Working Outline of Motion Challenging Constitutionality of the Entire Recodification of the Texas “Transportation” Code via SB 971.

  1. Unconstitutional Judicial Alteration of Well-Established Law on the Proper Meaning and Use of Terms of Art, Thus, Unconstitutionally Affecting Legislative Purpose and Intent While Unlawfully Expanding the Scope of Legislation.

    1. The term “transportation”1 is a legal “term of art” having a specific meaning within the specific context of “transportation” related professions and occupations, and is not directly related to the actions and activities of the general public acting in their private common law capacities and activities.

      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. 2 (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. 3 (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.

      When we are interacting with it in any way, the legal system constantly and subversively presumes and construes our every use of language as being the same as its own legal terms of art rather than the real common English meaning and usage. The primary reason that there is any misunderstanding at all about this fact is because those operating professionally 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.

      But this is a lie, because they have neither the authority nor any legitimate purpose for addressing or dealing with any one of we the People except in the context of, and in relationship to, some breach of law or legal duty and any related legal process associated therewith. This is the entire reason that the system of law has developed its own language, as well as law-related dictionaries containing the definitions of its legal terms and phrases. These legal dictionaries are positive proof that a term or phrase of art actually means something different when used in relation to law, which is the only way that our public servants and the courts can use it, than it does in the common English manner that we the People use that identical word or phrase every day.

      Further proof of this point is found in the reading of Secs. 311.011, 311.016, 311.021, 312.001, 312.002, and 312.005, Texas Government Code:


      GOVERNMENT CODE
      TITLE 3. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
      SUBTITLE B. LEGISLATION
      CHAPTER 311. CODE CONSTRUCTION ACT
      SUBCHAPTER B. CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES
      Sec. 311.011. COMMON AND TECHNICAL USAGE OF WORDS.
      (a) Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.
      (b) Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.

      Sec. 311.016. “MAY,” “SHALL,” “MUST,” ETC. The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:
      (1) “May” creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.
      (2) Shallimposes a duty.
      (3) “Must” creates or recognizes a condition precedent.
      (4) “Is entitled tocreates or recognizes a right.

      (5) “May not” imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with “shall not.”
      (6) “Is not entitled to” negates a right.
      (7) “Is not required to” negates a duty or condition precedent.

      Sec. 311.021. INTENTION IN ENACTMENT OF STATUTES. In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:
      (1) compliance with the constitutions of this state and the United States is intended;
      (2) the entire statute is intended to be effective;
      (3) a just and reasonable result is intended;

      (4) a result feasible of execution is intended; and
      (5) public interest is favored over any private interest.

      GOVERNMENT CODE
      TITLE 3. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
      SUBTITLE B. LEGISLATION
      CHAPTER 312. CONSTRUCTION OF LAWS
      SUBCHAPTER A. CONSTRUCTION RULES FOR CIVIL STATUTES
      Sec. 312.001. APPLICATION. This subchapter applies to the construction of all civil statutes.
      Sec. 312.002. MEANING OF WORDS.
      (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), words shall be given their ordinary meaning.
      (b) If a word is connected with and used with reference to a particular trade or subject matter or is used as a word of art, the word shall have the meaning given by experts in the particular trade, subject matter, or art.
      Sec. 312.005. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. In interpreting a statute, a court shall diligently attempt to ascertain legislative intent and shall consider at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.
      (Emphasis added).
    2. Section 311.011(a) is neither vague nor ambiguous when it places a legal duty upon all branches of government to read and apply every statute in every code in its proper context, which, in the case of the Texas “Transportation” Code, is the context of “transportation” and its legal meaning and usage as term of art related solely to a profession or occupation. So sayeth the Legislature in the Caption/Title of SB 971(“SB 971”), the legislative Bill responsible for the alleged recodification of Vernon’s statutory scheme into the current Texas “Transportation” Code scheme.

    3. Sections 311.011(b) and 312.002(b) make it very clear that Texas courts cannot lawfully refuse to recognize that the Legislature of the State of Texas must be presumed to have already known and understood the proper historical legal meaning of “transportation” as a legal “term of art.” And that, when the legislature allegedly recodified Vernon’s pre-existing statutes relating to “transportation” into a singular regulatory code having the same specific name as the legislative subject matter, they both knew and intended to regulate the activities and use of objects relating to a particular class of profession or occupation and not the general public.

      For any Texas court at any level to try and use judicial interpretation to disingenuously conclude and rule otherwise, which would be a direct violation of the court’s legal duties as imposed by Secs. 311.011(b) and 312.002(b), is nothing short of judicial hubris and an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority in violation of the separation of powers clause of Article 2, Texas Constitution.

    4. Sections 311.011(b) and 312.002(b) also make it very clear that Texas courts are not free to use judicial interpretation to simply alter the historical and legal meaning of the term “transportation” to suit their own desired agenda or some predisposed outcome to one or more particular cases involving particular facts that are inherently legally dependent upon the term’s common historical legal meaning and usage. Thus, any judicial alteration by interpretation would unconstitutionally and unlawfully result in the fundamental alteration of the intent and purpose of such legislation in lieu of that specifically stated and intended by the Legislature.

  2. Unconstitutional Enactment Through Multiple Facets of Legislative Fraud.

    1. The Caption/Title of Senate Bill 971 contains an unconstitutional and fraudulent Caption/Title declaration. The Caption/Title reads, “AN ACT relating to the adoption of a nonsubstantive revision of statutes relating to transportation, including conforming amendments, repeals, and penalties”. (Emphasis added).

    2. The Caption/Title of SB 971 is fraudulent because the recodification does, in fact, contain numerous substantive changes throughout the Bill that completely alters or eliminates one or more pre-SB 971 legislative objects that existed at the time of the recodification, thus, substantially altering the pre-existing statutes in ways that creates entirely new legislative objects while eliminating others. How are such alterations to the pre-existing statutes not the exact opposite of nonsubstantive?

    3. This fraudulent Caption/Title violates both the Public’s right to have not only proper notice of the subject matter of any proposed legislation, but also the legislations specific purpose and intent, and, therefore, is a direct violation of the specific prohibitions, spirit, and intent, of the provisions of Art. 3, Secs. 32 and 35, Texas Constitution.

    4. One example of a substantive change is SB 971’s complete removal of all references to the pre-existing standard forms of “transportation” related licenses, which are the “commercial operator’s,” “operator’s,” and “chauffer’s” licenses.4 There are no other forms of license in the original Vernon’s defined for the purpose of “operating” a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle”. Each of these original forms of license was completely removed from SB 971 without benefit of any legislative act repealing them. The ‘nonsubstantive’ revision of SB 971 then completely replaced those original forms of license with several entirely new overbroad and vaguely defined forms of license under the singular reference of “driver’s license.”

      The major issue with the newly formed “transportation” related “driver’s license” defined by Sec. 521.003 of SB 971, is that the license forms it identifies as its component parts were originally the temporary versions of the original types of licenses that SB 971 actually deleted all mention of.5 A person could receive a “temporary license” form of a “commercial operator’s” or “operator’s” license, but not just a “temporary license”. The same thing applies to the “instruction permit.” It is commonly called the “learner’s permit,” and it is the temporary predecessor to obtaining either an actual “commercial operator’s,” “operator’s,” or “chauffer’s” license once the actual written and “driving” test has been completed and passed.

      Thus, the “new” forms of license unconstitutionally created by SB 971 under the singular reference of “driver’s license,” are not and cannot be standalone permanent forms of a valid license, and there is no other form of license identified in the entirety of SB 971 as being a statutorily defined and recognized form of “driver’s license”.

      However, there are several Texas court rulings on this specific point that have never been overturned, and that make it abundantly clear that Texas law does not recognize any form of license defined as a “driver’s license,” but, rather, only the three original forms of license6. The court addressed the fact that a person could not be charged with not having a form of license that that law did not officially recognize within its language.

      The removal of those previously existing and statutorily separate forms of license, and the substitution of three very different and unrelated forms of “temporary” licenses under the new singular reference of (“driver’s license”), each with completely different statutory requirements for obtaining its particular form, would most certainly have to be viewed as a substantive change.

    5. Another example of substantive change to original legislative intent and purpose is the knowing and willful removal of previously existing statutory language specifically limiting mandatory “vehicle registration” to only those “vehicles” owned by the State. Thus, presenting to the general public an entirely fraudulent and previously non-existent impression of the actual legal application and intent of the legislation, which is, that the statutes now require the registration of all privately owned automobiles as “vehicles” for regulated use as “motor vehicles” within the subject matter context of “transportation”.

    6. Yet another example of substantive change to original legislative intent and purpose is the knowing and willful removal of previously existing statutory language that clearly identified the commercial nature of specific statutory objects by explicit reference or definition, making yet another substantive change. A specific example being the alteration of the definition of “light truck,” in the 2011 version of Sec. 502.001(9), Texas “Transportation” Code, when originally read, “”Light truck” means a commercial motor vehicle that has a manufacturer’s rated carrying capacity of one ton or less,” but now reads, “

    7. Unconstitutional judicial expansion of subject matter applicability beyond the limited scope of “transportation” and its historical commercial nature and meaning as being an occupation involving the commercial use of the highways as a place of business for private profit or gain, would also constitute a substantive change.

    8. Unconstitutional alteration and expansion of original subject matter and legislative purpose of the original enactment by the constitutionally prohibited method of mere statutory amendment and/or revision pursuant Art. 3, Sec. 36, Texas Constitution, would further constitute substantive change.

    9. The 1986 constitutional amendment of Art. 3, Sec. 35(c), is unconstitutional in itself, and is mentioned solely because it potentially bears direct application to the issue of SB 971’s constitutionally insufficient and fraudulent title. The 1986 amendment of Art. 3, Sec. 35(c), added subsections (b) and (c). Subsection (c) contains language purporting to declare the amendment itself to be unconstitutionally retroactive in its effect, which it does by declaring that any prior or later enactments that might be found to have constitutionally insufficient or invalid captions are to simply be retroactively declared to be constitutionally valid, which is in direct violation of both Art. 1, Sec. 16, Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution, and Art. 3, Sec. 35(a), Texas Constitution.

    10. Respondent has not and does not knowingly and willingly waive the fundamental protections afforded by the provisions of Art. 1, Sec. 16, Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution, or any other provision therein. Especially those where the People of Texas specifically prohibited the enactment of retroactive laws, much less retroactive constitutional amendments that propose to provide otherwise unconstitutional and conflicting powers to any department of government that would presumptively authorize any such deprivation of protected individual rights. As the Texas Constitution is merely the watchful arbiter, and not the originating source of Respondent’s ability to fully exercise his fundamental and protected rights, a constitutional amendment may not be presumed to have the authority to violate any one or more of them simply because it was enacted. Especially when it was enacted in violation of other constitutional provisions and prohibitions, and, most likely, without the required full Public disclosure of the true legislative purpose and intent in seeking the amendment in the first place.

  3. Improper Emergency Clause.

    1. Article 3, Sec. 32, Texas Constitution, requires that every legislative bill be read on the floor of each house and open discussion held thereon before the enactment can have any valid force and effect of law.

    2. Allowances for the Legislative suspension of the procedural rules is provided for in only two specific provisions of the Texas Constitution.

    3. Constitutionally authorized circumstances and conditions for seeking suspension of procedural rules pertaining to appropriation bills.

      1. The language of the declared emergency clause within SB 971 is consistent only with the suspension of the otherwise mandatory procedural rules relating to appropriations bills enacted under provisions within specific sections of Art. 3, Sec. 49 (all inclusive), Texas Constitution, and for reasons explained in subsection D(3) of this section, is not applicable in any way to the proper suspension of procedural rules for the purpose of enacting general legislative bills.

    4. Constitutionally authorized circumstances and conditions for seeking suspension of procedural rules, and the required procedure for actual suspension in relation to any general legislative bills.

      1. Amended language of Art. 3, Sec. 32, Texas Constitution, is not an authorization unto itself to suspend procedural rules, but only adds a specific ratio requirement to any vote relating to the suspension provisions found in Art. 3, Sec. 62, Texas Constitution, which is titled “CONTINUITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS; SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL RULES.” (“Emphasis added”).

      2. The provisions of Art. 3, Sec. 62, Texas Constitution, is the only section of the Texas Constitution that makes specific reference to the constitutionally required pre-suspension circumstances and conditions, and also the specific procedure required to be followed by the Governor, the Speakers of each House of the Texas Legislature, and the respective members thereof, before there can be any constitutionally proper suspension of any of the specifically identified and listed procedural rules when enacting general legislation.

      3. Any judicial reading or interpretation ruling that the legislature may declare an emergency suspension of procedural rules for any reason they may deem necessary would render the provisions of Art. 3, Sec. 62, Texas Constitution completely void and meaningless surplusage having no force and effect upon the required method of suspension of said rules, thus creating an entirely unconstitutional repeal of portions of the Texas Constitution by oligarchical judicial fiat.

      4. Therefore, any arguments put forth by the state or the courts asserting that the legislature may use any reason it chooses to invoke an emergency suspension of the constitutionally required procedural rules governing the enacting of legislation, or may use just any form of emergency clause they choose to declare said emergency, is itself invalid and unconstitutional.

  4. Unconstitutional Executive and Judicial Expansion of Legislative Intent, Purpose and Scope of the Legislation.

    1. Unconstitutional expansion of legislative subject matter.

    2. Unconstitutional Judicial Expansion of Legislative Intent

    3. Unconstitutional interpretation of statutes as being completely independent of the subject matter context of the legislation as a whole, thus furthering the unconstitutionally of the executive and judicial department’s reading and interpretation by converting the object of the statute into isolated legislative subjects unto themselves.

  5. Unlawful Suspension of Multiple Constitutional Protections, Prohibitions and Provisions.

    1. Constitutional requirements and prohibitions cannot be waived, violated, or presumed ineffective simply by making an application for some benefit or privilege, or by contracting or consenting to waive such requirements.

    2. Neither creation nor acceptance of any “Certificate of Title” or “License” instrument can create a nexus where any of the provisions of the Texas Constitution, or the Bill of Rights contained therein, becomes void and of no effect.

    3. Voluntary registration of an automobile for the purpose of enrolling in state provided services relating to “theft prevention and recovery” cannot create a nexus where any of the provisions of the Texas Constitution, or the Bill of Rights contained therein, becomes void and of no effect.

    4. An opinion by any court that purports to remove the subject matter context of “transportation” from the adjudication of the facts and evidence of a “transportation” related offense is not simply harmless error or an innocent misinterpretation of the statutes in general. It is a knowing and willful unconstitutional attempt to judicially legislate from the bench.
      This is plainly evidenced by the content of the opinion wherever it repeatedly goes so far as to completely ignore or fundamentally recharacterize and/or alter the original legislative subject matter context, purpose, and intent of SB 971’s recodification of previously existing enactments. Which is, as SB 971 clearly infers within its caption, that all of the previously existing legislation as found within Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes (“Vernon’s”), and the intended result of the recodification of Vernon’s into a singular reorganized and renumbered code, relates solely to the subject matter context of “transportation”.

