And so it goes…
Someone on Facebook reached out to me today to take a look at a video from his first court appearance for several “transportation” related allegations that have been made against him by the State of Arkansas. This is the video of that court appearance. Turn the volume up if necessary and listen well to the verbal exchanges that takes place between the Individual and the Judge presiding over the hearing.
Which brings us to the rest of today’s lesson in how to go to court and how to make a proper challenge to said court’s presumption of jurisdiction in these sorts of matters.
The individual who posted this video has received numerous comments from the Patrinut crowd cheering him on and telling how great a job he did in addressing the court and making his challenge. In order to understand the magnitude of the educational issues that we face in getting people properly prepared for these Ponzi schemes that are our lower courts, I have chosen to post ALL of the top level comments that were made.
Scott Bailey
6Benjamin Parker
Shawn Warren
Heath Richards
Kevin Freeman
Radley Bradford
Benjamin Parker
Sean Westmoreland
Sam Kelley
Patty Brzezinski
Ricky Dean
Michael Romero
Elissa Lynnie Thygesen
Bradley James Smith
Michael Romero
Michael Romero
Few will gain what I just said.
HIDE with this stupidity. (See my discussion posted below these comments).
Randy Rebel Brown
So, you can plainly see that there are many in the Patrinut community that have absolutely no clue about law or how it works, much less what they are talking about in relation to all the other stuff they were commenting with. But, what they do have in abundance is way more mouth than they know what to do with when it comes to telling someone else how they should construct their own platform for legal failure. It completely amazes me how they egg each other on in their commission of legal suicide by the demonstrable ignorance and stupidity they propagate, and all because they are just too damned lazy to learn the proper methods and procedures for winning their case on appeal, or possibly even before it begins with a properly established affirmative defense and/or jurisdictional challenge.
Understand, this article isn’t for those of you that know how and why you have to make a proper record for appeal, it’s for those that haven’t a clue. Especially those Patrinuts that are under the mistaken and far more often delusional belief that they are grand champion players of these games. To actually win on appeal, it is imperative to understand how to properly make the record, because the lower courts are not designed to comply with the law or to administer any real justice of any kind. No sir/ma’am. They are there to siphon money from an unsuspecting public that has no clue how to play their legal games by the standardized rules, especially when the lower courts are not acting in compliance with those rules themselves.
After he made this post, the Individual PM’d me. This is the conversation that took place between myself and the Individual directly. Please pay attention to his comments where I used a bold and underlined font to make them more visible. Even more to the point, pay closer attention to my explanation of what to put in a proper Motion to challenge the courts jurisdictional presumptions, which will look just like this text.
- Conversation started today
-
2:06pmWhat state is this in?
Also, do you see all those comments on your post for the video? Just HOW much of that EXTREMELY bad advise did you attempt to actually use?
Did you file anything in writing in this matter?
-
2:26pmArkansas and I did a conditional acceptance notice
-
2:35pm
I must also assume that this was your first appearance on the citations in question?
-
2:41pm
Yes
-
2:44pm
Try not to take this the wrong way, but there are some things I need to ask you up front.
-
2:44pm
Sure go ahead
-
2:45pm
Have you even bothered to see WHAT the subject matter is that is being regulated by the statutes you are charged under?
-
2:46pm
Yes in my conditional acceptance
They have failed to state and are in default
-
2:51pm
Okay, try to understand that you NEED to forget that shit. It is a totally INCORRECT methodology for dealing with these ass-hats. If you are going to insist on listening to that crap and doing it anyway, then there is nothing that I can say that is going to make one damn bit of difference for you. And if you believe it will work, then proceed as you have and let me know how that actually turns out for you. Deal?
Now, do you even realize that it is “TRANSPORTATION” that the statutes themselves proclaim as being the regulated subject matter over which they have jurisdiction?
In other words, the code is regulating ONLY those engaging in the BUSINESS of transporting persons, goods, or property from one place to another FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE as a CARRIER.
-
2:53pm
Deal and yes I comprehend that. So go to trial and and have them prove I was engaging in commerce?
-
2:55pm
Did I say “commerce” in this instance? NO! The term is “transportation” as THAT is the specific term being used to describe the regulated subject matter. And while they ARE related, the specific subject matter title is the issue to remain focused on.
