The Impossible Dream: Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause in Relation to a Malum Prohibitum Offense.

How is it reasonably possible for any law enforcement officer or other law enforcement personnel to reach articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion or probable cause in a malum prohibitum offense situation?

An officer cannot be expected, or believed, to be capable of articulating reasonable suspicion or probable cause without actually knowing ALL of the required elements of such an offense, can they? How could they be reasonably said to be capable of doing so without first knowing such essential information relative to a charged offense? I would offer the proposition that it is actually completely impossible for it to be obtained at all in the vast majority of such situations.

For instance; since virtually ALL “traffic” stops are malum prohibitum, just exactly WHICH of the multiple required elements of any of the subject matter related malum prohibitum offenses are legally considered to be THE specific necessary elements that are absolutely ESSENTIAL in providing the officer with the required reasonable suspicion or probable cause? Is the officer required to state these elements as part of their official report on and before levying the charge in the first place so as to prima facially validate  the warrantless seizure, search, and arrest of the individual being accused? Is an officer required to immediately inform the Accused of these specific elements in order to lawfully and legally establish the officer’s legal authority to act against them in this matter?

Let us say, for instance, that a particular malum prohibitum offense has ten (10) evidentiary elements that MUST be stated in the criminal complaint and charging instrument and then proven in a court of law in order to constitute a valid charge and to get a conviction for the offense. Keep in mind that, in a criminal matter, ALL of the elements of an offense must be properly alleged in the complaint and charging instrument and then proven with admissible facts and evidence at the evidentiary phase of any trial. NONE of the evidentiary elements are allowed to be simply presumed, as this is a violation of the right of due process.

Consider that the presumption of any element of an offense to be automatically true is a presumption of an individual’s guilt upon that element, and violates the individual’s right to be presumed innocent of ALL of the elements of the alleged offense, which would then leave the STATE with the requirement to prove only those elements for which no presumption of guilt currently exists. Therefore, if ANY presumption of guilt for ANY element of an offense were actually constitutional and allowable in our justice system, then it would be a simple step for our law enforcement agencies and judicial system, and their related processes and procedures, to begin to operate entirely upon the presumption that they are ALL true and that the accused is actually guilty without need of a trial, and,therefore, would no longer be required to be presumed innocent of the allegation by default. Right?

Now then, we need to figure out just which specific evidentiary element(s) of those 10, and how many, are to be considered enough to give the officer reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect and believe that this particular offense actually had been, was being, or is about to be committed. Does the officer require the ratio of only five (5) out of the full 10, or does s/he need only six (6) or seven (7) of the 10 instead? How about just one (1) of the 10?  Perhaps a percentage would be better, so, is the percentage of required elements 1%, 5%, 10%, 51%, 60%, 75%, or 90%?

Furthermore, not only do we need to establish just how many of the total 10 elements are needed, but just exactly WHICH elements of the 10 does the officer actually have to possess facts and evidence in support of the allegation(s) versus how many and which elements does the officer simply get a free pass to presume to be absolutely true without supporting substantive facts and evidence? Just where and with which elements do we draw the line as to how to fully establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause?


If there is supposed to be an automatic presumption of innocence of every element of an offense in our system of justice, then exactly how and by what pretense is this presumed any less true when it comes to the presumption of innocence of every element of a malum prohibitum offense in the eyes of law enforcement?  Are they actually free to simply accuse any and all of us, the People, of crimes and criminal activity, without any actual accountability, thus endangering our individual health and welfare by making such unsubstantiated presumptions and conclusions?

Let’s just make it easy for them. How about we allow articulable facts and evidence of just one (1) out of the 10 elements of the offense? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the only essential required element is that the accused individual was in their car at the time of the alleged offense.  That way, the officer need only allege that the accused individual was “in a vehicle,” and that none of the remaining elements of the 10 is then actually required to provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the individual perpetrated the offense. Now no other facts and evidence is necessary to provide the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect criminal conduct. Now the officer can justifiably kill you because s/he had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that you are a criminal simply because you were “in a vehicle” and that you somehow refused to comply with some arbitrary and rights-violating ‘order’ in an entirely officer-perceived-and-subjective timely and efficient manner. That would make perfect sense and should work out okay for the accused individual more often than not, right?

So, let’s consider these aspects and then ask ourselves this question again; just HOW MANY of the evidentiary elements are actually required and WHICH ONES out of the full 10 in our example are considered the necessary elements versus the unnecessary elements that are legally required to provide the officer with articulable facts supporting the reasonable suspicion or probable cause necessary to exercise any warrantless arrest authority and to use force, all the way up to deadly force, in order to facilitate that arrest?

After all, unless ALL of the required evidentiary elements are there, then, legally speaking, there is no offense, and no lawful charge, prosecution, or conviction, is legally possible or justified. So, just exactly WHICH of the 10 would allow the officer to properly and legally make the allegation, even though the prosecutor could never legally and lawfully PROVE the offense in court?

This is precisely the problem with ANY malum prohibitum offense, the lack of articulable facts and evidence to fully support reasonable suspicion or probable cause that ALL of the required statutory elements of the offense exist. The major difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se offenses being that, in a REAL crime, there is the potential to prove an actual injury to some specific person, their rights, or their property, as the result of intent or negligence. The complaint by some party that they are the victim of an actual provable injury caused by the accused individual, in and of itself, is entirely sufficient to provide the required reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that at least some sort of criminal activity has more than likely occurred. However, in a malum prohibitum allegation, there is no complaining party that can provide actual evidence that they sustained any provable injury in order to provide that level of reasonableness.

Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that, where no articulable facts and evidence can prove a complaint of palpable injury to persons or property, virtually all malum prohibitum offenses and sanctions are completely unconstitutional on their face, and are a denial of our individual right of due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures ab initio because they afford the means for easy abuse by law enforcement officers and the STATE while providing no reliable and non-subjective manner in which to reasonably provide articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion or probable cause so as to fully protect the individual rights of an accused individual.

Patrinuts – A short course on expediting your federal conviction by being mentally lazy and stupid.

Well, certain types of people are STILL thinking that there are legal ‘silver bullets’ to solving this problem that we ALL have in the form of a wholly corrupt and fraudulent government and its use of authoritarian principles as a means of controlling the population.

And I am once again having to debunk this Patrinut stupidity where the belief that failing or flat-out refusing to read and understand the statutory schemes that are being used is somehow the equivalent of being able to deny their [mis]application to the people without ANY other offering of substantive facts or evidence.

Now, I would MUCH prefer that the process be that government shall NEVER apply ANY law to a living man unless it can first and foremost demonstrate exactly how and where its authority to act against him is constitutionally delegated and written into the law as to how and when such power specifically applies, but that ISN’T how this corrupt system operates. As my previous article on the due process violations surrounding legal presumptions demonstrated, it operates almost ENTIRELY upon legal presumptions and conclusions rather than facts and evidence, at least as far as THEIR side of the equation goes. We, as defendants, literally have to prove everything that we say or do in this corrupt system, right down to validating it with DNA in some cases.  Meanwhile, the statist psychopaths we have serving as bureaucrats and their henchmen, as well as the self-serving judges and attorneys, are free to interpretatively change the law on a whim to suit the outcome that they need or want it to have today versus how they wanted or needed it yesterday. This isn’t consistent with the rule of law. In fact, it more closely resembles a game of Russian roulette as to how the game of “what does the law really mean regardless of how it reads” will end this time around.  How else do you explain the diversity of opinions in the courts on what should be nothing more than a commonsense understanding that every individual has the absolute right to freely make their own choices and exercise all of their inherent and fundamental rights, provided that they do not cause harm to or infringe upon the equal rights of others?

And it certainly doesn’t help when we equally refuse or fail to do our own due diligence in understanding exactly what it is our public servants are trying to do whenever they are trying to do it. And this article on “SILVER BULLET TO YOUR RIGHTS” I have linked in here is a prime example of exactly that type of failure. It is trying to explain how one gets a passport by declaring that they are a “non-citizen national” rather than a “U.S. citizen.” And while it is accurate regarding the deleterious effects of declaring yourself to be a “U.S. citizen” under numerous other parts of federal and state law, it is not the same argument or case here. The definitions of “United States” and “U.S. citizen” appear by inference to apply to the several states of the union based upon how they are defined along with “U.S. national,” and “U.S. non-citizen national” for the specific purposes of obtaining a passport.

