Listeners can now search the show archives for specific words or phrases.
UPDATE: The archives have been restored! Thanks to Deborah’s efforts, new episodes are being transcribed and uploaded daily. There are now 736 episodes transcribed and searchable.
How To Best Use It: The site is designed to search the show archives for words or phrases used in the show and return where those words or phrases occur in the archives. Don’t try to search for “signs speeding tickets statutes” because it will search for a time when somebody uttered those four words in that exact order. Instead try searching for “speeding”. Don’t just toss keyword-salad at it and expect results.
A listener of the show has created a website that will let you search the audio archives of the Rule of Law Radio show. As of the time of this writing, the site has only a limited number (119) of archives available for search but this number should grow as the archives become available again. If you haven’t noticed there is an issue that is preventing the downloading of most of the archived shows. Once this is resolved, more episodes will be transcribed and made available for search.
The transcripts are generated using OpenAI‘s Whisper software suite so it is possible that some transcriptions are inaccurate but overall it is relatively functional. The site and the author are not associated with Logos Radio Network so if you have issues with the site or want to report errors in the transcripts email the author at email@example.com.
(Depreciated):The author is also seeking MP3 archives of the show that are not already transcribed and made available here until the show archives page is working again. If you have a collection of MP3 archives that are not listed here, please email the site creator at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you think about it logically, many reasonable and critical thinking individuals would probably say that we can boil everything down to only three general causes for why an executive official, law enforcement officer, or a judicial court, would make an incorrect interpretation or ruling in a case involving the correct interpretation and application of actual written law, those three being ignorance, incompetence, or corruption, generally speaking. However, I believe that the facts can be further boiled down to the point where only one of these is actually correct. Let me try to explain, logically, why I believe that is.
Let us begin with the cause of ignorance. We can presume as fact that no politically savvy executive official or judicial officer, in general, is ever going to admit to being ignorant or incompetent of the written law, or of any ‘controlling’ court opinions relative to the interpretation of that law. Because this is the presumed norm, the various Bar Associations would have us all believe that our judicial functionaries, the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and corporate legal counsels, have a professional, ethical, and moral duty and obligation to ‘know’ the law and to know it substantially better than any executive functionary or layman (yeah, they call us the laymen). This presumption alone is reason enough to put forth the argument that no judicial officer can be reasonably presumed to be ignorant of what any part of the law actually says or means, especially when that particular area of law is their publicly proclaimed and advertised ‘specialty.’ But, then again, what can you logically expect from a group of individuals who serve their own private interests while literally having official and functional control over every high office in every department and agency within every single level of our government?
Now, my personal interpretation of “knowing” something as important as the law and how it is supposed to function is that one actually spends countless hours expending and expanding brain cells over many long hours, days, months, or years in research and study of the law itself and its legislative and interpretative history so as to truly have a deeper knowledge and understanding of what it actually says and means according to the combined whole of all relevant statues applicable to that particular object or subject matter area relative to any individual provision. The deeper meaning of my interpretation and understanding will be made clear when you read the literal meaning of the phrase the whole of the law a little further on. What is important right now is understanding that the highly presumptive and false belief that there really is a deeper “knowing” and understanding of the law by those serving as judges and attorneys is being marketed to the masses as a sound and logical reason to entrust our very lives and property to these individuals (which is an egregious mistake) rather than trying to handle things for ourselves when it comes to our personal and business affairs or actions within the courts (which may also be a mistake depending upon one’s personal aptitude for studying and figuring out how the system actually works and why).
There is an ancient maxim of the law that states ignorantia juris non excusat, or “ignorance of the law does not excuse.” Put another way, it is presumed that the public knows the laws, and a defense of ignorance is typically not allowed. So, if the public in general is presumed to know the law, even if they have never even actually seen and read it, then how is it possible for those empowered by we the people to serve within the executive and judicial departments of government in order to apply and enforce the laws to ever be able to claim ignorance as the basis for their getting an interpretation, application, or ruling on any given law completely wrong in any or every possible way or completely in spite of it?
Using this logic, combined with the aforementioned legal maxim, I assert that, as the public at large cannot be presumed to be ignorant of the law, then by no means can any possible level of ignorance be presumed or allowed to exist for those in any department of government, especially within the judiciary. For it is the members of the judiciary for whom extensively learning and understanding the whole of the laws is a mandatory prerequisite in order to fulfill their primary function and reason for existence, the proper interpretation of the laws in accordance with all constitutional protections and prohibitions. This does not simply mean the learning and understanding of the individual statutes, but also how those statutes overlap and are intertwined by any object or subject matter relationship(s) with any others, even those of other statutory schemes that may exist within and across multiple sections of the same or other statutory code(s). THIS level of knowledge and understanding about all of these various statutory interactions and relational dependencies is what is meant by the judicially-coined phrase the whole of the law. Thus, if a government actor cannot be reasonably presumed to be ignorant about something that it is their primary duty to fully learn and understand, and yet, that government actor is still allowed to continuously misunderstand, misapply, and misuse virtually everything related thereto, then the correct presumption of the cause cannot be that the government actor is simply acting out of ignorance of such things.
Consider this, if those in charge over an individual governmental actor ever repeatedly tried to correct the actor’s improper understanding and application of a particular law or a duty imposed by a law, and the actor still continues to do everything or any part thereof incorrectly, then they are de facto incompetent because they are demonstrably untrainable, as shown by the fact that all attempts to properly train and correct their flawed understanding and actions have failed. By that same reasoning, if the incompetent individual’s superior(s) never recognized and made the effort to correct the underling’s improper understanding and behavior, then they too are demonstrably incompetent for exactly the same reasons. Thus, if the individual actors at either level are determined to be wholly incompetent in this manner, then they cannot be classified as simply ignorant nor rely upon its assertion as a viable excuse. Thus, logically, ignorance can no longer be considered as one of the three possible causes for why so many of those within the executive department keep misapplying and misusing the laws or why those in the judiciary keep creating precedent-setting opinions about the constitutions or the laws that time and time again are demonstrably incorrect and illogical either in whole or in part.
Having now logically eliminated the possibility of ignorance being a contributing cause for any executive or judicial functionary’s failure to properly interpret and apply the law, we are left with two remaining choices, incompetence or corruption. However, just as before, I assert that incompetence, in and of itself, is also a logical impossibility as the cause for such failures.
For instance, if an executive functionary or a judge is offered a demonstrably true and wholly viable and verifiable alternative interpretation of the law that fully meshes with the whole of the law as previously described, and that the existing executive interpretation or judicial precedent can be reasonably shown to not be true precisely because it does not fully mesh with the whole of the law, but, the executive functionary or judge refuses to acknowledge, accept, or even investigate and research the legal basis supporting the factual challenge to the existing and legally incorrect (bad) interpretation or precedent in order to continue applying the bad interpretation or precedent despite the facts and evidence, then neither the executive functionary nor the judge is applying the actual law to the facts or the facts to the actual law. What either governmental actor is really doing in this scenario is ignoring and avoiding his/her duty to know, understand, and apply the law as a whole, and by doing so, is applying only that which s/he has already been shown to be a completely incorrect interpretation of the law. Thus, these governmental actors have decided to treat the bad interpretation/precedent as being the only thing that is legally relevant and necessary for consideration in order to render their decision. In other words, the governmental actor has just declared that the law as it was written and intended to be interpreted and applied by the legislature be damned, regardless of the facts and evidence to the contrary, as s/he is going to follow the prior interpretation or precedent of another government official or court that also completely ignored the requirement to understand and apply the whole of the law that resulted in the incorrect understanding and interpretation of the Legislature’s original purpose and intent for the law in the first place.
