Category: Evidence

My License Plate Light DOES work Officer!

Tao of Law2 Comments

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Dun & Bradstreet” Patrinut Myth.

Tao of Law1 Comment

This article is the result of a comment that was posted on Facebook in response to another individual’s original post citing a quote that was totally fake and does not exist in the named court case. As I tend to do in these instances, I called out the original posting individual for not verifying that the case quotation was actually in the written opinion before they posted it as being an actual fact (because it’s not!) and potentially misleading others by doing so. Whether any deception was intentional or not is neither here nor there at the moment, though I will give the benefit of the doubt for the time being as the original poster went back and corrected the post to point out the quote does not exist in the case opinion or even the premise of the subject matter involved in it.

Here is the original post…:

Here is my original comment to that post and the individual’s reply…:

And here is the specific comment on this post that I am wishing to address by means of this article:

I’ve covered this subject in other discussions before, but now it seems like a good time to address it in more specific detail for those truly seeking to understand the facts and reality of things rather than the Patrinut harebrained theories and fake case quotes that have sprung up over the existence of “data universal numbering system” (DUNS) numbers in relation to governmental entities and the Dun & Bradstreet business entity registry and reporting system.

This article touches on three specific points of legality and reality to explain what the real-world facts are and why the Patrinut conjectural ‘facts’ used to formulate their theories are so far off-point the original crew of the NCC-1701 Starship Enterprise couldn’t find them even if it were on a ten-year mission instead of just five.

Those three things are:

  1. the legal/law aspects of legal entities;
  2. the reality of how legal entities must function in the real world; and
  3. the legal, physical, and contractual reasons why the requirements of 1 and 2 are how governmental legal entities must function to serve their intended purposes.

So let’s begin with the statement made in the comment (corrected for spelling and grammar of course), “The police department has a duns DUNS number, Wwhich is [a] duns Dun & Bradstreet [number], Which proves proving that there they are [a] corporation.”

What actually is a DUNS number? Well, let’s ask the source, Dun & Bradstreet themselves:

There is a maxim of logic that states “Correlation does not equal causation,” which, in layman’s terms simply means, “Just because something is found to be commonly associated with some other thing, that is not absolute proof that the other thing is caused by or is true simply by the mere association of the two.”

Let’s dissect that posted comment, starting with the implication made in the last part, which is that the existence of a DUNS number is proof that a legal entity is a corporation. We begin by looking at some specific facts in relation to corporations of any kind:

  1. A corporation is created by a set of legal documents titled “Articles of Incorporation,” which contains all of the necessary legal forms and agreements required to establish and register a legal corporate entity within the state in which it wishes to exercise a privilege to do business.
  2. The legal documents described in point 1 must exist and be filed regardless of whether or not a corporation even applies for a DUNS number, which is entirely optional for corporations to obtain and is not in any way whatsoever a requirement for being incorporated. A DUNS number is created for a business only if that business voluntarily registers with Dun & Bradstreet, and is used primarily as an internal tracking and publicly available reference number for their system only.
  3. Dun & Bradstreet allows unincorporated business entities to register with their service right alongside incorporated ones.

Logically speaking, one thing that is entirely optional in association with some other thing cannot be proof that the other thing even exists, hence, our maxim of logic is proven to be correct.

Okay, these specific facts alone prove that the comment is totally wrong about what a DUNS number is and does. But wait, there’s more! If you keep reading now, I will throw in some additional clarifying information ABSOLUTELY FREE!! Are you ready? Here goes.

A legal entity, incorporated or not, has no physical form or presence of any kind. Anything that the entity must “do,” it must do through a living individual as its agent. This remains true no matter how many legal entities are chained together in the paper trail of its business, it ultimately falls into the minds and hands of a living breathing individual.

So, how then does a legal entity conduct business, any business, if it can’t act on its own volition and behalf? Simple, the power to act on the entity’s behalf must be assigned to one or more of those living breathing individuals I just mentioned. How is this done? By more paperwork. Words are written down, terms of authority, duties and obligations are set forth, and signatures applied, thus assignments are made. Does this make the assignee a corporation themselves? No, it does not, because you cannot convert a living being into a fiction of law. You can make a living being the fiction’s agent, but not actually one of them.

Now, in order to make contracts with other legal entities, the entire previously described process must take place all over again, words are written down, terms of authority, duties and obligations are set forth, and signatures applied, thus contracts are made. But, who can actually review and sign these contracts? The legal entity has no eyes or mind of its own, so it can’t read or understand the contract in order to accept it. It has no mouth or hands by which it may ask questions or request changes to the terms either verbally or in writing, nor can it sign the agreement in acceptance. It short, the legal entity is as powerless and helpless as an unarmed stark-naked stormtrooper in the hands of a pissed-off Chewbacca.

Enter the assigned agent, aka the corporate officer, legal counsel or appointed employee. Regardless of their official title, the designated agent is the one who is actually responsible for reading, amending, accepting and signing of the contract on behalf of the legal entity, not the legal entity itself. The most important takeaway for the Patrinuts in this scenario is the understanding that natural persons doing all of this as the agent of a corporation does not make these agents a corporation in and of themselves.

This process is how any intelligent individual operating a business, especially an incorporated one, acts and contracts for suppliers, buyers, and internal purchases of supplies and equipment, a place to conduct business, bank accounts, money transfers, etc., etc. ad infinitum. And in every single one of these transactions, there is a living individual that is performing or initiating the actual act itself. At no time does the legal entity leave the room, make a call, or lift a finger on its own behalf, because it is not real, it is a legal concept whose existence is based entirely upon the existence of legal documents, and cannot do any of those things for itself.

Do you get it yet? If any part of the explanation thus far is still eluding your understanding then perhaps you have chosen the wrong thing to make a stand and engage in argument over, because anyone who does understand these facts and realities is going to kick your ass from one end of the debate stage to the other and embarrass you in front of the whole audience. I know this for a fact, because I do it all the time.

But wait, if you keep reading now, I will also throw in this additional bit of information for the low low price of absolutely nothing! Isn’t that a great deal!!!

A governmental entity is no more real than any other form of legal entity. Thus, it requires the exact same legal machinations to function and operate as any other type of legal entity does. This means an assignment of officers, employees, and authorized agents to act on its behalf and in its name for the benefit of the people it was created to serve. It means the same due diligence in the performance of the duties and authority delegated in those assignments as is required of other individuals with similar responsibilities on behalf of other types of legal entities, if not actually more so since they are for public service rather than for profit.