    5. Such an opinion by a court would further act unconstitutionally by judicially altering the contextual character and nature of the original legislation, changing it from a collection of statutes applicable to a specific subject and context designed and intended to regulate a specific class of legal “persons” that are engaging in a specific contextually related activity, into a constitutionally and legislatively unintended collection of general laws applicable to every individual member of the public at large.

    6. Such an opinion would also serve to fundamentally alter and/or totally ignore and discard long-standing legal interpretations, subject matter expert opinions, and all relevant recognized professional and occupational standards of usage and meaning relating to the particularized subject matter context that defines “transportation” as a legal term of art encompassing only that specific class of activities involving the use of “commercial/ motor/ vehicles” upon the highways for commercial purposes intended to generate private profit or gain.

    7. To apply any title, definition, section, or provision of the Texas “Transportation” Code to any activity or individual that is acting in their private common law capacity, outside of the specific subject matter context of “transportation,” is an unconstitutional executive and judicial expansion and misapplication of the legislative intent and purpose of the statutes codified within the “Transportation” Code.

    8. The failure of a trial court to make it mandatory that the State must allege the element of “transportation” within the charging instrument relating to any alleged offense codified within the Texas “Transportation” Code, and then prove that specific primary element at trial by showing admissible substantive evidence that the accused individual was actively engaging in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, invariably creates multiple unconstitutional instances where the accused individual’s right to due process are directly violated. To wit:

      1. In the first instance, due process is denied because the investigating/arresting officer neither reasonably has nor can reasonably develop any form of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a private non-commercial automobile is actively engaged in any activity encompassed within the subject matter context of “transportation” simply by looking at it alongside one or two other statutory elements pertinent to some perceived or concocted offense that is itself completely dependent upon that primary fact element already demonstrably existing.

        In which case, if there is no specific set of articulable facts known to an officer that would lead him/her to believe first and foremost that “transportation” is actually being engaged in, then no reasonable suspicion or probable exists to believe that any contextually related “transportation” offense was or is being committed, making the initial warrantless stop completely unconstitutional and illegal.

      2. In the second instance, due process is denied by multiple agents of the State whose unconstitutional and wholly presumptive and unsubstantiated presumption and allegation that in personam jurisdiction over the accused individual actually exists under the jurisdictional umbrella of the Texas “Transportation” Code, and that s/he breached some known legal duty codified therein.

        The unconstitutional unrebuttable presumption being that, an individual who was acting entirely within their private common law capacity, and who did not violate any common law requirement to exercise due care so as to avoid causing an unjust harm to another person or private property, and who was not and is not acting in the legal capacity of any legal “person” defined within and regulated by the Texas “Transportation” Code, is actually subject to, and could actually breach a legal duty associated with, the specific subject matter context of “transportation” as encompassed by said Code.

      3. In the third instance, due process is denied by the prosecution’s failure to both allege and prove the existence of “transportation” as the primary element of any “transportation” related offense, as this invariably creates an unconstitutional unrebuttable presumption of guilt of the primary essential element of any ‘criminal’ allegation involving “transportation”.

        Every accused individual is simply presumed guilty of that relevant and essential primary fact element when accused of any “transportation” related offense. An offense that is entirely dependent upon both the subject matter context of “transportation,” and proof that the individual was actually engaged in some specifically identifiable act within the subject matter context of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

        This unconstitutional presumption of guilt in relation to the primary fact element of the allegation is then used to fraudulently reinforce the State’s equally false and unsubstantiated presumption and assertion that in personam jurisdiction over the accused individual actually exists.

      4. In the fourth instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature denies the fundamental requirement that an accused individual is entitled to be presumed innocent of every single element of an alleged offense, not just those that the State cares to allege or considers the easiest to offer evidentiary proof in support of.

        The constitutionally protected right of substantive and procedural due process requires that the State be made to prove every single fact element of the allegation being made against an individual. These unrebuttable presumptions of legal and substantive fact are unconstitutional precisely because they act in direct contradiction of these rights.

      5. In the fifth instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature fails to provide proper, sufficient, and timely notice of every specific element of the charge being made against the individual, thus depriving them of an affirmative defense that is naturally inherent in the statutes and their controlling subject matter context. Specifically, that accused individual was not engaged in the regulated subject matter activity of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, and, therefore, could not have breached any known legal duty associated therewith and codified within the Texas “Transportation” Code.

      6. In the sixth instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature unconstitutionally relieves the prosecution of having to submit lawfully obtained admissible evidence proving every individual element of the allegation to a jury or to a magistrate in a bench trial, of which “transportation” is the primary essential element, with all other elements being subjectively and contextually dependent thereon.

      7. In the seventh instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature unconstitutionally relieves the prosecution of having to prove that the warrantless seizure of any evidence proving the individual was actually engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense was constitutionally proper by being based upon articulable facts that would serve to establish probable cause to believe that the accused individual was actually engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

        Absent any specific articulable facts that would provide probable cause to believe the contextual existence of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense and the officer’s initial contact, the warrantless seizure and arrest of the individual by the officer is inherently unconstitutional, and any ‘evidence’ found or seized under the auspices of such an arrest is to be considered inadmissible under the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine.

      8. In the eighth instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature unconstitutionally relieves the State of its burden to prove probable cause and obtain an appealable probable cause determination order stating that the facts and evidence provided to the issuing magistrate supported the judicial determination that the accused individual actually was engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense and was also most likely guilty of all other essential elements of the alleged offense.

        The facts and evidence supporting a finding of probable cause to believe that the accused individual was actively engaged in some “transportation” related activity is imperative to establishing the necessary belief that any and all of the other essential elements of some specific “transportation” related offense could even possibly be true, as there is no other legal subject matter context in which offenses relating to “transportation” may be read, understood, and applied. Therefore, if there is no “transportation” context, there can be no “transportation” related offense, which means that there are no factual elements of such an offense upon which to base a finding of probable cause.

      9. In the ninth instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the individual by requiring him/her to prove that s/he is not guilty of that specific primary element because s/he was not engaged in the regulated subject matter activity of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, and, thus, could not have breached any known legal duty so as to result in the commission of an offense under the context of the Texas “Transportation” Code.

      10. In the tenth instance, an unrebuttable presumption of this nature unconstitutionally separates the underlying statutes and objects within the “transportation” code into individual subjects that are then treated by the executive and judicial branches of government as being completely independent of the subject matter context of the enacting legislation.

        By unconstitutionally converting the subordinate objects of the Texas “Transportation” Code in completely legislation independent subjects, the State, via local prosecutors and every level of court, are completely free to prosecute and adjudicate them as isolated offenses with no legal context beyond themselves and having no relevant relationship or dependency upon the specific legislatively defined subject matter context of “transportation,” which is not only a direct violation of the clearly stated subject matter within the caption of SB 971, but also of Art. 3, Sec. 35(a), Texas Constitution.

  6. The Executive and Judicial Branches of Texas Government Are Guilty of Knowingly and Willingly Conspiring and Colluding to Engage in an Ongoing Criminal Enterprise for the Specific Purpose of Perpetrating Fraud Through Numerous and Constitutionally Egregious Deprivations of Individual Rights Under Color of Law.

    1. The Executive Departments Criminal and Civil Liability Exposed.

      1. The officers and employees of the executive department of Texas government knowingly and willfully fail or intentionally miseducate and misinform local and state law enforcement personnel on the specific legal meaning and limitations of “transportation” that would serve to establish the necessary legal parameters for properly applying and enforcing the Texas “Transportation” Code.

      2. Demonstrative evidence of this fact can be easily verified, and the assertion thus proven, by even the most superficial reading of any police incident report involving the allegation of virtually any “transportation” related offense.

      3. No documentation proving that the arrested individual was ever notified of their fundamentally protected right to counsel and to remain silent, or was ever given any meaningful opportunity to exercise those rights in every possible self-protective manner without threat, duress, or coercion perpetrated by any officer on the scene.

      4. No documentation proving that the right of the arrested individual to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure was ever recognized or considered by the arresting officer, despite the officer’s complete lack of any facts or evidence providing probable cause to believe that the arrested individual was ever engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

      5. No documentation proving that the arrested individual was ever notified or given any meaningful opportunity to exercise their fundamentally protected right to counsel and remain silent in every relevant and self-protective manner.

      6. Invariably, you will find the following legal deficiencies and due process violations contained within the police records:

        1. No mention of any investigative questions intended toward discovering whether or not the accused individual was ever actually engaging in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

        2. No mention of any evidence having been discovered proving the accused individual was ever actually engaging in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.
          Admissible forms of evidence proving the existence of the context of “transportation” can exist in only one or more of four specific forms:

          1. Commercial log book showing that the accused individual was “on the clock” at the time of the alleged offense.

          2. Passenger manifest proving a business related activity, and the actual presence of some other individual named therein as having engaged the accused individual for the purpose of being “transported” from one place to another by him/her for compensation or hire.

          3. Bill of lading proving a business related activity, and the actual presence of some property or goods named therein as being in the custody and possession of the accused individual for the purpose of being “transported” from one place to another by him/her for compensation or hire.

          4. A voluntarily signed confession that the accused individual was actively engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

        3. Even if such evidence is shown to have been presented at trial, there will be no evidence admitted into the record proving that the search and seizure of that evidence was lawfully valid as it would be the fruit of a presumptively unlawful warrantless arrest. Which means that the evidence is inherently inadmissible absent supporting evidence of a lawful arrest, search, and seizure of same, which can be proven only by a properly issued warrant or signed order of probable cause.

    2. The Judicial Departments Criminal and Civil Liability Exposed.
      1. The officers and employees of the judicial department of Texas government knowingly and willfully fail or intentionally miseducate and misinform local and state executive law enforcement officers, judicial personnel, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, on the specific legal meaning and limitations of “transportation” that would otherwise serve to establish the necessary legal parameters for properly applying and adjudicating all Texas “Transportation” Code offenses.

      2. Demonstrative evidence of this fact can be easily verified, and the assertion thus proven, by even the most superficial reading of any court record involving the prosecution and adjudication of virtually any “transportation” related offense.

      3. No documentation proving that the arrested individual was ever notified of their fundamentally protected right to counsel and to remain silent, or was ever given any meaningful opportunity to exercise those rights in every possible self-protective manner without threat, duress, or coercion perpetrated by any officer on the scene.

      4. No documentation proving that the right of the arrested individual to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure was ever recognized or considered by the arresting officer, despite the officer’s complete lack of any facts or evidence providing probable cause to believe that the arrested individual was ever engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

      5. No documentation proving that the arrested individual was ever notified or given any meaningful opportunity to exercise their fundamentally protected right to counsel and remain silent in every relevant and self-protective manner.

      6. Invariably, you will find the following legal deficiencies in admissible and substantive evidence and numerous un/related due process violations contained within the court record:

        1. No mention of any investigative questions intended toward discovering whether or not the accused individual was ever actually engaging in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

        2. No mention of any evidence having been discovered proving the accused individual was ever actually engaging in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

          Admissible forms of evidence proving the existence of the context of “transportation” can exist in only one or more of four specific forms:

          1. Commercial log book showing that the accused individual was “on the clock” at the time of the alleged offense.

          2. Passenger manifest proving a business related activity, and the actual presence of some other individual named therein as having engaged the accused individual for the purpose of being “transported” from one place to another by him/her for compensation or hire.

          3. Bill of lading proving a business related activity, and the actual presence of some property or goods named therein as being in the custody and possession of the accused individual for the purpose of being “transported” from one place to another by him/her for compensation or hire.

          4. A voluntarily signed confession that the accused individual was actively engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

        3. Even if such evidence is shown to have been presented at trial, there will be no evidence admitted into the record proving that the search and seizure of that evidence was lawfully valid as it would be the fruit of a presumptively unlawful warrantless arrest. Which means that the evidence is inherently inadmissible absent supporting evidence of a lawful arrest, search, and seizure of same, which can be proven only by a properly issued warrant or signed order of probable cause.

        4. No appealable determination of probable cause or supporting order, which, if existing, would then serve to prove that an unlawful ex parte evidentiary proceeding took place where someone presented facts and evidence relevant to the material facts of the case without notice and opportunity of any kind being provided to the accused individual to present and oppose any facts or evidence being submitted against them.

        5. No order of appointed counsel despite there also being no knowing and voluntary signed waiver of counsel.

        6. No signed waiver of a verified complaint as required by Art. 27.14(d), Code of Criminal Procedure.

        7. Documents with dates and time that prove there were numerous proceedings in the prosecution despite there being no verified complaint and/or proper charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information having ever been filed with the court prior to such proceedings.

        8. Failure to file a proper criminal complaint and charging instrument prevents the starting of the speedy trial clock and, thus, allows the preliminary procedures of the prosecution to be completed without speedy trial protections being afforded to the Accused, which violates the rights of the accused to a speedy trial determination.
          Which also means that, each and every one of those proceedings was conducted entirely without the court having even the prima facie appearance of proper jurisdiction.

        9. A factually and facially insufficient criminal complaint.

        10. No proper charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information properly invoking the subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the court.

        11. No actual evidence of either the subject matter or in personam jurisdiction of the court having ever been constitutionally and legally invoked.

        12. No actual admissible evidence proving every element of the alleged offense.

        13. Affiant on criminal complaint against the accused is a clerk of the court adjudicating the case, and as such, is for all intents and purposes, an acting agent of the judge adjudicating the case, creating an agency problem where the court is both the accuser and the trier of fact.

        14. The clerk of the court is also an official custodian of the court record, within the same court, and in the same case, where the clerk is also acting as the criminal accuser and affiant, an employee of the adjudicating court, and as an agent of the judge adjudicating the case.


1See Interstate Commerce Com’n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Also Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1996), Page 1469.

2Oxford Living Dictionaries, English “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/term_of_art.

3West’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.

4The only forms of license defined in Vernon’s for the “operation of a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle” are the “commercial operator’s,” “operator’s,” and “chauffer’s” licenses.

5The only forms of license defined in SB 971’s recodification are the “temporary,” “instruction permit,” and “occupational” licenses, which were originally nothing more than the temporary forms of the original types of licenses previously mentioned.

6See Footnote 3 for these forms of licenses.

The True Power of the People Over Unconstitutional Acts

So, some municipality has ‘enacted’ an ordinance, and is using it to charge you with some sort of ‘crime’ defined therein. But, have you bothered to even ask yourself if they actually have any lawful authority to so such a thing?  If not, why not?  Do you simply assume that they automatically have this authority?  If so, then, obviously, you have never asked yourself just from where exactly they allegedly did or could get it, right?

