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. 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 court in Texas and elsewhere. The courts simply don’t read the statutes within 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. If it does, then truly understanding the following explanation of how these terms work is wholly necessary to interpreting the statute correctly and in accordance with the laws of “this state” 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” (expansion) 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 by 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.

This is a completely unacceptable level of judicial and legal 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, they are required to know how to properly read it, interpret it, understand it, and apply it, and how to do each of these things in a manner that remains consistent with, and entirely within, its proper legislatively intended context. 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 an hour to consult 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. However, you must also understand that a statute that is 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. Which means, the terms “includes” and “including” are able to be “enlarged” only in a certain way, and that way requires that the definition be read only as “enlarging” to encompass those things that are naturally within the same specific class of persons, things, 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.

What this basically means is that all of the items following “includes” or “including” must have an identifiable 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 following it after the “includes/including.”

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 an entire list that “includes” or is “including” only “legal entities.” The terms “natural person” and “individual” are normally construed to be part of a completely different natural classification than all the other fictional entities specifically listed, 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.

But how would one go about harmonizing such totally dissimilar terms into a single harmonious classification that is not ridiculous to conclude? Well, in this case, the one that makes the most logical sense is to try and harmonize the term(s) that are in the minority and whose normal classification is different than the other things listed (“natural person/individual”), into the classification associated with the majority of the things listed (“legal entities”). So, ask yourself, how would a “natural person/individual” be capable of fitting into the same classification as a “legal entity,” so that the rules of statutory construction relating to the use of the terms “includes” and “including” in law are not violated? That 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, and therefore, can act only through one or more “natural persons/individuals” acting as its agent(s). This is the only form in which such an agent can exist and function for the benefit the legal entity. Isn’t every officer, agent, employee, or trustee of a “legal entity” actually a “natural person/individual?” Can they be anything else? Can one “legal entity” act as the agent for another “legal entity” sua sponte without a “natural person/individual” making the decisions and then acting on its behalf as well? Of course not, as that would be a “ridiculous result.”

C’mon Alice, don’t you get it now? Follow the white rabbit, step through the looking glass, get your head out of your ass and pay attention, or 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, or trustee of one or more of the specific types of legal entities specifically listed in the definition that we are alleged/alleging to represent. This 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” “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, yet the courts ignore the rules so as to interpret the same term of art in a myriad of ways to get their own desired outcome in some particular case at hand, if you leave them the means to do so.

When used in law, “includes” limits the items listed to a readily identifiable natural relationship. This is done via what you could call a “relational class” that is naturally relative to all of the things that are listed, but that also allows for “enlargement” by allowing other things that fall within that same natural relational class to be considered as inclusive with the other listed items, even though they are not made specifically 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” or “bananas,” because they don’t share the citrus fruit class relationship.

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

In THIS configuration, the term “includes” is 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 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, the list is 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,” i.e. no other natural relationship exists between them.

I can hear you 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 natural 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.

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 to BE capable of “enlargement,” there MUST be something of the same natural relational class that is NOT specifically listed but IS applicable simply because it has the same naturally occurring class relationship.

Therefore, if the list IS 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, 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.

I would also add that when the legislature intends the definition to be non-expansive they will write, “The term ‘fruit’ means…” or “means and includes,” which then limits the definition to only those things expressly stated in the definition (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 truly means and 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.

 

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

“When a Stranger Returns…”

Well, the individual that sent the email from my article “When A Stranger Calls… or Emails” has returned. He seems a bit more angry, or at least more snide, than in his original email.  But that is okay.  If he has no real desire to learn, but only to denigrate others that happen to be more informed and educated on a particular legal subject than he is, or is willing to even admit that he is, then nothing I can say or show him will make any difference anyway.

As before, please be respectful in your commentary, and address the issues involved here  from an educational perspective and not an accusatory or ad hominem manner.  Thank you.

His response email:



You are arguing that that having licencing for something such as driving in an of itself is unconstitutional. Following that argument, any laws pertaining to such as also unconstitutional. You can’t be charged with driving while suspended, because what are you in fact suspended from? Perhaps you can even drive drunk, because since regulating driving is unconstitutional who can put a restriction on your constitutional right? In fact, every single police officer and ADA in the country is violating the constitution according to your argument, because I don’t don’t know of any active ones anywhere that would agree with your premise.   I would like to see the arrest records of your agency while you were in charge. I assume is very very low since you don’t see to believe in any man man laws which come after the constitution.



My reply to his email:


Thanks for the reply.

