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.

“When a Stranger Returns…”

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

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

His response email:



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



My reply to his email:


Thanks for the reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“When A Stranger Calls… or Emails.”

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

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

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



 

Dear Eddie:

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

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

Thank you



 

Hello, and thank you for the email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The legal blog is here:  taooflaw.wordpress.com

Attorneys – Truth and Consequences

This post (all typos and such in original) was made in my “Tao of Law” legal discussion group on Fecalbook (not a typo):

About the Law called Right to travel where it’s saying on here you do not have to have drivers license and tags insurance and registration.Well ive talked to five attorneys this week and they laughed about that.With that being said why do everybody have license and tags on there cars if it was easy to get dismissed in a court.My guess is you can’t get it dismissed in court.Can anybody enlighten me on how I can beat it?? Thanks


My Response went thusly…

“Let me try to understand your logic:

You asked a series of known habitual liars about an area and matter of law from which they stand to hugely profit under the status quo, about a non-legal solution to that same issue that would serve to deprive them of that profit, and you expected the answers you got to be truthful and correct by being in actual compliance with the actual law, as well as respectful of the constitutionally protected rights of the individual and generally in the best interest of the public?

Have you actually LIVED on Earth long? lol

Your post reminds me of the old riddle of the fork in the road;
==================================

You stand at a fork in the road. Next to each of the two forks, there stands a guard. You know only the following things in order to choose the correct path and continue forward, as you cannot go back the way you came:

1) one path leads to Paradise, the other leads to Death;

2) you cannot distinguish any references or differences between the two paths to help you choose;

3) you also know that one of the two guards (“TRUTH”) always tells the truth and the other guard (“LIAR”) always lies (guess which one that is in your question…), but you don’t know which is which anymore than you know the correct path at this point;

4) you are allowed to ask only one of the guards one question to try and discover which path leads to Paradise;

5) once you choose and start down whichever path, there is no turning back or changing your mind.

So, the riddle is “what is the one question you can ask either of the two guards in order to properly apply the answer and guarantee that you choose the correct path to Paradise?”

Answer: The correct question AND application of the answer is:

Question: Ask either guard “What path will the other guard say is the path to Paradise?”

Application of answer: Take the OPPOSITE path from that which the guard pointed to.

ANALYSIS:

Now, IF TRUTH ALWAYS tells the truth, and LIAR ALWAYS lies, then the logic is:

If you asked TRUTH which path LIAR will say is the path to Paradise, then TRUTH will point to the path to Death, because TRUTH is telling the truth about what LIAR will say.

If you asked LIAR which path TRUTH will say is the path to Paradise, then LIAR will point to the path to Death, because LIAR is lying about what TRUTH will say.

Therefore, no matter WHICH guard you ask the question to, you ALWAYS take the opposite path from the one that is pointed to. This also illustrates the point of asking the question the CORRECT way, as you can quickly learn by simply changing the question from asking one of the guards about the road to Paradise to asking instead about the road to Death and then doing the same analysis.

Enjoy Paradise!”


The moral of the story is, generally speaking, attorneys are notorious liars and thieves that control our society with their own private criminal cabal utilizing a system of legalized slavery and theft through regulatory codes that are wholly unconstitutional when applied to the People in their private lives and activities, and, who are, in my humble opinion, totally worthless and a ruinous festering rot upon a truly civilized and moral society. They do this by utilizing knowing and willful misrepresentations of not only the law, but also of legal facts, evidence, and general principles relating to individual rights, truth, and moral and ethical justice.

The rule of law is nonexistent wherever and whenever it may by twisted and perverted by attorneys more interested in a victory or a fee more than in right, wrong, and justice.

And even though I would not expect an attorney to theoretically have enough moral substance and actual guts to even physically slow down or stop a bullet, I am sure that there would be many who would be more than willing to stack them ten deep and conduct such experiments with a variety of weapons and calibers to determine the validity of that theory for as long as is necessary to fully exhaust the supply of attorneys required to conduct such a study and reach a final conclusion.