Well, I am here to tell you, and show you, that they don’t have it, and that they have never had it, despite all their protestations to the contrary.  I have several other articles written on this blog that goes into the details of exactly how and why that is, so I won’t belabor it further with another article that does the same thing. What I am going to do is show you just one of the ways that the People have reserved to themselves the lawful authority to force a municipality’s rogue ‘legislation genie’ back into its bottle and seal it up so it stops interfering in your life and messing with your property.

Below you will find a People’s Petition of Grievances and Remonstrance that will be used against the CITY OF DALLAS for its unlawful creation of an unconstitutional ordinance, and the use of that ordinance against the People of Texas as if it has the force and effect of binding public law, which it absolutely and constitutionally does not. Making the CITY OF DALLAS’ effort to use and enforce the statute an unconstitutional act under color of law that subjects them to tort actions for their treason and violation of fundamental human and individual rights that we the People specifically reserved to ourselves as being inviolable by our government, at any level.

The Title of the petition that should indicate that we need a change in direction of what and to whom we address such petitions. I am of the mind that, since the municipality really has no authority to what it did in the first place, which is to try and make any law binding upon the public, then we shouldn’t be petitioning them for anything. I am thinking of this in the same common sense manner that one wouldn’t try to petition the local thieves guild to do something about all the burglaries and robberies occurring in your neighborhood. We should be going directly to the state legislature and demanding that they protect our rights and property by putting laws into place forbidding this fraud and making municipalities and their employees directly liable for their actions under state law. But we have to REALLY go after the legislators to make it happen, because, right now, they are getting a cut of the stolen property to allow this to continue. THAT is what we need to expose and resolve so that this has a chance to actually work.

The petition was not my idea, but I decided it had merit in what it sought to do and offered to assist in “fleshing it out” with more specific grievances and remonstrances so that signers of the petition, as well as the criminals hiding behind the municipal corporate veil, would have a clear understanding of the specific rights and issues involved here, and the People’s demands and requirements for making it right.

Please, if you live in the Dallas, Texas area, or anywhere in Texas, like San Antonio for example, where similar ordinances have been enacted, then please look for places in your area to sign this petition and exercise your rightful power against unlawful and unconstitutional encroachment and infringement by these criminal municipal corporations who spit on our rights and constitution for their own private interests. Even better, use the attached MS Word document version to start one in your own neighborhood.

Remember, we can all stand and fight together now, while we can and should, or we will all eventually and surely be tried and hanged alone.



PUBLIC NOTICE AND PETITION FOR
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES TO
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OPERATING
AS “CITY OF DALLAS”

Notice, this petition is being instituted, signed, and presented by men and women of the Texas Republic, as sovereign People and free individuals domiciled within the geographical region of the Texas Republic commonly referred to as “Dallas,” as a public demand for redress of grievances relating to and challenging the unlawful and unconstitutional imposition of CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595.

The free men and women who have signed this petition are of one mind in that, the CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 is violative of the most basic and fundamental of human rights and needs, is violative of state and federal constitutional provisions and prohibitions upon the limited powers and nature of government, and the knowing and willful violation of rights specifically reserved by the People to themselves to protect against such abuses of the People’s own delegated powers through governmental overreach and unlawful usurpations of powers and authority never delegated and constitutionally forbidden to any political subdivision of the state, or to the state government, by the People of the Texas Republic.

The CITY OF DALLAS may already be liable through individual and class action torts for unlawfully acting under color of law and without lawful authority in knowing and willful violation of both the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (“US Constitution”) and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS (“Texas Constitution”).

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the free exercise and enjoyment of the People’s fundamental rights, such as the right to free association and to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of religion and to engage in the consensual practices and customs thereof, and the right to individual liberty in all of these and the pursuit of happiness associated therewith.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the free exercise and enjoyment of the People’s fundamental rights by unlawfully and unconstitutionally converting the free exercise and enjoyment of those rights into a crime with the threat of penalty and punishment via unconstitutional taxation or fines imposed for no other purpose that to punish the act of  caring for and feeding of their fellow man in the form of the poor and/or homeless People who are doing nothing more than trying to survive within the corporate municipal limits of the CITY OF DALLAS.

CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 is a prima facie violation of the following protected individual rights and constitutional prohibitions:

  1. The unconstitutional exercise of prohibited legislative powers specifically delegated to the Legislature of the State of Texas under Article 3, Sec. 1, and the constitutionally mandated process for the creation of any and all binding public law within Secs. 29-39 of said Article, and, therefore, are specifically prohibited to be exercised by municipalities and counties, including, but not limited to, the unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of any and all legislative authority having the intent or false pretense of creating and enacting binding public law in any form for any purpose whatsoever.
  2. The unconstitutional exercise of constitutionally delegated powers and acts specifically prohibited to municipalities as set forth in Article 11, Sec. 5, of the Texas Constitution
  3. The unconstitutional violation of specific rights and protections reserved to the People of Texas under Article 1 of the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, including, but not limited to, the right to challenge and hold void any and all governmental and non-governmental corporate violations of any provisions or prohibitions therein under Article 1, Sec. 29.
  4. The unconstitutional violation of specific rights and protections reserved to the People of Texas by which the state and its political subdivisions are constitutionally prohibited from exercising any power or authority violative of any clause or provision within the Texas Constitution, especially those within the Bill of Rights.
  5. The right to freedom of Religion, as it prohibits the right of the People to minister to the poor and needy as a part of their religious or personal custom and practice.
  6. The right to freedom of association as a natural right, as it prohibits the right of the People to befriend and provide aid and assistance to whomever they may choose for whatever reason they may choose.
  7. The right to peaceably assemble as a natural right, as it prohibits the right of the People to gather together to minster to and provide charitable aid and mutual kinship and comfort to those in need.
  8. The right to the pursuit of happiness as a natural right, as it prohibits the right of the People to enjoy providing mutually voluntary and consensual aid and assistance to those in need as their heart and personal morality may move them to do.
  9. The right to Due Process, as this ordinance is a violation of the right of a free People to life, liberty, property, and all the rights, privileges, and immunities of same, and in some cases, serves as a potential death sentence devoid of any form of due process or human empathy for the plight of others.
  10. The unconstitutional violation of the specific right to local SELF-government, as being a right specifically reserved solely to the PEOPLE of Texas within Article 1, Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution, in both their natural capacity as sovereign individuals and as a public body assembled, which is not a right or delegated power that is in any way reserved to the creation or operation of municipal corporations, counties, or the State government.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the People of Texas from invoking the blessings of Almighty God by performing His commandments and works.

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE

Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the People of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the People of Texas from declaring and acting upon their individually reserved right to local self-government of THEMSELVES, both as individuals and as a community in relation to their private individual and communal actions and activities, just one aspect of which is providing consensual and voluntary care and assistance to the poor and needy. The right of local self-government is specifically reserved to the People of Texas under Article 1, Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights within the Texas Constitution, not to the corporate municipality, county, or state governments.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.          Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the right of the People of Texas to individual and collectively exercise their individual and collective political power in a manner they have deemed necessary and fitting, and denies the People of Texas in their rightful authority and to all benefits and privileges associated therewith, while simultaneously denying the People an independent and sovereign State and a Republican form of government as existing and operating by and for their individual and mutual consent and benefit, rather than for the private interests of the corporate municipality.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.             All political power is inherent in the People, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the People of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon and violates multiple provisions and prohibitions of the Texas Constitution by the fraudulent exercise of Legislative authority in order to unlawfully defraud the People by the fraudulent creation of unconstitutionally enacted binding public law that was void ab initio. The power to create binding public law is constitutionally delegated and vested solely within the LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS (“Texas Legislature”) by Article 3, Sec. 1 of the Texas Constitution, and that power may not and cannot be re-delegated to political subdivisions of the state government by mere legislative enactments and statutory schemes.

ARTICLE 3. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Sec.1.   SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and House of Representatives, which together shall be styled “The Legislature of the State of Texas.”

Sec.2.   MEMBERSHIP OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Senate shall consist of thirty-one members. The House of Representatives shall consist of 150 members.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the right of all men as having a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the natural and indefeasible right of all men to protect themselves and others from unlawful and unnecessary deprivations of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or disfranchisement, without due process of law.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the natural and indefeasible right of all men to freely associate and act for their individual and common good, to be free from all unreasonable searches and seizures, and to petition their servant government for redress of grievances.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

The People’s Declaration of Relief and Redress

WE, the undersigned PEOPLE OF TEXAS, do hereby declare CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 void on its face under the authority of the Bill of Rights in its entirety within Article 1 of the Texas Constitution, and pursuant to Sec. 29 of said Article specifically.

WE, the undersigned PEOPLE OF TEXAS, do further petition and demand that the CITY OF DALLAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION cease and desist with any and all enforcement of the odious and unconstitutional DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595, dismiss any charges, fines, and fees unconstitutionally perpetrated and taken thereunder, and to further act to immediately and permanently repeal said ordinance, thereby restoring the constitutionally protected rights that the free and sovereign People of Texas specifically reserved to themselves so as to prohibit such infringements and violations through unconstitutional abuses of power and authority as exists in said ordinance.





Petition to the CITY OF DALLAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art. 38.03. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights – WTF Does the Constitutional Prohibition Against “Unreasonable” Even Mean Anymore?

Our state and federal courts constantly extol the opinion that a warrantless arrest must be “reasonable” and not “unreasonable” without clarifying what the Founding Fathers and our history understood the terms “reasonable” and “unreasonable” to actually mean at the time of the Constitution’s writing, because they certainly seemed to dislike things they considered to be “unreasonable.”

When King George assented to the Tea Act on May 10, 1773, the colonists thought the King’s new revenue law levying an additional two cent tax (yes, 2¢) to be “unreasonable,” resulting in the “Boston Tea Party.” The “tea party” became a positive symbol and nationally recognized event glorifying the American ideal and zest for freedom and liberty in what was once our founding glory of challenging overzealous authority.

When King George’s magistrates were given the authority to create criminal laws and penalties for virtually any petty offense that they wished so as to intimidate and subjugate the colonists and raise revenue for the King, thy immediately corrupted the practice to line their own pockets and enrich themselves at the expense of the colonists. And when the grumblings of the colonists became too loud and forceful, the King’s magistrates and their minions sought his blessing to totally disarm the entire colonial population, except themselves of course.

But, the colonists didn’t see any of these actions as being “reasonable,” and that triggered a war that founded a nation of freedom loving individuals that vowed and intended to never allow that kind of abusive and pervasive authority to ever exist over or among them again. A war that also culminated with the constitution of every sovereign republic containing a permanent prohibition outlawing any and all forms of Bills of Attainder, and by direct association, all Bills of Pains and Penalties, and ex-post facto laws as well. All of which our courts seem hell-bent-for-leather in allowing our legislative and executive departments to permanently reestablish as a part of the American way of life using even the flimsiest of legal logic and judicial reasoning.

Therefore, the question must be asked; when it comes to resisting an unlawful arrest using a “reasonableness” standard, why are the opinions so blatantly against the rights of the People “to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures” when they resist unconstitutional, unlawful, and illegal acts by state officials? Are unlawful acts only unreasonable or illegal when perpetrated by someone outside of governmental authority? Are crimes only criminal when committed by non-state actors? This country was founded entirely upon the concept of the right to resist any presumption or exercise of authority that unjustly infringed upon or destroyed individual rights or property, regardless of the alleged source of the authority to commit such infringements.

For example: In the case of Class C fine-only misdemeanors, our Texas Courts have opined numerous times that it is perfectly “reasonable” for the courts themselves to violate the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights and its codified portions within the Code of Criminal Procedure by denying the most basic due process protections to an individual accused of this particular class of ‘crime’. Why and how you may ask? Simple, they justify these rights violations upon the grounds that, because the offense doesn’t involve incarceration, these rights are never invoked.

It would seem that our individual right to be free from any “unreasonable” situations that place us in potential danger where we might suffer bodily harm or death at the hands of some ‘roid-raging lunatic with a Mike-n-Ike-sized penis and seriously deficient social skills bolstering an itchy trigger finger, and the courts duty to preserve and protect that right as well as the right of private property, are specifically relevant aspects of these situations that are being totally forgotten or ignored. By protection of private property in these situations, I mean to say that we have these rights so as to also protect our private property from being arbitrarily damaged or stolen through governmental whimsy and caprice, not just protection from jail time. Private property in this context refers to either our physical property, our money, or our time if sentenced to community service because we have no money for them to steal using trumped up charges on phantasmically intangible offenses.

Our courts routinely deny those accused of Class C fine-only offenses the right to counsel, the right to a probable cause hearing determining the validity of any warrantless seizure, detention, search, or arrest (examining trial in Texas), or even a probable cause hearing to determine probable cause for any charge(s) being levied against them (also an examining trial), to have proper, sufficient, and timely notice of the allegations and proceedings against them, the right to be fully informed as to the nature of and the cause against them, to challenge the lack of evidence supporting the jurisdiction of the court itself, and innumerable violations of the Bill of Rights, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Judicial canons, professional ethics, Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code, and finally, the knowing and willful misapplication of occupational regulatory codes against private individuals that were never engaged in the alleged occupation. In other words, that last one is nothing short of outright judicial and legal fraud on a massive scale. According to our various court’s own rulings and opinions, these unconstitutional, immoral, and seditious violations of the People’s sovereign rights and property are all “reasonable.” Yet, in our history, wars have begun based upon far less egregious acts that those in authority at the time also considered “reasonable” and within their power to do.

Through this method of judicial sophistry, our Texas Courts routinely deny to individuals accused of Class C fine-only offenses the same standard of equal application and protection of the laws. And they do so based solely on the pretense that these rights only apply when some length of incarceration can be levied as a part of the punishment upon conviction for an alleged offense. They don’t even consider the loss of property, i.e. our money, our time off work, from family, etc., that is also involved in such cases. We have a vested interest and right to be protected from unjust loses of that property every bit as much as we have to be protected from unjust incarceration. It is as if the courts and prosecutors believe the term “all,” in relation to criminal proceedings, as is clearly found in the language of Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution, either doesn’t exist there at all, or, at best, means something else entirely different than the terms “each” or “every.”

After all, it isn’t like they don’t know the actual meaning and intent of these terms, because they’ve already told us that they do:

All. Means the whole of – used with a singular noun or pronoun, and referring to amount, quantity, extent, duration, quality, or degree. The whole number or sum of-used collectively, with a plural noun or pronoun expressing an aggregate. Every member of individual component of; each one of-used with a plural noun. In this sense, all is used generically and distributively. “All” refers rather to the aggregate under which the individuals are subsumed than to the individuals themselves. State v. Hallenberg-Wagner Motor Co., 341 Mo. 771, 108 S.W.2d 398, 401. See Both.

