Discussion

Due order of pleadings.

This Special Appearance is accompanied by Respondent’s Waiver of Right to Representation, his/her Formal Declination to Plea, and his/her Objection to Round-Robin Processing. While a ruling on “due order of pleadings” would be helpful, sufficient is the fact that in the event this one must be considered filed first, it is submitted with the other “first filings” in this case.

Reservation of additional objections.

Should a properly formed and fully substantive “complaint” ever exist, and should STATE ever satisfy its Due Process burden by serving such “complaint,” Respondent reserves the right to supplement this motion should there be defect, error, or irregularity with such “complaint.”

Respondent asserts the fundamental right to
challenge the jurisdiction of this court.

“Take all the robes of all the good judges that have ever
lived on the face of the earth, and they would not be
large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge.”
― Henry Ward Beecher

Respondent invokes §1.02, Code of Criminal Procedure (“The procedure herein prescribed shall govern all criminal proceedings … insofar as are applicable.”) for the purpose of filing this “Special Appearance,” pursuant Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 120a for the express purpose of challenging this court’s subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, as there is no specific provision or procedure for such jurisdictional challenges within the Code of Criminal Procedure, making those procedures inapplicable for such purpose.

Respondent vehemently and belligerently objects to this court of limited jurisdiction asserting a presupposed and irrebuttable presumption of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction where no evidence of such jurisdiction appears upon the record of the court. And Respondent further objects to any attempt by this court of limited jurisdiction to deny him/her in the right to challenge the court’s own mere presumption of jurisdiction rather than actual jurisdiction properly established and invoked by the filing of proper pleadings and evidence as presented by the alleged Attorney for the State proving the court’s subject matter and in personam jurisdiction upon the record.

Furthermore, “Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal.” Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. 1993) (emphasis added). Which concept lies at the heart of Respondent’s own legal maxim “Challenge jurisdiction once, always, and forever.”

Therefore, the sitting judge in this matter has no authority whatsoever to deny Respondent in the right to challenge the court’s presumption of jurisdiction or the constitutionality of any statutory scheme or regulatory code that would deprive the court of subject matter or in personam jurisdiction, presuming the court ever properly acquired jurisdiction at all.

Thus, Respondent presumes the court judicially competent enough so as to be well aware of the legal and civil consequences and liabilities affixed to any judge choosing to proceed in the prosecution of any matter whatsoever without proper jurisdiction, much less with no jurisdiction at all. [1]

Prelude.

“The more corrupt the state, the more laws.”
― Publius Cornelius Tacitus

Respondent asks indulgence for the length of this Motion, but one can hardly expect that a single person forced against their will to live in a multi-level dwelling with an inordinately large number of exterior doors and windows could manage to close them all in a brief moment at the approaching of a storm. A storm such as the one Respondent sees forming on the horizon in response to this Motion.

This inordinately large number of windows and doors is representative of the enormous hodge-podge of poorly researched, analyzed, understood, reasoned, and even more poorly decided court opinions on the various impositions and offenses that exist within the Governing Subject Matter of “transportation” pursuant the alleged enactment of Senate Bill 971 by the 74th Legislature in 1995 (“SB 971”) as the then newly recodified Texas “transportation” code (see infra page 12 “Alleged Purpose of SB 971s Enactment”).

In fact, the overall collection of Texas court opinions relating to cases where members of the general public were charged with and ‘convicted’ of alleged offenses relating to the Governing Subject Matter of “transportation,” which is clearly set forth and established as the legal purpose and intent of the 74^th Texas Legislature within the Title of SB 971, are so poorly analyzed and legally inept in light of the crystal clear provisions of both the Constitution of the State of Texas 1876 (“Texas Constitution”) and legislatively stated intent, that Respondent has to wonder why it is even called a “law degree,” or why one is allegedly even needed in order to practice law in the first place. Each would seem a fair question, as the majority of these cases show more than mere traces or passing glimmers of knowing and willful legal deception and trickery carefully crafted into a believable façade by intentional prosecutorial misdirection of facts and statute blended and patched by clear-cut judicial obfuscation of the underlying facts and law. It is just as Will Rogers said, “Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.”

Regardless of their poor legal basis and reasoning, however, every one of these cases is an open door or window through which the STATE and/or this court may seek to escape as a means of avoiding making a constitutionally compliant final ruling on the unconstitutionality alleged in this matter. Therefore, Respondent does not intend to leave open a single one if at all possible. Respondent has no intention of dealing with each specific case individually, but it is imperative that it be understood from the beginning that they all were and are required to conform to the legislative intent of SB 971 where any provision thereof was not previously legislatively or judicially invalidated, which very few of these cases, if any, actually do in either of these regards. And as Respondent shall also show, the certified documents leave no question in that the Title of SB 971 plainly states that the Governing Subject Matter of the Bill, and thus any subject matter jurisdiction to be invested in a court, was and is limited solely to cases specifically involving “transportation.”

So, buckle up, for the storm is now upon you, and lo’, upon it’s back rides Thor, the Norse god of Thunder, and in this writing, the might of his hammer he doth wield.

Respondent’s Challenge Summary – The Making of Thor’s Hammer.

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.”
― William Shakespeare, The Tempest

We begin our revelation under the pervasive freedom obscuring gray cloud of governmental lies, deceit, intrigue and corruption, for Shakespeare was correct, not only are the Devils already here, but they are surreptitiously subverting our very lives by what is hidden deep within the details of their legal constructs. Details that have lain carefully buried and hidden by knowing and corrupt minds and hands. That is, buried and hidden until the coming of this Motion Respondent has aptly chosen to unofficially title “Thor’s Hammer.”