-
2:56pm
Ok
-
2:58pm
Let me show you something here that is STRAIGHT out of your own state code that would have ended this bullshit at your first appearance if you had only NOT used that damned Patrinut crap and simply used their own bullshit regulations against them:
2. A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016), Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries, Subtitle 1. Public Utilities And Carriers, Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions, Subchapter 2 -- Transportation, 23-2-201. Definitions., Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated Official Edition © 1987-2016 by the State of Arkansas All rights reserved. (1) "Department" means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and (2) "Transportation" means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier ...
LOOK at number TWO in this text. WHAT does it say “transportation” IS?
-
3:00pm
Look at the whole thing as it appears in the code:
Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries Subtitle 1. Public Utilities And Carriers Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions Subchapter 2 — Transportation
A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016)
23-2-201. Definitions.
As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Department” means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and
(2) “Transportation” means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier pipelines, or motor carriers.
HISTORY: Acts 1957, No. 132, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-151.
The term “carriers” as used here is PLURAL, as in applicable to EACH of those things listed, i.e. “AIR carrier,” “RAIL carrier,” “WATER carrier,” “pipelines,” or “MOTOR carrier.” You get that? -
3:02pm
I see. So how would I use this in court?
-
3:02pm
So, how about you STOP looking for magic beans and silver bullets and use their own statutory scheme to beat the shit out of them so you can sue them for malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, and constructive FRAUD!!
-
3:02pm
Make them prove I was transporting ?
-
3:31pm
You file a WRITTEN “Motion for Discovery,” citing this statute and demanding that the prosecutor turn over ANY evidence in their possession or of which they have knowledge that shows that you were engaging in “transportation” for purposes of receiving compensation or “for hire” as a “carrier.”
THEN, after they CAN’T provide you with that evidence, you file another WRITTEN “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” that challenges both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction like so:
===========================
The prosecution has provided no discovery showing the existence of any facts substantiated by eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that proves Respondent was engaging in any acts of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.Further, the prosecution has alleged no facts and provided no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that would implicate Respondent as having ever engaged in “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation(s) being made, which Respondent believes is a necessary fact element essential to the State’s claim of both subject matter and in personam (personal) jurisdiction.There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire as is required in order for Respondent to have been engaging in any form of “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation being made.There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence in the form of a Bill of Lading, Passenger Manifest, Commercial Logbook, or any admission by Respondent himself or that of an eyewitness that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire or was acting as a “carrier” for such purposes.As there is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant matter.As no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence of subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent exists, the State has no standing to bring an action against Respondent in any matters relevant to “transportation,” including any alleged offenses defined thereunder within the laws and statutes of “this state.”
Furthermore, absent subject matter jurisdiction, and absent any facts or evidence proving that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of in personam jurisdiction over the Respondent in the instant matter.
Therefore, this court lacks subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, the two primary elements of jurisdiction over Respondent.
As neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks subject matter standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.
Whereby Respondent moves the court to immediately dismiss this matter with prejudice.
=====================================
-
-
3:34pm
I will do just that. Thank you very much for your help.
-
3:36pm
There is one thing that you need to understand and expect; the lower court isn’t going to care about or respect the law. THAT is why you do EVERYTHING in writing, so that the higher court can see what actually happened when it goes to appeal. STOP worrying about losing at trial. The game is RIGGED to virtually ensure that you DO lose at trial in the off-chance that you can’t or won’t get your appeal done in the manner and time required.
-
3:36pm
I am tired of never getting anywhere with the patrinut stuff. Want to be able to defeat them the right way and I am tired of being martryer
-
3:37pm
So make damn sure to STUDY and faithfully follow the procedures for perfecting and getting your appeal. Start reading and learning about that NOW, BEFORE you actually need it. Make notes, recheck them, study them, then make sure you follow them.
-
3:37pm
Yes I comprehend I will have to appeal. I will lol up the timeline houses for appeal in Arkansas
-
3:37pm
Just promise one other thing if you don’t mind…?
-
3:38pm
Sure what?
-
3:39pm
Tell everyone else about how the Patrinut bullshit DOESN’T work, and that you CAN beat them at their own game IF you will just learn HOW. Because there simply ISN’T any shortcuts in the form of magic paperwork or legal silver bullets to getting it done.
The ONLY silver bullet comes AFTER you have kicked their asses on the law repeatedly, THEN they will avoid you like the plague.
-
3:40pm
You have my word I will.
