Category: Lawyers

A Theory on the Causation of Bad Law Enforcement and Court Decisions.

Tao of Law4 Comments

If you think about it logically, many reasonable and critical thinking individuals would probably say that we can boil everything down to only three general causes for why an executive official, law enforcement officer, or a judicial court, would make an incorrect interpretation or ruling in a case involving the correct interpretation and application of actual written law, those three being ignorance, incompetence, or corruption, generally speaking. However, I believe that the facts can be further boiled down to the point where only one of these is actually correct. Let me try to explain, logically, why I believe that is.

Let us begin with the cause of ignorance. We can presume as fact that no politically savvy executive official or judicial officer, in general, is ever going to admit to being ignorant or incompetent of the written law, or of any ‘controlling’ court opinions relative to the interpretation of that law. Because this is the presumed norm, the various Bar Associations would have us all believe that our judicial functionaries, the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and corporate legal counsels, have a professional, ethical, and moral duty and obligation to ‘know’ the law and to know it substantially better than any executive functionary or layman (yeah, they call us the laymen). This presumption alone is reason enough to put forth the argument that no judicial officer can be reasonably presumed to be ignorant of what any part of the law actually says or means, especially when that particular area of law is their publicly proclaimed and advertised ‘specialty.’ But, then again, what can you logically expect from a group of individuals who serve their own private interests while literally having official and functional control over every high office in every department and agency within every single level of our government?

Now, my personal interpretation of “knowing” something as important as the law and how it is supposed to function is that one actually spends countless hours expending and expanding brain cells over many long hours, days, months, or years in research and study of the law itself and its legislative and interpretative history so as to truly have a deeper knowledge and understanding of what it actually says and means according to the combined whole of all relevant statues applicable to that particular object or subject matter area relative to any individual provision. The deeper meaning of my interpretation and understanding will be made clear when you read the literal meaning of the phrase the whole of the law a little further on. What is important right now is understanding that the highly presumptive and false belief that there really is a deeper “knowing” and understanding of the law by those serving as judges and attorneys is being marketed to the masses as a sound and logical reason to entrust our very lives and property to these individuals (which is an egregious mistake) rather than trying to handle things for ourselves when it comes to our personal and business affairs or actions within the courts (which may also be a mistake depending upon one’s personal aptitude for studying and figuring out how the system actually works and why).

There is an ancient maxim of the law that states ignorantia juris non excusat, or “ignorance of the law does not excuse.” Put another way, it is presumed that the public knows the laws, and a defense of ignorance is typically not allowed. So, if the public in general is presumed to know the law, even if they have never even actually seen and read it, then how is it possible for those empowered by we the people to serve within the executive and judicial departments of government in order to apply and enforce the laws to ever be able to claim ignorance as the basis for their getting an interpretation, application, or ruling on any given law completely wrong in any or every possible way or completely in spite of it?

Using this logic, combined with the aforementioned legal maxim, I assert that, as the public at large cannot be presumed to be ignorant of the law, then by no means can any possible level of ignorance be presumed or allowed to exist for those in any department of government, especially within the judiciary. For it is the members of the judiciary for whom extensively learning and understanding the whole of the laws is a mandatory prerequisite in order to fulfill their primary function and reason for existence, the proper interpretation of the laws in accordance with all constitutional protections and prohibitions. This does not simply mean the learning and understanding of the individual statutes, but also how those statutes overlap and are intertwined by any object or subject matter relationship(s) with any others, even those of other statutory schemes that may exist within and across multiple sections of the same or other statutory code(s). THIS level of knowledge and understanding about all of these various statutory interactions and relational dependencies is what is meant by the judicially-coined phrase the whole of the law. Thus, if a government actor cannot be reasonably presumed to be ignorant about something that it is their primary duty to fully learn and understand, and yet, that government actor is still allowed to continuously misunderstand, misapply, and misuse virtually everything related thereto, then the correct presumption of the cause cannot be that the government actor is simply acting out of ignorance of such things.

Consider this, if those in charge over an individual governmental actor ever repeatedly tried to correct the actor’s improper understanding and application of a particular law or a duty imposed by a law, and the actor still continues to do everything or any part thereof incorrectly, then they are de facto incompetent because they are demonstrably untrainable, as shown by the fact that all attempts to properly train and correct their flawed understanding and actions have failed. By that same reasoning, if the incompetent individual’s superior(s) never recognized and made the effort to correct the underling’s improper understanding and behavior, then they too are demonstrably incompetent for exactly the same reasons. Thus, if the individual actors at either level are determined to be wholly incompetent in this manner, then they cannot be classified as simply ignorant nor rely upon its assertion as a viable excuse. Thus, logically, ignorance can no longer be considered as one of the three possible causes for why so many of those within the executive department keep misapplying and misusing the laws or why those in the judiciary keep creating precedent-setting opinions about the constitutions or the laws that time and time again are demonstrably incorrect and illogical either in whole or in part.

