meme-gold-medal-win-in-court-001-1920x1080

Court – We’ve Won Another One!

Okay, the documents from this win is IN ADDITION TO the previous win that I announced, although it IS relating to the same individual as the previous win.

The statutes don’t lie, unlike the cops, attorneys, and courts. And like any other board game, if they can control the rules, they can control the game. So DON’T let them control the rules.  OBJECT to ANY deviation from the prescribed rules of procedure, EVEN if they have “case law” that allegedly sanctions their actions.

When my pleadings for the felony case are completed, I will be posting them in their ENTIRETY for all to see and study, because they will tell you a LOT about the total corruption that IS the judicial and Bar system.

And by the time you are done reading them, it is my hope that no attorney or judge on the planet will ever again feel safe about showing his or her sorry corrupt face outside of their door or walking down the street, because I am going to be exposing them for the rotting scumbags they are.

 

beardsley-carl-001

beardsley-carl-002

meme-hogans-heroes-qualified-immunity-1920x1080

Attorneys – The Unqualified Stupidity of “Qualified” Immunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Footnotes:

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

meme-politics-government-101-1920x1080

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Algebra Formulas for “transportation”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Footnotes:

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

[2] The new death penalty standards in America.

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

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

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

meme-obama-vs-chimp-as-constitutional-law-scholar-2-1920x1080

Attorneys – Truth and Consequences

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

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


My Response went thusly…

“Let me try to understand your logic:

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

Have you actually LIVED on Earth long? lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS:

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

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

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

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

Enjoy Paradise!”


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

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

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

NOTE: Please watch your local newspapers for applications to become an associate member of the research team.  😉
MEME - Silver Bullets Won't Fix It 1920x1080

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article is only dead wrong because it’s DEAD WRONG! It would be a grand improvement upon education and competency if people would actually learn to read and then bother to research and COMPREHEND just what they are reading before spreading it around as actual fact, which this is NOT.  The author of this article obviously made no attempt whatsoever to research the legal definition of “non-citizen national” or “national” as defined under the federal statutes or the actual legislative acts of Congress.  Which is odd considering that they certainly wanted you to know that it’s a felony for any governmental or private entity to deny you in any right, benefit or privilege because you fail or refuse to disclose a SSN (Privacy Act of 1974).
For instance, in relation to federal law regarding passports, THIS is where one finds the legal definition of “U.S. non-citizen national”;
And this is where you find the explanatory statutes on exactly what a “national” is in relation to the passport laws:
In other words, this ‘method’ is a fast-track to federal prison for falsifying a federal government document and perjury. And the person that is on their way there for doing this stupid shit can thank their own gullibility and laziness for their 5-10 year enjoyment of striped sunshine. Consider this your fair warning about taking this ‘silver bullet’ crap at face-value.
MEME - OBJECTION! Volleyball 001 1920x1920

Trial – Undermining the State’s Unsubstantiated Legal Presumptions and Conclusions.

What do you do when you are attempting to cross-examining the officer on the stand about the actual facts and evidence the officer relied upon that allegedly support the legal presumptions and conclusions that s/he made in the field during your initial encounter with them at the “transportation” stop, and the Prosecution objects to your questioning of the witness about such things?

Let’s look at what usually happens at trial in such cases.

Prosecutor:    Officer, what was Mr. Craig doing when you had reason to take notice of him?

Officer:           Mr. Craig was “operating” his “motor vehicle” on I-35 at 70MPH in a zone marked for a maximum speed of 60MPH, which was “not reasonable and prudent” at the time “under the circumstances and conditions then existing.”

In his/her testimony, the officer has testified to five specific and totally erroneous legal determinations and conclusions, i.e. “operating,” “motor vehicle,” “not reasonable and prudent,” “under the circumstances and conditions then existing,” and the belief that the posted speed signs apply to anything other than a commercial motor vehicle under the provisions of Sec. 201.904 of the “Transportation” Code. These unsubstantiated claims by the officer during testimony constitutes the making of legal determinations and conclusions because, 1) these are terms defined by statute with specific legal, contextual, and subject matter meanings, and 2) the officer is not legally qualified or capable of making or testifying to a legal determination of law, and, therefore, cannot legally declare whether or not the statutory definition actually does apply to the Accused under the circumstances and conditions as they are currently known and existing.

However, without fail, when you begin to cross-examine the officer as to how s/he came to make such legal determinations and conclusions, the Prosecutor will usually jump up and begin making a rather interesting objection, considering the circumstances under which it is being made. It will usually go something like this:

Objection! The officer isn’t required to know those things and isn’t competent to testify as to any legal determinations or conclusions that s/he is being asked to make or testify to at this or any other time.”

(Yes, this is literally an objection that I personally witnessed one Prosecutor make almost verbatim in a trial. Most others have usually been fairly similar in their own individual objections).

