This letter is a response from one of our many Statist and inept Texas State senators. And like most, she is clueless about individual rights and who can and cannot do what, with what, and when, or to whom. So, I decided to show her what I think would have been a proper redress of her response letter:
=======================================================
=======================================================

Dear Madam,

First, how are the other girls in the local cat-house doing? I ask only out of concern that you might have to return there for your future employment, because your response to me is not only ineptly inaccurate and misinformed, it goes to proving that you certainly aren’t cut out to act as MY representative in MY republican form of government. In fact, it shows precisely why people like you should not be allowed to serve in government at all.

Your response letter paints you as someone that clearly does not understand the concept of individual rights and liberty, while also demonstrating that you don’t even remotely comprehend the standards of a Republican form of government. But it also makes it clear that you are at the very least either a STATIST liberal or the pawn of those who are. Your response is ample evidence that you believe most strongly in the church and religion of the STATE as somehow being the supreme authority and master of the People. And you maintain this mindset even though we created both the government and your position within it. And in that regard, your very existence is completely dependent on our consent, which you have only so long as we choose to remain mostly ignorant and apathetic of just how little all people like you are actually needed or wanted anymore. Which tells me that you are even less than clueless as to your actual place in the political food chain, which is properly at the bottom with the rest of the discarded whale shit.

In your letter, you asserted that “Freedom to travel is a right granted by the United States Constitution.” This statement is unquestionably and demonstrably incorrect and misinformed. If you think not, then please answer me this; just HOW did the founding fathers get around BEFORE the constitutional convention that created the federal constitution? How did they travel from their homes to Philadelphia Pennsylvania BEFORE the constitution existed and allegedly GRANTED a “right to travel?” Did they do it all by FAX and teleconference until they could create the constitution so they could actually travel there and meet in person? Did they use mail that was brought in on horseback? Oh, wait, they couldn’t have done that, that would be traveling, and the constitution didn’t exist yet to grant them that right.

Maybe you would respond to me by saying that they had the Articles of Confederation as their authority granting the right to travel from place to place? Do you think that answer is actually any better in terms of its stupidity considering that the people were traveling about the globe long before either of those documents even existed? And you should know and understand that even today We the People have the same right to locomotion and travel from place to place regardless of the existence of either of these or any other document. Does this concept of yours regarding “liberty through paperwork” suddenly sound as idiotic to you as your declaratory misstatement of facts did to me? Good. Then you can now see my point as to why I view you as unfit to represent me or any other living being in any capacity that requires decision making authority. Personally, I wouldn’t give you the authority required to scrape used chewing gum off the bottom of tables.

As John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying:

And you clearly have very little concern or consideration of thought about vomiting what is certainly nothing more than your unresearched and wholly unsubstantiated and cliched opinions in the face of those for whom you took an oath and are required to serve as well as to keep them fully and accurately informed of the facts and the laws. And you spew your illiteracy openly upon all with a straight face and no readily apparent emotional qualms as to the detrimental affect of your disinformation, which makes you nothing less than a psychopath yearning for an upgrade to sociopath. And just in case those words are also too big for you to comprehend, let me assist you there as well:

psychopath [sahy-kuh-path] noun

1. a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

sociopath [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] noun

1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

But, let’s get back to the discussion of your overall incompetence.

I know that individual rights and liberty may seem like a new concept to you, but I am appalled by your complete lack of understanding of the fact that the state and federal constitutions DO NOT grant a single right to the People. ALL of the People’s INNUMERABLE (I know, it’s also a big word for you, but it simply means “you can’t count them”) rights are inherent and unalienable. And we may lose them ONLY as punishment for an actual crime committed against other living beings or their property. We the People neither transferred nor surrendered ANY of OUR individual rights to you or any other member of the Texas Legislature in your capacity as one of our governmental actors and public SERVANTS, and this includes, but is not limited to, our right of liberty through locomotion of our own whim and choosing. We gave each of you a very limited delegation of authority to act on OUR behalf in the protection of these inherent fundamental individual rights, not your flawed personal designs, desires, and vision of individual liberty or the equally reprehensible perspective of the corporate state. Especially when it directly conflicts with your first and most high mandate of protecting each and every one of the People’s individual rights and property.

I am also appalled that you totally fail to understand that, in terms of serving in a governmental capacity, it is YOU that have no “rights.” It is YOU that has ONLY delegated privileges in the exercise of your delegated powers, powers that may not be exercised against and to the detriment of the very source of those powers, We the People. And most assuredly not against our private individual lives and property in any adverse way or manner. At least, not outside of having been convicted for committing an actual crime that harmed other people or their property. Furthermore, those delegated powers do NOT provide you with any authority to apply them in any other areas of our collective lives that we did not specifically grant to you. As any delegation of power and authority to handle our PUBLIC business is NOT a simultaneous delegation to meddle and interfere in our private lives and business. Meaning that it is all of you that are the ones acting under PRIVILEGE, because you cannot act without first being so authorized by We the People in exercising ANY of those powers and authority at all. All of the rights we have and exercise as individuals is NOT subject to a majority vote by anyone, as that would make us a democracy and those rights a mere privilege. And you know full well that we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. And We the People do not exercise any sort of privilege in our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We do it as a matter of RIGHT! And you and your kind have clearly forgotten that irrefutable fact.

The People’s individual rights existed long before ANY political or corporate state or constitution EVER did. They existed long before the Articles of Confederation or even the Magna Carta. These all just happen to be documents that the People of the day created and forced upon you, our public servants in government, at the point of a sword or the barrel of a musket to ensure that you all remembered to recognize that fact. Obviously you, and many others like you, don’t remember like you should, or even understand the eventual consequences of trying to once again make yourselves kings and queens with some imaginary divine and absolute power to rule over and dictate to the rest of us. These limitations upon government’s ability to act were written down so that the group of so-called “elites” who once held power in the former form of kings and queens, of which you apparently consider yourself a member, would know and remember it too. It was written down so that all forms of government, meaning YOU, could never come back later and say “I didn’t know that was wrong of me to do.”

You also have it wrong when you stated “The ability to travel on public roads in Texas, however, is a privilege granted by the State … .” Really? Just WHO the hell do you think actually owns the roads in Texas? Is it the People, who’s money is taken in numerous unconstitutional and illegal taxes to pay for those roads, or is it the corporate “STATE” that thinks it can both forcefully steal our money to pay for them and then continue to charge us for their use forever-after by licensing it back to us for numerous yearly fees and permissions? Just because you people have knowingly and willfully defrauded the public for more than 70+ years by intentionally misapplying the statutes regulating “transportation,” which is ENTIRELY a commercial occupation, does NOT mean that it is now a valid measure by which the state may deprive the People of their right to liberty through locomotion! Your blatant statist ignorance is more than apparent in its joining with the mindset held by most of our legislators in that proclaiming “we’ve always done it this way” somehow translates into “its perfectly lawful that we do it this way.” And that simply isn’t so.

The “Transportation” code you speak of was created by SB 971 in 1995, and was codified in several different enactments within Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes prior to that. But even those prior enactments have ALWAYS applied to and regulated only one thing, “TRANSPORTATION.” “Transportation” is an OCCUPATION, i.e. a BUSINESS USE of the highways for private profit or gain or the performance of public duties, and that code regulates only those things that relate to the specific legislatively mandated PRIVILEGED subject matter of “TRANSPORTATION,” not the private travel and use of the highways by the people themselves as a MATTER OF RIGHT!! Check the caption title of SB 971 as it was written by the 74th Legislature in 1995 for yourself and see that this is true. Provided that you can actually read the Bill rather than simply spouting off your own uninformed and inept perceptions of reality rather than the actual law that proves you to be either willfully ignorant or a knowing deceiver when it comes to providing informed and accurate answers to the people you claim to represent.

So sorry lady, a term I use loosely in this case, but the United States Supreme Court called and said that they have given their opinion on the matter of the “right to travel/ locomotion” many times already, just as the Texas courts have. And you should already know that the gist of their collective opinions is rather simple, the People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to use the roads for their own private business and pleasure WITHOUT permission or consent via licensing, registration or any other federal or STATE regulatory scheme outside of regulating traffic flow, because it is the people that own them and have every right of private use upon them for their own private business or pleasure. For one to engage in “transportation” is, however, an extraordinary use, and THAT is why it is a PRIVILEGE that requires these forms of regulation through licensing and registration of person’s and equipment. But the People’s RIGHTFUL use cannot be constitutionally converted into such a privilege and then licensed back to them for a fee.

Therefore, your assertion that “Travelers on public roads, for example, are subject to stop and arrest for violations of rules of the road listed in the Texas Transportation Code” is ALSO incorrect. Considering the legislature made it VERY clear that the regulated activity encompassed by the recodification, and the acts codified in Vernon’s prior thereto, related solely to the subject matter of “transportation,” then, it is inarguable that ONLY those person’s actively engaged in “transportation,” i.e. COMMERCIAL USE OF THE ROADS FOR PERSONAL/CORPORATE PROFIT OR GAIN THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS, GOODS, OR PROPERTY, FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE BY A CARRIER, are subject to the “rules of the road listed in the Texas Transportation Code.” Not only because those are the ONLY actual actions that are involved in acts of “transportation” upon the highways, but also because the People themselves are not so engaged, and therefore, their actions are NOT in any way related to the subject matter of SB 971, which is what created the code itself! And if the People’s actions are NOT related to the subject matter of SB 971, which IS limited specifically to “transportation” as a commercial occupation, then NOTHING in that code, INCLUDING “rules of the road” contained in Subtitle C, can be lawfully or legally applied to the People, their private conveyances, or their actions. Perhaps if you actually UNDERSTOOD the LEGAL meaning of the terms and phrases you so casually throw around as a legislator you might be able to comprehend the actual and legal difference!

And there IS a very big difference in the proper legal application and the current misapplication of the “transportation” code. A difference that is created by the legal semantics of the terms and phrases used therein to describe the activity of “driving” and “operating” rather than “traveling” and “private use.” In most people’s common everyday usage, the meaning of the terms “driving” and “operating” are taken to be synonymous with “traveling/ private use.” However, in terms of the regulatory legal meaning and use when relating to legal definitions limited specifically to the subject matter of “transportation” within the code, “driving” and “operating” both mean “DRIVING OR OPERATING IN AN OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS FOR WHICH ONE IS BEING PAID.” Which means that you provided your answer without first verifying whether a single assertion of alleged fact within it was actually constitutionally and legally correct. You simply assumed, and then stated how you understood and want it all to work. And all without actually knowing or caring to know by verifying the information you were asked to address. But this time your false assumption was limiting to making an ass out of you rather than me. Which goes a long way to proving that you are also a fucking statist libtard idiot that understands nothing about statutory meaning and construction and the UNLIMITED rights of the People in contrast to the VERY LIMITED powers of government. At least, that is the impression I have formulated based upon your inept response for the purposes of THIS discussion on the “right to travel/ locomotion” and the functioning of a proper Republican form of government in general.

Do you actually think that the political body of the state is something other than the People themselves? We the People have EVERY RIGHT to use the roads for our own personal business and pleasure using our own cars and other conveyances. Those conveyances are our private property, to which we have every right of acquisition, disposal and use, just as we do with any other thing or property that we might lawfully and rightfully purchase and make use of, and just as the very roads themselves are OURS! The roads belong to US, NOT to YOU or the corporate state!! Our individual right of private use is not subject to a vote, the whims of social policy, or any STATE mandated licensing and regulation.