Now, this is NOT true for numerous other parts of federal and state law when it comes to the meaning of “U.S. citizen,” but it cannot be assumed in ANY form of law that any term or phrase will ALWAYS have the same legal meaning regardless of the legal subject and context in which it is being used. And it is in this misconception of how law works that the Patrinut theories and myths excel and abound.

PLEASE!!  Do NOT do the stupid shit this linked article “SILVER BULLET TO YOUR RIGHTS” is telling you to do. It is NOT at all accurate in what the the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations means in relation to citizenship status as it pertains to applying for and receiving a U.S. passport.

The article is only dead wrong because it’s DEAD WRONG! It would be a grand improvement upon education and competency if people would actually learn to read and then bother to research and COMPREHEND just what they are reading before spreading it around as actual fact, which this is NOT.  The author of this article obviously made no attempt whatsoever to research the legal definition of “non-citizen national” or “national” as defined under the federal statutes or the actual legislative acts of Congress.  Which is odd considering that they certainly wanted you to know that it’s a felony for any governmental or private entity to deny you in any right, benefit or privilege because you fail or refuse to disclose a SSN (Privacy Act of 1974).
For instance, in relation to federal law regarding passports, THIS is where one finds the legal definition of “U.S. non-citizen national”;
And this is where you find the explanatory statutes on exactly what a “national” is in relation to the passport laws:
In other words, this ‘method’ is a fast-track to federal prison for falsifying a federal government document and perjury. And the person that is on their way there for doing this stupid shit can thank their own gullibility and laziness for their 5-10 year enjoyment of striped sunshine. Consider this your fair warning about taking this ‘silver bullet’ crap at face-value.

Will you be the hero, the villain, or still asleep when the revolution comes?

The role you choose to play in the coming new American Revolution will be important. Don’t choose the wrong one. Stop believing in a system run by people that care nothing about you. Stop believing that they have the answers and can solve our problems, whatever they may be.  They serve only themselves, and they do so at our expense.

It is time to take the red pill and awaken from the nightmare that is the illusion of liberty and freedom that we are constantly promised is right around the corner. The false promise that if only we let them have more power and control, they can get us there, they can make us truly free.

The simple truth is that you need only free your mind of the misconception that you need a leader to tell you what to do and how to live. Whether it be one or or one thousand, who could or would possibly care more for you and your family than you do?

Wake up. Adam and Eve have already eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and you are capable of knowing it for what it is when you see it. Look around you. Look into the dead and soulless eyes and hear the false words of those that would have you trust them with absolute power and authority over you, your family, and your property. Know too that, in their minds, you are not free, you are not even human. You are nothing more than a natural resource placed here to serve them in their own wants and needs.

The Matrix is real. It is very real. It may not be computer generated, but it just as effective at making you believe that things are supposed to be this way and that those in power are supposed to be and remain in power. Because we must believe and accept that they know what is best for us all.

That is not for me.
I will not let that be or remain my personal reality. I may die trying to change it, and others may say that I wasted my life trying. But whose life is it to decide with if not mine? If not by my choice?

The Matrix is real, the choices are real, the outcome will be real. We simply must choose the one we want and then come together to make it ours, even if we must take it by force from the hands of those that would deny us what is rightfully ours so as to keep it all for themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property Rights:

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

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

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

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

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

The Origin of Ownership:

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

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

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

Every Citizen is Entitled to Own Property:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Protection of Property Rights:

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

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

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

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

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

Rights Associated With Ownership:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 do 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?


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)
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.

Austin Municipal Court – A Cesspool of Corruption in the Heart of Texas

We Don't Need No Stinking Badges

“Justice?  We don’t need no steenk’ing justice!”

We have all heard about them. A few of us have even had the misfortune to have it happen to us, or to someone that we know.  An encounter with a corrupt court system and the criminals within them that populate our so-called ‘justice’ system.

This post will show you just how at least one of these corrupt courts operates some small part of its criminal enterprise.   What you are about to read is from two of the Motions that were filed in a real case involving a real person, but the personal info and case information has been removed to protect her privacy. The final disposition of the case was a full dismissal, but the reason for the dismissal is what you need to understand, AND to watch out for.


The young lady in this case was was falsely charged with “road rage resulting in property damage” by a pair of Austin’s finest extortionist thugs, who arrived some time after the incident had occurred, and who apparently had zero experience in traffic accident investigation and even less with common sense. They fabricated their evidence to suit their version of the facts rather than the ones given to them by the victim (the young lady, my client) and an eyewitness. Both of whom tried to inform the two officers of exactly how the teenage illegal alien in the SUV full of teenage girls had first come flying out of parking lot, barely missing their car traveling down the same street, and, then, just a little farther down that street, tried to drive the SUV across the entire front end of the victim’s car by making a right turn from the inside lane at a red lighted intersection and while my client’s car was traveling in the outside lane to the immediate right.

The SUV cut across the front of the victim’s car, causing her hood to go under the SUV, which hit its rear tire right on her left front wheel and fender. The scuff marks on her car fender were ample evidence that, considering the facts of the circumstances involved, this type of impact would result only if the driver of the SUV was making an illegal turn across the front of the car. And the impact was forceful enough that it not only damaged her wheel and fender, it also broke the car’s front axle. The teenage boy then tried to drive away, never stopping. The victim, broken axle and all, refused to let him get away and forced her car forward, chasing the boy until he finally stopped some distance further down the street. At which time the cops were called to the scene.

Now, by the time these two idiots, I mean officers, arrived on the scene, all of the teenage girls in the SUV had left the scene and were hiding out in a nearby mall, waiting for the cops to leave so they could come back.  Which the victim witnessed them doing right after the cops left. None of them were ever questioned about the accident, despite being eye-witnesses. And even though the teenage boy was at fault and temporarily detained, and even though he had no license or proof of financial responsibility (I know, and NOT my primary point here), he was given only a minor traffic citation and then let go.  The young lady, the actual victim, however, was given the third degree. And both she and her witness that had been riding in the car with her were called liars who had concocted their whole story. She was then falsely charged with several alleged offenses, including “road rage.”

Nonetheless, the actual remaining details of the traffic incident is not our primary concern here. It is the outright disregard for the truth, individual rights, due process, and justice, that immediately came to follow in one of the most corrupt municipal court systems I have ever seen.  And, as it turns out, it is a court that systematically commits egregious crimes and rights deprivations against the public as a whole, not just this one young lady. And those that run it and profit from its crimes simply justifies them as a necessity of ‘doing business’. And it is my personal experience that this court is not alone in this sort of corruption and as a purveyor of injustice for the purpose of revenue. But, on with the story.

Always Monitor the Court Record:

One of my primary rules of going to court, and one which I insist that my clients and students actually follow, is to be sure that you regularly and personally check the court record. ‘Regularly’ in this case meaning on an ever escalating scale as the trial date draws closer.  Now, this is assuming that the court in question is not so far away that checking the record in person isn’t really feasible.

However, most courts have an online public access system for looking up docket scheduling information and such, provided that you have ever been given any information at all that such a system even exists, much less how and what is needed to access it. In any case, I would offer this warning, don’t trust the online system to be accurate or timely in any way, and I mean in any way. These things are updated by people, when they are updated at all, and even then it is  often by very lazy, bored, and careless people. Checking the actual file is always preferable to checking the online resource.

When it comes to checking the physical court record, in the beginning, check the court record at least once a week after getting the citation(s) to see what, if anything, has been filed in the case that didn’t come from you. As the time for trial draws nearer, you escalate your record check frequency until, on the last week just before trial, you check the record at least three times, the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of that week. You also make sure that you check the record on the day before trial, always, no exceptions. So, if your trial was to be held on the Friday in the above example, you would still recheck the record on that Thursday, the day before your trial, even though you had just checked it on that Wednesday. You will see soon why I have this rule and why it is so important to follow it.

The Right to Notice and How It’s Properly Done:

It is during this phase of the prosecutorial process where everything usually begins to fall apart on the due process points. Because, when anyone files something in the adjudicatory court record that relates to forward movement in the case, like a complaint actually being filed or a scheduling for some required appearance or action, you are supposed to be notified of it. This is what is referred to simply as “Notice” in legal circles. And that Notice is required to be done in a manner that covers all the due process bases relating to Notice.  The metaphor of ‘bases’ in this case meaning proper, sufficient, and timely.

Proper means that Notice was provided in accordance with the laws on how it is to be performed in order to be considered valid, which in most states is by either a process server, service by an officer (usually a ‘City Marshall’ or county constable), hand delivery in open court, or United States Postal Service (“Mail, Mailed, Mailing”).