Now, anyone in the legal field with a working brain will tell you that knowingly acting in bad faith under any legitimate set of circumstances or in violation of the law is an act of willful intent. Thus, by willfully choosing to ignore the newly presented facts and evidence refuting the legal foundation of any prior executive interpretation or judicial precedent, the executive functionary or judicial officer is acting with knowing and willful intent, not ignorance or incompetence, for the express purpose of ignoring the existing relevant law in order to reach a conclusion s/he now knows to be completely incongruous with the law itself. Thus, if these governmental actors cannot be presumed to be acting out of ignorance or incompetence to make such an unlawful determination or ruling in the face of countermanding facts and evidence, then the only cause remaining as motivation for the act is corruption. These facts are irrefutable. The executive functionary or the judge of the court is knowingly and willfully ignoring the proper legislative intent, purpose, and interpretation of the law for one that s/he now knows to be legally incorrect in order to achieve an outcome favorable to the functionary’s/judge’s own ego, reputation, and career interests and not to the rightful party who should be prevailing on the merits according to the law. This can only mean that these governmental actors have acted in favor of their own personal and political self-interests while knowingly and willfully depriving that same rightful party of their full and proper right to due process and remedy under the law. This is a criminal act if ever there was one.
Let us also not forget that these corrupt individuals are often not prosecuted because some County or District Attorney has decided to make the specious claim that a particular governmental actor’s actions “do not rise to the level of criminality.” This argument is completely nonsensical when used here in Texas, as we have two statutes making virtually any unconstitutional or unlawful actions perpetrated by a public servant that violates the rights of the people under our constitution and laws into a criminal act, causing said action to unquestionably “rise to the level of criminality” under our law. But those two statutes are all but totally ignored when seeking to criminally charge and prosecute such individuals. Even criminal acts explicitly codified within the Texas Penal code are often intentionally overlooked or outright ignored by prosecutors when it comes down to charging a public servant with an actual crime.
This can only mean that prosecutors are knowingly playing favorites and protecting real criminals who just happen to serve within the ranks of government under an official title while literally throwing every single charge they can come up with at any of the rest of us that may run afoul of the system in even the most minor degree, even when we are actually innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. This is especially true when they are trying to engage in a cover up to protect another public employee or official. Not only do they charge and prosecute us, they secret, tamper with, destroy, or fabricate from whole cloth, the very evidence that is used, as applicable, to either convict us or potentially or completely exonerate us and set us free. These foxes have not only created a system that puts them directly in charge of the hen house, but that also gives them full control of the whole chicken yard to the degree that they are answerable to virtually no one. This same system also puts them in charge of determining their own immunity, culpability, and liability in having to answer for any chickens that go missing or that later turn up dead or injured should the foxes ever actually find it necessary to calm and assuage the vitriol and ire of the masses by putting on a show of doing so (Derek Chauvin vs. George Floyd anyone??), and that’s just not a reasonable way of doing things, or allowing them to be done, much less a proper way to run a productive hen house and chicken yard.
Lest you forget, abusing the powers of one’s official office for personal gain or to harm the rights of the people to whom you took an oath and swore to protect is outright corruption and criminality on its face.
See, I told you that there was really only one logical cause for our executive and judicial officers to be making so many fundamentally bad interpretations and precedent-setting decisions.
Several folks on social media wanted to know what I am eating that is “keto” compliant. I guess everyone will have a different level of interest in such things, but I’m going to show you all anyway because posting it once here is far easier than doing it directly on several different social media platforms. 😀
When it comes to food I prefer quick and simple over that of extended prep-time and a lot of dirty dishes to wash after a meal. I like it even better when the meal can be prepared in a single pot/crockpot or skillet in a very short amount of time. Enter Eddie’s personal invention for single entrée dining that meets each of these personal preferential conditions, BORK!
Bork is a very tasty mixture of beef, pork, and various fresh and/or frozen vegetables, spices and seasonings in an easy to cook single skillet meal. The minimal amount of your time initially spent in making up several pounds and freezing it is paid back with interest at every meal you make from it thereafter.
The wonderful thing about the “keto” way of eating is that you get to keep your nutritional ratios as close to 80% fat, 15% protein, and 5% carbohydrates as you can. This makes red meat and pork the largest percentage of your daily food consumption, which, as an avid meat-eater, makes it very much to my liking. However, like I said, I prefer that my actual meal-prep be both simple and uses as few dishes as possible.
When I am preparing Bork I tend to buy 2-4 of the large 10+ lbs. rolls of 73%/27% ground beef and several two-ish-pound packs of ground pork in a ratio of approximately 5 lbs. of beef to 2 lbs. of pork. I like it even better when I can find a butcher shop that can ground it up fresh AND mix in the pork at the same time at a reasonable price for everything.
I then mix the two together into one large mixture. I also tend to add my preferences of spices, seasonings, chia and ground flax seeds for additional omega 3s and fiber, a small portion of avocado oil, LOTS of fresh mushrooms, sweet white onions, bell peppers, shredded carrots, and an additional 5 lbs. of frozen stir fry vegetables that I grind up in my food processor. The fresh and frozen stir fry vegetables has a ratio of approximately 3-5 lbs. of veggies to every 15-20 lbs. of meat total. I usually process approximately 40-70 lbs. total at one time. Remember that most vegetables are comprised almost entirely of carbs rather than fat and protein, so we don’t want the vegetable ratio very high in relation to the meat mixture as a whole. They are there only for the added attractive colors, nutritional value, and flavor that they contain and provide.
The entire process only takes me about 3-6 hours to complete if I keep steadily at it, which also depends upon how much I am making at once, as bagging it up and removing the air bubbles takes longer than any other part of the process. You can use any herbs and spices you wish in whatever quantities suit your personal flavor preference. Just avoid those that contain excess sugar or starch. The brown ‘sauce’ you see in the pictures is a mixture of A-1 steak sauce, Worcestershire Sauce, Avocado oil, and a small amount of BBQ sauce. You can use whatever sugar-free/minimal sauce you like or no sauce at all.
Once I have it all prepped and stacked on the table, I knead the entire mixture by hand like a huge ball of bread dough until everything is thoroughly mixed. Yes, other than the fresh vegetables, the meat and frozen veggie ingredients are very COLD, so you must do everything as quickly as possible to prevent feeling like you’re getting frostbite in your hands and fingers and avoid potential meat spoilage if it sits out for too many hours. Luckily you can easily work for 4-6 hours in a moderately cool kitchen without any problems as long as the meat is good and cold when you start the process. I usually let the meat sit in my fridge for a couple of days beforehand to make sure that it is cold through-and-through. I also highly recommend that you coat your hands and wrists or plastic food service gloves with avocado oil before you start kneading the meat and other ingredients together. The oil prevents the meat and spices from sticking and gumming up your hands, which makes washing them much easier afterward. This also means that you want to wash them REALLY WELL before starting if you are not using gloves.
I have included a series of pictures that show the entire process at individual stages of preparation and final freezer storage. I will eventually purchase a large meat-mixer like butcher’s use to make seasoned sausage to simplify and make the process easier and faster instead of having to mix everything by hand like I have to do right now.
Once I have everything mixed, I weigh it out using my digital food scale into exactly 1 lb. balls and place them individually into quart Ziplock freezer bags. I line up the unsealed bags in an upright position in several rows and columns on one side of my work area until it has all been bagged. When the meat mixture has all been bagged up, I wash my hands thoroughly to remove the avocado oil and meat remains so they are clean for the flattening and air removal process.