Each. A distributive adjective pronoun, which denotes or refers to every one of the persons or things men­ tioned; every one of two or more persons or things, composing the whole, separately considered. The effect of this word, used in the covenants of a bond, is to create a several obligation. The word “any” is equivalent to “each.” Conerty v. Richtsteig, 308 IlLApp. 321, 31 N.E.2d 351. “Each” is synonymous with “all” and agrees in inclusiveness but differs in stress; “all” col­ lects and “each” distributes. Knox Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 130 Ga.App. 519, 203 S.E.2d 739, 740.

Every. Each one of all; all the separate individuals who constitute the whole, regarded one by one. The term is sometimes equivalent to “all”; and sometimes to “each”.

Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition 1996

Yet, they have never once addressed whether or not it is a violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions “unreasonable” clauses to statutorily authorize a warrantless seizure, arrest, and potential incarceration for a period of several hours to several days, or, as has occurred in many cases, even weeks, and all prior to any charges even being filed or a conviction had. And all for an alleged offense for which the Accused cannot be lawfully incarcerated for even the tiniest fraction of a second even if convicted. Given the factual existence of exactly these processes, I personally believe and hold this entire possibility to be totally “unreasonable” in every respect. And yet, those charged with Class C fine-only offenses or other classes of misdemeanors are unjustly denied a chance at preserving any appealable error relating to the probable cause finding by being denied an examining trial in which to raise the issue in the first place.

This is especially true in light of our current atmosphere of police animosity and brutality toward the general public, as the encounter relating to any such alleged offense is very likely and unexpectedly to turn dangerous or deadly to the civilian because of an out-of-control escaped mental patient dressed as a law enforcement officer and having a bad attitude and a chip on his or her shoulder. Also especially true in such situations is the fact that these alleged offenses require no intent to commit any criminal act, or even the act itself, or to inflict harm or injury, and have no actual tangible and identifiable victim to claim and prove injury, no palpable harm or injury of persons or property resulting from negligence, no felony acts, and no breach of the peace.

And once you have been accused, the entire process against you is controlled entirely by agents of the same fictional entity, the “State.” The “State” is an entirely fictitious political designation that is claiming to have somehow been invisibly, insubstantially, and intangibly harmed by you. And the “State” is the only plaintiff claiming an alleged injury that is moving against you to allegedly seek redress for this intangible and unprovable harm, and yet, it has no way to demonstrate the injury, no victim to take the stand and testify, and no one to place under oath to testify to this harm as being a fact.  Were this you or I pursuing a suit in a court of law, we would be thrown out on our asses for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of standing. As we well should be, considering that we would be completely unable to demonstrate and prove any actual personal injury through any actual substantive admissible evidence.

In cases such as this, it is always one or more agents of that same legal entity that not only accused you of the offense that is the alleged source of this equally fictitious injury, but who will also be the entities star witness(es) against you. The “State’s” witness(es) will testify against you at the behest of a totally different agent whose only goal and purpose is prosecuting you. And that prosecution is taking place before yet another agent that controls the process and is responsible for the rulings and orders that ultimately “prove” that all of the actions being taken against you are ‘fair and impartial,’ ‘proper’ and ‘legal.’ Then, any appeals from the decision at the trial level will be submitted and held before more of the same. And lest we forget, each and every one of these agents of the “State” are direct or indirect financial beneficiaries of each and every guilty verdict found against the accused for the alleged offense(s).

At this point it should be abundantly clear that “reasonable” has left the building… all the while screaming in agony because these agents of the state doused it with gasoline and lit it on fire!!

How is it not unjust and “unreasonable” that the People, when not causing tangible harm to anyone or to the private property of another, can or should be subjected to the potential and wholly unacceptable risk of bodily injury or death during a warrantless seizure, detention, search, or arrest, for an alleged malum prohibitum offense that in and of itself, and without the prohibition, is neither morally or ethically wrong, as it causes no harm to any individual, person or thing, nor is it a common law felony or breach of the peace, and its prohibited act could not result in a single second of incarceration even if ‘convicted’ for it? When and how did we the People allegedly authorize our public servants to imperil our personal health and welfare, our property, and even our very lives, in this totally “unreasonable” manner?

“The Blaze” is a web site that portends to carry current daily news, articles, and events from all aspects of the political and social realm. I’ve never thought too highly of it or the articles it publishes, as most seem to usually contain content and subjects that I find to be intellectually illiterate and, from the perspective of a freedom, liberty, and rights loving individual, highly offensive statist-centric liberal propagandist bullshit.

However, while doing some case research, I stumbled across one of the very few articles published there that I have ever considered to be actually looking at the “big picture” context of the situation surrounding the subject matter. This particular article was written by one Paul Markel, and is titled “Do You Have the Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest?” Mr. Markel claims that he writes the article from the perspective of an ex-cop and, apparently, also as a constitutionalist, and none of which I can offer any reason to doubt at this time. In his article, Markel writes:

In case after case, we see policemen who seem to view handcuffs as their first and only resort to a non-violent altercation. What is even more troubling to me are the scores of timid apologists who reason that any public display of anger or outrage is rightfully silenced by officers of the state.

This nation was born of dissent not acquiescence. Our founders fought for the rights of man. If Adams, Jefferson and Madison had listened to the voices of timidity and complicity their only path would have been the return to the life of comfortable tax slaves.

Rather than accept that they were sanctioning murder, we could view the legal opinions of the courts in both the Plummer and Bad Elk cases as a message sent by the Judicial Branch to the Executive. Firearms and handcuffs, while often legitimately called for in a crisis, should not be the default for every situation encountered. When the state seeks to rule by the sword, the peasants have a choice to make: submit or resist.

Imagine my surprise in finding an officer who not only “gets it,” but who is willing to make his understanding and beliefs known to the public even though both goes squarely against the “code of silence” and the “thin blue line.” But there is a truth to his words that cannot be ignored in our modern America. The police state isn’t looming on the horizon, it is in your cities, streets, and neighborhoods already, and God and the 2nd Amendment help us, it is already transgressing directly into our homes and in our faces. It is killing us without conscience or consequence. The unarmed and otherwise innocent civilian body count is rapidly mounting to prove it.

However, as equally unsurprising is an article and commentary on the same subject from a law enforcement oriented and focused site called “PoliceMag.com.” The majority of comments there appear to be coming from actual current law enforcement officers, as well as some possible imposters pretending to be law enforcement. Most all of whom make it abundantly clear that they are more than willing to kill you to perfect an arrest, regardless of how minor the alleged offense or that the only legally authorized punishment is a monetary fine. And regardless of the circumstances, the authorized punishment is most certainly not bodily injury or some other degree of injury so serious and life-threatening that it requires an ambulance or a coroner. From one commenter calling himself “Mike,” who claims to actually be a law enforcement officer, we see this attitude regarding his presumption of power and authority to arrest you or to kill you while trying; “When your resist you become mike brown or Eric garner and could potentially die. You have no right ever under any state law in the United states to resist any arrest legal or illegal hence why we have a justice system. If you don’t like the system vote to change it or move. You won’t be missed.

(NOTE: All grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors in original, after all, he’s just a cop, not necessarily a high school grad or otherwise literate individual).

The comments from others who say they are or appear to be active in law enforcement go on and on about how no one has a right to resist even an illegal arrest, not even if it is known at the time to be illegal by both the person to be arrested and the arresting officer. And it appears to be their firm understanding and belief that the order of the day in virtually every state of the union is that an officer may continue to escalate the use of force, even during a knowingly illegal arrest, until such time as they can either perfect the arrest, the subject escapes, or the subject is dead and no longer resisting.

Therefore, we can all assume that the current standard for “reasonable” probable cause to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon another living fellow human is:

  • because that fellow human is in possession of a 2×3 inch piece of plastic with a really ugly photograph and a date that is one day past their last birthday, or a printed sheet of paper with the wrong date or incorrect insurance information on it, or a species of plant produced entirely by nature and having enormous medicinal, textile, and manufacturing value to mankind;
  • because that fellow human dared exit his or her car and demand that the officer point out the allegedly defective taillight the officer claimed was the basis for stopping them on a busy highway;
  • a police officer shooting that fellow human in the head and killing him or her during a totally bogus traffic stop and arrest, allegedly because there was no rectangular-shaped piece of alpha-numerically decorated metal on the front of the human’s car to match the one s/he had on the back, and, thus, was an incomprehensibly dangerous and unacceptable threat to the public’s safety and welfare warranting their immediate execution;[1]
  • a police officer assaulting and then threatening to taze or shoot an entire family of fellow humans because of a similar rectangular-shaped alpha-numerically decorated piece of metal that was allegedly ‘expired’ and, therefore, either no longer fit to eat or have bolted to one’s car, and, thus, was an incomprehensibly dangerous and unacceptable threat to the public’s safety and welfare potentially warranting the entire human families immediate execution;[2]
  • a Texas DPS Trooper tazing, brutally assaulting, and then arresting a fellow human because s/he refused to put out a cigarette s/he was smoking inside his/her own car after the officer had concluded his traffic stop for allegedly failing to use a turn signal to make a right-hand turn, and, thus, was an incomprehensibly dangerous and unacceptable threat to the public’s safety and welfare warranting his/her immediate beating, tazing, and incarceration on falsified charges of resisting and assault upon a police officer without a proper commitment order signed by a neutral and detached magistrate after a finding of probable cause for the warrantless seizure and arrest via a proper examining trial. NOTE: The human, a woman named Sandra Bland, died three days later in her jail cell while in the custody of the county Sheriff’s office where the DPS Officer illegally incarcerated her.[3]

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice a trend that indicates our police forces are getting inundated with far more morons than they used to that are way too thin-skinned and egocentric on top of being a bunch of pussified estrogen-rich pea-brained hot-headed steroid junkies?

With that said, take notice of the fact that each of these encounters with law enforcement began with nothing more than a police officer trying to incorrectly and wrongfully apply and enforce a Class C fine-only or other low-level misdemeanor regulatory offense or infraction under their particular State’s “transportation” regulatory code. An offense that, as a matter of law, applies only to those “persons” engaged in the commercial occupation of “transportation.” We can show this using some statutory algebra formulas:

Statutory Algebra Formulas for “transportation”:

Carrier” = A legal designation and capacity describing someone who engages in the business of moving any persons, goods, or property by land from one place to another for compensation or hire (see “transportation”).[4]

 “Commercial/ Motor/ Vehicle” = A legal designation assigned to a motor-driven device used by a “carrier,” “driver,” or “operator” who is actively engaged in “transportation” upon the land.

Driver/Operator” (or any grammatical variation thereof) = A legal designation and capacity describing someone who is actively engaged in acts of “transportation” upon the land.

Person” = A general legal designation and capacity generally describing someone who is acting in one or more of the other legal capacities defined as “Carrier,” “Driver,” or “Operator.”

Transportation” = the legally defined business occupation or business related activity of moving persons, goods, or property by land from one place to another via a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle” for compensation or hire as either a “carrier,” “driver,” “operator,” or any combination thereof.

In each of these cases, the officers involved were unlawfully and illegally using that State’s occupational regulatory code and its related offense(s) against a private individual who was acting solely in their private common law capacity to engage in their private business or pleasure activities as a matter of right, in which case such codes never applied to those individuals in the first place. Which means, in reality, that every single detention, arrest, injury, and death memorialized in the linked in news articles and stories were all 100% unconstitutional and illegal, and, therefore, inherently “unreasonable” by constitutional standards and prohibitions. But, of even more import and concern, is the fact that each one was also 100% fully sanctioned by the courts and prosecutors through knowing and willful misrepresentations and abuses of the amorphous legal semantics intentionally written into the laws and statutes so as to perpetrate and perpetuate this long standing fraud upon the American People within every state of the union.

In Sandra Bland’s particular case, she was falsely charged by the DPS officer and locked up on the trumped-up charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, not for the “transportation” offense she could not have possibly committed in the first place considering that she was not acting under any form of legal capacity for the purpose of engaging in any “transportation” related activity when the DPS Trooper initiated the illegal stop. However, those fraudulent, vindictive and malicious charges by the DPS Trooper would have never been able to even be applied to Bland if not for the fact that our courts had unconstitutionally and unlawfully ruled that it was totally “reasonable” for her to be knowingly and willfully deceived by her public servants so as to be fraudulently subjected to an occupational regulatory code that had absolutely nothing to do with her private activities or otherwise applied to her in any way. And this list of decades-old governmental atrocities and frauds grows daily by leaps and bounds.

As TheFreeThoughtProject.com article linked in the “The new death penalty standards in America” footnote below stated, “At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.” And so slips into the abyss of hopelessness and helplessness the hopes and dreams of every individual that once believed true freedom and liberty was to be found within the territories of the sovereign union of states known as America.

Those feelings of helplessness and hopelessness stem from the appearance and practice that “unreasonable” is now whatever the asylum inmates (our public non-servants at this point) actually desire it to be in order to fit their broken-brained view of a total authoritarian oligarchical police state where they are no longer limited as servants of the People, but rather, they’re the new masters, wielding limitless power and authority to remold America and the world into their own private for-profit and pay-to-play labor pool.

Why does this thought evoke flashbacks of childhood cartoons and movies? You know, the ones where the evil man, always dressed in black and with a thinly curled mustache, would cackle insanely and tell the hero how he was planning to steal someone’s home and property through some perfectly ‘legal’ means of foreclosure or forced marriage if the poor person or lovely young widow woman was one minute late in paying the mortgage, or how the evil villain mastermind proclaimed his or her plan to possess and control the entire world through some nefarious and highly destructive means if it wouldn’t submit willingly.

Constitutionally, logically, morally and ethically, it is rather myopic, moronic, and downright insane to say that these specific types of malum prohibitum offenses correctly pretend to validate any such warrantless arrests as being constitutionally lawful simply because they are ‘legally’ authorized by a group of self-serving criminals only pretending to work for our benefit. Much less that such enactments truly serve any real purpose of better protecting the public from harm. Which one can only assume at this point means harm caused strictly by other non-state actors, but certainly not any harm inflicted upon the public by the agents of the state themselves.

Meanwhile, every single day, there are literally tens of hundreds of thousands of people whose rights are violated,[5] and many who are seriously injured or killed, by an overzealous and overly-aggressive police officer, often with support and assistance from fellow members of his legalized criminal street gang. Most of whom are also demonstrably more than willing to enforce the collection of a potential $200 fine or avenge some perceived slight or affront to their ego or authority through use of brute or deadly force and violence against virtually any member of the public that dares to exercise their right to ask questions about or challenge the officer’s actions. And far too often, regardless of the age, race, or sex of the officer’s brutality victim(s). What could possibly be justifiably “unreasonable” about any of that?

If the only test and determination for “unreasonableness” for a warrantless arrest is whether or not the United States Congress or a state Legislature has passed a “special” statute authorizing it for any sort of malum prohibitum thing that they don’t like, then, under a constitutional standard, the terms “unreasonable” and “reasonable” now mean less than an announcement that your local pub has fresh elk piss on tap for a dollar a pint, as any legislative body is now totally free to declare any statutory form of warrantless seizure or arrest as “special” and necessary, and therefore, “reasonable” for any purpose that may be governmentally desired, regardless of any other constitutional, common law, and/or sovereign individual rights prohibitions against it. You are watching the unlawful reinstatement of the very sort of Bills of Pains and Penalties that are expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in every state constitution as well as that of the federal.

