at all, I have been working on a felony “Evading Arrest or Detention” case for the last several weeks. And if you have been listening for the last few years, then you are also aware that many of the facts and arguments I make on certain subjects have never been litigated or argued in the State of Texas Courts in a manner that addresses all of the in pari materia statutes on the particular subject. Which means that there is little to no “case law” relating to the specific argument.

The document that is posted here is a Motion to Quash Indictment that has been filed in the 63rd Judicial District Court in Terrell County Texas. I am posting it here with the full knowledge and consent of the individual that is being accused in the matter. I am also providing PDF documents for the four pleadings that I wrote for this case in links at the bottom. That way you won’t have to copy the web page and then try to massage it back into a formatted Word document if you find anything in it you might be able to use.

The Motion to Quash is quite long, but it had to be in order to cover all of the unconstitutional and illegal acts being perpetrated by the federal and local public officials in the matter so as to railroad this man into a prison sentence just to finally get rid of him. And if you can read this document and not get pissed off, then you are what is inherently wrong with America today, because it exposes the outright in-your-face corruption of the judicial process and system that runs all the way to the very top criminal court in Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. And there is no one to blame for this sort of corruption but the self-serving attorneys themselves.

I am also going to link in copies of several of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals own case opinions that proves that the Court has been and is actively engaging in and sanctioning statewide criminal violations of Texas law by every lower court and prosecutor in the entire state. And that the sanctioning of these violations is done with the specific intent of denying every individual accused of a crime in their right to substantive and procedural due process. In other words, I believe that I have proven the entire judicial department of the State of Texas to be engaging in organized criminal activity that goes above and beyond even that which we have known or suspected, and they were kind enough to provide the evidence against themselves in their own opinions.

This leaves us having to ask, just when is this bullshit going to be enough to make we the People stand up, charge, convict, and hang every damned attorney and judge in the entire country from the nearest horizontal object strong to hold them aloft until all of their kicking and squirming ceases? Think about the following statements really really hard; is there anything, and I mean anything, that has gone wrong with the course and history of this country, any incident, any disaster, any war, any terrorist governmental attack, unconstitutional law, or violation of individual rights, during its entire existence, that was not conceived, implemented, or justified by some attorney or attorney wanna’be?

Think about that. The founding fathers despised attorneys, even though many of them were attorneys. It was a bunch of Pharisee lawyers that had Jesus condemned to death. Then we had ‘Honest’ Abe Lincoln orchestrating the civil war. The prohibition era and the ‘legal’ alcohol poisoning murders of over 10,000 Americans was overseen by President Woodrow Wilson when the federal government laced all alcohol products with a poisonous recipe of chemicals that included “4 parts methanol (wood alcohol), 2.25 parts pyridine bases, 0.5 parts benzene to 100 parts ethyl alcohol” and, as TIME magazine noted, “Three ordinary drinks of this may cause blindness.” (In case you didn’t guess, the alternative phrasing “drinking that stuff will make you go blind” also isn’t just a figure of speech.). Harry S. Truman oversaw the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he went to law school to be an attorney, but never completed the degree after he won reelection as presiding county judge, even though he was informed by the state bar that he was already qualified to join the bar due to his prior court experience. Lyndon B. Johnson, the leading contender in the conspiracy to kill then President John F. Kennedy, went to law school, but never finished either — presumably because he could not have possibly passed the [pretend] ethics portion of the education. And that theme continues on through today with the Clintons and Obamas. This ‘profession’ is literally stealing everything from us, one step and piece at a time, and it must be stopped. But only we can do it. And we cannot do it by keeping our heads in the sand in the hope that the attorneys will simply pass us by because we choose to ignore their presence.

Remember, everything that Hitler did to the people of Europe and to our fighting men was ‘legal’ by the terms of the German-attorney made and enacted laws. And attorneys are doing the same things here, they have just set up a way to remove the middleman.