Perhaps you honestly don’t know this, which I doubt, but even the Texas Administrative Code makes it abundantly clear that the sole agency to whom all “transportation” enforcement authority is assigned and delegated by statute, the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas (“DPS”), is limited in that authority to regulatory programs relating to “commercial and ‘for hire’ traffic.” Those regulatory programs have NEVER applied to the privately traveling general public in any way. And it is not and never has been a “state granted privilege” for We the People to exercise any of these rights. And at the risk of sounding repetitive, the roads are bought and paid for BY US for OUR use, just like our cars and other conveyances. Neither the STATE nor you own them or have ANY lawful authority to REGULATE them in any way involving licensing, registration, inspection, mandatory insurance of any kind, or anything at all having to do with the sale or purchase for private use. WE ARE THE ONES THAT OWN THE ROADS AND OUR PRIVATE CONVEYANCES!! Get it?!?! You are nothing more than the appointed caretaker of OUR roads and the duty-bound protector of our right to free access and use of our private property upon them unencumbered by governmental interference and intrusion. And part of your duty is to ensure that those roads are maintained in good working order for OUR private personal use, NOT yours, and certainly not that of any BUSINESS alone.

Texas Administrative Code

Next Rule>>

TITLE 37	PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART 1	TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 1	ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER A	OBJECTIVE, MISSION, AND PROGRAM
RULE §1.2	Mission

The mission of the Texas Department of Public Safety is:

(1) to supervise traffic on rural highways;
(2) to supervise and regulate commercial and “for hire” traffic;
(3) to preserve the peace, to investigate crimes, and to arrest criminals;
(4) to administer regulatory programs in driver licensing, motor vehicle inspection, and safety responsibility; and
(5) to execute programs supplementing and supporting the preceding activities.

Source Note: The provisions of this §1.2 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976

Add to that the proof that the regulatory programs run by the DPS relates ONLY to the above stated mission of “regulating commercial and ‘for hire’ traffic” as found within Rules §1.3(b) and §1.4 of the Administrative Code, and you have evidence of a massive fraud being perpetrated by the state and its administrative agencies upon the general public for the purpose of fraudulent and unconstitutional mass taxation outside of constitutional authority and prohibitions. In other simpler words, conspiracy and collusion to defraud and extort monies from the People.

The corporate “STATE” is both created and paid for by We the People, and is empowered to contract for the purposes of the planning, building and care-taking of OUR roads. The roads belong to the PEOPLE, and using them is NOT a privilege granted to us by ANYONE, least of all our SERVANTS or a legal fiction in the form of a political body called the “STATE!” It is a RIGHT that we have always had and still hold regardless, because WE have paid for those roads with OUR money. We paid for a SERVICE that we rightfully expect to be provided by our public servants, NOT a transfer of rightful ownership or totalitarian control over something that belongs to all of the People as a public resource. The roads are for OUR shared individual use in conducting OUR personal business and pleasure as a matter of RIGHT!! ONLY those that are using the public roads for PRIVATE PROFIT AND GAIN or in a governmental capacity are acting under a privilege. The privilege of using a publicly owned resource for personal/ corporate profit or gain or public service. The rest of us ARE NOT you moron!!

Disrespectfully signed,

YOU’RE FUCKING FIRED!!

Legislative / Licensing

The Licensing Scheme – Current Day vs. Original Intent

April 27, 2016taooflaw2 Comments

“Challenge jurisdiction once, always, and forever.”

The Licensing Scheme – Current Day vs. Original Intent:

Almost without exception, whenever I encounter people and begin a discussion on licensing and registration, everyone is either an expert on why licensing is important and required and how it all works, or, they are totally clueless about any of it, but, they absolutely insist that we must have it or everyone will simply kill each other. The logic from either side usually sounds something like this:

The expert – “Well, you do know that when you go to the DMV and REGISTER your automobile, it is for the PURPOSE of being able to do COMMERCIAL BUSINESS from it, because YOUR name has been converted into ALL CAPS, and that converted YOU into a CORPORATION. And because your car is now REGISTERED as a MOTOR VEHICLE, you are presumed to be ALWAYS using it for that purpose, therefore, you MUST get a DRIVER’S LICENSE so that you can DO BUSINESS from your MOTOR VEHICLE, which means that YOU are ALWAYS doing business too as long as you have that DRIVER’S LICENSE, just like a CORPORATION.”

The uninformed but terribly insistent and clueless Statist – “But, *I* want the State to require licenses and make sure everyone has one, because, if no one had a license, how would we be able to tell if they have been properly trained on how to handle and operate a car? Without proper training they would just run over everyone and cause tons of accidents. The license is the only way that we know they’ve been trained. The State has to be able to control who can get in a car and be on the highways with other people by making sure that they are properly trained. Also, without insurance, who would pay for all the damage they could cause if they were involved in an accident? I would certainly want them to be able to pay if they injured me or a member of my family. Without that license and insurance, they would probably be far more likely to kill or seriously injure someone.”

I hate to be the one to break it to the both of you, but, your beliefs on registration, driver’s licensing, and insurance, are not only patently incorrect and totally misplaced, they border on the delusional.

For example, using the ‘expert’s’ logic, simply possessing a fishing license would subject you to a game warden’s jurisdiction for writing you a citation just because you were buying fish at the supermarket and didn’t use some sort of state-mandated baiting scheme. This is akin to the idea that simply because you applied for and received a license to do something, then, you MUST be doing that something ALL the time under the authority of the license regardless of where you actually are or what you are actually doing, like ‘grocery shopping’ instead of ‘fishing,’ with ‘fishing’ being the only thing the license would apply to. Just because you have a license to do something does NOT mean that you ARE doing it or MUST do it simply because you have a license to do so, or that when you are doing something, then that something must be what the licenses applies to. That is simply NOT the case.

Meanwhile, using the ‘uninformed clueless’ logic, we can see that it is a gross and Utopian delusion based entirely on an infinite misunderstanding about every aspect of how the system is designed to work. And both are completely unaware of how well this system truly does precisely what it was designed to do, collect infinite amounts of private personal information and data on everyone, to disseminate volumes of disinformation intended to indoctrinate the public into accepting such Ponzi schemes as a “requirement” for the public safety and welfare, by which it can then be used to defraud the People of literally billions of dollars each and every year. All while also subverting the very foundation of our constitutional principles regarding personal privacy, freedom, and liberty, both to move about the land and to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure and governmental tracking of our every movement.

First, just exactly WHO is responsible for providing all of this alleged ‘training’ that the uninformed clueless is speaking of? A high school gym teacher, a substitute teacher, a willing parent, a friend with a license, a driving school training instructor? Where did any of them get ‘properly trained’ to learn how to control a conveyance if not from the same sort of people in the same sort of places with the same sort of skills and experience? What are their qualifications to actually teach others this skill? And even more to the point, who is going to be there to teach those newbies behind the wheel actual experience, which, in my honest opinion, is the ONLY true teacher of how to travel in a private conveyance upon the roadways in a safe and acceptable manner that best protects everyone.

Well, Mr. and Mrs. Expert and Clueless, you are aware that no such ‘training’ is actually required prior to testing for a “driver’s license,” right? And even more to the point, no actual time or experience behind the wheel is required either. Absolutely NONE. Anyone, and I do mean virtually anyone (yep, even the ‘illegal’ aliens) that goes down to the DPS/DMV licensing office, and then takes and passes both the written “driving” exam and the physical “driving” test, is suddenly and magically somehow competent, proficient, and completely ‘qualified’ and ‘trained’ to get a license, right? In fact, anyone can simply study the DPS/DMV licensing handbook, take the two tests, and if they pass, they are fully ‘qualified’ and ‘trained’ to obtain a “driver’s license” in any State of the union. So, what actual ‘training’ or ‘experience’ are you referring to that the “license” is supposed to magically ensure that everyone has, since passing these two exams are the only real requirements standing between them and getting one? Thus, the completely false rhetoric that a license is necessary to ensure that the public is ‘safe’ from ‘unqualified’ and ‘untrained’ highway travelers is nothing more than Statist control freak concocted bullshit designed and proffered to a mentally deficient public that thinks their rights come from the generosity of their benevolent elected officials.

How many traffic accidents are there in the USA every year combined? We can’t really be sure since many of them don’t result in fatalities, which seems to be the only reporting data most folks are interested in. But rest assured, whatever the percentage of people who actually die, it will probably pale in comparison to the actual number of accidents that resulted in at least some sort of property damage or injury that didn’t result in death.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/2014-traffic-deaths-drop-but-2015-trending-higher

Now think, of all of those people involved in all of these accidents, especially those individuals that were to be actually blamed for causing them, and tell me just how many of those that were found to be at fault in the accident did or had possessed a valid “driver’s license?” I mean, if the Expert and the Uninformed Clueless are truly both right, then the possession of a “driver’s license,” whether past or present, is supposed to be some sort of temporary magical talisman guaranteeing that the possessor could never be involved in or cause an accident because the mere possession of the various licenses and sticker permits allegedly would have made them competent, trained, and experienced so as to be invulnerable and protected from having accidents, right?

This Statist libtardian-brain-damage induced pipe-dream of a fantasy appears to be rooted in the age-old Statist belief that “If government made me sign a piece of paper saying that I was receiving a license so that I COULD do something, and I paid the necessary fees for it, then, once I had it in my possession, I would no longer be susceptible to bouts of stupidity, negligence, human error, or intentionally malicious acts using my car. The license would automatically make me completely competent and incapable of making any mistakes in judgment or action that could cause me or anyone else a problem.”

Sooooo, what the hell could have possibly happened with a belief like that in place? Apparently, you all seem to think that such accidents are entirely and automatically preventable by the mere application for and receiving of a “driver’s license.” Oh, and heaven help you if you are ever in your car on the highway while having lost track of time as to what month and day it is and BOOM!!, that “license” suddenly expires like Cinderella’s ball gown because you aged one minute too many at the stroke of midnight!

Do you know who the very first person to put me behind the wheel of an actual car on a heavily trafficked city street was? A slobbering drunk named ‘Jay,’ who was in fact, slobbering drunk at the time. The car was a HUGE old Cadillac. You know, the kind that folks used to refer to as a “land yacht.” The ‘training’ went sort of like this “Puuuht uht inz gurhz. Kupzs it bahtweeenz thurz linzez. Durn’t hits nuthins.” And then his head made a loud THUD!! as it fell against the dashboard glove box. But, not only was I able to decipher that speech in order to actually put its directives into practice, I managed to perform those procedures and maneuvers quite successfully. Except for one moment when, just as another car was coming, I had to cross my first narrow bridge of (allegedly) two lanes, which actually seemed much more like 1-1/2 lanes really. I actually stopped dead in my lane in the middle of the bridge and tried to look all nonchalant and cool like I did this all the time, at least until they passed me by. That way, I figured, I wouldn’t run the risk of swerving too far one way or the other and bumping into them or the guardrail on that narrow stretch of pavement. Which would have been entirely too easy to do since the steering in that caddy was as sloppy and loose as that of ‘Jay’s’ current condition of sobriety.

After that, I was fairly often behind the wheel of various kinds of cars and trucks. That was the very first and really the only ‘training’ I ever had on “operating” a “motor vehicle” upon the “highways.” I was thirteen years old. By the time I took driver’s ed at 16, all of this was already old hat to me, and it really did nothing more than provide me with ample opportunity to get out of going to classes and get behind the wheel just so I could chauffeur my coach around to various ballgames and track meets, whether I was participating in them or not. So much for ‘qualifications’ and ‘training.’