This brings us to another aspect of incorporation when it comes to private corporations versus public corporations, which are not to be confused or conflated with publicly-traded corporations. Private corporations can operate as either for-profit or non-profit, which means they can be used to either make as much money as possible or to provide some benefit to the public in their functions as a non-profit. Public corporations, which is precisely what all public offices operate as, in order to not have a conflict of interest between serving the public equally and equitably as intended versus making a profit at the expense of those services or the people themselves, are morally and ethically required to be 100% non-profit in every single case and, to the best of my knowledge, do not and never have operated upon the concept of publicly traded shares on the stock market like many private forms of publicly-traded corporations do. I don’t say legally because I do not know the entirety of the law on this subject in relation to such public corporations, hence, there may be certain conditions and exceptions of which I am currently unaware. But, as of the date of this writing, I have never been shown any verifiable proof that any such exceptions exist in the body and terms of the law itself.

However, since the public (government) corporations have almost virtually identical needs and requirements for the proper functioning and operation of the public’s business as that of other legal entities engaged in private business, it stands to reason that they would also utilize many of the same processes and procedures for doing so. This brings us full circle to the issue of legal documents and contracts and why they are used by all forms of incorporated and unincorporated business alike, because it’s much easier and convenient to have a standardized means of creating a hard-copy set of policies and procedures that provide for at least some level of responsibility and an accountability trail for virtually every part of the operation, including who the acting agent actually is or is required to be for any given activity.

Now that we have that set of concepts explained (it would be presumptuous of me to say ‘understood’), we can begin to see the necessity in why a governmental entity would incorporate in order to properly function in service of the public. Let’s consider what kind of mess it would be if the business side of government was not allowed to incorporate so as to engage in the same activities as all those other legal entities. We can begin with even the simplest of daily business activities, the purchasing of everyday office supplies and management activities. Who is responsible for determining what supplies are required and how much of them? Who is responsible for picking them up or ordering and paying for them, and from where? Who is responsible for the finances and the bank account? Who tracks and accounts for the money taken in and all expenditures? Who would have access to all the money that comes into the governmental office, as well as monies either posted to the bank account or paid out to vendors, contractors, or payroll? Who balances and closes out all of these accounts at the end of each business day, week, and quarter? Who is responsible for making sure that all the other people are doing their job properly and not stealing or embezzling? Who is responsible for auditing and ensuring the honesty and integrity of those responsible for each and every one of these things? Who do any of these people report to? Who is in charge over what and whom? What power and authority does that person have when something bad is reported? Who is authorized to make and sign contracts with suppliers and vendors on behalf of the governmental office? How did they get authorized and by whom? Who reviews those contracts for fraud and legal compliance? What happens when someone with one of these responsibilities transfers to another office, dies, or quits, who takes over? Who’s responsibility is it to decide who takes over, who is hired, and who is fired? How are personnel informed of the duties of their job and who has the responsibility of training them how to do it properly? Is the person responsible for one contract only authorized to do that particular contract or can they do others? If they can do others, what others, and with whom? And these kinds of day-to-day scenarios go on and on and on….

As you have no doubt surmised by now, a corporate structure and management system goes a long way to answering and resolving many of these questions and issues in a positive manner, and greatly simplifies the functions and operational process of virtually any form of business activity, which even a governmental entity must engage in in order to properly and efficiently function. If this were not the case, then the fraud, waste and abuse so commonly associated with government and many of its contractors would be even more rampant and unaccountable than it is now.

This leads us, finally, to the ability of honest business folks having a means to tell what business entities are reputable, stable, and not in the habit of screwing over other people’s business’ or the public in general. Enter Dun & Bradstreet. Let’s look again at what the stated purpose of their business, and that of the DUNS number itself, actually is:

“A D‑U‑N‑S Number identifies a company’s Dun & Bradstreet business credit file, which may include firmographic data (company name, address, phone number, etc.), corporate family relationships (headquarters, branches, subsidiaries, etc.), and scores and ratings that assess different financial health indicators. Taken all together, this profile of information is called the Dun & Bradstreet Live Business Identity. Potential partners and lenders can request a business credit report about your business using your D‑U‑N‑S Number or other business identifiers. Equally, you can use the D‑U‑N‑S Number to access the same information about any company with which you might wish to work.”

See, Dun & Bradstreet isn’t there to create a corporation or to prove that corporation exists. They are there to collect and report on the credit and business conduct of that legal entity for the benefit of the general public and any other legal business entities as a whole so we, and they, can determine whether or not to engage in business with another business entity or how to best set certain contractual obligations and terms in order to do so at some future date.

In short, the existence of a DUNS number on Dun & Bradstreet for a public (governmental) corporation, or the fact that it is incorporated at all, proves absolutely nothing about the Patrinut “corporation” theory to be even plausibly true and correct.

Now, wasn’t that a bargain!! All of this for the ultra-low price of a few exercised brain cells and reading time. Something the majority of the Patrinuts seem to be seriously lacking.

Challenge Texas Penal Code §38.04 as Being Unconstitutional!

Tao of Law2 Comments

TEXAS Penal Code §38.04 Evading Arrest or Detention, a Discussion on Challenging Constitutionality of a Statute.

I have a Motion here on my legal blog that was used in ANOTHER individual’s felony evasion charge case that I helped him get dismissed with prejudice. The Motion and signed order dismissing the case is posted right in the blog article (with the knowledge and consent of the individual who was being prosecuted).

There are several paragraphs in that motion that deal with the evasion allegation being made in that case, which you would need to tailor to fit the specific facts of YOUR specific “evading” case in order to apply them, if they DO apply.

That said, a specific issue that I didn’t think to argue in that case (because it only just dawned on me last week when I was re-reading the statute) is that the offense of “Evading Arrest or Detention” as codified in PENAL CODE, §38.04(b)(1)(B) (no previous conviction) or §§38.04(b)(2/3) (prior conviction/death of another) COULD and SHOULD be directly challenged as being unconstitutional, because, as a whole, it is overly vague, ambiguous and overbroad. How so? Well, the statute:

  • does NOT DEFINE or make reference to a specifically assigned meaning for “evading/evasion” in order to either prove or disprove the element with facts or evidence;
  • does NOT provide in any way whatsoever ANY specific statutory criteria for the element of evading regarding what facts, evidence, and/or actions, constitute the act of “evading/evasion,”;
  • does NOT, absent a specific definition, provide an individual with properly sufficient legal notice of what behavior or actions constitutes the criminal act of “evading/evasion,” and, therefore, it is an irreparable due process violation of the highest order; and;
  • it allows both the officer AND the prosecutor to determine, decide and rely entirely upon his/her own personal presumptions, conclusions, opinions and discretion about what legally constitutes “evading/evasion” in order to charge and prosecute the alleged offense against any individual merely on the entirely subjective basis that the individual didn’t immediately come to a complete stop and surrender within some subjectively arbitrary amount of time or distance, or a particular place, that the OFFICER AND PROSECUTOR ALONE gets to decide is appropriate.

Now try reading the online version of the statute and see if you can reasonably come to any other possible conclusion yourself based upon the facts and evidence of how the statute is ACTUALLY written:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm#38.04

Also, you can easily verify that no such definition exists in Texas law if you go to the “Search” function at the top of this page;

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

You can type in (WITH the double quotes) either of these phrases, “evading means” or “evading includes”, and you will see that you get NOTHING in return for either search. That is demonstrable proof that the Texas Legislature does NOT define the term “evading” ANYWHERE in any code containing Texas law.