Sufficient means that the Notice contains enough information to inform the person upon whom it has been properly served as to why they are are being served and what is required of them, such as  responding to or appearing in some specific place and time regarding some legal matter. The Notice should always state the basics of the specific matter itself, such as “You are being sued because of an accident in which you were involved with Mr. John Brown … ,when the thing of which you are being Noticed will happen “… for which an initial hearing has been scheduled for 10:00am on April 1, 2016, … ,” and where the thing of which you are being Noticed will happen “… in the 126th District Court, Court Room 216, 1000 Guadalupe St., Austin, Texas, 78799.” This particular type of Notice is not required to spell out all of the details of the matter itself. But, at some point, there is supposed be another kind of Notice provided that does contain those details, and it usually comes either in the form of a civil complaint, or a criminal complaint and one or more types of charging instruments, such as an Information or Indictment, if it involves an alleged crime.

Timely means that the Notice was provided in a time frame that provided the recipient with enough time in advance to adequately prepare and respond to the Noticed matter and to comply with it by making an appearance and/or filing something as the case may be.

The Plot Thickens:

Now, what happened in this young lady’s case is egregiously criminal in its nature.  No, not any of her actions, but that of the city attorneys and judges in the Austin Municipal Court. And here is what they did.

This happened during the week right before my client’s trial was scheduled to commence on the following Monday. While following my instructions on keeping a close check on the contents of the court record, my client made a discovery that left her so shocked that she immediately called me to let me know. She had already checked the record on the previous Monday (she had taken ill and missed the Wednesday check), and she was now checking the record again on Friday, the last work day prior to her scheduled trial.

In the court file she found two new documents that had just been filed that past Thursday, the day before. The two new documents were a Dismissal Order for each of her case(s) under their original cause numbers, the very cases that she was scheduled to go to trial for on that coming Monday. Following that Dismissal Order in the record was a new set of criminal complaints, and all of them had new cause numbers. And all of them were set to go to trial on that same Monday that her original cases had been set for.

Realizing that something wasn’t right about any of this, she panicked, not knowing what to do since she had no copies of these pleadings with her to refile and no time to go home, print out copies, and then come back to file them. Because, here it was, Friday night, and the court was closing at 8pm, approximately 30 minutes from the time she had called me. I told her to calm down and listen to me. I instructed her to have the clerk print her out one copy of everything that she had filed in the old cause numbers (all of which were pleadings I had written that made her prosecution on these bogus charges legally impossible, hence the need for these underhanded and criminal activities by the city attorney and at least two of the judges within the court).

I told her that, once she had the printed copies in-hand, she needed to line out the old cause number and replace it with the new one that was written on the new complaints. Then, immediately have the clerk refile them in the new cases. Since the Austin Municipal court scans all case filings into their computer system, she was only going to need one copy to refile in each of the new cause numbers, and then she would have the clerk return the new copy for each cause number to her with a proper court file stamp on it. I also told her that, while she was doing that, I would be writing her a new Motion demanding a disqualification of the judge and prosecutor, judicial and professional ethics sanctions against both, and a complete dismissal with prejudice of all charges. As soon as I had them done I would email them to the clerk and my client should get those printed out and filed as well.

At no time had my client ever been Noticed that her original cases had been dismissed or been provided with a copy of that dismissal order. Nor had she had any Notice that the city asshole,…. I mean attorney, had refiled the same charges under new cause numbers. And she definitely had no Notice that would have allowed her to review and challenge the form and substance of the new complaints, as is her right under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 45.018(b) and 45.019(f).

Who Actually Committed A Crime Here?

Now, do you fully understand what my client had just proven to have happened here, using only the official record?  Without any Notice whatsoever to my client, the city attorney had quietly dismissed the original charges against her, and then recharged her with the same alleged offense using NEW complaints and NEW cause numbers, and, then, criminally conspired and colluded with at least two judges within the trial court to continue the new cases from the same point at which the original had been dismissed as if they were the SAME original cases!

Why do I claim that at least two judges were involved? Well, for one, because a judge is the only one who could have signed off on the original dismissals, and two, the actual trial judge would have to have seen the very same court file at least a day or so ahead of time, and would have known that my client’s due process rights had just been smeared into the pavement like an armadillo under the tires of a fully loaded logging truck.  And finally, the judge who was present to preside over the trial was not the same judge whose name appeared on the secret dismissal order.

Now, you might be thinking “So what, why does that matter? Why should they start all over if they had already gotten this far in the original case?”  Well, let me try and break those points down for you.

First, all of my client’s original pleadings filed in the cases were attached to the original cause numbers, you know, the ones that were just secretly dismissed?  Which means that, if she loses at trial, and then goes after an appeal, the record will have only the NEW cause numbered items forwarded to the appellate court. Nothing with the dismissed cause numbers would be in that record. Meaning that none of her original pleadings would ever see the light of day in the appeals process in order to be reviewed by the appellate court. Not her challenge to jurisdiction, not her written objections to the lack of evidence, or the prosecutor’s use of inadmissible evidence. Nothing. It would be as if she had just sat back and let everything happen without being involved in putting on a defense for herself at all.

Second, while such a dismissal would not require going back to the beginning investigatory stages of a case, it is still being filed in the court as a new case, replete with new pleadings by the Snake…., I mean State. And my client’s right to Notice and due process, which includes the right to challenge any or all of these new pleadings, as well as any related evidence, must also start from the very beginning. Which would require a reset and restart of the entire judicial proceeding. To do anything else violates an individual’s fundamental right to substantive and procedural due process by denying them the opportunity to do any of these things.

Third, it is illegal. It constitutes several high crimes and misdemeanors by the very people entrusted to adjudicate these cases. People who, apparently, are perfectly fine with criminally conspiring and colluding to commit much higher level crimes in order to profit from those accused of offenses of a much less severe nature. You do understand that, right? Those two new documents are evidentiary proof that the city attorneys and judges of the Austin Municipal court knowingly conspire and collude to unconstitutionally and illegally deprive individuals of their fundamentally protected rights under color of law. And they are perfectly willing to continue doing so in order to ensure a conviction rate that will, overall, garner huge sums of money for their employer, the City of Austin, Texas, and of course, continuing long-term employment and a hefty paycheck for themselves in the process. All of which is, of course, protected by the State of Texas, as it garners its fair share from these illegal activities in the form of 50% of all fines adjudged and collected by the City of Austin.  And this is true of every municipality and justice court in the entire State of Texas.

What this Vampiric System and its Minions Fears the Most… EXPOSURE TO DAYLIGHT!

Okay, enough explanation, let’s get to the meat.

Please remember that I was under a severe time constraint, having less than 30 minutes to formulate and write both of these documents and then get them emailed to my client at the clerk’s window so she could have them printed out, sign them, and then file them in her cases. So they are devoid of my usual refinements and niceties, like ToC’s, ToA’s, footnotes, case opinion references, etc., that are normally required for an appeal-ready pleading. But I was not expecting that an appeal would be necessary in these cases after what we had just discovered and had them dead-to-rights on. And I was right!

These are the individual pleadings that were filed in my client’s case(s) after the discovery of this criminal conspiracy and collusion involving the petty thugs and thieves employed by the City of Austin. Just imagine how these pathetically inept and corrupt souls spend their days posing as honest, hardworking, and knowledgeable prosecutors and judges. These documents are not the originals that were filed in her cases as relating to how we were fighting the charges themselves. They apply only to the criminal acts of the prosecutors and the judges of which I have spoken thus far.  They document just why you should never trust any of these courts, regardless of the level at which they function.

The Main Body of Each of the Two Key Motions:

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Complaint:

1. Comes now Jane Doe, Defendant in error, as one of the People of Texas, without benefit of counsel, hereinafter “the Accused”, and makes this special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction for lack of a proper complaint and charging instrument.

A. Introduction.

Abbreviations used in this document:
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure TxCCrP

2. The Accused maintains that this is a special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction in CAUSE NUMBERS XXXXXX and YYYYYY for lack of jurisdiction, denial of due process, and to quash the facially and factually invalid complaints filed thereunder respectively.

3. The Accused maintains that she is NOT a trained legal professional, lawyer, or attorney,
and being denied assistance of counsel, is forced to proceed as a Pro Se litigant. The court
should and presumably does know that the Accused may NOT be held to the same standards of pleadings and knowledge of the legal process as a legal professional shall be. The Accused is being forced to navigate the legal waters against the Accused’s will and without benefit of legal counsel, using rules and procedures both unfamiliar to the Accused and not of her own making.

