Category: Jurisdiction

My License Plate Light DOES work Officer!

Tao of Law2 Comments

“So, I got a ticket for my license plate light not working, but it DID work and the cop was lying!”

.

In Texas the “visibility” requirements for license plate lamps are found in Sec. 547.322(f) & (g).
.================
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.547.htm#547.322
.================

However, the ADDITIONAL criteria for how and when that viewable distance actually applies and must be observed and tested is found in Sec. 547.301(a), and that section requires that the 50′ distance measurement is to be observed/tested under the following conditions only:
.================
“a) Unless expressly stated otherwise, a visibility distance requirement imposed by this chapter for a lamp or device applies when a lighted lamp or device is required and is measured as if the vehicle were unloaded and on a straight, level, unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions.“
.================
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.547.htm#547.301
.================

As you can plainly see from the language of the statute, the mandatory requirement for measuring the visibility of the license plate lamp is inarguable as to its parameters and conditions. So, how do you fight a ticket like this and win? Well, as usual, that depends upon whether or not the courts and the prosecution will follow the law rather than their real motivational impetus of stealing money from any source they can find it regardless of the law and the facts. This requires that you come to a realization that is rather unsettling, the administrative law system pretending to be a criminal law system is itself designed from the ground up to be totally unfair, un-American, and unconstitutional in how it operates. With that realization comes another that is equally disappointing, that the only real goal here is to use these laws in a manner that allows those running the system to continue stealing from you and I by means of judicial and prosecutorial fraud, which they do by ignoring the full compliment of statutory elements required to be asserted and proven for these types of offenses.

IF the law were being followed and applied to the facts of the case as it should be, then winning a case like this would be no harder than simply asking all the right questions and then objecting to the officer’s complete lack of professional qualification to answer them with sworn testimony from the witness stand. For example, questions relevant to the additional individual elements of the actual charge itself, as found in this other general application in pari materia statute, and a few necessary stipulations from the Prosecution in open court, are as follows:

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

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

  • Judge, on and for the record, I would like to request some stipulations from the prosecution before we begin, the first being, does the prosecution intend to present or represent that this case is based upon a “strict liability” standard and reading of the statutes involved in the matter?
    • Judge, does the prosecution agree to stipulate that Transportation Code Sec. 547.301(a) is as equally in pari materia to the allegation as Secs. 547.322(f) & (g) of that Code?
    • Judge, as the prosecution has stated in the affirmative that this is a case involving a “strict liability” reading and application of the statutes in question, the Defense would ask the court to clarify if the issue of strict liability cuts both ways, meaning, is the STATE also under a strict liability requirement to both assert and prove every statutory element of the alleged offense in accordance with those elements clearly stated within the aforementioned statutes themselves, and is the STATE required to do so solely by the means of substantive facts and evidence and not merely the unqualified personal legal opinions and conclusions of its witness?
  • Furthermore, I ask for a stipulation from the prosecution as to whether or not the STATE intends to swear in and call the officer to testify as an expert witness upon any subject whatsoever so as to convert the officer’s otherwise unqualified personal legal conclusions and opinions upon that subject into allegedly admissible evidence for purposes of the court record and obtaining a conviction?
    • If the officer is not being sworn in or called to testify as an expert witness, I ask the court to grant a Defense Motion In Limine prohibiting the prosecution from asking the witness any questions relating to, or that can be construed as, requiring an answer based upon the witness’ unqualified personal legal opinions or conclusions about any aspect of this case, especially those that are required to be factual, and the Defense further requests that the officer also not be allowed to answer any questions relative to the facts of this case if the basis for the answer is his/her own personal legal opinions or conclusions about those facts.

================================
Relevant and Necessary Questions:
================================