THAT is precisely what an absolutely unconstitutionally vague, ambiguous, and overbroad statute most obviously reads like. In this case, it leaves the entire primary element of the statutory offense completely and subjectively open to definitions and determinations created and maintained solely by the charging officer or the prosecutor as to what constitutes “evading” as an element of the offense, and THAT is a direct due process violation.

When it comes to the statute, if you find yourself being charged under §38.04 Penal Code, it is imperative that you LEARN IT, KNOW IT, and APPLY THIS ARGUMENT. If you do it correctly, you SHOULD get it thrown out. Most likely ON APPEAL because the lower level trial courts WILL NOT usually even attempt to rule in the favor of an accused individual that a penal statute is even remotely unconstitutional, no matter how blatantly obvious it might actually be so. THAT is why it will almost certainly have to be done on APPEAL, so make damn sure you make the argument correctly and thoroughly IN WRITING via MOTIONS and JUDICIAL NOTICES so that there is a proper record for appeal.

For that reason, you MUST also file a Motion DEMANDING that there be a court reporter present and recording at every single proceeding conducted in your case so you have a complete record for appeal.

I wish you the best in being successful, and PLEASE, if you ARE successful, provide me with some credit where credit is due by allowing me to get an email from you that says how I helped you and what the case was about, AND, a copy of the SIGNED court order showing how the case was settled in your favor, however that might be, so I can post it on my legal blog and share it for others to see and learn from so they are encouraged to stand up for themselves against such unconstitutional laws by learning how to fight back.

Also, PLEASE, state clearly in the email you provided the order in that you are giving me full consent to post the order AS IS (which I don’t really need since it IS a part of the 100% public court record, but I am polite enough to ask). Okay? Thanks in advance.

When Ignorance is Your Bliss, Reality is Deemed a Lie.

Tao of Law3 Comments

Do you want to know what I find most telling, and disappointing, about the [mental] state of American’s these days? Just how hard they are willing to fight to remain ignorant, stupid, and oppressed simply because their personal beliefs and misconceptions have convinced them they are “free” and actually know what is going on around them, despite irrefutable facts and evidence to the contrary. More depressingly, they don’t and won’t believe or understand what is being done TO them, in their own name, by those to whom they entrusted the very power being used to oppress them.

It would seem that most of the American people would rather be right in their unfounded beliefs (on just about any subject you can imagine) than they would in learning why their beliefs on a given subject are incorrect. These people actually prefer the fallacies established in their own minds over the more than ample facts and evidence proving their beliefs to be based on either demonstrable misconceptions, various forms of dis/misinformation, outright lies, or some combination thereof. In my entire life, I have never seen this level of blatant and willful individual ignorance and stupidity defended with such venom, vehemence and vociferousness as is displayed by such people on social media. Probably because it is the only place they could do it in the manner they do and still manage to avoid getting punched in the mouth for what they say and claim they would do if they could “only get my hands on you.”

What further astounds me is how many of them there are, and how they are so willing to be led around by the nose when it comes to the [mis]information they receive and how they process it, no matter how painful and detrimental that information may eventually prove to be to them. For instance, at some point in life, whether you’re dead broke or fabulously wealthy, you may need the kind of services that the majority of attorneys are willing to steal good money to convince you they can provide. Even so, virtually anyone who has had the misfortune to need services from an attorney will usually wind up paying him/her far more than they are worth or actually earned, and, in many cases, some of those people will have forked over virtually every dime they have.

It is axiomatic that, as a general rule, most reasonable and intelligent people already believe that the vast majority of attorneys are scumbags, liars and thieves, and rightly so. And yet, there are still so many people who, almost without question, will place more faith and credit in the advice and information from such a knowingly biased and tainted source as that of an attorney, than there are those who would try to learn and understand a subject for themselves. And they do it despite knowing that most attorneys are, first and foremost, self-serving narcissists who will try to convince and advise their clients in a manner that servers to further those ends and line their own pockets.

To me, that way of thinking is metaphorically comparable to being stuck in the middle of a desert that you are somewhat familiar with, but not really an expert on. And you are stuck because the tour guide that brought you all the way out here has suddenly left you high and dry. But, s/he was kind enough to tell you about a watering hole located “somewhere over there” before they departed. So, by the time you actually manage to find the watering hole, you are thirsty enough that you are ready to jump in and start drinking.

Then, just before you jump in and start gargling your way back to the surface, you begin to suspect that your tour guide may have deceived you and that the watering hole s/he sent you to is foul and poisonous. Now, it really doesn’t matter one bit whether you decide to treat the water as poisonous because of experience or intuition, it only matters that all the dead animals, reptiles and insects you see lying around the pool are a pretty good indication that it’s true, and that your tour guide is either incompetent or a self-serving liar who doesn’t give a crap about your welfare at all either way.

Most people of reasonable intelligence who have any real-world experience with attorneys will understand that the disappearing tour guide in this scenario is representative of attorneys in general, especially criminal defense attorneys. They will always ask to be released from the case when you need them most, when it becomes too much work, or to continue as your counsel would demonstrate that they are actually incompetent and get them sued for malpractice. Experienced people will also tell you, unless you have very deep pockets, attorneys are far more interested in just taking your money and running than helping you fight back in a time of trouble. These kinds of people are representative of people who are like me. We are the ones who began to suspect that the tour guide was intentionally misleading us so as to ensure that we couldn’t, and wouldn’t, be able to survive in the desert without them.

Now assume that you are a different kind of person than people like me are. You are the kind of person who does not recognize the significance of all the dead things around the watering hole and are incapable of realizing that your tour guide was actually plotting against you the whole time. And now you are the one stuck in the desert under these same circumstances and conditions.

Meanwhile, across the sand and rocks about a quarter-mile away, you see someone waving to you, someone like me who has learned how to survive in the desert without the tour guide. You can barely see the other person. Fortunately, you can also barely hear them. They are screaming, “I’ve found good water! Don’t drink from that pool, it’s poisoned! Come over here and drink the good water!”

Now, being the kind of person you are, self-centered, self-absorbed, and thoroughly convinced of your own beliefs and understanding of things (mainly because of how they make you feel about yourself and your life circumstances rather than any factual basis ), you start to analyze the situation as follows; 1. you don’t know anything about this other person; 2. you’ve never met or seen this other person before; 3. you have no idea how this other person came to be here in the same place as you, but, here they are; 4. You have no idea where this other person came from or how long they’ve been out here; 5. you presume that if you can’t survive all alone out here, then neither could this other person, so they can’t really be of any help or use to you now; and 6. first you begin to presume, and then convince yourself, that, this other person is just someone else who is as stuck and alone in the middle of the desert as you are.