I usually prep several rows of empty freezer bags by rolling the top edge down over the bottom half so the bag will stand on its own and I won’t get any meat in the Ziplock tracks while putting it into the bag, which would spoil its ability to fully and properly seal. This also helps keep the outside of the bags from being contaminated and slippery by touching the meat. Every 10-20 bags I stop long enough to carry the filled bags to a refrigerator to begin cooling down again, where they remain until I have finished filling them with meat and they are all ready to be flattened and sealed. I then remove them from the refrigerator 20 bags at a time and stack that lot directly in the freezer after flattening and removing the air bubbles from all of them.
PRO TIP: If your freezer has spaced wire racks you should seriously consider using a piece of flat cardboard cut to size so you can line the entire shelf with it before stacking the meat packets so as to prevent the bottom bags from being squished around and freezing to the wire rack due to the weight of the entire stack.
I begin the air removal process by zipping the bag I’m working on until only a small corner remains unsealed. I then press the individual bags out as flat as possible, making sure that I remove all the empty space and air bubbles I possibly can by flattening and pushing them toward the open corner and then flipping it over as necessary to complete the process on both sides. ANOTHER PRO TIP: Be careful to avoid squeezing any meat out through the bag opening as this will result in the clogging of the Ziplock track in that corner and your bag won’t properly seal. Removing as much air as possible allows you to store the meat for much longer periods of time without loss by preventing freezer burn. Because it is now flat, I can easily stack a large number of these flattened bags in my freezer. This also keeps wasted freezer space to an absolute minimum.
I usually cook up three of the 1 lb. packs at a time and keep it in the fridge inside a sealed Tupperware storage bowl so I can heat up small portions for meals throughout the week. All you have to do to cook it is simply peel the plastic bag off the meat and place it in a lightly-oiled heated skillet for browning, which takes 5-10 minutes depending upon the temperature settings you use. The mixed in avocado oil prevents the bag from freezing and sticking directly to the meat. This method is far easier than letting the meat thaw before cooking it as it gets REALLY messy inside the bag once it thaws, making it much harder to get out of the bag cleanly. However, if you want to make hamburger patties with it you can either cut it into ‘Wendy’s’ square-shaped patties as it cooks or you will have to let it thaw and then form it into patties by hand before cooking. either way, it makes a REALLY juicy and delicious burger!! Just be sure that you are using a keto-friendly bread substitute.
It takes only a few extra minutes to make the full 3 lbs. that I usually cook at one time. After the meat has thoroughly browned you can continue cooking it uncovered for a while longer to steam off as much excess water as you can if you so choose, just don’t burn the meat! However, the excess water and oil won’t hurt anything, it just makes your tacos really runny and messier to eat if you leave too much in after cooking. You can also thicken the excess oil and water so it remains mixed with the meat by adding in almond or coconut flour during cooking. Use whatever quantity allows it to absorb the majority of the oil and water. For me, using coconut flour alters the overall flavor very little, though some folks still notice it. Be aware that this will extend your cooking time as this takes several extra minutes to accomplish. But it is still very delicious in the results. An important side-note here is that you should NOT drain the excess oil off the meat after cooking. DON’T WASTE IT BY THROWING IT AWAY!! Remember, the majority of that oil is very nutritious and relatively expensive avocado oil. It is added to the mixture not only for nutritional value and flavor, it also helps the meat remain moist instead of dried and crunchy like it would be once you cook out much of the excess water it contains. Use this excess oil by making an almond flour gravy or pouring it over a salad in place of dressing (or even with your dressing), as it is very flavorful at this point. Your taste mileage may vary, however. The other benefit of this mixture is that once you cook it you can’t really even tell that it has vegetables mixed in, making it easy to feed children and adults who normally won’t willingly eat their veggies. 😀 😀 😀
This 3 lbs. of browned Bork will usually last me for about an entire seven-day week (sometimes more). I usually eat just one or two meals a day, which is usually in the form of soft tacos. I spoon out about a 1-1.1/4 cup portion of the meat mixture into a smaller bowl to reheat and eat on the tacos. I use even less when cooking it to eat on top of nachos or in queso, or when eating it mixed with or alongside eggs for breakfast or dinner.
Besides Bork soft tacos, I also eat either venison and pork kielbasa sausage, pork chops, chicken, or various kinds of steak a couple of times a week for a change of pace and flavor, but Bork has become my main mealtime go-to.
When eating, keep your portions reasonable in size and EAT SLOWLY so that your body has time to register how much you’ve actually consumed. It normally takes your stomach twenty minutes to register just how full it is, so the faster you shovel food in the more you will consume before your stomach says stop. This is how people wind up feeling totally stuffed shortly after eating a big meal. The stomach finally caught up with the brain. Because of this time lapse, eating your food more slowly goes a long way toward preventing overeating. Stop eating when your stomach tells you it feels full, even if you think you have not eaten all that much and your mind is telling you that you should still need more in order to actually be full. For me, one meal is usually 4-6 of the 4″ soft corn taco shells you can see the package of in the last picture, filled with 1 – 1.5 tablespoons of the Bork mixture, a small cluster of leafy greens, and a small amount of shredded cheese per soft taco shell.
I also make my own sandwich spread to put into the tacos. The spread is made with a small amount of sweet pickle relish, Miracle Whip, Ranch Dressing, spicy brown mustard, a dash of Cayan pepper, minced garlic, 4 tablespoons of lemon/lime juice, and several other herbs and spices all mixed together. I store this in a gallon jug in my fridge and spread it lightly on the taco shells before putting everything else on them. Then you just roll them up and chow down!
Okay, here are the pictures of the process if you want to try this for yourself. Everyone that has tried this mixture has REALLY liked it and wanted me to make enough to sell them several pounds of it each time I make it. Your opinions and preferences may vary, but that isn’t my problem. 😀 I happen to find it very tasty and nutritious and eat it for just about every meal throughout most of the week.
However, the ADDITIONAL criteria for how and when that viewable distance actually applies and must be observed and tested is found in Sec. 547.301(a), and that section requires that the 50′ distance measurement is to be observed/tested under the following conditions only: .================ “a) Unless expressly stated otherwise, a visibility distance requirement imposed by this chapter for a lamp or device applies when a lighted lamp or device is required and is measured as if the vehicle were unloaded and on a straight, level, unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions.“ .================ https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.547.htm#547.301 .================
As you can plainly see from the language of the statute, the mandatory requirement for measuring the visibility of the license plate lamp is inarguable as to its parameters and conditions. So, how do you fight a ticket like this and win? Well, as usual, that depends upon whether or not the courts and the prosecution will follow the law rather than their real motivational impetus of stealing money from any source they can find it regardless of the law and the facts. This requires that you come to a realization that is rather unsettling, the administrative law system pretending to be a criminal law system is itself designed from the ground up to be totally unfair, un-American, and unconstitutional in how it operates. With that realization comes another that is equally disappointing, that the only real goal here is to use these laws in a manner that allows those running the system to continue stealing from you and I by means of judicial and prosecutorial fraud, which they do by ignoring the full compliment of statutory elements required to be asserted and proven for these types of offenses.
IF the law were being followed and applied to the facts of the case as it should be, then winning a case like this would be no harder than simply asking all the right questions and then objecting to the officer’s complete lack of professional qualification to answer them with sworn testimony from the witness stand. For example, questions relevant to the additional individual elements of the actual charge itself, as found in this other general application in pari materia statute, and a few necessary stipulations from the Prosecution in open court, are as follows:
Judge, on and for the record, I would like to request some stipulations from the prosecution before we begin, the first being, does the prosecution intend to present or represent that this case is based upon a “strict liability” standard and reading of the statutes involved in the matter?
Judge, does the prosecution agree to stipulate that Transportation Code Sec. 547.301(a) is as equally in pari materia to the allegation as Secs. 547.322(f) & (g) of that Code?