Cause none ice it has worked for me so far and I’ve been trying for close to 8 years
-
3:41pm
The only thing that I heard you do properly and for the right reasons in that video is to begin with “I’m here by special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in the instant matter.” Everything else was wasteful and self-prejudicial bullshit.
-
3:42pm
Right. I am still learning.
-
3:42pm
Now, I posted the same thing I wrote here for you as a comment on that video link you sent over. Let me know how that all goes over with the Patrinut crowd that has collected there.
-
3:43pm
I appriciate your straight forward not beating around the bush answers.
I will keep you posted.
-
3:44pm
Also, may I use that as a group discussion lesson on my wall, legal discussion group, and my blog? Better to use it to teach others what NOT to do as well as what TO do.
-
3:44pm
Please do
-
3:44pm
Your video I mean?
-
3:44pm
That’s part of why I do what I do
-
3:44pm
If you don’t mind, is it small enough to email or do you have it in DropBox or somewhere online that I can link directly to it?
It isn’t easy to download one from Facebook is why I’m asking.
-
3:45pm
Uploading to YouTube now I can email it to you if I can figure out how
-
3:46pm
If it’s on YouTube then that is enough. Just send me the link once its up.
-
3:46pm
Will do
-
3:55pm
Also, would you mind if I use this chat session to show your thoughts on the matter?
-
4:14pm
You need to amend one of the paragraphs to read thus:
As no jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.
Got it?
-
4:21pm
Use what ever you need. And I just got the first call saying to make the judge pay the taxes on the charges. Jean Keating work.
Got it
As you read in his own comments, for almost eight years the Patrinut crap simply hasn’t ever worked for him, and it certainly doesn’t work in the manner that its many uneducated and illiterate-in-law advocates would like you to believe it does. If it did, then they would be doing nothing but posting win after win by doing the things they do. And they simply don’t, because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t properly address the issues being litigated. It doesn’t work because their methods simply don’t follow LAW. Which is an issue that I’ve addressed on this blog before in another article.
So, if you aren’t willing to even read the laws and statutes that the other party is trying to use against you in these courts, just how do you ever intend to understand the allegations and fight back against them? Osmosis? It’s like playing a new board game you’ve never seen and don’t have the first clue about what the rules are, or even the point of the game. And yet, using only a plethora of magic Patrinut paper incantations and origami non-pleadings, you expect to beat all the other vastly experienced players by simply saying “I win, you lose!” And just in case that sounds somewhat familiar, that’s because you have probably heard something similar before:
As you can see from the Arkansas statutes themselves, he already had an affirmative defense that would have served him well and most likely gotten the Judge’s attention enough that the jurisdictional challenge during his court appearance might have ended both the proceeding and the matter much more in his favor. Especially if he went to the appellate court with a documented case of having properly made the oral objection and jurisdictional challenge in open court as well as in a properly written Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Two things that will never help you win a court case is willful ignorance and being too damned lazy to learn how to do something properly that needs to or must be done in relation to the case being adjudicated and prepared for appeal.
Therefore, I issue a call to action! PATRINUTS UNITE!!
Then, PLEASE, hold each others clammy and pasty little hands while crossing the legal streets, and march your ill-informed and unstudied asses right down to your local law library and learn to frickin’ READ already!!
Just once, for your own sake and the sanity of those of us that have actually made the effort and sacrifices necessary to really and truly understand the fallacies of your arguments and position, TRY to comprehend how law is supposed to actually work!! Especially before you open your miseducated and unprepared mouth and provide useless disinformation to otherwise innocently ignorant individuals as if you know what the hell you’re doing!! STOP trying to make people believe that you have actually done the dumb-ass shit that you are proclaiming and that it’s legally infallible, which I would wager considerable money that none of you actually have. And if you did, then there is even better money to be made betting that it has never worked any better for you than it will the poor schmuck that is dumb enough to believe you know WTF you’re even talking about.
Doing this crap doesn’t make you look intelligent the way you think it does. Just the opposite in fact. But what it does do is literally make you a stumbling block to others in understanding the true nature and function of law as well as making you a direct danger to the legal safety, health, and welfare of your fellow man.
Tao of Law 
Tao Lauw is a shill
LikeLike
Why don’t you offer your evidence that proves that allegation, if you have any, which you don’t. Nice try though.