So, right away you have begun to judge the other person based solely upon all of your own unsubstantiated personal beliefs and presumptions so as to convince yourself that they cannot know or understand any more about this desert and the situation at hand than you do, probably even less you imagine. After all, they are out here in the desert too, so you must be the smarter and more knowledgeable of the two of you, right? Therefore, you just write them off as not knowing what they are talking about when it comes to knowing whether or not your water is poisonous or if the water they are telling you about is actually any better to drink.

Now, what I find the most strange about you people who think like this is, despite knowing that the other person is NOT a mirage, and that they obviously already know that the watering hole you are about to drink from is poisoned, you would rather simply presume the other person is crazy and doesn’t and couldn’t possibly know anything at all about whether or not the water source you chose is safe to drink from. Thus, people with your kind of mindset would rather think about fighting and arguing with the other person who is merely trying to help you just so you can continue believing you were smart enough to have chosen correctly despite the clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. At least, it would be clear and convincing evidence to any normal person with an open mind and the ability to question what they think they already know. You, however, are the kind of person who has such a diminished mental capacity for accepting and processing new and contradicting information that you would rather go ahead and drink the poisoned water that’s already right in front of you just because you are too lazy, dismissive and unwilling to do the work required to travel a little farther across the desert to a source of good water.

I can only surmise that people like you process things this way because your pride and cognitive dissonance simply won’t allow you to believe and accept, that, not only is it possible, there really are many different watering holes in this same desert IF you understand how to find them, some good, some bad, and that there is always going to be someone else who knows the one from the other even when you don’t or won’t admit that you can’t tell the difference. You are the kind of person who finds it even harder to believe that someone who is actually supposed to know the difference, and is supposed to tell  and direct the rest of us who may not, really doesn’t know at all, or simply doesn’t care. Like your tour guide. In fact, you are so dead-set on reconsidering your erroneous presumptions and conclusions that you won’t even accept the self-evident truth that it was your original tour guide who pointed you to the poisoned water and made you presume it was safe to drink.

So, you insist on going forward in life hanging tightly onto those incorrect beliefs and presumptions despite one very clear and irrefutable fact that you refuse to admit, even to yourself; that you knew only enough about how to survive being stranded in a desert that you allowed yourself to be guided by someone else to a poisoned watering hole, while never once considering just how much better off you would have been if only you had bothered learning and knowing for yourself how to locate one and determine that it is good to drink from.

By the way, you must still be thirsty from being stranded in that desert, would you like to try a piece of this new chewing gum your attorney recommended as “mouthwatering?”

So I ask you, how do you help the kinds of people who share this mental state of idol worship for “authority” figures without a clue? Should we even try? What’s the point if they don’t want your help or to know the truth? What if they truly are happier drinking from a pool of poisonous lies and disinformation than they are a pool of verifiable truth, no matter what the end result will be? If any of you figure out these answers, please let me know.

4th Amendment Done RIGHT!

Tao of Law6 Comments

The TV show “Breaking Bad” does have some useful information in it, and not just for drug kingpins.

I made this video because it is an absolutely PERFECT example of how things should be handled in ANY traffic stop, as well as how to do things in accordance with my “Transportation Stop Practice Script.”

I didn’t have time for the fancy video editing required to implement freeze frames and such for long pieces of text, so pause the video manually if you need to in order to read the whole thing.

However, the IMPORTANT thing is, PAY ATTENTION to what is going on and what is being said and done, as well as HOW it is being said. This could save your life at some future point!!

https://taooflaw.wordpress.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=6745

“I’ll make you famous….” ’cause “Homey don’t play ‘dat.”

Tao of Law1 Comment

For some reason that is totally beyond my ability to understand about some kinds of people, there are those among us who would rather rely completely on their own opinions and beliefs rather than clearly visible evidence and verifiable facts.

I keep a folder on my computer titled “Facebook Idiots” where I store screenshots of every conversation like this one just so there is no question later about the truth of what was said and by whom. That way, you see, I don’t have to redact their names on these blog posts for fear of getting sued for slander or liable, because all the evidence of the veracity of an article’s content is right in front of everyone for all to see. What I find even more unbelievable is how willing they are to launch ad hominem personal attacks upon people like myself for the information we freely present to the public when it is accompanied by all the relevant and verifiable sources and evidence showing exactly what we’re are talking about being clearly provided within that same information.

Here, for instance, we have just such an example of yet another individual that wants everyone to accept his opinion about just how stupid and dangerous I am because of the fact-based information I try to provide to the public. The problem, however, is that his opinion has no factual evidence supporting it. And even if it did, it would still almost certainly be 100% irrelevant and incorrect as factually pertaining to the specific information I am providing. This would be the case precisely because the laws and court cases within his own state or federal court district are either very different, or, if he IS in Texas, then what he claims to be true does not directly address the specifics of my information as it exists in the statutory law and court opinions within Texas, which is where the information I provided is sourced from and is 100% applicable to.

Now, I didn’t ever ask what state he is located in, but, based upon how he is making claims about the court cases saying something contrary to the currently controlling case on the subject of Texas “traffic stops” being at least some form of custodial arrest, Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182 (2008), it would certainly appear that he isn’t in Texas. However, that too could be incorrect simply because it is also very very possible that he is just an argumentative asshole that likes to start shit with total strangers while trying to show how smart he thinks he is. If the latter be the case, then fair warning to all those like him… if your plan is to attack me because you think you know more about this subject and, therefore, are assuming that you are smarter than me because of it, then it would be in your best interest to ensure that you actually ARE, on both counts. Because if you aren’t, then I’m going to make you famous, just like this.

The following is a series of screenshots taken from the Facebook conversation this fellow initiated by making a direct and baseless ad hominem attack upon me personally for something I had posted. Keep in mind that EVERYTHING in the post is very easily verifiable as I made no secrets about where it came from or why it was the subject of the post.

That said, this guy made absolutely no effort to verify ANYTHING in the post and clearly knows absolutely NOTHING about Texas law, or about my knowledge and understanding of it from my literally DECADES of research and study of this particular subject. In that aspect he is not alone, as there are many who would challenge my information as being untrue, but their “proof” always leaves something to be desired on a myriad of alternative and more specifically related information fronts. The only thing he actually does manage to prove in very short order is that he is a bigger fool than he gives himself credit for by attacking me out of the blue with absolutely nothing to back up his opinions.

You will also notice just how quickly he abandons the thread and stops responding once he is confronted with actual facts, and links to those facts, that absolutely prove his personal opinion and perceptions isn’t worth a spec of gnat shit on the open prairie in the face of reality and the law.

Enjoy!

This is the original post text just as it appears on the Facebook post:

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

Tao LauwYesterday at 2:13 PM

Something that all of you Texas people should know about “traffic stops” as they pertain to the ACTUAL law itself:

The law itself DOES NOT AUTHORIZE a warrantless detention or arrest for failure to have, produce, or display a license, proof of insurance, or registration, and it NEVER HAS.

