Category: Due Process

Court – We’ve Won Another One!

Tao of Law2 Comments

Okay, the documents from this win is IN ADDITION TO the previous win that I announced, although it IS relating to the same individual as the previous win.

The statutes don’t lie, unlike the cops, attorneys, and courts. And like any other board game, if they can control the rules, they can control the game. So DON’T let them control the rules.  OBJECT to ANY deviation from the prescribed rules of procedure, EVEN if they have “case law” that allegedly sanctions their actions.

When my pleadings for the felony case are completed, I will be posting them in their ENTIRETY for all to see and study, because they will tell you a LOT about the total corruption that IS the judicial and Bar system.

And by the time you are done reading them, it is my hope that no attorney or judge on the planet will ever again feel safe about showing his or her sorry corrupt face outside of their door or walking down the street, because I am going to be exposing them for the rotting scumbags they are.

 

beardsley-carl-001

beardsley-carl-002

Attorneys – The Unqualified Stupidity of “Qualified” Immunity.

Tao of Law4 Comments

The very concept of “qualified immunity” for public officials borders on utter lunacy, especially when it involves “law enforcement” officers. Only another group of government officials, and all of them attorneys no less, could come up with the concept of “qualified immunity.” Seriously?

The true conceptualization for “qualified immunity” is fairly simple, being ignorant and stupid is an asset when serving in public office, therefore, establish a legal mechanism that does not exist in American history or written law, because it is created entirely out of thin air by the  modern judiciary, and whereby a public servant can claim susceptibility to either condition when they screw up, and then be free from the otherwise serious consequences and accountability for their actions, in contradistinction of that course of action to which we the peons from whom they steal their paychecks and pensions are subjected.

The general idea behind the concept is that, a public officer or employee cannot be held accountable for any wrongdoing if s/he allegedly acted in good faith reliance upon the orders or information s/he receives from a superior or a/n un/written policy manual.

I know, right? I can literally see and hear the confusion in your eyes and mind on this perspective point. “You mean, if a government employ, including a police/law enforcement officer, didn’t violate some policy that we don’t even know about, s/he isn’t actually guilty of any wrongdoing, even criminal wrongdoing, when they act to wrongfully injure someone or their private property?” Yep, that is exactly what I mean.

Which leads me to ask these related questions, even if it is for no one other than myself:

  • “Is there any chance at all perhaps, that the damned policy itself is actually wrong and unconstitutional on its face?
  • And why aren’t these minion idiots required to understand and know when that policy is directing them to do something, anything, that is unconstitutional and unlawful, or even illegal?
  • Why is blatant stupidity and willful ignorance a defense for public servants while honest ignorance or outright innocence is no excuse at all for we the People?”
  • Is there also a better than average chance that the psychotic idiots (that would be the attorneys running the courts that I mentioned before) that are responsible for the creation and continuance of this criminally insane doctrinal policy are actually wrong, and simply don’t give a crap about you, me, or our rights and property within the grand scheme of things, which is that they get richer and more powerful while we the People get poorer and more submissive?

What the hell happened to the requirement of having and using one’s own brain in order to do this or any other job? Isn’t a functioning brain somewhat of an asset, and actually a fundamental requirement for a person to be considered a viable productive and trustworthy individual and member of society, or, for that matter, to even be left alone and free to wander around on their own totally unsupervised? Since when did it become the norm to arm paranoid psychotics with handcuffs, body armor, a club, a portable electroshock therapy device, a loaded weapon, and permission to use any or all of it against anyone whenever they “feel threatened?” And the courts think that setting this sort of standard under the umbrella of “qualified immunity” is somehow a benefit and protection for society and the rights of individuals? Think about that for a second… and then repeat after me, “You seriously delusional mentally incompetent fucktards!”

Is it somehow even a remotely reasonable and credible concept that a public servant doesn’t really know, assuming the existence of an actually functioning brain, when s/he is doing something wrong to other persons or property without someone higher up in the chain of command having to tell him/her that they’ve done so? Aren’t they supposed to already be qualified to know and understand the concept of right and wrong before they got a job that put a shitload of abusable power and authority into their hands, not to mention a loaded weapon with real bullets? Really? They are actually incapable and don’t really understand when they are acting wrongfully against an individual in violation of their rights and property? WTF?

Isn’t there a couple of well-known psychological conditions that describe this particular type of behavior and mental disorder, the two being what we have come to know as the psychopath and sociopath? What characteristics do these disorders share in common, which is really the main concern in asking the question in the context of this writing? Well, it’s sorta’ like this:

The common features of a psychopath and sociopath lie in their shared diagnosis — antisocial personality disorder. The DSM-51 defines antisocial personality as someone have 3 or more of the following traits:

  1. Regularly breaks or flouts the law
  2. Constantly lies and deceives others
  3. Is impulsive and doesn’t plan ahead
  4. Can be prone to fighting and aggressiveness
  5. Has little regard for the safety of others
  6. Irresponsible, can’t meet financial obligations
  7. Doesn’t feel remorse or guilt

 In both cases, some signs or symptoms are nearly always present before age 15. By the time a person is an adult, they are well on their way to becoming a psychopath or sociopath.[1]

Does this list contain three or more traits that you can readily associate with any of the current-day governmental profession(s) existing in America?

So, I think a few fair and legitimate questions would be:

  • “Why the hell aren’t all public servants mentally evaluated with the intent of determining the existence of these traits, starting with their early childhood? Especially law enforcement officers, and any attorney. Any attorney occupying any job at all!
  • And if the individuals that seek employment in any of these fields already are being so evaluated, then why do we and should we trust psychology as a valid profession and practice for making such determinations, considering the number of morons within our public offices and the justice system that have obviously been overlooked or slipped by?
  • Just how frickin’ reliable can this so-called “science” and “profession” really be with this many mistakes and oversights to its credit?”

Can you imagine how the Nuremberg trials would have been handled if the doctrine of “qualified immunity” had been around and the panel of judges and the jury were all Nazis or Nazi sympathizers, just like the ones that we have today? “Zee dere! He vas jost following orders! Nein! Nein! We cannot let a man be sued, or convicted und punished or imprisoned for a crime vhen he vas simply following orders from his superiors now can we? Vhat? Ach du himmel, der Fuhrer actually had zee written policy? Zee Gestapo had zee policy too? Those policies said zhat all of zis vas uhndkay as long as zee soldiers did everyzing in accordance with zee policies? Wunderbar!! We cannot convict! Zee cases are dizmissed!!”

What did you get me for Christmas this generation Santa? OH, wow! Just what I’ve always wanted, an American justice and governmental system that would make the character in “American Psycho” look normal and Adolph Hitler proud.

Footnotes:

[1] PsychCentral.com – World of Psychology article “Differences Between a Psychopath vs Sociopath.”

Rights – WTF Does the Constitutional Prohibition Against “Unreasonable” Even Mean Anymore?

Tao of Law5 Comments

Before you become embroiled with the details of this article, please take the time to ask yourself one very important question, and keep it at the forefront of your mind the whole time you are reading so you may contrast its implications with the totality of information herein; “why do you think it is that the entirety of the United States and state Constitutions, as well as the concepts and importance of every individual’s inherent and fundamental rights and liberty as ensconced within the history of our earliest American law, are not being taught to our children throughout their entire educational process?”

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Our state and federal courts constantly extol the opinion that a warrantless arrest must be “reasonable” and not “unreasonable” without clarifying what the Founding Fathers and our history understood the terms “reasonable” and “unreasonable” to actually mean at the time of the Constitution’s writing, because they certainly seemed to dislike things they considered to be “unreasonable.”

When King George assented to the Tea Act on May 10, 1773, the colonists thought the King’s new revenue law levying an additional two cent tax (yes, 2¢) to be “unreasonable,” resulting in the “Boston Tea Party.” The “tea party” became a positive symbol and nationally recognized event glorifying the American ideal and zest for freedom and liberty in what was once our founding glory of challenging overzealous authority.

When King George’s magistrates were given the authority to create criminal laws and penalties for virtually any petty offense that they wished so as to intimidate and subjugate the colonists and raise revenue for the King, they immediately corrupted intent of the law by the practice of using it to line their own pockets and enrich themselves at the expense of the individual colonists. And when the grumblings of the colonists became too loud and forceful, the King’s magistrates and their minions sought his blessing to totally disarm the entire colonial population, except themselves of course (does this all sound familiar in relation to today’s attempts by government to enact gun control laws that would let them disarm the American people?).

But, the colonists themselves didn’t see any of these actions as being “reasonable,” and that triggered a war that founded a nation of freedom loving individuals that vowed and intended to never allow that kind of abusive and pervasive authority to ever exist over or among them again. A war that also culminated with the constitution of every sovereign republic containing a permanent prohibition outlawing any and all forms of Bills of Attainder, and by direct association, all Bills of Pains and Penalties. Every state constitution also forbade the enacting of ex-post facto laws as well. All of which our courts seem hell-bent-for-leather in allowing our legislative and executive departments to permanently reestablish as a part of the American way of life using even the flimsiest of legal logic and judicial reasoning.

The Concept of “Unreasonable” is Subject to Individual
Perception of the Parties, of Which Only the People’s
Legitimately Matters and is Controlling.

Therefore, the question must be asked; when it comes to resisting an unlawful arrest using a “reasonableness” standard, why are the opinions so blatantly against the rights of the People “to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures” when they resist unconstitutional, unlawful, and illegal acts by state officials? Are unlawful acts only unreasonable or illegal when perpetrated by someone outside of governmental authority? Are crimes only criminal when committed by non-state actors? This country was founded entirely upon the concept of the right to resist any presumption or exercise of authority that unjustly infringed upon or destroyed individual rights or property, regardless of the alleged source of the authority to commit such infringements.

For example: In the case of Class C fine-only misdemeanors, our Texas Courts have opined numerous times that it is perfectly “reasonable” for the courts themselves to violate the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights and its codified portions within the Code of Criminal Procedure by denying the most basic due process protections to an individual accused of this particular class of ‘crime’. Why and how you may ask? Simple, they justify these rights violations upon the grounds that, because the offense doesn’t involve incarceration as a part of the punishment, these rights are never invoked, and therefore, are not available to the Accused before or during trial on the allegation.

It would seem that our individual right to be free from any “unreasonable” situations that place us in potential danger where we might suffer bodily harm or death at the hands of some ‘roid-raging lunatic with a Mike-n-Ike-sized penis and seriously deficient social skills and an all-to-willing itchy trigger finger, are specifically relevant aspects of these situations that are being totally forgotten or ignored despite the duty upon the courts to preserve and protect every single one of those rights as well as the right of private property. By protection of private property in these situations, I mean to say that we have these rights so as to also protect our private property from being arbitrarily damaged or stolen through governmental whimsy and caprice, not just protection from jail time. Private property in this context refers to either our physical property, our money, or our time if sentenced to community service because we have no money for them to steal using trumped up charges on phantasmically intangible offenses.

The Courts Say That Certain Due Process Rights
Don’t Exist as Long as They Cannot Sentence
Us to Jail for the Offense.

Our courts routinely deny those accused of Class C fine-only offenses the right to counsel, the right to a probable cause hearing determining the validity of any warrantless seizure, detention, search, or arrest (called an examining trial in Texas), or even a probable cause hearing for the singular purpose of determining probable cause for any specific charge(s) being levied against them (also an examining trial), to have proper, sufficient, and timely notice of the allegations and proceedings against them, the right to be fully informed as to the nature of and the actual cause against them, to challenge the lack of evidence supporting the jurisdiction of the court itself, and innumerable violations of the Bill of Rights, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Judicial canons, professional ethics, Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code, and finally, the knowing and willful misapplication of occupational regulatory codes against private individuals that were never engaged in the alleged occupation. In other words, that last one is nothing short of outright judicial and legal fraud on a massive scale. According to our various court’s own rulings and opinions, these unconstitutional, immoral, and seditious violations of the People’s sovereign rights and property are all considered to be “reasonable” in their eyes. Yet, in our history, both foreign and civil wars have erupted based upon far less egregious acts than these that those in authority at the time also considered to be “reasonable” and within their power to do.

Through this method of judicial sophistry, our Texas Courts routinely deny to individuals accused of Class C fine-only offenses the same standard of equal application and protection of the laws. And they do so based solely on the pretense that these rights only apply when some length of incarceration can be levied as a part of the punishment upon conviction for an alleged offense. They don’t even consider the loss of property, i.e. our money, our time off work, from family, etc., that is also involved in such cases. We have a vested interest and right to be protected from unjust loses of that property every bit as much as we have to be protected from unjust incarceration. It is as if the courts and prosecutors believe the term “all,” in relation to criminal proceedings, as is clearly found in the language of Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution, either doesn’t exist there at all, or, at best, means something else entirely different than the terms “each” or “every.”