Second, how does mere possession of a little piece of plastic make some people more skillful or safer than someone without a similar piece of plastic? Especially when they were both “trained” and provided experience in exactly the same manner by more or less identically skilled people? Furthermore, just how is a little square of plastic supposed to actually ensure a person isn’t prone to sudden attacks of stupidity or negligence, will always observe a particular pattern of behavior, or provide an individual any kind of actual personal protection from anything more intrusive than an insect bite? If those people were really ‘safer’ “drivers” than someone who is without a “license,” then, in reality, there should virtually never be an accident involving a “licensed driver” who could be found at fault versus one that is not “licensed,” correct?

If the acquiring and maintaining of the “license” is supposed to be all about the quality of the alleged “training” provided to the “driver,” on the premise that it allegedly better provides for the public safety and welfare, then why aren’t you required to retest and re-qualify for it every single time before you can renew it? After all, they make you do that for a concealed handgun license don’t they? Why not a “driver’s license?” Why exactly is it that you are only required to test for competency to get a “driver’s license” only once, usually when you are a teenager, and then never again, even if you are still renewing your “driver’s license” 80 years later? The answer is far more simple than you imagine. It’s because it isn’t now, and it never was, truly or legally about ANY of those piddling sophistries spoon-fed to us for decades, like that of it being for the benefit of the public’s safety and welfare.

Third, Mr. and Mrs. Expert and Clueless, have you ever tried to actually collect restitution from an insurance company, even when the other person was inarguably and indefensibly at fault in the accident? I can’t speak for how it actually works everywhere else, but in Texas, the laws are specifically written to protect the profits of the insurance company from liability and not you, the injured party. Here, an insurance company is not required to pay a claim first and then dispute it if they can show that there was actually fraud perpetrated by the person making the claim. Instead, they get to presume from the very beginning that everyone, including you, the actual victim of the injury, is actively trying to defraud the insurance company by default by even making a claim. The insurance companies can, and often do, simply refuse to pay absolutely anything at all unless you actually file suit and win. But, even if you do eventually win, your payout will come only after the years-long appeals process has finally run its course and you have managed to remain victorious throughout.

However, if the attorneys and judges aren’t actually lying to all of us about the facts of the law, like they do in every other case, Texas law is actually written so that you cannot directly sue the individual’s insurance company for refusing to pay. You must personally and directly sue ONLY the individual covered by the insurance company, as the company will almost always refuse to settle and pay up regardless of whether or not the individual responsible for your injury actually admits fault and wants to settle the case fairly. Furthermore, when you do actually sue, you cannot even mention that the individual had insurance to begin with. Nor can you get the person you are suing to declare such under oath on the witness stand. In fact, if you do try to obtain testimony of this nature at all, the judge will immediately declare a mistrial. This means that your case will have to start over, and there will also probably be sanctions against you for having gotten such an admission on the record about why you are having to sue in the first place.

This is, of course, meant to make it appear as if you are the one trying to sue and take money directly from the pockets of the other individual that you really shouldn’t be entitled to, rather than to simply get what you are long and rightfully owed by their insurance company. Meanwhile, the insurance company attorney will stand right in your face and tell you straight out, “We prefer to make you sue us in court. The reason being that we will almost always get a better monetary payout result from a jury verdict than we would if we had to actually pay all of the bills up front that our client made us contractually and rightfully responsible for by causing the accident.”

How do I know all of this is true? Because, back in 1994, I experienced this exact scenario firsthand, and the process you have to go through is in no way whatsoever fair and proper in its methodology and dispensation. Despite the cliché’, there really was a little old lady in a large luxury travel van who made a completely unexpected and unforeseeable left turn directly in front of me at an intersection while I had the green light. She waited until I was right at the intersection before she turned, resulting in my hitting her van broadside doing a full 50 miles per hour.

Now, in those days, I had reflexes faster than those of a wild bobcat that had accidentally discovered the wonderful side effects of caffeinated coffee. But even with that advantage going for me, this collision was so quick and unexpected that my car’s tire skid marks were only about 10-20 feet long from the point of engaging the brakes until impact. My medical bills and continued care estimates were going to be over $43,000.00, dental bills from shattered and cracked teeth from where I hit the steering wheel with the side of my face were estimated to run over $7,000.00, and my car was completely totaled. I still have back, knee, and hip joint pain and stiffness from those injuries to this day, having been able to only afford and receive minor medical treatment and the mandatory C.A.T. scans and x-rays that I knew I was going to need even if for no other reason than to prove that her actions did injure me.

After trial (which was over four years later), the jury awarded me a grand total amount of $1,700.00! That is ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED Dollars for more than $50,000.00 in medical and dental damages, plus the cost of replacing my totaled car, which I never received one compensatory penny for having lost. All because Texas law is written to force me to sue a 68 year old woman whose husband had died from cancer just two months before trial, even though the lawsuit had actually been filed more than four years earlier. And the scumbag attorney for the insurance company (the one with the “Your [money is] in good hands [and CEO pockets]” catch phrase), refuses to pay my perfectly legitimate medical and dental bills because he knew that the jury would protect his true clients profits as long as they believed that I was trying to actually get the money out of the life savings of a recently widowed old lady rather than her predatory thieving insurance company. And he was absolutely right. Even though the lady admitted through stipulation and testimony on the record in open court that she was completely at fault in the accident, I still had to sue and bring it all to a jury to recover anything at all. All that time and effort spent just to wind up with absolutely nothing but $1,700.00 to show for my efforts and four long and completely frustrating years of back room deals and litigation so I could endure the still ongoing years of pain and suffering sustained from those injuries.

But, what reasonable jury, having never been through something similar to my experience in the matter, wouldn’t find for a recently widowed little old lady defendant when her attorney is allowed to present a case that falsely makes you out to be a profiteering thief trying to defraud her of all her savings by making false claims of damages and injury? Meanwhile, you and your attorneys are never allowed to even mention or hint at the fact that the only reason you sued her at all is because the real client her attorney is working for, her insurance company, was playing the odds that a jury would give them a much lower payout judgment than what they were contractually responsible for.

So, by simply refusing to pay anything at all up front, the insurance company gets an unfair advantage and much better odds of winning and paying substantially less than what is actually fair and just by simply refusing to pay for any of the injuries and damages their insured client caused. Injuries and damages that the client had contracted with them to indemnify her for if and when she was ever the one at fault in an accident. Which was most certainly the case here. The allegedly mandatory insurance indemnification that the legislature purports to require us all to have, supposedly existed to protect ME from HER negligence, so that I or my family wouldn’t suffer financially from all the medical bills and property replacement costs her actions brought upon us. At least, that is how I remember the big public [dis]information campaign presented to the people of Texas as the reason why everyone should be forced to pay for insurance if they were on the highway in a car. I learned the hard way that it was then, and is now, all horse shit. Absolutely putrid and never-ending horse shit.

You might also ask why I didn’t simply file for all of this on my own auto insurance and let the two insurance companies hash it out. That answer is not any better from a compelled insurance argument’s perspective. The accident happened in the late afternoon of the third day after my monthly premium was due, and which had actually already been paid. At the time, my car insurance payments were set up so they were drawn by automatic debit directly from my bank account on the fifth day of each month. That month’s payment was withdrawn on the regularly scheduled date, according to my bank records. However, within an hour of my calling in and reporting the accident to my own insurance provider on that fateful eighth day, three days after my payment had been made for the month, the payment was suddenly refunded into my bank account and my insurance was canceled for allegedly failing to make the payment before the third business day after it was due. Did you follow that? My insurance company, who had already been paid on time and in full, refunded my payment and canceled my coverage as soon as I reported the accident and informed them of who the other person’s insurance company was.

It turns out that the other person’s insurance company always refuses to pay the victim’s claims if they are over some piddling amount for the express purpose of forcing litigation before a jury, where they know damn good and well that they hold a totally unfair advantage that keeps their profits high by keeping their payouts much lower than they would otherwise be by simply paying a completely proper and justified claim. To further add insult to already painful injury, I was told by my attorneys that there was nothing I could do to sue my own insurance company under Texas law, even though they had decided to suddenly cancel my policy without notice and after payment had already been made. And the reason I couldn’t sue them? Because they had 100% refunded the balance of any moneys paid in for that coverage period. Never mind that I was now needing and expecting them to honor the insurance policy that they had been collecting on, because compulsory insurance statutes allegedly state that I must pay for it. Just like the little old lady was allegedly required to pay for it so that I, we, and everyone else, would allegedly be “protected” from unexpected and undeserved financial losses and outlays due to accidents caused by someone else. So I had no choice but to pay somebody, right? And never mind that I had never filed a claim with them, or that I had faithfully and timely maintained my insurance with them for more than two years by that time. It began to seem like I was constantly being informed about how this was simply the way the law worked in these cases. Which again brings me full circle to the same conclusion… it’s all horse shit. Complete and total horse shit.

Of course, we should also consider the other group that primarily benefits financially in a huge way from these types of controversies, and that is the attorneys. These laws were written and put together by attorneys that once worked for the insurance companies and their lobbyist groups. The insurance lobbies put together a “dream team” group of insurance accountants, attorneys, and partisan legislators, who then made their collective dreams of exorbitant profits of both a corporate and private nature into legislative bills and submitted them to be voted upon by all of the other ambulance-chasing and industry whore attorneys acting unconstitutionally within the legislature to line their own pockets at or expense. All of whom work in or at last partly own law firms that would most certainly financially benefit from these laws in some form or fashion before the process of filing and fighting a lawsuit for payment of a rightful claim would be completed. That is the real meaning of ‘special interests’ in politics and legislation.

Through the long-term litigation and payout process in pursuit of large judgments, it is unquestionably in the Bar and attorney’s guild lobbies best interest to keep these laws operating precisely as they are. And doing so is not especially difficult when you realize that the legislature that submits, passes and sustains these laws, and the courts that rule they are all perfectly constitutional and equitable, and the trial attorneys that promise to do all they can to get you a fair settlement (as long as you promise that their cut comes directly off the top before any other expenses are paid), are all [subversively and unconstitutionally] controlled entirely by this very same fraternity of attorneys. Every Bar-card carrying attorney is a dues paying member of this fraternity, and reaps huge financial rewards from how it authorizes them to ‘legally’ manipulate cases and conduct business in this manner. And business is booming a thousand fold compared to how much litigation of this kind was seen in the courts just a few short decades ago.

The legal sorcery hidden in the demonstrably false illusion of protection from financial loss and liability via compulsory insurance is one of the biggest lies in this entire “transportation” scam we are currently being forced to live under. While the insured person who is actually at fault by causing the accident may be somewhat financially protected, the individuals and families trying to be rightfully compensated for their injuries and property damage are the ones that will continue to physically and financially suffer the most, because under current Texas law, it damn sure won’t be the insurance company. And this is true even if the injured persons have a lawyer [allegedly] acting in their best interest, just like I thought I did.