THIS is the authorizing statute, and it is the ONLY ONE of its kind in the entire Transportation Code:

======================
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES; NOTICES AND PROMISES TO APPEAR

Sec. 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of THIS SUBTITLE.

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

The statute authorizes a warrantless arrest ONLY in relation to offenses defined within Subtitle C of the Texas Transportation Code, which encompasses ONLY Chapters 541-600.

Everything that relates to COMMERCIAL/ DRIVER’S LICENSE is codified entirely within Chapters 521 and 522 of the Code, while registration is confined to Chapter 502, and “PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY” is in Chapters 601. NONE of these chapters are in Subtitle C, at all, period.

In other words, the vast majority of “offenses” that they perform a warrantless traffic stop for are NOT authorized by law to be done in such fashion. The stop itself is wholly illegal under the letter of the law, because the code limits the authority to ONLY those offenses within “this subtitle,” which IS subtitle C and Subtitle C ONLY, as you can plainly see.

That said, however, it does NOT mean that they won’t do it ANYWAY. So, YOU are the only one that will ever raise this issue and challenge the validity of the warrantless detention/arrest and false imprisonment that was perpetrated by the officer without any lawful authority once the case goes to court, because THEY certainly aren’t going to do it, not EVER.
.
To those of you in other states where “traffic” cases are prosecuted as CRIMES rather than civil infractions, I would start looking for a similarly worded statute in YOUR own state and see what limits it placed on the warrantless arrest authority of the officers in relation to “traffic stops.”

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

These are the screenshots of the “discussion” that followed:

mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0001-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0002-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0003-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0004-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0005-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0006-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0007-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0008-1.png
mike-petronells-facebook-idiot-0009.png

It should also be noted that, right after I wrote this article, I placed a link to it on the same thread where it took place and tagged the individual in the comment so he would be sure to see it. He has since gone back and deleted every single one of his comments from the thread. Thus proving that there is nothing quite like having so much faith in the correctness of your position and statements to such an extreme degree that you would be willing to personally attack someone with them in the first place, and then, in the second place, backtrack and delete them out of shame like a whiny little bitch who was made to eat their words after your statements are challenged by factual rebuttal and then ground to dust before your very eyes as the unsubstantiated idiotic personal opinions they truly are.

So, all that leaves for me to say to all the other folks that want to be made famous like Mike, is this:

The Real-Life Ignorance and Dangers Associated with Stockholm Syndrome.

Tao of Law4 Comments

I’ve expressed my thoughts on this video before, as it keeps being passed around and commented on by literally thousands of people who almost always side with the cop and actually cheer about law enforcement’s constant abuses of every man’s rights and liberty, all while completely ignoring the actual felony and misdemeanor crimes that the COP is actually guilty of committing in this video. It would seem that America is now the largest known population currently suffering from mass “Stockholm Syndrome.”

If you haven’t seen it, then please watch the video and then continue reading this article, as the video contains the necessary context to understand what I am about to say.

The man in the car, Scott Richardson, is NOT asking the correct questions or following the correct process. The cops, as a whole, including this one, are totally ignorant of the Texas Transportation Code laws, absolutely unequivocally, 100%. This is why I try to teach people that the side of the road is NOT the place to argue and hold court. It is the time and place to reserve YOUR fundamentally protected rights without waiving any and to make sure the record shows that is ALL that you did via the officers own cameras and audio as well as your own. So, AGAIN, this is NOT the proper way to do ANY of that.

As an ex-deputy sheriff I can say with absolute certainty that this officer is totally clueless about the limits of his enforcement authority under the Texas Transportation Code, which is NONE, because I know the officers are NOT trained on those actual laws EVER and are simply told by word of mouth from their superiors and their own personal beliefs/ opinions/ conclusions as to what they can and cannot do under the law. Meanwhile, those ‘superiors’ are equally ignorant and clueless about what the law ACTUALLY says and to whom it ACTUALLY applies, much less who is ACTUALLY authorized to enforce it and HOW they are required by law to even get authorized IF they and their city actually qualify according to law. 

Addison, Texas does NOT meet any of the requirements, designated by Texas law as a city that is authorized to maintain local “traffic” enforcement officers. Requirements such as being located in a specific geographical location within Texas or having a specific minimal population limit/range, among several other requirements, as set forth in Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code, which governs the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).

For the general edification of the public who like to think that ALL law enforcement officers can enforce EVERY law in EVERY code, it should interest you to know that the Texas DPS is the ONLY agency given direct enforcement authority over the laws being used by the MUNICIPAL officer in this video. Nor does the city of Addison have the mandatory reciprocity agreement with the Texas Department of Public Safety in the form of a “Memorandum of Understanding” that is actually required by the Texas Administrative Code in order to authorize local municipalities to certify and maintain such enforcement officers in compliance with law. 

Hence, the officer in the video is NOT legally authorized to enforce the Texas Transportation Code AT ALL, and is actually committing SEVERAL crimes by doing so, not the least of which is IMPERSONATING an officer. You see, when ANY person, even a police officer or sheriff’s deputy, who is NOT legally authorized to enforce a specific regulatory law, uses the mere appearance of authority by means of a uniform or some articulated authority under the police powers, then they ARE impersonating an officer of the agency that actually IS legally authorized, and THAT my friends is a CRIME! 

Think about it; as a civilian, you can’t yell at someone to stop and obey you because you claim to be a duly authorized police officer having that authority when you actually are not and don’t. Nor can you actively enforce via citizen’s detainment/seizure or arrest for certain kinds of REGULATORY laws BECAUSE a valid citizen’s detention/arrest can occur ONLY when the arrest is for the commission of a felony or a breach of the peace that threatens physical harm to another or property that is BEING committed in the arresting person’s presence or view. A set of facts that ALSO happens to apply to the arrest powers of public law enforcement OFFICERS as well UNLESS there is a specific authorization in the actual law providing otherwise (this has very specific limits too, but they are irrelevant for our purposes here). Unless specifically authorized, certain categories of laws are as equally beyond the power and authority of law enforcement (“peace”) officers to enforce as they are for members of the general public without specific authorization in the law itself.

Check out EVERY enforcement chapter in the Texas Transportation Code that deals with licenses, insurance, and movement of “vehicles” (Chapters 521-600, 601, and 701-720), and you will see that the ONLY governmental entity that is given DIRECT enforcement authority over those chapters and the statutes therein is designated as “the department” and “officers of the department,” with “department” being specifically defined in each of those chapters as “The Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas.” It is NOT simply ANY cop or deputy in ANY city or county located in Texas, and it NEVER has been.

So, despite Scott’s ineptitude at handling the situation at hand with the cop, he actually DOES know all of this, because I taught it to him in my classes here in Austin, or, at least, I tried to. He just isn’t doing what he should be doing with the opportunity to preserve his rights in the record being made of the illegal stop.