  • Officer, was the ticket issued on a highway where some natural illumination or lights of any kind were present?
    • Officer, you testified that the time of day when you allegedly observed my license place light as being faulty was approximately xx:xxPM, correct?
    • What time did the sun completely vanish over the horizon on that day?
    • Was the light of the sun still viewable in the sky at the time of day you allegedly observed my license plate light?
    • At this time of day, could you still see the road and surrounding terrain without the use of any sort of additional illumination?
      • If you could see such things, then that must mean that there was some other source of illumination that was present and affecting your vision, because, if there was no illumination whatsoever you shouldn’t have been able to see anything at all, as it would have been pitch black, correct?
    • Does your police cruiser have headlights?
    • Does department policy allow you to operate your cruiser on an open and operational public roadway at nighttime without using your cruiser’s headlights?
    • So, the headlights of your patrol cruiser are always on and operational at all times once the sun goes down, including on the day you stopped me and wrote this citation?
    • So, just to be clear for the jury, your testimony thus far is, at the time you made your initial observation that my license plate light was allegedly not operational, that it was after sunset, but not so dark that you couldn’t see anything when standing outside of your cruiser, that we were both traveling upon an open and operational public highway, and that your cruiser’s headlights were on and operational. Is that a correct summary of your testimony thus far?
    • So, it is 100% true that you never once turned off the headlights on your cruiser while traveling upon the public roadway behind me on the night in question. Yes or No?
    • It is also 100% true that you were positioned directly behind my automobile when you made the alleged observation of my license plate light, correct?
    • Using a measurement of feet, how close to the rear of my automobile are you claiming to have gotten prior to making this observation?
    • Do the headlights on your cruiser appear to reflect more light back at you the closer you are to an object they are shining upon, meaning that it makes the object appear brighter and more visibly detailed?
    • So, it is 100% true that the headlights of your cruiser were shining either directly at or in the general direction of the rear of my automobile at that time you allegedly made this observation, correct?
    • And you are absolutely certain that you never turned your headlights off at any time while you were operating your police cruiser upon the highway and following behind me, yes?
    • Officer, can you tell us how the term “unlighted” is defined by the statute, or does the statute rely upon the ‘common’ definition by not defining it at all (READ it)?1 (Webster’s).
    • Isn’t the term “unlighted” a term that is synonymous with “unlit,” which, using the common and ordinary meaning found in Webster’s Dictionary is defined as “not illuminated with light?”2 (Webster’s).
    • Does having the rear of my automobile completely illuminated by the headlights of your police cruiser legally qualify as “unlighted,” meaning “not illuminated with light?”
    • If something is “not illuminated with light,” as the statute clearly uses the term, then doesn’t it seem logical that meaning implicitly implies the complete absence of light?
    • And since the observational requirement relates to a level and distance of visibility found only under the conditions that the law itself terms as the complete absence of light, wouldn’t the fact that your testimony about your cruiser’s headlights shining upon or at the rear of my automobile make such an observation under these specific legally permissible requirements impossible?
    • Wouldn’t the fact that there were multiple sources of illumination present make the element of “unlighted” impossible to prove since the common and ordinary meaning of unlighted is “not lighted?”
    • Even if the portion of roadway being “illuminated with light,” was the same place where you’ve testified that your observations took place, doesn’t the presence of such light sources 100% nullify the mandatory observational element of “unlighted?”
    • Isn’t it true that this statutory requirement exists precisely because the presence of other sources of light would almost certainly adversely affect the already minimalistic visible luminosity of a license plate lamp from at least 50′ away?
    • If multiple and more powerful sources of illumination were present, like the power headlights on your police cruiser, how could you possibly testify that the legal element of “unlighted” was met and proven?
    • So it is entirely possible, virtually 100% certain in fact, that you could not have possibly observed my license plate light under the conditions required by these statutory elements in order to legally determine if the license plate light was not actually working or not readily visible from at least 50′ in the first place, correct?
    • Was there a moon out that night?
    • Could you see the moon from the same location where you pulled me over and wrote this citation?
    • Doesn’t that make the moon yet another source of illumination that would make the “unlighted” element impossible to positively allege and prove?
  • Officer, was my automobile completely unloaded at the time of your alleged observations?
    • Did you ever ask me step out of the automobile?
      • So I remained inside my automobile the entire time, correct?
    • Did you personally remove, or have me remove, everything from the automobile that was not a factory approved integral part of automobile in order for it to meet the legal element of “unloaded?”
      • I have here the original advertisement that led me to purchase the very automobile you are testifying about here today, can you please read that part of the advertisement right there? It says the automobile “comes fully loaded,” and then supplies a complete list of items it is loaded with doesn’t it? Did you ever make me remove any of those items before you performed your visual observation test of my license plate light?
    • Since there was at least one individual (me) inside the automobile at the time, and it definitely was carrying other personal property and such, how could you possibly testify that the legal element of “unloaded” was met and proven?
  • Officer, can you tell us how the term “straight” is defined by the statute, or does it rely upon the ‘common’ definition by not actually defining the term at all (READ it)?
    • Isn’t it true that the term “straight” is not defined by the Texas Transportation Code?
    • Isn’t it also true that the common and ordinary meaning and implied use of the term “straight” is “free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities?”3 (Webster’s).
    • Officer, did you bring a certified copy of the surveyor’s report containing the actual survey made by a qualified surveyor that certifies that the exact section of road where you allegedly made your ‘observation’ of the ‘faulty’ taillight is actually “straight?”
    • Officer, did you bring a certified copy of the surveyor’s report containing the actual survey made by a qualified surveyor that certifies that the exact section of road where you allegedly made your ‘observation’ of the ‘faulty’ taillight is actually “level?”
    • Officer, can you please tell us from what University you obtained your degree in Meteorology?
      • Are you saying that you don’t have a degree in meteorology?
      • Then how are you officially and sufficiently qualified to testify about what constitutes “normal atmospheric conditions” at this precise location of roadway?
      • Since you don’t have a degree in meteorology, and you haven’t been sworn in to testify as an expert witness even if you did, how could you possibly testify that the legal element of “normal atmospheric conditions” at this precise location of roadway was legally met and proven?

The list of things you can go into about this particular offense, and many others in the Transportation Code, is quite comprehensive.

  • How far behind you was the officer when he activated his lights to pull you over?
  • Did the officer EVER get closer to your automobile than 50′ prior to the activation of their emergency lights?
  • Since this was a deputy sheriff, DOES the county sheriff’s office he works for even have legal authority to enforce the Transportation Code via a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Texas Department of Public Safety that was issued in accordance with all of the provisions of Rule §4.13 of the Texas Administrative Code and Sec. 701.001 of the Texas Transportation Code?

    Be aware that the majority of Sheriff’s offices in Texas DO NOT have this memorandum because they DO NOT meet the legal requirements of Rule §4.13 within the Texas Administrative Code in order to receive it. A “Memorandum of Understanding” is 100% REQUIRED by law under the provisions of the Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part I, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, Rule §4.13 BEFORE any enforcement authority can be delegated to local sheriff’s offices even if they DO otherwise qualify! This is equally true, if true at all, for municipalities and their police officers. The Texas Department of Public Safety is the only state agency given direct enforcement authority over the specific chapters of the Texas Transportation Code generally used for fraudulent and illegal revenue generation by counties and municipalities.
  • Lastly, once the deputy/officer actually approached the rear of the automobile and saw for certain that the license plate light WAS actually working, WHY did the asshole write a ticket already knowing it was an absolute fact that the ticket was 100% false [and, at that point, 100% malicious] as to the charge for which you were being cited?

This falsification alone makes the officer’s actions 100% ILLEGAL in that it was falsification of a government document (citation), simulation of legal process (citation and promise to appear), an illegal arrest without ANY form of probable cause, which is unlawful restraint (falsely held/restrained against your will for an illegal stop), impersonating a public servant (no authority OR jurisdiction to enforce the Transportation Code without that Memorandum of Understanding and the proper D.P.S. certifications), abuse of official capacity (color of law without lawful authority), and official oppression (color of law and violation of rights). In short, the officer made themselves into a FELON by making this stop without probable cause or lawful authority to enforce the Transportation Code. Therefore, it would be 100% feasible to claim that you have reason to believe and do believe that you could and should file criminal charges for each of these offenses.
.================
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.701.htm#701.001
.
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=4&rl=13
.================

Just in case you aren’t able to get to the Texas Administrative Code section using the above link, use this one to access the central page and then click your way down to the relevant sections from there:
.================
http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.viewtac
.================

.================================
Texas Penal Code Crimes Committed:
.================================
Sec. 37.10 Tampering with Governmental Record. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.37.htm#37.10

Sec. 32.48 Simulating Legal Process. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.32.htm#32.48

Sec. 20.02 Unlawful Restraint. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm#20.02

Sec. 37.11 Impersonating Public Servant.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.37.htm#37.11

Sec. 39.02 Abuse of Official Capacity.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm#39.02

Sec. 39.03 Official Oppression.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm#39.03
.================
.

1 Webster’s online dictionary definition of the word “unlighted” – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlighted.

2 Webster’s online dictionary definition of the word “unlit” – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlit.

3 Webster’s online dictionary definition of the word “straight” – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straight.