Judge, as the prosecution has stated in the affirmative that this is a case involving a “strict liability” reading and application of the statutes in question, the Defense would ask the court to clarify if the issue of strict liability cuts both ways, meaning, is the STATE also under a strict liability requirement to both assert and prove every statutory element of the alleged offense in accordance with those elements clearly stated within the aforementioned statutes themselves, and is the STATE required to do so solely by the means of substantive facts and evidence and not merely the unqualified personal legal opinions and conclusions of its witness?
Furthermore, I ask for a stipulation from the prosecution as to whether or not the STATE intends to swear in and call the officer to testify as an expert witness upon any subject whatsoever so as to convert the officer’s otherwise unqualified personal legal conclusions and opinions upon that subject into allegedly admissible evidence for purposes of the court record and obtaining a conviction?
If the officer is not being sworn in or called to testify as an expert witness, I ask the court to grant a Defense Motion In Limine prohibiting the prosecution from asking the witness any questions relating to, or that can be construed as, requiring an answer based upon the witness’ unqualified personal legal opinions or conclusions about any aspect of this case, especially those that are required to be factual, and the Defense further requests that the officer also not be allowed to answer any questions relative to the facts of this case if the basis for the answer is his/her own personal legal opinions or conclusions about those facts.
================================ Relevant and Necessary Questions: ================================
Officer, was the ticket issued on a highway where some natural illumination or lights of any kind were present?
Officer, you testified that the time of day when you allegedly observed my license place light as being faulty was approximately xx:xxPM, correct?
What time did the sun completely vanish over the horizon on that day?
Was the light of the sun still viewable in the sky at the time of day you allegedly observed my license plate light?
At this time of day, could you still see the road and surrounding terrain without the use of any sort of additional illumination?
If you could see such things, then that must mean that there was some other source of illumination that was present and affecting your vision, because, if there was no illumination whatsoever you shouldn’t have been able to see anything at all, as it would have been pitch black, correct?
Does your police cruiser have headlights?
Does department policy allow you to operate your cruiser on an open and operational public roadway at nighttime without using your cruiser’s headlights?
So, the headlights of your patrol cruiser are always on and operational at all times once the sun goes down, including on the day you stopped me and wrote this citation?
So, just to be clear for the jury, your testimony thus far is, at the time you made your initial observation that my license plate light was allegedly not operational, that it was after sunset, but not so dark that you couldn’t see anything when standing outside of your cruiser, that we were both traveling upon an open and operational public highway, and that your cruiser’s headlights were on and operational. Is that a correct summary of your testimony thus far?
So, it is 100% true that you never once turned off the headlights on your cruiser while traveling upon the public roadway behind me on the night in question. Yes or No?
It is also 100% true that you were positioned directly behind my automobile when you made the alleged observation of my license plate light, correct?
Using a measurement of feet, how close to the rear of my automobile are you claiming to have gotten prior to making this observation?
Do the headlights on your cruiser appear to reflect more light back at you the closer you are to an object they are shining upon, meaning that it makes the object appear brighter and more visibly detailed?
So, it is 100% true that the headlights of your cruiser were shining either directly at or in the general direction of the rear of my automobile at that time you allegedly made this observation, correct?
And you are absolutely certain that you never turned your headlights off at any time while you were operating your police cruiser upon the highway and following behind me, yes?
Officer, can you tell us how the term “unlighted” is defined by the statute, or does the statute rely upon the ‘common’ definition by not defining it at all (READ it)?1 (Webster’s).
Isn’t the term “unlighted” a term that is synonymous with “unlit,” which, using the common and ordinary meaning found in Webster’s Dictionary is defined as “not illuminated with light?”2 (Webster’s).
Does having the rear of my automobile completely illuminated by the headlights of your police cruiser legally qualify as “unlighted,” meaning “not illuminated with light?”
If something is “not illuminated with light,” as the statute clearly uses the term, then doesn’t it seem logical that meaning implicitly implies the complete absence of light?
And since the observational requirement relates to a level and distance of visibility found only under the conditions that the law itself terms as the complete absence of light, wouldn’t the fact that your testimony about your cruiser’s headlights shining upon or at the rear of my automobile make such an observation under these specific legally permissible requirements impossible?
Wouldn’t the fact that there were multiple sources of illumination present make the element of “unlighted” impossible to prove since the common and ordinary meaning of unlighted is “not lighted?”
Even if the portion of roadway being “illuminated with light,” was the same place where you’ve testified that your observations took place, doesn’t the presence of such light sources 100% nullify the mandatory observational element of “unlighted?”
Isn’t it true that this statutory requirement exists precisely because the presence of other sources of light would almost certainly adversely affect the already minimalistic visible luminosity of a license plate lamp from at least 50′ away?
If multiple and more powerful sources of illumination were present, like the power headlights on your police cruiser, how could you possibly testify that the legal element of “unlighted” was met and proven?
So it is entirely possible, virtually 100% certain in fact, that you could not have possibly observed my license plate light under the conditions required by these statutory elements in order to legally determine if the license plate light was not actually working or not readily visible from at least 50′ in the first place, correct?
Was there a moon out that night?
Could you see the moon from the same location where you pulled me over and wrote this citation?
Doesn’t that make the moon yet another source of illumination that would make the “unlighted” element impossible to positively allege and prove?
Officer, was my automobile completely unloaded at the time of your alleged observations?
Did you ever ask me step out of the automobile?
So I remained inside my automobile the entire time, correct?
Did you personally remove, or have me remove, everything from the automobile that was not a factory approved integral part of automobile in order for it to meet the legal element of “unloaded?”
I have here the original advertisement that led me to purchase the very automobile you are testifying about here today, can you please read that part of the advertisement right there? It says the automobile “comes fully loaded,” and then supplies a complete list of items it is loaded with doesn’t it? Did you ever make me remove any of those items before you performed your visual observation test of my license plate light?
Since there was at least one individual (me) inside the automobile at the time, and it definitely was carrying other personal property and such, how could you possibly testify that the legal element of “unloaded” was met and proven?
Officer, can you tell us how the term “straight” is defined by the statute, or does it rely upon the ‘common’ definition by not actually defining the term at all (READ it)?
Isn’t it true that the term “straight” is not defined by the Texas Transportation Code?
Isn’t it also true that the common and ordinary meaning and implied use of the term “straight” is “free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities?”3 (Webster’s).
Officer, did you bring a certified copy of the surveyor’s report containing the actual survey made by a qualified surveyor that certifies that the exact section of road where you allegedly made your ‘observation’ of the ‘faulty’ taillight is actually “straight?”
Officer, did you bring a certified copy of the surveyor’s report containing the actual survey made by a qualified surveyor that certifies that the exact section of road where you allegedly made your ‘observation’ of the ‘faulty’ taillight is actually “level?”
Officer, can you please tell us from what University you obtained your degree in Meteorology?
Are you saying that you don’t have a degree in meteorology?
Then how are you officially and sufficiently qualified to testify about what constitutes “normal atmospheric conditions” at this precise location of roadway?
Since you don’t have a degree in meteorology, and you haven’t been sworn in to testify as an expert witness even if you did, how could you possibly testify that the legal element of “normal atmospheric conditions” at this precise location of roadway was legally met and proven?
The list of things you can go into about this particular offense, and many others in the Transportation Code, is quite comprehensive.
How far behind you was the officer when he activated his lights to pull you over?
Did the officer EVER get closer to your automobile than 50′ prior to the activation of their emergency lights?