B. Facts.

4. The Accused is entitled to timely notice of any proceedings and/or filings in their case as a matter of right, which is a fundamental part of the right of due process. The STATE has knowingly and willingly failed to properly serve the Accused with a copy of the dismissal motion and order of the original cause number and filed with the court on February 22, 2010.

5. The STATE has knowingly and willingly failed to properly and timely serve the Accused with a copy of the dismissal motion and order involving the original complaint and case number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, thus depriving the Accused of the right of proper and timely notice.

6. The STATE has knowingly and willingly failed to properly and timely serve the Accused with a copy of the new complaint in the new case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The STATE has failed to do this within the requisite time frame of no later than one day prior to any proceeding in the prosecution under the complaint, and, therefore, is in direct violation of the Accused’s right to due process and to have a copy thereof pursuant TxCCrP Arts. 45.018(b) and 45.019(f).

7. However, the Accused is certain that the contents of the new complaint, as currently filed under CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY, are just as facially and factually invalid as the original complaint filed under CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX.

8. The Accused is certain of this because both complaints are presumably based on the same faulty information and false facts, specifically, those contained in both Citation #99999 and the official police report.

9. From all appearances, both of the Affiants who signed the two different complaints are asserting the same incorrect facts, and these false and incorrect facts are the same ones that appear within the aforementioned citation and police report. Both documents contain
numerous disparities in their content, facts, accuracy, and the reality of what happened at the scene of the accident on the night of October 2, 2010. These errors and inconsistencies are so blatantly obvious and inaccurate that the Accused finds it absolutely astounding that the city attorney has not even bothered to question them at any time whatsoever. This simply proves that neither the clerks of the court that are being recruited to sign the criminal complaints as Affiants, or the prosecutors and judges that are doing the actual recruiting, check any of the facts contained in the actual documentation that would allegedly support the facts asserted in the complaint.

10. The Accused can find absolutely no law requiring an accused to aide, abet, assist, or otherwise provide the prosecution with anything whatsoever for the use of perfecting the criminal complaint that is to be used to charge an accused. Therefore, it is the belief and understanding of the Accused that only true and correct facts may be asserted and appear on the face of the complaint, and the truthfulness and accuracy of the facts therein are solely the responsibility of the prosecution.

11. Pursuant TxCCrP Arts. 1.14(b) and 45.019(f), the Accused’s sole responsibility and duty in regard to the truthfulness of all facts and content of both the criminal complaint and the charging instrument is to “object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits commences,” and that is the limit of the Accused’s said responsibility under the law, to do nothing more than simply object to it.

C. Conclusion.

12. The Accused objects to the false facial and/or factual assertions made in both the original complaint as it was filed under CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, and the new criminal complaint as currently filed under CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY.

13. The Accused asserts that the complaint is factually inaccurate and facially invalid, and therefore, fatally flawed, and the Accused challenges said complaints in their entirety.

D. Lawful Demand.

14. The Accused moves the court to quash the criminal complaint filed under CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX as being both facially and factually invalid, and therefore, fatally flawed.

15. The Accused moves the court to quash the criminal complaint filed under CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY as being both facially and factually invalid, and therefore, fatally flawed.

16. The Accused also moves the court to levy civil and criminal sanctions against assistant city attorney, Steven H. Garret, and clerks of the municipal court, Lisa Munden, Erin Cole, and Annakaye Kirby, for prosecutorial misconduct, tampering with governmental records, abuse of official capacity, official oppression, criminal conspiracy, aggravated perjury, and denial of the right of due process.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Notice:

1. Comes now Jane Doe, Defendant in error, as one of the People of Texas, without benefit of counsel, hereinafter “the Accused”, and makes this special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction for lack of proper notice.

A. Introduction.

Abbreviations used in this document:

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure TxCCrP

2. The Accused maintains that this is a special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction in CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY for insufficient notice and denial of due process.

3. The Accused maintains that she is NOT a trained legal professional, lawyer, or attorney, and being denied assistance of counsel, is forced to proceed as a Pro Se litigant. The court should and presumably does know that the Accused may NOT be held to the same standards of pleadings and knowledge of the legal process as a legal professional shall be. The Accused is being forced to navigate the legal waters against the Accused’s will and without benefit of legal counsel, using rules and procedures both unfamiliar to the Accused and not of her own making.

B. Facts.

4. The Accused filed several motions, judicial notices, and subpoenas in the original cause number for this case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX.

5. The Accused is in possession of a copy of a document obtained on February 22, 2011 from the court record associated with this case and which accompanies this motion as ATTACHMENT A, and shall be referred to hereinafter as same.

6. Despite ATTACHMENT A not being titled or styled in any way normally associated with a proper motion, its apparent use was to submit to some magistrate an ex parte State’s Motion to Dismiss the original complaint. The magistrate to whom this motion was presented, and who subsequently granted this alleged motion to dismiss, is unknown to the Accused, and, does not appear to be the magistrate known to be previously assigned to the Accused’s case. The Accused was never served with a copy of this “Motion”, nor was the Accused ever informed by any lawfully required method of notification that the original complaint had been dismissed and the case refilled with a new complaint and cause number.

7. The Accused also has not been served with a copy of any new complaint used to create the new case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The Accused is entitled as a matter of right to be notified of any complaint against her and to have a copy thereof no later than one day prior to any proceeding in the prosecution pursuant TxCCrP Art. 45.018(b).

8. As the Accused understands it, the proper procedure would have been to amend the original complaint, not to dismiss the entire case and then refile it under an entirely new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The Accused feels that this was done not for the sake of amending the complaint, but to invalidate all of the Accused’s previous filings and requested subpoenas under the original cause number, which would also explain the STATE’s failure to properly notice the Accused of the refiling.

9. If dismissal of the complaint and original cause was the proper procedure to follow, then, why was the Accused not properly notified of both the filing of the Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent refiling of the case under an all new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY?

C. Conclusion.

10. The Accused objects to these proceedings as the court and the STATE are moving forward with the prosecution as if all of the prior pretrial filings and actions under the original cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, are presumed to still be in full force and effect in the new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The Accused sees this both as a violation of Texas law and the Accused’s unalienable and statutorily protected right of due process by the law of the land.

11. It is the understanding of the Accused that the dismissal of a cause before the court puts an end to that cause, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX. As the Accused understands the law, the dismissal of a case would also void any and all proceedings and filings made in the case under that cause number. Thus, such a dismissal would necessarily divest the court of any jurisdiction and any further actions under that cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX.

12. Therefore, due to this understanding, the Accused believes that the filing of a new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY, begins an all new case and a new set of pretrial proceedings. If this is true, then, the requirement placed upon the prosecution and the court is that all filings and proceedings are to begin anew, and are to be performed in accordance with the rules of procedure codified in the relevant entirety of the TxCCrP just as if this was in fact, an entirely new case.

13. The Accused asserts that since the original cause number has been dismissed, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, and a new cause number has been issued in the instant matter, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed directly to trial on the merits under the new cause number because none of the preliminary proceedings that are required to be performed in a new case have been performed at all. The court and the STATE are acting as if the new cause number may be treated as a continuance of all prior proceedings under the dismissed original cause number. This simply defies the logic of justice, fairness, impartiality, proper and adequate notice, and the right to procedural due process.

14. Pursuant TxCCrP Art. 45.001 the Texas Legislature made it clear that the entirety of Chapter 45 is to be construed for the following purposes:


Art. 45.001. OBJECTIVES OF CHAPTER. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for processing cases that come within the criminal jurisdiction of the justice courts and municipal courts. This chapter is intended and shall be construed to achieve the following objectives:

(1) to provide fair notice to a person appearing in a criminal proceeding before a justice or municipal court and a meaningful opportunity for that person to be heard;

(2) to ensure appropriate dignity in court procedure without undue formalism;

(3) to promote adherence to rules with sufficient flexibility to serve the ends of justice; and

(4) to process cases without unnecessary expense or delay.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

15. The Accused asserts that TxCCrP Art. 45.001(1) makes “fair notice” a requisite of a criminal proceeding in a justice or municipal court. Affiant asserts that being served with a copy of the complaint either the day immediately prior to the date of a trial on the merits, or, in open court on the same day and commencement of such a trial, is neither fair nor adequate notice of new proceedings in a new case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY.