Texas Injustice – It’s Either Time for a Permanent Change or a New Revolutionary War

Tao of Law8 Comments

At some point earlier today the Texas Supreme court ordered the release of Dallas area salon owner Shelley Luther from jail where she was illegally sentenced to seven (7) days for contempt of court on May 5, 2020 by Dallas District Court Judge Eric Moýe. A charge that was illegally made and prosecuted against her on the grounds that she refused to comply with a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued by County Judge Clay Jenkins. an order that ILLEGALLY commanded her to close her perfectly legitimate and lawful business and face either a completely unconstitutional Bill of Pains and Penalties levied under color of law, or, suffer through potential bankruptcy and the starvation of her children and family. Mrs. Luther chose to refuse the abusive demands of these state and local officials and not bend her knee or her head in order to comply with them. Prompting me to exultantly cheer for her and all those like her, because such courage in the face of state-sanctioned and enforced adversity is extremely rare these days!

The TRO was issued by Judge Jenkins under color of law, that of Governor Greg Abbott’s equally unconstitutional and illegal “stay-at-home” executive order. The problem for Judges Jenkins and Moýe is this, a governor’s executive orders are NOT binding public law and have ZERO legal authority upon the public and their person, rights, or private property/business. They are binding ONLY upon other governmental actors and NO ONE ELSE!! The people of Texas declared this to be the case when we delegated law-making authority ONLY to the two houses of the Texas Legislature, which creates Bills containing LAW that a governor can ONLY sign to approve or veto. But a governor cannot rewrite or replace such legislation with his/her own form of legislative text and then sign their own new or replacement text into law. Thus, the TRO was ILLEGAL on its face the instant Judge Jenkins PRETENDED to issue it, and since there was ZERO lawful authority invested in his public office to issue such an order, he was instantly guilty of IMPERSONATING A PUBLIC SERVANT (judicial officer) and acting illegally under COLOR of law and lawful authority. Both of which are CRIMES under Texas AND federal law!

Judge Jenkins’ actions also constitute the commission of at least THREE other felony crimes under the Penal Code of the State of Texas, Simulation of Legal Process, Abuse of Official Capacity, and Official Oppression. (See links to the text of these crimes below).

Compounding Judge Jenkins’ crimes are those perpetrated from another judicial bench by Dallas District Court Judge Eric Moýe when he acted to illegally enforce an equally illegal TRO with a false charge of contempt of court against Mrs. Luther. Judge Moýe made the additional and contemptible mistake of staging the entire presentation as a political stunt to curry favor with his democratic constituency. I say this considering the facts and circumstances of the situation, which leave no other logical conclusion as to WHY he would even consider holding Mrs. Luther in contempt and throw her in jail for feeding her family with a perfectly legitimate and lawful occupation, especially when the Dallas area county jail has released numerous violent felons from that same jail due to the COVID-19 hoaxdemic. Thus, it should be irrefutable in the eyes of any grand jury and prosecuting attorney that Judge Moýe is equally guilty of each and every one of the same felony crimes that Judge Jenkins committed, if not an actual co-conspirator, which would then add yet MORE felony charges, organized criminal activity and conspiracy against rights.

So, what needs to happen now? Well, who would like to bet me a $1,000 that the Texas Supreme Court eventually rules as follows:

  1. that the executive order was being unconstitutionally and illegally enforced against public and private business’ as if it was actual binding public law;
  2. that the arrests, incarcerations, and criminal charges inflicted by law enforcement against the public and private business owners under color of that order were also unconstitutional and illegal;
  3. the TRO issued by Judge Jenkins was unconstitutional and illegal;
  4. the contempt charge and hearing held by Judge Moýe was equally unconstitutional and illegal; AND
  5. they ALL violated the individual protected rights of not only Shelley Luther, but all the people of Texas; THUS
  6. BOTH judges lack any and all forms of immunity for their acts and can be held 100% personally responsible and liable, as there was absolutely NO LAW and jurisdiction providing them with any such authority OR jurisdiction to do ANY of these acts whatsoever!!

In the off-chance that the Texas Supreme Court either can’t or won’t rule in this way, then the United States Supreme Court most certainly should. And if neither of them are willing and able to do so, well, that’s where the alternative subjects contained in the title of this article must begin to come into play and become actual actions.

Once that ruling has been handed down, the next step SHOULD BE that the Texas Supreme Court rule and order that BOTH of these judges be judicially disrobed, disbarred, and publicly castrated (no, I really didn’t mean to say castigated). Preferably just minutes before they are both publicly hung for sedition. Even if they are not hung (or castrated), they should NEVER be allowed to enter into any public office ever again.

Furthermore, the ONLY way that either of them should EVER be allowed to even set foot in a courtroom in the future is as defendants on trial for their crimes or in the multitude of sure-to-follow civil suits for actual and punitive damages caused by their actions. Neither of these men SHOULD be able to rely upon “judicial immunity” to shield and protect them from liability, because neither of them acted with ANY legal authority based upon ANY validly enacted legislation, thus, they acted ENTIRELY without ANY jurisdiction of any kind whatsoever. In fact, the court bailiffs present during these proceedings SHOULD have seen and known these facts and immediately intervened by charging and arresting these judges before their gavel could ever be raised, much less come down with an illegal edict attached to it.

It should also come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that BOTH of these scumbag judges are “progressive” liberal Democrats, and their actions over the last few days have placed observable proof of that fact on full display. Judge Moýe’s reprehensible demand that Mrs. Luther bow down and kiss his ass, or least his judicial “ring of power,” is one of the most despicable and obscene acts ever committed by a sitting justice outside of those presiding over the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, and his punishment should mirror the atrocity and audacity of his crimes.

Just so you are all aware of how this illegal arrest and incarceration of Mrs. Shelley Luther SHOULD play out, using Trezevant v City of Tampa as the standard of $1,087.00 PER MINUTE (awarded $25,000 for 23 minutes of illegal incarceration), the total amount she has established precedent to sue for is actually $10,956,960.00 if she stays in jail for the whole 24 hours of the full seven days.

Here’s the math on that:
Her incarceration is ordered for Seven (7) days.

#Days x #Hours per Day x #Minutes per Hour = #Total Minutes
D x H x MM = TMM
7 x 24 x 60 = 10,080

Trezevant was awarded judgment of $25k by a jury for being illegally held in jail for a total of 23 minutes:
$25,000 ÷ 23 = $1,086.96 ($1,087 rounded up)

Total Minutes x Restitution per Minute = Total Punitive Damages
TMM x RPM = TPD
10,080 x $1,087 = $10,956,960.00

This is the full amount that prior court precedent shows she could potentially sue EACH of these idiot judges for in their personal capacities, because there was absolutely no official capacity under which either of them could claim to be acting, as there IS NOT and never was ANY kind of binding public law investing them with legal protection OR authority to do anything that they did to this woman. Neither was any such power and authority ever invested in any of the other judges across the state that proceeded similarly against literally thousands of other Texans and out-of-state visitors. Each and every one of them is 100% responsible and liable for their unconstitutional and illegal individual acts.