LikeLike
Well, the judge just ignored him and told him she’s entering a plea of not guilty and after she told him he can not consent until the cows come home, she again offered to enter the not guilty plea and asked him if that is okay. He folded and agreed. Isn’t every thing that judge says simply an offer? Did he not just accept her last offer by agreeing to it?
LikeLike
No, he didn’t. It doesn’t work that way, it never has.
LikeLike
Very true, all advice given, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE the proper procedure for handling matters as such in their Kangaroo Court. Thanks tao lauw
LikeLike
As I’m active right now in a campaign for our county sheriff that is a member of CSPOA (Richard Mack), Constitutional counties project (Joel Alcott) and a couple of similar outfits and really wants to do what’s right for the people, do you as a former deputy think it would be a good idea to try to share this post with her? Yes, I said her. I have already approached the subject with her and she seems receptive to real law of which all cops are 99% ignorant. She worked for a few years as investigator for the Public Defender locally also, so you can see where this might go. Please advise, as it can save a lot of need to even go to court if done right on the street. BTW, the candidate is Dawn Wilson, or “Dawn Wilson for Sheriff” in Navajo county, Arizona.
LikeLike
I would certainly think she would appreciate it if you did. Though there is no way to tell her reaction for sure.
You might want to let her review the entire set of articles on the blog. There is tons of info there. I would even be happy to have a discussion with her on any of it is she was so inclined.
LikeLike
I failed to mention I referred her to Eddie Craig and tau of law on you tube. Your first educational videos are great introductory materials for a lawman or woman IMO.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
It would seem that one of the Patrinuts took offense at my exposing his shoddy legal foundation and resorted to making personal attacks upon me by sharing this article on Facebook in a way that I could not address his slander and liable, so I brought the case here for you all to see.
The original Facebook post:
====================================
Matt Barnes That was pretty interesting.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs
Aaron Heriot Great article. Shawn Warren you get better every day. Very commendable to be put on the examination table like that. Cheers!
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 10 hrs
Shawn Warren It is how we learn. Constructive criticism is great.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 9 hrs
Aubrey Harper This is not a “great” article
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Aubrey Harper It’s a great example of how Tao’s ego has finally got the best of him
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Tao Lauw Really? Based upon what exactly, other than you own egocentric opinion that is?
Like · Reply · 16 mins · Edited
Aubrey Harper Believe me, it’s coming
I’ve been busy
Like · Reply · 57 mins
Tao Lauw
Tao Lauw Well, since ego had nothing to do with the article, or the points on law and procedure, I won’t be holding my breath for you to show how my ego had anything at all to do with it, much less how it got the better of me.
Nor am I expecting you to provide anything substantive that would disprove anything I wrote in that article….See More
Like · Reply · 53 mins
Aubrey Harper It’s not about disproving
Your problem is truthfulness and disclosure
Like · Reply · 52 mins
Aubrey Harper Transparency and honesty
Like · Reply · 52 mins
Tao Lauw Again, such as? If you can’t disprove anything in it, then HOW would it be untruthful and what exactly am I supposedly NOT disclosing?
I don’t think that I could have been more transparent OR honest in saying that the Patrinut arguments that I have confronted and requested that the person making the claim present the proof over and over again has ALWAYS failed to do so. And my own study and research confirmed WHY they simply faded into the woodwork instead of proving up their position, because they CAN’T!
Nor could I have been anymore transparent and honest that the majority of them are based entirely on faulty logic and reading comprehension skills of people too lazy or mentally inept to understand how truly far off the mark their understanding of the facts and law actually is.
So, I again wish you good luck in trying to make something non-transparent or dishonest out of any of that. Then we will see who is trying to be dishonest about what they do and how they do it.
Like · Reply · 43 mins · Edited
Tao Lauw Aubrey Harper – Thank you, now I’m going to make you famous as a dishonest individual.
I see that you shared my article on Facebook in a way that I cannot comment on it and address your bullshit misrepresentations directly. So who’s not being honest and transparent?
As to your attack upon my comment about what to expect, you are both mischaracterizing and misrepresenting the context of what I said. In other words, you’re being intentionally dishonest. I said that he should not EXPECT the court to play fair and follow the rules, not that it wouldn’t happen no matter what. BIG difference. But that little subtlety seems to be lost on you, much like that full disclosure you led me to believe that you both understood and held in such high esteem.
And I guarantee that MY record in these same courts is a LOT better than the Patrinut bullshit that you promote.