After all, it isn’t like they don’t know the actual meaning and intent of these terms, because they’ve already told us that they do:

All. Means the whole of – used with a singular noun or pronoun, and referring to amount, quantity, extent, duration, quality, or degree. The whole number or sum of-used collectively, with a plural noun or pronoun expressing an aggregate. Every member of individual component of; each one of-used with a plural noun. In this sense, all is used generically and distributively. “All” refers rather to the aggregate under which the individuals are subsumed than to the individuals themselves. State v. Hallenberg-Wagner Motor Co., 341 Mo. 771, 108 S.W.2d 398, 401. See Both.

Each. A distributive adjective pronoun, which denotes or refers to every one of the persons or things mentioned; every one of two or more persons or things, composing the whole, separately considered. The effect of this word, used in the covenants of a bond, is to create a several obligation. The word “any” is equivalent to “each.” Conerty v. Richtsteig, 308 IlLApp. 321, 31 N.E.2d 351. “Each” is synonymous with “all” and agrees in inclusiveness but differs in stress; “all” collects and “each” distributes. Knox Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 130 Ga.App. 519, 203 S.E.2d 739, 740.

Every. Each one of all; all the separate individuals who constitute the whole, regarded one by one. The term is sometimes equivalent to “all”; and sometimes to “each”.

Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition 1996

Yet, the courts have never once addressed whether or not it is a violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions “unreasonable” clauses to statutorily authorize a warrantless seizure, arrest, and potential incarceration for a period of several hours to several days, or, as has occurred in many cases, even weeks, and all prior to any charges even being filed or a conviction had. And all for an alleged offense for which the Accused cannot be lawfully punished by any form of incarceration for even the tiniest fraction of a second even if convicted. Given the factual existence of exactly these processes, I personally believe and hold this entire possibility to be totally “unreasonable” in every respect. And yet, those charged with Class C fine-only offenses or other classes of misdemeanors are unjustly denied a chance at preserving any appealable error relating to the probable cause finding by being denied an examining trial in which to raise the issue in the first place.

Since When are the Illegal Acts of False
Imprisonment, Assault, and Kidnapping
Not ‘Excessive’ in and of Themselves?

This is especially true in light of our current atmosphere of police animosity and brutality toward the general public, as the encounter relating to any such alleged offense is very likely, and now almost expectedly, to turn dangerous or deadly to the civilian. All because an as-yet undiagnosed and out-of-control mental patient was given a gun and permission to use it as a matter of departmental policy to support their preexisting seriously bad attitude that obviously developed from carrying around a rather sizable chip on his or her shoulder, and then dressed all of that hot mess up in the uniform and ‘legal’ authority of a law enforcement officer. What is also especially true in such situations is the fact that these alleged offenses require no intent to commit any criminal act, or the intent to even commit the act itself, or to inflict harm or injury, and have no actual tangible and identifiable victim to claim and prove any such injury, to claim and prove palpable harm or injury of persons or property resulting from negligence, to claim and prove any felony acts, or to claim and prove a breach of the peace.

And once you have been accused, every aspect of the entire process moving against you is controlled entirely by agents of the same fictional entity, the “State.” The “State” is an entirely fictitious political designation that is claiming to have somehow been invisibly, insubstantially, and intangibly harmed by you. And the “State” is the only plaintiff claiming an alleged injury that is moving against you to allegedly seek redress for this intangible and unprovable harm, and yet, it has no way to demonstrate the injury, no victim to take the stand and testify, and no one to place under oath to testify to this harm as being a fact.  Were this you or I pursuing a suit in a court of law, we would be thrown out on our asses for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of standing. As we well should be, considering that we would be completely unable to demonstrate and prove any actual personal injury through any actual substantive admissible evidence.

‘Reasonable’? We are the State, We Don’t
Need No Stinking ‘Reasonable’?

In cases such as this, it is always one or more agents of that same legal entity that not only accused you of the offense that is the alleged source of this equally fictitious injury, but who will also be the entity’s star witness(es) against you. The “State’s” witness(es) will testify against you at the behest of a totally different agent whose only goal and purpose is prosecuting you. And that prosecution is taking place before yet another agent that controls the process and is responsible for the rulings and orders that ultimately “prove” that all of the actions being taken against you are ‘fair and impartial,’ ‘proper’ and ‘legal.’ Then, any appeals from the decision at the trial level will be submitted and held before more of the same. And lest we forget, each and every one of these agents of the “State” are direct or indirect financial beneficiaries of each and every guilty verdict found against the accused for the alleged offense(s).

At this point it should be abundantly clear that “reasonable” has left the building… all the while screaming in agony because these agents of the state doused it with gasoline and lit it on fire!!

How is it not unjust and “unreasonable” that the People, when not causing tangible harm to anyone or to the private property of another, can or should be subjected to the potential and wholly unacceptable risk of bodily injury or death during a warrantless seizure, detention, search, or arrest, for an alleged malum prohibitum offense that in and of itself, and without the prohibition, is neither morally or ethically wrong, and causes no harm to any individual, person or thing, nor is it a common law felony or breach of the peace, and the act being prohibited could not result in a single second of incarceration even if ‘convicted’ for it? When and how did we the People allegedly authorize our public servants to imperil our personal health and welfare, our property, and even our very lives, in this totally “unreasonable” manner?

Differing Perspectives and Desires of Governmental
Agents Does Not ‘Reasonable’ Make.

“The Blaze” is a web site that portends to carry current daily news, articles, and events from all aspects of the political and social realm. I’ve never thought too highly of it or the articles it publishes, as most seem to usually contain content and subjects that I find to be intellectually illiterate and, from the perspective of a freedom, liberty, and rights loving individual, highly offensive statist-centric liberal propagandist bullshit.

However, while doing some case research, I stumbled across one of the very few articles published there that I have ever considered to be actually looking at the “big picture” context of the situation surrounding the subject matter. This particular article was written by one Paul Markel, and is titled “Do You Have the Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest?” Mr. Markel claims that he writes the article from the perspective of an ex-cop and, apparently, also as a constitutionalist, none of which I can offer any reason to doubt at this time. In his article, Markel writes:

“In case after case, we see policemen who seem to view handcuffs as their first and only resort to a non-violent altercation. What is even more troubling to me are the scores of timid apologists who reason that any public display of anger or outrage is rightfully silenced by officers of the state.

This nation was born of dissent not acquiescence. Our founders fought for the rights of man. If Adams, Jefferson and Madison had listened to the voices of timidity and complicity their only path would have been the return to the life of comfortable tax slaves.

Rather than accept that they were sanctioning murder, we could view the legal opinions of the courts in both the Plummer and Bad Elk cases as a message sent by the Judicial Branch to the Executive. Firearms and handcuffs, while often legitimately called for in a crisis, should not be the default for every situation encountered. When the state seeks to rule by the sword, the peasants have a choice to make: submit or resist.”

Imagine my surprise in finding an officer who not only “gets it,” but who is willing to make his understanding and beliefs known to the public even though both goes squarely against the “code of silence” and the “thin blue line.” But there is a truth to his words that cannot be ignored in our modern America. The police state isn’t looming on the horizon, it is in your cities, streets, and neighborhoods already, and God and the 2nd Amendment help us, it is already transgressing directly into our homes and in our faces. It is killing us without conscience or consequence. The unarmed and otherwise innocent civilian body count is rapidly mounting to prove it.

However, as equally unsurprising is an article and commentary on the same subject from a law enforcement oriented and focused site called “PoliceMag.com.” The majority of comments there appear to be coming from actual current law enforcement officers, as well as some possible imposters pretending to be law enforcement. Most all of whom make it abundantly clear that they are more than willing to kill you to perfect an arrest, regardless of how minor the alleged offense or that the only legally authorized punishment is a monetary fine. And regardless of the circumstances, the authorized punishment is most certainly not bodily injury or some other degree of injury so serious and life-threatening that it requires an ambulance or a coroner. From one commenter calling himself “Mike,” who claims to actually be a law enforcement officer, we see this attitude regarding his presumption of power and authority to arrest you or to kill you while trying; “When your resist you become mike brown or Eric garner and could potentially die. You have no right ever under any state law in the United states to resist any arrest legal or illegal hence why we have a justice system. If you don’t like the system vote to change it or move. You won’t be missed.”

(NOTE: All grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors in original, after all, he’s just a cop, not necessarily a high school grad or otherwise literate individual).

The comments from others who say they are or appear to be active in law enforcement go on and on about how no one has a right to resist even an illegal arrest, not even if it is known at the time to be illegal by both the person to be arrested and the arresting officer. And it appears to be their firm understanding and belief that the order of the day in virtually every state of the union is that an officer may continue to escalate the use of force, even during a knowingly illegal arrest, until such time as they can either perfect the arrest, the subject escapes, or the subject is dead and no longer resisting.

Therefore, we can all assume that the current standard for “reasonable” probable cause to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon another living fellow human is:

  • because that fellow human is in possession of a 2×3 inch piece of plastic with a really ugly photograph and a date that is one day past their last birthday, or a printed sheet of paper with the wrong date or incorrect insurance information on it, or a species of plant produced entirely by nature and having enormous medicinal, textile, and manufacturing value to mankind;
  • because that fellow human dared exit his or her car and demand that the officer point out the allegedly defective taillight the officer claimed was the basis for stopping them on a busy highway;
  • a police officer shooting that fellow human in the head and killing him or her during a totally bogus traffic stop and arrest, allegedly because there was no rectangular-shaped piece of alpha-numerically decorated metal on the front of the human’s car to match the one s/he had on the back, and, thus, was an incomprehensibly dangerous and unacceptable threat to the public’s safety and welfare warranting their immediate execution;[1]
  • a police officer assaulting and then threatening to taze or shoot an entire family of fellow humans because of a similar rectangular-shaped alpha-numerically decorated piece of metal that was allegedly ‘expired’ and, therefore, either no longer fit to eat or have bolted to one’s car, and, thus, was an incomprehensibly dangerous and unacceptable threat to the public’s safety and welfare potentially warranting the entire human families immediate execution;[2]
  • a Texas DPS Trooper tazing, brutally assaulting, and then arresting a fellow human because s/he refused to put out a cigarette s/he was smoking inside his/her own car after the officer had concluded his traffic stop for allegedly failing to use a turn signal to make a right-hand turn, and, thus, was an incomprehensibly dangerous and unacceptable threat to the public’s safety and welfare warranting his/her immediate beating, tazing, and incarceration on falsified charges of resisting and assault upon a police officer, and without a proper commitment order signed by a neutral and detached magistrate after a finding of probable cause for the warrantless seizure and arrest via a proper examining trial. NOTE: The human, a woman named Sandra Bland, died three days later in her jail cell while in the custody of the county Sheriff’s office where the DPS Officer illegally incarcerated her.[3]

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice a trend that indicates our police forces are getting inundated with far more morons than they used to be and that are way too thin-skinned and egocentric on top of being a bunch of pussified estrogen-rich pea-brained hot-headed steroid junkies? Why else would a 220 lb. man claim to have feared for his life from nothing more than the incessant barking of a family’s 2 lb. Chihuahua to such a degree that the dog had to be shot and killed to protect himself if not because he is actually the world’s biggest male pussy?

With that said, take notice of the fact that each of these encounters with law enforcement began with nothing more than a police officer trying to incorrectly and wrongfully apply and enforce a Class C fine-only or other low-level misdemeanor regulatory offense or infraction under their particular State’s “transportation/motor vehicle” regulatory code. An offense that, as a matter of law, applies only to those “persons” engaged in the commercial occupation of “transportation.” We can show this is absolutely true for Texas using some simple statutory algebra.

Statutory Algebra Formulas for “Transportation.”

“Carrier” = A legal designation and capacity describing someone who engages in the business of moving any persons, goods, or property by land from one place to another for compensation or hire (see “transportation”).[4]

“Commercial/ Motor/ Vehicle” = A legal designation assigned to a motor-driven device used by a “carrier,” “driver,” or “operator” who is actively engaged in “transportation” upon the land.

“Driver/Operator” (or any grammatical variation thereof) = A legal designation and capacity describing someone who is actively engaged in acts of “transportation” upon the land.

“Person” = A general legal designation and capacity generally describing someone who is acting in one or more of the other legal capacities defined as “Carrier,” “Driver,” or “Operator.”