At that rate I want one of these dumb-as-dirt assholes to send my ass to jail for a fucking MONTH just for breathing in public without a face mask and publicly shouting for all of these judges and other public servants to suck both my balls AND my dick at high noon while standing in the middle of the foyer under the Texas Capitol dome!

So, have you people finally had enough, or are you still ignorantly thinking and believing that ANY of these people are acting in our best interest or by any lawful authority that WE the People granted to them? It’s time to make the choice, live free, or die enslaved and humbled at the feet of far lesser liberty loving men and women than we. As for me, they had better kill me where I stand, because I won’t go quietly and I won’t go alone when they come. That is how committed I am to being free. The rest of you can be sheep and house pets if you want, but stay the fuck out of my way when the shooting starts, because I won’t bother with being selective of any targets coming at me from that side of the firing line.

https://www.trunews.com/stream/salon-owner-released-from-jail-by-texas-supreme-court

Texas Supreme Court Orders Release of Dallas Salon Owner Shelley Luther

https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-supreme-court-orders-release-of-dallas-salon-owner-shelley-luther/embed/#?secret=GG1zLinHoW https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.32.htm#32.48

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.37.htm#37.11

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm#39.02

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm#39.03

https://openjurist.org/741/f2d/336/trezevant-v-city-of-tampa-c-trezevant

Actual Defense Motions & Criminal Complaint for Challenging Texas Transportation Code Cases.

Tao of Law2 Comments

Apologies for My Extended Absence in Posting New Content.

Hello all. I realize it has been awhile since I’ve posted on the blog, but I have been swamped with rewriting the legal due process and ‘traffic’ seminar material, organizing and preparing for the availability of on-line classes, and trying to design an upcoming greenhouse aquaponics project (which I will be starting another blog on when I get it going).

Now that my extended absence has been explained, let’s get to the grist of this new article.

 

“Yippee Ki-yay, Motherfucker.”

Yippee Ki-yay Motherfucker

For all you People that have been subjected to the highly fraudulent processes and procedures associated with being issued, and then having to deal with, a “transportation” related citation alleging the commission of a Texas Transportation Code regulated offense by some willfully ignorant and indoctrinated ‘bot minion of THE STATE OF TEXAS, I announce that it is time for you to rejoice. Below you will find three embedded documents that explain why. I hope that you never have to use them, but, if you do, that you have the best chance possible in stomping the shit out of the opposition.

 

How to Read and Use Seminar Documents…

Just like all of the documents in the seminar material, you will find colored highlighting of certain sections of text. Each color has a specific meaning and requires a specific action by you when using the document. I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to do this in a Word document so as to work just as well for those people who happen to be color blind, so please do your best.

The text that is highlighted in yellow signifies a piece of factual information that is specifically relevant to your case and its associated persons and events. These facts will take the form of dates, times, names, places, reference numbers, personal pronouns, etc., etc. For those facts that are repeated throughout the document, you can simply do a search and replace the text of the default fact to change it into the text specific to your case. This is especially easier than a manual replacement of each personal pronoun reference in the document. Personal pronouns will be terms such as I, you, he, she, it, we, they, me, him, her, us, and them.

Text that is highlighted in light blue (Cyan) signifies text that, if factually true, correct, and relevant to your specific matter, can simply have the Cyan highlighting removed and other wise left unchanged (except where there is also yellow highlighted text signifying a specific fact that needs to be changed). However, if the highlighted test is not true, correct, and relevant to your specific matter, it should be selected and completely deleted from the document.

In order to make certain that the use of search and replace didn’t confuse a personal pronoun reference for yourself with that of the officer, judge, or other party or person involved in facts of the matter as stated within the document, each personal pronoun use has its own qualifier prefix.

For instance, any personal pronoun that applies to you, as the Respondent, in the document, is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “res,” as in “reshis/her,” “reshim/her,” “ress/he,” etc., etc. By doing a search and replace for either of these strings of characters (minus the double quotes), you can choose to replace each occurrence with the appropriate personal pronoun, such as “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”, “his” or “hers”, etc., etc.

By the same token, any personal pronoun that applies to a specific officer in the document is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “off[Badge#],” as in “off[7856]his/her,” “off[7856]him/her,” “off[7856]s/he,” etc., etc. By doing a search and replace for either of these strings of characters (minus the double quotes), you can choose to replace each occurrence with the appropriate personal pronoun, such as “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”, “his” or “hers”, etc., etc.

Lastly, and just for an FYI kind of point, any personal pronoun that applies to a specific judge in the document is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “jud[#],” where the pound sign (#) represents some number associated with that particular judge, i.e. the 1st judge I saw in the case was …, and the 2nd judge I appeared before or issued some order was …,” for which I’m sure you can figure out the rest of it from the above examples.

 

What the Embedded Documents Actually Are.

“Freedom! Yeah Baby!” ~ Austin Powers

 Yeah Baby Yeah

The first document is an editable copy of a criminal complaint that YOU will be filing against the judge, in his/her magisterial capacity, who presides over the court in which your case is to be heard, if a certain condition precedent has been set, which it almost certainly will be.

This criminal complaint addresses the various highly illegal ‘form letters’ that are being used and issued as a fictitious and fraudulent legal order and summons by virtually every magistrate of every justice and municipal court in the entire Texas republic, regardless of what actual form that letter may actually take. Suffice it to say that, whatever form this letter does take, it still will not be in the form actually required by law to constitute a legally valid order and summons. The kicker is, that, the magistrate, as the head of the court and the one legally responsible for all that goes on there, by issuing these illegal form letters, is actually guilty of several high crimes and misdemeanors under both Texas and federal law. Crimes that unavoidably result in knowing and willful violations of your due process rights.

You will be filing this criminal complaint against the magistrate of the court based upon specific Texas law regarding the mandatory requirements for a specific ‘legal process’, which is the technical name for legal documents like judicial orders, warrants, summons, etc. The term usually refers to the kinds of legal documents that are required to be served at some specific point in time relevant to the progression of a prosecution, on a particular party associated with the matter before the court, and commanding some specific action from them, such as to appear in court on some stated specific date and time for instance. In this particular case, the legal process with which we are taking issue is that of imitating a legally valid summons, which the aforementioned form letter is fraudulently pretending to be.

