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

When Cognitive Dissonance Becomes the Societal Norm.

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

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

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

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



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

“It’s Only a Few Bad Apples…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




CAUSE NO(s). 742
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
v. § TERRELL COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Jan Patrick Baker, § 63rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendant in Error. § DUNS number: 006848369
§

Respondent’s Special Appearance and
Motion to Quash and Dismiss the Indictment – 2nd Amended

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Jan Patrick Baker, appearing specially and not generally, in his common law capacity and of common right as one of the People of Texas and Defendant in Error (“Baker”) in the above styled and numbered cause and files this Motion to Quash and Dismiss the Indictment against him, and for cause would show the Court as follows:

I.
NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT

Baker stands charged by a one (1) count indictment, however, the body of the Indictment instrument alleges no specific offense or class of offense under any specific code, nor any specific details comprising the necessary elements of an offense, therefore, Baker can only guess as to what specific charge and classification is being made against him based solely upon other conflicting documents in his possession and relative to the matter that may or may not have any force of law as to determining or providing him with proper Notice of the specific classification of charge that is actually being made against him. In which case, Baker’s best guess as to what the State is accusing him of is EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION, pursuant to Section 38.04(b)(2)(A), Texas Penal Code, a third (3rd) degree felony. The indictment alleges that “on or about” the 13th day of March, 2015, the Defendant:

[did then and there intentionally flee from Russell Weatherby, a person the defendant knew was a peace officer, to wit: a Texas Department of Public Safety-Highway Patrol Division Trooper attempting to lawfully arrest or detain the said JAN PATRICK BAKER, and JAN PATRICK BAKER did then and there use a vehicle while the said JAN PATRICK BAKER was in flight]. (Emphasis added).

II.
LEGAL OVERVIEW

All citizens accused of any crime have the right to adequate notice of the specific charges under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution.1 These constitutional guarantees require a defendant to be given notice of the “nature and cause” of the accusation against him so that he may prepare a defense, and plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of further prosecutions for the same offense.2 The requirement of notice “with sufficient clarity and detail” is designed to “enable the defendant to anticipate the State’s evidence and prepare a proper defense to it.” 3 “[T] he accused is not required to anticipate any and all variant facts the State might hypothetically seek to establish.” 4


1In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Moff v. State, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d 683, 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

2Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974); Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-764 (1962); Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d at 686 (Meyers, J., concurring); Moore v. State, 473 S.W.3d 523, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).

3Garcia 12. State, 981 S.W.2d at 685 (citing Eastep v. State, 941 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).

4Brasfield v. State, 600 S.W.2d 288, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), overruled on other grounds by Janecka v. State, 739 S.W.2d 813, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Drumm v. State, 560 S.W.2d 944, 947 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure implements and supplements these constitutional requirements and provides guidelines by which to measure the sufficiency of an indictment. For instance, under Article 21.03, “[e]verything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved.” Article 21.04 requires that the “certainty required in an indictment is such as will enable the accused to plead the judgment that may be given upon it as a bar of any prosecution for the same offense.”5 And Article 21.11 states that “[a]n indictment shall be deemed sufficient which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged… .”

Under Article 27.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, exceptions to the substance of an indictment can be raised where “it does not appear therefrom that an offense against the law was committed by the defendant” and “it contains matter which is a legal defense or bar to the prosecution” (emphasis added). Defects of form can be raised under Article 27.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, although a defect of form should not render an indictment insufficient unless it “prejudice[s] the substantial rights of the defendant.” See Article 21.19. Defects of substance and form can result in a dismissal of an indictment or require an amendment of the indictment. See, e.g., Articles 28.07 and 28.09 to 28.11 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The issue of “[w]hether an indictment fails to charge an offense at all is an entirely different issue from whether the indictment fails to provide adequate notice.”6


5This statutory requirement of “certainty” is “distinct from, and independent of, the constitutional requirement of adequate notice.” Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d at 685 n.3 (citing G. Dix & R. Dawson, Texas Criminal Practice and Procedure § 20.104 (1995); 2 W. Lafave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 19.2(b) at 445-446 (1984).

6Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Olurebi v. State, 870 S.W.2d 58, 62 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

III.
LEGAL GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

Baker objects to the lack of a proper verified criminal complaint, which was required to be filed prior to the prosecutor seeking an indictment.

Baker objects to the lack of a proper Information, which was required to be filed prior to the prosecutor seeking an indictment.

Baker objects to both the form and the substance of the indictment.

Baker believes that, besides being retaliatory and baseless, the Indictment is factually insufficient in that “it does not appear therefrom that an offense against the law was committed by the defendant” and “it contains matter which is a legal defense or bar to the prosecution,” (emphasis added), thus, it fails to allege an offense under Article 27.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

III-A.
No Properly Verified and Filed Criminal Complaint
and Information Invalidates the Indictment.

Baker is being made to answer for an infamous crime of which no one has properly accused him of committing. Therefore, the State of Texas is unlawfully and illegally restricting him at his liberty and seeking to prosecute him without authority or jurisdiction.

Baker was charged by indictment only, succeeded solely by a warrant of arrest issued from the Office of the District Court Clerk. However, there is no proper statement of probable cause or verified Complaint in the court record to support the issuance of any warrant or to provide a prosecutor with the necessary authority to create and file the required Information with any court having jurisdiction, much less with a grand jury, and which Information is also missing from the court record. “[i]t is fundamental that the name of the complaining witness is a necessary requisite to a valid indictment or information.EX PARTE BOB LEWIS, 1976.TX.41549; 544 S.W.2d 430, (12/22/76) (emphasis added). Absent a valid Complaint there is no complaining witness against Baker for the purpose of filing an information or seeking an indictment.

The prosecution has stated that the Affidavit for Warrantless Arrest made by Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) Highway Patrol Division Trooper Russell Weatherby (“Trooper Weatherby”) before Justice of the Peace for Precincts 1 & 2, Corina Arredondo (“J.P. Arredondo”) serves as the Complaint in this matter. However, Baker believes that instrument has a severe legal deficiency of form and substance that invalidates it both as a proper probable cause statement for a warrant and as a proper Complaint. The statement of probable cause for the warrant does not list a single substantive fact setting forth any of the required elements in support of the charge being made against Baker. It lists only the statute that was allegedly violated and nothing more, which means the warrant is basically blank and devoid of any factual assertions whatsoever supporting probable cause as well as in the specifics and manner in which it fails to “[s]tate the time and place of the commission of the offense, as definitely as can be done by the affiant” (emphasis added). There are no specific details as to the time and place of the alleged offense stated within the affidavit for warrantless arrest, which is what D.A. Hernandez states is being used as the required Complaint. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 21.03 requires that “As a general rule, any element that must be proved should be stated in an indictment. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.03 (Vernon 1989); Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 338 (Tex Crim.App.1995); Ex parte Elliott, 746 S.W.2d 762, 764 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). This rule applies to an information. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.23 (Vernon 1989).”7 There are also no such details in the Information required to be filed by the prosecuting attorney for the state, because D.A. Hernandez has never filed an Information in this case neither prior to nor after having unlawfully and illegally obtained this secret Indictment from the grand jury in violation of Art. 16.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Baker’s due process right to an examining trial.

The affidavit of warrantless arrest filed by Trooper Weatherby is factually deficient and incapable of providing any probable cause for a warrantless arrest, and it should never have been signed and approved by a magistrate as a valid Affidavit for Warrantless Arrest, and brings into question the judicial competency of J.P. Arredondo for having signed it as it currently reads. And there should be no question that it fails to meet the statutory and due process requisites of a valid complaint in that it alleges no specific facts relating to the alleged offense.

It is neither possible nor plausible that D.A. Hernandez is not aware of these highly obvious legal deficiencies in the Affidavit/Complaint, therefore, the only logical conclusion is that he simply doesn’t care. Perhaps it is because he is so focused on obtaining an indictment and conviction of Baker, in violation of his legal duty under Article 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure “[n]ot to convict, but to see that justice is done,” that he is willing to overlook such petty details in his pursuit of ‘justice.’ It may even be, proverbially, to simply get Baker “out of his hair” so as to put a stop to Baker’s efforts of exposing the rampant public corruption in Terrell County Texas. Corruption that couldn’t remain in existence if the sitting D.A. was doing his job, or, unless he was complicit in it.


7Green v. State, 951 SW 2d 3, Tx.Ct.Crim.App (1997).

It cannot be stressed enough that the current cause raises significant questions about how the grand jury came to indict Baker. If the cause was initiated by the grand jury, then what person thereon had personal knowledge that Baker allegedly committed some crime, and by what method does that person avoid the civic duty of filing a proper Complaint before someone authorized to take and verify such a Complaint?

If the grand jury did not come by this knowledge on its own via one of its members, but, rather, by way of the prosecuting attorney, then the prosecutor must be viewed as the actual accuser in the matter. Especially considering that D.A. Hernandez once again failed to properly perform his known legal duty under the law before seeking an indictment (an act that is itself a direct criminal violation of Texas law), which was to prepare a proper information based upon a properly verified and formatted substantive complaint, attach said complaint to the information, and submit both to some proper magistrate in accordance with Article 2.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, if such is the case, it creates an untenable conflict with the ends of justice and the rights of Baker. In Peter B. Peterson v. STATE TEXAS (12/20/89), 1989, TX.41854; 781 S.W.2d 933, the court held that a prosecutor cannot be the sole initiator of a criminal prosecution, especially one where s/he would be the prosecutor in the matter, when the court stated:

“An information is a “primary pleading in a criminal action on the part of the State,” Article 27.01, V.A.C.C.P., a written pleading in behalf of the State drawn, filed and presented by a prosecuting attorney charging an accused with an offense that may be prosecuted under the law. Article 21.20, V.A.C.C.P. in order to “protect its citizens from the inherent dangers arising from the concentration of power in any one individual,Kennedy v. State, 161 Tex. Crim. 303, 276 S.W.2d 291 (1955) (Opinion on Motion for Rehearing, at 664), the Legislature precluded a prosecutor from presenting an information “until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense,” and also mandated, “The affidavit shall be filed with the information.Article 21.22, supra. Such an affidavit is, of course, a complaint within the meaning of Article 15.04, V.A.C.C.P. “In other words, a prosecuting attorney is not authorized to institute prosecutions in the county court upon his independent act or of his own volition.” Kennedy v. State, supra, at 294. One may not be “both the accuser and the prosecutor is misdemeanor cases.” Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663, at 664 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). Compare Glass v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 598, 288 S.W.2d 522 (1956); Catchings v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 342, 285 S.W.2d 233, at 234 (1955).

If the Indictment alone is to be considered the charging instrument, then where is the jurat required for verification? As none appears on the face of the instrument, the Indictment can only be presumed to serve as a mere presentment by the grand jury consequent to having either been provided with, or having themselves submitted to the prosecuting attorney for the state, a properly filed Complaint. So, whose affirmation is verified on the face of the Indictment?