NOTE: Please watch your local newspapers for applications to become an associate member of the research team.  😉

Attorneys – Like Mosquitoes, They Can Only Survive on the Blood of Others

A funny thing happened on the way to reading my way through a deluge of emails; I came across one that entered my inbox earlier yesterday, but which I did not actually see until the early morning hours of today.  The email reads thusly:


I’ve seen some of your videos on YouTube and wanted to tell you that you’re wrong.  You appear not to be able to distinguish the difference from the right to travel and the State’s right to regulate the operation of a dangerous mode of transportation that can harm, injure, or kill people and damage private or public property.  That State right is the doctrine of police power, which was adopted into the US Constitution by the 10th Amendment.  You should research it – plenty of SCOTUS cases in support.  How do I know?  I practiced constitutional law for over 35 years and fought govt over-reach and REAL infringement on rights.

Also, before becoming a lawyer, a group of us created the “right to travel vs driver’s license”  issue way back in 1972.  You use all of our research, court cases and tactics we developed almost 45 years ago.  We sold pamphlets, cassette tapes and gave seminars.  And it was BS then and is BS now.  I was amazed that it was still around.
You should rethink misleading people on this issue – you are perpetrating a fraud.  Not very patriotic of you.

Here then is my response to this admonition, which I reserve the right to amend over time as necessary for completeness and accuracy as time and information allows (same thing I told him in my emailed response):

Mr. Galt, you, like many before you, appear to be assuming quite a bit about what I do or do not know. And I can very well and do distinguish between a right to travel and the state police power to regulate. And there are MANY things and activities that can injure or kill that the state demonstrably has NO power whatsoever to interfere with or take away.  The fact that they use illegitimate reasoning and deadly force to get their way does NOT make them right nor their actions lawful, even though they may have legislatively or judicially declared their actions to be ‘legal.’ History documents that Adolph Hitler did the same thing if memory serves, and look how he wound up when it was all said and done. And I find no increase in your personal merit, credibility, or ability by your admission of having misunderstood and mishandled a particular subject of much legal and political debate for more than 35 years. How is an admission of perpetual misconception and/or incompetence in understanding something so simple and fundamental to the rightful free exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty and rights supposed to legitimize your position of telling me that I am “wrong” simply because you and those like you were incapable of comprehending the simplicity of thought and action relating to individual rights and liberty so as to understand this most basic of human concepts and do it right?

You also appear to be holding the mistaken belief that the various constitutions are themselves the well-spring of the rights and liberties of We the People, and that we are the ones bound by their respective provisions and principles. That is a demonstrably unsubstantiated and fundamentally unsafe foundational premise, as no constitution on this planet is now or ever has been the source of our inherent and fundamental individual rights and liberties. In that respect, its sole purpose as a grantor of any and all delegated powers and authority, and prohibitions upon the use of same, is applicable and binding only upon our servant government and its actors, regardless of branch, department, or office. The only thing a constitution does directly for the People is to provide a reminder to those in government that they are in fact, NOT the ones in charge of everything, and to preserve an actionable remedy to remove, alter, or abolish any or all parts of that government when it fails to adhere to the proper limits upon its use of that power and authority.

Now, let’s start with what I feel should be some rather simplistic facts and logic in terms of laying a foundation for this response, beginning with certain facts that we know for certain are true:

1)  It is NOT illegal for an individual to purchase an automobile or truck of any classification or type for private non-commercial use in any state of the union.

2)  There are NO laws placing any restrictions upon the number of automobiles or trucks that a private individual can purchase.

3)  There are NO laws prohibiting the free exchange of lawfully owned private automobiles or trucks between private individuals or private individuals and business’.
4)  The foundation of facts established by items 1-3 begs the conclusion that any man may purchase and own any number of automobiles or trucks as their own private property, and may do with them as he might please as to their purchase, sale, transfer, use, or destruction. After all, he lawfully and rightfully owns them, not the state, not society, and most certainly not government as it is a creature of man’s own lesser design and creation.  Only a lien-holder would have say in the matter, and neither the state nor its agents are parties to that contractual agreement as lien-holders, so they have no legitimate claim under it and no duty towards it other than ensuring that the contract does not violate properly enacted and applicable law governing such contracts or that it is not unconscionable toward either party in its terms.
However, it would appear to be your position that the state, while it has no lawful authority to say or do anything at all in relation to any of the things described in 1-4 above, can somehow still claim it has the legitimate authority to tell someone that they have no inherent or fundamental right to actually use the private property that they lawfully purchased and own for its intended and designed purpose. Thomas Jefferson would probably have first laughed in the face of any judge or attorney that would dare foment such an obviously liberty and individual rights denying concept, and then, sought their disbarment and/or impeachment, rapidly followed by criminal charges or lunatic commitment papers.   Jefferson’s thoughts on such stupidity are rather poignant, The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8:72