The second document is an editable copy of a Motion to Quash the Unlawful Summons, i.e. the illegal form letter, which is to be filed jointly with the first document (criminal complaint).

When you read through this document, you will see what you need to be looking for in a valid legal summons, as well as what specific statutes govern the requirements for that specific type of legal process. Similar information will also be stated in the criminal complaint.

The third document is an editable copy of a Motion to Quash the Unlawful Citation & Complaint, which is also based upon specific legal requirements for such instruments under Texas law and the right of due process that are glaringly non-existent on the face of the citation and the criminal complaint created by THE STATE OF TEXAS.

 

Respondent’s Legal Armor, Sword, & Shield – The Documents.

The Criminal Complaint:

200(0) EC – SCS – Sworn Criminal Statement SLP, AoOC, OO

The Motion to Quash Unlawful Summons:

ETC-200(Z)-RMQS Motion to Quash Unlawful Summons

 

The Motion to Quash Unlawful Citation & Complaint:

ETC-200-(D)-RMQC Quash Citation & Complaint for Failure to State an Offense v2018-07-24-000.00

 

Use them in good health and with extreme prejudice.

CATCH & RELEASE – THE ‘NOTICE TO APPEAR’ SCAM

Tao of Law2 Comments

What actual legal authority does a properly authorized officer or agent of the Texas Department of Public Safety really have to compel you to sign a “Notice/Promise to Appear” or to take you to jail if you refuse? Well, it certainly isn’t what they tell you they can do. And what they tell you they can do certainly isn’t legal according to the statutes. And if it isn’t legal according to the statutes, then they don’t have any immunity for acting beyond their clearly stated lawful authority under any particular statutory scheme. Because their duty isn’t discretionary when it comes to what is actually made mandatory for the officer under the statutes and what is completely optional for the accused individual when it comes to obtaining a signature on the “notice/promise to appear” portion of citation for any given “transportation” offense.

So, if you really want to understand just what activity the officer is given discretionary authority over during the course of a “transportation” stop, read on. The first document is a full constitutional and legal analysis of Chapter 543 of the Texas “Transportation” Code and how those statutes actually interrelate to various other statutory provisions and processes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure and the “Art. 15.17 ‘magistration’ proceeding.

Meanwhile, as you are learning about what is discretionary versus mandatory when it comes to an authorized officer’s legal duties during a traffic stop, you will also have the opportunity to learn how to properly fight a speeding citation in Texas. The second embedded document is a complete “Plea to Jurisdiction” motion that challenges every aspect of a ‘speeding’ charge as it is both required to be stated in a criminal complaint and properly filed information, how it must be prosecuted and proven in court in order to survive a due process violation challenge, and how Texas courts and prosecutors never do either one correctly, if at all. The pleading uses only the existing Texas Statutes, the Texas Constitution, and case law on due process and certain required procedures.

What it effectively proves is that Texas does not, and never has had, a criminal offense known as ‘speeding’ within any of its statutory Codes, and why that is so important to fully comprehend when fighting the citation.

However, if you don’t have the capability to understand the arguments and issues in these two documents as they are written, then you are possibly better off just paying the ticket rather than fighting it. Because, when you lose a case by not understanding the laws, facts, and arguments you are using to support your position, you make the bar to winning higher and more difficult to reach for those that come behind you trying to fight their own case. So either dedicate yourself to learning how to really do it right, or don’t sacrifice someone else’s chances before they even get there by fucking up your own.

Legal White-paper – Notice to Appear (last updated 08/31/2017 @2000hrs):
Plea to Jurisdiction Motion – Not a Legal ‘Person’ Subject to Speeding Statutes (last updated 08/04/2017 @0230hrs):

When in Rome…

Tao of Law1 Comment

I am surprised by how many people there are that seem to view the right to self-defense as being something strictly associated with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Soldier vs. The Gladiator.

I’m surprised because I cannot understand the mindset that, when it comes to being able to defend oneself, or someone else who can’t act for themselves, why would you knowingly limit yourself to only being able to do so with a gun or other physical forms of combat? No soldier goes into battle untrained in at least some form of hand-to-hand combat, because it would be utterly foolish to rely on the fact that your gun, or ammunition for it, will always be available on a battlefield when you need them most. To think this way is severely limiting to how well one is likely to do when having to improvise in battle. Ask any United States Marine or Special Forces soldier what his most important weapon is, and to a man they will answer “my mind.” These soldiers know that it is their mind, their ability to critically analyze, plan, and act in an instant on the available information is what will keep them alive and fighting.

Soldiers are also taught how to think strategically and pre-plan their course of action to the best extent possible. The smart soldier also plans for multiple contingencies that account for both the success and possible failure of the primary and secondary mission objectives. But the truly wise soldier plans not only for all for these things, but also with the constant reminder of the primary rule of war, that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

The ability to plan ahead-of-time is the primary difference between a soldier of war and a gladiator of the Colosseum. While a soldier will usually have the opportunity to survey the field of battle beforehand, or at least to study a map that will provide some sort of useful information and intelligence about the terrain and what does or may exist there, a gladiator rarely has such an opportunity. A true gladiator would be forced to enter into the arena without any idea of what was on the other side of the hypogeum doors until they were opened. He was usually driven onto the killing grounds at spear point if he would not enter willingly to face whatever was awaiting him and his companions there. Sometimes it would be other men, sometimes animals, sometimes machines, and sometimes it may be any combination of these. Sometimes the gladiator would have comrades to battle beside him, and at others he would have to battle and kill those he had come to know as friends off the field. A gladiator had to be truly adaptable and willing to do whatever it took to win, because it was the rarest of occasions when he would step into the arena with the odds of survival and victory already in his favor.

In addition to the real gladiators and battles that the Colosseum accommodated, it was also host to the Praegenarii, or ‘mock gladiator,’ who served as a fill-in act during intervals and scenery changes between battles. They usually conducted their mock fights in a comical and clownish manner for the entertainment of the crowd and the Emperor during the lulls between games. They would conduct mock recreations of the days highlights in the gladiator games or other historical battles of other legendary gladiators. They even sometimes performed mock versions of great historical Roman campaign battles, that is, when the Emperor was not forcing real gladiators to shed real blood to reenact them. It was not even unheard of that, if the Praegenarii were particularly displeasing to the crowd or the Emperor in their antics, the next battle to be watched could very well be between the clownish and unskilled Praegenarii and the real gladiators.