In State of Texas v. Carroll Pierce the court held:

A valid complaint is a prerequisite to a valid information. Holland v. State, 623 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex. Cr. App. 1981). Without a valid complaint, the information is worthless. Williams v. State, 133 Tex. Crim. 39, 107 S.W.2d 996, 977 (Tex. Cr. App. 1937). A jurat is the certificate of the officer before whom the complaint is made stating that it was sworn to and subscribed by the Applicant before the officer. Carpenter v. State, 153 Tex. Crim. 99, 218 S.W.2d 207, 208 (Tex. Cr. App. 1949). A jurat is essential, for without it, the complaint is fatally defective and will not support an information. Shackelford v. State, 516 S.W.2d 180, (Tex. Cr. App. 1970). The jurat must be dated and signed by the official character. See 22 Tex. Jur. 3d, Criminal Law, Section 2266 at 490. Thus, a complaint not sworn to before any official or person in authority is insufficient to constitute a basis for a valid conviction. Nichols v. State, 171 Tex. Crim. 42, 344 S.W.2d 694, (Tex. Cr. App. 1961) (citing Purcell v. State; 317 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Cr. App. 1958)); see also Eldridge v. State, 572 S.W.2d 716, 717, n.1 (Tex. Cr. App. 1978); Wheeler v. State, 172 Tex. Crim. 21, 353 S.W.2d 463, (Tex. Cr. App. 1961); Morey v. State, 744 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. App. 1988, no pet.). Even where the jurat on the complaint reflects that it was sworn to before a named person but does not show the authority of such person to act, the complaint is void. Johnson v. State, 154 Tex. Crim. 257, 226 S.W.2d 644, (Tex. Cr. App. 1950); Smola v. State, 736 S.W.2d 265, 266 (Tex. App. 1987, no pet.). The complaint is also void when the jurat contains no signature but only shows the office such as “County Attorney of Jones County, Texas.” Carter v. State, 398 S.W.2d 290, (Tex. Cr. App. 1966). When a jurat showed that the complaint had been sworn to before “Lavern I. McCann, Hockley County, Texas,” the complaint was insufficient to support the information. Carpenter v. State, 218 S.W.2d at 208-09. In the early case of Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 360, 16 S.W. 253 (Tex. Ct. App. 1891), the complaint was sworn to before “Wm. Greer J.P.” It was held that the letters “J.P.” could not be inferred to mean Justice of the Peace and an official who had the authority to administer the oath.” (Emphasis added).

When a jurat on a complaint shows that the oath was administered to the Applicant by a party designated as county attorney but who in reality is an assistant county attorney, the complaint is void. Thomas v. State, 169 Tex. Crim. 369, 334 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Tex. Cr. App. 1960); see also Aleman v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 265, 284 S.W.2d 719, (Tex. Cr. App. 1956); Stalculp v. State, 99 Tex. Crim. 279, 269 S.W. 1044, 1045 (Tex. Cr. App. 1925). When the assistant or deputy is authorized by law to administer the oath himself, he may not administer it in the name of his principal and may not certify that the principal administered the oath by and through him as an assistant. Goodman v. State, 85 Tex. Crim. 279, 212 S.W. 171 (Tex. Cr. App. 1919).” State of Texas v. Carroll Pierce (09/25/91), 1991.TX.41404; 816 S.W.2d 824. (Emphasis added).

If the instrument was prepared and presented to the grand jury by the prosecutor, who then is the actual accuser in the matter, and by what authority did the prosecutor initiate a prosecution solely by presentment of an already prepared Indictment or simply an oral presentation to the grand jury?

To avoid situations where the State stands as both accuser and prosecutor, procedures were put in place directing the grand jury as to how it would proceed through the course of an indictment. In the current cause, these procedures have been abridged in such a fashion so as to deny Baker in his fundamental due process rights, specifically, his right to know and face his accuser, right to an examining trial, and the right to challenge the array of grand jury members prior to their impanelment.

III-B
Retaliatory and Incorrect Charge.

Baker has previously objected to the Indictment due to it being facially invalid in that it alleges specific facts relative to the elements of the alleged offense that are patently incorrect and untrue. However, Baker was misinformed by not only his own attorney, but also by 83rd District Judge Robert Cadena (“Judge Cadena”) and 63rd District Court Judge Enrique Fernandez (“Judge Fernandez”), and local District Attorney Frederico Hernandez (“D.A./ D.A. Hernandez”) (who is also the initiator8 of this criminal allegation and the prosecutor in this matter), that the facts alleged in the Indictment don’t have to be exactly accurate in order to be valid. Baker believes this to be not only intentional misinformation as to the requisite accuracy and validity of the Indictment, but a knowing willful and wrongful effort to undermine his right of due process and “custom tailoring” of the facts that the prosecution must prove at trial. Baker remains steadfast in his objection that the Indictment alleges specific facts that the prosecution is fully aware are untrue and are exculpatory on their face.

On or about April 2, 2015, the contents of the court record were examined. At which time County/ Court Clerk Martha Allen faxed D.A. Hernandez an answer to a communication with the subject “Re: Request for Examining Trial” and stating what was currently filed in the court record.  At that time, five (5) items were in the court record; 1) Order appointing counsel, 2) Notice of withdrawal of appointed counsel, 3) Demand for an examining trial, 4) Demand to produce, 5) PR bond.


8As no criminal complaint appears to have ever been filed before D.A. Hernandez in this matter, coupled with his failure to properly prepare and present an information to the proper court or to the grand jury as required by the provisions of Article 2.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to his seeking and obtaining an indictment, it must be presumed that he alone is the person making a criminal allegation to the grand jury.

 

On April 13, 2015, Judge Cadena personally signed the order to reassemble the grand jury on May 12, 2015, at 9:00am, the same day as Baker’s previously scheduled examining trial, which was also scheduled for May 12, 2015, at 10:30am, and for which the order was originally signed on April 9, 2015, again, by Judge Cadena himself. Which proves that Judge Cadena was completely aware that Baker’s right to an examining trial was being violated by D.A. Hernandez in total disregard for the laws of Texas, and that Judge Cadena was acting in concert and collusion to aid and abet same. Making it no surprise that the only case heard by the grand jury on May 12, 2015, was Baker’s.

Furthermore, this provides enormously strong prima facie evidence that there was at least some degree of ex parte communication occurring between Judge Cadena and D.A. Hernandez’s office in relation to Baker’s case.

Baker further asserts that a charge under Penal Code Section 38.04 is unlawful and invalid in light of Section 545.421, Texas “Transportation” Code (“ “Transportation” Code ”) as being the more relevant and controlling statute,9 Section 38.04(d), Texas Penal Code, notwithstanding, as all events that led up to the existing allegation against Baker are a direct result of a knowingly willful and wrongful application of the “Transportation” Code to Baker and his private conveyance by the arresting officer in this matter, Trooper Weatherby.

As there is no actual indication that the Texas Legislature intended to supersede or repeal Section 545.421, “Transportation” Code by the later amendment of Section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code to include Subsection (d), Baker should have been charged with a Class B misdemeanor under Section 545.421 of the “Transportation” Code and not a felony of the 3rd Degree under Section 38.04 of the Penal Code, provided any actual grounds exist for any charges against Baker at all. The provisions of Section 545.421, “Transportation” Code, is not a lesser included offense within Section 38.04, Penal Code,10 it is completely separate from, and almost identical in form and substance to, Section 38.04, Penal Code. However, Section 545.421 charges a substantially lesser penalty for what is a virtually identical offense.


9Section 311.026(b), Texas Government Code, “If the conflict between the general provision and the special or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.” (Emphasis added).

10Farrakhan v. State, No. PD-1984-06 Tx.Ct.Crim.App (Mar 12, 2008).

Sec. 545.421. FLEEING OR ATTEMPTING TO ELUDE POLICE OFFICER; OFFENSE.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle and wilfully fails or refuses to bring the vehicle to a stop or flees, or attempts to elude, a pursuing police vehicle when given a visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop.

(b) A signal under this section that is given by a police officer pursuing a vehicle may be by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren. The officer giving the signal must be in uniform and prominently display the officer’s badge of office. The officer’s vehicle must bear the insignia of a law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the vehicle displays an emergency light.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor if the person, during the commission of the offense, recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(e) A person is presumed to have recklessly engaged in conduct placing another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury under Subsection (d) if the person while intoxicated knowingly operated a motor vehicle during the commission of the offense. In this subsection, “intoxicated” has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

(Emphasis added).

The “Transportation” Code version of the offense specifically stipulates “wilfully fails or refuses to bring the vehicle to a stop” within its provisions, a specific act and character of circumstance that is completely omitted from Section 38.04, Penal Code. These specific elements more closely reflect Baker’s self-protective actions with his private conveyance and the proper context of the March 23, 2015, incident with Trooper Weatherby than any of the provisions of Section 38.04, Penal Code.

Furthermore, as it was an alleged “transportation” offense that Trooper Weatherby was using as his alleged authority to perpetrate the crimes of unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, and official misconduct against Baker, without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, then, it should be axiomatic that the “Transportation” Code specific offense is the only one that State could lawfully and legally apply to any legal “person” who allegedly “wilfully fails or refuses to bring the vehicle to a stop.”

It is also not constitutionally viable that the provisions of Section 38.04(d) would apply as an alternative method of prosecution in this matter, as that would mean that Baker, and others similarly situated, could potentially be charged twice using different levels of charges for virtually the same offense stemming from the same series of events, thus potentially creating a double jeopardy issue.

Furthermore, the very existence of Section 38.04(d), Penal Code, in simultaneous concert with the existence of Section 545.421, “Transportation” Code, creates a serious public notice and due process issue in that anyone charged with “eluding” would have no way of knowing which statue the State could or would try to apply and use to charge them, despite the appearance of a specific category of legal application based upon the subject matter context of the particular code under which the initial law enforcement contact arose, i.e. some Penal Code offense versus some “Transportation” Code offense.

This issue is then further compounded by what certainly appears to be an equal protection and application of the laws issue, where one person can be charged and convicted of a felony while another is charged and convicted of a misdemeanor for what factually and circumstantially amounts to virtually the exact same offense, but having very different levels of punishment.

As such, Baker, and anyone else similarly situated, are not being given sufficient notice of the actual charge being made against them so that s/he can prepare to defend against those allegations, and is being placed in the very real danger of being twice held in jeopardy for the same offense. Swabado v. State, 597 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Amaya v. State, 551 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); U.S. Const amend. X, VI, and XIV; Tex. Const. art. I, § 10, § 15 and § 19.

This potentially makes either Section 38.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code, or Section 545.421, of the “Transportation” Code, unconstitutional on its face in light of the existence of the other.

In which case, the issue becomes even further compounded under the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibitions of Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution, wherein it states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” (Emphasis added).

Baker wonders how is it not cruel and unusual punishment to charge a man with a felony of the 3rd Degree or a Class B misdemeanor, or any crime at all, for acting in what he feels is in the best interest of his personal safety and welfare by seeking a public place where other people may act as witnesses to any and all unlawful and illegal acts that may be perpetrated by those with a presumed authority to harass, injure and kill with virtual impunity simply because they are a government employee?