Calling it a “special statute” does nothing to change the unconstitutionality and “unreasonableness” of such enactments, not to mention the seriously detrimental repercussions to our individual rights, as well as the totally unnecessary and wholly unacceptable levels of risk it places on our personal safety, health and welfare. Which the People have every right to presume and expect to be fully protected by the courts against such intrusions using the Bill of Rights within the federal and state constitutions. These protections would rightfully and necessarily include the recognition and proclamation of our individual and collective right to defend ourselves and others against such abusive authoritarian actions with any level of force that is necessary, all the way from evasion and escape up to deadly force, if and when the need arises.

This abrogation and derogation of our individual rights and property by incremental degrees simply must stop. And it is the duty and responsibility of our courts to make it stop, as they are supposed to be a buttress between the People and such prohibited and abusive acts by the agents of government, not simply a rubber stamp committee for anything the legislature and the executive departments deem necessary so they may do things in any damn way they please. And if the courts won’t perform their duties faithfully and in full compliance with the Bill of Rights and the express will of the People, then they should be abolished or transferred over to the control of People who will, and those responsible for making such actions necessary should be stripped of all wealth and possessions accumulated with the fraudulently obtained proceeds from their elected offices before being sentenced to prison for an appropriate length of time. I would recommend that length of time be until Hell becomes the preferred venue for hosting the Winter Olympics.

It is a fallacy of epic proportions to put forth the false authoritarian doctrine that a free people have not only no right to resist an unlawful arrest or assault by our public servants, but that we must actually obsequiously submit to such criminal acts peacefully and without any defensive or offensive resistance, no matter how violent and injurious or fatal the assault might be due to our failure or legal inability to defend and resist. And then, if you survive the initial assault, your only recourse is to take your case before a higher level of the same authoritarian system that authorized the initial abuses in the first place, and where you now plead the case for violations of your rights and to be vindicated and provided restitution, which we all know borders on the insanely difficult and expensive and the “yeah, like hell”process of collecting the judgement even if you win. This process is so much more expensive than the cost of the bullet(s) necessary to end the criminal actions of the officer(s) before they could escalate into a need for you to needlessly and wrongfully suffer on the off-chance that you might survive so as to later be afforded the aforementioned and almost certainly useless and losing, but wholly system-approved, course of action. Which anyone with any brains can tell you is just an added feature of the overall function and design of the system that is intended to serve and protect only those that are its masters or their faithful servants and lackeys.

I find it rather comical that those in our government offices have the temerity to actually believe, vociferate, and act as if the power and authority that they received from us, can be used to create laws and consequences meant to destroy our ability to maintain control of or take back the very power and authority that we delegated to them. Think about it, they actually believe that they somehow have this “divine right of kings” to try and use we the People’s own delegated authority to violate every right that we have, to use that delegated power and authority to forcibly resist and prevent us from making any changes and corrections that we the People deem proper and necessary to prevent their abuses and hold them accountable, and that we must simply accept the injuries and consequences of their actions until they determine whether or not we have any right or privilege to make a claim challenging the validity of those actions in the first place. And only then can we hope for the opportunity to beg for recompense for our perceived slights at the hands of the agents that work for our own servants.

And you wonder why I refer to these idiots as asylum inmates and escaped mental patients? If ever there was a “fuck you” Kodak moment, it would be during my almost certainly epic response to some petty bureaucrat trying to sell me on this smelly bag of faux-magic horseshit as a societal cure-all in a public forum. I would lay waste to them with a wave of verbal heat and destruction that could melt the cores of a nuclear reactor from a mile away.

Those controlling our system of government from behind the scenes and from its positions of power live solely by the morality of their only creed, “if it’s necessary to make us more powerful and rich, and gains us further control over the masses populating the planet, then it shall be done at all costs.

Our governmental actors and their puppet masters behind the scenes need to remember one very important aspect of “the law of necessity,” it is both a two-way street and a double-edged sword.



Footnotes:

[1] Officer Ray Tensing murders Sam DuBose in Cincinnati.

[2] The new death penalty standards in America.

[3] The false arrest and subsequent wrongful death of Sandra Bland.

[4] NOTE: It is entirely possible for the same individual to be a “carrier,” “driver.

[5] Source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/
NOTE:  The data from “Statistic Brain” reflects only “speeding” citations, not an overall cumulative total of all types of traffic citations, which could be reasonably assumed to be a great deal higher in total numbers.

Red Light Camera Citations – Even State Reps Know They Are Bogus

This red light camera enforcement issue goes hand-in-hand with the “administrative surcharges” issue on certain actual traffic citations as BOTH are constitutionally prohibited Bills of Pains and Penalties.

No state legislature, as a matter of constitutional prohibition and mandate, can allow ANY of the contracts with these red light camera companies to remain in force and be paid BECAUSE they were unconstitutional and unconscionable ab initio!

Your legislators, judges and attorneys are blatantly LYING to your face and stealing from you OPENLY in willful defiance of your inherent unalienable RIGHTS! Just how deaf, dumb and ignorant do you intend to remain while your liberty and livelihood is stolen through illegitimate political processes that were NEVER authorized to exist or be used to extort the People of their liberty, lives and property?!?!

It is time to WAKE THE HELL UP!!!

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-rep-epic-video-expl…/




What Say You?

Statutory Breakdown of “Speeding” Allegation Elements in Texas

chevrolet-impala-ss-001-HRWhat are the statutory elements required to actually ALLEGE and PROVE a “speeding” offense in Texas? Believe it or not, there are actually 21 individual statutory elements. Yes, that is a two (2) and a one (1). And it is my experience that the STATE knowingly and intentionally avoids providing the required due process Notice of more than two thirds of them in the criminal complaint and other charging instruments.

Which also means that they are denying the Accused in his/her due process right to Notice and defense of those elements, while also making their job as prosecutor unconstitutionally and illegally easier by not having to prove those that they fail or refuse to allege.

This article is intended to teach you how to perform legal analysis and observation in a “connect the dots” fashion.  Read the statutes below and make your own conclusions about the necessary elements as I have listed them. But, while you do so, be sure to ask yourself how both the court and the prosecution can meet their individual burdens of ensuring that the Accused’s right of due process, including the right of proper, sufficient and timely Notice, are properly met under the statutes, as well as how they are not according to how they actually file the complaint.  And I’ll preface that by pointing out this example.

The STATE cannot rely solely upon the elements asserted in Sec. 545.351(a) OR Sec. 545.352 as the basis for the allegation.

The exercise here is for you to figure out and recognize WHY that is and use it to make a defense according to the remaining statutory provisions.

Here are the individual elements that are actually required to be stated in a valid complaint and proven in a Texas “speeding” allegation according to the various interrelated statutes that follow. Consider that a criminal complaint that fails to state each of these elements is insufficient on its face in substance, as it fails to assert the necessary factual elements that would comprise the required legal Notice to the Accused, as well as that of what the state is required to both allege and prove for the allegation. These are direct violations of the right of due process and a total failure of the state to fully meet its burden of Notice and proof.

  • Who (your name),
  • Where (within the geographical boundaries of the city/county of…),
  • When (on April 1, 2016),
  • Did then and there,
  • What (specific regulated subject matter (while engaging in “transportation”)),
  • While [allegedly] acting as an “operator,”
  • Did [allegedly] “drive” (not “operate” like most complaints allege),
  • A[n alleged] “motor vehicle,”
  • Upon a highway of this state,
  • At a[n alleged] speed of xx,
  • Where the posted speed limit was xxx,
  • Which was [allegedly] greater than reasonable and prudent,
  • Under the circumstances and,
  • Conditions then existing,
  • And [allegedly] without regard for actual and potential hazards then existing,
  • Did [allegedly] fail in his duty to exercise due care,
  • By [allegedly] failing to avoid a collision,
  • With another
    1. Person, or
      1. To wit (the injured person’s name),
    2. Vehicle
      1. To wit (the vehicle year, make and model),
  • That was [allegedly]
    1. Traveling on the highway, or
    2. Entering the highway
  • In compliance with law.

At first you will probably see that the breakdown of Secs. 545.351 and 545.352 below look to be like either a bad web page render or is just a series of random and nonsensical breaks in sentence structure. But, if you really look at where and how the breaks in the sentence structure are done, you will see that it is broken down by its statutory parameters of conditions and objects. By breaking a statute down this way, it helps you greatly in clarifying and understanding how it actually reads and what it all means.


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF
VEHICLES

SUBCHAPTER
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec. 545.351.  MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.

(a)  An
operator
may
not
drive
at
a speed
greater
than
is

reasonable
and
prudent

under
the circumstances
then
existing
.

(b)  An operator:

(1)  may not
drive
a vehicle
at
a speed
greater
than
is
reasonable and
prudent

under
the conditions and
having
regard
for
actual and
potential
hazards

then
existing
;  and

(2)  shall
control
the speed

of
the vehicle
as
necessary
to
avoid
colliding

with
another
person

or
vehicle
that
is
on
or
entering
the highway

in
compliance
with
law
and
the duty
of
each
person

to
use
due care
.

(c)  An operator
shall,
consistent
with
Subsections (a) and
(b),
drive
at
an
appropriate
reduced speed
if:

(1)  the operator
is
approaching and
crossing
an
intersection
or
railroad grade crossing;

(2)  the operator
is
approaching and
going
around
a curve;

(3)  the operator
is
approaching
a hill crest;

(4)  the operator
is
traveling on
a narrow
or
winding roadway;  and

(5)  a special hazard
exists
with
regard
to
traffic,
including
pedestrians,
or
weather
or
highway conditions.


Sec. 545.352.  PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.

(a)  A speed
in excess
of
the limits
established by
Subsection (b)
or
under another provision
of
this
subchapter
is
prima facie evidence
that
the speed
is
not
reasonable and
prudent and
that
the speed
is
unlawful.

(b)  Unless
a special hazard
exists
that
requires
a slower speed
for
compliance
with
Section 545.351(b),
the following speeds
are
lawful:

(1)  30 miles per hour
in
an urban district
on
a street
other
than
an
alley and
15 miles per hour
in
an
alley;

(2)  except
as
provided by
Subdivision (4),
70 miles per hour
on
a highway
numbered by
this state
or
the United States
outside
an
urban district,
including
a farm-to-market
or
ranch-to-market
road;

(3)  except
as provided by
Subdivision (4),
60 miles per hour
on
a highway
that
is
outside
an
urban district and
not
a highway
numbered by
this state
or
the United States;

(4)   outside an
urban district:

(A)  60 miles per hour
if
the vehicle
is
a school bus
that
has passed
a commercial motor vehicle inspection
under
Section 548.201 and
is
on
a highway
numbered by
the United States
or
this state,
including
a farm-to-market road;
or

(B)  50 miles per hour
if
the vehicle
is
a school bus
that:

(i)  has
not
passed
a commercial motor vehicle inspection
under
Section 548.201;
or

(ii)  is traveling
on
a highway
not
numbered by
the United States
or
this state;

(5)  on
a beach,
15 miles per hour;
or

(6)  on
a county road
adjacent to
a public beach,
15 miles per hour,
if
declared by
the commissioners court
of
the county.

(c)  The speed limits
for
a bus
or
other vehicle
engaged
in
the business
of
transporting passengers
for
compensation
or
hire,
for
a commercial vehicle
used as
a highway post office vehicle
for
highway post office service
in
the transportation
of
United States mail,
for
a light truck, and
for
a school activity bus
are
the same
as
required
for
a passenger car
at
the same time and
location.

(d)  In
this section:

(1)  “Interstate highway”
means
a segment
of
the national system
of
interstate and
defense highways
that
is:

(A)  located
in
this state;

(B)  officially designated by
the Texas Transportation Commission;  and

(C)  approved under
Title 23, United States Code.

(2)  “Light truck”
means
a truck
with
a manufacturer’s
rated carrying capacity
of
not
more
than
2,000 pounds,
including
a pick-up truck,
panel delivery truck, and
carry-all truck.

(3)  “Urban district”
means
the territory
adjacent
to and
including
a highway,
if
the territory
is
improved
with
structures
that
are
used for
business,
industry,
or
dwelling houses and
are
located
at
intervals
of
less than
100 feet
for
a distance
of
at least
one-quarter mile
on
either side
of
the highway.

(e)  An entity
that
establishes
or
alters
a speed limit
under
this
subchapter
shall
establish
the same
speed limit
for
daytime and
nighttime.



Now, using the example above of how to break down a statute in order to understand it better, read these statutes and practice breaking them down in the same manner. Don’t worry about how hard it seems at first, because the more you practice doing it, the easier and more natural it feels and becomes. You will be surprised how much easier it gets.

And you will be even more surprised at how you will translate this practice into virtually everything you read. You will gain insight and understanding in written matter that you never knew you were capable of, and how few other people actually understand the things they are reading because they don’t do it. And that especially applies to attorneys.



TRANSPORTATION
CODE

TITLE
7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE
B. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

CHAPTER
522. COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSES

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec.
522.003.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(3)  “Commercial driver’s license” means
a license issued to an individual that authorizes the individual to drive a
class of commercial motor vehicle.

(4)  “Commercial learner’s permit” means
a permit that restricts the holder to driving a commercial motor vehicle as
provided by Section 522.011(a)(2)(B).

(5)  “Commercial motor vehicle” means a
motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used to transport passengers or
property that:

(A)  has a gross combination weight or a gross
combination weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds, including a towed unit with
a gross vehicle weight or a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds;

(B)  has a gross vehicle weight or a gross vehicle
weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds;

(C)  is designed to transport 16 or more
passengers, including the driver; or

(D)  is transporting hazardous materials and is
required to be placarded under 49 C.F.R. Part 172, Subpart F.

(8)  “Department
means the Department of Public Safety.

(9)  “Disqualify” means to withdraw the
privilege to drive a commercial motor vehicle, including to suspend, cancel, or
revoke that privilege under a state or federal law.

(10)  “Domicile” means the place where a
person has the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence
and to which the person intends to return whenever absent.

(11)  “Drive
means to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.

(12)  “Driver’s
license
” has the meaning assigned by Section 521.001, except the term does not include a commercial learner’s
permit unless otherwise provided by this chapter.

(13)  “Drug” has the meaning assigned by
Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code.

(14)  “Employer” means a person who owns
or leases a commercial motor vehicle or assigns a person to drive a commercial
motor vehicle.

(15)  “Federal act” means the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. App. Section 2701 et seq.).

(16)  “Foreign jurisdiction” means a
jurisdiction other than a state.

(17)  “Gross combination weight rating”
means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a
combination or articulated vehicle or, if the manufacturer has not specified a
value, the sum of the gross vehicle weight rating of the power unit and the
total weight of the towed unit or units and any load on a towed unit.