“Transportation” = the legally defined business profession or occupation relating to the moving of persons, goods, or property by land from one place to another via a “commercial/ motor/ vehicle” for compensation or hire as either a “carrier,” “driver,” “operator,” or any combination thereof.

Now we write equation in the form of a computer program function:

Define Person as Boolean

Person = IsPerson(False, False, False, False)

Function IsPerson(Transportation as Boolean, _
                   Carrier as Boolean, _
                   Driver as Boolean, _
                   Operator as Boolean) _
          as Boolean

  If Transportation = False then

        IsPerson = False

  Else

    If Carrier = False and  _
       Driver = False and _
       Operator = False then

          IsPerson = False

    Else

          IsPerson = True

    End IF
  End If
End Function

 

In each of these cases, the officers involved were unlawfully and illegally using that State’s occupational regulatory code and its related offense(s) against a private individual who was acting solely in their private common law capacity to engage in their private business or pleasure activities as a matter of right, in which case such codes never applied to those individuals in the first place. Which means, in reality, that every single detention, arrest, injury, and death memorialized in the linked in news articles and stories were all 100% unconstitutional and illegal, and, therefore, inherently “unreasonable” by constitutional standards and prohibitions. But, of even more import and concern, is the fact that each one was also 100% fully sanctioned by the courts and prosecutors through knowing and willful misrepresentations and abuses of the amorphous legal semantics intentionally written into the laws and statutes so as to perpetrate and perpetuate this long standing fraud upon the American People within every state of the union.

In Sandra Bland’s particular case, she was falsely charged and locked up by the DPS officer on the trumped-up charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, not for the “transportation” offense she could not have possibly committed in the first place considering that she was not acting under any form of legal capacity for the purpose of engaging in any “transportation” related activity when the DPS Trooper initiated the illegal stop. However, those fraudulent, vindictive and malicious charges by the DPS Trooper would have never been able to even be applied to Bland if not for the fact that our courts had unconstitutionally and unlawfully ruled that it was totally “reasonable” for her to be knowingly and willfully deceived by her public servants so as to be fraudulently subjected to an profession/occupation related regulatory code that had absolutely nothing to do with her private activities could not be legitimately applied to her in any way. And this list of decades-old governmental atrocities and frauds grows daily by leaps and bounds.

The Times They Are a Changin’.

As found in the article linked below from TheFreeThoughtProject.com, the “The new death penalty standards in America” footnote states, “At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.” And so slips into the abyss of hopelessness and helplessness the hopes and dreams of every individual that once believed true freedom and liberty was to be found within the territories of the sovereign union of states known as America.

Those feelings of helplessness and hopelessness stem from the appearance and practice that “unreasonable” is now whatever the asylum inmates (our public non-servants at this point) actually desire it to be in order to fit their broken-brained view of a total authoritarian oligarchical police state where they are no longer limited as servants of the People, but rather, where they’re the new masters, and capable of wielding limitless power and authority to re-mold America and the world into their own private for-profit and pay-to-play labor pool.

Why does this thought evoke flashbacks of childhood cartoons and movies? You know, the ones where the evil man, always dressed in black and with a thinly curled mustache, would cackle insanely and tell the hero how he was planning to steal someone’s home and property through some perfectly ‘legal’ means of foreclosure or forced marriage if the poor person or lovely young widow woman was one minute late in paying the mortgage, or how the evil villain mastermind proclaimed his or her plan to possess and control the entire world through some nefarious and highly destructive means if it wouldn’t submit willingly.

Constitutionally, logically, morally and ethically, it is rather myopic, moronic, and downright insane to say that these specific types of malum prohibitum offenses correctly pretend to validate any such warrantless arrests as being constitutionally lawful simply because they are ‘legally’ authorized by a group of self-serving criminals only pretending to work for our benefit. Much less that such enactments truly serve any real purpose of better protecting the public from harm. Which one can only assume at this point means harm caused strictly by other non-state actors, but certainly not any harm inflicted upon the public by the agents of the state themselves.

Meanwhile, every single day, there are literally tens of hundreds of thousands of people whose rights are violated,[5] and many who are seriously injured or killed, by an overzealous and overly-aggressive police officer, often with support and assistance from fellow members of his legalized criminal street gang. Most of whom are also demonstrably more than willing to enforce the collection of a potential $200 fine or avenge some perceived slight or affront to their ego or authority through use of brute or deadly force and violence against virtually any member of the public that dares to exercise their right to ask questions about or challenge the officer’s actions. And far too often, regardless of the age, race, or sex of the officer’s brutality victim(s). What could possibly be justifiably “unreasonable” about any of that?

If the only test and determination for “unreasonableness” for a warrantless arrest is whether or not the United States Congress or a state Legislature has passed a “special statute” authorizing it for any sort of malum prohibitum thing that they don’t like, then, under a constitutional standard, the terms “unreasonable” and “reasonable” now mean less than an announcement that your local pub has just started serving fresh elk piss on tap for a dollar a quart, as any legislative body is now totally free to declare any statutory form of warrantless seizure or arrest as “special” and necessary, and therefore, “reasonable” for any purpose that may be governmentally desired. They could then forevermore do whatever they wanted by simply enacting a “special statute” saying that they could, regardless of any other constitutional, common law, and/or sovereign individual rights prohibitions against it. You are watching the wholly unconstitutional and unlawful reinstatement of the very sort of Bills of Attainder and Bills of Pains and Penalties that are expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in every state constitution as well as within the federal constitution itself.

Calling it a “special statute” does nothing to change the unconstitutionality and “unreasonableness” of such enactments, not to mention the seriously detrimental repercussions to our individual rights, as well as the totally unnecessary and wholly unacceptable levels of risk it places on our personal safety, health and welfare. Which the People have every right to presume and expect to be fully protected by the courts against such intrusions by using the Bill of Rights within the federal and state constitutions. These protections would rightfully and necessarily include the recognition and proclamation of our individual and collective right to defend ourselves and others against such abusive authoritarian actions with any level of force that is necessary to do so, all the way from evasion and escape up to deadly force, if and when the need arises.

Alas, Poor Liberty, I Knew Him Well.

This abrogation and derogation of our individual rights and property by incremental degrees simply must stop. And it is the duty and responsibility of our courts to make it stop, as they are supposed to be a buttress between the People and such prohibited and abusive acts by the agents of government. Not simply a rubber stamp committee for anything the legislature and the executive departments deem necessary so they may do things in any damn way they please. And if the courts won’t perform their duties faithfully and in full compliance with the Bill of Rights and the express will of the People, then they should be abolished or transferred over to the control of People who understand these issues and will enforce the constitution over the statutes. While those who are responsible for making such actions necessary are stripped of all wealth and possessions accumulated with the fraudulently obtained proceeds from their elected offices before being sentenced to prison for an appropriate length of time. I would recommend that length of time be at least until Hell itself becomes the preferred venue for hosting the Winter Olympics.

It is a fallacy of epic proportions to put forth the false authoritarian doctrine that a free people have not only no right to resist an unlawful arrest or assault by our public servants, but that we must actually obsequiously submit to such criminal acts peacefully and without any defensive or offensive resistance, no matter how violent and injurious or fatal the assault might be due to our failure or legal inability to defend and resist. And then, if you survive the initial assault, your only recourse is to take your case before a higher level of the same authoritarian system that authorized the initial abuses in the first place, and where you now plead the case for violations of your rights and to be vindicated and provided restitution, which we all know borders on the insanely difficult and expensive and the “yeah, like hell” process of collecting the judgment even if you win. This process is so much more expensive than the cost of the bullet(s) necessary to end the criminal actions of the officer(s) before they could escalate into a need for you to needlessly and wrongfully suffer on the off-chance that you might survive so as to later be afforded the aforementioned and almost certainly useless and losing, but wholly system-approved, course of action. Which anyone with any brains can tell you is just an added feature of the overall function and design of the system that is intended to serve and protect only those that are its true masters or who serve as their faithful servants and lackeys.

I find it rather comical that those in our government offices have the temerity to actually believe, vociferate, and act as if the power and authority that they received from us, can be used to create laws and consequences meant to destroy our ability to maintain control of or take back the very power and authority that we delegated to them. Think about it, they actually believe that they somehow have this “divine right of kings” to try and use we the People’s own delegated authority to violate every right that we have, to use that delegated power and authority to forcibly resist and prevent us from taking back that power and making any changes and corrections that we the People deem proper and necessary to prevent their abuses and hold them accountable, and that we must simply accept the injuries and consequences of their actions until they determine whether or not we have any right or privilege to make a claim challenging the validity of those actions in the first place. And only then can we hope for the opportunity to beg for recompense for our perceived slights at the hands of the agents that work for our own servants.

And you wonder why I refer to these idiots as asylum inmates and escaped mental patients? If ever there was a “fuck you” Kodak moment, it would be during my almost certainly epic response to some petty bureaucrat trying to sell me on this smelly bag of faux-magic horseshit as a societal cure-all in a public forum. I would lay waste to them with a wave of verbal heat and destruction that could melt the cores of a nuclear reactor from a mile away.

Those controlling our system of government from behind the scenes and from its positions of power live solely by the morality of their only creed, “if it’s necessary to make us more powerful and rich, and gains us further control over the masses populating the planet, then it shall be done at all costs.”

Our governmental actors and their puppet masters behind the scenes need to remember one very important aspect of “the law of necessity,” it is both a two-way street and a double-edged sword.

Footnotes:

[1] Officer Ray Tensing murders Sam DuBose in Cincinnati.

[2] The new death penalty standards in America.

[3] The false arrest and subsequent wrongful death of Sandra Bland.

[4] NOTE: It is entirely possible for the same individual to be a “carrier” and a “driver.

[5] Source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/
NOTE:  The data from “Statistic Brain” reflects only “speeding” citations, not an overall cumulative total of all types of traffic citations, which could be reasonably assumed to be a great deal higher in total numbers.

Trial – Undermining the State’s Unsubstantiated Legal Presumptions and Conclusions.

Tao of Law8 Comments

What do you do when you are attempting to cross-examining the officer on the stand about the actual facts and evidence the officer relied upon that allegedly support the legal presumptions and conclusions that s/he made in the field during your initial encounter with them at the “transportation” stop, and the Prosecution objects to your questioning of the witness about such things?

Let’s look at what usually happens at trial in such cases.

Prosecutor:    Officer, what was Mr. Craig doing when you had reason to take notice of him?

Officer:           Mr. Craig was “operating” his “motor vehicle” on I-35 at 70MPH in a zone marked for a maximum speed of 60MPH, which was “not reasonable and prudent” at the time “under the circumstances and conditions then existing.”

In his/her testimony, the officer has testified to five specific and totally erroneous legal determinations and conclusions, i.e. “operating,” “motor vehicle,” “not reasonable and prudent,” “under the circumstances and conditions then existing,” and the belief that the posted speed signs apply to anything other than a commercial motor vehicle under the provisions of Sec. 201.904 of the “Transportation” Code. These unsubstantiated claims by the officer during testimony constitutes the making of legal determinations and conclusions because, 1) these are terms defined by statute with specific legal, contextual, and subject matter meanings, and 2) the officer is not legally qualified or capable of making or testifying to a legal determination of law, and, therefore, cannot legally declare whether or not the statutory definition actually does apply to the Accused under the circumstances and conditions as they are currently known and existing.

However, without fail, when you begin to cross-examine the officer as to how s/he came to make such legal determinations and conclusions, the Prosecutor will usually jump up and begin making a rather interesting objection, considering the circumstances under which it is being made. It will usually go something like this:

“Objection! The officer isn’t required to know those things and isn’t competent to testify as to any legal determinations or conclusions that s/he is being asked to make or testify to at this or any other time.”

(Yes, this is literally an objection that I personally witnessed one Prosecutor make almost verbatim in a trial. Most others have usually been fairly similar in their own individual objections).

Now, in volleyball parlance, this is what is known as a “set at the net,” and it is supposed to be the golden opportunity for a member of the team controlling the ball to “set it up” so that another teammate can be the first to get close to the net, jump really high, and spike the ball in the face of the opposing team to score a point. However, the problem with this set up becomes very apparent when the setting team member realizes that they accidentally set the ball too close to the net and within reach of the opposing team’s own high-jumping blocker/spiker who is already at the net, and who now has the opportunity to spike the ball back and gain his/her team control of the serve.