Therefore, under the circumstances as they exist, Baker believes that he can and should only be indicted and charged under Section 545.421, “Transportation” Code,11 if any valid charge and cause for indictment against Baker legally exists at all.


11Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182; 2008 Tex.Crim.App.

III-C
Indictment Contains Elements Proving Innocence of the Alleged Offense.

Baker’s understanding of the elements of the allegation for which he has been indicted leads him to believe that there is a required element of the charge itself that proves fatal to the indictment and the criminal allegation in its entirety, and is actually exculpatory in nature, and serves to exonerate Baker of the alleged offense.

The charge for which Baker was indicted under Section 38.04(b)(2)(A) requires the element of a “vehicle” as being the means of “evading.” However, in Section 38.04(c)(1), the term “vehicle,” as used to commit the act of “evading,” is declared by Sec. 38.04(c)(1) to have the same meaning as the term “vehicle” defined under Sec. 541.201 of the “Transportation” Code. Section 38.04(c)(1) reads:

[(c)] In this section:
      (1) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.201, 
          Transportation Code.

Texas “Transportation” Code Section 541.201(23) defined “vehicle” as:

[(23)] "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw
       persons or property on a highway. The term does not include:
       (A) a device exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks; or
       (B) manufactured housing as that term is defined by Chapter 1201, 
           Occupations Code.

Considering the actual subject matter of the “Transportation” Code, and the definition of “vehicle” in Section 541.201(23) of that code, then a “vehicle” must be a device that not only can perform the functions defined within that term, but must also be actively in use for the purpose of “transportation.” And even if the state’s argument is that the term “vehicle” is to be given a general rather than specific meaning so as to make it applicable to any one or more of the specific types of devices listed within the entirety of Section 541.201 rather than only that of “vehicle” under Subitem (23) of that section, that does not change the subject matter context of the definition itself to apply to anything other than those devices being used to engage in “transportation.” Any device listed within Sec. 541.201 is legally a “vehicle” only when “transportation” itself is the business related activity for which it is being used by a “carrier,” “operator,” or “driver.”

This is a clear indication that the only manner of “vehicle” that can support the element of the alleged offense is one that has the same meaning, and therefore, the same legal subject matter purpose and use, as that found for the term “vehicle” in the “Transportation” Code. Thus, a device is only a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle” when it is being used for “transportation” by a “carrier,” “operator,” or “driver.” Which means that it should be perfectly clear that it is not the design or method of propulsion built into a device that makes it a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle” or that serves to make its use upon the public right-of-way an act of “transportation,” but rather, it is the existence of “transportation” that determines whether or not a device is legally a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle.” And this same standard holds true for “carrier,” “operator,” “driver,” or any other legally defined capacities or objects found within the “Transportation” Code. See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 133 S. Ct. 735 (2013).

Therefore, the only type of “vehicle” that is statutorily acceptable in proving that element is one that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt was being used for the purpose of “transportation” at the time of the commission of the alleged offense of “evading with a vehicle.” This means that the term “vehicle” does not simply mean anything with wheels or that moves under anything other than human power provided either with or without an engine, including, but not limited to, Baker’s private conveyance.

As Baker was never engaged in “transportation” as a “carrier,” “operator,” or “driver,” and there exists no substantive evidence that would prove otherwise, and Baker was not using his private conveyance as a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle” to engage in “transportation,” it cannot be lawfully or legally inferred that his private conveyance meets the statutory requirements and meaning of the term “vehicle,” thus, it fails to substantiate the charge against Baker. In fact, it completely disproves the element, thus legally negating the charge against Baker.

 

III-D
Violation of Baker’s Right to an Examining Trial
and to Challenge Grand Jury Array.

Baker was deprived of his due process rights when D.A. Hernandez sought a secret grand jury indictment prior to Baker receiving an examining trial, specifically, his right to know and face his accuser, to have an examining trial, and to challenge the array of grand jury members prior to impanelment.

The Texas Constitution – Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 10 – RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. (Amended Nov. 5, 1918.) (Emphasis added).

Baker never had any opportunity to head off this whole prosecutorial process through the presentation of exculpatory evidence at a proper examining trial or to challenge the validity of any alleged evidence in the state’s possession.  An examining trial is defined within Article 2.11 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by Article 2.11. [35] [62] [63] EXAMINING COURT.
When the magistrate sits for the purpose of inquiring into a criminal accusation against any person, this is called an examining court. (Emphasis added).

Baker has been indicted, bound to the court for trial, and yet, no one has made any valid Complaint against him. No credible person has presented any proper Complaint to any magistrate, and no court clerk has ever received any proper Complaint against Baker from the magistrate of an examining court. Neither has any clerk been affected with the legal duty to keep safe said Complaint and other documents resulting from an examining trial and then deliver them up to the next grand jury.

Baker has the right to ask “Who is Baker’s accuser?” And, at this point, D.A. Hernandez seems to think that it is the grand jury rather than himself, as he appears to hold the opinion that the grand jury could somehow act first as Baker’s accuser, and then, act as the presenter of an indictment, and may do both absent a properly formed and verified Complaint and the requisite accompanying Information that D.A. Hernandez is required by law to prepare, sign, and submit in his official capacity with said Complaint attached pursuant Article 21.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. D.A. Hernandez also appears to believe that the grand jury serves as the legal plaything of any governmental prosecutor such as himself, and can be compelled to act solely at his/her behest to “True Bill” an indictment. Apparently, Texas prosecutors now seem to have reached the erroneous conclusion that the need for a valid Complaint and Information prior to indictment and prosecution has somehow and at some point been discredited.

Furthermore, Baker was never afforded the opportunity to challenge the grand jury array prior to their impanelment, because the prosecutor for the state and the judge of the 83rd District Court conspired and colluded to get a grand jury indictment in secret and in direct willful and wrongful violation of Texas law and Baker’s right to make that challenge. In point of fact, Baker was denied access to any and all information as to the composition of the grand jury members until more than a year after the indictment was handed down, and has only recently managed to get the list of names so as to see who was part of the array that indicted him.

In this instance, Baker’s deprivation of the right to challenge the grand jury array resulted in an indictment by a grand jury whose foreman, and at least one other member as currently known, has a previous personal and official confrontational and disagreeable history with Baker. The grand jury foreman, Timothy Scott Mitchell (“T.S. Mitchell”), is Chairman of the appointed five-member board designated as the “Terrell County Underground Water Conservation District,” and was one of the main members responsible for numerous attempts to unlawfully and illegally convert or outright steal the private water rights of the People living there, to which Baker and many others very publicly objected and protested during confrontations at public meetings and personal discussions on the subject.

There is also the issue of many of the people of Terrell County, including, but not limited to Baker, that have also protested the numerous insider contracts and backroom deals to which several “important” persons of wealth and political power residing in or around Terrell County are party. And these potentially unlawful and illegal activities, at least some of which, if not actually all, are known to and ignored by local public officials, including District Judges Fernandez and Cadena, D.A. Hernandez, the Sheriff, and several others.

Another member of the grand jury, Terry Black, is the spouse of USBP Agent ‘Billy’ Black (“Agent Black”), who was the #2 USBP Agent-in-Charge in Terrell County when Baker reported several other USBP agents that were harassing him by repeatedly racing their USBP vehicles back and forth along Baker’s property and fence line for no apparent legitimate purpose, but rather to incite his dogs into a frenzy and panic his livestock. A friend of Baker’s, John Hagan (“Hagan”), reported this behavior to Agent Black while Baker listened in on the three-way conversation, a fact of which Agent Black was unaware when he repeatedly denied that his subordinates were terrorizing Baker’s animals. However, within minutes of Hagan informing Agent Black that Baker was listening at the same time he was watching Agent’s Black’s subordinates outside of his property, Agent Black’s subordinates suddenly ceased their actions and vacated the area.

Baker believes that it was his and other reports from the People of Terrell County alleging that Agent Black and his superior, USBP Agent-in-Charge Earnest Rodriquez (“AiC Rodriquez”), were “turning a blind eye” to this and even more egregious unlawful and illegal behavior by their subordinates, such as the destruction of private property, destruction of livestock fences, and criminal trespass. And Baker has good cause to believe that it was these actions and reports of supervisory and subordinate misconduct that eventually resulted in Agent Black’s reassignment.

Later, USBP Agent-in-Charge Thaddeus Cleveland (“AiC Cleveland”) was also involved in a previous attempt by USBP Agent Collier (“Agent Collier”) to perform an illegal “transportation” stop on Baker at a point upon the public right-of-way that is well beyond the vicinity of the Texas border or any border checkpoint, neither of which Baker had been anywhere near. At the time that Agent Collier engaged in the illegal attempt to seize Baker at his liberty without warrant or lawful authority, Baker had called 911 and advised them of the situation, and, instead of pulling over for the illegal stop, traveled to the Sheriff’s office before stopping. It was at that time that AiC Cleveland arrived on-scene and demanded that Baker get out of his van and go into the sheriff’s office, and Baker declined to do so. As they had no lawful authority to make a “transportation” stop on a Texas public right-of-way, both AiC Cleveland, Agent Collier, and approximately twelve other Agents, eventually left, but not without suffering the embarrassment of being told by one of the Sheriff’s deputies that they were acting unlawfully and criminally by what they had done in pursuing Baker with no probable cause and no legal authority.

Furthermore, Agent Black was one of the federal officers that blocked the public right-of-way in order to prevent Baker from reaching a publicly populated area of more relative safety on March 23, 2015, while pointing a loaded weapon at him. Which further leads Baker to believe that Black’s spouse, grand jury member Terry Black, might “have an axe to grind” with him.

Article 19.31(a), items 5 and 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows a challenge to a grand jury member as follows:

Art. 19.31. CHALLENGE TO JUROR.

(a) A challenge to a particular grand juror may be made orally for any of the following causes:

[5.] That the juror has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the person accused or suspected of committing an offense that the grand jury is investigating;

6. That from hearsay, or otherwise, there is established in the mind of the juror such a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the person accused or suspected of committing an offense that the grand jury is investigating as would influence the juror’s vote on the presentment of an indictment;

(Emphasis added).

As detailed above, Baker had ample valid legal grounds to disqualify at least two of the grand jury members prior to impanelment, and potentially more. However, Baker could have most likely had the entire jury array disqualified under Article 19.31(a) item 6 due to D.A. Hernandez’s illegal use of hearsay witness testimony to obtain the Indictment, as set forth in specific detail in section III-E of this document.

Article 20.19 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure instructs the grand jury as follows:

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20.19. [391] [442-443] Grand jury shall vote.
After all the testimony
which is accessible to the grand jury shall have been given in respect to any criminal accusation, the vote shall be taken as to the presentment of an indictment, and if nine members concur in finding the bill, the foreman shall make a memorandum of the same with such data as will enable the attorney who represents the State to write the indictment. (Emphasis added).

How can ‘all the testimony’ be ‘accessible to the grand jury’ if the individual being accused is never given a chance to appear and make a rebuttal to the alleged facts being presented against him or her, or introduce mitigating or potentially exculpatory evidence against the allegation(s)?