Like I said, the document is long, but it is an attempt to cover every possible exit and loophole that the corrupt individuals within the courts and judicial system might seek to squeeze their rat-like personages through so as to deprive an innocent man of not only his liberty, but also the few remaining months of his life with his family and friends.

So READ this, and don’t just think or wonder about it, DO something. SAY something. SCREAM something, at someone, anyone, everyone, that we are sick and tired of this kind of thing being done not only to us, but in our own name, by a bunch of corrupt self-serving communist-state loving sycophants!!

It is time to choose. Do you want FREEDOM, or freedumb?

 

 

Court – We’ve Won Another One!

Okay, the documents from this win is IN ADDITION TO the previous win that I announced, although it IS relating to the same individual as the previous win.

The statutes don’t lie, unlike the cops, attorneys, and courts. And like any other board game, if they can control the rules, they can control the game. So DON’T let them control the rules.  OBJECT to ANY deviation from the prescribed rules of procedure, EVEN if they have “case law” that allegedly sanctions their actions.

When my pleadings for the felony case are completed, I will be posting them in their ENTIRETY for all to see and study, because they will tell you a LOT about the total corruption that IS the judicial and Bar system.

And by the time you are done reading them, it is my hope that no attorney or judge on the planet will ever again feel safe about showing his or her sorry corrupt face outside of their door or walking down the street, because I am going to be exposing them for the rotting scumbags they are.

 

beardsley-carl-001

beardsley-carl-002

Trial – Undermining the State’s Unsubstantiated Legal Presumptions and Conclusions.

What do you do when you are attempting to cross-examining the officer on the stand about the actual facts and evidence the officer relied upon that allegedly support the legal presumptions and conclusions that s/he made in the field during your initial encounter with them at the “transportation” stop, and the Prosecution objects to your questioning of the witness about such things?

Let’s look at what usually happens at trial in such cases.

Prosecutor:    Officer, what was Mr. Craig doing when you had reason to take notice of him?

Officer:           Mr. Craig was “operating” his “motor vehicle” on I-35 at 70MPH in a zone marked for a maximum speed of 60MPH, which was “not reasonable and prudent” at the time “under the circumstances and conditions then existing.”

In his/her testimony, the officer has testified to five specific and totally erroneous legal determinations and conclusions, i.e. “operating,” “motor vehicle,” “not reasonable and prudent,” “under the circumstances and conditions then existing,” and the belief that the posted speed signs apply to anything other than a commercial motor vehicle under the provisions of Sec. 201.904 of the “Transportation” Code. These unsubstantiated claims by the officer during testimony constitutes the making of legal determinations and conclusions because, 1) these are terms defined by statute with specific legal, contextual, and subject matter meanings, and 2) the officer is not legally qualified or capable of making or testifying to a legal determination of law, and, therefore, cannot legally declare whether or not the statutory definition actually does apply to the Accused under the circumstances and conditions as they are currently known and existing.

However, without fail, when you begin to cross-examine the officer as to how s/he came to make such legal determinations and conclusions, the Prosecutor will usually jump up and begin making a rather interesting objection, considering the circumstances under which it is being made. It will usually go something like this:

Objection! The officer isn’t required to know those things and isn’t competent to testify as to any legal determinations or conclusions that s/he is being asked to make or testify to at this or any other time.”

(Yes, this is literally an objection that I personally witnessed one Prosecutor make almost verbatim in a trial. Most others have usually been fairly similar in their own individual objections).

Now, in volleyball parlance, this is what is known as a “set at the net,” and it is supposed to be the golden opportunity for a member of the team controlling the ball to “set it up” so that another teammate can be the first to get close to the net, jump really high, and spike the ball in the face of the opposing team to score a point. However, the problem with this set up becomes very apparent when the setting team member realizes that they accidentally set the ball too close to the net and within reach of the opposing team’s own high-jumping blocker/spiker who is already at the net, and who now has the opportunity to spike the ball back and gain his/her team control of the serve.