The Original Roman Colosseum.

In ancient Rome, the Colosseum was a huge open arena that covered approximately six (6) acres. Its seating capacity allowed it to hold between 50,000-80,000 Roman spectators. The arena floor of the Colosseum had 36 individual trap doors installed, allowing for what was then considered some very elaborate special effects by modern standards. But these trapdoors could also contain hidden dangers that were yet to be unleashed on the combatants, or even be rigged as a trap to injure or kill them. It is said that more than 700,000 people of all races, religions, and descriptions, died on the bloody arena floor over the years that it was active. The Colosseum of Rome was an extremely dangerous and ugly place to be a combatant, whether voluntary or involuntary.

 

The New American Colosseums.

Ancient Rome may have had the Colosseum, but modern America has its own smaller scaled version of this dangerous battlefield, we just have a less grand name for them, courts. This new form of the ancient Colosseum has guards and games masters, just like the original. Also just like the original, they are each presided over by their own little black toga-wrapped Emperor that thinks him or herself to be a god in their own right. Despite the egocentric nature of their own self-importance, we normally just call them judges.  By Comparison, if you think the Colosseum was a rigged game against the original gladiators, you haven’t seen anything that compares to the rigged game that is the American court system.

The New Gladiators.

Did you know that there were more than twenty (20) different types of gladiators that appeared and fought in the Roman Colosseum. But despite all of that diversity, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the diversity of new American gladiators that exist today.

It should go without saying that, considering the potential consequences of having to fight in the Roman Colosseum, it would be hard to imagine that someone would actually choose to voluntarily become a gladiator to do battle there, much less to do so on an ongoing basis. This wasn’t really a problem in the days of the Roman empire, as most gladiators were prisoners, slaves, or otherwise conscripted into service. It is in this sense that the American People have been compelled to participate in the ‘just-us’ system as one of these new types of gladiator. This happens because they are being forced to enter into this new American Colosseum we call the courts, where they have to defend themselves against an often much more powerful foe. One who is well known for not fighting fair or following the rules in order to win its battles. This foe is the State, its agencies, and its actors.

This means that the American people now face a choice much like that faced by those who were unfortunate enough to have been conscripted into the role of the Roman gladiator. Learn, train, fight, win, or perish (lose).

 

The New Praegenarii.

The only bright side of this new system is that the role of the gladiator victim is not the only one that has been carried forward in a new form, there is also a new kind of Praegenarii. Be aware that the new Praegenarii in our modern version of the Colosseum comes in two different forms, that of attorneys, and the other as Patrinuts. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both are usually pretty reliable for providing the crowd with a good laugh or eyeball roll at their antics and stupidity.

The Attorneys.

The attorneys act more seriously and gladiator-like, much as the Praegenarii who were reenacting true-to-life versions of Rome’s most glorious campaigns and battles, but would still do so with some small comedic elements if one watches closely, and, occasionally, even with a grand explosion of clownish and ignorant behavior. The truly nefarious thing about the attorneys as modern Praegenarii is not really their level of actual skill in the use of the normal weapons, but rather their unscrupulousness and totally underhanded methods of combat, which is usually done by completely twisting and corrupting the weapons themselves beyond recognition. While most attorneys that you will encounter in these arenas have all the skills necessary to look and act like real gladiators, they almost never have the skills and expertise necessary to engage in a real fight and win it. The key is in knowing how to tell just when and how a battle is winnable, and what tactics will work best to accomplish that end, which you can best learn and apply by watching and listening to other attorney(s) and comparing what you hear and see them do to what you should have already taken the time and effort to know for yourself about the proper way to engage in these fights, and that is through the learning the rules of engagement and other information described below.

The Patrinuts.

Then we have the Patrinuts. When a Patrinut dons the garb of a gladiator, it is truly a sight to behold. Not because of how awe-inspiring and fearsome they look, sound, or conduct themselves in battle, but because of how the complete massacre of the Patrinuts that usually ensues more closely resembles that gaggle of foppish and totally unskilled clowns and buffoons with inferentially poor acting skills who pissed off the crowd of Roman spectators or disappointed the Emperor to such an extent that they were forced to fight to the death against a group of real and battle-hardened gladiators. A gladiatorial battle involving a Patrinut will almost always provide some level of entertainment, usually ranging from sheer cross-eyed boredom, to slack-jawed disbelief, to outbreaks of belly laughter so uproarious and voluminous that the Emperor orders the entire Colosseum cleared until he can decide upon a course of action. Which usually winds up being that the Patrinut is stripped naked and thrown to the lions for the sheer entertainment and appeasement of the crowd.

 

How to Survive the Colosseum and
Retire as a LIVE Gladiator.

If you wanted to survive the Colosseum as a gladiator, you had to learn how to be the best and most awesomely skilled gladiator you could be. This means that those men and women had to become skilled in every manner of weapon, shield, and hand-to-hand combat technique they could learn and master in whatever time they were allotted to make ready. They not only had to master the weapons of war, but also the accompanying accouterments by becoming masters of horse and chariot, conventional and unconventional battle tactics, and thinking and acting on their feet in the heat of battle. It meant learning how to think, act, and react very differently than they once did, or ever would again.

This leads us to the as-yet unrealized problem faced by most Americans today, that these preparatory requirements have not actually changed for any of us as the new American gladiator. Why you might ask? Well, like it or not, there is always the possibility even today, a much greater one in fact, that, just like it was possible in the days of Rome, you could just as easily be conscripted to appear in one of these newfangled Colosseums and coerced into engaging in a fight you never asked for or wanted.

Learning how things worked on the arena floor, and how to adapt to whatever situation or enemy that may arise, was extremely important to a gladiator’s survival. In our modern-day arenas, just like the gladiators of old, you need to learn several things before you have to enter if you are to survive to see another day. The longer you have to prepare and train to sharpen your skills before that day arrives the better. The wise gladiator is one who knows that, even though he has yet to actually enter into the theater to engage in a real battle, he should take advantage of the time he has to make himself as battle-ready and survival -prone as possible.