These rights are essential to individual due process, and are precisely why the legislature very clearly intended that a prosecuting attorney not have the power to seek an indictment in secret. In the instant case, the prosecuting attorney somehow made a presentment to a grand jury without ever having a proper complaint or creating the requisite information. A prosecutor can bring a crime to the knowledge to the grand jury only when a complaint has already been made to a prosecuting attorney by someone other than themselves. Article 21.20, V.A.C.C.P. in order to “protect its citizens from the inherent dangers arising from the concentration of power in any one individual,” Kennedy v. State, 161 Tex. Crim. 303, 276 S.W.2d 291 (1955) (Opinion on Motion for Rehearing, at 664), the Legislature precluded a prosecutor from presenting an information “until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense,” and also mandated, “The affidavit shall be filed with the information.”

While Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 2.04 and 2.05 authorize the prosecuting attorney to take complaints and issue oaths, nothing in law directs a complaint to a grand jury. All criminal complaints are directed to some magistrate. When a complaint is made before a prosecuting attorney, s/he can take the complaint but, s/he must file the complaint with a magistrate of the county as follows:

Art. 2.05. WHEN COMPLAINT IS MADE.
If the offense be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall forthwith prepare an information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court having jurisdiction; provided, that in counties having no county attorney, misdemeanor cases may be tried upon complaint alone, without an information, provided, however, in counties having one or more criminal district courts an information must be filed in each misdemeanor case. If the offense be a felony, he shall forthwith file the complaint with a magistrate of the county. (Emphasis added).

If a peace officer has knowledge that a crime has been committed, said officer’s course of action is directed by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.13, which reads as follows:

Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS.

(a) It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer’s jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.

(b) The officer shall:

(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;

(2) execute all lawful process issued to the officer by any magistrate or court;

(3) give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer’s jurisdiction, where the officer has good reason to believe there has been a violation of the penal law; and

(4) arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law, in order that they may be taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried.

(c) It is the duty of every officer to take possession of a child under Article 63.009(g).

(Emphasis added).

When a magistrate is made aware that a crime has been committed, s/he is required to hold an examining court in accordance with his/her duty under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 2.10 and 2.11, which read as follows:

Art. 2.10. DUTY OF MAGISTRATES.

It is the duty of every magistrate to preserve the peace within his jurisdiction by the use of all lawful means; to issue all process intended to aid in preventing and suppressing crime; to cause the arrest of offenders by the use of lawful means in order that they may be brought to punishment.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.

Art. 2.11. EXAMINING COURT.

When the magistrate sits for the purpose of inquiring into a criminal accusation against any person, this is called an examining court.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.

(Emphasis added).

Once an examining trial has been held under Chapter 16 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and an order has been prepared showing that a determination of probable cause has been made by order pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 16.17, the complaint that initiated the examining trial, the statement of the accused (if any), and all other documents are to be sealed up and sent to the clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the offense in accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 17.30, which reads as follows:

Art. 17.30. SHALL CERTIFY PROCEEDINGS.The magistrate, before whom an examination has taken place upon a criminal accusation, shall certify to all the proceedings had before him, as well as where he discharges, holds to bail or commits, and transmit them, sealed up, to the court before which the defendant may be tried, writing his name across the seals of the envelope. The voluntary statement of the defendant, the testimony, bail bonds, and every other proceeding in the case, shall be thus delivered to the clerk of the proper court, without delay. (Emphasis added).

The court will take notice that the statutes say nothing about a prosecuting attorney until the stage described in Code of Criminal Procedure Article 17.31. The clerks who are authorized to receive these documents are directed by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 17.31 as follows:

Art. 17.31. DUTY OF CLERKS WHO RECEIVE SUCH PROCEEDINGS.
If the proceedings be delivered to a district clerk, he shall keep them safely and deliver the same to the next grand jury. If the proceedings are delivered to a county clerk, he shall without delay deliver them to the district or county attorney of his county. (Emphasis added).

By the above, in every case where a criminal complaint has been made, the complaint is originally directed to some magistrate, who is to hold an examining trial and forward the documents had in the hearing to the proper court.

There are two circumstances where this procedure could potentially be intentionally misinterpreted and bypassed, and they are contained in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20.09, which reads as follows:

Art. 20.09. DUTIES OF GRAND JURY.
The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person. (Emphasis added).

Because of the ambiguity of its language, Article 20.09 potentially could lead to an indictment without a criminal complaint ever having been filed. Were a grand jury to bring an indictment based on the personal knowledge of a grand juror or “some credible person,” it is conceivable that there would be no criminal complaint of record, as the grand jury members might not be aware of and understand the legal importance and necessity of a proper Complaint, making it the legal duty of the prosecuting attorney for the state to inform them of that requirement prior to an indictment. In such a case, however, the indictment could not be recorded in the minutes of the grand jury as contemplated by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20.22(b) which reads as follows:

Art. 20.22. PRESENTMENT ENTERED OF RECORD.
[(b)] If the defendant is not in custody or under bond at the time of the presentment of indictment, the indictment may not be made public and the entry in the record of the court relating to the indictment must be delayed until the capias is served and the defendant is placed in custody or under bond. (Emphasis added).

In order for a magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest and subsequently place an accused individual into custody or on bond as directed by Article 20.22 supra, there must already be a proper Complaint filed with that magistrate upon which to base the warrant as well as for the subsequent commitment order or to release him or her on bond. However, there is no Complaint in this case, just as there is no Information based upon said Complaint in the record.

Furthermore, the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 19.27 serves to prevent a prosecutor from stacking a grand jury against an accused by granting any person the right to challenge the grand jury array prior to the jury being impaneled, or, if the grand jury is already impaneled, to challenge the array in a Motion to Quash Indictment (see Muniz v. State, 672 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App 1984)):

Art. 19.27. ANY PERSON MAY CHALLENGE.
Before the grand jury has been impaneled, any person may challenge the array of jurors or any person presented as a grand juror. In no other way shall objections to the qualifications and legality of the grand jury be heard. Any person confined in jail in the county shall upon his request be brought into court to make such challenge. (Emphasis added).

Article 19.27 is extremely specific about the fact that the composition of the grand jury cannot be challenged for either qualifications or legality after it has been impaneled. Which makes those opinions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as discussed herein even more outrageous and egregious, as these opinions state that the right to an examining trial and to challenge the pre-impanelment composition of the grand jury is automatically denied to the accused if the prosecuting attorney for the state can manage to convince a district judge to secretly impanel a grand jury whereby the prosecutor may convince them to issue an indictment, and, thus, simultaneously deny the accused in both the right to an examining trial and to challenge the composition of the grand jury array before it can be impaneled. Especially when, as is the case here, no proper allegation of criminal activity by means of a verified Complaint and Information has ever been filed in the matter.

This is compounded by the fact that the language of Article 19.27 would appear to negate the ability to challenge the jury array and any subsequent indictment by means of a Habeas writ or a motion to quash the indictment, as at least some grounds for doing so will almost certainly pertain to the qualifications or legality of certain members of the grand jury directly.

Therefore, any challenge to the indictment after the fact would, as a matter of law, have to be automatically denied by the courts if the motion made any argument whatsoever that the indictment was improper solely for reasons relating to the legality or qualifications of the grand jury members that made and presented it. Which would mean that the accused individual’s right to due process could be shoved aside by the prosecutor stacking the secret grand jury with persons that have a private bias or vendetta against the accused or that are in any other manner disqualified from sitting upon the grand jury. And there is no recourse written into the law for the accused to obtain remedy for this harm. Nor can Baker locate any statutory authority for the courts to simply provide such alternative remedy without first declaring that provision of Article 19.27 unconstitutional as being a violation of due process.

To further prevent secret grand jury indictments, the Legislature enacted Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 16.01, creating a specific prohibition against the seeking of an indictment prior to giving proper, sufficient and timely notice to an accused individual that s/he may have need to avail him/herself of the other statutory right granted by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 19.27, supra:

Art. 16.01. EXAMINING TRIAL.
When the accused has been brought before a magistrate for an examining trial that officer shall proceed to examine into the truth of the accusation made, allowing the accused, however, sufficient time to procure counsel. In a proper case, the magistrate may appoint counsel to represent an accused in such examining trial only, to be compensated as otherwise provided in this Code. The accused in any felony case shall have the right to an examining trial before indictment in the county having jurisdiction of the offense, whether he be in custody or on bail, at which time the magistrate at the hearing shall determine the amount or sufficiency of bail, if a bailable case. If the accused has been transferred for criminal prosecution after a hearing under Section 54.02, Family Code, the accused may be granted an examining trial at the discretion of the court. (Emphasis added).

In the 1967 case of Trussell v. State, 414 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Crim.App 1967), without citing a single point of authority or any explanation for doing so, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rendered null and void the statutory right of an accused to an examining trial by nothing less than unlawful judicial fiat and legislating from the bench. The court effectually ruled that a prosecutor may do that which s/he is specifically forbidden by statute to do, and may secretly present to a grand jury the name of a person who has not been afforded the statutorily granted right to an examining trial or to receive proper, sufficient and timely notice of a potential indictment so as to exercise his/her right to challenge both the charging instrument and the composition of the grand jury array prior to the jury being impaneled, or, at the very least, to know the composition of the grand jury if they have already been impaneled so as to make a proper challenge to the array by means of a writ of habeas corpus and to the charging instrument by a motion to quash or set aside. An effort which Article 19.27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to make null and void from inception.

Apparently, the justices comprising the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals at the time decided that they could rely upon United States Supreme Court rulings setting the minimum standards and requirements for federal examining trials, as the means to somehow nullify Texas law and the greater level of protections that the Texas Legislature had directly afforded the People in relation to such proceedings within the state.

Our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has gone on to hold in the following cases that an examining trial is only available to the accused if the accused requests it, yet, no such language or inference exists in the statute. And it must be recognized that Baker did demand an examining trial, in writing, before any other actions were taken by anyone, including the seeking and obtaining of the secret Indictment. The Court has also held that only those charged with a felony have the right to an examining trial, but this simply cannot be true when examined under the microscope of substantive and procedural due process, as most misdemeanor cases are preceded by a warrantless arrest, which requires a probable cause determination all its own prior and in addition to the probable cause determination relating to the alleged offense(s) in a criminal matter. The rule-of-thumb being that, if the initial warrantless detention or seizure was itself unlawful, then, any evidence or statements discovered thereafter must be considered as “fruit of the poison tree,” and would then be inadmissible for the purpose of any subsequently related criminal allegation(s). Without an examining trial, just where, when, and how does someone accused of a misdemeanor ever receive the opportunity to challenge the facts and evidence against them for the purpose of preserving any appealable error on the record relating to the probable cause determination, or, potentially ending a criminal prosecution before it can ever begin?

Furthermore, as the examining trial is the only opportunity provided for in the criminal process whereby a determination of probable cause can be made by a neutral and detached magistrate, who is also the only person authorized by law to sign an order relating to a finding of probable cause, or for the purpose of signing an order of commitment to jail upon such finding, pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 16.17 and 16.20 respectively, and as probable cause is a fundamental foundational pillar of both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, a finding of probable cause at an examining trial can be nothing less than mandatory in order for any court to have the required jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and to protect the due process rights of the accused.