If compulsory insurance schemes were really about financial protection and compensation to those that are harmed by the fault of another, you would think that the law would require the insurance company, once provided with actual verifiable bills for the damages and injuries, to pay those damages first and potentially question later. As to the other areas of such suits, such as pain and suffering, continual care, pain management, etc., that is the stuff can be argued over a protracted trial period. But the costs associated with any actual loss, damages, and injuries should never be up for discussion, debate, or to allow any unnecessary or prolonged delay or refusal to pay. And later, and only if they actually obtain some real evidence that an act of fraud had actually occurred, the insurance company can sue to recover any money lost to fraud and seek to have the fraudster brought up on criminal charges. That is what would actually be in the best interest of the honestly suffering and injured parties. But, we all know that their legislative lobby group is not nearly as big and well-financed as that of the insurance company’s and the legal fraternity that gets rich off of them.

And as to other points of this discussion, such as when it comes to registration of your car, i.e. your private property, you must understand that registering your car is nothing more than getting a “license” for the car to be ‘used’ for commercial purposes, which is not any different than licensing yourself by obtaining a “driver’s license” for the same purpose.

Therefore, if you are not actively engaged in ‘using’ the public roads for the purpose of “transportation,” i.e. commerce, then neither you nor your car are ‘using’ the “licenses” you applied and paid for and presumably possess. Traveling upon the roadways for private business and pleasure is an unalienable right of liberty in the form of locomotion, according to the historical case opinions on the subject. And an individual’s RIGHT to private ‘use’ of the highways for their own personal business and pleasure is not at all the same as the privilege of engaging in commerce upon the roadways by ‘using’ them as a place of business for private profit or gain as a “driver” or “operator” who is “licensed” to engage in “transportation” upon them.

So, none of these various licensing and registration schemes is at all about the public safety and welfare in 95% of cases, because those cases are directed at private individuals to whom those schemes do not and have never applied. But, what they ARE about, and DO do with these various regulatory schemes, is to compile and combine the collected individual private information of all American’s who have fallen for this scheme in order to provide the State and Federal governments with an almost perfect and constant method of controlling and tracking the movements of every individual and their property within our territorial borders. You doubt me? Well, consider this; hasn’t every state in the union created laws that allegedly make it a CRIME to change your address or other personal details and then NOT update that information in THEIR records relating to these schemes within a specific period of time? Haven’t almost all of them joined into an unconstitutional “multi-state driver’s license compact” to not only share information about you that is stored and used in conjunction with these schemes between them, but to also cooperatively ensnare you in their little petty thefts through the use of completely unconstitutional Bills of Pains and Penalties in the form of fees, fines, and other forms of legalized extortion? You bet your ass they have and they do!

It is important to understand that the “driver’s licensing” scheme was originally pandered to the public as being intended for application only to those ‘taking’ and ‘using’ public resources, i.e. the highways, for the purpose of generating a personal profit or gain associated with that ‘taking’ and ‘use ’ as a place of business. This ‘extraordinary use’ by increasingly larger and heavier devices of transport, placed excessive wear and tear on the roads and highways rightfully belonging to and paid for from the private personal pockets of the collective public for their private use. Which is what the fees, and even the later-added civil fines, that were associated with the “licensing” scheme were originally meant to compensate the public for. Not to be a profit motive and base for the State Corporation to act in a manner that appears to have unlawfully converted the unalienable right of the people’s liberty into a regulable and taxable legal privilege to be exercised only at the grace and pleasure of government with the added benefit of generation of revenue upon the now bloody back of what was once an unquestioned and undeniable right to locomotion at one’s own whim and of one’s own manner of exercising it, whether by foot, carriage, horseback, oxcart, or automobile.

Evidence / Trial

Chronology – How to document your case while learning the process.

April 20, 2016taooflawLeave a comment

One of the biggest problems you will face in going to court is keeping track of everything accurately and timely. And the best advice I can give you on doing so is to NOT trust any of it to memory alone. WRITE IT DOWN! This is also the best way to quickly bring someone else up to speed when you are requesting their assistance and help in advising you and pointing you in the right direction for what to do next. Just provide them with the chronology and they can follow along and understand the situation much more quickly. And the better-detailed you make the chronology, the better that result will be.

Writing it all down does several things to help you in the process. What I recommend for that is a simple but comprehensive chronology. A well-kept chronology serves as a scheduling tool, a task/check list, a reminder of facts that might otherwise grow dim with time, an alarm clock, and a learning tool. Most of these are self-explanatory, but the idea of it also being a learning tool might take a bit of explaining.

When you first begin the process of fighting these battles in the corrupt and immoral court system we currently have, you are proverbially a fish out of water. And facing a trained attorney in a court room is a lot like being a fish caught on dry land by a cat. It will almost never end well. But, that sort of outcome ALSO depends heavily on just what type of fish you actually are or are willing to be. Cats don’t usually fair so well when the fish they wanted to make a meal out of turns out to be a live barracuda or shark. And being properly prepared and educated in the “how to’s” and “why’s” of law and the legal process makes you more like either of those than the poor defenseless goldfish that the cat believes you to be.

As you learn the process, the notes you take today will be invaluable to you, and potentially others, tomorrow. You will be able to go back and look at all the things you THOUGHT you understood and compare them to the knowledge you have accumulated up to today. And the differences over time will surprise you. Questions that you once raised to yourself the first few times that you tried to fight back will now be able to be answered immediately and with true and accurate information. And today, rather than it being a question, it will be a statement of “This is what they SHOULD have done, and this is what they actually DID, and THIS is what I use as the authority and process for doing what I need to do about it!” And this will be possible because you have (hopefully) LEARNED from the experience.

Therefore, a well kept chronology can help you in ways that you might not have previously considered. And it is a record keeping method upon which you can improve over time with only a little thought and effort to figure out the method(s) that still cover all the bases while allowing you to set it up more to your style and liking.

The provided template is just that, a template. It is a starting point to understanding the things that you will want to keep track of and have a single point of reference for. It is easy to understand and to use. But it will only truly benefit you if you DO use it accordingly. Be timely in filling it out, when facts and details are at their freshest. The sooner you make an entry after an event occurs the better. And even better is if you are taking those notes in real-time during the event in question, especially when it comes to keeping track of all the players. Keep that in mind as you look it over and absorb its structure. USE it and it WILL help you in the long run to become a better fighter and much harder prey for the cats.

01B EC – SUP – Chronology 7777

Due Process / Judicial / Texas / Trial

Texas – How to Disqualify a Bad Judge

April 14, 2016taooflaw5 Comments

How do you go about getting rid of a bad or corrupt municipal or justice court judge? It’s not really as hard as you think, at least not in Texas. However, one thing that you need to be aware of is that, while the rules for disqualifying a municipal judge are laid out in writing and are pretty straightforward in Chapter 29 A-1 of the Texas Government Code, there are apparently no such written rules directly applicable to justice court judges. But, we are necessarily going to try and use the same rules regardless. How? By asserting the argument that there must be equal protection and application of the laws in order for us to do so.

I would also highly recommend that you spend some time devoted to reading and understanding Chapter 30 of the Texas Government Code as well. It contains several provisions that I have learned are NOT being complied with by MANY Texas municipal courts of record. And their failure to comply could possibly be grounds to challenge the validity, and thus the entirety of jurisdiction by what can only be construed as an UNLAWFULLY functioning court.

Ask yourself these questions;

Do we not have the SAME rights and requirements of due process in BOTH courts under either type of judge?
Aren’t they both bound by the same rules of procedure and judicial canons under which they claim to be acting?
Don’t they both violate the same rights of the Accused when they act to ignore or deny the proper application of the rules of procedure and evidence, as well as the judicial canons that require them to act fairly, impartially, and in compliance with the law?
And when they don’t comply with and follow those rules, don’t you have a RIGHT to seek remedy for the resulting rights violations in order to protect your right to have a fair and impartial proceeding and trial before an impartial and properly behaving judge?

The correct answer to each of these of course, is yes, and that you DO have a right to a fair and impartial judge in every proceeding and at trial. Too bad that you aren’t going to get any of that though! At least, NOT unless you know HOW to make sure that you at least get the chance to have it.

So, the intent of this article is to show you HOW to do that. At the bottom of this article there is linked in a complete Motion that you can use and adapt to your own case to seek the disqualification of a badly behaving judge. BUT, be very aware that any Motion to Disqualify filed in a Texas court is REQUIRED to be signed under penalty of perjury before someone authorized by law to administer oaths. Which means that you have to sign it in front of a Notary.

Thus, you CANNOT prepare one of these Motions in advance BEFORE going into court each time because the specific facts that each such motion must allege and have written into them supporting your right to a disqualification of a bad judge have not yet occurred, which means that you can write the Motion only AFTER the judge has misbehaved. THIS is why we MUST find a way to record the proceedings if at all possible so we can create a verbatim transcript of everything that transpired in the proceeding and gave rise to the need to disqualify. Make sure that you do only ONE original copy of this motion (which should ALWAYS be the case for ANY original pleading or affidavit). Then, AFTER it is signed and notarized, you can make all of your extra copies for filing.

I am putting the body of the motion in this article so you can read it without having to download it first. That way you can see if it fits your particular needs before doing so. Just remember that the text written in the article is NOT complete as is required by an actual Motion that you would file. There is also the fact that the web SUCKS at keeping the proper document formatting that you use in the actual document. So download and use the MS Word document instead of copying the text from the article. Also, take note that the example Motion is an AMENDED Motion, meaning that it was a second filed version that incorporated changes from the first filed version of the pleading. If you are filing this as your FIRST original pleading, be sure to REMOVE anything referring to the pleading being an amended version.

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Disqualify Judge AMENDED

TO THE HONORABLE 26^th DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD:

COMES NOW EDDIE EUGENE CRAIG, pro se, the Respondent in this matter, who asserts as follows:

Assertion of Rights

Eddie Eugene Craig (Respondent) asserts all his/her unalienable rights, privileges and immunities at Natural Law, Common Law and Maritime Law, and all his/her commercial rights relevant to this state.

Special Appearance

Respondent asserts his/her special appearance, objecting to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.

Objection to Non-judicial Decision-making

Respondent objects to and does not consent to any assignment or any referral of this case, in any part, to any decision-maker other than a duly elected or properly appointed judicial officer exercising full authority of a municipal court judge and who has an active and current oath of office on file. Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (12 May 2008) (“If the parties consent”) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)).

Objection to use of private law

Respondent objects to the use of unpublished cases. A cite to “WL” and “Lexis” is a reference to materials not publicly accessible. For such references even to begin to be meaningful, a full copy of the opinion for each “WL” or “Lexis” reference must be attached.

Respondent Contact information

Contact information for Respondent Respondent is as follows:

Mailing Address:

c/o 1313 Mockingbird Ln.