16. As the Accused understands the law, there are specific statutory and constitutionally mandated steps and procedures in a criminal prosecution, and none of these have been done under the new cause number and in accordance with Texas law. The Accused asserts that this is a grievous judicial and due process error constituting grounds for prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, and, therefore, grounds for a dismissal with prejudice of the cause currently before the court, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY.

D. Lawful Demand.

17. The Accused moves the court for a dismissal with prejudice of CAUSE NUMBER  YYYYYY for the following reasons:

1) numerous violations of the Accused’s right of due process by the law of
the land;

2) by denying the Accused lawfully proper and timely notice of all filings
and proceedings;

3) by the conducting of ex parte proceedings and communications in a
criminal case;

4) for improper prosecutorial collusion with one or more clerks of the court
to immediately funnel all filings made by the Accused directly to the office of
the prosecuting City Attorney and thus creating the appearance of
impropriety, partiality and bias by a member of the court to the prosecution
and/or acting as a member of the prosecutorial “team”; and

5) for improper prosecutorial collusion with one or more clerks of the court
to deny the Accused proper and timely notice of proceedings and/or
prosecutorial filings as required by law.

18. The Accused also moves the court to levy civil and criminal sanctions against assistant city attorney, Steven H. Garret, and clerks of the municipal court, Lisa Munden, Erin Cole, and Annakaye Kirby for prosecutorial misconduct, tampering with governmental records, abuse of official capacity, official oppression, criminal conspiracy, aggravated perjury, and denial of the right of due process.


BLOG Post Edited (02-28-2011) 03 EC – MTN – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss For Improper Notice

BLOG Post Edited (02-28-2011) 03 EC – MTN – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Complaint.doc

ALERT TO ALL IRS CASES IRS Lufkin Case proving no Jurisdiction outside of DC 02-23-16

Friday, March 4, 2016

This case completely destroys the idea that the Feds have any jurisdiction whatsoever within the several states.
All the kangaroo so called “federal” courts are fraud.  They are nothing but a big lie.  They are nothing but corporate tribunals which only have jurisdiction over their own employees, people who get a paycheck from their government services corporation. They have absolutely NO jurisdiction over free, living Americans living within the boundaries of the states.
Does that sound off the wall?  It’s NOT. It’s absolutely true and the documents of the current case below prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I challenge ANYONE to prove this wrong. It can’t be done.

Paul Stramer

Understanding the “Fruit of the Poison Tree” Doctrine

If you want to have a good understanding of the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine, which is VERY useful in getting illegally obtained evidence suppressed, making it inadmissible, then these are the go-to cases on that subject. I would highly recommend that you adopt such a desire ASAP, because knowing this can save you a lot of time and aggravation.

What kind of evidence? ANY evidence that was obtained in ANY sort of illegal search or seizure of you or your property, or forcibly seized or compelled production of information or documentation in violation of your 4th and 5th amendment right to remain silent and NOT provide evidence or testimony against oneself.

This would actually apply to things like driver’s licenses, financial responsibility documents, or anything else that can be used against you in a court of law or that might potentially incriminate you in some way, and all of which law enforcement demands presentation of once they make contact. IF the contact is the result of an alleged “traffic stop” THEN those documents and information CAN be used against you and CAN result in additional charges, giving you a United States Constitution’s 4th and 5th Amendment, and the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights under Article 1, Sec. 9, right to remain silent and refuse production. No statutory scheme can lawfully make this exercise of rights into a crime, but many states have tried to do so. IF the officer uses the invocation of your rights to refuse to produce potentially incriminating documents and information to charge you with additional crimes based upon that reservation of rights, THAT is a fundamentally protected rights violation from the get-go.

I have also included a link so you can read up on the legal meaning of the phrase.


Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed. 319 (1920)

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488

Challenging the Complaint in a “Transportation” Related Offense – Failure to State All Legal Elements Means Insufficient Substance and Notice.

Author:   Eddie Craig,    March 07, 2016
Facebook Page:
Web Sites:,

Elements Stated in Criminal Complaint and Related Charging Instrument(s) are Insufficient to Charge an Offense and Provide Notice of Same.

Respondent has never seen an accused individual in any alleged criminal offense that was allegedly perpetrated under the statutory scheme of the “transportation” code, including him/herself, provided with proper, sufficient and timely Notice of the allegations being made nor of the necessary individual elements that s/he must understand and plead to for each charge. Each element of which STATE must also prove at trial in relation to that specific charge. Respondent has never seen a criminal complaint filed in such cases that complies with Respondent’s fundamental right to procedural and substantive due process by providing Notice in the aforementioned required manner. Making this not merely a case of unintentional appealable error, but a knowing and willful violation of Respondent’s right of due process through willful failure by the prosecution to provide proper, sufficient and timely Notice of the allegations and their individual elements amid the courts colluding with the prosecution to deny that right to each individual forcibly compelled under threat, duress and coercion to appear before it.

In the appeal and habeas petition relating to the 2nd degree murder case of Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 1976, the United States Supreme Court stated, “The question presented is whether a defendant may enter a voluntary plea of guilty to a charge of second-degree murder without being informed that intent to cause the death of his victim was an element of the offense.

Henderson argued that, since he was never informed of what specific criminal elements he was actually admitting to by his submitting of a plea, and that those omitted elements were a requisite of the offense charged, he could not have possibly made an informed, and, thus, voluntary plea. Which begs the question, how is it constitutionally possible to provide the Accused in any lesser Class of criminal allegation with actual due process when the STATE is allowed to provide Notice of only a portion of the required elements in the complaint(s) and charging instrument(s), and then be held responsible at trial to prove only those elements that STATE chose to allege rather than all that are required to exist before there could even be an offense committed?  This is assuming of course that the prosecution actually ever provided Notice at all.

This denial of due process is then compounded by the court itself through its own intentionally misleading statements to Respondent and others similarly situated as to the nature and cause of the allegations. The court has almost always begun with the false assertion that the nature of the allegations against Respondent are “criminal.” This is, and is easily proven to be, an outright lie being propagated by the judge him/herself, because any actual crime requires two things that Class C fine-only misdemeanor cases apparently aren’t required to have, actual willful intent to commit the crime (criminal intent, i.e. mens rea), and an actual or intended injured party (corpus delicti) as a result of the crime. The standard common law test requiring a culpable mental state for criminal liability to attach is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.” Thus, from the very beginning, the right to Notice and a fair and impartial trial has been fully denied by the false assertions of fact and the related procedural improprieties of the court itself.

Furthermore, when Respondent refused to accept this blanket explanation and actually continued pressing the court about these due process discrepancies, the court eventually changed its original position and story by finally admitting to Respondent that the nature of the allegations is actually something called “quasi-criminal.” Respondent has never knowingly or willingly consented to nor accepted any legal duty or liability relating to some alleged “quasi-criminal” jurisdiction that is not specifically authorized by law to even exist. Respondent has been unable to identify any lawful authority whatsoever for any such jurisdiction as that of “quasi-criminal,” or any written and accessible rules and procedures governing any such procedural or jurisdictional capacity. Respondent understands this to be the equivalent of being forced to play a game with either no set rules and procedures at all, or a set that is available and usable only by the prosecutorial side of the game.

The only statutory and constitutional evidence Respondent can find makes it clear that Texas courts such as this one are invested only with “criminal” jurisdiction, not “quasi-criminal,” and then only for specifically defined acts that are allegedly codified as “crimes” but don’t actually authorize incarceration as a consequence of judgement, and despite the failure of the Legislature to abide by common law principles requiring the statutes and the prosecution to include the necessary elements of an actual crime. Furthermore, by law, Texas municipal courts lack civil jurisdiction of any kind, except in cases hearing administrative appeals relating to red light camera suits, which themselves are constitutionally outlawed as non-judicial punishments constituting a forbidden Bill of Pains and Penalties. Instead, they are rubber-stamping these ‘civil notices’ as “citations,” and then using them to illegally conduct administrative-only tribunals in place of the civil lawsuit that is statutorily mandated in pursuit of collecting for an alleged “red light camera” violation.