Therefore, as a matter of law, jurisdiction, and due process, it cannot be made the responsibility of the accused to request an examining trial, or that the courts can declare the right to such a trial shall be presumed waived by the accused if no such request is made, but, rather, it is actually a mandatory requirement upon the courts under the laws of Texas to set a date and time for that proceeding to take place and to ensure that it does. The basis for such reasoning is that an examining trial is the only proceeding set forth in Texas law for making a determination of probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate relating to both a warrantless arrest and the validity of the allegations against the accused, and, therefore, it simply cannot be voluntarily waived by the accused, as probable cause goes to the two primary pillars supporting the State’s jurisdiction to sit in judgement of a matter, that of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction. The only reasonable and acceptable exception to this requirement would be a case where the accused voluntarily confessed to the crime(s) prior to the conducting of an examining trial, as that would satisfy both the probable cause and jurisdictional requirements without a judicial finding and order.

Further, there is no lawful authority or power vested in a grand jury, especially when being spoon-fed information of alleged criminal activity solely by the prosecuting attorney for the state, and without benefit of mitigating, contradictory, or presentation of exculpatory evidence by the accused or his/her counsel, to make any sort of probable cause determination. Indeed, it must be asked if it is even lawfully possible to qualify the members of a grand jury to make such a determination, as such determinations are lawfully and legally required to be made by a properly sworn neutral and detached judicial magistrate, although, considering the willful and wrongful violations of law being perpetrated by our Texas Courts in violation of the rights of the accused, it appears to be a moot point at this time.

What’s more, it should not even require an argument to undermine and deny any position that would argue that probable cause can be rightfully determined by the prosecuting attorney for the state any more than it would be to argue that they may initiate a criminal complaint of their own volition, regardless of the classification of the allegations involved and most especially when they are prosecuting the matter. ““In other words, a prosecuting attorney is not authorized to institute prosecutions in the county court upon his independent act or of his own volition. Kennedy v. State, supra, at 294. One may not be both the accuser and the prosecutor in misdemeanor cases.Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663, at 664 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). Compare Glass v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 598, 288 S.W.2d 522 (1956); Catchings v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 342, 285 S.W.2d 233, at 234 (1955). (Emphasis added, internal quotes omitted).

How then does an indictment serve as a lawfully and legally valid determination of probable cause in relation to the validity of both a warrantless arrest and any related allegation(s) of criminal activity that would serve as the means to validly and lawfully displace both the statutory requirement and due process need for a proper examining trial for any alleged criminal offense rather than just felonies alone? It contains no proper jurat requiring that it be signed under penalty of perjury as certifying the truth of the allegations made therein as a sworn criminal statement requires, and it does not require that the person signing it have any competent firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged. It is in every way legally possible insufficient as the basis for stating or making a probable cause determination or as the sole instrument of accusal.

The rulings in Trussell and later court opinions have had the undeniable effect of denying an accused individual in their right to an examining trial as specifically granted by statute, such right being nothing less than a requirement for both procedural and substantive due process rights to mean anything at all. These rulings further serve to chill or deny the accused in the due process right of preserving any appealable error that may be exposed relating to a finding of probable cause, impeachability of witness testimony, or the validity and admissibility of evidence. These rulings also destroy the individual’s right to challenge the grand jury array prior to impanelment. And the most egregious and detrimental effect of all, these rulings have unlawfully created judicial sanction and consent for both the lower courts and prosecutors statewide to engage in criminal violations of state law, specifically, Texas Penal Code Secs. 39.02 and 39.03, which reads as follows:

Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY.(a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or
(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is less than $100;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $100 or more but less than $750;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $750 or more but less than $2,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the thing misused is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $30,000 or more but less than $150,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $300,000 or more.
(d) A discount or award given for travel, such as frequent flyer miles, rental car or hotel discounts, or food coupons, are not things of value belonging to the government for purposes of this section due to the administrative difficulty and cost involved in recapturing the discount or award for a governmental entity.
(e) If separate transactions that violate Subsection (a)(2) are conducted pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the use of the things misused in the transactions may be aggregated in determining the classification of the offense.
(f) The value of the use of a thing of value misused under Subsection (a)(2) may not exceed:
(1) the fair market value of the thing at the time of the offense; or
(2) if the fair market value of the thing cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the thing within a reasonable time after the offense.

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting. (Emphasis added).

The simple elements constituting criminal violations of the above Penal Code statutes make the denial of an examining trial by our prosecutors and courts nothing short of an ongoing criminal conspiracy and criminal enterprise under Title 18 of the United States Code and state law.

In the instant case, it had to be clear to the presiding judge that the Indictment had been presented to the court in violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20.22, that the prosecutor had presented a person to a grand jury for indictment that the prosecutor knew full-well had been denied the rights granted by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 16.01 and 19.27. The violation of Articles 20.22 and 19.27 were accomplished by the denial of the right to an examining trial in violation of Art 16.01.

The court opinions on this subject are not only wrong as a matter of law and a complete lack of constitutional authority to make such rulings, but are blatantly criminal in their hubris and utter disregard of an accused individual’s constitutionally and statutorily protected rights, are a violation of the separation of powers clause under Article 2 of the Texas Constitution, are a violation of properly enacted procedural law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directly violate the fundamental individual right to due process of law rather than merely the rule of a group of men and women operating through a judicial and prosecutorial collusion and consensus as to how they want it to work.

How is it anything less than an “unreasonable” act of sedition to have judges sitting upon the bench in the highest criminal court in Texas that have unilaterally declared the judicial department to be totally superior to the legislative in determining what legislation it will follow and what legislation it will simply choose to disregard in relation to criminal procedure and the legislatively protected rights of the accused? Is this behavior not the very thing that the courts are presuming to be unlawful and illegal acts by those appearing before them for prosecution and appeal? Where is even the appearance of judicial integrity, competency, fairness, and impartiality in that? Is the argument that the legislature actually has no power to enact laws to dictate certain procedures for the courts to follow or to protect the rights of individuals caught up in the criminal judicial process? If so, then why not simply declare the statute unconstitutional rather than just criminally ignoring it or legislating from the bench to rewrite it in accordance with judicial and prosecutorial perspectives and desires? What the Court of Criminal Appeals has done in these opinions is to declare that the Court itself is not only above the law, but above the legislature as well, and it has the power and authority to sanction and protect knowingly criminal violations of law and other criminal acts perpetrated by the lower courts and state prosecutors against the people of Texas. This is an unconstitutional oligarchy in action, and this oligarchy is committing sedition and treason against us all.

No reasonable person of ordinary prudence can read Article 16.01 and construe it as anything other than a prohibition specifically preventing a prosecutor from seeking an indictment until the accused has been given notice and opportunity for an examining trial where s/he can obtain a proper determination of probable cause for any warrantless search or seizure of his person or property, present exculpatory evidence, question witnesses, and obtain a legal determination as to what evidence will be admissible at trial and on questions of law. This exculpatory evidence would then be available to any subsequently impaneled grand jury under the dictates of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.01, which reads as follows:

Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.
Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 801, ch. 291, Sec. 98, eff. Sept. 1, 1981.

(Emphasis added).

And once it is determined, and notice has been given, that a grand jury is to be impaneled to hear a complaint against the Accused for the purpose of indictment, the Accused could then exercise his or her right to an opportunity to challenge the grand jury array.

Had Baker been allowed access to the full protections and due process rights contained in the constitutions and laws, the full sets of facts and evidence relating to any allegations of criminal conduct by Baker would have been available to the grand jury. And, if such facts and evidence proved exculpatory or as an affirmative defense, then, it is almost certain that no indictment would have ever happened and no criminal prosecution commenced.

The case law makes it clear that everything involving the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unlawful and illegal denial of an examining trial to an accused individual evolved from Trussell. Trussell and its progeny, Ash v. STATE, 420 S.W.2d 703 (1967), Murphy v. STATE, 24 S.W.2d 231 (1968), Bryant v. STATE, 423 S.W.2d 320 (1968), Ward v. STATE, 427 S.W.2d 876 (1968), Harris v. STATE, 457 S.W.2d 903 (1970), Brown v. STATE, 475 S.W.2d 938 (1971), Whittington v. STATE, 781 S.W.2d 338 (1989), and others, as precedent, are totally worthless, as each and every one of the resulting opinions directly sanctions the willful and wrongful violation of state law and the due process rights of the accused by every court and prosecutor statewide.

III-E
DISTRICT ATTORNEY HERNANDEZ WILLFULLY AND WRONGFULLY
PRESENTED HEARSAY TESTIMONY TO THE GRAND JURY.

In direct violation of the spirit and intent of Article 19.31(a) item 6, D.A. Hernandez allowed one Amanda Herman (“Ms. Herman”) to provide, at best, hearsay testimony, and at worst, suborned perjurious testimony, to the grand jury regarding the alleged facts surrounding the events of March 23, 2015, and the criminal allegations against Baker.

The problem with Ms. Herman’s testimony is that Ms. Herman has no competent firsthand knowledge of any of the related and relevant facts involving Baker, as she was not present at any time or at any of the actual locations during any of the events and incidents that occurred during the entirety of March 23, 2015.

Therefore, how could Ms. Herman have taken an oath to provide factual and truthful answers to any inquiries made by members of the grand jury in relation to facts that might result in an indictment allegedly relating to a crime of which she neither had nor has any personal knowledge?

How is it that D.A. Hernandez can use hearsay testimony to obtain a grand jury indictment while causing Baker to be denied even the semblance of fairness and impartiality, as well as subverting Baker’s right to an examining trial and grand jury challenge that would have potentially made Ms. Herman’s ‘testimony’ irrelevant and inadmissible to even a ‘stacked’ grand jury like this one, or, for that matter, an opportunity to appear before the grand jury himself so as to provide rebuttal facts and evidence refuting Ms. Herman’s statements and alleged facts?


IV.
EXERCISE OF RIGHT TO DEMAND RELIEF.

Due to the conflicting classifications of the alleged offense, and of the facts relative to the different classifications and subject matter of the allegations in the Indictment, Baker is being charged and indicted under the wrong code and statute. And given Trooper Weatherby’s complete lack of probable cause to detain or arrest Baker for any “transportation” related offense whatsoever, including that of allegedly “speeding” at the time and place of initial contact, and in conjunction with the other factual and statutory information of which the court must take judicial notice as provided herein under Rule 201, Texas Rules of Evidence, it is Baker’s assertion that the Indictment does not provide adequate notice of the charges against him such that he can adequately prepare for trial, be protected from being twice held in jeopardy for the same conduct, and to be adequately informed of which law applies to his case, in violation of his rights pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10, 15 and 19 of the Texas Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Baker moves that the Court quash the Indictment, and, if either instrument actually exists as required by law, to also quash the Complaint and Information against him, and to so provide a written order that each of these instruments be quashed and this case dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Jan Patrick Baker, Sui Juris




CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Quash Indictment was Faxed to the attorney for the State on October 21, 2016, at Fax Number 830-775-0352

_____________________________
Jan Patrick Baker, Sui Juris





CAUSE NO(s). 742
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
v. § TERRELL COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Jan Patrick Baker, § 63rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendant in Error. § DUNS number: 006848369
§

ORDER

On this day came on to be heard Defendant’s Motion to Quash Indictment. The Court, having considered the motion and argument of counsel, it is hereby ordered that

_____ the Indictment is quashed ____ with/ ____ without/ prejudice; and
_____ the Information is quashed ____ with/ ____ without/ prejudice; and
_____ the Complaint is quashed ____ with/ ____ without/ prejudice; and
_____ the case is dismissed ____ with/ ____ without/ prejudice.