As you can tell by all the comments on Facebook posts of this video that are almost universally being made IN FAVOR of the cop and citing his ‘patience’ and ‘professionalism,’ none of those people know or understand anything at all about the actual law any better than the cop does. They are only speaking of what they have been [mis]led into believing and feeling from being [mis]guided around by the nose and spoon fed lies and disinformation their entire lives. Thus, proving undoubtedly that ignorance truly is bliss, and is precisely what the system counts on from the people to get away with its crimes against the general public, not the least of which is this form of extortion and fraud laughably disguised as furthering “public safety,” all while potentially being murdered for standing up for yourself and your rights by an illegal standing army comprised of armed corporate mercenary goons with no brain and mind of their own.

I’ve yet to see anyone commenting on this video in favor of the cop who is truly INFORMED and knowledgeable of the actual law itself. They all seem to only think and want to believe they are supporting the correct side because of what they’ve been indoctrinated and taught to think and believe, which, for the most part, is summed up with “it’s always been that way, like, forever!” They are simply speaking from their emotions and indoctrination, not from actual knowledge and intelligent consideration of the actual relevant facts and law.

That said, I am sure I will be “attacked” by the rabid supporters of the state as not knowing what the hell I’m talking about, but, not one of my detractors will be able to point to any specific law that actually shows I’m wrong or that proves them right. They might try, but their efforts, unlike mine, will be superficial at best, and based upon something they THINK they found in only fifteen minutes of research, if that. But, they will be wrong, because being superficial with these laws simply won’t get the job done. I have spent literally a couple of decades+ tearing apart and cross-linking and referencing these statutes and codes to see how they truly fit together so as to form the overall “bigger picture” I have and use with regularity to help people fight back against these fraudulent traffic tickets and the cities and agencies who use them to extort and defraud the public.

However, should any of my detractors actually care to realize and learn that to be the actual case, they can come here to my legal blog and start reading more, as the information contained here is all based upon the ACTUAL or preexisting law and not just a bunch of hair-brained unverifiable conspiracy theories and arguments backed by nothing more than a personal wish-list built up in their own minds.

The Problems with Being ‘Almost’ Right About the Law.

Tao of LawLeave a comment

The information in the following picture, while mostly accurate only in relation to the prior case law being on-point with the argument of “nothing such as a ‘driver’s license’ exists or is recognized by Texas law,” is also incorrect in its majority of the remaining information being put forth as statements of actual legal fact. Primarily because those facts are incomplete and assert claims that are facially invalid as far as the actual law and facts on the subject are concerned.

This is the contents of the post as it appeared in one of the legal discussion groups I participate in on Facebook.



After reading this you might be thinking “Wow! This is great! I can use this to fight my traffic citations in Texas!! With this information I can WIN!!” Well, that thought process is more than just a little bit premature, and here are the facts I replied to this post with as to why:

“I hate to have to be the one to point it out to you, but you are simultaneously minimally correct and massively incorrect in your asserted facts here.

Yes, you are correct that PRIOR to 1983 there was no such term/phrase in the statutes of the Texas Transportation Code (“TTC”) defined as that of “driver’s license,” therefore, no one could be rightfully convicted of an offense that claimed an individual didn’t have a form of license that the law itself made no mention of as even being required.

However, even the definition of “driver’s license” that existed from 1983 forward was changed and rendered legally useless with the alleged enactment of SB 971 by the 78th Texas Legislature in 1995 (unlawfully so, but presumptively changed nonetheless).

SB 971 created an entirely new form of license TERMINOLOGY (driver’s license), BUT, it DID NOT actually create ANY new form of license, it was only made to APPEAR that it had done so. If fact, it actually REMOVED all valid forms of existing ‘permanent’ licenses, which previously existed in ONLY three specific forms, that of “chauffeurs,” “operator’s,” and “commercial operator’s” licenses. However, you will NOT find a single reference to ANY of these previous forms of permanent license ANYWHERE in the entirety of the TTC as it currently exists.

When actually reading the definitions of “driver’s license,” “license,” and “commercial driver’s license” provided within Chapters 521 and 522 of the TTC, you will find it includes only three specific forms of “license,” a “temporary license,” “learner license,” and “occupational license.” And before you go jumping the gun by thinking you know what these terms mean in relation to either the law or a license, let me say, no you don’t.

Each of these “licenses” actually have three very specific things in common; 1) each license is only a very short-term temporary form of license in and of itself; 2) each license is dependent upon either the requirement that the holder obtain some other more permanent form of license to replace it within a certain number of days in the near future (temporary and learners licenses), or it requires the holder to have surrendered some other form of permanent license in order to obtain it after a conviction for an offense that results in the revocation of that previous form of permanent license (occupational license); and 3) each of these forms of license are specifically and individually defined in the TTC as having specific prerequisites and existing conditions for obtaining them.

The term “license” itself is defined separately from, and in a totally circular reference to, the term/phrase “driver’s license, making the two inextricably conjoined as a matter of law.

The interesting thing about these three apparently ‘new’ forms of a license is, they AREN’T new. They are EACH actually the original TEMPORARY forms of the original types of ‘permanent’ license, i.e. the “chauffeurs,” “operator’s,” and “commercial operator’s” licenses. Each of these new forms of license were actually referenced in the statutes as they existed prior to 1995, but, that reference referred to them as requisite predecessors or punitive successors to applying for and obtaining one of these specific three forms of existing permanent license.

Once you actually study the definitions of these three ‘new’ forms of license, you will plainly see these facts to be absolutely true. Which then leads us to several constitutional problems with not only the statutes themselves being vague, ambiguous and overbroad, but also that the entire enactment of SB 971 is a total fraud and 100% violative of specific requirements and prohibitions within the Texas Constitution that make the entire code absolutely unconstitutional and unenforceable. Understanding the specific details and their significance takes considerable time and effort however, and there are very few who actually have invested the time and effort required to come to that understanding to its last and finest level of detail, and I am one of them, if not the only one in the entire state of Texas.

Also, you are incorrect in assuming that your list contains ALL instances of what can and does invalidate previously existing ‘case law.’ The changing of the underlying law itself CAN and DOES invalidate prior court rulings on that specific law that are in existence prior to those changes. Hence, these legislative changes statutorily invalidate your cited case law precisely because the existing case law is now in direct conflict with the new statutory changes, albeit, this holds true only if the new statutes themselves are actually valid, which they aren’t. But, that is something you would have to prove on the record in a court of law having the power to set precedent by declaring the statutes unconstitutional. This is something that I can absolutely prove using nothing more than the actual legislative bill that comprises SB 971, certified public records, and the Texas Constitution itself. These records alone provide ample evidence that the new version of the TTC and its underlying statutes ARE 100% invalid and unenforceable in their entirety, but that is a separate issue from your statements here.