Since this was a deputy sheriff, DOES the county sheriff’s office he works for even have legal authority to enforce the Transportation Code via a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Texas Department of Public Safety that was issued in accordance with all of the provisions of Rule §4.13 of the Texas Administrative Code and Sec. 701.001 of the Texas Transportation Code?
Be aware that the majority of Sheriff’s offices in Texas DO NOT have this memorandum because they DO NOT meet the legal requirements of Rule §4.13 within the Texas Administrative Code in order to receive it. A “Memorandum of Understanding” is 100% REQUIRED by law under the provisions of the Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part I, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, Rule §4.13 BEFORE any enforcement authority can be delegated to local sheriff’s offices even if they DO otherwise qualify! This is equally true, if true at all, for municipalities and their police officers. The Texas Department of Public Safety is the only state agency given direct enforcement authority over the specific chapters of the Texas Transportation Code generally used for fraudulent and illegal revenue generation by counties and municipalities.
Lastly, once the deputy/officer actually approached the rear of the automobile and saw for certain that the license plate light WAS actually working, WHY did the asshole write a ticket already knowing it was an absolute fact that the ticket was 100% false [and, at that point, 100% malicious] as to the charge for which you were being cited?
This falsification alone makes the officer’s actions 100% ILLEGAL in that it was falsification of a government document (citation), simulation of legal process (citation and promise to appear), an illegal arrest without ANY form of probable cause, which is unlawful restraint (falsely held/restrained against your will for an illegal stop), impersonating a public servant (no authority OR jurisdiction to enforce the Transportation Code without that Memorandum of Understanding and the proper D.P.S. certifications), abuse of official capacity (color of law without lawful authority), and official oppression (color of law and violation of rights). In short, the officer made themselves into a FELON by making this stop without probable cause or lawful authority to enforce the Transportation Code. Therefore, it would be 100% feasible to claim that you have reason to believe and do believe that you could and should file criminal charges for each of these offenses. .================ https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.701.htm#701.001 . https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=4&rl=13 .================
At some point earlier today the Texas Supreme court ordered the release of Dallas area salon owner Shelley Luther from jail where she was illegally sentenced to seven (7) days for contempt of court on May 5, 2020 by Dallas District Court Judge Eric Moýe. A charge that was illegally made and prosecuted against her on the grounds that she refused to comply with a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued by County Judge Clay Jenkins. an order that ILLEGALLY commanded her to close her perfectly legitimate and lawful business and face either a completely unconstitutional Bill of Pains and Penalties levied under color of law, or, suffer through potential bankruptcy and the starvation of her children and family. Mrs. Luther chose to refuse the abusive demands of these state and local officials and not bend her knee or her head in order to comply with them. Prompting me to exultantly cheer for her and all those like her, because such courage in the face of state-sanctioned and enforced adversity is extremely rare these days!
The TRO was issued by Judge Jenkins under color of law, that of Governor Greg Abbott’s equally unconstitutional and illegal “stay-at-home” executive order. The problem for Judges Jenkins and Moýe is this, a governor’s executive orders are NOT binding public law and have ZERO legal authority upon the public and their person, rights, or private property/business. They are binding ONLY upon other governmental actors and NO ONE ELSE!! The people of Texas declared this to be the case when we delegated law-making authority ONLY to the two houses of the Texas Legislature, which creates Bills containing LAW that a governor can ONLY sign to approve or veto. But a governor cannot rewrite or replace such legislation with his/her own form of legislative text and then sign their own new or replacement text into law. Thus, the TRO was ILLEGAL on its face the instant Judge Jenkins PRETENDED to issue it, and since there was ZERO lawful authority invested in his public office to issue such an order, he was instantly guilty of IMPERSONATING A PUBLIC SERVANT (judicial officer) and acting illegally under COLOR of law and lawful authority. Both of which are CRIMES under Texas AND federal law!
Judge Jenkins’ actions also constitute the commission of at least THREE other felony crimes under the Penal Code of the State of Texas, Simulation of Legal Process, Abuse of Official Capacity, and Official Oppression. (See links to the text of these crimes below).
Compounding Judge Jenkins’ crimes are those perpetrated from another judicial bench by Dallas District Court Judge Eric Moýe when he acted to illegally enforce an equally illegal TRO with a false charge of contempt of court against Mrs. Luther. Judge Moýe made the additional and contemptible mistake of staging the entire presentation as a political stunt to curry favor with his democratic constituency. I say this considering the facts and circumstances of the situation, which leave no other logical conclusion as to WHY he would even consider holding Mrs. Luther in contempt and throw her in jail for feeding her family with a perfectly legitimate and lawful occupation, especially when the Dallas area county jail has released numerous violent felons from that same jail due to the COVID-19 hoaxdemic. Thus, it should be irrefutable in the eyes of any grand jury and prosecuting attorney that Judge Moýe is equally guilty of each and every one of the same felony crimes that Judge Jenkins committed, if not an actual co-conspirator, which would then add yet MORE felony charges, organized criminal activity and conspiracy against rights.
So, what needs to happen now? Well, who would like to bet me a $1,000 that the Texas Supreme Court eventually rules as follows:
that the executive order was being unconstitutionally and illegally enforced against public and private business’ as if it was actual binding public law;
that the arrests, incarcerations, and criminal charges inflicted by law enforcement against the public and private business owners under color of that order were also unconstitutional and illegal;
the TRO issued by Judge Jenkins was unconstitutional andillegal;
the contempt charge and hearing held by Judge Moýe was equally unconstitutional and illegal; AND
they ALL violated the individual protected rights of not only Shelley Luther, but all the people of Texas; THUS
BOTH judges lack any and all forms of immunity for their acts and can be held 100% personally responsible and liable, as there was absolutely NO LAW and jurisdiction providing them with any such authority OR jurisdiction to do ANY of these acts whatsoever!!
In the off-chance that the Texas Supreme Court either can’t or won’t rule in this way, then the United States Supreme Court most certainly should. And if neither of them are willing and able to do so, well, that’s where the alternative subjects contained in the title of this article must begin to come into play and become actual actions.
Once that ruling has been handed down, the next step SHOULD BE that the Texas Supreme Court rule and order that BOTH of these judges be judicially disrobed, disbarred, and publicly castrated (no, I really didn’t mean to say castigated). Preferably just minutes before they are both publicly hung for sedition. Even if they are not hung (or castrated), they should NEVER be allowed to enter into any public office ever again.
Furthermore, the ONLY way that either of them should EVER be allowed to even set foot in a courtroom in the future is as defendants on trial for their crimes or in the multitude of sure-to-follow civil suits for actual and punitive damages caused by their actions. Neither of these men SHOULD be able to rely upon “judicial immunity” to shield and protect them from liability, because neither of them acted with ANY legal authority based upon ANY validly enacted legislation, thus, they acted ENTIRELY without ANY jurisdiction of any kind whatsoever. In fact, the court bailiffs present during these proceedings SHOULD have seen and known these facts and immediately intervened by charging and arresting these judges before their gavel could ever be raised, much less come down with an illegal edict attached to it.
It should also come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that BOTH of these scumbag judges are “progressive” liberal Democrats, and their actions over the last few days have placed observable proof of that fact on full display. Judge Moýe’s reprehensible demand that Mrs. Luther bow down and kiss his ass, or least his judicial “ring of power,” is one of the most despicable and obscene acts ever committed by a sitting justice outside of those presiding over the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, and his punishment should mirror the atrocity and audacity of his crimes.
Just so you are all aware of how this illegal arrest and incarceration of Mrs. Shelley Luther SHOULD play out, using Trezevant v City of Tampa as the standard of $1,087.00 PER MINUTE (awarded $25,000 for 23 minutes of illegal incarceration), the total amount she has established precedent to sue for is actually $10,956,960.00 if she stays in jail for the whole 24 hours of the full seven days.