And this is what that spike looks like once the other team has inadvertently set you up on cross-examination with an objection worded fairly similarly to the one above so as to allow you the opportunity to spike it right back in their face:

Judge, I would like to make this point-by-point response to the prosecution’s objection. During this entire trial the witness for the Prosecution has done absolutely nothing but testify to their own arbitrary legal presumptions and conclusions made at the time of the initial encounter, despite the adamant objections of the Accused. And now, the prosecution wants the court to sustain an objection from them in which they claim that not only is the state’s accuser and only witness not required to actually read and understand the laws and statutes at issue before even attempting to make legal presumptions and conclusions claiming  that the Accused allegedly violated them, but also that that same witness is suddenly legally incompetent to testify when asked by the Accused to explain the specific facts and evidence the officer relied upon to reach those legal presumptions and conclusions at the time of the encounter. The very same legal presumptions and conclusions that the witness has already been allowed to testify to on behalf of the State over the strenuous objections of the Accused. Objections that have all been overruled by this very court despite there being no basis in law for doing so.

Therefore, if the court intends to sustain the Prosecution’s objection that the witness lacks legal competency to testify to the specific facts and evidence allegedly supporting those very same legal presumptions and conclusions made by the witness in this matter, then I move the court to declare the witness legally incompetent and unqualified to testify for all purposes, including, but not limited to, those relating to any such legal determinations and conclusions remaining or already testified to thus far, and that his/her entire testimony be stricken from the record.

Now, if the judge actually grants this motion to strike the witness’s testimony, which the law requires under any normal circumstances that involve real justice and due process, then the next step is to demand a dismissal of the case with prejudice, as the State has no substantive facts or evidence that an eyewitnesses could use to testify against you.

Congratulations, you have now spiked the ball so hard in face of the Prosecution that it permanently tattoos “Voit” across their forehead, and your team now controls the serve.

Patrinuts – Here we go yet again. The Micheal C. School Theory of Law & Liability

Okay, we’ve been here a time or two before, but it appears that we must do so yet again.

What happens when legal theory collides with legal fact and the facts are irrefutable and correct? It is in this aftermath of such a collision that the Patrinut community runs into some seriously unstable legal ground. And to make matters even worse, they still choose to build their symbolic legal house that is their legal theory on that same unstable ground. This is as financially suicidal as building a million dollar home over a known unstable sinkhole knowing that you can never get insurance coverage.

Case in point, one “Michael C. School,” who thinks that his understanding of “trust law” is the golden ray of sunshine guaranteed to repel government and its agents on every level, sort of like sunshine, garlic, or holy water to a vampire.  There is only one little problem, what do you think the vampire will actually do if you are relying upon a simple flashlight, fake garlic, or regular tap water instead of the real thing?

Well, let’s find out.



Michael C School  Michael C School Jerry Howe The first step i did was in Common Law and created a Poormans Patent on the Testamentary Succession Revocation so the State cant deny my Rights. After i completed that part of the Process, then i filed for the name change in Court.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:45am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe I’m guessing you have already completed a UCC-1 filing with your secretary of state is that correct Michael? So you’re now a Secured Party Creditor?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:49am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So for what reason(s) are you saying that you did this Michael? In laymans terms?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:53am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So the state can’t deny your rights to what exactly?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:55am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Tao Lauw, Randy Neroni, your thoughts or questions on this.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:57am