And this is what that spike looks like once the other team has inadvertently set you up on cross-examination with an objection worded fairly similarly to the one above so as to allow you the opportunity to spike it right back in their face:

“Judge, I would like to make this point-by-point response to the prosecution’s objection. During this entire trial the witness for the Prosecution has done absolutely nothing but testify to their own arbitrary legal presumptions and conclusions made at the time of the initial encounter, despite the adamant objections of the Accused. And now, the prosecution wants the court to sustain an objection from them in which they claim that not only is the state’s accuser and only witness not required to actually read and understand the laws and statutes at issue before even attempting to make legal presumptions and conclusions claiming  that the Accused allegedly violated them, but also that that same witness is suddenly legally incompetent to testify when asked by the Accused to explain the specific facts and evidence the officer relied upon to reach those legal presumptions and conclusions at the time of the encounter. The very same legal presumptions and conclusions that the witness has already been allowed to testify to on behalf of the State over the strenuous objections of the Accused. Objections that have all been overruled by this very court despite there being no basis in law for doing so.

Therefore, if the court intends to sustain the Prosecution’s objection that the witness lacks legal competency to testify to the specific facts and evidence allegedly supporting those very same legal presumptions and conclusions made by the witness in this matter, then I move the court to declare the witness legally incompetent and unqualified to testify for all purposes, including, but not limited to, those relating to any such legal determinations and conclusions remaining or already testified to thus far, and that his/her entire testimony be stricken from the record.”

Now, if the judge actually grants this motion to strike the witness’s testimony, which the law requires under any normal circumstances that involve real justice and due process, then the next step is to demand a dismissal of the case with prejudice, as the State has no substantive facts or evidence that an eyewitnesses could use to testify against you.

Congratulations, you have now spiked the ball so hard in face of the Prosecution that it permanently tattoos “Voit” across their forehead, and your team now controls the serve.

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 – 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/

Patrinuts – Here we go yet again. The Micheal C. School Theory of Law & Liability

Tao of Law2 Comments

Okay, we’ve been here a time or two before, but it appears that we must do so yet again.

What happens when legal theory collides with legal fact and the facts are irrefutable and correct? It is in this aftermath of such a collision that the Patrinut community runs into some seriously unstable legal ground. And to make matters even worse, they still choose to build their symbolic legal house that is their legal theory on that same unstable ground. This is as financially suicidal as building a million dollar home over a known unstable sinkhole knowing that you can never get insurance coverage.

Case in point, one “Michael C. School,” who thinks that his understanding of “trust law” is the golden ray of sunshine guaranteed to repel government and its agents on every level, sort of like sunshine, garlic, or holy water to a vampire.  There is only one little problem, what do you think the vampire will actually do if you are relying upon a simple flashlight, fake garlic, or regular tap water instead of the real thing?

Well, let’s find out.

Michael C School  Michael C School Jerry Howe The first step i did was in Common Law and created a Poormans Patent on the Testamentary Succession Revocation so the State cant deny my Rights. After i completed that part of the Process, then i filed for the name change in Court.
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:45am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe I’m guessing you have already completed a UCC-1 filing with your secretary of state is that correct Michael? So you’re now a Secured Party Creditor?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:49am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So for what reason(s) are you saying that you did this Michael? In laymans terms?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:53am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So the state can’t deny your rights to what exactly?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:55am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Tao Lauw, Randy Neroni, your thoughts or questions on this.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:57am

Michael C School  Michael C School  The State cant use presumptive authority against me anymore. A grand jury has to convene with an Indictment signed by a lawful judge. A cop cant just stop me and harrass me unless he witness’s me commit a breach of the peace. UCC-1 is inferior to this by Contract, so no i have not filed a UCC-1 against the all caps name. I rescinded the original contract granting authority to create the Strawman account, which “should” also revoke power of attorney from the IRS all in one step. Filing a UCC-1 would still leave me under Presumptive Authority because Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked from the State.
Michael C School  Michael C School From the Office of Michael C. School
Executor of this Instrument
To: Public NoticeI Michael Charles School “One of The People” and also One of the People of the State of California Claim this as the correct spelling of my Lawful Birth Name. The ALL CAPS NAME OF MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL IS A Fictional Entity Negotiable Debt Instrument created by the State without any disclosure to my parents who were the Lawful Guardians and Custodians of my Body and the Executor’s of my Share of the Trust until I reached the age of majority.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution.
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
I Hereby Revoke any and all Implied Testamentary Succession privilege The State has acquired without My Consent. The Clean Hands Doctrine applies to all Fiduciaries bound by Oath to Protect the Beneficiary of the Trust which is Michael C. School ONLY. MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL is a DBA Fiction (Doing Business As) This is Usury as Michael Charles School does not operate as a 3rd party fictional re-presentation of the Living Being. Michael Charles School is a Pro Se’ 1st Party Contractor ONLY who uses Written Instruments Lawfully Executed as my “Will.” Article 1 Section 10.1 (Obligation of Contracts cannot be Impaired.)
Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].”

“The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. ”
City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922): “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief.
Executor of this Instrument
Michael Charles School
Autograph Date

Witness

Before me, _____________________________, the subscriber, personally appeared Michael Charles School, to me known to be the Living Soul described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and sworn before me that they executed the same as their own free will act and deed.

Witness Autograph ______________________________ (California Jurat Attached)

Date___________________
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:05pm

Michael C School  Michael C School I believe this is where the Sovereign movement fails as Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked but the Strawman account has been validated by Authenticating the Birth Certificate which i did not do. Yet……

 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:07pm

Michael C School  Michael C School This is new ground for me and i believe i have completed it correctly. If i made a mistake anywhere i would appreciate the input so we may have a complete process for Remedy all the faster.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:08pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Seems like magic scroll theory to me.
The “state ” doesn’t presume anything. It’s officer shitforbrains that makes presumptions and initiates controversy, or takes advantage of potential controversy.

 Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:17pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Thats a great opinion Randy, but where are your Facts? Officer SFB implements departmental Policy not the Law.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:29pm

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw One might ask the exact same thing for this lame brained theory that “the state can’t do A, B, or C to me because of my magic make-a-wish document.”
 Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Tao Lauw Eddie you are a follower not a leader, thats the difference between us. You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law. By your response its obvious that Jurisdictionary is all you got. “People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.”
Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY)
[But then again Eddie, you have an all caps name on your drivers license as a Debtor not a Secured Party Creditor.] “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”
Ohio L. Ins. & T Co. vDebolt, 16 How 416, 14 L. Ed. 997
[Oh but you are a Citizen or Natural Person you say?] “governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure.”
Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581
[Hmm how do i Occupy the Office of the Executor of the Estate as One of the People since i am the Beneficiary of the Trust, not the Surety like Eddie Hmm that sounds like CONTRACT LAW.http://jec.unm.edu/…/online-training/contract-law-tutorial] “Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisos of either, it is so far void.” Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840).– FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464, Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138 -178) “Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators enforce statutes and codes.–It is abiding truth that “[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). HARRIS V. NEW YORK U.S. Supreme Court•401 U.S. 222 (1971)“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Terral v. Burke Construction Co.,.
—Royal Indemnity Co. v. Werner, 979 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1992) explains that “A Claimant is damaged upon filing of a complaint.”, “All Codes, Rules and Regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human / Creators in accordance with God’s law. All Codes, Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process as applied to Sherwood T. Rodrigues.” – Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan (US Secretary of Labor) 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)—CONSTITUTIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC INFERIORITY habitually misbehave, and have no sense of responsibility to their fellowmen or to society as a whole. These individuals fail to learn by experience and are inadequate, incompatible, and inefficient. State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297, 300; Wilson v. Walters, Cal.App., 112 P.2d 964.—1983 Caselaw- COLOR OF LAW
Only two allegations are required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “First, the Plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). See Tillman v. Coley, 886 F.2d 317, 319 (11th Cir. 1989); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989); Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, Ala., 880 F.2d 348, 352 (11th Cir. 1989). JOHNSON V. CANNON, (M.D.FLA. 1996)United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division•947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

 

Tao Lauw  Tao LauwMichael C School – Blah blah blah. One, I DON’T even HAVE a license and haven’t had one for over a decade. I don’t register my cars or anything at all. 

So please don’t try to tell me what I have, much less what I know. However, unlike your attempt to make ME look stupid, let’s take a tour of the demonstrable stupidity of your so-called facts in your imbecilic comments:

0) This is possibly the most idiotic statement I have seen in awhile:

“You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law.”

Just what the hell do you think contract, consumer, and business law IS if not STATUTORY Braniac? Pull you head out of your ass, soon, because the lack of oxygen is costing you your precious few remaining brain cells.

1) Your Rodriguez case cite is as fake as your last IQ test. And the fact that you don’t KNOW that proves that your ‘research’ is either moronically sloppy or non-existent.

2) Your Terral cite is ALSO incorrect AND taken COMPLETELY out of context. Here is the full sentence of the cite:

“The principle established by the more recent decisions of this Court is that a state may not, in imposing conditions upon the privilege of a foreign corporation’s doing business in the state, exact from it a waiver of the exercise of its constitutional right to resort to the federal courts, or thereafter withdraw the privilege of doing business because of its exercise of such right, whether waived in advance or not. The principle does not depend for its application on the character of the business the corporation does, whether state or interstate, although that has been suggested as a distinction in some cases.”

Proving once again your Patrinut sucking skills is better than your vetting skills. Here is the ENTIRE opinion just in case you learn to read:

https://supreme.justia.com/…/federal/us/257/529/case.html

3) The Ohio Life Ins. case DOESN’T exist under the cite you have, nor does it exist in similarly named cases. You are now up to four self-inflicted FUBARs in just one comment. But, you seem to enjoy making slanderous comments about others while not doing your own ball-check before stepping into the ring, and now we’re going to see just how well you handle facts over fiction.

4) The CORRECT cite for Lansing is “Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829),” and that case went AGAINST the individual and FOR the corporate state. The proposition of the case was this:

“In New York, it was long considered as settled law that the state succeeded to all the rights of the crown and parliament of England in lands under tide waters, and that the owner of land bounded by a navigable river within the ebb and flow of the tide had no private title or right in the shore below high-water mark, and was entitled to no compensation for the construction, under a grant from the legislature of the state, of a railroad along the shore between high and low-water mark, cutting off all access from his land to the river, except across the railroad.”

In other words, it DISPROVES your intended implied use of the case in bolstering your so-called position.

5) The Luther case is one that you are ALSO taking out of context and offers no support for your alleged ‘process’ OR ‘paperwork’ methods. The full sentence of THAT cite goes like this:

” No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government and establishing a new one in its place is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it.”

As anyone with an IQ higher than the number of ounces in an average can of soda can see, the case is speaking of the unified political body of the people, not one guy that thinks he’s found the way to write his own personal incantations to ward off the state.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html

6) The correct cite for Houston is “Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820),” and guess what, you are using ANOTHER shit-cite. It doesn’t exist in the opinion. So sorry, want a lollipop, ’cause this ass-whoopin’ is about to continue.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/

7) On to other non-surprises, your Mapp case cite is as non-existent as your ability to make a winning argument! No such language, implication, inference, or wild fucking guess is to be found in the opinion.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/

Bro’, I could do this ALL day and ALL night, because I totally fucking LIVE to destroy STUPID in all its forms. But, since I believe I have CLEARLY established that you really ARE the fucking moron I only assumed you originally were, I’m not gonna’.

The next time you want to appear intelligent and like you know what the fuck you are even doing on this planet, go talk to a kindergartner, maybe they won’t make you look so fucking stupid if you just stay in your corner of the sandbox.

Terral v. Burke Construction Co. 257 U.S. 529 (1922)
supreme.justia.com

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · 15 hrs · Edited

Dan Bramschreiber  Dan Bramschreiber ha ha ha he surely hasn’t listened very much or very long.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Have you heard of Trust Law? Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].” Juridictionary will only take you so far in life…….
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:30pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni It is a great opinion. On that we agree.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:33pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Can you show me where i am wrong in the Law?
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:34pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Yes I can. You ready ?
 Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:35pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Yep
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:36pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Who has the burden of proof?
 Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe State in a criminal proceeding.
 Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Ive already rescinded the Contract granting Presumptive Authority to the “State.”
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Michael C School  Michael C School I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People.
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Can you prove all that stuff you’ve accused yourself of?
 Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Michael C School  Michael C School It works in Court
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Saying it works in a court and proving it did are two different things I’m looking for the proof.
 Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:41pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni It’s all false witness. False witness against self is still false witness.
Why anyone still attempts to prove anything in a venue where he cannot prove any claim he makes, is beyond me.
 Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:43pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Lol! I posted my Doc’s as you requested and i am a firsthand witness. I have a Counter-Plaintiff Complaint template, just got to find it and i will post it. Defendant is the Surety. Counter-Plaintiff is a Beneficiary.
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:43pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Randy do you understand Precedence and Precedent are not one and the same?
 Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:44pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I understand what file your documents are going.
 Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:46pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe I saw you docs Michael. Interesting they are, but they are not evidence in and of themselves that you have gained some sort of advantage or remedy.
 Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:47pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Let’s create an example scenario for the documents use.
 Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:50pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I’ve seen people try to argue this stuff to a judge that I know was giggling on the inside.