Austin, Texas [78704]

Phone & Email Information:

Tel. 512-999-9999

Fax : None

Email myemail@somemail.com

Plaintiff Contact information

Contact information for Plaintiff City of Rockdale/ The State of Texas is as follows:

Mailing Address Regional Presiding Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield:

26th Judicial District Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield

Williamson County, Texas

P.O. Box 24

Georgetown, TX 78627

Phone & Email Information:

Tel. Phone: (512) 943-1226

Fax: (512) 943-1188

Mailing Address City of Rockdale Municipal Court:

505 W. Cameron Ave.

P.O. Box 586

Rockdale, TX. 76567

Phone & Email Information:

Tel. (512) 446-0812

Fax : (512) 446-6258

Mailing Address City Attorney Michelle Lehmkuhl:

505 W. Cameron Ave.

P.O. Box 586

Rockdale, TX. 76567

Phone & Email Information:

Tel. (512) 446-2511

Fax : (512) 446-6258

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Disqualify Judge AMENDED.. 1

Assertion of Rights. 1

Special Appearance. 1

Objection to Non-judicial Decision-making. 2

Objection to use of private law.. 2

Respondent Contact information. 2

Plaintiff Contact information. 3

Table of Contents. 4

Table of Authorities. 4

Discussion. 5

Reservation of additional objections. 5

Summary of Respondent’s Arguments. 5

ISSUE: Is the City of Rockdale Municipal Court bound by the Code of Crim. Proc. in Class C fine-only misdemeanor proceedings?. 7

ISSUE: Did the court violate Respondent’s right of due process by ignoring specific rights codified in the Code of Crim. Proc.?. 9

ISSUE: Did the Court violate the laws of this state and Respondent’s right of due process by requiring that a plea be entered before a court clerk rather than a proper judicial officer in a proper judicial proceeding? 13

ISSUE: Did the Court violate Respondent’s right of due process by failing to follow the requirements of the Code of Crim. Proc. and the Code of Judicial Conduct?. 14

Request for Relief. 16

Verification. 18

Certificate of Service. 18

ORDER.. 19

Table of Authorities

Cases

Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 668 (1975) (Blackmun, J., dissent)…………………………. 1

Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 344 (1980) (Powell, J., and Stewart, J., dissent) 1

Ex Parte Greenwood, 165 Tex. Crim. 349; 307 S.W.2d 586; 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2350 11

Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (12 May 2008)………………………………………………………. 2

Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14, 28 (1985) (dissent)…………………………………………………………. 1

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art. 1.05 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. ART. 2.03 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 7

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art. 2.04 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art. 2.05 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.1.05 (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………. 12, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.1.14 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.2.04 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.2.05 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.28.01 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………….. 11, 12

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.32.48 (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………….. 11

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.002 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………. 8, 9, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.018(b) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………….. 12, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.019(f) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………….. 12, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.028 (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. CHAPTER 45 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………… 8

Statutes

Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 10……………………………………………………………………………………… 12, 14

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Chapter 29-A (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………….. 5, 7

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 29.055(c) (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………………… 6

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 29.055(c)(1) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 6

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 29.055(c)(2) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 6

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 311.016(4) (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………… 12, 13

Discussion

Reservation of additional objections.

Should a “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.”

Summary of Respondent’s Arguments.

Respondent originally filed this Motion to Disqualify presiding Judge Jerry Waggoner (“Judge Waggoner”) of the City of Rockdale Municipal Court (“Court”) on or about November 22, 2012. The original motion was filed pursuant Chapter 29 A-1, Gov. Code, as soon as was practicable after Respondent realized that Judge Waggoner had absolutely no intention of following the law or providing those before his court with even an appearance of fairness and impartiality or the right to fundamental due process. To date Respondent has received no response or other information as to the disposition of the original filing.

Pursuant Chapter 29 A-1, Gov. Code, Judge Waggoner was required to forward the motion to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield for review in his capacity as regional presiding judge (see Sec. 29.055(c)(1)). From all appearances, Judge Waggoner knowingly, willingly and intentionally ignored this requirement and failed or refused to forward the original motion as required by law.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, pursuant Sec. 29.055(c) , Gov. Code, was required to cease and desist all further action (see Sec. 29.055(c)(2)) until such time as a ruling on his disqualification was returned by the regional presiding judge. Judge Waggoner further ignored this requirement of law and proceeded forward in this matter by the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Respondent under the guise of failure to appear for the so-called “trial.”

These acts alone prove that Judge Waggoner has no respect for the laws associated with the duties of his office, the due process rights of Respondent, or promoting even the general appearance of fairness and impartiality, therefore, his actions demand disqualification of a constitutional nature, if not actual divestment of his office and authority.

Respondent reasserts the following original points of authority and argument as the original basis for Respondent’s demand for the complete disqualification of Judge Waggoner and the dismissal of this matter.

Respondent argues that presiding Judge Waggoner is hereby disqualified ab initio pursuant Chapter 29 A-1, Gov. Code, from presiding over any proceedings in Respondent’s matter.

Respondent shows by the facts stated herein that Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally did violate specific laws relating to the duties of his office, numerous canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics, and acted with bias and prejudice against Respondent in the preliminary proceedings held in the Court.

Furthermore, Respondent shows by the facts stated herein that Judge Waggoner’s actions under color of law have deprived Respondent of protected fundamental rights, including but not limited to, the right of due process, which deprives the Court of all personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent.

Furthermore, Respondent shall show that Judge Waggoner’s actions under color of law, while absent all lawful jurisdiction, constitute criminal acts for which criminal complaints are to be filed by Respondent with the Milam County grand jury pursuant Art. 2.03, Code of Crim. Proc.

Lastly, Respondent has also filed several judicial conduct complaints (see attached) against Judge Waggoner with the State Judicial Conduct Committee for violations of multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics.

ISSUE: Is the City of Rockdale Municipal Court bound by the Code of Crim. Proc. in Class C fine-only misdemeanor proceedings?

If this were an actual criminal case, then, Respondent expects that Judge Waggoner and City Attorney Michelle Lehmkuhl (“Attorney Lehmkuhl”) would be required to obey the laws as codified in the Code of Crim. Proc. This is especially true considering that, while acting under color of law and in their official capacities, said law governs the duties of their respective offices relating to the prosecution of all alleged “criminal” cases.

If this were an actual “criminal” case, then, both Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl are specifically required and directed to follow the provisions of Chapter 45, Code of Crim. Proc., and other related provisions elsewhere within the Code of Crim. Proc., in all “criminal” cases, which the court record (or lack thereof) clearly shows they have not done, to wit:

Art. 45.002. APPLICATION OF CHAPTER.Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to those proceedings by this chapter. If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.

(Emphasis added)

Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc., requires and directs that all “Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to those proceedings by this chapter.”

Furthermore, Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc., clearly requires and directs that “If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.”

If this were an actual “criminal” case under the provisions of Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc., then, by the usage of the term “shall,” this article clearly makes mandatory the requirement that municipal and justice courts of this state comply with all the relevant provisions of Chapter 45 in general and specifically Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc.

Therefore, if this were an actual “criminal” proceeding, the court record (or lack thereof) clearly proves that Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally ignored virtually all procedural due process requirements and rights belonging to Respondent, and Judge Waggoner did so in direct violation of the laws of this state and of the United States.

Therefore, Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl have officially declared the Code of Crim. Proc. irrelevant to these and all other criminal proceedings held in the City of Rockdale Municipal Court, both by their respective actions and failure to perform even a single item of any article therein in accordance with the plain and common language of the codes provisions during all proceedings thus far.

Thus, Respondent has good cause to believe that these facts substantiate his/her assertion and conclusion that this is not and cannot be a “criminal” proceeding, and, therefore, can only be a non-case, i.e. it is civil, and, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction, as does Judge Waggoner.

Therefore, by acting without jurisdiction outside of all constitutional and lawful authority, and in violation of Respondent’s fundamental protected rights, Judge Waggoner is criminally liable for his/her actions and disqualified for all purposes.

ISSUE: Did the court violate Respondent’s right of due process by ignoring specific rights codified in the Code of Crim. Proc.?

As addressed in Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, Respondent, by law, is entitled to proper notice, i.e. service, of a written copy of both a criminal complaint and proper charging instrument, i.e. an “information,” “not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution…” under the provisions of Arts. 1.05, 2.04, 2.05, and 45.018(b), Code of Crim. Proc., to wit:

Code of Criminal ProcedureArt. 1.05. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. He shall have the right of being heard by himself, or counsel, or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. No person shall be held to answer for a felony unless on indictment of a grand jury.

Art. 2.04. [28] [34] [35] Shall draw complaints

Upon complaint being made before a district or county attorney that an offense has been committed in his district or county, he shall reduce the complaint to writing and cause the same to be signed and sworn to by the complainant, and it shall be duly attested by said attorney.

Art. 2.04 (emphasis added).

Art. 2.05. [29] [35] [36] When complaint is made

If the offense be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall forthwith prepare an information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court having jurisdiction; provided, that in counties having no county attorney, misdemeanor cases may be tried upon complaint alone, without an information, provided, however, in counties having one or more criminal district courts an information must be filed in each misdemeanor case. …

Art. 2.05 (Thomson/West 2005) (emphasis added).

Art. 45.018. COMPLAINT.

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation charging the accused with the commission of an offense.

(b) A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint. The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection.

(Emphasis added)

Respondent filed his/her Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss with the trial Court in a timely manner, long before his/her commanded appearance for a sham “pretrial” proceeding in which the only objective of the court and the prosecution was to coerce Respondent into either making a deal or entering a plea. Neither of these are proper purposes for commanding a pre-trial appearance before the court according to the statutes of this state codified in Art. 28.01, Code of Crim. Proc.

Without so much as reading them, Judge Waggoner dismissed Respondent’s points of law and argument relating to there being no complaint and proper charging instrument filed in the court record, and no proper, sufficient and timely notice of either instrument being served upon Respondent. Judge Waggoner refused to even acknowledging the due process violations created by proceeding in the knowing absence of a sworn complaint. As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has themselves set the filing of a complaint[1] as the minimum bar to investing municipal and justice courts with jurisdiction of a Class C misdemeanor cause, which Respondent believes is a constitutionally and statutorily incorrect ruling, how is it even remotely lawful for the court and the prosecutor to proceed against Respondent knowing full well that jurisdiction has never been conveyed by the filing of a proper complaint?

As no proper complaint was ever filed into the court at the time numerous pre-trial proceedings were initiated and conducted by the prosecutor and himself, Judge Waggoner, acting absent all jurisdiction in the matter, issued numerous instruments simulating legal process in violation of Sec. 32.48, Penal Code, and conducted several judicial proceedings prior to jurisdiction allegedly being obtained by the filing of a criminal complaint.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner acted in concert and collusion with the prosecutor to deny Respondent in a fair, impartial, and speedy trial by allowing prosecutorial proceedings to commence without such a complaint having been filed, thus preventing the speedy trial “clock” from ever being started in the case. The result being that Respondent’s right to a speedy trial is directly harmed by being preliminarily processed for prosecution without benefit and protection of any passage of time being charged against the State for failure to timely commence the trial on the merits.

Additionally, it is statutorily impossible for Respondent to comply with the requirements of Art. 45.019(f), Code of Crim. Proc., by challenging the complaint until a complaint has been filed and served upon Respondent, which was never done. When a complaint is neither filed nor served upon the accused until the day of trial, it is not only statutorily impossible to challenge the complaints form and substance pursuant Art. 45.019(f), Code of Crim. Proc., it also makes it statutorily impossible for Respondent to comply with Art. 28.01, Code of Crim. Proc., by filing a Motion to Set Aside or “Quash” the complaint no less than seven days prior to any pre-trial proceeding.

To date, the requirements of Art. 45.018(b), Code of Crim. Proc., have not been complied with, thus, violating Respondent’s protected right of notice as denoted by the use of the phrase “is entitled to” pursuant Sec. 311.016(4), Gov. Code, and as recognized and protected by Art. 1.05, Code of Crim. Proc., and [Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 10], to wit:

Texas ConstitutionArt. 1, Sec. 10. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. Government Code

Sec. 311.016. “MAY,” “SHALL,” “MUST,” ETC. The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:

(1) “May” creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.

(2) “Shall” imposes a duty.

(3) “Must” creates or recognizes a condition precedent.

(4) “Is entitled to” creates or recognizes a right.