Michael C School  Michael C School  The State cant use presumptive authority against me anymore. A grand jury has to convene with an Indictment signed by a lawful judge. A cop cant just stop me and harrass me unless he witness’s me commit a breach of the peace. UCC-1 is inferior to this by Contract, so no i have not filed a UCC-1 against the all caps name. I rescinded the original contract granting authority to create the Strawman account, which “should” also revoke power of attorney from the IRS all in one step. Filing a UCC-1 would still leave me under Presumptive Authority because Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked from the State.
Michael C School  Michael C School From the Office of Michael C. School
Executor of this Instrument
To: Public Notice
I Michael Charles School “One of The People” and also One of the People of the State of California Claim this as the correct spelling of my Lawful Birth Name. The ALL CAPS NAME OF MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL IS A Fictional Entity Negotiable Debt Instrument created by the State without any disclosure to my parents who were the Lawful Guardians and Custodians of my Body and the Executor’s of my Share of the Trust until I reached the age of majority.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution.
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
I Hereby Revoke any and all Implied Testamentary Succession privilege The State has acquired without My Consent. The Clean Hands Doctrine applies to all Fiduciaries bound by Oath to Protect the Beneficiary of the Trust which is Michael C. School ONLY. MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL is a DBA Fiction (Doing Business As) This is Usury as Michael Charles School does not operate as a 3rd party fictional re-presentation of the Living Being. Michael Charles School is a Pro Se’ 1st Party Contractor ONLY who uses Written Instruments Lawfully Executed as my “Will.” Article 1 Section 10.1 (Obligation of Contracts cannot be Impaired.)
Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].”

“The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. ”
City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922): “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief.
Executor of this Instrument
Michael Charles School
Autograph Date

Witness

Before me, _____________________________, the subscriber, personally appeared Michael Charles School, to me known to be the Living Soul described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and sworn before me that they executed the same as their own free will act and deed.

Witness Autograph ______________________________ (California Jurat Attached)

Date___________________
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:05pm

Michael C School  Michael C School I believe this is where the Sovereign movement fails as Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked but the Strawman account has been validated by Authenticating the Birth Certificate which i did not do. Yet……

Michael C School  Michael C School This is new ground for me and i believe i have completed it correctly. If i made a mistake anywhere i would appreciate the input so we may have a complete process for Remedy all the faster.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:08pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Seems like magic scroll theory to me.
The “state ” doesn’t presume anything. It’s officer shitforbrains that makes presumptions and initiates controversy, or takes advantage of potential controversy.

Michael C School  Michael C School Thats a great opinion Randy, but where are your Facts? Officer SFB implements departmental Policy not the Law.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:29pm

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw One might ask the exact same thing for this lame brained theory that “the state can’t do A, B, or C to me because of my magic make-a-wish document.”
Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Tao Lauw Eddie you are a follower not a leader, thats the difference between us. You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law. By your response its obvious that Jurisdictionary is all you got. “People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.”
Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY)
[But then again Eddie, you have an all caps name on your drivers license as a Debtor not a Secured Party Creditor.] “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”
Ohio L. Ins. & T Co. vDebolt, 16 How 416, 14 L. Ed. 997
[Oh but you are a Citizen or Natural Person you say?] “governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure.”
Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581
[Hmm how do i Occupy the Office of the Executor of the Estate as One of the People since i am the Beneficiary of the Trust, not the Surety like Eddie Hmm that sounds like CONTRACT LAW.http://jec.unm.edu/…/online-training/contract-law-tutorial] “Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisos of either, it is so far void.” Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840).– FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464, Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138 -178) “Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators enforce statutes and codes.–It is abiding truth that “[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). HARRIS V. NEW YORK U.S. Supreme Court•401 U.S. 222 (1971)
“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Terral v. Burke Construction Co.,.
—Royal Indemnity Co. v. Werner, 979 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1992) explains that “A Claimant is damaged upon filing of a complaint.”, “All Codes, Rules and Regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human / Creators in accordance with God’s law. All Codes, Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process as applied to Sherwood T. Rodrigues.” – Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan (US Secretary of Labor) 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)—CONSTITUTIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC INFERIORITY habitually misbehave, and have no sense of responsibility to their fellowmen or to society as a whole. These individuals fail to learn by experience and are inadequate, incompatible, and inefficient. State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297, 300; Wilson v. Walters, Cal.App., 112 P.2d 964.—1983 Caselaw- COLOR OF LAW
Only two allegations are required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “First, the Plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). See Tillman v. Coley, 886 F.2d 317, 319 (11th Cir. 1989); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989); Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, Ala., 880 F.2d 348, 352 (11th Cir. 1989). JOHNSON V. CANNON, (M.D.FLA. 1996)United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division•947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

 

Tao Lauw  Tao LauwMichael C SchoolBlah blah blah. One, I DON’T even HAVE a license and haven’t had one for over a decade. I don’t register my cars or anything at all. 

