Incompetency or Hearsay, and Does It Matter Under the Rules of Evidence?


Let’s say that you are appearing in court to defend yourself against one of the literally millions of false allegations perpetrated yearly by law enforcement personnel in the form of a “transportation” related civil infraction or criminal offense. Both are usually fine only punishments, and where they aren’t, the facts won’t differ between them in relation to the contents of this article. The rules of evidence work the same in either type of case. You just need to know them well enough to put them into action and nullify the prosecutions witness, and thus, their entire case.

When you are questioning the officer on the stand during the trial, and you attempt to ask the officer some question relating to the law, such as the legal definition of specific terminology, and it is something that the officer would logically and/or necessarily have to know in order to support reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain or arrest for an allege an offense, you will often be interrupted by the prosecution objecting with the claim that the officer is not required to know the answer to the question. The prosecution will do this despite the fact that an officer actually is required and must know the answer to the question, because it would have been legally impossible for the officer to have obtained reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the officer either does not know and/or is incapable of recognizing the essential criminal elements necessary to enforce that law and allege an offense.

Now, while this might be a proper objection where your question is asked in a way that could not be reasonably comprehended and answered (i.e. the content, context, or grammar of your question totally sucked and made no sense), it would not be true if the question was very straightforward and clear. The prosecution’s objection would also be true if the question has nothing to do with the actual laws relating to the offense or the duties and responsibilities of the officer sitting on the stand (i.e. you asked a patrol officer about how the department determines personnel policy or handles a payroll issue). Otherwise, as long as your question is on-point with the law and facts of the case at hand, the officer would have to know the answer to the question in order to have ever acquired reasonable suspicion or probable cause so as to properly make the allegation of an offense. Therefore, it is simply legally impossible that the prosecution’s claim could be even remotely true in most instances or for every question relating to the law as it pertains to the matter before the court.

There is also the issue of the prosecutor making a statement of fact from their own mouth during a trial about what the officer is or is not required to know about the law in order to testify as to exactly how the officer applied that law in order to make an allegation of an offense. The prosecutor is actually trying to testify on the record as to what the officer is or is not required to know in order to answer the question, and this the prosecutor simply cannot do. A prosecutor may not make any original statement of fact from their own mouth in place of any witness, nor make any legal determinations about what the witness is or is not allowed to respond to on the stand. Nor does a prosecutor have any lawful purpose or delegated authority to determine what a police officer is or is not lawfully or legally required to know in order to perform their duties or testify to a statement of facts that the officer allegedly observed and used to formulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime, as the officer could not possibly or reasonably formulate either if they actually don’t know the proper answer to the question s/he was asked on the stand about the legal meaning and application of certain terminology in relation to the alleged offense.

Part of the oath taken and the training received by every police officer is to uphold and enforce the State and Federal Constitutions,[1] and the laws of the state where they are employed,[2] i.e. they are required to know what fundamental rights are inherent and protected under those instruments in order to properly perform their duties. They also take an oath to know and remain current on the laws of the state[3] in which they are employed so as to properly perform their duties and serve the public.[4] These oaths and the duty to “know the law” are mandatory, as is adherence to their terms and conditions. An officer cannot reasonably claim ignorance of the content and meaning of the Bill of Rights or the legal duties inherently contained in the oaths s/he takes to uphold and protect those rights when they take them, otherwise the officer would not be employable. How then is it reasonable for some prosecutor or judge to assert that an officer can be partially or totally ignorant of the law and still be able to properly perform his or her duties in a manner that complies with that law and the individual rights of the people?

Therefore, it is simply not logically or legally possible that an officer is not or cannot be required to both know and understand the necessary and essential elements of any criminal act governed by a law they are attempting to enforce. To say that this is the case, as the prosecutor has just done, is to say that the officer is incompetent and unqualified to even understand the law, much less to enforce the law or testify to anything in relation to the specific elements of an alleged offense under that law. For example, if an officer is not required to know and understand what the proper legal definition of a “vehicle,” “driver,” or “operator” actually is, then how could an officer use these terms to acquire reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as they are essential key elements of any “transportation” related offense? How does an officer allege the element of “motor vehicle” in charging an offense without first having competent firsthand knowledge of what the legal meaning of “motor vehicle” even is? And that same question applies to each and every term and phrase that is used to construct a statute and any related offense.