(5) “May not” imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with “shall not.”

(6) “Is not entitled to” negates a right.

(7) “Is not required to” negates a duty or condition precedent.

(Emphasis added)

By right and law Respondent is entitled to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court at any time and in personam jurisdiction prior to any general appearance, and to have the response to such challenges addressed by actual points of law and evidence submitted into the record of the court. Neither the court nor the prosecution has ever met this requirement. In fact, the jurisdictional challenges posed by Respondent were simply ignored by Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl, while both were acting under color of law, with Judge Waggoner again proceeding sua sponte to simply declare by fiat that the court had jurisdiction, despite no legal evidence of that fact being submitted into the record by either the prosecution or the court.

ISSUE: Did the Court violate the laws of this state and Respondent’s right of due process by requiring that a plea be entered before a court clerk rather than a proper judicial officer in a proper judicial proceeding?

Under color of what law and authority does Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl act to ignore and deny the laws of this state by allegedly authorizing a mere clerk of the court, Wrenie Wheeless (Wheeless), to impersonate a judicial officer by conducting judicial proceedings for the purpose of taking and entering a plea upon the official record of the court?

ISSUE: Did the Court violate Respondent’s right of due process by failing to follow the requirements of the Code of Crim. Proc. and the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Respondent has procedural due process rights protected by the requirements of Arts. 1.05, 2.04, 2.05, 1.14, 45.002, 45.018(b), and 45.019(f), Code of Crim. Proc., and [Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 10]. If this were an actual “criminal” case, then, by failing to comply with these provisions of law relating to the duties of his office regarding “criminal” prosecutions, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally violated the due process rights of Respondent, thus creating the impression of bias and partiality on behalf of the prosecution.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally spoke to Respondent in a condescending, belittling, and contemptuous tone and manner before other peoples currently present in the court on September 13, 2012, thus creating the impression of bias and partiality on behalf of the prosecution.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by acting sua sponte on behalf of the prosecution to deny out-of-hand several written motions challenging jurisdiction of the court and other related matters of law that were never rebutted or challenged by the prosecution, and did so without holding a proper pretrial hearing of the motions for the purpose of oral argument by Respondent.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by soliciting and accepting advise from Attorney Lehmkuhl to deny Respondent’s motions, despite Lehmkuhl admitting that, even though she was the prosecutor assigned to the case, she had never read them. In so doing, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, and by colluding and conspiring with Attorney Lehmkuhl to deny Respondent’s due process rights under color of law, violated numerous canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, to wit:

CANON 1 – Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.

CANON 2 – Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety In All of the Judge’s Activities.

A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

CANON 3 – Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

CANON 3A – Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law.

CANON 3B – Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(2) A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

(6) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

CANON 6 – Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct

CANON 6C – Justices of the Peace and Municipal Court Judges.

(2) A justice of the peace or a municipal court judge, except as authorized by law, shall not directly or indirectly initiate, permit, nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning the merits of a pending judicial proceeding.

CANON 8 – Construction and Terminology of the Code

CANON 8B – Terminology.

(1) “Shall” or “shall not” denotes binding obligations the violation of which can result in disciplinary action.

(8) “Law” denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions and decisional law.

Request for Relief

Therefore, Respondent requests that regional presiding judge Billy Ray Stubblefield grant his/her special appearance and enter a finding and order declaring that Judge Waggoner is disqualified for all purposes from presiding over any proceedings involving Respondent in the instant matter.

Furthermore, Respondent requests that regional presiding judge Billy Ray Stubblefield direct the Court to dismiss the false charge of failure to appear and recall the subsequent warrant of arrest issued by Judge Waggoner in direct violation of the laws of this state.

Furthermore, Respondent requests that regional presiding judge Billy Ray Stubblefield direct the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.

[1] Ex Parte Greenwood, 165 Tex. Crim. 349; 307 S.W.2d 586; 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2350

05.0699E EC – MTDR – Disqualify or Recuse Judge (AMENDED)

Legislative

Research – Statutes Are NOT the Law. Do Your Due Diligence!

March 22, 2016taooflaw3 Comments

MEME - We Don't Need No Statutes Okay, lem’me try to edgeyumucate you’se guys all over agin’…

DON’T read JUST the statutes. In fact, DON’T read them first! Go find the ORIGINAL LEGISLATIVE ACTS that the statutes are SUPPOSED to be based upon and come from. Which, here in Texas, is the 1925 legislative session laws. The statutes are NOT the law, the SESSION Bill is the law. An amendment to STATUTE absolutely CANNOT amend the underlying law OR change or expand its original purpose and subject matter.

THEN, identify and verify the specific SUBJECT that the original Bill was intended to regulate, which most state constitutions require to be stated in the Bills Title/Caption. Without fail, you will most likely find that such Bills are ALL related to COMMERCE and COMMERCIAL USE of the highways and roads.

Where a statute conflicts or attempts to expand upon the underlying session law in a manner the underlying law does NOT encompass, the statute is unconstitutional and void, which will also be written somewhere in your particular state constitution.

Furthermore, you might want to read up in your particular state constitution as to WHO can make law and HOW the process of doing so is constitutionally MANDATED that it be done. THEN, if either the underlying session law or the newly adopted amended version of the statutory scheme was enacted in a manner that does NOT comply with this process and procedure, it IS unconstitutional and void.

N’est pa?

Legislative / Ordinance / Your State Contitution

Research -Your State Constitution Overrules Legislative Statutes and Municpal Ordinances

March 18, 2016taooflaw6 Comments

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

==============================

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

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

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

Thanks for your time and efforts.

==============================

This was my initial reply back to him:

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

==============================

His reply was:

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

==============================

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

========

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

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

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/scconst.php

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/DocViewer.aspx…

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

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

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

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

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

==============================

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

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

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

California / Civil Infractions / Your State Contitution

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

March 18, 2016taooflaw6 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalese

The Use of “Includes” and “Including” in Law

March 18, 2016taooflawLeave a comment

What does it really mean when a law or statute says it “includes” or is “including” something when it is defining a term or phrase within the law or statute? And what does it mean when a legislature or the congress tries to make it appear the things encompassed by the list are actually unlimited when they write something into the statutes that reads similar to:

“Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.

Most prosecutors and attorneys will try to argue that this allows the list of items in an “includes” definition to be virtually limitless in what it encompasses, but this is a completely false interpretation and representation. If such an assertion were true, then a law could be intentionally misconstrued to encompass far more than would be constitutionally or legally allowed as it would result in such a meaning to become “vague or overbroad.” This couldn’t possibly be the case though, or could it?

Well, here is what the United States Supreme Court stated the legal meaning of the terms “include” and “including” actually is:

“The ordinary significance of the terms, as defined by the dictionaries, both Webster and the Standard, is “to confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut up; embrace; and involve Include or the participial form thereof, is defined to ‘comprise within’; ‘to hold’; ‘to contain’; ‘to shut up’; and synonyms are ‘contain’; ‘enclose’; ‘comprehend’; ’embrace’,”
Montillo Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U.S 452, at 455, 466.

These are terms of restriction not expansion. These terms do not normally mean “in addition to,” they normally mean “only” that which is listed. In order for such terms to be interpreted as ‘expansive’, the unlisted thing(s) that is/are being asserted as ‘included’ among those things actually listed must have some formal relation to those listed things by naturally being of the same ‘class’ or ‘type’.

For example, when a statute reads “The term ‘Fruit’ includes lemons, limes, and oranges,” then the similarity in the ‘class’ or ‘type’ of those items listed is what? The similarity is that they are all citrus fruits, meaning that any items used to create the appearance of an expansion of the list is strictly limited to those other things that naturally fall into the same ‘class’ or ‘type’ as that of citrus fruits. A grapefruit would be able to be included in the list as a means of making it ‘expansive,’ but an apple would not. Which means that other fruits that are not naturally citrus fruits, such as the apple, or watermelons, bananas, etc., are NOT allowed to be ‘included,’ i.e. to ‘expand,’ that list of things to which the above example statutory definition of “fruit” applies.

Therefore when you read “includes” or “including” in statutes (state statutes, I.R.C. or state/federal regs), only what is listed, or those things that are specifically of the same ‘class’ or ‘type’ in relation to those things listed, is meant to be included in the definition, according to the United States Supreme Court.

Uncategorized

Austin Municipal Court – A Cesspool of Corruption in the Heart of Texas

March 17, 2016taooflaw4 Comments

“Justice? We don’t need no steenk’ing justice!”

We have all heard about them. A few of us have even had the misfortune to have it happen to us, or to someone that we know. An encounter with a corrupt court system and the criminals within them that populate our so-called ‘justice’ system.

This post will show you just how at least one of these corrupt courts operates some small part of its criminal enterprise. What you are about to read is from two of the Motions that were filed in a real case involving a real person, but the personal info and case information has been removed to protect her privacy. The final disposition of the case was a full dismissal, but the reason for the dismissal is what you need to understand, AND to watch out for.

Background:

The young lady in this case was was falsely charged with “road rage resulting in property damage” by a pair of Austin’s finest extortionist thugs, who arrived some time after the incident had occurred, and who apparently had zero experience in traffic accident investigation and even less with common sense. They fabricated their evidence to suit their version of the facts rather than the ones given to them by the victim (the young lady, my client) and an eyewitness. Both of whom tried to inform the two officers of exactly how the teenage illegal alien in the SUV full of teenage girls had first come flying out of parking lot, barely missing their car traveling down the same street, and, then, just a little farther down that street, tried to drive the SUV across the entire front end of the victim’s car by making a right turn from the inside lane at a red lighted intersection and while my client’s car was traveling in the outside lane to the immediate right.

The SUV cut across the front of the victim’s car, causing her hood to go under the SUV, which hit its rear tire right on her left front wheel and fender. The scuff marks on her car fender were ample evidence that, considering the facts of the circumstances involved, this type of impact would result only if the driver of the SUV was making an illegal turn across the front of the car. And the impact was forceful enough that it not only damaged her wheel and fender, it also broke the car’s front axle. The teenage boy then tried to drive away, never stopping. The victim, broken axle and all, refused to let him get away and forced her car forward, chasing the boy until he finally stopped some distance further down the street. At which time the cops were called to the scene.

Now, by the time these two idiots, I mean officers, arrived on the scene, all of the teenage girls in the SUV had left the scene and were hiding out in a nearby mall, waiting for the cops to leave so they could come back. Which the victim witnessed them doing right after the cops left. None of them were ever questioned about the accident, despite being eye-witnesses. And even though the teenage boy was at fault and temporarily detained, and even though he had no license or proof of financial responsibility (I know, and NOT my primary point here), he was given only a minor traffic citation and then let go. The young lady, the actual victim, however, was given the third degree. And both she and her witness that had been riding in the car with her were called liars who had concocted their whole story. She was then falsely charged with several alleged offenses, including “road rage.”

Nonetheless, the actual remaining details of the traffic incident is not our primary concern here. It is the outright disregard for the truth, individual rights, due process, and justice, that immediately came to follow in one of the most corrupt municipal court systems I have ever seen. And, as it turns out, it is a court that systematically commits egregious crimes and rights deprivations against the public as a whole, not just this one young lady. And those that run it and profit from its crimes simply justifies them as a necessity of ‘doing business’. And it is my personal experience that this court is not alone in this sort of corruption and as a purveyor of injustice for the purpose of revenue. But, on with the story.