Thus, Respondent has reason to believe and does believe that, by making such an admission, the court is actually confessing that the Legislature knowingly conspired to create the false and fraudulent appearance and public perception that these alleged malum prohibitum statutory offenses are actual “crimes.” It must also be acknowledged that, if this assertion is accurate, and Respondent fully believes that it is, it would be inconceivable that the Legislature is not also knowingly allowing the courts and prosecutors to intentionally mislead and violate the rights of Respondent and all others similarly situated by their willful misrepresentation of the nature of the allegations as being “criminal,” while actually knowing them to be something else of a heretofore entirely unknown and undisclosed nature and jurisdiction called “quasi-criminal.” Which Respondent also believes consequentially allows the courts to completely fabricate or cherry-pick whatever procedural rules they wish to actually apply and use to control the adjudicatory process for this new class of jurisdiction, while also enabling them to completely ignore all of those that actually do exist so as to ensure the rule of law, a fair and impartial proceeding, and the protection of the due process rights of Respondent and others similarly situated. Leaving Respondent wondering, can you call this anything other than an “ongoing criminal enterprise,” because it certainly isn’t a justice system?

These facts make it inarguable that this process is intentionally engineered and manipulated to function in this way, and that it is fully intended to deny Respondent and others similarly situated in their right and ability to know what the actual rules of the system really are, thus, making it impossible for Respondent and others similarly situated to properly reference and utilize those rules to defend themselves against such allegations. This gross manipulation of the adjudicatory process in such proceedings is both completely unconstitutional and unconscionable, as it is nothing less than a total violation of every single aspect of Respondent’s fundamental rights necessary to provide proper due process.

Which then leads us to another question of Respondent’s alleged legal liability pertaining to an alleged offense for failure to perform an alleged legal duty codified in a malum prohibitum statute. How can any offense under a malum prohibitum statute be alleged without specifically stating the factual elements asserting that the Accused was actively engaged in the primary regulated subject matter as statutorily required before the actual offense and its other related elements can legally exist and be charged? For example, an individual cannot be charged with a violation of a commercial fishing statute unless the state can assert and prove, first and foremost, that the individual was actually engaged in the regulated activity of commercial fishing. This element must be alleged in the complaint and charging instrument, that the individual was so engaged, and then it must be proven at trial. Without the existence of this activity and its allegation as a necessary fact element, then any alleged offense subordinate to that activity is being falsely asserted and charged in the complaint and charging instrument(s), is actually impossible to prove at trial, even in conjunction with the other elements of the actual offense. Anything else is a failure to allege and prove all of the necessary fact elements required to be alleged and proven, a fundamental denial of the right to Notice so as to make an informed plea and a diligent defense, and a denial of due process in its most basic sense.

Which exposes yet another due process issue within Texas Courts in relation to the Code of Criminal Procedure, that of allowing the court to enter a default plea of “not guilty” for Respondent and others similarly situated. This court has stated its intent to enter such a plea on behalf of Respondent and others similarly situated despite the fact that Respondent was never given proper, sufficient and timely Notice of the charges due to the prosecutions failure to state all of the required individual elements of each charge so that Respondent and those similarly situated are able to make any sort of informed and voluntary plea. A procedure that this court appears to routinely practice by intentionally misconstruing an accused individual’s conditional declination to enter an uninformed and, therefore, unconscionable plea, as an outright refusal to enter an informed plea.

The court willfully and intentionally chooses to ignore these facts and proceeds forward in the matter, despite Respondent clearly stating that the reason s/he cannot make an informed plea, rather than an unconscionable one, is because his/her right to proper, sufficient and timely Notice of the allegation(s) and their respective elements have not been complied with by the STATE. And despite being advised of this, this court invariable chooses to abrogate and derogate the due process right of Respondent to have proper, sufficient and timely Notice as an ‘inconvenience’ to its procedures, rather than as a fundamental right of Respondent. Furthermore, when Respondent or others similarly situated object, and demand that the plea be withdrawn as having been entered by the court unconscionably, the court resorts to veiled or overt threats of charging Respondent or those similarly situated with contempt and incarceration in an effort to ensure that no objections to its rights-depriving actions are made for the record.

Respondent believes that the courts wage this war on his/her fundamental rights in a combination of ways, usually beginning with conspiracy and collusion between the judge and the prosecutor to intentionally circumvent or outright refuse to comply with the mandatory provisions of §45.018(b), Code of Criminal Procedure. The language of §45.018(b) certainly appears to be creating a statutory right in favor of Respondent, one requiring the STATE and the court to comply with its provisions. At least, that is how Respondent interprets the provisions of §311.016(4), Texas Government Code, in relation to  language of “is entitled to.”

However, if Respondent’s prior assertions relating to the court’s claim of a “quasi-criminal” jurisdiction is even remotely accurate, it would make complete sense that the court and prosecution would ignore this procedural requirement and statutory right of the Accused as relating only to a “criminal” proceeding and not a “quasi-criminal” proceeding. Which appears to be exactly what this court has done by its refusal to dismiss the case or to make any entry of such findings of fact and conclusions of law into the record of the proceedings, which a due process violation of such an egregious nature demands be done.

Despite this fact, these courts and prosecutors routinely fail to provide a copy of the complaint to the Accused until the actual day of trial, or only after it has been demanded, and then only if the Accused is knowledgeable enough to know that they have a right to it and should demand it. However, the prosecution virtually never provides a proper charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information as is required by Texas Constitution Art. 5, §12(b) or §§2.04-.05 and Chapter 21, Code of Criminal Procedure. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the primary case law on this subject says the prosecution and the court don’t have to comply with either the constitutional or statutory requirement because of a previous completely incorrect reading and understanding of another related constitutional provision and the requirements codified in §§2.04-.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the controlling case opinion completely ignores and conflicts with. This failure to provide Notice is fairly routine, despite the court and the prosecution being specifically directed in that the Accused has a right to be served with the complaint “… not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint.

Art. 45.018. COMPLAINT.

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation charging the accused with the commission of an offense.

(b) A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint. The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection.

Furthermore, the prosecutors in many jurisdictions simply disregard this failure to provide service of the complaint as the fault of the Accused themselves, by alleging that, on some past date, on some web site that is totally unknown to the Accused, the prosecutor allegedly posted a copy of the complaint. The prosecutor then makes the claim that they have no liability to provide service, and, therefore, are in no way responsible for the denial of the right of due process by his or her failure to provide proper, sufficient and timely Notice in one of the legally valid methods prescribed by law.

This lack of Notice and the subsequent deprivation of Respondent’s rights that cascade from it is then ignored and upheld by the court, even though the prosecution has readily admitted that, at no time was the Accused ever actually provided with the necessary case file or web site information, or even its online location, so as to access this copy of the complaint. The court does all of this while wholly ignoring that this manner of service is not authorized by law in any way whatsoever, and is legally invalid. But, since the court controls the record, it makes all the necessary entries to cover up all of these rights violations precipitated by the prosecutor’s misconduct, as well as its own.

However, service by the STATE on the day of trial denies the Accused in the exercise of other rights to which s/he is rightfully entitled as a matter of both procedural and substantive due process. One such right is the right to challenge the form and substance of the complaint and that of any other charging instrument, as that right would be automatically denied as an operation of law pursuant §45.019(f), which reads:

(f) If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, the defendant waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity. Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an objection to a charging instrument be made at an earlier time.
(Emphasis added).

By making the argument that STATE’s failure to comply with the provisions of §§2.04-.05 and §45.018(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (by not creating a proper charging instrument based upon the complaint and not performing actual service of the complaint and charging instrument upon the Accused) is neither relevant nor required in a “quasi-criminal” matter, the court puts forth the concept that the STATE is not required, and bears no legal duty, to provide proper, sufficient and timely Notice of the allegations to Respondent or those similarly situated. Nor, apparently, is STATE required to fully disclose or prove the individual elements of each charge, either in whole or in part, in a “quasi-criminal” matter, because the prosecution and the court do not consider this to actually be a “criminal” matter or proceeding to which the rights and rules of actual “criminal” procedure apply. Thus creating the appearance, at least in Respondent’s mind, that the court and the prosecution both fully believe that proper, sufficient and timely Notice isn’t necessary or required in “quasi-criminal” proceedings, because the game has already been rigged to this point so that the Accused couldn’t possibly win anyway due to being denied any actual knowledge or access to the full plethora of whatever conjured rules and procedures truly apply and control the process.

Furthermore, the likelihood of the Accused properly and timely perfecting and following through with an appeal, while complying with the intentionally misleading and disparate rules and procedures for doing so, and depending upon whether the trial was held in a court of record versus a court of no record, is relatively small. After all, there are apparently no written rules available for a “quasi-criminal” jurisdiction and proceeding to which the Accused has any access to or even knowledge of. Thus, s/he will have no idea how to properly and successfully prepare their appeal in such cases, considering that the normal “criminal” or “civil” procedure rules governing such matters aren’t being followed or applied by the prosecutors or the courts, which Respondent can only interpret to mean that those codified procedural rules must not be considered to actually apply in “quasi-criminal” proceedings.