Now, in volleyball parlance, this is what is known as a “set at the net,” and it is supposed to be the golden opportunity for a member of the team controlling the ball to “set it up” so that another teammate can be the first to get close to the net, jump really high, and spike the ball in the face of the opposing team to score a point. However, the problem with this set up becomes very apparent when the setting team member realizes that they accidentally set the ball too close to the net and within reach of the opposing team’s own high-jumping blocker/spiker who is already at the net, and who now has the opportunity to spike the ball back and gain his/her team control of the serve.

And this is what that spike looks like once the other team has inadvertently set you up on cross-examination with an objection worded fairly similarly to the one above so as to allow you the opportunity to spike it right back in their face:

Judge, I would like to make this point-by-point response to the prosecution’s objection. During this entire trial the witness for the Prosecution has done absolutely nothing but testify to their own arbitrary legal presumptions and conclusions made at the time of the initial encounter, despite the adamant objections of the Accused. And now, the prosecution wants the court to sustain an objection from them in which they claim that not only is the state’s accuser and only witness not required to actually read and understand the laws and statutes at issue before even attempting to make legal presumptions and conclusions claiming  that the Accused allegedly violated them, but also that that same witness is suddenly legally incompetent to testify when asked by the Accused to explain the specific facts and evidence the officer relied upon to reach those legal presumptions and conclusions at the time of the encounter. The very same legal presumptions and conclusions that the witness has already been allowed to testify to on behalf of the State over the strenuous objections of the Accused. Objections that have all been overruled by this very court despite there being no basis in law for doing so.

Therefore, if the court intends to sustain the Prosecution’s objection that the witness lacks legal competency to testify to the specific facts and evidence allegedly supporting those very same legal presumptions and conclusions made by the witness in this matter, then I move the court to declare the witness legally incompetent and unqualified to testify for all purposes, including, but not limited to, those relating to any such legal determinations and conclusions remaining or already testified to thus far, and that his/her entire testimony be stricken from the record.

Now, if the judge actually grants this motion to strike the witness’s testimony, which the law requires under any normal circumstances that involve real justice and due process, then the next step is to demand a dismissal of the case with prejudice, as the State has no substantive facts or evidence that an eyewitnesses could use to testify against you.

Congratulations, you have now spiked the ball so hard in face of the Prosecution that it permanently tattoos “Voit” across their forehead, and your team now controls the serve.

MEME - Texan or US Citizen 1920x1080

Jury – Texans, Are You Actually Being Denied Your Right to a Jury of Your Peers?

This discussion might prove useful in facilitating the legal theory and argument that the STATE OF TEXAS, i.e. “this state,” has knowingly, willfully, and completely unconstitutionally disqualified the entirety of the People of Texas from ever serving upon our Texas juries. Thus expressly denying our fellow Texans that have been accused of any crime from having their due process right to a fair and impartial trial before a jury comprised of one’s peers. And it is all due to the statutory exclusion of anyone that is not a “citizen of the United States” from qualifying for jury duty.

The term “citizen of the United States” is statutorily defined in a manner that expressly excludes any one or more of the People permanently domiciled within the Republic of Texas from participating on any jury, unless that individual falsely declares themselves to be a “citizen of the United States”  and a mere “resident” of “this state.”

This is what is contained in the Texas Jury Summons and Questionnaire form relating to qualifications for serving on a jury:

QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE
(Texas Government Code, Section 62.102)

To be qualified to serve as a juror you must:

1. be at least 18 years of age;

2. be a citizen of the United States;

3. be a resident of this state and a resident of the county in which you are to serve as a juror;

4. be qualified under the Constitution and laws to vote in the county in which you are to serve as a juror (Note: You do not have to be registered to vote to be qualified to vote);

5. be of sound mind and good moral character;

6. be able to read and write;

7. not have served as a juror for six days during the preceding three months in the county court or during the preceding six months in the district court; and

8. not have been convicted of, or be under indictment or other legal accusation for, misdemeanor theft or a felony.

I certify that I am exempt or disqualified from jury service for the reasons circled above.

Thus, it is not clear if the intended definition for this purpose is one defined according to a geographical use and characterization or political use and characterization.

However, as the term “citizen” is one most commonly recognized as a POLITICAL affiliation and NOT a geographic affiliation, it cannot be readily presumed that the latter is the objective meaning of “citizen of the United States.”  United States Supreme Court case opinions reflect the affiliation of a “citizen” as one of a political nature:

Citizen. One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. U.S.Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.

“Citizens” are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

The term may include or apply to children of alien parents born in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d 862,863; U. S. v. Minoru Yasui D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp. 40, 54; children of American citizens born outside United States, Haaland v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13,22; Indians, United States v. Hester, C.C.A.Okl., 137 F.2d 145, 147; National Banks, American Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Or., 133 F.2d 160, 162; nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate of deceased resident, Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288, 289. However, neither the United States nor a state is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Jizemerjian v. Dept. of Air Force, 457 F.Supp. 820. On the other hand, municipalities and other local governments are deemed to be citizens. Rieser v. District of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462. A corporation is not a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. D. B. Realty Corp. v. Merrill, 232 F.Supp. 629, 637.