Lastly, in relation to another comment you made later on this same post, no, a “driver’s license” is NOT a commercial contract. Never has been and never will be. Mainly because the actual license itself is a CONTRIVED document that is cumulatively pieced together piece by piece from multiple OTHER documents and external information before it is assembled into the little plastic card you carry around with you, meaning that you NEVER actually signed the driver’s license directly, only a signature card from which your signature was later taken and transferred onto the front of the license itself. This is but two of many specific reasons that prove the license is NOT in any way a valid contract, commercial or otherwise.”

So, as you can see, while the poster of the original information was somewhat ‘almost’ correct about the law, it would not be enough to actually win your case or even make an argument that would survive scrutiny and challenge because it contains too many false premises and misstatements of fact and law in what it claims to be true. That’s a serious problem.

If you want to know and understand the actual law on a given subject, it takes real time and effort to learn it effectively and to consider all of the nuances and implications that may exist within its language, especially when it makes reference to multiple outside statutes in relation to what this specific statute is considered as doing or already having done. You aren’t usually going to learn this in an hour of superficially skimming over the text. You most likely aren’t even going to accomplish this with really hard study and analysis over several days, for which you could most certainly make the argument is an intentional means of layering the actual implications of the law to provide job security for attorneys and judges who love to make you feel like they are smarter and know more than you, which is only about a quarter correct. They DO know more than you about how to read and understand the law, because they have had overly expensive and specialized training in doing so. However, that is still not proof in and of itself that they are really any good and competent at it, because have proven to be substandard in virtually every way imaginable when it comes to subjects such as this.

Learning law is not easy, nor really even all that rewarding by itself. But, when you need the law, and you need to use it to protect and defend yourself from those who would use and abuse it to give them the appearance of power and control over you, you will be glad that you took the time and learned how to understand and do it all properly.

Below is an external link to a news article about someone who understood this necessity well enough to make the choice and pursue the fight sans an attorney. By refusing to use an attorney, and learning how to use the law correctly and properly, this man probably saved his own life, if not merely many decades in prison, for a crime that he didn’t commit. Shouldn’t we all care enough about ourselves and or loved ones to make the same preparations by learning and training to fight back when needed?

Black man who acted as his own attorney acquitted of murder

Incompetency or Hearsay, and Does It Matter Under the Rules of Evidence?

Tao of Law5 Comments

Let’s say that you are appearing in court to defend yourself against one of the literally millions of false allegations perpetrated yearly by law enforcement personnel in the form of a “transportation” related civil infraction or criminal offense. Both are usually fine only punishments, and where they aren’t, the facts won’t differ between them in relation to the contents of this article. The rules of evidence work the same in either type of case. You just need to know them well enough to put them into action and nullify the prosecutions witness, and thus, their entire case.

When you are questioning the officer on the stand during the trial, and you attempt to ask the officer some question relating to the law, such as the legal definition of specific terminology, and it is something that the officer would logically and/or necessarily have to know in order to support reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain or arrest for an allege an offense, you will often be interrupted by the prosecution objecting with the claim that the officer is not required to know the answer to the question. The prosecution will do this despite the fact that an officer actually is required and must know the answer to the question, because it would have been legally impossible for the officer to have obtained reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the officer either does not know and/or is incapable of recognizing the essential criminal elements necessary to enforce that law and allege an offense.

Now, while this might be a proper objection where your question is asked in a way that could not be reasonably comprehended and answered (i.e. the content, context, or grammar of your question totally sucked and made no sense), it would not be true if the question was very straightforward and clear. The prosecution’s objection would also be true if the question has nothing to do with the actual laws relating to the offense or the duties and responsibilities of the officer sitting on the stand (i.e. you asked a patrol officer about how the department determines personnel policy or handles a payroll issue). Otherwise, as long as your question is on-point with the law and facts of the case at hand, the officer would have to know the answer to the question in order to have ever acquired reasonable suspicion or probable cause so as to properly make the allegation of an offense. Therefore, it is simply legally impossible that the prosecution’s claim could be even remotely true in most instances or for every question relating to the law as it pertains to the matter before the court.

There is also the issue of the prosecutor making a statement of fact from their own mouth during a trial about what the officer is or is not required to know about the law in order to testify as to exactly how the officer applied that law in order to make an allegation of an offense. The prosecutor is actually trying to testify on the record as to what the officer is or is not required to know in order to answer the question, and this the prosecutor simply cannot do. A prosecutor may not make any original statement of fact from their own mouth in place of any witness, nor make any legal determinations about what the witness is or is not allowed to respond to on the stand. Nor does a prosecutor have any lawful purpose or delegated authority to determine what a police officer is or is not lawfully or legally required to know in order to perform their duties or testify to a statement of facts that the officer allegedly observed and used to formulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime, as the officer could not possibly or reasonably formulate either if they actually don’t know the proper answer to the question s/he was asked on the stand about the legal meaning and application of certain terminology in relation to the alleged offense.

Part of the oath taken and the training received by every police officer is to uphold and enforce the State and Federal Constitutions,[1] and the laws of the state where they are employed,[2] i.e. they are required to know what fundamental rights are inherent and protected under those instruments in order to properly perform their duties. They also take an oath to know and remain current on the laws of the state[3] in which they are employed so as to properly perform their duties and serve the public.[4] These oaths and the duty to “know the law” are mandatory, as is adherence to their terms and conditions. An officer cannot reasonably claim ignorance of the content and meaning of the Bill of Rights or the legal duties inherently contained in the oaths s/he takes to uphold and protect those rights when they take them, otherwise the officer would not be employable. How then is it reasonable for some prosecutor or judge to assert that an officer can be partially or totally ignorant of the law and still be able to properly perform his or her duties in a manner that complies with that law and the individual rights of the people?

Therefore, it is simply not logically or legally possible that an officer is not or cannot be required to both know and understand the necessary and essential elements of any criminal act governed by a law they are attempting to enforce. To say that this is the case, as the prosecutor has just done, is to say that the officer is incompetent and unqualified to even understand the law, much less to enforce the law or testify to anything in relation to the specific elements of an alleged offense under that law. For example, if an officer is not required to know and understand what the proper legal definition of a “vehicle,” “driver,” or “operator” actually is, then how could an officer use these terms to acquire reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as they are essential key elements of any “transportation” related offense? How does an officer allege the element of “motor vehicle” in charging an offense without first having competent firsthand knowledge of what the legal meaning of “motor vehicle” even is? And that same question applies to each and every term and phrase that is used to construct a statute and any related offense therein.

*NOTE: As an aside, this shortcoming in legal logic is precisely why a criminal complaint is not required to be filed by a competent fact witness having firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged therein, as well as why its language is formulated as “I have reason to believe and do believe…” rather than “I have direct personal knowledge that the allegations made herein against John Smith are absolutely true.” therefore, while the person making the complaint may believe the alleged facts to be true, do they have actual competent firsthand knowledge that they really are true? This is an important point of law, for it is an irrefutable legal fact that, unless a person providing testimony absolutely does have competent firsthand personal knowledge of the alleged facts, s/he cannot legally testify to such facts under oath as actually being true, except when that person has been sworn in as an expert witness and allowed to submit opinion rather than fact, which the cop absolutely isn’t and cannot do.