It is a violation of the rules of evidence to allow the officer to testify to facts of which s/he does not have personal knowledge and understanding under the admissibility and hearsay rules. So, if the officer does not know the proper legal definition or meaning for each of these terms in the first place, then the officer is actually legally incompetent to testify to any of them as being an actual fact. It is illogical that a judge would accept the prosecutor’s objection as valid when logic says that a witness cannot make and testify to a statement of fact, i.e. that the accused was “operating” a “motor vehicle,” without first knowing the correct legal meaning and application of each of those terms within the governing statutes. It is a logical fallacy to assert that the facts alleged in the complaint are true and correct when the officer/witness or other Affiant on the complaint cannot reasonably be testifying from personal knowledge about those facts when they know absolutely nothing about their proper legal meaning within the statutes, especially when those specific terms are actual elements of the alleged offense.

So, the question must be asked, just how can an officer testify that “I saw the defendant operating a motor vehicle in the 1600 block of Fantasy Ave. …” when the officer cannot properly testify to what “operating” and “motor vehicle” even mean in relation to the statutory definition and the constitutionally required single subject[5] context? If the officer doesn’t know the legal definitions of the specific terms and phrases used to formulate the statute and establish the legal criteria that defines “operate” and “motor vehicle,” s/he is not testifying from personal knowledge, but from the hearsay of something or someone else other than the law itself.

Therefore, how does the officer truthfully testify that you were “operating” a “motor vehicle” by any means other than personal knowledge of the actual law under which s/he formulated the charge being made against you? Logic says that if the officer is legally capable and competent to formulate the charge itself by rationalizing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, then the officer is legally capable and competent to answer a question about the law and the specific legal elements s/he used to do it. Since there must be a written probable cause statement doing this very thing, and it must be signed by someone with actual knowledge of the facts alleged in the statement, it is incomprehensible that an officer could not and does not have to be required to know the legal definition and meaning of the statutory terms and phrases that they are signing their name to under penalty of perjury as being actual fact.

This is the same legal principle and theory that prevents an officer from testifying in a speeding case where s/he has no clue about how a radar gun works or its accuracy if s/he is not specifically trained on every aspect of the device, including how to maintain it, test it, and the specific mathematical formula it uses to perform its calculations and reaches its conclusions of speed. Otherwise, if the officer doesn’t know and can’t do the math themselves to verify the radar gun, then everything the officer does in these cases is hearsay motivated and operating by the impetus of the officer’s own personal opinion based upon unsubstantiated legal suppositions, presumptions, and conclusions of law, not the law.

In which case, when a prosecutor objects on the grounds that “the officer isn’t required to know that,” they are actually admitting that their witness is legally and factually incompetent to testify to those facts because they actually lack personal knowledge, and would be both committing perjury and violating the admissibility and hearsay rules by answering. This is why I object right back to the prosecutor’s objection with something like this:

I have a multipart objection to enter into the record in response judge:

First, I object because the prosecution is saying the officer is not required to know the specific legal criteria for the elements of the charge. Which, if true, means that the officer could not possibly provide any articulable facts supporting either reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the time of the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent. Without knowing the answer to this question, as it pertains directly to the statutory elements required to allege the commission of an offense, the officer could not possibly have had the required reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make the warrantless seizure and arrest or to charge an actual offense.

Second, I further object because I never asked the officer if s/he was required to know this information, I asked if s/he did know this information. As the court is now well aware, if the officer doesn’t know, then that means that probable cause could never have existed and the officer’s testimony is not based upon personal knowledge of any facts, but rather his/her own unsubstantiated personal opinion and legal presumptions, conclusions, and speculations, i.e. its hearsay. Which, if true, makes the officer’s testimony inadmissible under the rules of evidence, as such is not covered by any of the hearsay exceptions or the rules governing expert witnesses, especially since the officer has not been vetted and qualified to testify as an expert witness in this trial.