He was so encouraging though. He’d say “so how is it that the statutes don’t apply to you?”.

He’d listen to the whole thing and then say “that’s your opinion, the court disagrees. What else you got? “.

Must have been a slow day and they were bored.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:52pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So, say your local county court issues a warrant for your arrest for failure to appear on a traffic violation/summons issued by a sheriffs deputy. Let’s say that warrant is issued in the all caps name. Does this name change thing mean you can just ignore the warrant? Is that what you’re saying Michael C School?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:55pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Does it mean that if you are arrested on that warrant that they have the wrong guy?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:57pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Really Michael, I’m just trying to ascertain what verifiable advantage or remedy you propose to get out of this name change. Because unless there is some advantage or remedy to be gained from it, than it seems to me your time would be much better spent studying the use of Title 42 so that you can get remedy.
 Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 1:22pm · Edited

Tao Lauw  Tao LauwTick, tock, tick, tock… methinks he hid beneath a rock.
Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School I have 4 kids and a life, Eddie, Randy Neroni why dont you guys debate me on the air? Randy Dees with the Wake Up Mission or Randy Shannon with 42 Action. 1983 is great if you like inferior Jurisdiction. Pro Se’ is the best position to bring forth a Title 42 1981 action. You are unlimited in your ability to CONTRACT.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981 Tick Tock Eddie

  42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by wh…

law.cornell.edu
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Debate you about what exactly?
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School There’s more to Law than you think. Do you know how to enforce your Rights and create your own enforceable Contract?
<Link to more Patrinut bullshit removed in the interest of public safety>
 Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni You know what I know and think?
 Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School I know you only know part of the law like Eddie and i see how you both hide behind each other instead of use Law in your replies. Acing Business Associations (Acing Law School )
 Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Thats a good book to get, its on Amazon cheap.
 Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I agree with Eddie because he knows what he’s talking about. Knowledge is a big deal with me.
 Like · Reply · 2 · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I used law on you earlier. You put the burden on yourself and couldn’t meet that burden. I didn’t win so much as you ensured you couldn’t win.
That’s exactly what would happen with your tactic in a judicial setting.You want to prove that statutes don’t apply to you as an affirmative defense rather than leave the burden of proof on an accuser.

What possible advantage is in that?
Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School You didnt quote any law. You posed a question, i answered. I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People. The State cannot proceed without an injured party and the State cannot be an injured party to an action.
 Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Injury is not the only way a party can have standing. A legal cause of action can also suffice.
 Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Depends on how much law you know. An entity has inferior standing to One of the People. Was there a Breach of the Peace witnessed by an officer of the Law? Corporations have Charters which can be revoked for breach of Ethics, Breach of Fiduciary obligation, Contract Fraud, etc..
 Like · Reply · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni How many charters have you revoked?
 Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni How many suits have you defended ? How many prosecuted?
 Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Why didnt you accept the on air debate then? HMM.. Tao is a follower of Jurisdictionary but cant create an enforceable Contract.
 Like · Reply · 15 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw “Follower of JurisDictionary?” You are smoking too many of your own turds there dude. I suggest that you make note of the comments I have posted here that might just be taking the wind out of your sails and your clobberfoot out of your ignorant mouth.
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni He wants to debate what I think, according to the answer he gave.
Is that accurate, Michael?
 Unlike · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw  Randy Neroni – He lost that debate before he even made the challenge, he’s just too wrapped up in his Patrinut blanket to see a clue.
Like · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Tao & Randy, thanks for taking the time to set this straight. Michael‘s not the only member of this group who is still clinging to some of the various patrinut myths.But this is not the first time I’ve called him out on it because I’ve caught drift of him attempting to impose or propagate those theories over the use of real remedies such as what this group was founded upon. At least when it comes to some of the other folks who might still be clinging to these false beliefs and false hopes, they tend to remain quiet here in this group. And that’s OK because I figure, in time, if they keep reading and researching their beliefs might evolve past the nonsense. For that reason I really hate the idea of throwing people out of the group. However, in this case, because this has become an obviously ingrained pattern for Michael C School, I’m probably going to have to remove him from the group. I’m going to make a final determination on that later today. Once again, I thank both of you for your time and I certainly appreciate all the invaluable knowledge and skills you bring to this group.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 5 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Jerry Howe – Then might I suggest that you take his more egregious comments here and make a single post out of them, as well as my refutation of those comments. At least then, people won’t be so willing to just jump on the phantom silver bullet bandwagon.
Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Lame asses is what you are.
 Like · Reply · 43 mins

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Michael C School – Yeah, excellent point-by-point refutation of the facts provided. Grow the fuck up.

You posted bullshit as truth and then reaped a whirlwind of ass-kicking corrections to your bogus information. You get off on passing off bogus information as if it is irrefutable fact and then you call US lame-asses?

Your ability to insult others is on par with your ability to do legal research and comprehend law, lower than whale shit on the bottom of the Laurentian Abyssal.

Like · Reply · 1 · 33 mins

Michael C School  Michael C School You two are ridiculous. Good riddance. Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law.
Like · Reply · 32 mins

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Michael C School – Your statement “Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law is irrelevant considering that you know even less than nothing about either if your other information is any indication. You are floundering more and more every time you open your mouth.

And now you’ve gone and forced me to make you famous as a perfect example of all that is wrong with the Patrinut theory of law. Way to go jackass.
 Like · Reply · 1 · 29 mins

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni He’s another one that’s going to claim I’m wrong as he goes into the cage.
 Like · Reply · 1 · 21 mins

So, as you can see, even when given the facts that refute their already shaky lawful and legal foundation, they can’t get over their own cognitive dissonance to see past the fallacy of their understanding of the case opinions, the statutes involved, and piss poor arguments, much less the total fallacy of their now thoroughly discredited legal theory.

It is this very type of legal disinformation and delusional strategy that is costing people their rights and property at an already tremendous and ever escalating rate. NEVER take a case cite or statutory explanation at face value, regardless of how allegedly trustworthy the source, especially if it’s an attorney. Learn to both read and fully understand them for your own sake.

MEME - Beware of Stupidty &amp; Liberals T-Shirt

Patrinuts – A Perfect Example of What NOT to Do.

Tao of Law16 Comments

And so it goes…

Someone on Facebook reached out to me today to take a look at a video from his first court appearance for several “transportation” related allegations that have been made against him by the State of Arkansas. This is the video of that court appearance.  Turn the volume up if necessary and listen well to the verbal exchanges that takes place between the Individual and the Judge presiding over the hearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLvl3QSL1M

Which brings us to the rest of today’s lesson in how to go to court and how to make a proper challenge to said court’s presumption of jurisdiction in these sorts of matters.

The individual who posted this video has received numerous comments from the Patrinut crowd cheering him on and telling how great a job he did in addressing the court and making his challenge.  In order to understand the magnitude of the educational issues that we face in getting people properly prepared for these Ponzi schemes that are our lower courts, I have chosen to post ALL of the top level comments that were made.

Sarah Gallousis

wow, your so calm.
Like · Reply · Report · 5 hours ago

Scott Bailey

you dont have to prove jurisdiction they do
Like · 6 · Reply · Report · 5 hours ago

James Grogan

David Schwartz. This is what I’m talking about.
Like · Reply · Report · 4 hours ago

Benjamin Parker

You also need to demand a Probable Cause hearing because we all know they have none. They just arbitrarily skip that along w/ not informing you of the nature of the charges.
Edited · Like · 3 · Reply · Report · 4 minutes ago

Shawn Warren

That is the default they are now in dishonor of.
Like · 3 · Reply · Report · 4 hours ago

Kenneth Paul

ack quie essan ce
Like · 3 · Reply · Report · 4 hours ago

Heath Richards

You’re a martyr of the freedom movement, My Friend! God bless you and all that you do.
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Kevin Freeman

When she made a plea for Shawn Warren you should have said my business here is done, and this has nothing to do with me, I am now leaving
Like · 4 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Radley Bradford

I thought you had a button cam, regardless, fantastic work!
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Benjamin Parker

Did you enter an affidavit or something similar beforehand stating that you are the man not the corporate fiction that the summons is for? Have heard its always best to enter things into the record before you go to court and say as little as possible when there.
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Sean Westmoreland

In common law you say nothing you stand on claim ! And they have to prove jurisdiction! Which they can’t! Remember you break the law just going into their court by showing up as the corporate copyrighted name
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Sean Westmoreland

But u did pretty good! I would never appear!
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Sam Kelley

Those psychopaths will play their utterly childlike in mind written and spoken LEGALESE word spell and paper games all day long with you. They simply will not recognize anything but the LEGAL entity existing on a piece of paper which is PRESUMED to be SUBJECT to their corporate RULES and their privately owned and operated corporate Maritime Admiralty courts of LEGAL contracts and commerce. You’re dealing with psychopaths who have not one grain of decency, morals, empathy or intelligence. Stop going to their “courts”. Just void their bullshit LEGAL offers to contract on paper. When those utterly mindless corporate CODE enforcers hand you a TRAFFIC CITATION to sign representing the LEGAL NAME, void that shit. Write Refuse for Fraud, in the dead man LEGAL NAME box, and write your autograph in either corners of the offered contract to APPEAR to PLEA. But have the corporate CODE enforcer UNDERSTAND that you were not and or never are engaged in DRIVING, but were or do only travel. The burden of proof is on his dumbass to show evidence of you engaging in commerce on the roads for profit, gain or compensation. When he or she UNDERSTANDS, then they agree to the facts stated. So they go ahead and issue the fraudulent TRAFFIC CITATION anyway, and you get to Refuse it for Fraud and void that crap. When the “court” sends a NOTICE of a HEARING or TRIAL, then you take the copy to the prosecutor’s office and ask if they are attempting to use a fraudulent contract containing false evidence in their LEGAL proceeding. If their stupid asses say yes, then you advise them of the third degree Felony fines and imprisonment for attempting to use such false or fabricated physical evidence in a LEGAL proceeding. That should materialize into a DISMISSED. That’s if they have any fukin sense. Then tell them you will be more than happy to carry your ass on down to the Federal Court House to file those Felony charges on each and every INDIVIDUAL who participated in the fraud. Get the Feds snoopin around there and then see how they do.
Edited · Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Pat Jenn

can you post the claim?
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Patty Brzezinski

I think you did a great job Shawn. I give you a lot of credit. Your video is a great learning tool for those that go to court after you. Cudoos.
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

David Coelho

YOU THE MAN! Keep it going you’re not alone
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Shell Glow

Well done 😀
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Brian O’Donnell

You did great.
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Ricky Dean

You did very well, however you weren’t very specific on what type of jurisdiction the court lacked.
Like · Reply · Report · 1 hour ago

Michael Romero

If he has a “License” they have “Jurisdiction”, thereafter, agreed to be “Surety”.
Like · Reply · Report · 1 hour ago

Elissa Lynnie Thygesen

When they say ok, say, I object. (My 2 cents)
Like · Reply · Report · 1 hour ago

Bradley James Smith

That bailiff standing next to you is reason enough for dismissal. That was an outright act of intimidation, especially because the bailiff was not transferring records from you to the judge nor was there a reason for his interference within your space as you neither presented a risk to yourself or anyone within the court. File for dimissal due to intimidation and file a claim for emotional and psychological damages due to the trauma of that intimidation.
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 53 minutes ago

Michael Romero

If it were a PUBLIC Court, that’s correct. The “Bailiff” being Armed makes him/her the “belligerent”. However, none of you are objecting to it.
Like · Reply · Report · 50 minutes ago

Michael Romero

Those are Private COURTS feeding on the PUBLIC ignorance, and that changes every thing.
Few will gain what I just said.
Edited · Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 49 minutes ago

Tao Lauw

I do wish all of the great legal minds providing this inherently ignorant advise would actually learn a thing or two before opening your mouth and risking SOMEONE ELSE’
HIDE with this stupidity.  (See my discussion posted below these comments).
Like · 1 · Reply · Edit · 29 minutes ago

Shane Messner

Like · Reply · Report · 24 minutes ago

Shane Messner

Great job!
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 23 minutes ago

Randy Rebel Brown

Keep up the good fight my brother. I do similar in court. Been there 10 times. The last two they threw out…. However, I received two more pieces of paper from 2 other idiots in costumes to appear just recently. I will see how that goes. Never relent and never relinquish your inalienable rights,. You have harmed no person and no property, therefore have committed no crime. Thank you for standing up my brother
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 6 minutes ago

So, you can plainly see that there are many in the Patrinut community that have absolutely no clue about law or how it works, much less what they are talking about in relation to all the other stuff they were commenting with. But, what they do have in abundance is way more mouth than they know what to do with when it comes to telling someone else how they should construct their own platform for legal failure. It completely amazes me how they egg each other on in their commission of legal suicide by the demonstrable ignorance and stupidity they propagate, and all because they are just too damned lazy to learn the proper methods and procedures for winning their case on appeal, or possibly even before it begins with a properly established affirmative defense and/or jurisdictional challenge.