You statement as to my arguing that a license for “driving in an of itself is unconstitutional” is patently incorrect. It is you that is arguing that “driving,” and any grammatical variation thereof, is synonymous with the individual right to privately access and use the public right-of-way for the purpose of traveling for one’s own private business or pleasure. The case law on that subject simply doesn’t agree with you as far as these two things being synonymous, and with good reason. They simply aren’t.

The grammatical variations of the legal terms of art, “drive/driver/driving,” are terms related to the same legislative subject matter, i.e. “transportation,” i.e. commercial use of the highways, by engaging in the business of “transportation” for private profit or gain. This is in no way synonymous with the public’s individual right to travel upon that same highway for private purposes without a license or anything else that is associated with “transportation.”  OUR private actions have nothing to do with that regulated occupation, and they are not subject to any regulatory requirements associated therewith.

It is the application of the “transportation” statutes regulating a business activity/profession to the private activities and common law rights of the public that is actually unconstitutional, because those statutes do not apply to them, and they never have.

All persons, in the absence of legislative edict, are vested with the right to the use of the streets and highways for travel from one place to another in connection with their business when such use is incidental to that business. This is an ordinary use of the streets and highways and is frequently characterized as an inherent or natural right. No person has an inherent or natural right, however, to make the streets or highways his place of business. Such a use is generally characterized as an extraordinary use.” (Green v. City of San Antonio, 178 S.W. (Tex.) 6; Hadfield v. Lundeen, 98 Wn. 657; LeBlanc v. City of New Orleans, 138 La. 243; Ex parte Dickey, 85 S.E. (W.Va.) 781; Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820; Melconian v. City of Grand Rapids, 218 Mich. 397.

As to your assertion of “driving” drunk, you would also be incorrect on that point for multiple reasons.

First off, using a car, or any type of device or equipment, in a populated public place while physically impaired is not a “crime” only under the “transportation” code. It is an actual Penal Code offense as well, but, it cannot be one related to “driving” or “operating” a “motor vehicle.” Instead, it must be alleged as reckless endangerment or negligence. If the activity actually results in death or injury to another or their property, then there could also be additional charges that would apply. No one has the inherent right to engage in an act that in and of itself creates an imminent danger to the life, rights, or property of another, such as using a car on a populated public highway under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The operative word here being imminent. The threat of injury caused by such activity must be far greater and much more likely than simply possible in order to be construed as an imminent threat.

Secondly, someone using their car on their own private property, where no imminent danger to others or to someone else’s private property exists, is in no way presenting any possibility of imminent danger to anyone but themselves and their own property. The state has no grounds for charging them with a crime in that instance, regardless of what police and prosecutors might think of the activity.
As to your last diatribe as to what I think and believe, you are only partially correct. NONE of the “ADA’s” or “CA’s” nationwide actually are doing it correctly, and the law would prove that if anyone actually cared to read and understand it, which most of them don’t. You would also be right that I don’t consider any law or governmental action that is in violation of the state and federal constitutions or individual rights to be a valid use of any delegated powers and authority. However, if you think that violating any provisions of the constitutions and the rights of individuals is a proper use of delegated authority, especially in the forms of legislation and law enforcement, then it would appear to be you and those like you that are the biggest part of the overall problem and should be the ones getting punished. When a law or action is perpetrated by any government agency or actor that unjustly and unlawfully violates the constitutions or individual rights, then the governmental actor is the criminal, not the person being unlawfully assaulted and injured.
I wish that I had the time to show you all the ways that you have been misinformed and inadequately trained in your understanding of the actual laws and proper procedures, but I simply don’t, as I spend a great deal of my time using all the things you are claiming to be untrue to actually win cases and help others to see how these laws are being unlawfully used and misapplied.
Also, while doing so, I have had the opportunity to work with and educate several defense attorneys and a few prosecutors on the matter and had them wind up agreeing with me on my interpretation of the statutes once they had the entire picture instead of the piecemeal way that they admitted to having been trained to understand them. The same way that law enforcement officers are trained to understand them, only to a much lesser degree. It does not even matter if you are willing to believe that or not, as my record on this issue speaks for itself, as will those that I have helped.
Therefore, as I said in my first reply to you, unless you are actually willing to make a good faith and true effort to fully understand everything relating to the subject of which you are attempting to speak, then continuing to respond to your accusatory and uneducated diatribes would be counterproductive.  If you actually wish to learn more, then I will oblige as best as I can in the spare time that I have to try and assist you in doing so.  Your choice.

“When A Stranger Calls… or Emails.”

Well, I got another email today from what seems to be another law enforcement officer. As you recall, the last one was from a police chief, and is posted on this blog as the article “You’ve Got Mail.”