Always Monitor the Court Record:

One of my primary rules of going to court, and one which I insist that my clients and students actually follow, is to be sure that you regularly and personally check the court record. ‘Regularly’ in this case meaning on an ever escalating scale as the trial date draws closer. Now, this is assuming that the court in question is not so far away that checking the record in person isn’t really feasible.

However, most courts have an online public access system for looking up docket scheduling information and such, provided that you have ever been given any information at all that such a system even exists, much less how and what is needed to access it. In any case, I would offer this warning, don’t trust the online system to be accurate or timely in any way, and I mean in any way. These things are updated by people, when they are updated at all, and even then it is often by very lazy, bored, and careless people. Checking the actual file is always preferable to checking the online resource.

When it comes to checking the physical court record, in the beginning, check the court record at least once a week after getting the citation(s) to see what, if anything, has been filed in the case that didn’t come from you. As the time for trial draws nearer, you escalate your record check frequency until, on the last week just before trial, you check the record at least three times, the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of that week. You also make sure that you check the record on the day before trial, always, no exceptions. So, if your trial was to be held on the Friday in the above example, you would still recheck the record on that Thursday, the day before your trial, even though you had just checked it on that Wednesday. You will see soon why I have this rule and why it is so important to follow it.

The Right to Notice and How It’s Properly Done:

It is during this phase of the prosecutorial process where everything usually begins to fall apart on the due process points. Because, when anyone files something in the adjudicatory court record that relates to forward movement in the case, like a complaint actually being filed or a scheduling for some required appearance or action, you are supposed to be notified of it. This is what is referred to simply as “Notice” in legal circles. And that Notice is required to be done in a manner that covers all the due process bases relating to Notice. The metaphor of ‘bases’ in this case meaning proper, sufficient, and timely.

Proper means that Notice was provided in accordance with the laws on how it is to be performed in order to be considered valid, which in most states is by either a process server, service by an officer (usually a ‘City Marshall’ or county constable), hand delivery in open court, or United States Postal Service (“Mail, Mailed, Mailing”).

Sufficient means that the Notice contains enough information to inform the person upon whom it has been properly served as to why they are are being served and what is required of them, such as responding to or appearing in some specific place and time regarding some legal matter. The Notice should always state the basics of the specific matter itself, such as “You are being sued because of an accident in which you were involved with Mr. John Brown … ,” when the thing of which you are being Noticed will happen “… for which an initial hearing has been scheduled for 10:00am on April 1, 2016, … ,” and where the thing of which you are being Noticed will happen “… in the 126th District Court, Court Room 216, 1000 Guadalupe St., Austin, Texas, 78799.” This particular type of Notice is not required to spell out all of the details of the matter itself. But, at some point, there is supposed be another kind of Notice provided that does contain those details, and it usually comes either in the form of a civil complaint, or a criminal complaint and one or more types of charging instruments, such as an Information or Indictment, if it involves an alleged crime.

Timely means that the Notice was provided in a time frame that provided the recipient with enough time in advance to adequately prepare and respond to the Noticed matter and to comply with it by making an appearance and/or filing something as the case may be.

The Plot Thickens:

Now, what happened in this young lady’s case is egregiously criminal in its nature. No, not any of her actions, but that of the city attorneys and judges in the Austin Municipal Court. And here is what they did.

This happened during the week right before my client’s trial was scheduled to commence on the following Monday. While following my instructions on keeping a close check on the contents of the court record, my client made a discovery that left her so shocked that she immediately called me to let me know. She had already checked the record on the previous Monday (she had taken ill and missed the Wednesday check), and she was now checking the record again on Friday, the last work day prior to her scheduled trial.

In the court file she found two new documents that had just been filed that past Thursday, the day before. The two new documents were a Dismissal Order for each of her case(s) under their original cause numbers, the very cases that she was scheduled to go to trial for on that coming Monday. Following that Dismissal Order in the record was a new set of criminal complaints, and all of them had new cause numbers. And all of them were set to go to trial on that same Monday that her original cases had been set for.

Realizing that something wasn’t right about any of this, she panicked, not knowing what to do since she had no copies of these pleadings with her to refile and no time to go home, print out copies, and then come back to file them. Because, here it was, Friday night, and the court was closing at 8pm, approximately 30 minutes from the time she had called me. I told her to calm down and listen to me. I instructed her to have the clerk print her out one copy of everything that she had filed in the old cause numbers (all of which were pleadings I had written that made her prosecution on these bogus charges legally impossible, hence the need for these underhanded and criminal activities by the city attorney and at least two of the judges within the court).

I told her that, once she had the printed copies in-hand, she needed to line out the old cause number and replace it with the new one that was written on the new complaints. Then, immediately have the clerk refile them in the new cases. Since the Austin Municipal court scans all case filings into their computer system, she was only going to need one copy to refile in each of the new cause numbers, and then she would have the clerk return the new copy for each cause number to her with a proper court file stamp on it. I also told her that, while she was doing that, I would be writing her a new Motion demanding a disqualification of the judge and prosecutor, judicial and professional ethics sanctions against both, and a complete dismissal with prejudice of all charges. As soon as I had them done I would email them to the clerk and my client should get those printed out and filed as well.

At no time had my client ever been Noticed that her original cases had been dismissed or been provided with a copy of that dismissal order. Nor had she had any Notice that the city asshole,…. I mean attorney, had refiled the same charges under new cause numbers. And she definitely had no Notice that would have allowed her to review and challenge the form and substance of the new complaints, as is her right under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 45.018(b) and 45.019(f).

Who Actually Committed A Crime Here?

Now, do you fully understand what my client had just proven to have happened here, using only the official record? Without any Notice whatsoever to my client, the city attorney had quietly dismissed the original charges against her, and then recharged her with the same alleged offense using NEW complaints and NEW cause numbers, and, then, criminally conspired and colluded with at least two judges within the trial court to continue the new cases from the same point at which the original had been dismissed as if they were the SAME original cases!

Why do I claim that at least two judges were involved? Well, for one, because a judge is the only one who could have signed off on the original dismissals, and two, the actual trial judge would have to have seen the very same court file at least a day or so ahead of time, and would have known that my client’s due process rights had just been smeared into the pavement like an armadillo under the tires of a fully loaded logging truck. And finally, the judge who was present to preside over the trial was not the same judge whose name appeared on the secret dismissal order.

Now, you might be thinking “So what, why does that matter? Why should they start all over if they had already gotten this far in the original case?” Well, let me try and break those points down for you.

First, all of my client’s original pleadings filed in the cases were attached to the original cause numbers, you know, the ones that were just secretly dismissed? Which means that, if she loses at trial, and then goes after an appeal, the record will have only the NEW cause numbered items forwarded to the appellate court. Nothing with the dismissed cause numbers would be in that record. Meaning that none of her original pleadings would ever see the light of day in the appeals process in order to be reviewed by the appellate court. Not her challenge to jurisdiction, not her written objections to the lack of evidence, or the prosecutor’s use of inadmissible evidence. Nothing. It would be as if she had just sat back and let everything happen without being involved in putting on a defense for herself at all.

Second, while such a dismissal would not require going back to the beginning investigatory stages of a case, it is still being filed in the court as a new case, replete with new pleadings by the Snake…., I mean State. And my client’s right to Notice and due process, which includes the right to challenge any or all of these new pleadings, as well as any related evidence, must also start from the very beginning. Which would require a reset and restart of the entire judicial proceeding. To do anything else violates an individual’s fundamental right to substantive and procedural due process by denying them the opportunity to do any of these things.

Third, it is illegal. It constitutes several high crimes and misdemeanors by the very people entrusted to adjudicate these cases. People who, apparently, are perfectly fine with criminally conspiring and colluding to commit much higher level crimes in order to profit from those accused of offenses of a much less severe nature. You do understand that, right? Those two new documents are evidentiary proof that the city attorneys and judges of the Austin Municipal court knowingly conspire and collude to unconstitutionally and illegally deprive individuals of their fundamentally protected rights under color of law. And they are perfectly willing to continue doing so in order to ensure a conviction rate that will, overall, garner huge sums of money for their employer, the City of Austin, Texas, and of course, continuing long-term employment and a hefty paycheck for themselves in the process. All of which is, of course, protected by the State of Texas, as it garners its fair share from these illegal activities in the form of 50% of all fines adjudged and collected by the City of Austin. And this is true of every municipality and justice court in the entire State of Texas.

What this Vampiric System and its Minions Fears the Most… EXPOSURE TO DAYLIGHT!

Okay, enough explanation, let’s get to the meat.

Please remember that I was under a severe time constraint, having less than 30 minutes to formulate and write both of these documents and then get them emailed to my client at the clerk’s window so she could have them printed out, sign them, and then file them in her cases. So they are devoid of my usual refinements and niceties, like ToC’s, ToA’s, footnotes, case opinion references, etc., that are normally required for an appeal-ready pleading. But I was not expecting that an appeal would be necessary in these cases after what we had just discovered and had them dead-to-rights on. And I was right!

These are the individual pleadings that were filed in my client’s case(s) after the discovery of this criminal conspiracy and collusion involving the petty thugs and thieves employed by the City of Austin. Just imagine how these pathetically inept and corrupt souls spend their days posing as honest, hardworking, and knowledgeable prosecutors and judges. These documents are not the originals that were filed in her cases as relating to how we were fighting the charges themselves. They apply only to the criminal acts of the prosecutors and the judges of which I have spoken thus far. They document just why you should never trust any of these courts, regardless of the level at which they function.

The Main Body of Each of the Two Key Motions:

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Complaint:

1. Comes now Jane Doe, Defendant in error, as one of the People of Texas, without benefit of counsel, hereinafter “the Accused”, and makes this special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction for lack of a proper complaint and charging instrument.

A. Introduction.

Abbreviations used in this document:
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure TxCCrP

2. The Accused maintains that this is a special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction in CAUSE NUMBERS XXXXXX and YYYYYY for lack of jurisdiction, denial of due process, and to quash the facially and factually invalid complaints filed thereunder respectively.

3. The Accused maintains that she is NOT a trained legal professional, lawyer, or attorney,
and being denied assistance of counsel, is forced to proceed as a Pro Se litigant. The court
should and presumably does know that the Accused may NOT be held to the same standards of pleadings and knowledge of the legal process as a legal professional shall be. The Accused is being forced to navigate the legal waters against the Accused’s will and without benefit of legal counsel, using rules and procedures both unfamiliar to the Accused and not of her own making.

B. Facts.

4. The Accused is entitled to timely notice of any proceedings and/or filings in their case as a matter of right, which is a fundamental part of the right of due process. The STATE has knowingly and willingly failed to properly serve the Accused with a copy of the dismissal motion and order of the original cause number and filed with the court on February 22, 2010.

5. The STATE has knowingly and willingly failed to properly and timely serve the Accused with a copy of the dismissal motion and order involving the original complaint and case number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, thus depriving the Accused of the right of proper and timely notice.

6. The STATE has knowingly and willingly failed to properly and timely serve the Accused with a copy of the new complaint in the new case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The STATE has failed to do this within the requisite time frame of no later than one day prior to any proceeding in the prosecution under the complaint, and, therefore, is in direct violation of the Accused’s right to due process and to have a copy thereof pursuant TxCCrP Arts. 45.018(b) and 45.019(f).

7. However, the Accused is certain that the contents of the new complaint, as currently filed under CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY, are just as facially and factually invalid as the original complaint filed under CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX.