Understand, this article isn’t for those of you that know how and why you have to make a proper record for appeal, it’s for those that haven’t a clue. Especially those Patrinuts that are under the mistaken and far more often delusional belief that they are grand champion players of these games. To actually win on appeal, it is imperative to understand how to properly make the record, because the lower courts are not designed to comply with the law or to administer any real justice of any kind. No sir/ma’am. They are there to siphon money from an unsuspecting public that has no clue how to play their legal games by the standardized rules, especially when the lower courts are not acting in compliance with those rules themselves.

After he made this post, the Individual PM’d me. This is the conversation that took place between myself and the Individual directly. Please pay attention to his comments where I used a bold and underlined font to make them more visible. Even more to the point, pay closer attention to my explanation of what to put in a proper Motion to challenge the courts jurisdictional presumptions, which will look just like this text.

  • Conversation started today
  • Shawn Warren

    12:40pm

  • Tao Lauw

    2:06pm

    Tao Lauw

    What state is this in?

    Also, do you see all those comments on your post for the video? Just HOW much of that EXTREMELY bad advise did you attempt to actually use?

    Did you file anything in writing in this matter?

  • Shawn Warren

    2:26pm

    Shawn Warren

    Arkansas and I did a conditional acceptance notice

  • Tao Lauw

    2:35pm

    Tao Lauw

    I must also assume that this was your first appearance on the citations in question?

  • Shawn Warren

    2:41pm

  • Tao Lauw

    2:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    Try not to take this the wrong way, but there are some things I need to ask you up front.

  • Shawn Warren

    2:44pm

    Shawn Warren

    Sure go ahead

  • Tao Lauw

    2:45pm

    Tao Lauw

    Have you even bothered to see WHAT the subject matter is that is being regulated by the statutes you are charged under?

  • Shawn Warren

    2:46pm

    Shawn Warren

    Yes in my conditional acceptance

    They have failed to state and are in default

  • Tao Lauw

    2:51pm

    Tao Lauw

    Okay, try to understand that you NEED to forget that shit. It is a totally INCORRECT methodology for dealing with these ass-hats. If you are going to insist on listening to that crap and doing it anyway, then there is nothing that I can say that is going to make one damn bit of difference for you. And if you believe it will work, then proceed as you have and let me know how that actually turns out for you. Deal?

    Now, do you even realize that it is “TRANSPORTATION” that the statutes themselves proclaim as being the regulated subject matter over which they have jurisdiction?

    In other words, the code is regulating ONLY those engaging in the BUSINESS of transporting persons, goods, or property from one place to another FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE as a CARRIER.

  • Shawn Warren

    2:53pm

    Shawn Warren

    Deal and yes I comprehend that. So go to trial and and have them prove I was engaging in commerce?

  • Tao Lauw

    2:55pm

    Tao Lauw

    Did I say “commerce” in this instance? NO! The term is “transportation” as THAT is the specific term being used to describe the regulated subject matter. And while they ARE related, the specific subject matter title is the issue to remain focused on.

  • Shawn Warren

    2:56pm

  • Tao Lauw

    2:58pm

    Tao Lauw

    Let me show you something here that is STRAIGHT out of your own state code that would have ended this bullshit at your first appearance if you had only NOT used that damned Patrinut crap and simply used their own bullshit regulations against them:

    2. A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016), Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries, Subtitle

1. Public Utilities And Carriers, Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions,

Subchapter 2 -- Transportation, 23-2-201. Definitions., Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated Official Edition © 1987-2016 by the State of Arkansas All rights reserved.

(1) "Department" means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and

(2) "Transportation" means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier ...

    LOOK at number TWO in this text. WHAT does it say “transportation” IS?

  • Tao Lauw

    3:00pm

    Tao Lauw

    Look at the whole thing as it appears in the code:

    Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries Subtitle 1. Public Utilities And Carriers Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions Subchapter 2 — Transportation

    A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016)

    23-2-201. Definitions.

    As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

    (1) “Department” means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and

    (2) “Transportation” means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier pipelines, or motor carriers.

    HISTORY: Acts 1957, No. 132, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-151.

    http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=b580cfeb3a5a103547babc30c31aec46&docnum=2&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzk-zSkAl&_md5=6a899bbc4fd63b0b3e185819c6f74e3b

    The term “carriers” as used here is PLURAL, as in applicable to EACH of those things listed, i.e. “AIR carrier,” “RAIL carrier,” “WATER carrier,” “pipelines,” or “MOTOR carrier.”  You get that?
  • Shawn Warren

    3:02pm

    Shawn Warren

    I see. So how would I use this in court?

  • Tao Lauw

    3:02pm

    Tao Lauw

    So, how about you STOP looking for magic beans and silver bullets and use their own statutory scheme to beat the shit out of them so you can sue them for malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, and constructive FRAUD!!

  • Shawn Warren

    3:02pm

    Shawn Warren

    Make them prove I was transporting ?

    • Tao Lauw

      3:31pm

       Tao Lauw

      You file a WRITTEN “Motion for Discovery,” citing this statute and demanding that the prosecutor turn over ANY evidence in their possession or of which they have knowledge that shows that you were engaging in “transportation” for purposes of receiving compensation or “for hire” as a “carrier.”

      THEN, after they CAN’T provide you with that evidence, you file another WRITTEN “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” that challenges both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction like so:

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

      The prosecution has provided no discovery showing the existence of any facts substantiated by eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that proves Respondent was engaging in any acts of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.
       
      Further, the prosecution has alleged no facts and provided no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that would implicate Respondent as having ever engaged in “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation(s) being made, which Respondent believes is a necessary fact element essential to the State’s claim of both subject matter and in personam (personal) jurisdiction.
       
      There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire as is required in order for Respondent to have been engaging in any form of “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation being made.
       
      There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence in the form of a Bill of Lading, Passenger Manifest, Commercial Logbook, or any admission by Respondent himself or that of an eyewitness that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire or was acting as a “carrier” for such purposes.
       
      As there is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant matter.
       

      As no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence of subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent exists, the State has no standing to bring an action against Respondent in any matters relevant to “transportation,” including any alleged offenses defined thereunder within the laws and statutes of “this state.”

      Furthermore, absent subject matter jurisdiction, and absent any facts or evidence proving that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of in personam jurisdiction over the Respondent in the instant matter.

      Therefore, this court lacks subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, the two primary elements of jurisdiction over Respondent.

      As neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks subject matter standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.

      Whereby Respondent moves the court to immediately dismiss this matter with prejudice.

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

       

  • Shawn Warren

    3:34pm

    Shawn Warren

    I will do just that. Thank you very much for your help.

  • Tao Lauw

    3:36pm

    Tao Lauw

    There is one thing that you need to understand and expect; the lower court isn’t going to care about or respect the law. THAT is why you do EVERYTHING in writing, so that the higher court can see what actually happened when it goes to appeal. STOP worrying about losing at trial. The game is RIGGED to virtually ensure that you DO lose at trial in the off-chance that you can’t or won’t get your appeal done in the manner and time required.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:36pm

    Shawn Warren

    I am tired of never getting anywhere with the patrinut stuff. Want to be able to defeat them the right way and I am tired of being martryer

  • Tao Lauw

    3:37pm

    Tao Lauw

    So make damn sure to STUDY and faithfully follow the procedures for perfecting and getting your appeal. Start reading and learning about that NOW, BEFORE you actually need it. Make notes, recheck them, study them, then make sure you follow them.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:37pm

    Shawn Warren

    Yes I comprehend I will have to appeal. I will lol up the timeline houses for appeal in Arkansas

  • Tao Lauw

    3:37pm

    Tao Lauw

    Just promise one other thing if you don’t mind…?

  • Shawn Warren

    3:38pm

    Shawn Warren

    Sure what?

  • Tao Lauw

    3:39pm

    Tao Lauw

    Tell everyone else about how the Patrinut bullshit DOESN’T work, and that you CAN beat them at their own game IF you will just learn HOW. Because there simply ISN’T any shortcuts in the form of magic paperwork or legal silver bullets to getting it done.

    The ONLY silver bullet comes AFTER you have kicked their asses on the law repeatedly, THEN they will avoid you like the plague.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:40pm

    Shawn Warren

    You have my word I will.

     

    Cause none ice it has worked for me so far and I’ve been trying for close to 8 years

  • Tao Lauw

    3:41pm

    Tao Lauw

    The only thing that I heard you do properly and for the right reasons in that video is to begin with “I’m here by special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in the instant matter.” Everything else was wasteful and self-prejudicial bullshit.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:42pm

    Shawn Warren

    Right. I am still learning.

  • Tao Lauw

    3:42pm

    Tao Lauw

    Now, I posted the same thing I wrote here for you as a comment on that video link you sent over. Let me know how that all goes over with the Patrinut crowd that has collected there.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:43pm

    Shawn Warren

    I appriciate your straight forward not beating around the bush answers.

     

    I will keep you posted.

  • Tao Lauw

    3:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    Also, may I use that as a group discussion lesson on my wall, legal discussion group, and my blog? Better to use it to teach others what NOT to do as well as what TO do.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:44pm

    Shawn Warren

    Please do

  • Tao Lauw

    3:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    Your video I mean?

  • Shawn Warren

    3:44pm

    Shawn Warren

    That’s part of why I do what I do

  • Tao Lauw

    3:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    If you don’t mind, is it small enough to email or do you have it in DropBox or somewhere online that I can link directly to it?

    It isn’t easy to download one from Facebook is why I’m asking.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:45pm

    Shawn Warren

    Uploading to YouTube now I can email it to you if I can figure out how

  • Tao Lauw

    3:46pm

    Tao Lauw

    If it’s on YouTube then that is enough. Just send me the link once its up.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:46pm

    Shawn Warren

    Will do

  • Tao Lauw

    3:55pm

    Tao Lauw

    Also, would you mind if I use this chat session to show your thoughts on the matter?

  • Tao Lauw

    4:14pm

    Tao Lauw

    You need to amend one of the paragraphs to read thus:

    As no jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.

    Got it?

  • Shawn Warren

    4:21pm

    Shawn Warren

    Use what ever you need. And I just got the first call saying to make the judge pay the taxes on the charges. Jean Keating work.

    Got it

As you read in his own comments, for almost eight years the Patrinut crap simply hasn’t ever worked for him, and it certainly doesn’t work in the manner that its many uneducated and illiterate-in-law advocates would like you to believe it does. If it did, then they would be doing nothing but posting win after win by doing the things they do.  And they simply don’t, because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t properly address the issues being litigated. It doesn’t work because their methods simply  don’t follow LAW. Which is an issue that I’ve addressed on this blog before in another article.

So, if you aren’t willing to even read the laws and statutes that the other party is trying to use against you in these courts, just how do you ever intend to understand the allegations and fight back against them? Osmosis? It’s like playing a new board game you’ve never seen and don’t have the first clue about what the rules are, or even the point of the game. And yet, using only a plethora of magic Patrinut paper incantations and origami non-pleadings, you expect to beat all the other vastly experienced players by simply saying “I win, you lose!”  And just in case that sounds somewhat familiar, that’s because you have probably heard something similar before:

As you can see from the Arkansas statutes themselves, he already had an affirmative defense that would have served him well and most likely gotten the Judge’s attention enough that the jurisdictional challenge during his court appearance might have ended both the proceeding and the matter much more in his favor. Especially if he went to the appellate court  with a documented case of having properly made the oral objection and jurisdictional challenge in open court as well as in a properly written Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Two things that will never help you win a court case is willful ignorance and being too damned lazy to learn how to do something properly that needs to or must be done in relation to the case being adjudicated and prepared for appeal.

Therefore, I issue a call to action! PATRINUTS UNITE!!