Here’s the math on that: Her incarceration is ordered for Seven (7) days.
#Days x #Hours per Day x #Minutes per Hour = #Total Minutes D x H x MM = TMM 7 x 24 x 60 = 10,080
Trezevant was awarded judgment of $25k by a jury for being illegally held in jail for a total of 23 minutes: $25,000 ÷ 23 = $1,086.96 ($1,087 rounded up)
Total Minutes x Restitution per Minute = Total Punitive Damages TMM x RPM = TPD 10,080 x $1,087 = $10,956,960.00
This is the full amount that prior court precedent shows she could potentially sue EACH of these idiot judges for in their personal capacities, because there was absolutely no official capacity under which either of them could claim to be acting, as there IS NOT and never was ANY kind of binding public law investing them with legal protection OR authority to do anything that they did to this woman. Neither was any such power and authority ever invested in any of the other judges across the state that proceeded similarly against literally thousands of other Texans and out-of-state visitors. Each and every one of them is 100% responsible and liable for their unconstitutional and illegal individual acts.
At that rate I want one of these dumb-as-dirt assholes to send my ass to jail for a fucking MONTH just for breathing in public without a face mask and publicly shouting for all of these judges and other public servants to suck both my balls AND my dick at high noon while standing in the middle of the foyer under the Texas Capitol dome!
So, have you people finally had enough, or are you still ignorantly thinking and believing that ANY of these people are acting in our best interest or by any lawful authority that WE the People granted to them? It’s time to make the choice, live free, or die enslaved and humbled at the feet of far lesser liberty loving men and women than we. As for me, they had better kill me where I stand, because I won’t go quietly and I won’t go alone when they come. That is how committed I am to being free. The rest of you can be sheep and house pets if you want, but stay the fuck out of my way when the shooting starts, because I won’t bother with being selective of any targets coming at me from that side of the firing line.
So, “the government really is concerned about our health and welfare” says so many of you.
“They really care and are doing the best they can for all of us in the face of this Corona Virus disaster” says the vast population of gullible sheep the world over.
Most of you people think that “MSM” is an acronym for “MainStream Media,” but it’s really not. What it is really an acronym for is “Mislead, Skew & Manage.” Which is precisely what the powers-that-be have been doing with both the information and the public throughout this entire Hoaxdemic. And the vast majority of you swallowed the whole spiel hook, line and sinker. Just an FYI, I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, would make a highly profitable toll bridge, so which one of you stupid mask-wearing government-propaganda-deep throating motherfuckers wants to buy it the most?
How many times do you have to be told to not believe everything you read, see or hear? ESPECIALLY when the information source is A KNOWN AND PROVEN LIAR THAT ALWAYS HAS A SELF-SERVING AGENDA!?!? The only headlines these people should EVER appear in are the ones announcing the date, time and location of their public hanging or life-sentencing!!.Let’s look at some VERIFIABLE and FACTUAL information about this whole scenario that would make even FBI Agent Bill Maxwell proud to show his boss, Agent Carlisle, and shame the shit out of James Comey for being either too stupid or too corrupt to ever bring it to light…..
You mewling friend-and-neighbor-snitching mask-wearing stay-at-home meatheads are complete and total morons for EVER thinking and believing that these people were or are telling us anything even remotely resembling the truth, much less actually giving a shit about ANY of us that aren’t members of their exclusive elitist club. You feel-good fidiots would have the rest of us sacrifice EVERYTHING just so you can have the illusion of being ‘safe’ while everything that really matters is completely destroyed and burned to ash all around us to the point where NO ONE will ever be safe again. Could a more stupid people exist on this planet and have any chance of surviving the chaos and doom that is now due and owing because of NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES!?!?
Just pull this fucking planet over to the curb already, because I am SOOO done and want to get off. Where the fuck is Mork when you really need him….
I’ll address this Patrinut idiocy for, oh, the MILLIONTH frickin’ time.
The citation in this picture that insinuates that is taken from and found in the “Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646” is 100% FAKE!!! Always has been.
It should come as no surprise that there is no such citation to be found in the congressional record ANYWHERE. What really bothers me though is trying to figure out why the moronic folks that keep posting and reposting this crap as fact never actually bothered to look up this disinformation for themselves to learn whether or not it is factual or entirely FALSE!! I only ask because false it most certainly IS!
Why is it that not ONE of them has ever tried finding and reading the ACTUAL congressional record instead of a screen shot created by the original lying-ass disinformation spreading moron who fabricated this idiotic lie to make it look like they knew what the hell they were talking about?
When did Americans become so mentally illiterate and lazy that they simply accept any and all information as fact without any consideration for the source or effort to verify its veracity? No wonder we have become so proficient at sucking at everything on the world stage and have other countries laughing at us for sitting stupidly by while our public servants rob us blind and betray everything this country was founded on and they swore to protect. No wonder.
Please find a PDF copy of the original congressional record in question attached at the bottom of this article. Read through it CAREFULLY, then, IF you find this citation written therein, you can call ME the idiot. If you can’t, then I simply ask that you take a solemn oath to publicly bitch-slap the stupidity right out of any person who posts this shit as being actual fact without verifying it first by linking in this article in the comments where it was posted.
This article is the result of a comment that was posted on Facebook in response to another individual’s original post citing a quote that was totally fake and does not exist in the named court case. As I tend to do in these instances, I called out the original posting individual for not verifying that the case quotation was actually in the written opinion before they posted it as being an actual fact (because it’s not!) and potentially misleading others by doing so. Whether any deception was intentional or not is neither here nor there at the moment, though I will give the benefit of the doubt for the time being as the original poster went back and corrected the post to point out the quote does not exist in the case opinion or even the premise of the subject matter involved in it.
Here is the original post…:
Here is my original comment to that post and the individual’s
And here is the specific comment on this post that I am
wishing to address by means of this article:
I’ve covered this subject in other discussions before, but now it seems like a good time to address it in more specific detail for those truly seeking to understand the facts and reality of things rather than the Patrinut harebrained theories and fake case quotes that have sprung up over the existence of “data universal numbering system” (DUNS) numbers in relation to governmental entities and the Dun & Bradstreet business entity registry and reporting system.
This article touches on three specific points of legality
and reality to explain what the real-world facts are and why the Patrinut conjectural
‘facts’ used to formulate their theories are so far off-point the original crew
of the NCC-1701 Starship Enterprise couldn’t find them even if it were on a
ten-year mission instead of just five.
Those three things are:
legal/law aspects of legal entities;
reality of how legal entities must function in the real world; and
legal, physical, and contractual reasons why the requirements of 1 and 2 are how
governmental legal entities must function to serve their intended purposes.
So let’s begin with the statement made in the comment
(corrected for spelling and grammar of course), “The police department has a duns
DUNS number, Wwhich is [a] duns Dun & Bradstreet [number], Which
proves proving that there they are [a] corporation.”
What actually is a DUNS number? Well, let’s ask the source,
Dun & Bradstreet themselves:
There is a maxim of logic that states “Correlation does not equal causation,” which, in layman’s terms simply
means, “Just because something is found to
be commonly associated with some other thing, that is not absolute proof that
the other thing is caused by or is true simply by the mere association of the
Let’s dissect that posted comment, starting with the implication
made in the last part, which is that the existence of a DUNS number is proof
that a legal entity is a corporation. We begin by looking at some specific
facts in relation to corporations of any
corporation is created by a set of legal documents titled “Articles of
Incorporation,” which contains all of the necessary legal forms and agreements
required to establish and register a legal corporate entity within the state in
which it wishes to exercise a privilege to do business.
legal documents described in point 1 must
exist and be filed regardless of whether or not a corporation even applies for a
DUNS number, which is entirely optional for corporations to obtain and is not in any way whatsoever a requirement
for being incorporated. A DUNS number is created for a business only if that business voluntarily
registers with Dun & Bradstreet, and is used primarily as an internal
tracking and publicly available reference number for their system only.