Third, in relation to the facts and logic of the first and second parts, what Respondent is actually understanding the prosecution’s objection to really mean is that their primary fact witness is legally incompetent to testify in response to the question, which is directly relating to specific factual elements in this case. Every relevant fact of the charged offense relates to some specific statutory element defining precisely how the commission of that offense occurs under the law. Factual elements that the prosecutor just stated the officer is not legally required to know, and, if true, now creates the legal presumption that the officer actually does not and never did know them at all, but is still being allowed to testify to them as being facts without having the personal knowledge required to do so. That violates Respondent’s right of due process and goes right back to reasonable suspicion and probable cause never having existed in the first instance, making the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent absolutely unconstitutional and illegal.

Fourth, I object to the prosecutor’s attempt to testify in this case by making a statement of fact disguised as an objection about what the witness is or is not required to know in order to testify to the facts of the case when it is legally impossible for this officer to do so without first having personal knowledge of the specific elements of any alleged offense under the laws in question, including the proper legal meaning and application of specific related terminology.

Therefore, if the court sustains the prosecutions objection, Respondent must necessarily move the court to have the witness’ testimony stricken from the record and declared inadmissible in its entirety, and to demand that the witness(es) be declared legally incompetent and unqualified to testify at all to any statutory fact element of the alleged offense for lack of personal knowledge.

In other words, most prosecutors will more often than not provide you with the means to discredit their own witness in these kinds of cases in exactly this or some very similar manner. You just have to listen and actually know how to rebut the objection that they will almost certainly make the instant that you try to prove the witness is legally incompetent to testify. Don’t let them get away with it.

Now, if the judge sustains the prosecutor’s objection, then you make yours to have the witness declared legally incompetent to testify to any facts in the case. If the judge sides with you and grants your motion, all that remains is for you to move the court to dismiss the case with prejudice for lack of evidence and/or an eyewitness with personal knowledge. Just make sure to get a signed order from the court before you leave, or get someone on record telling you when the order will be delivered to you via mail or other means.

Case closed.



[1] Texas Constitution, Art. 16, Sec. 1(a) OFFICIAL OATH.

[2] Texas Occupations Code, Sec. 1701.253(e).

[3] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 1 Texas Department of Public Safety, Chapter 1 Organization and Administration, Subchapter H Professional Conduct, Rule §1.113 International Association of Chiefs of Police Canons of Police Ethics.

[4] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 7 Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Chapter 218 Continuing Education, Rule §218.3 Legislatively Required Continuing Education for Licensees.

[5] Texas Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 35 – Subjects and Titles of Bills.


What actual legal authority does a properly authorized officer or agent of the Texas Department of Public Safety really have to compel you to sign a “Notice/Promise to Appear” or to take you to jail if you refuse? Well, it certainly isn’t what they tell you they can do. And what they tell you they can do certainly isn’t legal according to the statutes. And if it isn’t legal according to the statutes, then they don’t have any immunity for acting beyond their clearly stated lawful authority under any particular statutory scheme. Because their duty isn’t discretionary when it comes to what is actually made mandatory for the officer under the statutes and what is completely optional for the accused individual when it comes to obtaining a signature on the “notice/promise to appear” portion of citation for any given “transportation” offense.

So, if you really want to understand just what activity the officer is given discretionary authority over during the course of a “transportation” stop, read on. The first document is a full constitutional and legal analysis of Chapter 543 of the Texas “Transportation” Code and how those statutes actually interrelate to various other statutory provisions and processes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure and the “Art. 15.17 ‘magistration’ proceeding.

Meanwhile, as you are learning about what is discretionary versus mandatory when it comes to an authorized officer’s legal duties during a traffic stop, you will also have the opportunity to learn how to properly fight a speeding citation in Texas. The second embedded document is a complete “Plea to Jurisdiction” motion that challenges every aspect of a ‘speeding’ charge as it is both required to be stated in a criminal complaint and properly filed information, how it must be prosecuted and proven in court in order to survive a due process violation challenge, and how Texas courts and prosecutors never do either one correctly, if at all. The pleading uses only the existing Texas Statutes, the Texas Constitution, and case law on due process and certain required procedures.