Just because I warn others in advance to watch out for those judges and prosecutors that refuse to follow the rules regardless of how well you present the information and facts that should have settled the matter in your favor does NOT mean that I my advise is incorrect or the cause of that failure. THEIR bullshit does not translate in being MY bullshit.
So, if we are going to talk about honesty and transparency, much less disclosure, I suggest that you first look in the dictionary, because it’s obvious that you have no clue what those words mean anymore than you understand law and proper procedure to win a court case.
So, I’m going to put all of this in the comments on that article so that you are exposed for the deceitful individual you truly are. Congratulations, you’re famous!
Like · Reply · Just now
=================================
His re-post of my article and his comments on it are here:
=================================
I’ve locked horns w this individual several times over his slander and willful misrepresentation of patriots, Constitutionalists, and sovereigns.
He prides himself on warning folks away from subjects he clearly doesn’t understand and is naturally biased against. Why is he biased? More, later.
In his latest installment of ignorant horseshit, he “saves” some misbegotten waif from the dangers of “Patrinuts” and Sovereign Citizens. His advice is actually sound, yet well known to “Patrinuts” for oh…since the Conestoga wagon?
There’s just one teensy problem he failed to disclose until the end of his jibber-jabber…
3:36pm
Tao Lauw
“There is one thing that you need to understand and expect; the lower court isn’t going to care about or respect the law.”
Say what?
So essentially your success rate at trial is the same as all the “Patrinuts” in YouBoob videos you ridicule? Meaning the judge ignores ALL YOUR PAPERWORK and finds you guilty by virtue of abusing judicial discretion.
Wait, it gets better (worse)
“THAT is why you do EVERYTHING in writing, so that the higher court can see what actually happened when it goes to appeal. STOP worrying about losing at trial. The game is RIGGED to virtually ensure that you DO lose at trial in the off-chance that you can’t or won’t get your appeal done in the manner and time required.”
Nigga huh?
Higher court? Appeal?
So, not only is all your carefully crafted shitpaper stuck to the judge’s boot heel, now you actually want people to pay appellate filing fees…so their/your shitpaper can be ignored once again due to, wait for it…
#JudicialDiscretion
In summary, you lose at trial and STILL have to cough up money for an appeal. And should you lose, now your pockets look like bunny ears due to the original fines, fees, court costs, license suspension, point system, and possibly jail time.
Thanks for playing yourself homie.
I knew it was just a matter of time…
#WTA
=================================
He later replied with this:
=================================
Aubrey Harper Those are direct quotes from YOUR PRIVATE MESSAGES
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Aubrey Harper You were so gleeful to have acquired a “disciple” you exposed your own bullshit
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Aubrey Harper My post is global buddy
Feel free to send me a FR 😊
You can talk all the shit you want, uninterrupted
Like · Reply · 1 min
LikeLike
Thanks Tauw the best info. I have seen sense the patrinuts first raised their heads.
I would have been a better person if I had never seen a patrinut article.
LikeLike
In Iowa is the subject matter in which they have jurisdiction “Motor Carrier”? Just seeing if I am looking at this correctly.
LikeLike
No, “motor carrier” is a sub-item subject related to some other overall controlling subject matter.
I know that is a little difficult to understand, so think of it like this:
You have a toy box.
You can always put ALL of your toys in the toy box.
BUT, you can put ONLY toys in the toy box, nothing else.
You cannot put books or groceries in the toy box, ONLY toys.
Your state legislature creates these regulatory states to regulate a specific SUBJECT MATTER. That subject matter IS the toy box. And the state constitution, by stating that all legislative bills may contain only ONE subject, requires that ONLY those sub-items relating to THAT specific SUBJECT MATTER toy box can go into the box.
The subject matter of “Commercial Fishing” would be its OWN toy box, and NOTHING that can go into it could ALSO go into the “TRANSPORTATION/ MOTOR VEHICLE” toy box, at least NOT in relation to commercial fishing.
I hope that this makes sense and helps.
Everything that
LikeLike
I have been trying to find something similar in the Iowa Code but I can’t find it. Where should I be looking? Trying to learn how to do my research properly.
LikeLike
“Something similar” meaning specifically what in the article if I might ask?
LikeLike
Sorry, I mean the definition of “transportation” or something similar that gives the state subject matter jurisdiction over “one compensated”. I have been looking in the Iowa code but evidently not in the right place.
LikeLike