(18)  “Gross vehicle weight rating” means
the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single
vehicle.

(19)  “Hazardous materials” has the
meaning assigned by 49 C.F.R. Section 383.5.

(20)  Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 941,
Sec. 43, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

(21)  “Motor
vehicle
” means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or
semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway.  The term does not include a vehicle, machine,
tractor, trailer, or semitrailer operated exclusively on a rail.

(22)  “Non-domiciled commercial driver’s
license” means a commercial driver’s license issued by a state to an
individual who is domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.

(22-a)  “Non-domiciled commercial learner’s
permit” means a commercial learner’s permit issued by a state to an
individual who is domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.

(23)  “Out-of-service order” means:

(A)  a temporary prohibition against driving a
commercial motor vehicle issued under Section 522.101, the law of another state, 49 C.F.R. Section 383.5,
386.72, 392.5, 392.9a, 395.13, or 396.9, a law compatible with those federal
regulations, or the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria; or

(B)  a declaration by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration or an authorized enforcement officer of a state or local
jurisdiction that a driver, commercial motor vehicle, or motor carrier
operation is out of service under 49 C.F.R. Section 383.5, 386.72, 392.5,
392.9a, 395.13, or 396.9, a law compatible with those federal regulations, or
the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria.

(23-a)  “Person
includes the United States, a state, or a political subdivision of a state.

(24)  “Secretary” means the United States
secretary of transportation.

(24-a)  “Seed cotton module” means
compacted seed cotton in any form.

(25)  “Serious traffic violation” means:

(A)  a conviction arising from the driving of a
motor vehicle, other than a parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect
violation, for:

(i)  excessive speeding, involving a single charge
of driving 15 miles per hour or more above the posted speed limit;

(ii)  reckless driving, as defined by state or
local law;

(iii)  a violation of a state or local law related
to motor vehicle traffic control, including a law regulating the operation of
vehicles on highways, arising in connection with a fatal accident;

(iv)  improper or erratic traffic lane change;

(v)  following the vehicle ahead too closely;  or

(vi)  a violation of Sections 522.011 or 522.042;  or

(B)  a violation of Section 522.015.

(26)  “State” means a state of the
United States or the District of Columbia.


Sec. 201.904.  SPEED SIGNS.
The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 541. DEFINITIONS

SUBCHAPTER
A. PERSONS AND GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES

 

Sec.
541.001.  PERSONS.  In this subtitle:

(1)  Operator” means, as used in reference to a vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.

(2)  “Owner” means, as used in reference
to a vehicle, a person who has a property interest in or title to a
vehicle.  The term:

(A)  includes a person entitled to use and possess
a vehicle subject to a security interest;
and

(B)  excludes a lienholder and a lessee whose
lease is not intended as security.

(3)  “Pedestrian” means a person on
foot.

(4)  “Person” means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.

(5)  “School crossing guard” means a responsible
person who is at least 18 years of age and is designated by a local authority
to direct traffic in a school crossing zone for the protection of children
going to or leaving a school.


Sec. 24.013.  AIRCRAFT FUEL CONTAINERS;  OFFENSE.

(a)  A person commits an offense if the person
operates or intends to operate an aircraft equipped with:

(1)  a fuel container that the person knows does
not conform to federal aviation regulations or that has not been approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration by inspection or special permit;  or

(2)  a pipe, hose, or auxiliary pump that is used
or intended for transferring fuel to the primary fuel system of an aircraft
from a fuel container that the person knows does not conform to federal
aviation regulations or that has not been approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration by inspection or special permit.

(b)  An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony
of the third degree.

(c)  A peace officer may seize an aircraft
equipped with a fuel container that is the subject of an offense under
Subsection (a).

(d)  An aircraft seized under Subsection (c) may
be forfeited to the Department of Public Safety in the same manner as property
subject to forfeiture under Article 18.18, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(e)  An aircraft forfeited under Subsection (d) is
subject to Chapter 2205, Government Code.

(f)  In this section:

(1)  “Federal aviation regulations”
means the following regulations adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration
as those regulations existed on September 1, 1985, except a regulation in
existence on September 1, 1985, that is inconsistent with a regulation adopted
after that date:

(A)  certification procedures for products and
parts, 14 C.F.R. Part 21;

(B)  maintenance, preventive maintenance,
rebuilding, and alteration regulations, 14 C.F.R. Part 43;  and

(C)  general operating and flight rules, 14 C.F.R.
Part 91.

(2)  Operate” means to use, cause to use, or authorize to use an aircraft for air navigation and includes:

(A)  the piloting of an aircraft, with or without
the right of legal control;

(B)  the taxiing of an aircraft before takeoff or
after landing;  and

(C)  the postflight or preflight inspection or
starting of the engine of an aircraft.


Sec.
541.002.  GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.  In this subtitle:

(1)  “Department” means the Department
of Public Safety acting directly or through its authorized officers and agents.

(2)  “Director” means the public safety
director.

(3)  “Local authority” means:

(A)  a county, municipality, or other local entity
authorized to enact traffic laws under the laws of this state;  or

(B)  a school district created under the laws of
this state only when it is designating school crossing guards for schools
operated by the district.

(4)  “Police officer” means an officer
authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations.

(5)  “State” has the meaning assigned by
Section 311.005, Government Code, and includes a province of Canada.


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE J. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 724. IMPLIED CONSENT

SUBCHAPTER
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec.
724.001.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(1)  “Alcohol concentration” has the
meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

(2)  “Arrest” includes the taking into
custody of a child, as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code.

(3)  “Controlled substance” has the
meaning assigned by Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code.

(4)  “Criminal charge” includes a charge
that may result in a proceeding under Title 3, Family Code.

(5)  “Criminal proceeding” includes a
proceeding under Title 3, Family Code.

(6)  “Dangerous drug” has the meaning
assigned by Section 483.001, Health and Safety Code.

(7)  “Department” means the Department
of Public Safety.

(8)  “Drug” has the meaning assigned by
Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code.

(9)  “Intoxicated” has the meaning
assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

(10)  “License” has the meaning assigned
by Section 521.001.

(11)  Operate” means to drive or be in actual control of a motor vehicle or watercraft.

(12)  “Public place” has the meaning
assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code.


Download DOC FileBreakdown of Elements in a Speeding Charge

Download PDFCriminal Complaint

Texas Legislature – Why Statist Idiots Should NOT Be Elected to Public Office (1)

MEME - Texas Legislature - Sen. Juduth Zaffirini 1920x1080

This letter is a response from one of our many Statist and inept Texas State senators. And like most, she is clueless about individual rights and who can and cannot do what, with what, and when, or to whom. So, I decided to show her what I think would have been a proper redress of her response letter:
=======================================================
=======================================================

Dear Madam,

First, how are the other girls in the local cat-house doing? I ask only out of concern that you might have to return there for your future employment, because your response to me is not only ineptly inaccurate and misinformed, it goes to proving that you certainly aren’t cut out to act as MY representative in MY republican form of government. In fact, it shows precisely why people like you should not be allowed to serve in government at all.

Your response letter paints you as someone that clearly does not understand the concept of individual rights and liberty, while also demonstrating that you don’t even remotely comprehend the standards of a Republican form of government. But it also makes it clear that you are at the very least either a STATIST liberal or the pawn of those who are. Your response is ample evidence that you believe most strongly in the church and religion of the STATE as somehow being the supreme authority and master of the People. And you maintain this mindset even though we created both the government and your position within it. And in that regard, your very existence is completely dependent on our consent, which you have only so long as we choose to remain mostly ignorant and apathetic of just how little all people like you are actually needed or wanted anymore. Which tells me that you are even less than clueless as to your actual place in the political food chain, which is properly at the bottom with the rest of the discarded whale shit.

In your letter, you asserted that “Freedom to travel is a right granted by the United States Constitution.” This statement is unquestionably and demonstrably incorrect and misinformed. If you think not, then please answer me this; just HOW did the founding fathers get around BEFORE the constitutional convention that created the federal constitution? How did they travel from their homes to Philadelphia Pennsylvania BEFORE the constitution existed and allegedly GRANTED a “right to travel?” Did they do it all by FAX and teleconference until they could create the constitution so they could actually travel there and meet in person? Did they use mail that was brought in on horseback? Oh, wait, they couldn’t have done that, that would be traveling, and the constitution didn’t exist yet to grant them that right.

Maybe you would respond to me by saying that they had the Articles of Confederation as their authority granting the right to travel from place to place? Do you think that answer is actually any better in terms of its stupidity considering that the people were traveling about the globe long before either of those documents even existed? And you should know and understand that even today We the People have the same right to locomotion and travel from place to place regardless of the existence of either of these or any other document.  Does this concept of yours regarding “liberty through paperwork” suddenly sound as idiotic to you as your declaratory misstatement of facts did to me? Good. Then you can now see my point as to why I view you as unfit to represent me or any other living being in any capacity that requires decision making authority. Personally, I wouldn’t give you the authority required to scrape used chewing gum off the bottom of tables.

As John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying:

JFK - Opinion Without Thought

And you clearly have very little concern or consideration of thought about vomiting what is certainly nothing more than your unresearched and wholly unsubstantiated and cliched opinions in the face of those for whom you took an oath and are required to serve as well as to keep them fully and accurately informed of the facts and the laws. And you spew your illiteracy openly upon all with a straight face and no readily apparent emotional qualms as to the detrimental affect of your disinformation, which makes you nothing less than a psychopath yearning for an upgrade to sociopath. And just in case those words are also too big for you to comprehend, let me assist you there as well:

psychopath [sahy-kuh-path] noun
1. a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
sociopath [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] noun
1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 

But, let’s get back to the discussion of your overall incompetence.

I know that individual rights and liberty may seem like a new concept to you, but I am appalled by your complete lack of understanding of the fact that the state and federal constitutions DO NOT grant a single right to the People. ALL of the People’s INNUMERABLE (I know, it’s also a big word for you, but it simply means “you can’t count them”) rights are inherent and unalienable. And we may lose them ONLY as punishment for an actual crime committed against other living beings or their property. We the People neither transferred nor surrendered ANY of OUR individual rights to you or any other member of the Texas Legislature in your capacity as one of our governmental actors and public SERVANTS, and this includes, but is not limited to, our right of liberty through locomotion of our own whim and choosing. We gave each of you a very limited delegation of authority to act on OUR behalf in the protection of these inherent fundamental individual rights, not your flawed personal designs, desires, and vision of individual liberty or the equally reprehensible perspective of the corporate state. Especially when it directly conflicts with your first and most high mandate of protecting each and every one of the People’s individual rights and property.

I am also appalled that you totally fail to understand that, in terms of serving in a governmental capacity, it is YOU that have no “rights.” It is YOU that has ONLY delegated privileges in the exercise of your delegated powers, powers that may not be exercised against and to the detriment of the very source of those powers, We the People. And most assuredly not against our private individual lives and property in any adverse way or manner. At least, not outside of having been convicted for committing an actual crime that harmed other people or their property. Furthermore, those delegated powers do NOT provide you with any authority to apply them in any other areas of our collective lives that we did not specifically grant to you. As any delegation of power and authority to handle our PUBLIC business is NOT a simultaneous delegation to meddle and interfere in our private lives and business. Meaning that it is all of you that are the ones acting under PRIVILEGE, because you cannot act without first being so authorized by We the People in exercising ANY of those powers and authority at all. All of the rights we have and exercise as individuals is NOT subject to a majority vote by anyone, as that would make us a democracy and those rights a mere privilege. And you know full well that we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. And We the People do not exercise any sort of privilege in our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We do it as a matter of RIGHT! And you and your kind have clearly forgotten that irrefutable fact.

The People’s individual rights existed long before ANY political or corporate state or constitution EVER did. They existed long before the Articles of Confederation or even the Magna Carta. These all just happen to be documents that the People of the day created and forced upon you, our public servants in government, at the point of a sword or the barrel of a musket to ensure that you all remembered to recognize that fact. Obviously you, and many others like you, don’t remember like you should, or even understand the eventual consequences of trying to once again make yourselves kings and queens with some imaginary divine and absolute power to rule over and dictate to the rest of us. These limitations upon government’s ability to act were written down so that the group of so-called “elites” who once held power in the former form of kings and queens, of which you apparently consider yourself a member, would know and remember it too. It was written down so that all forms of government, meaning YOU, could never come back later and say “I didn’t know that was wrong of me to do.”

You also have it wrong when you stated “The ability to travel on public roads in Texas, however, is a privilege granted by the State … .” Really? Just WHO the hell do you think actually owns the roads in Texas? Is it the People, who’s money is taken in numerous unconstitutional and illegal taxes to pay for those roads, or is it the corporate “STATE” that thinks it can both forcefully steal our money to pay for them and then continue to charge us for their use forever-after by licensing it back to us for numerous yearly fees and permissions?  Just because you people have knowingly and willfully defrauded the public for more than 70+ years by intentionally misapplying the statutes regulating “transportation,”  which is ENTIRELY a commercial occupation, does NOT mean that it is now a valid measure by which the state may deprive the People of their right to liberty through locomotion! Your blatant statist ignorance is more than apparent in its joining with the mindset held by most of our legislators in that proclaiming “we’ve always done it this way” somehow translates into “its perfectly lawful that we do it this way.”  And that simply isn’t so.

MEME - Grace Hopper - We've Always Done It This Way 1920x1080

The “Transportation” code you speak of was created by SB 971 in 1995, and was codified in several different enactments within Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes prior to that. But even those prior enactments have ALWAYS applied to and regulated only one thing, “TRANSPORTATION.” “Transportation” is an OCCUPATION, i.e. a BUSINESS USE of the highways for private profit or gain or the performance of public duties, and that code regulates only those things that relate to the specific legislatively mandated PRIVILEGED subject matter of “TRANSPORTATION,” not the private travel and use of the highways by the people themselves as a MATTER OF RIGHT!!  Check the caption title of SB 971 as it was written by the 74th Legislature in 1995 for yourself and see that this is true.  Provided that you can actually read the Bill rather than simply spouting off your own uninformed and inept perceptions of reality rather than the actual law that proves you to be either willfully ignorant or a knowing deceiver when it comes to providing informed and accurate answers to the people you claim to represent.

So sorry lady, a term I use loosely in this case, but the United States Supreme Court called and said that they have given their opinion on the matter of the “right to travel/ locomotion” many times already, just as the Texas courts have. And you should already know that the gist of their collective opinions is rather simple, the People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to use the roads for their own private business and pleasure WITHOUT permission or consent via licensing, registration or any other federal or STATE regulatory scheme outside of regulating traffic flow, because it is the people that own them and have every right of private use upon them for their own private business or pleasure. For one to engage in “transportation” is, however, an extraordinary use, and THAT is why it is a PRIVILEGE that requires these forms of regulation through licensing and registration of person’s and equipment. But the People’s RIGHTFUL use cannot be constitutionally converted into such a privilege and then licensed back to them for a fee.