By studying the rules and tactics necessary for waging these new kinds of engagements, you can be far more successful than you might otherwise think. The primary rules and weapons used on today’s field of battle are the Federal and State Rules of Evidence, Procedure, and Judicial/Professional Conduct. These are formidable and trustworthy weapons in the hands of a skilled gladiator. Augment those skills with an irrefutable understanding of the multitudinous variations of the other weapons and skills of war used on the battlefield, meaning the modern laws and statutes, and you become an awesome gladiatorial force to be reckoned with. It is not nearly as difficult as many would have you believe to become equally or superiorly skilled compared to most of the attorneys that you will face in this arena. Remember, far more of them are really just a bunch of clowns and buffoons who are merely playing at the role of being a real gladiator than even they tend to realize. This usually makes them overconfident and foolish in how they will try to duel and deal with you more often than not. Which means that the better you prepare and hone your skills at being a real new American gladiator now, even if you currently feel that you have no need of such skills, the more likely it will be that your newfound talents will enable you to more quickly draw your opponent within reach of your legal weapons for a quick and clean kill if and when the time to fight finally arrives.

But, beware still the fickle and spiteful Emperor, for he is the most dangerous opponent of all. His is the power to overrule everything, even your hard-won victory, at least for a time. However, the better you handle these weapons and yourself, the more likely that the Emperor is not going to be willing to risk angering the crowd when they are showing overwhelming support for you as the victorious gladiator, no matter how much the Emperor might secretly wish to do you harm. The more knowledge and skill you have, the more likely the Emperor will not act upon his own capricious whims or out of sheer envy and jealousy over your popularity with the People when you finally stand as an uncoerced and free man at the end of the day.

Just try to avoid stepping in all of the Patrinut blood pooling on the ground as you leave the arena.

State Administrative Agencies Regulate Only “Legal Persons.”

Tao of LawLeave a comment

The bane of all fundamental human rights in America today is the rise to power of an unconstitutional institution known as “administrative law.” It permeates every area of our lives in ways that even a Korean Kimche fart in a tiny room with no windows can do.

Administrative law is unconstitutional because it is used to violate every single rule of due process that exists to protect our individual rights. It allows punishment without judicial review, and legalized extortion as a legitimate power of government that the People never intended or approved. In short, it is legalized theft backed by the power of the State.

The Patrinuts all think that the only remedy to be had in such instances is to use what they refer to as “commercial processes.” For example, legal remedy based upon unsubstantiated theories such “Accepted for Value (A4V),” “Commercial Liens,” or “U.C.C. Redemption.” Not only have I never found any lawful merit in these processes as the Patrinuts try to apply and use them, but they usually wind up making matters much worse for those people that try to do so. I also say that these theories are unsubstantiated based upon the fact that 1) I have never seen any of them work as described, 2) I have never seen them produce results that are repeatable in multiple instances, 3) I can find no law or authoritative documentation that establishes any of them as valid legal remedies for anything the Patrinuts try to use them for, 4) more people lose, and lose worse by using them, than those that are not using them.

It also doesn’t help that you pretty much have to swallow a whole sheet of LSD-laced postage stamps to have any of the Patrinut theories even begin to make any sense, which is why they can only EXPLAIN to you how they think it is all supposed to work, but cannot actually PROVE or document any of it from an authoritative verifiable source. This is compounded by any attempts they may make to convince you by posting links to statutes and small sections of case cites from questionable internet resources, and then you reading them only to find out that the case citations are completely fake, totally out of context, or not at all on-point for the issue at hand. Then, the pièce de ré·sis·tance turns out to be that Patrinut guru that’s been providing this information to the public forum has the reading comprehension and interpretation skills of a cardboard box, with the box itself actually being far more useful than this Patridiots so-called information. At least you can take all the stupid documents, videos, recordings, and other crap you got from the Patrinut and carry it all to the trash in the box.

So, while the Patrinut crowd is so busy over-complicating everything, even how to be stupid and proud of it, I almost always have found that the best real remedy in the law that one could possibly seek out and rely upon, is one that already exists in the law itself. Especially one that is verifiable, reusable, reliable, and produces repeatable and consistent success in multiple instances. This is something that I have never seen any of the Patrinut’s alleged  remedies accomplish.

What does this all have to do with administrative law you may ask? Well, believe it or not, despite its unconstitutionality in so many ways and areas when it comes to due process, it very often also provides you with an immediate remedy to any administrative issue you might currently be having to contend with. Administrative law generally supplies this remedy in the form of what is commonly referred to as an “affirmative defense” against any administrative allegation(s) and the related monetary fine(s), fee(s), or penalty(s) that might otherwise follow if left unrebutted by an answer to said allegation(s). The downside being that any failure on your part to provide and answering rebuttal results in you actually losing the issue by default and then having to seek remedy anew at a greater cost and effort to yourself.

Affirmative defenses are not strictly limited in availability to administrative law. Many areas of law, including criminal, have statutorily provided affirmative defenses for certain types of criminal allegations.  For example, in this screen shot you can see all of the individual chapters of the Texas Penal Code where the phrase “affirmative defense” can be found in relation to certain crimes. If you click the picture it should take you to the Texas Legislatures web site, where you can follow the individual returned search links to see how an affirmative defense applies to a particular crime and how to use it for your defense if you are accused of the crime and the defense applies.

Search Results - Penal Code 'affirmative defense'

This is pretty much the same way it works in administrative law as well. The one caveat is that administrative statutes don’t always specifically state that an affirmative defense exists. In which case, you have to know not only how to read and comprehend the statute, but also how to determine if such an affirmative defense is actually available as a remedy.

Which brings us to the actual purpose of this article. Texas has what is known as the “Texas Commission on Environmental Quality” or “TCEQ” for short. The TCEQ is a State administrative agency, and one of their areas of jurisdiction is the oversight of “irrigators,” which is really a shorter and more fancy term for “underground sprinkler installer and repairman.” Now, the TCEQ, like any other State administrative agency, is all about the money, which normally comes through the form of licensing, such as those who wish to be state licensed irrigators. But, also like any other State administrative agency, they like to abuse their power and authority. Which also means that the legal counsel for the TCEQ is more than willing to intentionally pervert the administrative laws to those very ends. Usually for the purpose of extorting excessively exorbitant administrative fees, fines, and penalties, from those who are unlucky enough to fall within their jurisdiction and/or invoke the ire of any of the petty bureaucrats therein.

I have a friend who is an irrigator and owns his own irrigation business. A business he has worked in for more than 40+ years. He started this business long before there even was a TCEQ and before it was necessary to obtain a license to simply earn a living by burying plastic pipes in the ground to run water through so your lawn doesn’t turn brown and blow away.