What it effectively proves is that Texas does not, and never has had, a criminal offense known as ‘speeding’ within any of its statutory Codes, and why that is so important to fully comprehend when fighting the citation.

However, if you don’t have the capability to understand the arguments and issues in these two documents as they are written, then you are possibly better off just paying the ticket rather than fighting it. Because, when you lose a case by not understanding the laws, facts, and arguments you are using to support your position, you make the bar to winning higher and more difficult to reach for those that come behind you trying to fight their own case. So either dedicate yourself to learning how to really do it right, or don’t sacrifice someone else’s chances before they even get there by fucking up your own.

Legal White-paper – Notice to Appear (last updated 08/31/2017 @2000hrs):
Plea to Jurisdiction Motion – Not a Legal ‘Person’ Subject to Speeding Statutes (last updated 08/04/2017 @0230hrs):

The Tao of Law 2.0 – The Texas Courts Survival Guide

Texas How to… the “Docket Call”

This Chapter of the new traffic seminar book goes into the detailed “how to…” of handling the fictitious “docket call” proceeding that the lower courts have concocted and use to waste your valuable personal time, lose time from work, and basically cost you more in time and money in an effort to make you fold rather than fight when you receive a “uniform traffic citation.”

This information is accurate and up-to-date at the time of this writing, so you can rely on it for at least the next two years. However, be aware that legislative actions can be implemented at designated times throughout the time between legislative sessions, so it is always best to verify any statutory references with what is currently in publication in your state.

Here in Texas you can find the current versions of all state statutes on the Texas Legislature’s web site located here.

Your comments and feedback are welcome and  appreciated.


When Cognitive Dissonance Becomes the Societal Norm.

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

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

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

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


The True Power of the People Over Unconstitutional Acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

The People’s Declaration of Relief and Redress

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

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

Petition to the CITY OF DALLAS

“It’s Only a Few Bad Apples…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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.

Research -Your State Constitution Overrules Legislative Statutes and Municpal Ordinances

I received an interesting email from someone in South Carolina (S.C.) that brought up the following issues with the judge’s bench book as used in their courts. Here is what he asked about:


I read your piece about city ordinances.
This is from the SC Summary Court Judge’s Benchbook:

“The uniform traffic ticket, established under the provisions of Section 56-7-10, may be used by law enforcement officers to arrest a person for an offense committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer if the punishment is within the jurisdiction of magistrate’s court and municipal court.” (S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-15). The uniform traffic ticket may also be used by law enforcement to cite individuals for violations of county or municipal ordinance violations. (1990 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90- 48). County and municipal uniform ordinance summons were established under the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-80, which provides as follows: (A) Counties and municipalities are authorized to adopt by ordinance and use an ordinance summons as provided herein for the enforcement of county and municipal ordinances. Upon adoption of the ordinance summons, any county or municipal law enforcement officer or code enforcement officer is authorized to use an ordinance summons. Any county or municipality adopting the ordinance summons is responsible for the printing, distributing, monitoring, and auditing of the ordinance summons to be used by that entity. (B) The uniform ordinance summons may not be used to perform a custodial arrest. No county or municipal ordinance which regulates the use of motor vehicles on the public roads of this State may be enforced using an ordinance summons.”

(B) is especially interesting to me, since if an officer is detaining you for any reason, that is a custodial arrest. Isn’t it?

Thanks for your time and efforts.


This was my initial reply back to him:

Is there something that you wish for me to see here that would lead me to think that S.C. is somehow different in the area of ordinances? I’m just trying to figure out what it is you wanted me to see in it that would make me think otherwise?


His reply was:

So what you’re saying, and I’m just asking, is that this piece from the judge’s benchbook is bullshit? That it doesn’t matter what it says?
Trying to get clear on this. That’s all.


And this is my response by which I hope to make things more clear to him, and to all of you, that might run into something similar in your own state.


No, it reads precisely as it SHOULD when being used for “persons” involved in a relationship with the corporate entity that created the policy in question, and to which such comments can lawfully claim that ordinances apply.

Did you compare your legislative article of the South Carolina Constitution with the claims made in that statute? Because I did, and the constitutional sections read exactly as I expected them to read, that ONLY the legislature of S.C. has law-making power.