So, just as before with that article, I ask that any comments on this article be kept civil and for the purpose of discussion and education, not name calling or ad hominem attacks.

Here it is just as I received it, and my response just as I sent it.



 

Dear Eddie:

Just listened to some video where you are encouraging drivers to not provide paperwork when involved in a car stop. I’m not sure how you are interpreting the law, but driving a car is not a right. Before you can drive a car you are required to take a test, get a license and follow VTL requirements. As part of that driving privilege you are also required to provide proof of driving privilege to those sworn to uphold the laws of the community you are driving in. Otherwise none of us would bother getting licenses and paying fees and when we got stopped just say “sorry officer,  I’m not giving you anything including my name and there is nothing you can do” and drive away unimpeded. If we DID get stopped and arrested it would be a false arrest and we’d all be rich. Also, I don’t know about Texas, but in my state a summons in given in lieu of arrest. So if you are stopped for a vehicle infraction and fail to produce identification to prove you have a right to operate your vehicle you will be arrested for the infraction and finger printed to determine your true identity.

I’m not sure if you are one of these sovereign citizens, but it is irresponsible of you to give people misinformation which will lead them into more trouble than they are in. As a former law enforcement officer you should be aware that vehicle stops are one of the most dangerous situations a cop can be in and for you to teach people to raise tension and exacerbate the situation to make a buck selling your classes is irresponsible and unconscionable.

Thank you



 

Hello, and thank you for the email.

Having received many like it over the years, I will try to be brief in my response, which is difficult considering the various levels of disinformation upon which your premise and arguments are founded.

Therefore, while I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this subject, I can only hope that you will follow suit and be willing to listen to mine. Many of which you can read about and try to understand by going to my legal blog and reading the articles that I have written and posted there upon numerous subjects and areas of law. I will provide the web site address at the end of this reply. As an FYI, I usually take emails of this sort and re-post them to my blog as an article so that others may learn from them and see the kind of mindset that is prevalent in the good ‘ol U.S. of A. these days. Also, I do not edit the original email or publish anyone’s email address.

The history of America and the rights of the people are the first hindrances to your arguments, just as it has been to those before you.

The people have always had the right to freely move about the various states without government approval or monitoring of any kind, and they still do. The fact that a particular few that control the laws and government are trying to create the perception that this right never existed notwithstanding.

For example, changes in technology over time don’t make alterations to the rights of the people because of technological advances or regressions.  If you think they do, then please tell me what the inventions are that you think are responsible for rewriting the Bill of Rights and make the people lesser as the rightful heirs of those rights?

In our history, and long antecedent to that, throughout world history, the people have always traveled about by whatever means they could afford to have available to them, whether that be by foot, ship, wagon, horseback, chariot, etc. As technology progressed to “motor cars” the same held true.  The People were absolutely free to purchase and use the newly invented “motor car” for its intended purpose upon the public right-of-way, which was to travel further and faster than they could with a horse or wagon. They couldn’t be required to have a license or anything else, because they were, and still are, a free people.

Now, fast forward to today. The various administrative agencies in every state have worked tirelessly to create legislation that uses terminology and phrasing that makes it appear that these rights no longer exist, or ever did. This is demonstrably false by simply studying the historical record of these facts, which email shows that you have not actually done. You are instead simply parroting what you have been told your whole life with little to no effort on your part to verify and affirm the information and facts for yourself.

As for myself, however, I have done the exact opposite. I have read, researched, studied, and then read and researched and studied some more to reach the conclusions that I have, that we the People are being defrauded and lied to by those that are supposed to serve us and protect our rights. The laws neither actually read nor mean what you and all others like you have been led to believe that they do. This is by design.

Administrative agencies can only remain in place as long as they serve a legitimate purpose.  What better way to ensure your own job security than to alter the laws to make it appear that society cannot function without you and your agency?  How is this possible you are asking? Rather simply. Every department of government in every State of the union has been seized by the National and State Bar Associations. Attorneys, have complete and utter control of the judicial branch of government.  Not a single office of any power within the judicial department of any state government can be held one of the People unless they are a member of these organizations. If you were to give it any honest consideration, you must admit that this is true.

It is also true that these attorneys have major power or majority control in the other departments of government as well. Which makes this all rather easy and convenient, don’t you think? They write the laws, they adjudicate those laws, and they write the policies and procedures for administrative and law enforcement agencies telling them how to enforce them and such.  However, they don’t tell these agencies everything that is in the law, or how to actually understand it if they bother to even read it for themselves.