Therefore, since the action is actually “quasi-criminal” rather than “criminal,” why should the prosecution and the court be required to comply with the statutory and due process rights of the Accused as written into the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights or the Code of Criminal Procedure, both of which would be required to be followed for every other form of allegedly “criminal” case, but neither of which the courts consider as having any applicability to the rights of Respondent and others similarly situated in such “quasi-criminal” proceedings. Which actually makes sense considering that in every single instance where Respondent has attempted to raise the issue of state and federal constitutional protections, the judge of the court invariably bangs their gavel and literally screams out that neither constitution, nor their particular individual protections, ever apply or matter in their courtroom! Respondent sees this as an everyday example of the judicial and governmental corruption and destruction of the People’s unalienable rights at its finest, rig the game, fix the outcome, then just sit back and reap the windfall profits from the fraudulent con, all based upon a Bill of Pains and Penalties form of adjudication that has been constitutionally outlawed and forbidden for more than two centuries.

Respondent believes this to be nothing less than treason against the people, as Arts. 1, §29 and Art. 3, §62(a) the Texas Constitution forbids the suspension of the People’s Bill of Rights for any reason, or by any department of government. In pertinent part, §3, §62(a) reads “… Article I of the Constitution of Texas, known as the “Bill of Rights” shall not be in any manner affected, amended, impaired, suspended, repealed or suspended hereby.” Which means that there can be no such law that would authorize such a declaration of suspension or removal by the legislature at all, much less the courts, who cannot make law. Leaving the only reasonable conclusion to be that the courts have created and usurped for themselves a completely unconstitutional and unconscionable power to suspend Respondent’s ability to invoke and demand obedience to his/her Bill of Rights and its protections.


To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

In Henderson, ibid, the court went on to say “Held: Since respondent did not receive adequate notice of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, his plea was involuntary and the judgment of conviction was entered without due process of law. The plea could not be voluntary in the sense that it constituted an intelligent admission that he committed the offense unless respondent received “real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of due process. Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 334.” (Internal quotations omitted, emphasis added).

When Respondent, or those similarly situated, has not been provided proper, sufficient and timely Notice, and the complaint and charging instruments are facially devoid of any of the elements constituting an actual “crime” as well as any allegation stating the actual existence of the primary subject matter element upon which the malum prohibitum allegation itself must rely in order to be valid and subsequently invoke the jurisdiction of this or any other court, there should be no question whatsoever that due process has been denied and that a conviction is invalid upon its face and must be overturned. This is precisely the issues that exist in every “transportation” related prosecution that Respondent has ever witnessed or been a victimized party of by being forcibly compelled to participate against his/her will and consent.

Respondent fully believes that the logic as to what elements must be asserted in the charging instrument(s) and then proven at trial in a “transportation” case is not difficult to understand. But having to clearly identify and inform the Accused of each and every one of the necessary elements is extremely inconvenient and detrimental for the STATE’s case, even though the right of due process in the form of Notice and evidentiary proof of the alleged offense demands and requires it. Why would providing proper, sufficient and timely Notice of every required element of the allegation to the Accused not only make it difficult, but actually prejudice the STATE’s case? Because it would provide the Accused with an undeniable and absolute affirmative defense against prosecution in such cases, especially when the STATE cannot assert and prove that the Accused actually committed a “crime” or was ever knowingly and voluntarily engaged in the regulated subject matter of “transportation.”

Respondent further believes that STATE’s fear in these cases is that such an affirmative defense would surely have the subsequent effect of virtually drying up the STATE and local political subdivision’s generation of obscene amounts of revenue through knowing and intentional perpetration of extortion and fraud upon the People by a willful misinterpretation and misapplication of the “transportation” code created by SB 971. And it undoubtedly would, but so what? Why should the STATE and its political subdivisions be allowed to profit from defrauding and extorting the public?

The Legislature made it very clear in the Title of SB 971 that the statutory scheme created by it related to one subject and one subject only, “transportation!”

The Bill Title of SB 971 reads:

AN ACT relating to the adoption of a nonsubstantive revision of statutes relating to transportation, including conforming amendments, repeals, and penalties.
(Emphasis added)

The evidence supporting the assertion that this is and can be the one and only subject matter intended to be regulated by the Legislature is found in Art. 3, §35, Texas Constitution:


(a)  No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.

(b) The rules of procedure of each house shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.

(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.

(Subsec. (a) amended and (b) and (c) added Nov. 4, 1986.)

Anyone without an unlawful agenda and ulterior motive can see that the plain language of this constitutional provision tells us, just as the language in the Title of SB 971 tells us, that the only subject matter stated in the Title as being intended to be regulated by SB 971 is that of “transportation.” Under the separation of powers clause of Art. 2, Texas Constitution, neither the courts nor the executive departments of Texas government have any authority to either interpret or enforce the provisions of SB 971 in a manner intended to expand the regulated subject matter beyond that of “transportation” as declared by the Legislature. The United States Supreme Court has even ruled that “The title of a statute or section can aid in resolving an ambiguity in the legislation’s text.” INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 189 (1991).” The courts of Texas are no freer to rewrite the laws of the Legislature than the federal courts are to rewrite those of Congress. The courts must interpret the laws and statutes based upon the language in them, not upon their own opinion or interpretation outside of or in complete disregard of that language. “The question ….is not what Congress would have wanted but what Congress enacted.” Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618 (1992).

Every single offense created and codified into the “transportation” code by SB 971 that can be alleged against an individual thereunder falls within and subordinate solely to the subject matter of “transportation.” Thus, making the primary element required to be stated in the complaint and charging instrument(s) relating to any such alleged offense, the clear assertion that the offense was committed while the Accused individual was engaged in an act of “transportation” at the time. Why? Because the due process right of Notice and the fact that the STATE bears the burden of proving every element of an alleged offense demands that it be so, and because it is impossible to commit a “transportation” related offense if an individual was never engaged in “transportation” in the first place, just like it is impossible for someone to commit a “commercial fishing” offense without first being engaged in “commercial fishing.”

The court also concluded in Henderson that “… his guilty plea was involuntary because, inter alia, he was not aware that intent to cause death was an element of second-degree murder.Henderson, ibid.

Again, follow the logic; the terms “driver” and “operator” are legal terms and capacities created by the statutory scheme of SB 971, which, as we have already seen, relates solely to the subject matter of “transportation,” and everything within the “transportation” code must be subordinately related to that subject matter as a matter of constitutional requirement, and, therefore, so must the law and statutes themselves. The same holds true for all the other legal terms defined by SB 971 relating to any alleged legal duty, processes, objects, devices, and other actions within the statutory scheme created by SB 971. They all must relate solely to the subject matter of “transportation” in order to comply with the provisions of Art. 3, §35, Texas Constitution.

Therefore, logic and reason dictates that no individual, including Respondent, can be legally termed and presented to a court in a criminal complaint as a “driver” or “operator” unless the individual is first and foremost asserted and presented as having been engaged in the business of “transportation” for the private profit or gain of either himself or some third-party employer as a “carrier” doing business for compensation or hire at the time of the alleged offense.

Further, logic and reason would also dictate that no individual, including Respondent, can be legally termed and presented to a court in a criminal complaint as a “driver” or “operator” unless the individual is first and foremost asserted and presented as having been engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, as “transportation” alone is the primary subject matter of SB 971 and the “transportation” code created by it. And it is within this subject matter only that all of these legal terms, phrases, objects, devices, procedures, and subordinate ancillary subjects and offenses are created and applicable. In short, there is no offense unless it is first asserted and proven that “transportation” was being engaged in by Respondent or others similarly situated at the time of the alleged offense.

Further still, logic and reason also dictates that no device propelled by a motor, engine, or other method of self-propulsion, including Respondent’s private conveyance of choice, can be legally termed and presented to a court in a criminal complaint as a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle/ motorcycle/ moped,” unless the individual is first and foremost asserted and presented as having been engaged in the regulated subject matter of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, as “transportation” alone is the primary subject matter of SB 971 under which all of these legal terms, phrases, objects, devices, procedures, and subordinate ancillary subjects and offenses are created and applicable. In short, there is no offense unless it is first proven that “transportation” was being engaged in by Respondent or others similarly situated at the time of the alleged offense.