& Bradstreet allows unincorporated business
entities to register with their service right alongside incorporated ones.
Logically speaking, one thing that is entirely optional in association
with some other thing cannot be proof that the other thing even exists, hence,
our maxim of logic is proven to be correct.
Okay, these specific facts alone prove that the comment is totally
wrong about what a DUNS number is and does. But wait, there’s more! If you keep
reading now, I will throw in some additional clarifying information ABSOLUTELY
FREE!! Are you ready? Here goes.
A legal entity, incorporated or not, has no physical form or presence of any kind. Anything that the entity must “do,” it must do through a living individual as its agent. This remains true no matter how many legal entities are chained together in the paper trail of its business, it ultimately falls into the minds and hands of a living breathing individual.
So, how then does a legal entity conduct business, any business, if it can’t act on
its own volition and behalf? Simple, the power to act on the entity’s behalf
must be assigned to one or more of those living breathing individuals I just
mentioned. How is this done? By more paperwork. Words are written down, terms
of authority, duties and obligations are set forth, and signatures applied,
thus assignments are made. Does this make the assignee a corporation themselves?
No, it does not, because you cannot convert a living being into a fiction of
law. You can make a living being the fiction’s agent, but not actually one of
Now, in order to make contracts with other legal entities, the entire previously described process must take place all over again, words are written down, terms of authority, duties and obligations are set forth, and signatures applied, thus contracts are made. But, who can actually review and sign these contracts? The legal entity has no eyes or mind of its own, so it can’t read or understand the contract in order to accept it. It has no mouth or hands by which it may ask questions or request changes to the terms either verbally or in writing, nor can it sign the agreement in acceptance. It short, the legal entity is as powerless and helpless as an unarmed stark-naked stormtrooper in the hands of a pissed-off Chewbacca.
Enter the assigned agent, aka the corporate officer, legal counsel or appointed employee. Regardless of their official title, the designated agent is the one who is actually responsible for reading, amending, accepting and signing of the contract on behalf of the legal entity, not the legal entity itself. The most important takeaway for the Patrinuts in this scenario is the understanding that natural persons doing all of this as the agent of a corporation does not make these agents a corporation in and of themselves.
This process is how any intelligent individual operating a business,
especially an incorporated one, acts and contracts for suppliers, buyers, and
internal purchases of supplies and equipment, a place to conduct business, bank
accounts, money transfers, etc., etc. ad
infinitum. And in every single one of these transactions, there is a living
individual that is performing or initiating the actual act itself. At no time
does the legal entity leave the room, make a call, or lift a finger on its own
behalf, because it is not real, it is a legal concept whose existence is based
entirely upon the existence of legal documents, and cannot do any of those
things for itself.
Do you get it yet? If any part of the explanation thus far is
still eluding your understanding then perhaps you have chosen the wrong thing
to make a stand and engage in argument over, because anyone who does understand
these facts and realities is going to kick your ass from one end of the debate
stage to the other and embarrass you in front of the whole audience. I know
this for a fact, because I do it all the time.
But wait, if you keep reading now, I will also throw in this
additional bit of information for the low low price of absolutely nothing! Isn’t
that a great deal!!!
A governmental entity is no more real than any other form of legal entity. Thus, it requires the exact same legal machinations to function and operate as any other type of legal entity does. This means an assignment of officers, employees, and authorized agents to act on its behalf and in its name for the benefit of the people it was created to serve. It means the same due diligence in the performance of the duties and authority delegated in those assignments as is required of other individuals with similar responsibilities on behalf of other types of legal entities, if not actually more so since they are for public service rather than for profit.
This brings us to another aspect of incorporation when it comes to private corporations versus public corporations, which are not to be confused or conflated with publicly-traded corporations. Private corporations can operate as either for-profit or non-profit, which means they can be used to either make as much money as possible or to provide some benefit to the public in their functions as a non-profit. Public corporations, which is precisely what all public offices operate as, in order to not have a conflict of interest between serving the public equally and equitably as intended versus making a profit at the expense of those services or the people themselves, are morally and ethically required to be 100% non-profit in every single case and, to the best of my knowledge, do not and never have operated upon the concept of publicly traded shares on the stock market like many private forms of publicly-traded corporations do. I don’t say legally because I do not know the entirety of the law on this subject in relation to such public corporations, hence, there may be certain conditions and exceptions of which I am currently unaware. But, as of the date of this writing, I have never been shown any verifiable proof that any such exceptions exist in the body and terms of the law itself.
However, since the public (government) corporations have almost virtually identical needs and requirements for the proper functioning and operation of the public’s business as that of other legal entities engaged in private business, it stands to reason that they would also utilize many of the same processes and procedures for doing so. This brings us full circle to the issue of legal documents and contracts and why they are used by all forms of incorporated and unincorporated business alike, because it’s much easier and convenient to have a standardized means of creating a hard-copy set of policies and procedures that provide for at least some level of responsibility and an accountability trail for virtually every part of the operation, including who the acting agent actually is or is required to be for any given activity.
Now that we have that set of concepts explained (it would be presumptuous of me to say ‘understood’), we can begin to see the necessity in why a governmental entity would incorporate in order to properly function in service of the public. Let’s consider what kind of mess it would be if the business side of government was not allowed to incorporate so as to engage in the same activities as all those other legal entities. We can begin with even the simplest of daily business activities, the purchasing of everyday office supplies and management activities. Who is responsible for determining what supplies are required and how much of them? Who is responsible for picking them up or ordering and paying for them, and from where? Who is responsible for the finances and the bank account? Who tracks and accounts for the money taken in and all expenditures? Who would have access to all the money that comes into the governmental office, as well as monies either posted to the bank account or paid out to vendors, contractors, or payroll? Who balances and closes out all of these accounts at the end of each business day, week, and quarter? Who is responsible for making sure that all the other people are doing their job properly and not stealing or embezzling? Who is responsible for auditing and ensuring the honesty and integrity of those responsible for each and every one of these things? Who do any of these people report to? Who is in charge over what and whom? What power and authority does that person have when something bad is reported? Who is authorized to make and sign contracts with suppliers and vendors on behalf of the governmental office? How did they get authorized and by whom? Who reviews those contracts for fraud and legal compliance? What happens when someone with one of these responsibilities transfers to another office, dies, or quits, who takes over? Who’s responsibility is it to decide who takes over, who is hired, and who is fired? How are personnel informed of the duties of their job and who has the responsibility of training them how to do it properly? Is the person responsible for one contract only authorized to do that particular contract or can they do others? If they can do others, what others, and with whom? And these kinds of day-to-day scenarios go on and on and on….
As you have no doubt surmised by now, a corporate structure and management system goes a long way to answering and resolving many of these questions and issues in a positive manner, and greatly simplifies the functions and operational process of virtually any form of business activity, which even a governmental entity must engage in in order to properly and efficiently function. If this were not the case, then the fraud, waste and abuse so commonly associated with government and many of its contractors would be even more rampant and unaccountable than it is now.
This leads us, finally, to the ability of honest business folks having a means to tell what business entities are reputable, stable, and not in the habit of screwing over other people’s business’ or the public in general. Enter Dun & Bradstreet. Let’s look again at what the stated purpose of their business, and that of the DUNS number itself, actually is:
D‑U‑N‑S Number identifies a company’s Dun & Bradstreet business credit
file, which may include firmographic data (company name, address, phone number,
etc.), corporate family relationships (headquarters, branches, subsidiaries,
etc.), and scores and ratings that assess different financial health indicators.