SIGNED this _____ day of ______________________, 20_______.

 

_______________________________
JUDGE PRESIDING


Word documents relating to this Motion and the case in general:

motion-to-quash-indictment-published-on-blog

motion-to-disqualify-63rd-district-judge-fernandez

motion-to-disqualify-83rd-district-judge-cadena

notice-of-jennings-reservation

jennings-reservation-information

indictment-pg1

indictment-pg2

dps-affidavit-warrantless-arrest-weatherby

“You’ve Got Mail”

Well, this was an interesting email that I got today.

It appears to be from the Chief of Police of the Sea Gate Police Department in Brooklyn NY.

http://www.seagatepolice.com

His email to me reads:



 

Mr Craig

 I just watched one of your videos giving advice to persons stopped by the police. I am in law enforcement and with all due respect sir you have oversimplified a lot of points. What you are advising almost guarantees that persons who follow this will end up being arrested for minor traffic offenses. Even if they record some mistake and sue for a settlement it could take years. Consider the legal costs, time in court and anguish it could cause as opposed to a traffic fine? Im sorry but I don’t see the risk as viable. I am all for individual rights at every possible turn but you should advise people what a court battle and civil lawsuit look like before they attempt this. There is a fellow on youtube who made a similar stand and I just watched his video about being 30k in debt due to legal fees. I am sorry sir but I see this as reckless advise.

 Sincerely,

 Jeff Fortunato



Apparently, someone sent him a link to a YouTube video of my 2.5 hour presentation on InfoWars.com titled “Secrets Police Don’t Want You to Know.”

Please note, I replied with the utmost care to address his issues with my information in a respectful and detailed manner. And I would ask that any of you reading this that contact his department in relation thereto would also try to be respectful and work toward mutual support of our rights instead of making enemies that want to try and further destroy them.

Thank you.

My response was this:



 

Hi Chief, and thank you for the email.

I do understand your point and perspective as to my advice to set up a case and sue for rights violations at these unlawful traffic stops, but, with all due respect, I would please ask that you also keep an open mind about my explanation for the alternatives to that advice and why I chose to give the advice that I did instead.

By continuing to comply with unlawful municipal, county, and state legislative edicts that are not only unconstitutional when applied to the people, but also constitute unlawful harassment and a reckless endangerment of the public at the hands of its officers, it is our law enforcement agencies that are the greatest threat and source of wrongs perpetrated against the People today. Officers are far too egocentric, mentally unstable, and too willing to blindly follow any and all orders and edicts that they are given, regardless of the potential extreme danger and injury those orders might represent to the People that the officers are supposed to protect and serve.

Of course I realize that this is just one of the inherent dangers of having a politician for a boss rather than someone that understands and cares about individual rights and such other nuisances regardless of the orders being given, and that it doesn’t solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. But in this case, you would appear to be the man at the top if your title is any indication. So the process that exists and the harm it causes to the People must either be continued or stopped by you.

Of course, all of these laws and petty edicts made by the politicians are all made to look like a public safety, health and welfare effort, but you and I both know that it has almost nothing to do with public safety and almost everything to do with revenue generation through brute force extortion. Extortion effectuated by the very law enforcement officers that are supposed to be protecting the public from and arresting any mafia thugs and extortionists that promise protection for a not-so-small percentage of someone’s profits. Which, if you were to take a truly honest look at what it is you and your officers do, you would have to admit that this is precisely what your agency is used for and what it spends the majority of its time doing, acting as enforcement muscle for the racketeering politicians against the People.

Which means that law enforcement officers not obeying their oath to uphold and defend the constitution as they swore to do above all other things, which not only alienates them from the People by being willing to follow these unlawful edicts that perpetrate fraud and extort the public, but by also refusing to acknowledge that revenue generation is more important than serving and protecting the public rather than the corporate entity called the City or State of …. .

I am sure that you have heard the old saying “what if they held a war and nobody came,” well, I would like to ask, “what if they gave an order, passed a law, or made a threat to punish, and nobody obeyed?”

I gave the advice I did in the video because it is really the only thing remaining to the people to get back control of our totally out of control government before we have to resort to something much worse to do so.  Of course, guys in your position could already be doing something about it, but you aren’t. You are shifting the blame for the only remaining solution we the People have to me because I said to fight back from a court room instead of with the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you think there is such a continuous assault on the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right? It is because we can still use those arms to resist these abuses and to fight to get back what we are rightfully entitled to as a People, true and honest freedom and respect for individual rights and liberty.

Now ask yourself, if you would, why would I give the advice that I did if not for any other reason than to prove that we the People have tried every other means available to us before having to do the other?  I completely agree that going to court is both time consuming and expensive, and most likely a waste of time considering how corrupt the practice has become against the People, especially when having to pay a professional thief for his or her assistance.  Which is why I also try to teach people how to minimize that expense by learning to pursue the actions on their own without resorting to an attorney.

But that too has it problems, considering that no law enforcement officer in any law enforcement agency or any county or district attorney will take or act upon a criminal complaint against a fellow officer or other public official for the crimes that they commit against we the People on a daily basis, despite the fact that they ALL have a sworn duty to do so.

For instance, if I came to you personally and tried to file criminal charges against one of your officers for an actual crime that I saw him commit, would you treat me fairly, take the complaint, and investigate and charge the officer once the allegation was proven true, or, would you seek to justify the officers criminality and try to talk or threaten me out of making the complaint in the first place?  And in that scenario, which of us would be behaving more recklessly, me for trying to report a crime, even though it was committed by a law enforcement officer, and to have it addressed through proper channels; or would it be you for trying to cover it up and sweep it under the rug to cover the officers ass as well as your own?  How does someone in this situation ever get remedy or see that justice is done if the latter ending to the scenario is the most often chosen by those in public office?

So, in all honesty, which would you consider to be more reckless:

  1. telling people to just suck it up and keep taking the unlawful and unconstitutional abuses heaped upon us each and every day without end?; or
  2. learn to use the courts to fight back on your own both using and against a corrupt system that is already rigged against you and from which you cannot expect any help from those whose lawful and legal duty it is to provide it?; or
  3. get your guns people, and shoot to kill, because we have no other viable option any longer to regain control of our government and those that are willing to kill any one or more of us in order to protect the criminal status quo and their paycheck?

All of these are viable in some form or other, and I chose to try the one last ditch effort to get remedy without violence. And the irony of it is is that I don’t necessarily think it is actually a viable or best option at all considering the state of things, because I believe that those in places of power and authority are too far gone on their own power trip to see the writing on the wall or to listen to reason.

So, while I honestly understand your point and perspective, I have a hard time accepting your advice as useful, because I have no indication of the kind of officer you are or how you run your department. But, if I had to guess based upon the content of your email, I would have to say that you are just as willing to go along to get along as those that I have described, regardless of the violations to the rights and property of the people, and all just to maintain your position and get your pension. Am I wrong?

My whole life all I wanted to be was a Texas Ranger, and it is why I became a deputy sheriff, to work my way up. But I soon learned that those that are supposed to be the protectors against the exercise of arbitrary and dangerous power are often the worst offenders and abusers of it.  The Sheriff I was working for, and many of those in supervisory positions over me, were actually worse criminals than almost anyone we had locked up in the jail. And when I tried to speak out and expose it, I was the one that was gotten rid of. And I saw much much more abuses of a similar nature all through my 14 years of military service.

So I have some experience with such things and such people. And I got out of those things because I made a choice to be a better human being and started saying no to the things that I saw going on then and still see going on and worsening today. But it made me realize and choose what I was willing to do and believe in. I could sell my soul, play politics and let the bad things slide to get ahead, or I could stand up and say “NO!,” and refuse to support everything that I knew in my heart to be wrong about what peace officers had already become and were in great danger of eventually becoming. And those fears have been realized within the last dozen years.

Therefore, if you think the advice I gave was bad, try considering the alternative solutions that we the People have to choose from, and then tell me, which one would you prefer I give at this point in time and under the conditions of hostility that exist on both sides for no other reason than both want the other side to stop doing what they are doing to each other, some of whom have realized that they are just being played against each other by those controlling the system under which we both must find a way to live. Then, if you can decide that walking away is better than being a part of something that destructive to individual rights, liberty, freedom, and humanity as a whole, then we can talk about my choices and advice from a more relative and similar experience and perspective.

Again, thank you for the email.



 

See, completely respectful!  But now we have to wonder, did it actually do any good?  If I get any further reply I will add it to this post, so follow it if you wish to read those updates should any come to light.

Attorneys – The Unqualified Stupidity of “Qualified” Immunity.

The very concept of “qualified immunity” for public officials borders on utter lunacy, especially when it involves “law enforcement” officers. Only another group of government officials, and all of them attorneys no less, could come up with the concept of “qualified immunity.” Seriously?

The true conceptualization for “qualified immunity” is fairly simple, being ignorant and stupid is an asset when serving in public office, therefore, establish a legal mechanism that does not exist in American history or written law, because it is created entirely out of thin air by the  modern judiciary, and whereby a public servant can claim susceptibility to either condition when they screw up, and then be free from the otherwise serious consequences and accountability for their actions, in contradistinction of that course of action to which we the peons from whom they steal their paychecks and pensions are subjected.

The general idea behind the concept is that, a public officer or employee cannot be held accountable for any wrongdoing if s/he allegedly acted in good faith reliance upon the orders or information s/he receives from a superior or a/n un/written policy manual.

I know, right? I can literally see and hear the confusion in your eyes and mind on this perspective point. “You mean, if a government employ, including a police/law enforcement officer, didn’t violate some policy that we don’t even know about, s/he isn’t actually guilty of any wrongdoing, even criminal wrongdoing, when they act to wrongfully injure someone or their private property?” Yep, that is exactly what I mean.

Which leads me to ask these related questions, even if it is for no one other than myself:

  • Is there any chance at all perhaps, that the damned policy itself is actually wrong and unconstitutional on its face?
  • And why aren’t these minion idiots required to understand and know when that policy is directing them to do something, anything, that is unconstitutional and unlawful, or even illegal?
  • Why is blatant stupidity and willful ignorance a defense for public servants while honest ignorance or outright innocence is no excuse at all for we the People?
  • Is there also a better than average chance that the psychotic idiots (that would be the attorneys running the courts that I mentioned before) that are responsible for the creation and continuance of this criminally insane doctrinal policy are actually wrong, and simply don’t give a crap about you, me, or our rights and property within the grand scheme of things, which is that they get richer and more powerful while we the People get poorer and more submissive?