Then, PLEASE, hold each others clammy and pasty little hands while crossing the legal streets, and march your ill-informed and unstudied asses right down to your local law library and learn to frickin’ READ already!!

Just once, for your own sake and the sanity of those of us that have actually made the effort and sacrifices necessary to really and truly understand the fallacies of your arguments and position, TRY to comprehend how law is supposed to actually work!! Especially before you open your miseducated and unprepared mouth and provide useless disinformation to otherwise innocently ignorant individuals as if you know what the hell you’re doing!! STOP trying to make people believe that you have actually done the dumb-ass shit that you are proclaiming and that it’s legally infallible, which I would wager considerable money that none of you actually have. And if you did, then there is even better money to be made betting that it has never worked any better for you than it will the poor schmuck that is dumb enough to believe you know WTF you’re even talking about.

Doing this crap doesn’t make you look intelligent the way you think it does. Just the opposite in fact. But what it does do is literally make you a stumbling block to others in understanding the true nature and function of law as well as making you a direct danger to the legal safety, health, and welfare of your fellow man.

Attorneys – Like Mosquitoes, They Can Only Survive on the Blood of Others

Tao of Law8 Comments

A funny thing happened on the way to reading my way through a deluge of emails; I came across one that entered my inbox earlier yesterday, but which I did not actually see until the early morning hours of today.  The email reads thusly:

I’ve seen some of your videos on YouTube and wanted to tell you that you’re wrong.  You appear not to be able to distinguish the difference from the right to travel and the State’s right to regulate the operation of a dangerous mode of transportation that can harm, injure, or kill people and damage private or public property.  That State right is the doctrine of police power, which was adopted into the US Constitution by the 10th Amendment.  You should research it – plenty of SCOTUS cases in support.  How do I know?  I practiced constitutional law for over 35 years and fought govt over-reach and REAL infringement on rights.

Also, before becoming a lawyer, a group of us created the “right to travel vs driver’s license”  issue way back in 1972.  You use all of our research, court cases and tactics we developed almost 45 years ago.  We sold pamphlets, cassette tapes and gave seminars.  And it was BS then and is BS now.  I was amazed that it was still around.
You should rethink misleading people on this issue – you are perpetrating a fraud.  Not very patriotic of you.
Here then is my response to this admonition, which I reserve the right to amend over time as necessary for completeness and accuracy as time and information allows (same thing I told him in my emailed response):

Mr. Galt, you, like many before you, appear to be assuming quite a bit about what I do or do not know. And I can very well and do distinguish between a right to travel and the state police power to regulate. And there are MANY things and activities that can injure or kill that the state demonstrably has NO power whatsoever to interfere with or take away.  The fact that they use illegitimate reasoning and deadly force to get their way does NOT make them right nor their actions lawful, even though they may have legislatively or judicially declared their actions to be ‘legal.’ History documents that Adolph Hitler did the same thing if memory serves, and look how he wound up when it was all said and done. And I find no increase in your personal merit, credibility, or ability by your admission of having misunderstood and mishandled a particular subject of much legal and political debate for more than 35 years. How is an admission of perpetual misconception and/or incompetence in understanding something so simple and fundamental to the rightful free exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty and rights supposed to legitimize your position of telling me that I am “wrong” simply because you and those like you were incapable of comprehending the simplicity of thought and action relating to individual rights and liberty so as to understand this most basic of human concepts and do it right?

You also appear to be holding the mistaken belief that the various constitutions are themselves the well-spring of the rights and liberties of We the People, and that we are the ones bound by their respective provisions and principles. That is a demonstrably unsubstantiated and fundamentally unsafe foundational premise, as no constitution on this planet is now or ever has been the source of our inherent and fundamental individual rights and liberties. In that respect, its sole purpose as a grantor of any and all delegated powers and authority, and prohibitions upon the use of same, is applicable and binding only upon our servant government and its actors, regardless of branch, department, or office. The only thing a constitution does directly for the People is to provide a reminder to those in government that they are in fact, NOT the ones in charge of everything, and to preserve an actionable remedy to remove, alter, or abolish any or all parts of that government when it fails to adhere to the proper limits upon its use of that power and authority.

Now, let’s start with what I feel should be some rather simplistic facts and logic in terms of laying a foundation for this response, beginning with certain facts that we know for certain are true:

1)  It is NOT illegal for an individual to purchase an automobile or truck of any classification or type for private non-commercial use in any state of the union.

2)  There are NO laws placing any restrictions upon the number of automobiles or trucks that a private individual can purchase.

3)  There are NO laws prohibiting the free exchange of lawfully owned private automobiles or trucks between private individuals or private individuals and business’.
4)  The foundation of facts established by items 1-3 begs the conclusion that any man may purchase and own any number of automobiles or trucks as their own private property, and may do with them as he might please as to their purchase, sale, transfer, use, or destruction. After all, he lawfully and rightfully owns them, not the state, not society, and most certainly not government as it is a creature of man’s own lesser design and creation.  Only a lien-holder would have say in the matter, and neither the state nor its agents are parties to that contractual agreement as lien-holders, so they have no legitimate claim under it and no duty towards it other than ensuring that the contract does not violate properly enacted and applicable law governing such contracts or that it is not unconscionable toward either party in its terms.
However, it would appear to be your position that the state, while it has no lawful authority to say or do anything at all in relation to any of the things described in 1-4 above, can somehow still claim it has the legitimate authority to tell someone that they have no inherent or fundamental right to actually use the private property that they lawfully purchased and own for its intended and designed purpose. Thomas Jefferson would probably have first laughed in the face of any judge or attorney that would dare foment such an obviously liberty and individual rights denying concept, and then, sought their disbarment and/or impeachment, rapidly followed by criminal charges or lunatic commitment papers.   Jefferson’s thoughts on such stupidity are rather poignant, “The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8:72

Jefferson had much to say on the concept and law of private property ownership and use:

Property Rights:

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

“A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

“[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to… the acquisitions of our own industry.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

“He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Bancroft, 1788. ME 19:41

“That, on the principle of a communion of property, small societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various small societies which have been constituted on that principle. But I do not feel authorized to conclude from these that an extended society, like that of the United States or of an individual State, could be governed happily on the same principle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822. ME 15:399

The Origin of Ownership:

“It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all… It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

“A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.” –Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

“The laws of civil society, indeed, for the encouragement of industry, give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470

Every Citizen is Entitled to Own Property:

“The political institutions of America, its various soils and climates, opened a certain resource to the unfortunate and to the enterprising of every country and insured to them the acquisition and free possession of property.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775. Papers 1:199

“The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed… It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

“No right [should] be stipulated for aliens to hold real property within these States, this being utterly inadmissible by their several laws and policy.” –Thomas Jefferson: Commercial Treaties Instructions, 1784.

“Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

“[The] unequal division of property… occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which… is to be observed all over Europe.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:681

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682

The Protection of Property Rights:

“[The] rights [of the people] to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

“I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means, and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors of the many.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33

“Our wish… is that… equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382

“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:466

“If the overgrown wealth of an individual is deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:466

Rights Associated With Ownership:

“It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors… It would be curious… if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody… The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

“By nature’s law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice.” –Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:104

“Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810. ME 12:383

“Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of.” –Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

“[If government have] a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, [this would leave] us without anything we can call property.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:233

“The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:145

“Persons and property make the sum of the objects of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459

“The right to sell is one of the rights of property.” –Thomas Jefferson to Handsome Lake, 1802. ME 16:395

“The power of repelling invasions, and making laws necessary for carrying that power into execution seems to include that of occupying those sites which are necessary to repel an enemy, observing only the amendment to the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation… Where the necessary sites cannot be obtained by the joint and valid consent of parties,… provision should be made by a process of ad quod damnum, or any other more eligible means for authorizing the sites which are necessary for the public defense to be appropriated to that purpose.” –Thomas Jefferson: Message on Defence, 1808. ME 3:326

You now might better recognize this concept of yours, as it is essentially a claim that government can deny or convert to privilege the rightful and lawful use of private property against him who lawfully owns and controls it. It is a concept very much in line with that of an unlawful governmental taking or conversion of property, which is something else that SCotUS has addressed on more than one occasion, albeit with ever increasing ineptitude and leanings toward destruction of rights and usurpation of power.

Which brings me to the one question that no attorney or judge ever appears to be able to reasonably explain when asked, “how did the people go from having every right to using ANYTHING that they lawfully owned and possessed, whether that be their feet, a burrow or horse, a chariot, a sled, a litter, a wagon, or a “motor car,” to freely travel upon the roadways of their age, to suddenly having that right converted into a mere privilege due to nothing more than the advancement of time and technology coupled with the whims of other men?”

Which then, of course, begs the followup question;  “Can you name any other inherent and fundamental individual right that has been so fully and unlawfully converted into a licensed privilege simply because time and advancements in technology made changes in the manner of things and devices used to exercise it?” I certainly can’t. Nor can I fathom how any court or governmental body could have possibly come to a lawful and constitutional conclusion that they suddenly had a new power and authority that they had never previously possessed in that they could arbitrarily take away a man’s right to the use of his own private property for any and all LAWFUL (not LEGAL) purposes unless he first sought and received governmental permission to do so.

And any argument that the government has the right to deny the use of THEIR roads is patently false, because the roads are neither owned by nor belong to the government. They belong to the people. WE paid for them to be built and to be maintained. They are OURS. Government is nothing more than our elected and appointed steward for seeing to it that the roads remain fit for OUR use in pursuit of our individual private business or pleasure.

Even more to the point, just WHO could have possibly given the state legislature, or any other body of government, the authority to make that conversion of fundamental and inherent individual rights and liberties into lesser government sanctioned and licensed/permitted privileges?  Such a thing is inconceivable in a constitutional republic. If I have no personal or individual right to tell someone else that they cannot use either their private property, or our mutual property in the form of the public roads, in a lawful and peaceful manner, whether such use is done independently or simultaneously. And neither you nor anyone else has any such lawful right.  And if none of us individually have any such lawful power and authority over another man, then neither does ANY governmental agency or agent, as their just powers are derived from us. And if we don’t lawfully have it, we cannot delegate it to another, not even to our own legal creation known as government.

The collective power of government was only intended and authorized to be used against particular members within We the People that had committed unlawful acts against the person, rights or property of another individual or group. And even then, that authority was limited to the purposes of apprehending, trying, convicting, and punishing those specific individuals, not to regulate or otherwise control the rest of us individually or collectively in the just exercise of our own free will. I, like most men, am self-regulating. And I do not seek to unjustly harm the person, rights or property of any other man.

The premise for this line of thought and reasoning in relation to the limits of delegated authority derived from individual rights and liberties was proclaimed by Jefferson in these words:

 “What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393 

“The principles of government… [are] founded in the rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:51

“Our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government… This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

“Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for… peace and safety… as to render its use impracticable,… it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress.” –Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:178

 

Furthermore, when the state enacts a law, ANY law, that is enacted for the regulation of something, anything, it must first be something that the people themselves have the power to regulate themselves either individually or by collective agreement. Why you might ask? Well, it really is a rather simple concept; one cannot give away a power or authority that s/he does not lawfully and rightfully posses. And the tired old cliche of “the people voted” is non-substantive, as the free exercise and enjoyment of inherent fundamental individual rights cannot be removed from any one or more of the people by a majority vote. Nor can a majority vote do any better when it comes to converting a right into a privilege.

This is the difference between a republic and a democracy. One protects the rights and liberties of the individual, the other is nothing more than mob rule, which the founding fathers soundly rejected.In my personal opinion, it is rather idiotic for anyone tell the people that they are born free men, and that they live in a free republic where they each have equal inherent fundamental and innumerable rights, and then, in the same breath, try to qualify or downplay that by saying “… well, … except this, … or that, … or these things here, … because we who are supposedly your servants, having been empowered by our sworn oath to protect and defend ALL of your individual rights as a prerequisite of our existence and authority, have decided without your consent to not let you claim or exercise certain one’s of them, or potentially any of them, as an individual right to be exercised without our written and purchased permission.” Tell me, just who has any lawful right whatsoever to tell another man what he can or cannot do with his own person or property when he does not use his rights to those things to intentionally or negligently cause harm to me or any other?

Now as far as the actual laws themselves go in relation to the subject of “transportation” versus “the right to travel,” let’s look at it from this perspective.

The Texas Constitution, as does most state constitutions of which I am aware, limits the subject of any legislative enactment to ONE SUBJECT. In the case of the fairly recently recodified “transportation” code, that subject just happens to be “TRANSPORTATION.” And ANYTHING that is written into that code MUST be related to that one subject. If it is not, then that portion of the code would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it would be a legislative Bill dealing with more than one subject.