Jefferson had much to say on the concept and law of private property ownership and use:

Property Rights:

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

“A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

“[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to… the acquisitions of our own industry.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

“He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Bancroft, 1788. ME 19:41

“That, on the principle of a communion of property, small societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various small societies which have been constituted on that principle. But I do not feel authorized to conclude from these that an extended society, like that of the United States or of an individual State, could be governed happily on the same principle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822. ME 15:399

The Origin of Ownership:

“It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all… It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

“A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.” –Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

“The laws of civil society, indeed, for the encouragement of industry, give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470

Every Citizen is Entitled to Own Property:

“The political institutions of America, its various soils and climates, opened a certain resource to the unfortunate and to the enterprising of every country and insured to them the acquisition and free possession of property.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775. Papers 1:199

“The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed… It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

“No right [should] be stipulated for aliens to hold real property within these States, this being utterly inadmissible by their several laws and policy.” –Thomas Jefferson: Commercial Treaties Instructions, 1784.

“Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

“[The] unequal division of property… occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which… is to be observed all over Europe.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:681

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682

The Protection of Property Rights:

“[The] rights [of the people] to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

“I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means, and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors of the many.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33

“Our wish… is that… equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382

“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:466

“If the overgrown wealth of an individual is deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:466

Rights Associated With Ownership:

“It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors… It would be curious… if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody… The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

“By nature’s law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice.” –Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:104

“Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810. ME 12:383

“Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of.” –Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

“[If government have] a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, [this would leave] us without anything we can call property.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:233

“The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:145

“Persons and property make the sum of the objects of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459

“The right to sell is one of the rights of property.” –Thomas Jefferson to Handsome Lake, 1802. ME 16:395

“The power of repelling invasions, and making laws necessary for carrying that power into execution seems to include that of occupying those sites which are necessary to repel an enemy, observing only the amendment to the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation… Where the necessary sites cannot be obtained by the joint and valid consent of parties,… provision should be made by a process of ad quod damnum, or any other more eligible means for authorizing the sites which are necessary for the public defense to be appropriated to that purpose.” –Thomas Jefferson: Message on Defence, 1808. ME 3:326

You now might better recognize this concept of yours, as it is essentially a claim that government can deny or convert to privilege the rightful and lawful use of private property against him who lawfully owns and controls it. It is a concept very much in line with that of an unlawful governmental taking or conversion of property, which is something else that SCotUS has addressed on more than one occasion, albeit with ever increasing ineptitude and leanings toward destruction of rights and usurpation of power.

Which brings me to the one question that no attorney or judge ever appears to be able to reasonably explain when asked, “how did the people go from having every right to using ANYTHING that they lawfully owned and possessed, whether that be their feet, a burrow or horse, a chariot, a sled, a litter, a wagon, or a “motor car,” to freely travel upon the roadways of their age, to suddenly having that right converted into a mere privilege due to nothing more than the advancement of time and technology coupled with the whims of other men?”

Which then, of course, begs the followup question;  “Can you name any other inherent and fundamental individual right that has been so fully and unlawfully converted into a licensed privilege simply because time and advancements in technology made changes in the manner of things and devices used to exercise it?” I certainly can’t. Nor can I fathom how any court or governmental body could have possibly come to a lawful and constitutional conclusion that they suddenly had a new power and authority that they had never previously possessed in that they could arbitrarily take away a man’s right to the use of his own private property for any and all LAWFUL (not LEGAL) purposes unless he first sought and received governmental permission to do so.

And any argument that the government has the right to deny the use of THEIR roads is patently false, because the roads are neither owned by nor belong to the government. They belong to the people. WE paid for them to be built and to be maintained. They are OURS. Government is nothing more than our elected and appointed steward for seeing to it that the roads remain fit for OUR use in pursuit of our individual private business or pleasure.

Even more to the point, just WHO could have possibly given the state legislature, or any other body of government, the authority to make that conversion of fundamental and inherent individual rights and liberties into lesser government sanctioned and licensed/permitted privileges?  Such a thing is inconceivable in a constitutional republic. If I have no personal or individual right to tell someone else that they cannot use either their private property, or our mutual property in the form of the public roads, in a lawful and peaceful manner, whether such use is done independently or simultaneously. And neither you nor anyone else has any such lawful right.  And if none of us individually have any such lawful power and authority over another man, then neither does ANY governmental agency or agent, as their just powers are derived from us. And if we don’t lawfully have it, we cannot delegate it to another, not even to our own legal creation known as government.