Therefore, your assertion that “Travelers on public roads, for example, are subject to stop and arrest for violations of rules of the road listed in the Texas Transportation Code” is ALSO incorrect. Considering the legislature made it VERY clear that the regulated activity encompassed by the recodification, and the acts codified in Vernon’s prior thereto, related solely to the subject matter of “transportation,” then, it is inarguable that ONLY those person’s actively engaged in “transportation,” i.e. COMMERCIAL USE OF THE ROADS FOR PERSONAL/CORPORATE PROFIT OR GAIN THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS, GOODS, OR PROPERTY, FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE BY A CARRIER, are subject to the “rules of the road listed in the Texas Transportation Code.” Not only because those are the ONLY actual actions that are involved in acts of “transportation” upon the highways, but also because the People themselves are not so engaged, and therefore, their actions are NOT in any way related to the subject matter of SB 971, which is what created the code itself! And if the People’s actions are NOT related to the subject matter of SB 971, which IS limited specifically to “transportation” as a commercial occupation, then NOTHING in that code, INCLUDING “rules of the road” contained in Subtitle C, can be lawfully or legally applied to the People, their private conveyances, or their actions. Perhaps if you actually UNDERSTOOD the LEGAL meaning of the terms and phrases you so casually throw around as a legislator you might be able to comprehend the actual and legal difference!

And there IS a very big difference in the proper legal application and the current misapplication of the “transportation” code. A difference that is created by the legal semantics of the terms and phrases used therein to describe the activity of “driving” and “operating” rather than “traveling” and “private use.” In most people’s common everyday usage, the meaning of the terms “driving” and “operating” are taken to be synonymous with “traveling/ private use.” However, in terms of the regulatory legal meaning and use when relating to legal definitions limited specifically to the subject matter of “transportation” within the code, “driving” and “operating” both mean “DRIVING OR OPERATING IN AN OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS FOR WHICH ONE IS BEING PAID.” Which means that you provided your answer without first verifying whether a single assertion of alleged fact within it was actually constitutionally and legally correct. You simply assumed, and then stated how you understood and want it all to work. And all without actually knowing or caring to know by verifying the information you were asked to address. But this time your false assumption was limiting to making an ass out of you rather than me. Which goes a long way to proving that you are also a fucking statist libtard idiot that understands nothing about statutory meaning and construction and the UNLIMITED rights of the People in contrast to the VERY LIMITED powers of government. At least, that is the impression I have formulated based upon your inept response for the purposes of THIS discussion on the “right to travel/ locomotion” and the functioning of a proper Republican form of government in general.

Do you actually think that the political body of the state is something other than the People themselves? We the People have EVERY RIGHT to use the roads for our own personal business and pleasure using our own cars and other conveyances. Those conveyances are our private property,  to which we have every right of acquisition, disposal and use, just as we do with any other thing or property that we might lawfully and rightfully purchase and make use of, and just as the very roads themselves are OURS! The roads belong to US, NOT to YOU or the corporate state!! Our individual right of private use is not subject to a vote, the whims of social policy, or any STATE mandated licensing and regulation.

Perhaps you honestly don’t know this, which I doubt, but even the Texas Administrative Code makes it abundantly clear that the sole agency to whom all “transportation” enforcement authority is assigned and delegated by statute, the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas (“DPS”), is limited in that authority to regulatory programs relating to “commercial and ‘for hire’ traffic.” Those regulatory programs have NEVER applied to the privately traveling general public in any way. And it is not and never has been a “state granted privilege” for We the People to exercise any of these rights. And at the risk of sounding repetitive, the roads are bought and paid for BY US for OUR use, just like our cars and other conveyances. Neither the STATE nor you own them or have ANY lawful authority to REGULATE them in any way involving licensing, registration, inspection, mandatory insurance of any kind, or anything at all having to do with the sale or purchase for private use. WE ARE THE ONES THAT OWN THE ROADS AND OUR PRIVATE CONVEYANCES!! Get it?!?!  You are nothing more than the appointed caretaker of OUR roads and the duty-bound protector of our right to free access and use of our private property upon them unencumbered by governmental interference and intrusion. And part of your duty is to ensure that those roads are maintained in good working order for OUR private personal use, NOT yours, and certainly not that of any BUSINESS alone.

Texas Administrative Code

Next Rule>>
TITLE 37 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART 1 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 1 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER A OBJECTIVE, MISSION, AND PROGRAM
RULE §1.2 Mission

The mission of the Texas Department of Public Safety is:

(1) to supervise traffic on rural highways;
(2) to supervise and regulate commercial and “for hire” traffic;
(3) to preserve the peace, to investigate crimes, and to arrest criminals;
(4) to administer regulatory programs in driver licensing, motor vehicle inspection, and safety responsibility; and
(5) to execute programs supplementing and supporting the preceding activities.


Source Note: The provisions of this §1.2 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976

Add to that the proof that the regulatory programs run by the DPS relates ONLY to the above stated mission of “regulating commercial and ‘for hire’ traffic” as found within Rules §1.3(b) and §1.4 of the Administrative Code, and you have evidence of a massive fraud being perpetrated by the state and its administrative agencies upon the general public for the purpose of fraudulent and unconstitutional mass taxation outside of constitutional authority and prohibitions.  In other simpler words, conspiracy and collusion to defraud and extort monies from the People.

The corporate “STATE” is both created and paid for by We the People, and is empowered to contract for the purposes of the planning, building and care-taking of OUR roads. The roads belong to the PEOPLE, and using them is NOT a privilege granted to us by ANYONE, least of all our SERVANTS or a legal fiction in the form of a political body called the “STATE!” It is a RIGHT that we have always had and still hold regardless, because WE have paid for those roads with OUR money. We paid for a SERVICE that we rightfully expect to be provided by our public servants, NOT a transfer of rightful ownership or totalitarian control over something that belongs to all of the People as a public resource. The roads are for OUR shared individual use in conducting OUR personal business and pleasure as a matter of RIGHT!! ONLY those that are using the public roads for PRIVATE PROFIT AND GAIN or in a governmental capacity are acting under a privilege. The privilege of using a publicly owned resource for personal/ corporate profit or gain or public service. The rest of us ARE NOT you moron!!

Disrespectfully signed,

YOU’RE FUCKING FIRED!!

The Licensing Scheme – Current Day vs. Original Intent

 

MEME - Rights Don't Require Permits or Licenses 1920x1080

“Challenge jurisdiction once, always, and forever.”

The Licensing Scheme – Current Day vs. Original Intent:

Almost without exception, whenever I encounter people and begin a discussion on licensing and registration, everyone is either an expert on why licensing is important and required and how it all works, or, they are totally clueless about any of it, but, they absolutely insist that we must have it or everyone will simply kill each other. The logic from either side usually sounds something like this:

The expert – “Well, you do know that when you go to the DMV and REGISTER your automobile, it is for the PURPOSE of being able to do COMMERCIAL BUSINESS from it, because YOUR name has been converted into ALL CAPS, and that converted YOU into a CORPORATION. And because your car is now REGISTERED as a MOTOR VEHICLE, you are presumed to be ALWAYS using it for that purpose, therefore, you MUST get a DRIVER’S LICENSE so that you can DO BUSINESS from your MOTOR VEHICLE, which means that YOU are ALWAYS doing business too as long as you have that DRIVER’S LICENSE, just like a CORPORATION.”

The uninformed but terribly insistent and clueless Statist – “But, *I* want the State to require licenses and make sure everyone has one, because, if no one had a license, how would we be able to tell if they have been properly trained on how to handle and operate a car? Without proper training they would just run over everyone and cause tons of accidents. The license is the only way that we know they’ve been trained. The State has to be able to control who can get in a car and be on the highways with other people by making sure that they are properly trained. Also, without insurance, who would pay for all the damage they could cause if they were involved in an accident? I would certainly want them to be able to pay if they injured me or a member of my family. Without that license and insurance, they would probably be far more likely to kill or seriously injure someone.”

I hate to be the one to break it to the both of you, but, your beliefs on registration, driver’s licensing, and insurance, are not only patently incorrect and totally misplaced, they border on the delusional.

For example, using the ‘expert’s’ logic, simply possessing a fishing license would subject you to a game warden’s jurisdiction for writing you a citation just because you were buying fish at the supermarket and didn’t use some sort of state-mandated baiting scheme. This is akin to the idea that simply because you applied for and received a license to do something, then, you MUST be doing that something ALL the time under the authority of the license regardless of where you actually are or what you are actually doing, like ‘grocery shopping’ instead of ‘fishing,’ with ‘fishing’ being the only thing the license would apply to. Just because you have a license to do something does NOT mean that you ARE doing it or MUST do it simply because you have a license to do so, or that when you are doing something, then that something must be what the licenses applies to. That is simply NOT the case.

Meanwhile, using the ‘uninformed clueless’ logic, we can see that it is a gross and Utopian delusion based entirely on an infinite misunderstanding about every aspect of how the system is designed to work. And both are completely unaware of how well this system truly does precisely what it was designed to do, collect infinite amounts of private personal information and data on everyone, to disseminate volumes of disinformation intended to indoctrinate the public into accepting such Ponzi schemes as a “requirement” for the public safety and welfare, by which it can then be used to defraud the People of literally billions of dollars each and every year. All while also subverting the very foundation of our constitutional principles regarding personal privacy, freedom, and liberty, both to move about the land and to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure and governmental tracking of our every movement.

First, just exactly WHO is responsible for providing all of this alleged ‘training’ that the uninformed clueless is speaking of? A high school gym teacher, a substitute teacher, a willing parent, a friend with a license, a driving school training instructor? Where did any of them get ‘properly trained’ to learn how to control a conveyance if not from the same sort of people in the same sort of places with the same sort of skills and experience? What are their qualifications to actually teach others this skill? And even more to the point, who is going to be there to teach those newbies behind the wheel actual experience, which, in my honest opinion, is the ONLY true teacher of how to travel in a private conveyance upon the roadways in a safe and acceptable manner that best protects everyone.

Well, Mr. and Mrs. Expert and Clueless, you are aware that no such ‘training’ is actually required prior to testing for a “driver’s license,” right? And even more to the point, no actual time or experience behind the wheel is required either. Absolutely NONE. Anyone, and I do mean virtually anyone (yep, even the ‘illegal’ aliens) that goes down to the DPS/DMV licensing office, and then takes and passes both the written “driving” exam and the physical “driving” test, is suddenly and magically somehow competent, proficient, and completely ‘qualified’ and ‘trained’ to get a license, right? In fact, anyone can simply study the DPS/DMV licensing handbook, take the two tests, and if they pass, they are fully ‘qualified’ and ‘trained’ to obtain a “driver’s license” in any State of the union. So, what actual ‘training’ or ‘experience’ are you referring to that the “license” is supposed to magically ensure that everyone has, since passing these two exams are the only real requirements standing between them and getting one?  Thus, the completely false rhetoric that a license is necessary to ensure that the public is ‘safe’ from ‘unqualified’ and ‘untrained’ highway travelers is nothing more than Statist control freak concocted bullshit designed and proffered to a mentally deficient public that thinks their rights come from the generosity of their benevolent elected officials.

How many traffic accidents are there in the USA every year combined? We can’t really be sure since many of them don’t result in fatalities, which seems to be the only reporting data most folks are interested in. But rest assured, whatever the percentage of people who actually die, it will probably pale in comparison to the actual number of accidents that resulted in at least some sort of property damage or injury that didn’t result in death.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/2014-traffic-deaths-drop-but-2015-trending-higher

Now think, of all of those people involved in all of these accidents, especially those individuals that were to be actually blamed for causing them, and tell me just how many of those that were found to be at fault in the accident did or had possessed a valid “driver’s license?”  I mean, if the Expert and the Uninformed Clueless are truly both right, then the possession of a “driver’s license,” whether past or present, is supposed to be some sort of temporary magical talisman guaranteeing that the possessor could never be involved in or cause an accident because the mere possession of the various licenses and sticker permits allegedly would have made them competent, trained, and experienced so as to be invulnerable and protected from having accidents, right?

This Statist libtardian-brain-damage induced pipe-dream of a fantasy appears to be rooted in the age-old Statist belief that “If government made me sign a piece of paper saying that I was receiving a license so that I COULD do something, and I paid the necessary fees for it, then, once I had it in my possession, I would no longer be susceptible to bouts of stupidity, negligence, human error, or intentionally malicious acts using my car. The license would automatically make me completely competent and incapable of making any mistakes in judgment or action that could cause me or anyone else a problem.

Sooooo, what the hell could have possibly happened with a belief like that in place? Apparently, you all seem to think that such accidents are entirely and automatically preventable by the mere application for and receiving of a “driver’s license.” Oh, and heaven help you if you are ever in your car on the highway while having lost track of time as to what month and day it is and BOOM!!, that “license” suddenly expires like Cinderella’s ball gown because you aged one minute too many at the stroke of midnight!
MEME - When Your License Suddenly Expires 1920x1080

Do you know who the very first person to put me behind the wheel of an actual car on a heavily trafficked city street was? A slobbering drunk named ‘Jay,’ who was in fact, slobbering drunk at the time. The car was a HUGE old Cadillac. You know, the kind that folks used to refer to as a “land yacht.” The ‘training’ went sort of like this “Puuuht uht inz gurhz. Kupzs it bahtweeenz thurz linzez. Durn’t hits nuthins.” And then his head made a loud THUD!! as it fell against the dashboard glove box. But, not only was I able to decipher that speech in order to actually put its directives into practice, I managed to perform those procedures and maneuvers quite successfully. Except for one moment when, just as another car was coming, I had to cross my first narrow bridge of (allegedly) two lanes, which actually seemed much more like 1-1/2 lanes really.  I actually stopped dead in my lane in the middle of the bridge and tried to look all nonchalant and cool like I did this all the time, at least until they passed me by. That way, I figured, I wouldn’t run the risk of swerving too far one way or the other and bumping into them or the guardrail on that narrow stretch of pavement. Which would have been entirely too easy to do since the steering in that caddy was as sloppy and loose as that of ‘Jay’s’ current condition of sobriety.

After that, I was fairly often behind the wheel of various kinds of cars and trucks. That was the very first and really the only  ‘training’ I ever had on “operating” a “motor vehicle” upon the “highways.” I was thirteen years old. By the time I took driver’s ed at 16, all of this was already old hat to me, and it really did nothing more than provide me with ample opportunity to get out of going to classes and get behind the wheel just so I could chauffeur my coach around to various ballgames and track meets, whether I was participating in them or not. So much for ‘qualifications’ and ‘training.’