As a former deputy sheriff, I felt that I had a duty to fully understand the laws I was being commanded and coerced into applying to the People. Especially when my knowledge, understanding, and experience led me to believe that some of those laws were actually violating rights in how they were written and being applied. One such case is the one you raised about the State law requiring people to waive their protected right to remain silent so as to comply with the production of something associated with a privilege that you are actually only assuming that they are engaging in. This is a legal impossibility, as you cannot be compelled to testify or produce any evidence that could be used against you in a court of law or to potentially incriminate you in some way of which you may not even be aware.

The United States Supreme Court ruled long ago that a statute simply cannot require the waiver of any protected right in order to comply with a privilege statute that makes the right conditional in its availability or exercise. If you really think about it, that such a statutory requirement is or could be valid, then the Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing, as the administrative agency need only convince the Legislature to write a law that outlaws the invocation and protection of those rights by any individual or group. In other words, such legislation would be inherently and unavoidably unconstitutional, which it is unless you can prove there exists a knowing and consensual waiver of the protected right, which doesn’t actually exist under the conditions and circumstances that currently apply within the States.

Now, Texas has the same laws here as those you described, which is not unusual considering that almost every State of the union utilizes the very same National Bar Association Standards on the writing and construction of laws, so as to make them more uniform throughout the several States. However, unlike yourself, I have literally spent years studying every aspect of those specific laws and procedures, their history, and the original legislative intent at the time of their creation. My conclusions have come down to the facts and evidence that prove that a massive fraud has been and still is being perpetrated upon the People of Texas, and every other State, by our own government. All of which is being done in the name of revenue.  It is not about public safety at all. It is entirely about generating revenue, monitoring, tracking, and controlling of the entire population.

Again, think about all of the things you are told you are required to do when you have a “license” if you wish to remain “legal.” Things like, keep your personal information, such as name, DOB, and address, current at all times with the administrative agency; comply with all rules and regulations of the administrative agency; transfer your “privilege” from one agency to another if you relocate, and then follow the same procedures there for monitoring and tracking; etc., etc., etc.

Then there is the matter of the statutory schemes themselves, which are worded with the intention of deceiving the reader into thinking and believing one thing, while the actual context and overall statutory scheme itself tells a true researcher and studier of its entirety a totally different story. This too is by design and specific intent.

The statutes you speak of regulate a particular class of profession and occupation, the business of “transportation,” which is the movement of passengers, goods, or property upon the land by a carrier for compensation or hire.  They have absolutely nothing to do with the general public that is simply traveling for their own private business or pleasure upon the public right-of-way. Did it escape you that it is called the RIGHT-of-way for a reason? Could that reason be because the public has always had an absolute right to access and use the public right-of-way for their own personal business and pleasure without State interference or prohibition?

The People have a right to access and use the public right-of-way for their own private business and pleasure, but not as a place of business. THAT is the actual privilege, the business use. THAT is what requires licensing, registration, insurance, inspection, and everything else that you are assuming applies to everyone in a car. It doesn’t.  Business use = privilege.  PRIVATE use = RIGHT of use. You cannot really understand or argue anything at all about the subject of “transportation” until you are willing to examine into and truly understand those distinctions. If you do, then you would be arguing entirely out of an ignorant, un-researched, and unstudied personal belief and opinion, not fact or law. I only use fact and law, rarely opinion, and then, only if the opinion is based upon a single level of logical inference that can be derived from the existing facts and evidence. Is that what you used to construct your original email to me, or did you only use your opinion on what you think the laws and courts have actually said upon this subject?

One thing about your email that I found amusing was this where you wrote, “Otherwise none of us would bother getting licenses and paying fees and when we got stopped just say “sorry officer,  I’m not giving you anything including my name and there is nothing you can do” and drive away unimpeded. If we DID get stopped and arrested it would be a false arrest and we’d all be rich.”[sic]  What amused me was the fact that you stated all of this as if it were actually some sort of problem rather than precisely how it actually ought to be and work. If an officer has no authority to stop you in the first place, then why do you perceive that this is not a perfectly acceptable response and action?  Why should we be forced under threat of violence and punitive sanctions to get a bunch of licenses and pay a bunch of fees to do something that we already and have always had every individual right to do?  Why is it that you either don’t want, won’t accept, or don’t believe, that these rights have existed and are rightfully ours to exercise? Why do you think that the government is the true owner of the roads and not the People? Isn’t government just our elected and appointed caretakers to watch over, protect, and maintain our public property that we all have a right to access and use freely?  If not, then please try and explain to ne why you don’t think so.

There is much more to it than that small smattering of things of course, as this is but one of many links in the chain you must follow to actually begin understanding the deception that is playing out right in front of us. My legal blog will fill in more links of the chain for you, if you take the time and make the effort to read and understand it.