Taken all together, this profile of information is called the Dun &
Bradstreet Live Business Identity. Potential partners and lenders can request a
business credit report about your business using your D‑U‑N‑S Number or other
business identifiers. Equally, you can use the D‑U‑N‑S Number to access the
same information about any company with which you might wish to work.”
See, Dun & Bradstreet isn’t there to create a corporation or to prove that corporation exists. They are there to collect and report on the credit and business conduct of that legal entity for the benefit of the general public and any other legal business entities as a whole so we, and they, can determine whether or not to engage in business with another business entity or how to best set certain contractual obligations and terms in order to do so at some future date.
In short, the existence of a
DUNS number on Dun & Bradstreet for a public (governmental) corporation, or
the fact that it is incorporated at all, proves absolutely nothing about the
Patrinut “corporation” theory to be even plausibly true and correct.
Now, wasn’t that a bargain!!
All of this for the ultra-low price of a few exercised brain cells and reading
time. Something the majority of the Patrinuts seem to be seriously lacking.
TEXAS Penal Code §38.04 Evading Arrest or Detention, a Discussion on Challenging Constitutionality of a Statute.
I have a Motion here on my legal blog that was used in ANOTHER individual’s felony evasion charge case that I helped him get dismissed with prejudice. The Motion and signed order dismissing the case is posted right in the blog article (with the knowledge and consent of the individual who was being prosecuted).
There are several paragraphs in that motion that deal with the evasion allegation being made in that case, which you would need to tailor to fit the specific facts of YOUR specific “evading” case in order to apply them, if they DO apply.
That said, a specific issue that I didn’t think to argue in that case (because it only just dawned on me last week when I was re-reading the statute) is that the offense of “Evading Arrest or Detention” as codified in PENAL CODE, §38.04(b)(1)(B) (no previous conviction) or §§38.04(b)(2/3) (prior conviction/death of another) COULD and SHOULD be directly challenged as being unconstitutional, because, as a whole, it is overly vague, ambiguous and overbroad. How so? Well, the statute:
does NOT DEFINE or make reference to a specifically assigned meaning for “evading/evasion” in order to either prove or disprove the element with facts or evidence;
does NOT provide in any way whatsoever ANY specific statutory criteria for the element of evading regarding what facts, evidence, and/or actions, constitute the act of “evading/evasion,”;
does NOT, absent a specific definition, provide an individual with properly sufficient legal notice of what behavior or actions constitutes the criminal act of “evading/evasion,” and, therefore, it is an irreparable due process violation of the highest order; and;
it allows both the officer AND the prosecutor to determine, decide and rely entirely upon his/her own personal presumptions, conclusions, opinions and discretion about what legally constitutes “evading/evasion” in order to charge and prosecute the alleged offense against any individual merely on the entirely subjective basis that the individual didn’t immediately come to a complete stop and surrender within some subjectively arbitrary amount of time or distance, or a particular place, that the OFFICER AND PROSECUTOR ALONE gets to decide is appropriate.
Now try reading the online version of the statute and see if you can reasonably come to any other possible conclusion yourself based upon the facts and evidence of how the statute is ACTUALLY written:
You can type in (WITH the double quotes) either of these phrases, “evading means” or “evading includes”, and you will see that you get NOTHING in return for either search. That is demonstrable proof that the Texas Legislature does NOT define the term “evading” ANYWHERE in any code containing Texas law.
THAT is precisely what an absolutely unconstitutionally vague, ambiguous, and overbroad statute most obviously reads like. In this case, it leaves the entire primary element of the statutory offense completely and subjectively open to definitions and determinations created and maintained solely by the charging officer or the prosecutor as to what constitutes “evading” as an element of the offense, and THAT is a direct due process violation.
When it comes to the statute, if you find yourself being charged under §38.04 Penal Code, it is imperative that you LEARN IT, KNOW IT, and APPLY THIS ARGUMENT. If you do it correctly, you SHOULD get it thrown out. Most likely ON APPEAL because the lower level trial courts WILL NOT usually even attempt to rule in the favor of an accused individual that a penal statute is even remotely unconstitutional, no matter how blatantly obvious it might actually be so. THAT is why it will almost certainly have to be done on APPEAL, so make damn sure you make the argument correctly and thoroughly IN WRITING via MOTIONS and JUDICIAL NOTICES so that there is a proper record for appeal.
For that reason, you MUST also file a Motion DEMANDING that there be a court reporter present and recording at every single proceeding conducted in your case so you have a complete record for appeal.
I wish you the best in being successful, and PLEASE, if you ARE successful, provide me with some credit where credit is due by allowing me to get an email from you that says how I helped you and what the case was about, AND, a copy of the SIGNED court order showing how the case was settled in your favor, however that might be, so I can post it on my legal blog and share it for others to see and learn from so they are encouraged to stand up for themselves against such unconstitutional laws by learning how to fight back.
Also, PLEASE, state clearly in the email you provided the order in that you are giving me full consent to post the order AS IS (which I don’t really need since it IS a part of the 100% public court record, but I am polite enough to ask). Okay? Thanks in advance.
I have a little thought about something that I would like to express, and that something is the idiotic precept contrived by our American courts that “individual rights are not absolute” and that “government has the power and authority to either take away or diminish those rights” based upon whatever contrived ‘necessity’ it can dream up.
I would argue that, UNTIL someone exercises their rights in a manner that violates the rights of others, then their own individual rights ARE absolute. At the point of harming the rights, person, or property of another, or through such reckless or negligent acts that almost certainly could have resulted in such an injury, then, and ONLY THEN, can those rights be legitimately and temporarily taken away. Try pointing to ANY Bill of rights where it says that there is any other exception to absoluteness to be had in relation to an individual’s rights, because it just ain’t there!!
“Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
“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. Papers, 1:134 ME 1:209.”
“The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
“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 rights of the individual.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
The courts are the ones who created the “rights are not absolute” doctrine with absolutely no legitimate constitutional authority upon which to base it, and then promptly began using it stealthily and continuously on an ever-increasing basis to permanently diminish ALL individual rights belonging to the American people for ANY reason the courts themselves have deemed to be a “government necessity,” i.e. their version of the “law of necessity.”
“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
Just like any other thing done wrong by our government, our simply accepting that the courts or other parts of government have created their own fraudulent authority to limit our rights as they see fit without any challenge from us will NEVER see it changed back to how it is SUPPOSED to be.
Thomas Jefferson and John Locke made it clear that the formation of societies and the governance of the constitution was never intended to, and never did, authorize any such supposition on the government’s part.
“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
“Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422
“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.” –John Locke: Second Treatise, sect. 222.
Therefore, the only LOGICAL and constitutional conclusion in relation to how individual rights are NOT absolute is when they are used to violate the rights of others. Outside of that caveat, there is ZERO legitimate authority for government to deprive or diminish ANYONE of ANY right for ANY OTHER REASON.
Without a doubt the courts have the subject of individual rights not being absolute absolutely WRONG, that their misinterpretation is INTENTIONAL, and that it is being done and used for nothing less than the unconstitutional purpose of increasing the personal and governmental power and authority of such elitist individual’s over areas and subjects where it should NOT even exist. That makes the actions our courts and our government are engaged in absolutely CRIMINAL, because those actions directly and unlawfully violate the rights belonging to ALL of the people for the benefit of only those few who think they should have more rights and power than everyone else, especially over the lives and property of others, and that is neither the American dream nor the original plan for its individual Republics.