So please don’t try to tell me what I have, much less what I know. However, unlike your attempt to make ME look stupid, let’s take a tour of the demonstrable stupidity of your so-called facts in your imbecilic comments:

0) This is possibly the most idiotic statement I have seen in awhile:

“You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law.”

Just what the hell do you think contract, consumer, and business law IS if not STATUTORY Braniac? Pull you head out of your ass, soon, because the lack of oxygen is costing you your precious few remaining brain cells.

1) Your Rodriguez case cite is as fake as your last IQ test. And the fact that you don’t KNOW that proves that your ‘research’ is either moronically sloppy or non-existent.

2) Your Terral cite is ALSO incorrect AND taken COMPLETELY out of context. Here is the full sentence of the cite:

“The principle established by the more recent decisions of this Court is that a state may not, in imposing conditions upon the privilege of a foreign corporation’s doing business in the state, exact from it a waiver of the exercise of its constitutional right to resort to the federal courts, or thereafter withdraw the privilege of doing business because of its exercise of such right, whether waived in advance or not. The principle does not depend for its application on the character of the business the corporation does, whether state or interstate, although that has been suggested as a distinction in some cases.”

Proving once again your Patrinut sucking skills is better than your vetting skills. Here is the ENTIRE opinion just in case you learn to read:

https://supreme.justia.com/…/federal/us/257/529/case.html

3) The Ohio Life Ins. case DOESN’T exist under the cite you have, nor does it exist in similarly named cases. You are now up to four self-inflicted FUBARs in just one comment. But, you seem to enjoy making slanderous comments about others while not doing your own ball-check before stepping into the ring, and now we’re going to see just how well you handle facts over fiction.

4) The CORRECT cite for Lansing is “Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829),” and that case went AGAINST the individual and FOR the corporate state. The proposition of the case was this:

“In New York, it was long considered as settled law that the state succeeded to all the rights of the crown and parliament of England in lands under tide waters, and that the owner of land bounded by a navigable river within the ebb and flow of the tide had no private title or right in the shore below high-water mark, and was entitled to no compensation for the construction, under a grant from the legislature of the state, of a railroad along the shore between high and low-water mark, cutting off all access from his land to the river, except across the railroad.”

In other words, it DISPROVES your intended implied use of the case in bolstering your so-called position.

5) The Luther case is one that you are ALSO taking out of context and offers no support for your alleged ‘process’ OR ‘paperwork’ methods. The full sentence of THAT cite goes like this:

” No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government and establishing a new one in its place is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it.”

As anyone with an IQ higher than the number of ounces in an average can of soda can see, the case is speaking of the unified political body of the people, not one guy that thinks he’s found the way to write his own personal incantations to ward off the state.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html

6) The correct cite for Houston is “Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820),” and guess what, you are using ANOTHER shit-cite. It doesn’t exist in the opinion. So sorry, want a lollipop, ’cause this ass-whoopin’ is about to continue.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/

7) On to other non-surprises, your Mapp case cite is as non-existent as your ability to make a winning argument! No such language, implication, inference, or wild fucking guess is to be found in the opinion.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/

Bro’, I could do this ALL day and ALL night, because I totally fucking LIVE to destroy STUPID in all its forms. But, since I believe I have CLEARLY established that you really ARE the fucking moron I only assumed you originally were, I’m not gonna’.