Salvation of our individual rights involves discovery of factual truth, which will be achieved through the revelation of three existing and constitutionally unlawful conditions. Conditions by which the rights, liberties, and fundamental freedoms of not only Respondent, but the whole of the People of Texas, are being eroded and destroyed by our own servant government in ways that can no longer be allowed to continue or remain intact. It is time to exorcise the Devils from our lives and back to the Hell in which they rightfully belong.

This discovery of truth involves two primary issues, one constitutional (“Primary Constitutional Issue”) and one legal (“Primary Legal Issue”), the latter issue being divided into two parts Unconstitutional Interpretation and Unconstitutional Application.

The Primary Constitutional Issue being that the alleged 1995 enactment of Senate Bill 971 (“SB 971”), by the 74^th Legislature, most commonly referred to as the recodified “transportation” act/code, was perpetrated in direct violation of specific provisions of the Texas Constitution that are intended to apply clear restrictions and other controls upon legislative actions and procedures relating to the creation and passing of all constitutionally valid Texas law.

In the particular case of SB 971, this Primary Constitutional Issue relies upon facts and information contained within copies of specific pertinent pages of SB 971 as certified by the office of the Texas Secretary of State (“certified copy/ copies/ document/ documents, Page 1/ 2160/ 2161, Section 28, Signature Page”), copies of which Respondent has attached to this Motion for evidentiary inspection. These certified copies provide prima facie evidence that knowing and willful acts of sedition, treason, and fraud were engaged in and perpetrated by as-of-yet unknown members of the 74^th Legislature during the alleged 1995 enactment of SB 971. And are documented evidence that SB 971 is a complete and total authoritarian fraud willfully perpetrated upon the Public. The certified documents prove the existence of knowingly subversive acts that were then and are now direct violations of Art. 3, §§32 and 62, of the Texas Constitution, and virtually the entire set of individual rights and protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights under Art. 1 of same. These subversive and treasonous acts must have been knowingly and willfully perpetrated by someone in the 74^th Legislature having the power to do so. And when coupled with the numerous demonstrably fundamental rights violating provisions of SB 971 itself, are so egregiously unconstitutional and fraudulent as to shock the conscience. The degree of seditious fraud involved requires nothing less than that the entirety of SB 971, and all subsequent legislative amendments thereto, be declared unconstitutional ab initio and void of any force and effect of law pursuant Art. 1, §29 and Art. 3, §32, Texas Constitution.

The first part of the Primary Legal Issue is that SB 971 is knowingly and willfully given an illegal Unconstitutional Interpretation by the judicial and executive departments of Texas Government. They are interpreting legislative intent based not upon the stated intent within the Bill Title of SB 971 itself, the very basis of the entire “transportation” code, but upon the constantly shifting sands that are the statutory revisions made entirely by the Statutory Revision Committee.[2] This Unconstitutional Interpretation proclaims that the entirety of SB 971, in the form of the “transportation” code, is wholly applicable to the lives, property and activities of the People of Texas when they are acting entirely within their private individual capacities, and while engaging in the free exercise and enjoyment of their inherent fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including that of liberty through locomotion, see supra page EEC99.

The second part of the Primary Legal Issue also relies upon the same aforementioned certified copies as prima facie evidence that, even if SB 971 had been enacted constitutionally, which Respondent adamantly believes and belligerently asserts that the certified documents prove it absolutely was not, it absolutely is and always has been knowingly and willfully misapplied to the general public in a completely unconstitutional and legislatively unintended manner, making such application illegal for any purpose, and this illegal application was ongoing even prior to its alleged 1995 recodification via SB 971 from the original collection of acts codified in Vernon’s Civil Statutes. And this unlawful and legislatively unintended application was and is still being utilized by state and local governmental actors to deprive the sovereign People of the Texas Republic, of which Respondent is one, of virtually every constitutional protection to which we are inherently fundamentally and rightfully entitled as well as every statutory protection afforded us to which we are equally entitled.

Furthermore, this patently fraudulent and unconstitutional application of SB 971 to both Respondent and the general public is used to facilitate the demonstrably specious and disingenuous claim that the People’s private use of the public roads by automobile or other motor/engine driven conveyances, while traveling in their private capacities for their own personal business and pleasure, is somehow subject to the regulatory provisions of SB 971 and its later amendments. And further, that SB 971 created a regulatory scheme allegedly subjecting Respondent and the general public to a legal duty requiring them to apply for and obtain numerous licenses and other accouterments specifically relating solely to the Governing Subject Matter of “transportation,” an occupation which Respondent was not, is not, and has never engaged.

---

---

Footnotes:

[1] “When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

[2] Sec. 1.001. PURPOSE OF CODE.

(a) This code is enacted as a part of the state’s continuing statutory revision program, begun by the Texas Legislative Council in 1963 as directed by the legislature in the law codified as Section 323.007, Government Code. The program contemplates a topic-by-topic revision of the state’s general and permanent statute law without substantive change.

(b) Consistent with the objectives of the statutory revision program, the purpose of this code is to make the law encompassed by this code more accessible and understandable by:

(1) rearranging the statutes into a more logical order;

(2) employing a format and numbering system designed to facilitate citation of the law and to accommodate future expansion of the law;

(3) eliminating repealed, duplicative, unconstitutional, expired, executed, and other ineffective provisions; and

(4) restating the law in modern American English to the greatest extent possible.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.