Needless to say, the TCEQ decided to set their monetary extortion sights on my friend, to the tune of over $6,000.00, per allegation, per day of alleged violation. In other words, to extort enough money to either force him out of business or to fund their whole budget for the next six years. My friend is almost 70, and runs a crew of 3-4 people from a single pickup truck and trailer. Needless to say, that kind of money simply doesn’t exist for him. There is also the slight problem that comes from there being a constitutional protection against “excessive fines imposed” in the Texas Bill of rights, to wit:

Sec. 13.  EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW.  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.  All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Administrative law agencies and their legal counsel would have you believe that these protections are not available or applicable to you if they have set their sights on getting your money. They are patently wrong on that front. These protections are available to the People, but, they are not available to the “legal person” that the statutes regulate. In the ‘legal’ eyes and presumptions of administrative law, these two ‘beings’ are not the same, and have totally different existences and rights. Which, believe it or not, is actually a correct interpretation of the law.

However, what happens to that legal presumption when it is being applied to one of the people that is not also one of its “legal persons?” What happens when the TCEQ tries to apply its regulatory codes, which clearly state that they apply only to the legal person who is one of their licensed irrigators, but not to the living being who is not one who possesses its license?

Well, in this case, what happens is the statutory inference of an unbeatable affirmative defense that ensures that we can prevent the TCEQ from accomplishing its goals of either extorting my friend out of all of his money, or forcing him out of business altogether because he won’t kowtow and allow himself to be forced into acquiring their license. In other words, his remedy, and yours, is actually already built into the law itself. They just hope that you don’t know that or how to find it, much less make use of it.  The key to it all is to never leave them an ‘out’ that they can use against you, whether now or later.

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

Tao of LawLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

To be qualified to serve as a juror you must:

1. be at least 18 years of age;

2. be a citizen of the United States;

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

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

5. be of sound mind and good moral character;

6. be able to read and write;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(45)  “United States” means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jurisdiction -The Authority to Murder and Steal While Calling It ‘Legal’

Tao of Law3 Comments

Remember when the federal government obeyed the constitution and stayed out of our lives and affairs? Yeah, me neither. And that certainly isn’t going to change any time soon unless we put the evil Genie back into the bottle and shoot it into outer space. But we have to understand a few things in order to accomplish that goal in an expedient manner.

The federal government is conducting a massive land grab within the states of the union. They are literally using federal agencies and bureaucracies to do their dirty work for them in transferring these massive land holdings into the hands of the federal government in the interest of multi-million/billion dollar deals with private developers and investors to privately enrich those members of the United States government that are facilitating these land grabs with their unconstitutional federal laws and agencies. Case in point:

So, in relation to Mr. Joe Robertson’s case, we have to start by asking ourselves a question on the subject of land and control over that land. And that question is “What are the constitutional limits placed upon federal authority over land, especially land within the individual states of the union?” Well, let’s take a look:

First off, there is no such thing as “federal land” unless it is land ceded or purchased for the specific uses stated in the Constitution of the United States in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which reads “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

This tells us these specific things:

1) That the lands upon which D.C. is built as the “seat of government” is lands that are ceded or sold by the states to the “United States” for that particular use.

2) That ANY other land acquired and governed over by the “United States” MUST come to the “United States” by the same two mechanisms, cession by or purchase from the legislature of the particular state(s) in which the land is located.

3) That the only constitutionally valid uses of such land, other than that land used to create Washington D.C., is to be used for the express purposes of “which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

The language “which the Same” means “the land that was ceded or purchased from the state(s),” and the phrase “shall be” is a COMMAND that the use of that land is limited to those uses enumerated and described therein.

Outside of these enumerated uses, there are NO “federal lands” within the several states of the union, only state lands, and therefore, NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION over any such land. His attorney is the one that screwed him by never raising the lack of jurisdiction of the federal agencies and its courts to rule upon anything.

However, once he CONSENTED to be tried under federal law by failing to make such a challenge, THAT is what put the lid on the coffin. After that, any argument made as to what he did or did not do on the non-existent “federal land” was just another nail in the lid.

Jurisdiction – Do Federal Courts Actually HAVE Any?

Tao of LawLeave a comment

Federal courts. We hear about them all time and all the big cases that they make decisions on. Most of them adverse to the rights of the American people and very pro-government. In many cases there is an issue of jurisdiction to be considered. Now why would you think that is?

We also hear all the time that “the courts are corrupt, especially the federal courts.” Now why would you think that is?

Perhaps, it is because it is all entirely true. These federal courts have NO jurisdiction within the states of the union, and they never have had.

I posted an earlier article about this case here. But I am adding this one so that you may have other perspectives of the significance of the case.

Take for instance, the Bundy cases in Nevada and Oregon. I have already explained in another article why the federal government’s Bureau of Land [Mis]management (BLM) had no jurisdiction on either piece of property, but consider what is currently developing in those cases and try to see why that lack of jurisdiction would also extend to the federal courts.

Also consider the true implications of that total lack of lawful authority. If the federal government, through its agents in the F.B.I., having no jurisdiction over the land in Oregon and no lawful authority to deny anyone in the state access for any reason, or to allow its occupation by a foreign entity operating under the guise of a federal agency having zero authority on that land, then there can be absolutely no question the LaVoy Finicum was murdered to cover up a massive armed robbery of the People of Oregon, the loot being the land itself.

That would also mean that all the other protestors that occupied the BLM compound were actually trying to stop an armed robbery of the People, and that they were shot at and kidnapped by a band of federally sanctioned murderers and thieves.

But the real stickler of the problem is in realizing that none of this would have been possible in either Nevada or Oregon without the knowing collusion of the higher echelons of government in both of those union states.  In other words, the People of Oregon and Nevada have traitors in their midst that are also in charge of their government.

And knowing that, do you really think that your particular state is in any less danger from the treasonous bastards that are currently in control of it?  Those same individuals that have already proven time-and-time again that they are perfectly willing to throw your individual rights and liberty under the bus of “progress” and collectivism in the name of public safety and welfare?

THINK for yourselves for once. Try to see the bigger picture for what it is and where it’s going, not just your own small little piece of it where the colors all look just right, at least, for right now.

 

 

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

Breaking! Trowbridge Forces Judge And DOJ To Abandon Federal Foreclosure Case Midstream!

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/sister-case-petitioner-demands-the-courts-constitutional-authority-plaintiff-and-court-go-silent-petitioner-demands-immediate-dismissal-and-costs-restitution-and-damages-of-1841451-45/

Massive Fraud in the Court – Case Reveals Breakthrough for The People

Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

http://www.truthandaction.org/landmark-case-reveals-150-years-constitutional-treason-committed-federal-courts/2/

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/http://truenewsnetwork.com/2015/11/18/breaking-trowbridge-forces-judge-and-doj-to-abandon-federal-foreclosure-case-midstream/