Second, how does mere possession of a little piece of plastic make some people more skillful or safer than someone without a similar piece of plastic? Especially when they were both “trained” and provided experience in exactly the same manner by more or less identically skilled people? Furthermore, just how is a little square of plastic supposed to actually ensure a person isn’t prone to sudden attacks of stupidity or negligence or will always observes a particular pattern of behavior, or provide an individual any actual personal protection from anything more intrusive than an insect bite? If those people were really ‘safer’ “drivers” than someone who is without a “license,” then, in reality, there should virtually never be an accident involving a “licensed driver” who could be found at fault versus one that is not “licensed,” correct?

If the acquiring and maintaining of the “license” is supposed to be all about the quality of the alleged “training” provided to the “driver,” so as to provide for the public safety and welfare, then why aren’t you required to retest and requalify for it before you can renew it?  After all, they make you do that for a concealed handgun license don’t they?  Why not a “driver’s license?” Why exactly is it that you are only required to test for competency to get a “driver’s license” only once, usually when you are a teenager, and then never again, even if you are still renewing your “driver’s license” 80 years later? The answer is far more simple than you imagine. It’s because it isn’t now, and it never was, truly about ANY of those piddling sophistries like the public’s safety and welfare.

Third, Mr. and Mrs. Expert and Clueless, have you ever tried to actually collect restitution from an insurance company when the other person was at fault in the accident? I can’t speak for how it actually works everywhere else, but in Texas, the laws are specifically written to protect the profits of the insurance company from liability and not you, the injured party. Here, an insurance company is not required to pay a claim first and then dispute it if they can show that there was actually fraud perpetrated by the person making the claim. Instead, they get to presume from the very beginning that everyone, including you, is actively trying to defraud the insurance company by default by even making a claim. They can, and do, simply refuse to pay anything at all unless you actually file suit and win. But, only after the years-long appeals process has finally run its course and you have managed to remain victorious throughout that is.

However, if the attorneys and judges aren’t actually lying to all of us about the facts of the law like they do in every other case, Texas law says that you cannot directly sue the individual’s insurance company for refusing to pay. You must personally and directly sue ONLY the individual covered by the insurance company, as the company will almost always refuse to settle and pay up regardless of whether or not the individual actually admits fault and wants to settle the case fairly. And, when you do sue, you cannot even mention that the individual even had insurance to begin with. Nor can you get the person you are suing to declare such under oath on the witness stand. And, in fact, if you do try anything like this at all, the judge will declare a mistrial, the case will have to start over, and there will probably be sanctions against you for it.

This is, of course, meant to make it appear as if you are trying to sue and take money directly from the pockets of the other individual, rather than to get what you are rightfully owed by their insurance company. Meanwhile, the insurance company attorney will stand right in your face and tell you straight out, “We prefer to make you sue us in court, the reason being that we will almost always get a better monetary payout result from a jury verdict than we would if we had to actually pay all of the bills up front that our client made us contractually and rightfully responsible for by causing the accident.”

How do I know all of this is true? Because, back in 1994, I experienced this exact scenario firsthand, and the process you have to go through is in no way whatsoever fair and proper in its methodology and dispensation. Despite the cliche’, there really was a little old lady in a large luxury travel van who made a completely unexpected and unforeseeable left turn directly in front of me at an intersection while I had the green light. She waited until I was right at the intersection before she turned, resulting in my hitting her van broadside doing a full 50 miles per hour.

Now, in those days, I had reflexes faster than those of a wild bobcat that had accidentally discovered the wonderful side effects of caffeinated coffee. But even with that advantage going for me, this collision was so quick and unexpected that my cars tire skid marks were only about 10 feet long from the point of engaging the brakes until impact. My medical bills and continued care estimates were going to be over $43,000.00, dental bills from shattered and cracked teeth from where I hit the steering wheel with the side of my face were estimated to run over $7,000.00, and my car was completely totaled. I still have back, knee, and hip joint pain and stiffness from those injuries to this day, having been able to only afford and receive minor medical treatment and the mandatory C.A.T. scans and x-rays that I knew I was going to need even if for no other reason than to prove that her actions did injure me.

After trial (over four years later), the jury awarded me a grand total amount of $1,700.00! That is ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED Dollars for more than $50,000.00 in medical and dental damages, plus the cost of replacing my totaled car, which I never received one compensatory penny for having lost. All because Texas law is written to force me to sue a 68 year old woman whose husband had died from cancer just two months before trial, even though the lawsuit had actually been filed more than four years earlier. And the scumbag attorney for the insurance company (the one with the “Your [money is] in good hands [and CEO pockets]” catch phrase), refuses to pay my perfectly legitimate medical and dental bills because he knew that the jury would protect his true clients profits as long as they believed that I was trying to actually get the money out of the life savings of a recently widowed old lady rather than her predatory thieving insurance company. And he was absolutely right. Even though the lady admitted through stipulation and testimony, on the record in open court, that she was completely at fault in the accident, I still had to sue and bring it all to a jury. Just to wind up with absolutely nothing but $1,700.00 for my efforts and four long and completely frustrating years of litigation and the still ongoing years of pain and suffering from those injuries.

But, what reasonable jury, having never been through something similar to my experience in the matter, wouldn’t find for a recently widowed little old lady defendant when her attorney is allowed to present a case that falsely makes you out to be a profiteering thief trying to defraud her of all her savings by making false claims of damages and injury. Meanwhile, you and your attorneys are never allowed to even mention or hint at the fact that the only reason you sued her at all is because the real client her attorney is working for, her insurance company, was playing the odds that a jury would give them a better payout deal, and so, they refused to pay for the injuries and damages she caused. Injuries and damages that she had contracted with them to indemnify her for if and when she was ever the one at fault in an accident, which was most certainly the case here. That allegedly mandatory insurance indemnification the legislature purports to require us all to have supposedly existed to protect ME from HER negligence, so that I or my family wouldn’t suffer financially from all the medical bills and property replacement costs her actions brought upon us. At least, that is how I remember the big public [dis]information campaign presented to the people of Texas as the reason why everyone should be forced to pay for insurance if they were on the highway in a car. I learned the hard way that it was then and is now, all horseshit. Absolutely putrid and never-ending horseshit.

You might also ask why I didn’t simply file for all of this on my own auto insurance and let the two insurance companies hash it out. That answer is not any better from a compelled insurance argument’s perspective. The accident happened in the late afternoon of the third day after my monthly premium was due, and which had actually already been paid. At the time, my car insurance payments were set up so they were drawn by automatic debit directly from my bank account on the fifth day of each month. That month’s payment was withdrawn on the regularly scheduled date, according to my bank records. However, within an hour of my calling in and reporting the accident to my own insurance provider on that fateful eighth day, three days after my payment had been made for the month, the payment was suddenly refunded into my bank account and my insurance was canceled for allegedly failing to make the payment before the third business day after it was due. Did you follow that? My insurance company, who had already been paid on time and in full, refunded my payment and canceled my coverage as soon as I reported the accident and informed them of who the other person’s insurance company was.

It turns out that the other person’s insurance company always refuses to pay the victim’s claims if they are over some piddling amount in order to force litigation before a jury, where they know damn good and well that they hold a totally unfair advantage that keeps their profits high by keeping their payouts much lower than they would otherwise be by simply paying the claim. And to add insult to already painful injury, I was told by my attorneys that there was nothing I could do to sue my own insurance company under Texas law, even though they had decided to suddenly cancel my policy without notice and after payment had already been made. And the reason I couldn’t sue them? Because they had refunded the balance of any moneys paid in for that coverage period. Never mind that I was now needing and expecting them to honor the insurance policy that they had been collecting on, because compulsory insurance statutes allegedly said that I must pay for it. Just like the little old lady had to pay for it so that I, we, and everyone else, would allegedly be “protected” from unexpected and undeserved financial losses and outlays due to accidents caused by someone else. So I had no choice but to pay somebody, right? And never mind that I had never filed a claim with them, or that I had faithfully and timely maintained my insurance with them for more than two years by that time. It began to seem like I was constantly being informed about how this was simply the way the law worked in these cases. Which again brings me full circle to the same conclusion… it’s all horseshit. Complete and total horseshit.

Of course, we should also consider the other group that primarily benefits financially in a huge way from these types of controversies, and that is the attorneys. These laws were written and put together by attorneys that once worked for the insurance companies and their lobbyist groups. The insurance lobbies put together a “dream team” group of insurance accountants, attorneys, and partizan legislators, who then made their collective dreams of exorbitant profits of both a corporate and private nature into legislative bills and submitted them to be voted upon by all of the other ambulance-chasing and industry whore attorneys acting unconstitutionally within the legislature to line their own pockets at or expense. All of whom work in or at last partly own law firms that would most certainly financially benefit from these laws in some form or fashion before the process of filing and fighting a lawsuit for payment of a rightful claim would be completed. That is the real meaning of ‘special interests’ in politics and legislation.

Through the long-term litigation and payout process in pursuit of large judgments, it is unquestionably in the Bar and attorney’s guild lobbies best interest to keep these laws operating precisely as they are. And doing so is not especially difficult when you realize that the legislature that submits, passes and sustains these laws, and the courts that rule they are all perfectly constitutional and equitable, and the trial attorneys that promise to do all they can to get you a fair settlement (as long as you promise that their cut comes directly off the top before any other expenses are paid), are all [subversively and unconstitutionally] controlled entirely by this very same fraternity of attorneys. Every Bar-card carrying attorney is a dues paying member of this fraternity, and reaps huge financial rewards from how it authorizes them to ‘legally’ manipulate cases and conduct business in this manner. And business is booming a thousand fold compared to how much litigation of this kind was seen in the courts just a few short decades ago.

The legal sorcery hidden in the demonstrably false illusion of protection from financial loss and liability via compulsory insurance is one of the biggest lies in this entire “transportation” scam we are currently being forced to live under. While the insured person who is actually at fault by causing the accident may be somewhat financially protected, the individuals and families trying to be rightfully compensated for their injuries and property damage are the ones that will continue to physically and financially suffer the most, because under current Texas law, it damn sure won’t be the insurance company. And this is true even if the injured persons have a lawyer [allegedly] acting in their best interest, just like I thought I did.

If compulsory insurance schemes were really about financial protection and compensation to those that are harmed by the fault of another, you would think that the law would require the insurance company, once provided with actual verifiable bills for the damages and injuries, to pay those damages first and potentially question later. As to the other areas of such suits, such as pain and suffering, continual care, pain management, etc., that is the stuff can be argued over a protracted trial period. But the costs associated with any actual loss, damages, and injuries should never be up for discussion, debate, or to allow any unnecessary or prolonged delay or refusal to pay. And later, and only if they actually obtain some real evidence that an act of fraud had actually occurred, the insurance company can sue to recover any money lost to fraud and seek to have the fraudster brought up on criminal charges. That is what would actually be in the best interest of the honestly suffering and injured parties. But, we all know that their legislative lobby group is not nearly as big and well-financed as that of the insurance company’s and the legal fraternity that gets rich off of them.

And as to other points of this discussion, such as when it comes to registration of your car, i.e. your private property, you must understand that registering your car is nothing more than getting a “license” for the car to be ‘used’ for commercial purposes, which is not any different than licensing yourself by obtaining a “driver’s license” for the same purpose.

Therefore, if you are not actively engaged in ‘using’ the public roads for the purpose of “transportation,” i.e. commerce, then neither you nor your car are ‘using’ the “licenses” you applied and paid for and presumably possess. Traveling upon the roadways for private business and pleasure is an unalienable right of liberty in the form of locomotion, according to the historical case opinions on the subject. And an individual’s RIGHT to private ‘use’ of the highways for their own personal business and pleasure is not at all the same as the privilege of engaging in commerce upon the roadways by ‘using’ them as a place of business for private profit or gain as a “driver” or “operator” who is “licensed” to engage in “transportation” upon them.

So, none of these various licensing and registration schemes is at all about the public safety and welfare in 95% of cases, because those cases are directed at private individuals to whom those schemes do not and have never applied. But, what they ARE about, and DO do with these various regulatory schemes, is to compile and combine the collected individual private information of all American’s who have fallen for this scheme in order to provide the State and Federal governments with an almost perfect and constant method of controlling and tracking the movements of every individual and their property within our territorial borders.  You doubt me? Well, consider this; hasn’t every state in the union created laws that allegedly make it a CRIME to change your address or other personal details and then NOT update that information in THEIR records relating to these schemes within a specific period of time?  Haven’t almost all of them joined into an unconstitutional “multi-state driver’s license compact” to not only share information about you that is stored and used in conjunction with these schemes between them, but to also cooperatively ensnare you in their little petty thefts through the use of completely unconstitutional Bills of Pains and Penalties in the form of fees, fines, and other forms of legalized extortion? You bet your ass they have and they do!

It is important to understand that the “driver’s licensing” scheme was originally pandered to the public as being intended for application only to those ‘taking’ and ‘using’ public resources, i.e. the highways, for the purpose of generating a personal profit or gain associated with that ‘taking’ and ‘use ’ as a place of business. This ‘extraordinary use’ by increasingly larger and heavier devices of transport, placed excessive wear and tear on the roads and highways rightfully belonging to and paid for from the private personal pockets of the collective public for their private use. Which is what the fees, and even the later-added civil fines, that were associated with the “licensing” scheme were originally meant to compensate the public for. Not to be a profit motive and base for the State Corporation to act in a manner that appears to have unlawfully converted the unalienable right of the people’s liberty into a regulable and taxable legal privilege to be exercised only at the grace and pleasure of government with the added benefit of generation of revenue upon the now bloody back of what was once an unquestioned and undeniable right to locomotion at one’s own whim and of one’s own manner of exercising it, whether by foot, carriage, horseback, oxcart, or automobile.

Research – Statutes Are NOT the Law. Do Your Due Diligence!

MEME - We Don't Need No StatutesOkay, lem’me try to edgeyumucate you’se guys all over agin’…

DON’T read JUST the statutes. In fact, DON’T read them first! Go find the ORIGINAL LEGISLATIVE ACTS that the statutes are SUPPOSED to be based upon and come from. Which, here in Texas, is the 1925 legislative session laws. The statutes are NOT the law, the SESSION Bill is the law. An amendment to STATUTE absolutely CANNOT amend the underlying law OR change or expand its original purpose and subject matter.

THEN, identify and verify the specific SUBJECT that the original Bill was intended to regulate, which most state constitutions require to be stated in the Bills Title/Caption. Without fail, you will most likely find that such Bills are ALL related to COMMERCE and COMMERCIAL USE of the highways and roads.

Where a statute conflicts or attempts to expand upon the underlying session law in a manner the underlying law does NOT encompass, the statute is unconstitutional and void, which will also be written somewhere in your particular state constitution.

Furthermore, you might want to read up in your particular state constitution as to WHO can make law and HOW the process of doing so is constitutionally MANDATED that it be done. THEN, if either the underlying session law or the newly adopted amended version of the statutory scheme was enacted in a manner that does NOT comply with this process and procedure, it IS unconstitutional and void.

N’est pa?