What the hell happened to the requirement of having and using one’s own brain in order to do this or any other job? Isn’t a functioning brain somewhat of an asset, and actually a fundamental requirement for a person to be considered a viable productive and trustworthy individual and member of society, or, for that matter, to even be left alone and free to wander around on their own totally unsupervised? Since when did it become the norm to arm paranoid psychotics with handcuffs, body armor, a club, a portable electroshock therapy device, a loaded weapon, and permission to use any or all of it against anyone whenever they “feel threatened?” And the courts think that setting this sort of standard under the umbrella of “qualified immunity” is somehow a benefit and protection for society and the rights of individuals? Think about that for a second… and then repeat after me, “You seriously delusional mentally incompetent fucktards!”

Is it somehow even a remotely reasonable and credible concept that a public servant doesn’t really know, assuming the existence of an actually functioning brain, when s/he is doing something wrong to other persons or property without someone higher up in the chain of command having to tell him/her that they’ve done so? Aren’t they supposed to already be qualified to know and understand the concept of right and wrong before they got a job that put a shitload of abusable power and authority into their hands, not to mention a loaded weapon with real bullets? Really? They are actually incapable and don’t really understand when they are acting wrongfully against an individual in violation of their rights and property? WTF?

Isn’t there a couple of well-known psychological conditions that describe this particular type of behavior and mental disorder, the two being what we have come to know as the psychopath and sociopath? What characteristics do these disorders share in common, which is really the main concern in asking the question in the context of this writing? Well, it’s sorta’ like this:

The common features of a psychopath and sociopath lie in their shared diagnosis — antisocial personality disorder. The DSM-51 defines antisocial personality as someone have 3 or more of the following traits:

  1. Regularly breaks or flouts the law
  2. Constantly lies and deceives others
  3. Is impulsive and doesn’t plan ahead
  4. Can be prone to fighting and aggressiveness
  5. Has little regard for the safety of others
  6. Irresponsible, can’t meet financial obligations
  7. Doesn’t feel remorse or guilt

 In both cases, some signs or symptoms are nearly always present before age 15. By the time a person is an adult, they are well on their way to becoming a psychopath or sociopath.[1]

Does this list contain three or more traits that you can readily associate with any of the current-day governmental profession(s) existing in America?

So, I think a few fair and legitimate questions would be:

  • “Why the hell aren’t all public servants mentally evaluated with the intent of determining the existence of these traits, starting with their early childhood? Especially law enforcement officers, and any attorney. Any attorney occupying any job at all!
  • And if the individuals that seek employment in any of these fields already are being so evaluated, then why do we and should we trust psychology as a valid profession and practice for making such determinations, considering the number of morons within our public offices and the justice system that have obviously been overlooked or slipped by?
  • Just how frickin’ reliable can this so-called “science” and “profession” really be with this many mistakes and oversights to its credit?”

Can you imagine how the Nuremberg trials would have been handled if the doctrine of “qualified immunity” had been around and the panel of judges and the jury were all Nazis or Nazi sympathizers, just like the ones that we have today? “Zee dere! He vas jost following orders! Nein! Nein! We cannot let a man be sued, or convicted und punished or imprisoned for a crime vhen he vas simply following orders from his superiors now can we? Vhat? Ach du himmel, der Fuhrer actually had zee written policy? Zee Gestapo had zee policy too? Those policies said zhat all of zis vas uhndkay as long as zee soldiers did everyzing in accordance with zee policies? Wunderbar!! We cannot convict! Zee cases are dizmissed!!

What did you get me for Christmas this generation Santa? OH, wow! Just what I’ve always wanted, an American justice and governmental system that would make the character in “American Psycho” look normal and Adolph Hitler proud.



Footnotes:

[1] PsychCentral.com – World of Psychology article “Differences Between a Psychopath vs Sociopath.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Algebra Formulas for “transportation”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Footnotes:

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

[2] The new death penalty standards in America.

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

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

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

WHAT police accountability?

As an ex-deputy and having worked around this mentality, I can comment on this subject more readily than most might be able to, with the exception of those that have actually suffered unlawfully and unnecessarily at the hands of those entrusted with their welfare and safety. And while I respect the INTENDED role of a PEACE officer, America is hell-and-gone from what that intended role ever was. Furthermore, I want it understood for the record that I am absolutely not wholly “anti-government,” however, I am admittedly and wholeheartedly, “anti-unconstitutional, unlawful, corrupt, and criminally abusive government,” regardless of its trappings.

With that foundational understanding laid, let’s honestly recognize and understand from the outset that our peace officers have been unconstitutionally and unlawfully converted into heavily armed, highly aggressive, and overly ignorant paid mercenaries that protect the people in power and their revenue streams regardless of the costs to the public in lives or property lost. Nowhere is the deliberate dumbing down of America more visible and pronounced than in the field of “law enforcement.” This fairly new terminology, “law enforcement,” is and means nothing at all in relation to the term “PEACE officer.” A peace officer’s sole responsibility is to KEEP THE PEACE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC, not enforce arbitrary and capricious dictates by petty tyrants and their bureaucratic minions that actually put the public at risk and in harm’s way by causing our officers to become armed and abusive revenue agents working for a corporate revenue factory.

The city of Dallas and its police department is no less one of these armed and dangerous revenue factories than is that of any other American city in existence today, including Austin, Texas, where the cities police force is not legally authorized to even exist, as there is absolutely NO EXPLICIT AUTHORITY in the city charter for a municipal corporation police department, which is a legal requirement to actually establishing such an agency according to the Texas courts. [1]

From the countless stories I’ve heard from those that have experienced the circumstances firsthand, and some past experiences of my own,  they are almost certainly just as corrupt and abusive as virtually any that can be found, albeit each in their own particular ways and methods. Anyone that knows the true facts behind these stories and allegations and would still declare otherwise is either an idiot or a fool, and quite possibly both.

Case in point, the [alleged] shooting of Dallas police officers that I am discussing briefly in this article. WHY did the shootings happen? What motivated them? Why were police, i.e. “law enforcement,” the specifically targeted demographic? Why is it only called MURDER or attempted murder when law enforcement officers are the one’s that get killed or shot at instead of being the ones actually doing the shooting and killing, where such murders are almost always found to be ‘justified,’ and then sanitized and whitewashed with the seemingly harmless label of “officer involved shooting?”

By pointing fingers at a man that they ALREADY KNEW had nothing to do with these shootings, there can be little to no question that the police were once again looking to lay blame everywhere and anywhere EXCEPT upon their own cumulative patterns of behavior, wrongdoing, and utter disregard for the lives of others, regardless of ethnicity, as being the real catalyst that resulted in these [alleged] shootings.

 

 

At exactly what point does the American People have the right to look our public servants in the eyes and tell them that it is high time that they be held accountable to the public, beginning with a long hard look into THEMSELVES as being the reason for these deaths. And after that introspection, clean house and make certain that those responsible are not only FIRED and PROSECUTED, but are also forever forbidden to ever serve in any public or armed private capacity ever again! When do we get OUR opportunity to look at these rogue officers and prosecutors and say “YOU, by your OWN actions and abuses of power and authority, are the ones responsible for setting this series of events in motion. YOU, by your OWNCop - Crooked Atlanta 3 unconstitutional and inhumane actions perpetrated on a daily basis, are the truly and ultimately responsible parties here!! The deaths of those officers as well as the injuries and deaths of every innocent victim of police violence perpetrated without accountability is on YOUR hands. And justice will only be served when you are each and every one held accountable for that!

Please, DON’T try to argue that the dead and wounded officers were never a part of the corruption or abuse. That they were or are actually ‘good’ cops. Because they WERE and they ARE a part of it by their own choice of acquiescence and refusal to do their duty to hold their fellow officers, superiors, and employers, accountable for their crimes against the People and the innumerable violations of the constitutional and legal protections to which we are all rightfully entitled as FREE and individually sovereign Americans.

I truly mourn the loss of ANY human life, even when it is morally justified as self-defense or in defense of others. But YOU, our public servants, would have us all believe that your lives are somehow more important than ours. And that in ANY situation, YOU have more of a right to go home to your family at the end of the day than any of the rest of us, EVEN when YOU are the real criminal instigator inflicting the real harm simply because you “were only following orders/ doing your job.” And if you actually perceive or believe this to be true, then that means that you also suffer from a DUAL MENTAL DISORDER, individually known as “superiority” and “god” complexes. And though I am in no way happy that these officers were [allegedly] killed or injured, nor am I saying that they specifically or coincidentally deserved it, I certainly cannot say that it comes as a surprise. In fact, the only real surprise is in the fact that it has actually taken this long for this to begin to happen.

MEME - Eddie - No One is More Justified 1920x1080

However, that tide IS turning, and We the People certainly aren’t going to continue to peacefully or idly stand by and watch when we witness acts of abuse, belittlement, and treatment of someone like they are a lesser human being less worthy of life and the protections meant to be provided by those that are SUPPOSED to “SERVE AND PROTECT” rather than the existing police motto of “ABUSE AND NEGLECT!!” I have watched this developing for years, and it would now appear that the apex has been reached. The days of political and brute force fear mongering, the cowardly acts of abuse, aggression, and murder against people that were never any real and credible threat to you, will hopefully soon be coming to an end.

I further hope that that end will be because you yourself refuse to any longer be a silent partner and facilitator of all the negative things that your institution has become, and will even do something to help stop it. Even if it means quitting and siding with the rest of us against the thin blue line and the code of silence. This NEEDS to stop, it MUST stop, or a civil war and violent political revolution is imminent in order to MAKE IT STOP!!

You cannot rightfully call it murder and the actors criminals just because they fought back when they are the ones that are attacked first and are having war waged upon them by armed thugs with zero accountability, as that is no more logical than you believing that the American government actually has some inherent right to invade and bomb a foreign country and then try and charge its people with treason against the United States simply because they fought back against our military. One of our biggest problems in this country is the current militarized police culture and mindset that “it’s us against them,” meaning law enforcement against the People, which is just like that of the military mindset when invading that foreign country. Too much like it in fact. If you doubt that, then take a look at what one officer wrote on his social media page…

Cop - The Mentality is Clear

Think about it, especially about that officer’s statement, really. In his eyes, and many like him, YOU are ALWAYS the one that deserves the blame for whatever course of action they decide upon taking. Seriously? YOU, our public servants, have callously and unlawfully declared that We the People are to be your enemy. That WE are somehow the terrorists by demanding that you respect our rights and property, by understanding that your ‘orders’ are almost always unlawful and petty retaliations for some perceived ‘contempt of cop‘ slight, rather than YOU being the ones actually guilty of terrorism through your attitude and actions. How delusional do you have to be to ignore these facts when they are as plain and evident as the amount of sand in the Sahara?