Under the diversity statute, which mirrors U.S. Const. Article Ill’s diversity clause, a person is a “citizen of a state” if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116.

Therefore, it is arguable that the term “citizen of the United States” is actually being used in its common and correct political context

Texas statutes don’t define the singular term “citizen’ at all, but they DO define “United States” in the following codes and ways:

FINANCE CODE
TITLE 3. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESSES
SUBTITLE G. BANK HOLDING COMPANIES;  INTERSTATE BANK OPERATIONS
CHAPTER 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

(45)  “United States” means:

(A)  when used in a geographical sense, the several states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the American Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and other territories of the United States;  and

(B)  when used in a political sense, the federal government of the United States.

Now, other than a definition in the Water Code that is limited specifically to the statutory provisions of the Pecos River Compact, this is the only other definition in all of Texas law or statute that defines the singular term “United States.”  Which leaves us with more questions than answers as to how the particular classification and status  of “citizen of the United States” is to be applied when determining one’s qualifications for jury duty in “this state,” not to mention what waivers, immunities, rights or other protections may be prejudiced or non-existent because of same.

If we also take into consideration the legal meaning of “residence” and “resident” as being a temporary dwelling place versus the legal meaning of “domiciled” as being a permanent home, we can see that any and all of our fellow Texans and peers that are permanently domiciled within the Republic of Texas are being unconstitutionally excluded from serving on our juries. Which I consider to be a VERY big problem. See for yourself why the real legal meanings of these terms needs to be examined into and carefully studied:



Residence. Place where one actually lives o r has his home; a person’s dwelling place or place of habitation; an abode; house where one’s home is; a dwelling house. Perez v. Health and Social Services, 91 N.M. 334, 573 P.2d 689, 692. Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently. T.P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Huge, D.C.Md., 197 F.Supp. 860, 865.

Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile. Petition of Castrinakis, D.C.Md., 179 F.Supp. 444, 445. The terms “resident” and “residence” have no precise legal meaning; sometimes they mean domicile plus physical presence; sometimes they mean domicile; and sometimes they mean something less than domicile. Willenbrock v. Rogers, C.A.Pa., 255 F.2d 236, 237. See also Abode; Domicile; Legal residence; Principal residence.

“Domicile” compared and distinguished. As “domicile” and “residence” are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C.A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. “Residence” is not synonymous with “domicile,” though the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more than one residence. Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, La.App., 331 So.2d 186, 188.

In certain contexts the courts consider “residence” and “domicile” to be synonymous (e.g. divorce action, Cooper v. Cooper, 269 Cal.App.2d 6, 74 Cal.Rptr. 439, 441); while in others the two terms are distinguished (e.g. venue, Fromkin v. Loehmann’s Hewlett, Inc., 16 Misc.2d 1 17, 184 N.Y.S.2d 63, 65).

Immigration law. The place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his or her principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent. 8 V.S.C.A. § 1 101. Legal residence. See that title.


Resident. Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence within the State together with indicia that his presence within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature. The word “resident” when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration; it signifies one having a residence, or one who resides or abides. Hanson v. P. A. Peterson Home Ass’n, 35 Ill.App.2d 134, 182 N.E.2d 237, 240. Word “resident” has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used. KeIrn v. Carlson, C.A.Ohio, 473 F.2d 1267, 1271. See also Residence.


 Domicile. A person’s legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one’s home are the requisites of establishing a “domicile” therein. Montoya v. Collier, 85 N.M. 356, 512 P.2d 684, 686. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges. The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him. See also Abode; Residence.

“Citizenship,” “habitancy,” and “residence” are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as “domicile,” while in other uses may have different meanings.

Residencesignifies living in particular locality while “domicilemeans living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.

For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” and “domicile” are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955.



Are you able to see and understand yet just exactly why this is a very big deal and problem?  You cannot legally serve on a jury in Texas if you are a Texas national who is not a “citizen of the United States” and are permanently domiciled in the Republic of Texas, i.e. you must be a “citizen of the United States” and a temporary resident of “this state,” which is NOT the same as being permanently domiciled in the geographic location known as the Republic of Texas.

Which truly begs the question, just exactly who in the hell is it that is being summoned to serve on our juries, because it most certainly doesn’t appear to be any of our fellow Texans and peers?

So, are you actually getting your constitutionally guaranteed and protected right to a jury trial by your fellow Texans and peers, or are you getting a “rubber stamp” squad fully indentured and obligated to “this state” to find you guilty regardless of the law and the facts, or even the total lack thereof?