Now, if some OTHER provision of that constitution delegates such power to municipalities and counties, then WHERE and for WHAT PURPOSE does it do that? Because, if it DOES do that, then the following isn’t going to hold true, but if it DOESN’T, then the following facts are irrefutable.

The legislature CANNOT redelegate a delegated power, and you will find TONS of case law on that subject saying exactly that. So, it doesn’t matter if the state legislature attempted to enact legislation to make it APPEAR that these ordinances are ‘public law,’ as long as you and others know to challenge the assertion by pointing out WHY they CANNOT actually BE ‘public law’ under the S.C. state constitution.

So, since that means that ordinances CANNOT be treated as actual ‘PUBLIC LAW’ without first being in direct violation of the state constitution and the powers delegated therein, what then are they?

The short answer is that they are MUNICIPAL/COUNTY CORPORATE POLICY, and corporate policy is binding ONLY upon the following:

… … … 1) the corporate entity itself that created the policy,

… … … 2) those that are directly employed by the corporate entity, or

… … … 3) those that are employed as contractors with that corporate entity, or

… … … 4) those that knowingly and willfully CONSENT to being bound by the entity’s policies.

If the municipality/county CANNOT constitutionally create binding ‘public law,’ then how else would ordinances have any lawful authority over or application to members of the public and NOT be in direct violation of the state constitution if it is not through voluntary consent?

If you will search for it on your legislative web site, I am more than certain that a search for statutes that contain a STATUTORY definition of the term “law” will produce several hits.

On the Texas legislative web site for example, you would first click on the “SEARCH” menu at the top, leave the “What Code” section blank, and in the search field type (WITH the double quotes but NOT the period) “law means.” Then, repeat this, but type in the search field “law includes.”

There will be at least one or two results from these two searches that include ordinances, school board policies, agency regulations, and numerous other NON-LEGISLATIVELY CREATED policies as part of the definition of ‘law’ as it relates to “this state.”

In Texas you will actually get 17, only about four of which contain a definition like this one:

30) “Law” means the constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States, a written opinion of a court of record, a municipal ordinance, an order of a county commissioners court, or a rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.…

The problem there is, the legislature CANNOT do by subversive statutory decree what it is completely forbidden to do directly. Especially by using a mere definition of terminology to circumvent the constitutional limitation upon who can make binding public law.

Which means that, in court, we should be demanding to know the following:

“Judge, I have a right to proper notice of and to understand the nature and cause, do I not? So, are you stating that the charges against me relate to some alleged offense under an ACTUAL PUBLIC LAW specifically enacted by the S.C. Legislature, or, am I being charging with some alleged offense written only into some ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy that is considered to be ‘law’ only because it has been unconstitutionally defined as ‘law’ within some statutory definition of that term, but which ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy was NOT enacted by the legislature as is constitutionally required in order to actually BE binding public law?”

It really shouldn’t be a mind-blowing effort to reason out this is not only unconstitutional and illegal, because it IS fraud, but that any attempt to move forward as if the action is valid would itself be an act of official oppression, official misconduct, and outright treason and sedition as a subversion of the respective state constitution.

Therefore, the only logical and state constitutionally sound conclusion that one can make about ANY statute or ordinance that relies upon a definition of this sort, is that ANY statute using that definition CANNOT be directly applicable to the PUBLIC, but is applicable ONLY to those “persons” as I previously described and enumerated above.


Remember folks, we DIDN’T authorize ANY of this ordinance and private rule and regulation making bullshit by our public servants. Especially over us, our private property, or any other part of our private lives. It was USURPED (ILLEGALLY STOLEN/TAKEN), by the attorneys through ‘legal’ subterfuge and seditious and treasonous acts resulting from their takeover of EVERY department of government. Creating an unconstitutional aristocracy for themselves right here in America.

We the People collectively and individually have every RIGHT to fight back and say no, and to enforce that refusal with force of arms if need be. Both our state and federal constitutions reserved that right to the PEOPLE, not just the ‘states’ as they would have you believe, and THAT is precisely what the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that we COULD do when and if it ever became necessary.