And too many men and women in blue go daily into the public venue with a chip on their shoulder and a severe attitude problem, which eventually ends in disaster for someone. Someone that is almost always innocent and undeserving of what that officer either causes or assists in doing to them. WHY does it have to be this way?  WHY can’t you see that you are not lawfully empowered to even do the majority of the things that you do, especially just because someone somewhere that you presume to be in authority told you to go and do it? WHY do you think you can morally and ethically justify your actions by simply saying or believing that if it wasn’t YOU to be the one doing it, then someone else would be, and they might do it WORSE than you would? So you try and justify it to yourself that it’s all okay, because you ONLY ruined someone’s life today by getting them locked up for years for a victimless ‘crime,’ rather than just killing them outright like that ‘other’ officer MIGHT have done!

MEME - Eddie Craig - An American War 1920x1080

Well, let it be known now and forever, WE the People DIDN’T start or ask for this war upon us, our rights, our liberty, and our property. And let it also be know that WE are its ONLY real and innocent VICTIMS. But being a victim does NOT mean that we must remain so and simply die like sheep. In fact, you would all be fools to even consider that such a thing will be the case. We the People have come together and fought tyranny before, and we were victorious despite the desperate and discouraging odds against us. And we can and will come and stand together if we are forced to once again bear arms and fight back. Which WILL be the case if things don’t change VERY SOON!

Does that statement make it any clearer to you about WHY those whose orders you so blindly follow have an anti-gun agenda for We the People? Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that it’s BECAUSE your masters realize and understand that a growing majority of We the People will NEVER voluntarily “go peacefully into that good night,” like so many German Jews to the transport trains, that they MUST convince you of the imperative necessity in treating and believing we are the enemy, just so you won’t have any qualms about trying to forcibly take away our lives and guns? Don’t you realize that you are really being manipulated into actually fearing US instead of them? If the truth be told, it is THEY that are truly in fear of us, and of you, because they have no actual power at all without at least one or the other of us acting as their willing arm of force and violence.

So, perhaps that lump on the end of your neck would be more wisely put to a more constructive and instructive use. Try developing it into something for THINKING and comprehending moral and ethical responsibility to your fellow man. Preferably before you find yourself in the undesirable position of having it used for nothing more than target practice by someone that has the will and desire to never allow themselves or others to be disarmed and helpless against you or your masters.

The odds are roughly anywhere from 25 to 250-to-one AGAINST you, depending upon how you determine an accurate number of armed and resisting Americans and which side they have chosen to support. And if we were to kill ourselves off to near extinction level on both sides, what do your masters actually care, considering that they have already been working on a depopulation agenda for the last several decades anyway? So what if they actually reach that objective by wholesale slaughter in a civil war rather than by slowly poisoning us to death with their toxic chem-trails, pharmaceuticals, poison air and water, or GMO foods? It all works out the same for them in the end. One method just gets faster results than the others.

Is any of this something that I WANT to happen? Of course not! But I also cannot simply deny the possibility that it just might HAVE to happen, because I am not rolling over and playing the sheep or BEING dead for anyone without one hell of a fight first. I might have to lose my life in order to act in protection of my right to live it the way I want, but so will some sorry individual(s) that believed that some statute or order-giver could lawfully and rightfully serve to simply take it away because someone else wanted it that way.

Therefore, if you truly want a deescalation of the animosity towards law enforcement, then We the People suggest that it begins with YOU, the men and women in uniform. Go back to being what you are supposed to be, a PEACE officer! STOP SIMPLY FOLLOWING ORDERS AND START USING YOUR BRAIN! Try and understand that you are a HUMAN, just like the rest of us. You are NOT ‘superior’ to nor ‘better’ than we are. You have no lawfully delegated extra or superior right of power and authority to murder, inflict serious bodily injury or death, or to steal or damage property anymore than any other human being on this planet does. NONE!! There is no constitutionally lawful and legitimate policy or protection known as ‘blue privilege’ or that of ‘sovereign/ official/ qualified immunity’!!! Look it up.  The term ‘immunity’ does NOT appear in ANY American constitution anywhere in relation to the powers and actions of government officers, agents, and employees.

You want respect? EARN IT!! You are at a point now where you MUST earn it as an individual, because you are NOT simply entitled to it by default just because you wear that uniform!! That badge and uniform have been tarnished and disgraced by too many for too long!! You have either allowed by your silence or personally gone too far in proving that NONE of you are worthy of respect or the power that you were and are entrusted with!!

And as long as you refuse to speak out and stand against the abuses and corruption within your own agency and institutions, then someone else MUST be willing to do so, even if that someone is We the People, whether we must do it individually or collectively and with or without arms. Your OATH is NOT to your institution or those in an office superior to yours. It is to the PEOPLE!! And to anyone reading this that would presume to defend the crimes that are being perpetrated against the American people by so many of these mindless robotic drones, or who would cry at my excoriating words of derision for their unlawful silence, actions, and inactions relating to ‘blue privilege,’ let me shut you up by offering you a pacifier, THERE IS NO REASONABLE AND SANE DEFENSE you can make for this behavior!! Doing so shows that you are actually trying to justify completely unnecessary beatings, serious bodily injury, death, and cold-blooded murder as nothing more than a harmless mistake!!  You might as well hold the belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end!!

You cannot watch a news report, read a newspaper, or watch the countless abuses of police authority and powers on YouTube and not realize that you ALL, politicians, bureaucrats, prosecutors, and law enforcement alike, have shirked your responsibility and sworn duty to the People. And that you are now leaving us with no other choice. We MUST start fighting back to defend ourselves from YOU and those like you.

WHEN are you people going to realize that NOTHING good can come from this division? A division that YOU are 100% responsible for. And yet, here it is, growing wider day-by-day. Oh yes, YOU CAN stop it. But certainly not by the way you are trying to accomplish it, using gun grabs in the form of evermore restrictive laws. But the real question is WILL you? Will you even try to do it the RIGHT way?  The lines are being drawn in the dirt with the police-spilled blood of the innocent, and you must decide NOW which side you are truly on, before its too late for anyone and everyone to resolve it or turn back.

There can be no crime by any one of the People where there is no victim and there is no intent to harm short of being criminally negligent in one’s actions. The majority of the ‘laws’ that you are willing to enforce have absolutely no place in America to begin with, much less any constitutionally lawful application to We the People. We don’t simply THINK or BELIEVE that your ‘laws,’ ‘rules,’ ‘regulations,’ and ‘policies’ don’t apply to the vast majority of us, many of us actually KNOW that they don’t apply.  It is YOU that is operating entirely in a criminally negligent and willfully ignorant manner, and then using your ignorantly conceived and perceived authority to act criminally against all the people everywhere with whom you come into contact to enforce those so-called ‘laws.’ Just how long did any of you actually and truly think and believe you would be able to get away with it unscathed?

You have forgotten your rightful place, that of SERVANTS to the People. And you are being paid handsomely in blood money to raise your new MASTER’S station in life to that of RULERS, like the kings and queens of old, while the best you can hope for in the long-term is to get leftover crumbs from their tables. It is YOU that assists them the most in this goal, first by destroying, and then climbing over the piled debris of, our individual rights and liberties.

Individual freedom and liberty in one’s pursuit of happiness is NOT just a catch phrase or political slogan.  It was intended to be a way of life, a way to empower and improve ourselves and our individual lives as well as that of our family and community. And I for one will be damned before I allow you to subject me or anyone I know and love to any such further abuses by those called “law enforcement” or “government.”

So, while I mourn for these officers who [allegedly] died or were injured in this shooting, as I would for the loss of any fellow human being, I cannot in good conscience do so without also wondering how many of them were guilty of their own crimes against humanity and violations of their sworn duty to the People?  Because it cannot be rightfully said that they were completely innocent and their deaths totally unjustified anymore than it can be rightfully said that those who have suffered through so many law enforcement instigated murders, shootings, beatings, robberies, and a horrid amount of other innumerable abuses, were in every single instance completely justified in receiving what they did at the hands of “law enforcement.”

And I want it known that this perception and view of reality isn’t one I’ve made easily or as a conscious choice, nor even because of some perceived vendetta or hate for law enforcement or government in general. It is one based entirely upon the attitudes and actions of those responsible for its formation. Those who would rather enforce any and all arbitrary and capricious laws and political edicts, even unto the death of the individual upon whom they are being focused, rather than simply keeping the peace and protecting the innocent.

Where is the public outcry over the loss of our right to expect and receive the full exercise and enjoyment of our rights and liberties, and the rightful protections for those rights and liberties upon which we based the entire need and existence of any form of organized government at all?



Footnotes:

[1]  http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22no+charter+or+any+ordinance+passed+under+said+charter+shall+contain+any+provision+inconsistent+with+the+Constitution+of+the+State%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=2%2C44
No “Home Rule City” corporation has any power that is not explicitly incorporated into its charter.  Davis v. City of Taylor, 123 Tex. 29, 67 S.W.2d 1033 (1934); Zachry v. City of San Antonio, 296 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Civ. App.1957), affirmed 157 Tex. 551, 305 S.W. 2D 558.  “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law…. [I]t possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”  Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518, 636 (1819) (Marshall, J.).
The City of Fort Worth, Texas, is a Home Rule City, created by virtue of Art. XI, Sec. 5 of the State Constitution, and Art. 1165, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. Both of the above provisions limit the power of Home Rule Cities as follows:
     “* * * and providing that no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State * *.”
 The charter of the City of Fort Worth recognizes—as it must—that the city is created under the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas as they existed in 1924 when the Home Rule Charter was adopted, and also laws “hereinafter to be enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas.”
Willis v. Potts, 377 SW 2d 622, 624 (Tex. 1964)
=============
=============
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14605994005605113579&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44
This Court said in Texas National Guard Armory Board v. McCraw (1939), 132 Tex. 613, 126 S.W.2d 627(23, 24):
     “The State has vital interest in its cities. In its governmental capacity a city is a political subdivision of the State, and in many instances is considered as an agent of the State; and the State may use such agent in the discharge of its duties.” Citing numerous authorities.
 In Yett v. Cook (1926), 115 Tex. 205, 281 S.W. 837(13), we said:
     “That the state has a justiciable `interest’ in its sovereign capacity in the maintenance and operation of its municipal corporations in accordance with law does not admit of serious doubt. Municipal corporations are created for the exercise of certain functions of government. They have a two-fold character, one governmental and the other private, and, in so far as their character is governmental, they are agencies of the state[1], and subject to state control.” Citing numerous authorities.
 This case further holds the mayor of a city is a magistrate, and that the corporation court exercises state judicial power in the name of the state. Further we said:
     “* * * that officers, upon whom rests the duty of administering the franchises of government confided to the city, and acting as the state’s agents in custody of public property and in the performance of the state’s duties as parens patriae, trustee, guardian, or 625*625 representative of all the people, should be regularly selected and installed in office in a lawful manner.”
Municipal corporations are agents for “STATE OF TEXAS,” created by:
1) (a) virtue of Art. XI, Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and (beer) Art. 1165 of the “Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes” ((a) and (b) collectively referenced as “Charter and Creation Provisions”); and
2) their corporate charters, which must be subservient to the Charter and Creation Provisions.
The Charter and Creation Provisions impose that “no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State.”  The charters are obliged to recognize and do recognize that municipal corporations are created under the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas as they existed in 1924 when the “Home Rule Charter” was adopted.