The collective power of government was only intended and authorized to be used against particular members within We the People that had committed unlawful acts against the person, rights or property of another individual or group. And even then, that authority was limited to the purposes of apprehending, trying, convicting, and punishing those specific individuals, not to regulate or otherwise control the rest of us individually or collectively in the just exercise of our own free will. I, like most men, am self-regulating. And I do not seek to unjustly harm the person, rights or property of any other man.

The premise for this line of thought and reasoning in relation to the limits of delegated authority derived from individual rights and liberties was proclaimed by Jefferson in these words:

 What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393 

The principles of government… [are] founded in the rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:51

Our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government… This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for… peace and safety… as to render its use impracticable,… it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress.” –Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:178

 

Furthermore, when the state enacts a law, ANY law, that is enacted for the regulation of something, anything, it must first be something that the people themselves have the power to regulate themselves either individually or by collective agreement. Why you might ask? Well, it really is a rather simple concept; one cannot give away a power or authority that s/he does not lawfully and rightfully posses. And the tired old cliche of “the people voted” is non-substantive, as the free exercise and enjoyment of inherent fundamental individual rights cannot be removed from any one or more of the people by a majority vote. Nor can a majority vote do any better when it comes to converting a right into a privilege.

This is the difference between a republic and a democracy. One protects the rights and liberties of the individual, the other is nothing more than mob rule, which the founding fathers soundly rejected.In my personal opinion, it is rather idiotic for anyone tell the people that they are born free men, and that they live in a free republic where they each have equal inherent fundamental and innumerable rights, and then, in the same breath, try to qualify or downplay that by saying “… well, … except this, … or that, … or these things here, … because we who are supposedly your servants, having been empowered by our sworn oath to protect and defend ALL of your individual rights as a prerequisite of our existence and authority, have decided without your consent to not let you claim or exercise certain one’s of them, or potentially any of them, as an individual right to be exercised without our written and purchased permission.” Tell me, just who has any lawful right whatsoever to tell another man what he can or cannot do with his own person or property when he does not use his rights to those things to intentionally or negligently cause harm to me or any other?

Now as far as the actual laws themselves go in relation to the subject of “transportation” versus “the right to travel,” let’s look at it from this perspective.

The Texas Constitution, as does most state constitutions of which I am aware, limits the subject of any legislative enactment to ONE SUBJECT. In the case of the fairly recently recodified “transportation” code, that subject just happens to be “TRANSPORTATION.” And ANYTHING that is written into that code MUST be related to that one subject. If it is not, then that portion of the code would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it would be a legislative Bill dealing with more than one subject.

Now, the Texas Legislature did not provide a definition of the term “transportation” in ANY law or code that exists in Texas. However, they DID create statutes that tell us precisely how to determine the meaning of those terms that they failed to define. These methods of writing, reading, and interpreting the meaning of such terms and phrases, can be found in Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code. Within which you will find that the term “transportation” is to be defined in the same manner as other existing law or as the standard industry usage defines it, which just happens to match with the very definition that one would find in the SCotUS case law cited as the basis for that definition in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition and earlier.  The same would apply to the term “carrier.”

It should be axiomatic that, in order to charge someone with a crime under the specific subject matter of “transportation,” since that is the ONLY subject to which the code and its regulatory statutes can constitutionally apply, the state MUST prove that the individual WAS engaged in “transportation” as defined by that term.  Simply being in a car on the highway isn’t enough to constitute “transportation.” And if you are willing to suggest that the state is somehow not required to prove that the regulated subject matter to which the statutes specifically apply is in any way relevant to the criminal accusations being made against the Accused by alleging offenses that are defined by and exists solely within that subject matter code, then you are admitting to the knowing and intentional denial of the right of due process as being precisely what is wrong with your particular brand of justice and the corrupt judicial and Bar system that controls it.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between using the police power for regulation for public safety, such as traffic control devices meant to control traffic flow so as to prevent accidents for instance, and taxation of a privileged activity through various license and permit schemes. You are either considering them to be one and the same or are failing to recognize the distinctive differences, because SCotUS and numerous other courts have ruled over and over again that any license or permit requiring a payment of a fee in order to obtain it ARE taxes upon the exercise of the permissive privilege. The term “tax” and “license” are synonymous according to those court rulings.