What you think you know about this subject simply isn’t true. You simply believe that it is, and the courts and attorneys work very hard to ensure that your perception and understanding of this remains exactly where it is and where they want it. This is what gives them power over you, me, all of us.  Convince everyone that theirs is the only true reality and then let them enforce it against each other on their own.

I simply haven’t the time or space here to teach all that I know on this subject. Nor do I have any desire to explain to you your misinformation on the alphabet-agency created nomenclature of “sovereign citizen,” which is intended to do nothing more than immediately apply a stigma of credibility to all upon whom it is slathered with a very broad, ill-informed, and uneducated brush. But if it eases your mind, no, I don’t call or consider myself a “sovereign citizen.” I am absolutely no different than you in most respects, though with some obvious differences.  For instance, I no longer accept anything a governmental entity or employ tells me at face value. I research and verify everything. And more often than not, I have proven that agency or employee to be incorrect in almost every respect and point, making them totally incompetent in their job.

All of my information is based entirely upon the law, court opinions, and historical documentation, not just my imagination like so many that are discussing and providing information in subjects like this one these days. What that means is, you can personally verify everything that I put forth for others to consume for education and study. In fact, I plead with people constantly to never simply take my word about anything I say. I implore them to look it all up for themselves and verify it through their own reading and understanding. I would ask that you take the time and effort to do the same.

Therefore, what is more irresponsible and unconscionable in your estimation, a law enforcement officer that actually understands little to nothing about the conflicts and threats to our individual rights that exist between the laws that s/he is enforcing, but who is insisting that they are doing everything right despite that lack of knowledge and understanding; a criminally corrupt court system that refuses to play by its own rules or follow the law as written so as to ensure that this massive fraud upon the American People and all of its associated crimes never becomes known to the public or allows us to hold those responsible for it accountable; having your rights stolen away by legislation that has no authority to take them, but is used as an excuse by the actors to use any level of force that they then deem necessary so as to protect themselves while destroying you, me, our children, or someone else? Is this your idea of responsible and conscionable?

Are you saying that these actions are more desirable and acceptable to you than the information that I put out there that serves to expose this massive fraudulent scam for what it is? Can you please tell me where it is written that our rights are not worth protecting simply because there is some inherent risk or danger in exercising and defending them from a corrupt system of government that would rather you, we, didn’t have them at all? Which seeks to undermine or destroy them further and further with each passing day? Can you please tell me how America came to be independent from England, or how we intend to remain a free and self-governing people, if such actions and ideas, and their associated risks, are just too unacceptable to contemplate or engage in in this modern day era in which we live? What, exactly, does freedom and liberty truly mean to you if you think that that scenario is how it is supposed to be?

I know none of this is something you might want or like to hear, but it is a fact that you are wholly ignorant and unqualified in what you do not know as well as what you think you know on this subject. You have swallowed the story without requiring any actual evidentiary proof and verification whatsoever. Which I totally understand as being rather hard to own up to if confronted and challenged on it, but it’s the truth nonetheless. However, you can make the effort to change that if you wish.

Again, thank you for the email, but you are mistaken in your understanding of the law and the facts of what is a right and what is a privilege.

The legal blog is here:  taooflaw.wordpress.com

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.

When Cognitive Dissonance Becomes the Societal Norm.

What do you do when stupidity and apathy become the norm of everyday life with every person you meet and interact with? I’m not just talking about having to deal with a handful of the same people every single day, but virtually everyone that you come into contact with.

I seem to recall a movie that traversed this scenario some years back that was appropriately titled “Idiocracy.” Man, was it something special, because I could actually recognize so much of what was becoming so prevalent already. The idiots rise to power and control.

Which brings me to the main point of this article, recognizing when you are interacting with one of the main “Idiocracy” support role characters in real life.  I’ll leave it up to you to determine which character that is in the following conversation from Facebook. Pay close attention, because you soon ARE going to have to interact with people just like this in every day life, if you aren’t stuck with them already.

Just read through this conversation and and see just where the mental disconnects are actually coming from. But, most importantly, recognize them as such, because failure to do so might just be your last opportunity to avoid any future contact with such a person. This conversation evolved like something out of a “Dilbert” cartoon where Dilbert is trying to explain a technical problem to his pointy-haired and utterly clueless boss.



facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-001facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-002facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-003facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-004facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-005facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-006facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-007facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-008facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-009facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-010facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-011facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-012facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-013facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-014facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-015facebook-post-ignorance-of-law-016