It is a direct violation of the rules of evidence to allow the officer to testify to facts of which s/he does not have personal knowledge and understanding under the admissibility and hearsay rules. So, if the officer does not know the proper legal definition or meaning for each of these terms in the first place, then the officer is actually legally incompetent to testify to any of them as being an actual fact. It is illogical that a judge would accept the prosecutor’s objection as valid when logic says that a witness cannot make and testify to a statement of fact, i.e. that the accused was “operating” a “motor vehicle,” without first knowing the correct legal meaning and application of each of those terms within the governing statutes. It is a logical fallacy to assert that the facts alleged in the complaint are true and correct when the officer/witness or other Affiant on the complaint cannot reasonably be testifying from personal knowledge about those facts when they know absolutely nothing about their proper legal meaning within the statutes, especially when those specific terms are actual elements of the alleged offense.

So, the question must be asked, just how can an officer testify that “I saw the defendant operating a motor vehicle in the 1600 block of Fantasy Ave. …” when the officer cannot properly testify to what “operating” and “motor vehicle” even mean in relation to the statutory definition and the constitutionally required single subject[5] context? If the officer doesn’t know the legal definitions of the specific terms and phrases used to formulate the statute and establish the legal criteria that defines “operate” and “motor vehicle,” s/he is not testifying from personal knowledge, but from the hearsay of something or someone else other than the law itself.

Therefore, how does the officer truthfully testify that you were “operating” a “motor vehicle” by any means other than personal knowledge of the actual law under which s/he formulated the charge being made against you? Logic says that if the officer is legally capable and competent to formulate the charge itself by rationalizing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, then the officer is legally capable and competent to answer a question about the law and the specific legal elements s/he used to do it. Since there must be a written probable cause statement doing this very thing, and it must be signed by someone with actual knowledge of the facts alleged in the statement, it is incomprehensible that an officer could not and does not have to be required to know the legal definition and meaning of the statutory terms and phrases that they are signing their name to under penalty of perjury as being actual fact.

This is the same legal principle and theory that prevents an officer from testifying in a speeding case where s/he has no clue about how a radar gun works or its accuracy if s/he is not specifically trained on every aspect of the device, including how to maintain it, test it, and the specific mathematical formula it uses to perform its calculations and reaches its conclusions of speed. Otherwise, if the officer doesn’t know and can’t do the math themselves to verify the radar gun, then everything the officer does in these cases is hearsay motivated and operating by the impetus of the officer’s own personal opinion based upon unsubstantiated legal suppositions, presumptions, and conclusions of law, not the law.

In which case, when a prosecutor objects on the grounds that “the officer isn’t required to know that,” they are actually admitting that their witness is legally and factually incompetent to testify to those facts because they actually lack personal knowledge, and would be both committing perjury and violating the admissibility and hearsay rules by answering. This is why I object right back to the prosecutor’s objection with something like this:

“I have a multipart objection to enter into the record in response judge:

First, I object because the prosecution is saying the officer is not required to know the specific legal criteria for the elements of the charge. Which, if true, means that the officer could not possibly provide any articulable facts supporting either reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the time of the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent. Without knowing the answer to this question, as it pertains directly to the statutory elements required to allege the commission of an offense, the officer could not possibly have had the required reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make the warrantless seizure and arrest or to charge an actual offense.

Second, I further object because I never asked the officer if s/he was required to know this information, I asked if s/he did know this information. As the court is now well aware, if the officer doesn’t know, then that means that probable cause could never have existed and the officer’s testimony is not based upon personal knowledge of any facts, but rather his/her own unsubstantiated personal opinion and legal presumptions, conclusions, and speculations, i.e. its hearsay. Which, if true, makes the officer’s testimony inadmissible under the rules of evidence, as such is not covered by any of the hearsay exceptions or the rules governing expert witnesses, especially since the officer has not been vetted and qualified to testify as an expert witness in this trial.

Third, in relation to the facts and logic of the first and second parts, what Respondent is actually understanding the prosecution’s objection to really mean is that their primary fact witness is legally incompetent to testify in response to the question, which is directly relating to specific factual elements in this case. Every relevant fact of the charged offense relates to some specific statutory element defining precisely how the commission of that offense occurs under the law. Factual elements that the prosecutor just stated the officer is not legally required to know, and, if true, now creates the legal presumption that the officer actually does not and never did know them at all, but is still being allowed to testify to them as being facts without having the personal knowledge required to do so. That violates Respondent’s right of due process and goes right back to reasonable suspicion and probable cause never having existed in the first instance, making the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent absolutely unconstitutional and illegal.

Fourth, I object to the prosecutor’s attempt to testify in this case by making a statement of fact disguised as an objection about what the witness is or is not required to know in order to testify to the facts of the case when it is legally impossible for this officer to do so without first having personal knowledge of the specific elements of any alleged offense under the laws in question, including the proper legal meaning and application of specific related terminology.

Therefore, if the court sustains the prosecutions objection, Respondent must necessarily move the court to have the witness’ testimony stricken from the record and declared inadmissible in its entirety, and to demand that the witness(es) be declared legally incompetent and unqualified to testify at all to any statutory fact element of the alleged offense for lack of personal knowledge.”

In other words, most prosecutors will more often than not provide you with the means to discredit their own witness in these kinds of cases in exactly this or some very similar manner. You just have to listen and actually know how to rebut the objection that they will almost certainly make the instant that you try to prove the witness is legally incompetent to testify. Don’t let them get away with it.

Now, if the judge sustains the prosecutor’s objection, then you make yours to have the witness declared legally incompetent to testify to any facts in the case. If the judge sides with you and grants your motion, all that remains is for you to move the court to dismiss the case with prejudice for lack of evidence and/or an eyewitness with personal knowledge. Just make sure to get a signed order from the court before you leave, or get someone on record telling you when the order will be delivered to you via mail or other means.

Case closed.

Footnotes:

[1] Texas Constitution, Art. 16, Sec. 1(a) OFFICIAL OATH.

[2] Texas Occupations Code, Sec. 1701.253(e).

[3] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 1 Texas Department of Public Safety, Chapter 1 Organization and Administration, Subchapter H Professional Conduct, Rule §1.113 International Association of Chiefs of Police Canons of Police Ethics.

[4] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 7 Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Chapter 218 Continuing Education, Rule §218.3 Legislatively Required Continuing Education for Licensees.

[5] Texas Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 35 – Subjects and Titles of Bills.

CATCH & RELEASE – THE ‘NOTICE TO APPEAR’ SCAM

Tao of Law2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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