And lastly, logic and reason would necessarily dictate that no device propelled by a motor, engine, or other method of self-propulsion, including Respondent’s private conveyance of choice, can be legally termed and presented to a court in a criminal complaint as a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle/ motorcycle/ moped,” unless the individual is first and foremost asserted and presented as having been engaged in the regulated subject matter of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, as “transportation” alone is the primary subject matter of SB 971 under which all of these legal terms, phrases, objects, devices, procedures, and subordinate ancillary subjects and offenses are created and applicable. In short, there is no offense unless it is first proven that “transportation” was being engaged in by Respondent or others similarly situated at the time of the alleged offense.

In which case, Respondent is left with the conclusion that the court can be invested with subject matter and in personam jurisdiction in a “transportation” case only if “transportation” is relevant to the case as a matter of law. If there is no allegation and evidence of Respondent or any other similarly situated Accused individual having been engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, then there is no subject matter involvement, and, thus, no offense by which the court can be invested with jurisdiction of the cause. Therefore, Respondent puts forth the logical assertion of law that if STATE fails to assert and plead the existence of the governing subject matter of “transportation” and its elements in the complaint and charging instrument(s), the court’s jurisdiction is never invoked, and no justiciable issue exists before it.

In fact, Respondent has reason to believe and does believe that the making of false and unsubstantiated assertions of fact in a criminal complaint that a “transportation” offense has allegedly been committed by Respondent or any other similarly situated individual, while failing to assert within the body of the complaint and charging instrument(s) the necessary elements of both an actual “crime” and that the Accused was engaged in “transportation” at the time, and then proceeding to file that complaint and charging instrument in a court, is actually a crime of SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS under §32.48, Penal Code.

The facts and law supporting Respondent’s assertions and allegations herein should be obvious to even the most basically educated layperson, much less to an actual attorney or judge. Respondent can be a “driver” or “operator” only if Respondent is actually engaging in the regulated subject matter activity of “transportation,” just as an automobile or other conveyance legally becomes a “device” that can then be defined as a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle/ motorcycle/ moped” only when being “used” by a “driver” or “operator” to engage in “transportation,” which s/he could only do while also acting as a “carrier” that is “operating” a business for “compensation or hire.”

For the prosecution or the court to mutually argue and conclude that it is completely unnecessary to allege and prove that Respondent or any other similarly situated individual was actually engaged in “transportation” as an element of the alleged offense, is to argue that each and every one of these subordinate legal terms, phrases, objects, devices, procedures, and ancillary subjects, objects, and offenses, are somehow completely independent and totally unrelated and irrelevant to the legislatively mandated subject matter of “transportation,” thus, they are denying all the readily available facts, law, logic, and reason, in a manner that spits in the proverbial face of the one subject provision of Art. 3, §35, Texas Constitution.

Furthermore, as the engaging in of the regulated subject matter activity of “transportation” is entirely voluntary, it follows that an individual must so engage willfully and knowingly, and not accidentally and without intent. Thus, the statutory scheme would almost certainly fail the “vague and ambiguous” test in that it not does not define the individual terms of either “transportation” or “carrier.” But, it would also fail constitutional and common law due process muster in that the voluntary, knowing and willful nature of engaging in the regulated activity of “transportation” would actually require the statutory scheme to include both mens rea and corpus delicti elements in the offense rather than simply being a “strict liability” statute where the Accused’s actual activity, state of mind, and intent, are not considered and required to be issues relevant to the elements of the charge. Thus, in Respondent’s opinion, making any such allegation of an offense a wholly unconstitutional and unlawful Bill of Pains and Penalties.

No court can change these facts, no matter how it may rule, as that would be tantamount to not only legislating from the bench, but also singlehandedly altering the very foundational basis of all criminal law since the beginning of the time of man. And no executive action could do it for not only these same reasons, but also because any executive actions must comply with the law as written, as long as the person(s) in the executive department believe the law to be completely constitutional, which, if they did not, they would have a duty to refuse to enforce it at all or personally suffer the consequences for doing so.


No Articulable Probable Cause.

Texas – A “traffic stop” for the purpose of issuing a “transportation” citations will almost ALWAYS lack reasonable suspicion and articulable probable cause. And here is why….

If an officer cannot articulate specific factual elements or produce prima facie evidence that an individual was or is actively engaged in “transportation,” then how is it possible for the officer to just skip over ‘reasonable suspicion’ and go directly to ‘probable cause’ to believe that a crime under the “transportation” code has actually been, is being, or is about to be, committed? Especially considering that such criminality is created and exists solely under a malum prohibitum statutory scheme that relates solely to regulating “transportation” and activities that are directly subordinate and ancillary thereto?

Upon what specific articulable facts must an officer first base ‘reasonable suspicion’ that an individual is engaging in “transportation” in order to reach the necessary level of ‘probable cause’ to allege criminal activity, for it is one thing to inherently understand that criminality exists when an act is itself morally wrong and unjustifiable, while also being readily identifiable as having harmed another individual or their property. Acts such as fraud, theft, assault, or murder are some examples of such acts.

However, in a malum prohibitum statutory scheme that is strictly regulatory in its general nature, such criminality is neither morally wrong nor necessarily unjustifiable, and, more often than not, involves no actual victim complaining of palpable injury to their person or property. Therefore, Respondent asserts that the common standard for ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ is not sufficient in such cases, in that the naked unsubstantiated claim of either would suffice to provide an officer with far more opportunity and latitude for abuse of his or her authority and in depriving individuals of their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as due process. The result being that the defining elements necessary to make a malum prohibitum allegation of criminality now rests solely in the subjective opinion and determinations of the officer alone, and not within the statutory scheme that defines and controls it.

And unlike other forms of malum prohibitum statutory schemes, such as possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, where it is the possession itself that is the criminal act, and which requires at least some reasonable indicator or facts that the person was in possession of same, how is this to be accomplished when the act itself is simply regulatory and there are no articulable facts that lead to the Governing Subject Matter being regulated? How does an officer come to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ to suspect or believe that a regulatory offense that is completely ancillary and subordinate only to the regulated Governing Subject Matter of “transportation,” is being, has been, or is about to be committed, without any articulable facts or evidence that “transportation” was or is being engaged in?

For instance, how does an officer look at a family minivan traveling down the highway and reach the conclusion that the mother-of-three inside the van is actually a “carrier” secretly engaged in the business of transporting passengers, goods, or property from one place to another for compensation or hire? Even if an officer began with the premise that the minivan was ‘speeding,’ at what point is the officer required to actually investigate the existence of facts and evidence necessary to establish and prove that “transportation” is a factual element of the ancillary regulatory offense being alleged? Despite the fact that there actually is not any offense whatsoever that is defined as “speeding” within the “Transportation” Code, the presumption of such an offense is based entirely upon the statutes within that code as being a regulated activity subordinate and ancillary to the Governing Subject Matter of “transportation,” not just “speeding” in and of itself. “Speeding” is not the primary regulated subject matter, “transportation” is, hence, an individual can be “speeding” only if it can first be proven that they were actively engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.

Which begs the question, is the officer, the prosecutor, and the court, allowed to simply presume the existence of “transportation” for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, even though there are no facts or evidence that this essential element of the offense even exists? Isn’t this lack of evidence for the existence of the primary element of the offense necessarily exculpatory[1] to the accused individual by default? Isn’t the prosecutor required as a matter of right and law to disclose that lack of evidence and dismiss the case rather than simply presuming the existence of “transportation” and seeking to prosecute anyway (see footnote 9 ibid)? Isn’t this prime element of the existence of “transportation” the sole basis for the court having jurisdiction of the matter in the first instance considering that the subordinate and ancillary regulatory offense is no crime at all without it?

In relation to an offense that is entirely malum prohibitum under a regulatory statute, how could an officer possibly get to ‘probable cause’ without actual knowledge and understanding of all the specific elements of the alleged offense codified by the statutory scheme? Does the officer need only one out of three statutory elements that have to be proven, or is it just four out of five, or perhaps seven out of ten? Is it possible that an officer cannot reach probable cause in such cases without being able to express facts proving the existence of all elements required to be proven, beginning with proof that “transportation” was being engaged in at the time of the alleged offense? And if not, then how is such a standard not entirely capricious, arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, completely unconstitutional in relation to an individual’s right of due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention the unreasonably increased danger to their property and/or person by overzealous or abusive public servants?

Respondent asserts that such ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ simply cannot be reasonably or objectively obtained in instances where an offense is defined and governed entirely by statutory schemes as a malum prohibitum offense using the present standards established by the courts when applied to the private “non-transportation” activities of the general public.


[1] 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.