Well, that time is here, that time is now. The constitutions won’t defend themselves, and the crooks certainly aren’t going to start abiding by them now, as is evidenced by the daily violation of their principles and protections by those most subject to obeying them. They openly and unapologetically abuse us, steal from us, and openly murder us on the streets and in our homes. WHEN will it be enough to push you over the edge to where you are willing to get out of your damned armchair and stand with each other to demand, resist, and ensure through forceful resistance if needed, that this will NOT be allowed to go on or ever be put in place again? When did we Americans allow ourselves to become such moral and slothful cowards?

Things to Know About “Civil Infractions” if Your State Has Them

Okay, for those of you that live in a Republic where ‘traffic’ citations are issued as “civil infractions,” here are a couple of suggestions on what to file and why.

When you are STOPPED and DETAINED by an officer for a civil infraction the legal facts are that the officer has perpetrated an illegal and unlawful seizure and false arrest/imprisonment the moment he perpetrated the stop. He both COULD have known and SHOULD have known that his actions violated your rights and the law. Therefore, EVERYTHING he did or discovered during that detainment/seizure of your person and property was ILLEGAL and should be challenged and declared as inadmissible facts, testimony, and evidence under the fruit of the poison tree doctrine.

You will need to file a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence and jurisdiction as they CANNOT obtain evidence OR jurisdiction using ILLEGAL means can they? Obviously the correct answer is NO! The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) is written into a Motion for Discovery, which they MUST answer in relation to your right to discovery in a civil proceeding, which your particular state law should declare that a case such as this is.

You also need to file a Motion to Dismiss. I would vehemently suggest that you use verbatim the specifically worded Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) asking the officer and the plaintiff’s attorney (the alleged ‘prosecutor’) those specific questions relating to the facts of the case. Also consider that, since this is a CIVIL INFRACTION, then HOW can there possibly be an actual PROSECUTOR rather than a PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY representing the other side?

The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories in a Motion for Discovery should contain THESE specific questions, just like they are written below. They should work perfectly in ANY state of the union where these cases are CIVIL INFRACTIONS. You have to change only the [Your State] and the “Officer Shitforbrains” to the name of your particular state where the issue occurred and is a civil infraction and the real name of the officer that perpetrated the stop:

1) “Is the allegation being made considered to be a CIVIL INFRACTION under [Your State] law?”

2) “Can a warrantless arrest or detention be lawfully perpetrated in relation to a CIVIL matter under [Your State] law?”

3) “May a warrant of arrest be obtained WITHOUT a valid statement of probable cause under [Your State] law?”

4) “Under [Your State] law, is a statement of probable cause sufficient to obtain a warrant of arrest if it does NOT allege that an actual crime was perpetrated by the person named or described therein to be arrested?”

5) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required reasonable suspicion or articulable probable cause authorizing a warrantless detention or arrest of an individual?”

6) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required probable cause necessary to state sufficient grounds of criminal activity in order for a duly authorized magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest for an individual?”

7) “Was Officer Shitforbrains in possession of a valid warrant of arrest for a male/female suspect using the name “[Your Name Here]” or that contained an adequate physical description that allowed the officer to identify and apprehend the individual accused in this CIVIL INFRACTION?”

The point of the interrogatories is to show that the warrantless detention/arrest of the individual by the officer was both completely unlawful AND illegal BECAUSE there could NEVER have been any reasonable suspicion or probable cause associated with the warrantless seizure of the Accused for a CIVIL INFRACTION. Making ANYTHING that was obtained or discovered by the officer during the detention/arrest for ANY purpose INADMISSIBLE under the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine. Therefore, there is NO EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY that can be made, no proof that can be offered, thus, NO CASE of controversy before the court. No case or controversy, no jurisdiction of ANY KIND.

If anyone sees any error to the logic or argument, please feel free to point them out.


Also, here are a few California cases that make the point that infractions in that state are NOT crimes, thus, they too ARE civil only.

In re Kay (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 930 [83 Cal. Rptr. 686, 464 P.2d 142]

People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 2

People v. Sava, Cal.App.3d, Vol. 190 (1987)