8. The Accused is certain of this because both complaints are presumably based on the same faulty information and false facts, specifically, those contained in both Citation #99999 and the official police report.

9. From all appearances, both of the Affiants who signed the two different complaints are asserting the same incorrect facts, and these false and incorrect facts are the same ones that appear within the aforementioned citation and police report. Both documents contain
numerous disparities in their content, facts, accuracy, and the reality of what happened at the scene of the accident on the night of October 2, 2010. These errors and inconsistencies are so blatantly obvious and inaccurate that the Accused finds it absolutely astounding that the city attorney has not even bothered to question them at any time whatsoever. This simply proves that neither the clerks of the court that are being recruited to sign the criminal complaints as Affiants, or the prosecutors and judges that are doing the actual recruiting, check any of the facts contained in the actual documentation that would allegedly support the facts asserted in the complaint.

10. The Accused can find absolutely no law requiring an accused to aide, abet, assist, or otherwise provide the prosecution with anything whatsoever for the use of perfecting the criminal complaint that is to be used to charge an accused. Therefore, it is the belief and understanding of the Accused that only true and correct facts may be asserted and appear on the face of the complaint, and the truthfulness and accuracy of the facts therein are solely the responsibility of the prosecution.

11. Pursuant TxCCrP Arts. 1.14(b) and 45.019(f), the Accused’s sole responsibility and duty in regard to the truthfulness of all facts and content of both the criminal complaint and the charging instrument is to “object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits commences,” and that is the limit of the Accused’s said responsibility under the law, to do nothing more than simply object to it.

C. Conclusion.

12. The Accused objects to the false facial and/or factual assertions made in both the original complaint as it was filed under CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, and the new criminal complaint as currently filed under CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY.

13. The Accused asserts that the complaint is factually inaccurate and facially invalid, and therefore, fatally flawed, and the Accused challenges said complaints in their entirety.

D. Lawful Demand.

14. The Accused moves the court to quash the criminal complaint filed under CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX as being both facially and factually invalid, and therefore, fatally flawed.

15. The Accused moves the court to quash the criminal complaint filed under CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY as being both facially and factually invalid, and therefore, fatally flawed.

16. The Accused also moves the court to levy civil and criminal sanctions against assistant city attorney, Steven H. Garret, and clerks of the municipal court, Lisa Munden, Erin Cole, and Annakaye Kirby, for prosecutorial misconduct, tampering with governmental records, abuse of official capacity, official oppression, criminal conspiracy, aggravated perjury, and denial of the right of due process.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Notice:

A. Introduction.

Abbreviations used in this document:

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure TxCCrP

2. The Accused maintains that this is a special appearance for the express purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction in CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY for insufficient notice and denial of due process.

3. The Accused maintains that she is NOT a trained legal professional, lawyer, or attorney, and being denied assistance of counsel, is forced to proceed as a Pro Se litigant. The court should and presumably does know that the Accused may NOT be held to the same standards of pleadings and knowledge of the legal process as a legal professional shall be. The Accused is being forced to navigate the legal waters against the Accused’s will and without benefit of legal counsel, using rules and procedures both unfamiliar to the Accused and not of her own making.

B. Facts.

4. The Accused filed several motions, judicial notices, and subpoenas in the original cause number for this case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX.

5. The Accused is in possession of a copy of a document obtained on February 22, 2011 from the court record associated with this case and which accompanies this motion as ATTACHMENT A, and shall be referred to hereinafter as same.

6. Despite ATTACHMENT A not being titled or styled in any way normally associated with a proper motion, its apparent use was to submit to some magistrate an ex parte State’s Motion to Dismiss the original complaint. The magistrate to whom this motion was presented, and who subsequently granted this alleged motion to dismiss, is unknown to the Accused, and, does not appear to be the magistrate known to be previously assigned to the Accused’s case. The Accused was never served with a copy of this “Motion”, nor was the Accused ever informed by any lawfully required method of notification that the original complaint had been dismissed and the case refilled with a new complaint and cause number.

7. The Accused also has not been served with a copy of any new complaint used to create the new case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The Accused is entitled as a matter of right to be notified of any complaint against her and to have a copy thereof no later than one day prior to any proceeding in the prosecution pursuant TxCCrP Art. 45.018(b).

8. As the Accused understands it, the proper procedure would have been to amend the original complaint, not to dismiss the entire case and then refile it under an entirely new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The Accused feels that this was done not for the sake of amending the complaint, but to invalidate all of the Accused’s previous filings and requested subpoenas under the original cause number, which would also explain the STATE’s failure to properly notice the Accused of the refiling.

9. If dismissal of the complaint and original cause was the proper procedure to follow, then, why was the Accused not properly notified of both the filing of the Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent refiling of the case under an all new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY?

C. Conclusion.

10. The Accused objects to these proceedings as the court and the STATE are moving forward with the prosecution as if all of the prior pretrial filings and actions under the original cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, are presumed to still be in full force and effect in the new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY. The Accused sees this both as a violation of Texas law and the Accused’s unalienable and statutorily protected right of due process by the law of the land.

11. It is the understanding of the Accused that the dismissal of a cause before the court puts an end to that cause, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX. As the Accused understands the law, the dismissal of a case would also void any and all proceedings and filings made in the case under that cause number. Thus, such a dismissal would necessarily divest the court of any jurisdiction and any further actions under that cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX.

12. Therefore, due to this understanding, the Accused believes that the filing of a new cause number, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY, begins an all new case and a new set of pretrial proceedings. If this is true, then, the requirement placed upon the prosecution and the court is that all filings and proceedings are to begin anew, and are to be performed in accordance with the rules of procedure codified in the relevant entirety of the TxCCrP just as if this was in fact, an entirely new case.

13. The Accused asserts that since the original cause number has been dismissed, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER XXXXXX, and a new cause number has been issued in the instant matter, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed directly to trial on the merits under the new cause number because none of the preliminary proceedings that are required to be performed in a new case have been performed at all. The court and the STATE are acting as if the new cause number may be treated as a continuance of all prior proceedings under the dismissed original cause number. This simply defies the logic of justice, fairness, impartiality, proper and adequate notice, and the right to procedural due process.

14. Pursuant TxCCrP Art. 45.001 the Texas Legislature made it clear that the entirety of Chapter 45 is to be construed for the following purposes:

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 45. JUSTICE AND MUNICIPAL COURTS
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art. 45.001. OBJECTIVES OF CHAPTER. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for processing cases that come within the criminal jurisdiction of the justice courts and municipal courts. This chapter is intended and shall be construed to achieve the following objectives:

(1) to provide fair notice to a person appearing in a criminal proceeding before a justice or municipal court and a meaningful opportunity for that person to be heard;

(2) to ensure appropriate dignity in court procedure without undue formalism;

(3) to promote adherence to rules with sufficient flexibility to serve the ends of justice; and

(4) to process cases without unnecessary expense or delay.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

15. The Accused asserts that TxCCrP Art. 45.001(1) makes “fair notice” a requisite of a criminal proceeding in a justice or municipal court. Affiant asserts that being served with a copy of the complaint either the day immediately prior to the date of a trial on the merits, or, in open court on the same day and commencement of such a trial, is neither fair nor adequate notice of new proceedings in a new case, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY.

16. As the Accused understands the law, there are specific statutory and constitutionally mandated steps and procedures in a criminal prosecution, and none of these have been done under the new cause number and in accordance with Texas law. The Accused asserts that this is a grievous judicial and due process error constituting grounds for prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, and, therefore, grounds for a dismissal with prejudice of the cause currently before the court, specifically, CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY.

D. Lawful Demand.

17. The Accused moves the court for a dismissal with prejudice of CAUSE NUMBER YYYYYY for the following reasons:

1) numerous violations of the Accused’s right of due process by the law of
the land;

2) by denying the Accused lawfully proper and timely notice of all filings
and proceedings;

3) by the conducting of ex parte proceedings and communications in a
criminal case;

4) for improper prosecutorial collusion with one or more clerks of the court
to immediately funnel all filings made by the Accused directly to the office of
the prosecuting City Attorney and thus creating the appearance of
impropriety, partiality and bias by a member of the court to the prosecution
and/or acting as a member of the prosecutorial “team”; and

5) for improper prosecutorial collusion with one or more clerks of the court
to deny the Accused proper and timely notice of proceedings and/or
prosecutorial filings as required by law.

18. The Accused also moves the court to levy civil and criminal sanctions against assistant city attorney, Steven H. Garret, and clerks of the municipal court, Lisa Munden, Erin Cole, and Annakaye Kirby for prosecutorial misconduct, tampering with governmental records, abuse of official capacity, official oppression, criminal conspiracy, aggravated perjury, and denial of the right of due process.

BLOG Post Edited (02-28-2011) 03 EC – MTN – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss For Improper Notice

BLOG Post Edited (02-28-2011) 03 EC – MTN – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Complaint.doc

Legislative / Ordinance / Texas / Texas Constitution

State Constitutions vs Ordinances – WHO has the legitimate power to make binding public law in your republic?

March 16, 2016taooflawLeave a comment

Okay,

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

==============================

I read your piece about city ordinances.

This is from the SC Summary Court Judge’s Benchbook:

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

Thanks for your time and efforts.”

==============================

This was my initial reply back to him:

==============================

His reply was:

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

==============================

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

========

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/scconst.php

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

1) the corporate entity itself that created the policy,

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/DocViewer.aspx?DocKey=PE%2fPE.1&Phrases=%22law+means%22&HighlightType=1&ExactPhrase=True&QueryText=%22law+means%22

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

==============================

Please take the time to read my much more in-depth article in the issue of ordinances by clicking here.

Author: taooflaw

Texas Legislature – Why Statist Idiots Should NOT Be Elected to Public Office (1)

The Licensing Scheme – Current Day vs. Original Intent

Chronology – How to document your case while learning the process.

Texas – How to Disqualify a Bad Judge

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Disqualify Judge AMENDED

Assertion of Rights

Special Appearance

Objection to Non-judicial Decision-making

Objection to use of private law

Respondent Contact information

Plaintiff Contact information

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Discussion

Reservation of additional objections.

Summary of Respondent’s Arguments.

ISSUE: Is the City of Rockdale Municipal Court bound by the Code of Crim. Proc. in Class C fine-only misdemeanor proceedings?

ISSUE: Did the court violate Respondent’s right of due process by ignoring specific rights codified in the Code of Crim. Proc.?

ISSUE: Did the Court violate the laws of this state and Respondent’s right of due process by requiring that a plea be entered before a court clerk rather than a proper judicial officer in a proper judicial proceeding?

ISSUE: Did the Court violate Respondent’s right of due process by failing to follow the requirements of the Code of Crim. Proc. and the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Request for Relief

Research – Statutes Are NOT the Law. Do Your Due Diligence!

Research -Your State Constitution Overrules Legislative Statutes and Municpal Ordinances

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

The Use of “Includes” and “Including” in Law

Austin Municipal Court – A Cesspool of Corruption in the Heart of Texas

Background:

Always Monitor the Court Record:

The Right to Notice and How It’s Properly Done:

The Plot Thickens:

Who Actually Committed A Crime Here?

What this Vampiric System and its Minions Fears the Most… EXPOSURE TO DAYLIGHT!

The Main Body of Each of the Two Key Motions:

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Complaint:

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Notice:

State Constitutions vs Ordinances – WHO has the legitimate power to make binding public law in your republic?