The next time you want to appear intelligent and like you know what the fuck you are even doing on this planet, go talk to a kindergartner, maybe they won’t make you look so fucking stupid if you just stay in your corner of the sandbox.

supreme.justia.com

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · 15 hrs · Edited

Dan Bramschreiber  Dan Bramschreiber ha ha ha he surely hasn’t listened very much or very long.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Have you heard of Trust Law? Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].” Juridictionary will only take you so far in life…….
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:30pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni It is a great opinion. On that we agree.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:33pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Can you show me where i am wrong in the Law?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:34pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Yes I can. You ready ?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:35pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Who has the burden of proof?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe State in a criminal proceeding.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Ive already rescinded the Contract granting Presumptive Authority to the “State.”
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Michael C School  Michael C School I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Can you prove all that stuff you’ve accused yourself of?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Michael C School  Michael C School It works in Court
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Saying it works in a court and proving it did are two different things I’m looking for the proof.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:41pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni It’s all false witness. False witness against self is still false witness.
Why anyone still attempts to prove anything in a venue where he cannot prove any claim he makes, is beyond me.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:43pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Lol! I posted my Doc’s as you requested and i am a firsthand witness. I have a Counter-Plaintiff Complaint template, just got to find it and i will post it. Defendant is the Surety. Counter-Plaintiff is a Beneficiary.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:43pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Randy do you understand Precedence and Precedent are not one and the same?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:44pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I understand what file your documents are going.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:46pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe I saw you docs Michael. Interesting they are, but they are not evidence in and of themselves that you have gained some sort of advantage or remedy.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:47pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Let’s create an example scenario for the documents use.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:50pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I’ve seen people try to argue this stuff to a judge that I know was giggling on the inside.

He was so encouraging though. He’d say “so how is it that the statutes don’t apply to you?”.

He’d listen to the whole thing and then say “that’s your opinion, the court disagrees. What else you got? “.

Must have been a slow day and they were bored.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:52pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So, say your local county court issues a warrant for your arrest for failure to appear on a traffic violation/summons issued by a sheriffs deputy. Let’s say that warrant is issued in the all caps name. Does this name change thing mean you can just ignore the warrant? Is that what you’re saying Michael C School?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:55pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Does it mean that if you are arrested on that warrant that they have the wrong guy?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:57pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Really Michael, I’m just trying to ascertain what verifiable advantage or remedy you propose to get out of this name change. Because unless there is some advantage or remedy to be gained from it, than it seems to me your time would be much better spent studying the use of Title 42 so that you can get remedy.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 1:22pm · Edited

Tao Lauw  Tao LauwTick, tock, tick, tock… methinks he hid beneath a rock.
Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School I have 4 kids and a life, Eddie, Randy Neroni why dont you guys debate me on the air? Randy Dees with the Wake Up Mission or Randy Shannon with 42 Action. 1983 is great if you like inferior Jurisdiction. Pro Se’ is the best position to bring forth a Title 42 1981 action. You are unlimited in your ability to CONTRACT.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981 Tick Tock Eddie

  42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by wh…

law.cornell.edu
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Debate you about what exactly?
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School There’s more to Law than you think. Do you know how to enforce your Rights and create your own enforceable Contract?
<Link to more Patrinut bullshit removed in the interest of public safety>
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni You know what I know and think?
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School I know you only know part of the law like Eddie and i see how you both hide behind each other instead of use Law in your replies. Acing Business Associations (Acing Law School )
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Thats a good book to get, its on Amazon cheap.
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I agree with Eddie because he knows what he’s talking about. Knowledge is a big deal with me.
Like · Reply · 2 · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I used law on you earlier. You put the burden on yourself and couldn’t meet that burden. I didn’t win so much as you ensured you couldn’t win.
That’s exactly what would happen with your tactic in a judicial setting.
You want to prove that statutes don’t apply to you as an affirmative defense rather than leave the burden of proof on an accuser.