However, the right to liberty through locomotion is NOT a permissive or granted privilege, but rather it is an inherent and fundamental right of liberty through locomotion, for which I do not require any man or court to recognize in order for me to know it to be absolutely true. Only a slave must ask permission and favor to move about without his chains, in whatever form those chains may be.  The Declaration of Independence makes this understanding of liberty more than  clear to someone that isn’t actually looking for some legal control mechanism by which to either conceal or deny its very existence.

To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
But Jefferson didn’t stop there when it came to expounding upon the only real basis and necessity for any form of organized government in the first place:

It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” –Thomas Jefferson to Francois D’Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4
[These are] the rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

 

What you are saying about the police power and the government’s alleged right to regulate certain activities is not a concept created by the people OR our constitutions, but rather by the courts and those within our government that decided they knew better than us how to lead lawful and productive lives, and then proceeded to use their delegated powers to subvert and undermine the rights of everyone for the perceived [but false] benefit of a collective society, which is a concept soundly rejected as an abomination to the principles of a constitutional republic.

The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” –Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24

 

And you also seem to think that I and everyone else should have no opinion or argument that contradicts or refutes that which establishes the power and control sought by government through our courts. Courts which have demonstrated their complete failure in understanding even the most historically fundamental concepts of LIMITED government and inherent fundamental individual rights, which they’ve accomplished through a never-ending train of tortured reasoning and incompetent or abusive readings and interpretations of the provisions within the various constitutions to further diminish individual rights in favor of ever expanding governmental power and authority. It is the basic principle of letting the inmates run the asylum by setting and interpreting their own rules.

Your words make it appear that you want me and the rest of the American people to simply accept the baseless assertion that they, meaning the courts, attorneys like you, and governmental actors in general, are somehow more capable, qualified, and intellectually equipped to be the sole collective body uniquely empowered to be our only purveyors of truth and understanding. A concept which I find not only laughable to the point of requiring corrective surgery, but with which I heartily and vehemently disagree to the point of being willing to take up arms to defend against it. Nor am I alone in thinking so. My words to you on that point are well founded in a prior discussion involving Jefferson that long predates us both, and which soundly renounces and refutes such an assertion on your part:

You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

Some other natural rights… [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights.” –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272

 

So, despite what you might think about the power and authority of government to do any particular thing it damn well pleases, I would consider the possibility that you, like many others before you and in office today, have failed to remember that We the People ARE the one true and primary department of government that has the power to supersede and/or do away with anything and everything that government, in whole or in part, may decide or do. The government’s willingness to resort to force of arms, and to use them without fear of accountability, does not make those doing so right. What it does make them is a group of treasonous despots that deserve to be arrested and punished with life in prison for their crimes against us all, which will be exactly what happens if they lose the battle of force.

Therefore, all I can say to you is that you may choose to believe as you wish and stay as much a slave to those beliefs in relying on a totally corrupt and broken system of law and injustice as you desire, regardless of how ill-founded or unsubstantiated such beliefs may be. But, none of your choices bind me or any other individual to you or to those choices. I have the faculties and the inherent and unalienable right to think and act for myself, to make my own choices, to self-regulate, and to engage in my own private business or pleasure using my own understanding of the proper exercise of my rights and liberties as I see fit, limited or barred only by the equal rights of others to not be intentionally or negligently harmed by me. Which would also include freedom from those same types of intrusions and harm by government actors. THAT is the true limit of government’s police powers upon the free exercise of the individual rights and property belonging to We the People as far as I am concerned.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” –Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276

Being myself a warm zealot for the attainment and enjoyment by all mankind of as much liberty as each may exercise without injury to the equal liberty of his fellow citizens, I have lamented that… the endeavors to obtain this should have been attended with the effusion of so much blood.” –Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicholas Demeunier, 1795. FE 7:13

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” –Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124P.S.

Thank you for your email. I will use it for the edification of others so that they may understand why attorneys should never be allowed to hold public office or other positions of power that would allow them to control and subvert the freedoms and liberties that are inherent in us all by our very birth. I will be posting your email, and my response, to my blog.

Be aware that I reserve the right to edit and amend my original response at any time and in any way that I deem necessary as time and information allows. Hopefully it will be enough to provide you with a different perspective than the one that you currently have, the most important of which being that the legal profession cannot have its cake and eat it too. When laws are used to subvert and supplant liberty and freedom with permissions and privileges, then the law itself, and those that try to justify supporting and defending it, ARE the only real problem.

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.