Now, the Texas Legislature did not provide a definition of the term “transportation” in ANY law or code that exists in Texas. However, they DID create statutes that tell us precisely how to determine the meaning of those terms that they failed to define. These methods of writing, reading, and interpreting the meaning of such terms and phrases, can be found in Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code. Within which you will find that the term “transportation” is to be defined in the same manner as other existing law or as the standard industry usage defines it, which just happens to match with the very definition that one would find in the SCotUS case law cited as the basis for that definition in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition and earlier.  The same would apply to the term “carrier.”

It should be axiomatic that, in order to charge someone with a crime under the specific subject matter of “transportation,” since that is the ONLY subject to which the code and its regulatory statutes can constitutionally apply, the state MUST prove that the individual WAS engaged in “transportation” as defined by that term.  Simply being in a car on the highway isn’t enough to constitute “transportation.” And if you are willing to suggest that the state is somehow not required to prove that the regulated subject matter to which the statutes specifically apply is in any way relevant to the criminal accusations being made against the Accused by alleging offenses that are defined by and exists solely within that subject matter code, then you are admitting to the knowing and intentional denial of the right of due process as being precisely what is wrong with your particular brand of justice and the corrupt judicial and Bar system that controls it.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between using the police power for regulation for public safety, such as traffic control devices meant to control traffic flow so as to prevent accidents for instance, and taxation of a privileged activity through various license and permit schemes. You are either considering them to be one and the same or are failing to recognize the distinctive differences, because SCotUS and numerous other courts have ruled over and over again that any license or permit requiring a payment of a fee in order to obtain it ARE taxes upon the exercise of the permissive privilege. The term “tax” and “license” are synonymous according to those court rulings.

However, the right to liberty through locomotion is NOT a permissive or granted privilege, but rather it is an inherent and fundamental right of liberty through locomotion, for which I do not require any man or court to recognize in order for me to know it to be absolutely true. Only a slave must ask permission and favor to move about without his chains, in whatever form those chains may be.  The Declaration of Independence makes this understanding of liberty more than  clear to someone that isn’t actually looking for some legal control mechanism by which to either conceal or deny its very existence.

“To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
But Jefferson didn’t stop there when it came to expounding upon the only real basis and necessity for any form of organized government in the first place:

“It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” –Thomas Jefferson to Francois D’Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4“[These are] the rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

 

What you are saying about the police power and the government’s alleged right to regulate certain activities is not a concept created by the people OR our constitutions, but rather by the courts and those within our government that decided they knew better than us how to lead lawful and productive lives, and then proceeded to use their delegated powers to subvert and undermine the rights of everyone for the perceived [but false] benefit of a collective society, which is a concept soundly rejected as an abomination to the principles of a constitutional republic.

“The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” –Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24

 

And you also seem to think that I and everyone else should have no opinion or argument that contradicts or refutes that which establishes the power and control sought by government through our courts. Courts which have demonstrated their complete failure in understanding even the most historically fundamental concepts of LIMITED government and inherent fundamental individual rights, which they’ve accomplished through a never-ending train of tortured reasoning and incompetent or abusive readings and interpretations of the provisions within the various constitutions to further diminish individual rights in favor of ever expanding governmental power and authority. It is the basic principle of letting the inmates run the asylum by setting and interpreting their own rules.

Your words make it appear that you want me and the rest of the American people to simply accept the baseless assertion that they, meaning the courts, attorneys like you, and governmental actors in general, are somehow more capable, qualified, and intellectually equipped to be the sole collective body uniquely empowered to be our only purveyors of truth and understanding. A concept which I find not only laughable to the point of requiring corrective surgery, but with which I heartily and vehemently disagree to the point of being willing to take up arms to defend against it. Nor am I alone in thinking so. My words to you on that point are well founded in a prior discussion involving Jefferson that long predates us both, and which soundly renounces and refutes such an assertion on your part:

“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

“Some other natural rights… [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights.” –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272

 

So, despite what you might think about the power and authority of government to do any particular thing it damn well pleases, I would consider the possibility that you, like many others before you and in office today, have failed to remember that We the People ARE the one true and primary department of government that has the power to supersede and/or do away with anything and everything that government, in whole or in part, may decide or do. The government’s willingness to resort to force of arms, and to use them without fear of accountability, does not make those doing so right. What it does make them is a group of treasonous despots that deserve to be arrested and punished with life in prison for their crimes against us all, which will be exactly what happens if they lose the battle of force.

Therefore, all I can say to you is that you may choose to believe as you wish and stay as much a slave to those beliefs in relying on a totally corrupt and broken system of law and injustice as you desire, regardless of how ill-founded or unsubstantiated such beliefs may be. But, none of your choices bind me or any other individual to you or to those choices. I have the faculties and the inherent and unalienable right to think and act for myself, to make my own choices, to self-regulate, and to engage in my own private business or pleasure using my own understanding of the proper exercise of my rights and liberties as I see fit, limited or barred only by the equal rights of others to not be intentionally or negligently harmed by me. Which would also include freedom from those same types of intrusions and harm by government actors. THAT is the true limit of government’s police powers upon the free exercise of the individual rights and property belonging to We the People as far as I am concerned.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” –Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276

“Being myself a warm zealot for the attainment and enjoyment by all mankind of as much liberty as each may exercise without injury to the equal liberty of his fellow citizens, I have lamented that… the endeavors to obtain this should have been attended with the effusion of so much blood.” –Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicholas Demeunier, 1795. FE 7:13

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” –Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

“If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124P.S.

Thank you for your email. I will use it for the edification of others so that they may understand why attorneys should never be allowed to hold public office or other positions of power that would allow them to control and subvert the freedoms and liberties that are inherent in us all by our very birth. I will be posting your email, and my response, to my blog.

Be aware that I reserve the right to edit and amend my original response at any time and in any way that I deem necessary as time and information allows. Hopefully it will be enough to provide you with a different perspective than the one that you currently have, the most important of which being that the legal profession cannot have its cake and eat it too. When laws are used to subvert and supplant liberty and freedom with permissions and privileges, then the law itself, and those that try to justify supporting and defending it, ARE the only real problem.

Motions – Challenging Jurisdiction

Tao of LawLeave a comment

Okay, let’s talk for a brief minute about Motions to Dismiss that challenge both subject matter and in personam (personal) jurisdiction and WHY you want to file BOTH in separate individual pleadings. This was a discussion I had with someone earlier today about this subject, and it’s important to note the distinctions being made in the arguments within each pleading.

Q:  Can or should a motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction read the same (or roughly the same) as a motion to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

A:  They will have similarities to the facts of the arguments, but different focuses.

Q:  For example, would in personam focus more on the officer’s authority to stop you in the first place removing the authority from the court to hear the case?

A:  It works in BOTH.

A Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Would go Something like this:

It is an uncontested fact that the arresting officer, Officer Ima Dickhead (“Officer Dickhead“), conducted no investigation into discovering any facts or evidence that would prove Respondent was engaged in “transportation” at any time prior to or during the alleged regulatory offense.


It is an uncontested fact that Officer Dickhead‘s entire basis for making such an allegation is based entirely upon his/her own unsubstantiated personal presumptions of law rather than actual facts or evidence.


It is an uncontested fact that Officer Dickhead has no lawful authority to seize and arrest Respondent without warrant for an alleged “transportation” offense if the officer lacked any articulable facts and evidence supporting probable cause to believe that Respondent was actively engaged in “transportation.”


It is an uncontested fact that, absent any facts and evidence that Respondent was engaging in “transportation,” Officer Dickhead lacked not only articulable probable cause to make a warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent, but also any and all subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent relating to enforcement of regulatory statutes relevant to same.


It is an uncontested fact that, if Officer Dickhead never believed that Respondent was actively engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, thus Officer Dickhead never intended to perform any investigation that would result in the discovery of any admissible facts and evidence that would prove Respondent was so engaged, then it cannot by rightfully said that Officer Dickhead was acting on any specific articulable facts or evidence supporting probable cause, but was acting instead upon an entirely unlawful and unsubstantiated legal presumption that the existing facts and evidence did not support.


It is an uncontested fact that, given the current state of tensions in this nation and this state relating to law enforcement officers brutally assaulting, injuring, and murdering individuals that are doing nothing more than asserting and exercising their fundamental and constitutionally protected rights to not be subjected to false arrests, abuses of police power, and injurious physical assaults and death at the hands of out-of-control law enforcement personnel, Officer Dickhead‘s demonstrably faulty and unsubstantiated legal presumption and callous disregard of the facts and the law created an unacceptable level of danger to the life, person, rights and property of Respondent as well as that of the general public to a degree that is shocking to the conscience.


As Officer Dickhead lacked any actual articulable facts and evidence that Respondent was actually engaged in “transportation” at the time of the warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent, and never made any attempt whatsoever to investigate into this necessary and mandatory element of subject matter jurisdiction relating to the alleged offense, there was no legal basis creating a foundation for articulable probable cause that would serve to support Officer Dickhead‘s warrantless seizure and arrest. Therefore, the warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent by Officer Dickhead was completely unlawful and illegal and was not based upon any probable cause supporting subject matter jurisdiction.

A Motion to Dismiss for Lack of In Personam Jurisdiction Would go Something like this:



It is an uncontested fact that the arresting officer, Officer Ima Dickhead (“Officer Dickhead”), conducted no investigation into discovering any facts or evidence that would prove Respondent was engaged in “transportation” at any time prior to or during the alleged regulatory offense.


It is an uncontested fact that Officer Dickhead‘s entire basis for making such an allegation is based entirely upon his/her own unsubstantiated personal presumptions of law rather than actual facts or evidence.


It is an uncontested fact that Officer Dickhead has no lawful authority to seize and arrest Respondent without warrant for an alleged “transportation” offense if the officer lacked any articulable facts and evidence supporting probable cause to believe that Respondent was actively engaged in “transportation.”


It is an uncontested fact that, absent any facts and evidence that Respondent was engaging in “transportation,” Officer Dickhead lacked not only articulable probable cause to make a warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent, but also any and all in personam jurisdiction over Respondent relating to enforcement of regulatory statutes relevant to same.


It is an uncontested fact that, if Officer Dickhead never believed that Respondent was actively engaged in “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense, thus Officer Dickhead never intended to perform any investigation that would result in the discovery of any admissible facts and evidence that would prove Respondent was so engaged, then it cannot by rightfully said that Officer Dickhead was acting on any specific articulable facts or evidence supporting probable cause, but was acting instead upon an entirely unlawful and unsubstantiated legal presumption that the existing facts and evidence did not support.


It is an uncontested fact that, given the current state of tensions in this nation and this state relating to law enforcement officers brutally assaulting, injuring, and murdering individuals that are doing nothing more than asserting and exercising their fundamental and constitutionally protected rights to not be subjected to false arrests, abuses of police power, and injurious physical assaults and death at the hands of out-of-control law enforcement personnel, Officer Dickhead‘s demonstrably faulty and unsubstantiated legal presumption and callous disregard of the facts and the law created an unacceptable level of danger to the life, person, rights and property of Respondent as well as that of the general public to a degree that is shocking to the conscience.


As Officer Dickhead lacked any actual articulable facts and evidence that Respondent was actually engaged in “transportation” at the time of the warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent, and never made any attempt whatsoever to investigate into this necessary and mandatory element of in personam jurisdiction relating to the alleged offense, there was no legal basis creating a foundation for articulable probable cause that would serve to support Officer Dickhead‘s warrantless seizure and arrest. Therefore, the warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent by Officer Dickhead was completely unlawful and illegal and was not based upon any probable cause supporting in personam jurisdiction.



What you have to understand is, that although the facts that lead up to both challenges are essentially the same, the focus of the challenge can and would be different between a challenge to subject matter versus in personam jurisdiction. These same points of argument would serve just as well in a “Motion to Suppress” considering that, since the facts show that probable cause never existed, then the officer conducted an illegal search and seizure of the person, the conveyance, and the personal information relating to both.

Furthermore, in order for any of this information to remain admissible, the state must first PROVE that the warrantless arrest was valid by proving that probable cause DID exist, AND that the officer properly complied with Art. 38.22, Code of Criminal Procedure. The problem for the state, however, is that the officer NEVER attempted to obtain any such evidence AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE. And failing to do so would make ANYTHING they try to use thereafter, like a driving record or other official record relating to licensing, registration, inspection, financial responsibility, etc., etc., INADMISSIBLE because it is NOT relevant to the original stop and arrest and certainly not a direct result of the officer’s actions at the original stop.