What possible advantage is in that?
Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School You didnt quote any law. You posed a question, i answered. I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People. The State cannot proceed without an injured party and the State cannot be an injured party to an action.
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Injury is not the only way a party can have standing. A legal cause of action can also suffice.
Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Depends on how much law you know. An entity has inferior standing to One of the People. Was there a Breach of the Peace witnessed by an officer of the Law? Corporations have Charters which can be revoked for breach of Ethics, Breach of Fiduciary obligation, Contract Fraud, etc..
Like · Reply · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni How many charters have you revoked?
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni How many suits have you defended ? How many prosecuted?
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Why didnt you accept the on air debate then? HMM.. Tao is a follower of Jurisdictionary but cant create an enforceable Contract.
Like · Reply · 15 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw “Follower of JurisDictionary?” You are smoking too many of your own turds there dude. I suggest that you make note of the comments I have posted here that might just be taking the wind out of your sails and your clobberfoot out of your ignorant mouth.
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni He wants to debate what I think, according to the answer he gave.
Is that accurate, Michael?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw  Randy NeroniHe lost that debate before he even made the challenge, he’s just too wrapped up in his Patrinut blanket to see a clue.
Like · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Tao & Randy, thanks for taking the time to set this straight. Michael‘s not the only member of this group who is still clinging to some of the various patrinut myths.But this is not the first time I’ve called him out on it because I’ve caught drift of him attempting to impose or propagate those theories over the use of real remedies such as what this group was founded upon. At least when it comes to some of the other folks who might still be clinging to these false beliefs and false hopes, they tend to remain quiet here in this group. And that’s OK because I figure, in time, if they keep reading and researching their beliefs might evolve past the nonsense. For that reason I really hate the idea of throwing people out of the group. However, in this case, because this has become an obviously ingrained pattern for Michael C School, I’m probably going to have to remove him from the group. I’m going to make a final determination on that later today. Once again, I thank both of you for your time and I certainly appreciate all the invaluable knowledge and skills you bring to this group.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 5 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Jerry HoweThen might I suggest that you take his more egregious comments here and make a single post out of them, as well as my refutation of those comments. At least then, people won’t be so willing to just jump on the phantom silver bullet bandwagon.
Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Lame asses is what you are.
Like · Reply · 43 mins

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Michael C SchoolYeah, excellent point-by-point refutation of the facts provided. Grow the fuck up.

You posted bullshit as truth and then reaped a whirlwind of ass-kicking corrections to your bogus information. You get off on passing off bogus information as if it is irrefutable fact and then you call US lame-asses?

Your ability to insult others is on par with your ability to do legal research and comprehend law, lower than whale shit on the bottom of the Laurentian Abyssal.

Like · Reply · 1 · 33 mins

Michael C School  Michael C School You two are ridiculous. Good riddance. Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law.
Like · Reply · 32 mins

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Michael C School – Your statement “Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law is irrelevant considering that you know even less than nothing about either if your other information is any indication. You are floundering more and more every time you open your mouth.

And now you’ve gone and forced me to make you famous as a perfect example of all that is wrong with the Patrinut theory of law. Way to go jackass.
Like · Reply · 1 · 29 mins

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni He’s another one that’s going to claim I’m wrong as he goes into the cage.
Like · Reply · 1 · 21 mins



So, as you can see, even when given the facts that refute their already shaky lawful and legal foundation, they can’t get over their own cognitive dissonance to see past the fallacy of their understanding of the case opinions, the statutes involved, and piss poor arguments, much less the total fallacy of their now thoroughly discredited legal theory.

It is this very type of legal disinformation and delusional strategy that is costing people their rights and property at an already tremendous and ever escalating rate. NEVER take a case cite or statutory explanation at face value, regardless of how allegedly trustworthy the source, especially if it’s an attorney. Learn to both read and fully understand them for your own sake.

MEME - Beware of Stupidty &amp; Liberals T-Shirt