Having now logically eliminated the possibility of ignorance being a contributing cause for any executive or judicial functionary’s failure to properly interpret and apply the law, we are left with two remaining choices, incompetence or corruption. However, just as before, I assert that incompetence, in and of itself, is also a logical impossibility as the cause for such failures.

For instance, if an executive functionary or a judge is offered a demonstrably true and wholly viable and verifiable alternative interpretation of the law that fully meshes with the whole of the law as previously described, and that the existing executive interpretation or judicial precedent can be reasonably shown to not be true precisely because it does not fully mesh with the whole of the law, but, the executive functionary or judge refuses to acknowledge, accept, or even investigate and research the legal basis supporting the factual challenge to the existing and legally incorrect (bad) interpretation or precedent in order to continue applying the bad interpretation or precedent despite the facts and evidence, then neither the executive functionary nor the judge is applying the actual law to the facts or the facts to the actual law. What either governmental actor is really doing in this scenario is ignoring and avoiding his/her duty to know, understand, and apply the law as a whole, and by doing so, is applying only that which s/he has already been shown to be a completely incorrect interpretation of the law. Thus, these governmental actors have decided to treat the bad interpretation/precedent as being the only thing that is legally relevant and necessary for consideration in order to render their decision. In other words, the governmental actor has just declared that the law as it was written and intended to be interpreted and applied by the legislature be damned, regardless of the facts and evidence to the contrary, as s/he is going to follow the prior interpretation or precedent of another government official or court that also completely ignored the requirement to understand and apply the whole of the law that resulted in the incorrect understanding and interpretation of the Legislature’s original purpose and intent for the law in the first place.

Now, anyone in the legal field with a working brain will tell you that knowingly acting in bad faith under any legitimate set of circumstances or in violation of the law is an act of willful intent. Thus, by willfully choosing to ignore the newly presented facts and evidence refuting the legal foundation of any prior executive interpretation or judicial precedent, the executive functionary or judicial officer is acting with knowing and willful intent, not ignorance or incompetence, for the express purpose of ignoring the existing relevant law in order to reach a conclusion s/he now knows to be completely incongruous with the law itself. Thus, if these governmental actors cannot be presumed to be acting out of ignorance or incompetence to make such an unlawful determination or ruling in the face of countermanding facts and evidence, then the only cause remaining as motivation for the act is corruption. These facts are irrefutable. The executive functionary or the judge of the court is knowingly and willfully ignoring the proper legislative intent, purpose, and interpretation of the law for one that s/he now knows to be legally incorrect in order to achieve an outcome favorable to the functionary’s/judge’s own ego, reputation, and career interests and not to the rightful party who should be prevailing on the merits according to the law. This can only mean that these governmental actors have acted in favor of their own personal and political self-interests while knowingly and willfully depriving that same rightful party of their full and proper right to due process and remedy under the law. This is a criminal act if ever there was one.

Let us also not forget that these corrupt individuals are often not prosecuted because some County or District Attorney has decided to make the specious claim that a particular governmental actor’s actions “do not rise to the level of criminality.” This argument is completely nonsensical when used here in Texas, as we have two statutes[1] making virtually any unconstitutional or unlawful actions perpetrated by a public servant that violates the rights of the people under our constitution and laws into a criminal act, causing said action to unquestionably “rise to the level of criminality” under our law. But those two statutes are all but totally ignored when seeking to criminally charge and prosecute such individuals. Even criminal acts explicitly codified within the Texas Penal code are often intentionally overlooked or outright ignored by prosecutors when it comes down to charging a public servant with an actual crime.

This can only mean that prosecutors are knowingly playing favorites and protecting real criminals who just happen to serve within the ranks of government under an official title while literally throwing every single charge they can come up with at any of the rest of us that may run afoul of the system in even the most minor degree, even when we are actually innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. This is especially true when they are trying to engage in a cover up to protect another public employee or official. Not only do they charge and prosecute us, they secret, tamper with, destroy, or fabricate from whole cloth, the very evidence that is used, as applicable, to either convict us or potentially or completely exonerate us and set us free. These foxes have not only created a system that puts them directly in charge of the hen house, but that also gives them full control of the whole chicken yard to the degree that they are answerable to virtually no one. This same system also puts them in charge of determining their own immunity, culpability, and liability in having to answer for any chickens that go missing or that later turn up dead or injured should the foxes ever actually find it necessary to calm and assuage the vitriol and ire of the masses by putting on a show of doing so (Derek Chauvin vs. George Floyd anyone??), and that’s just not a reasonable way of doing things, or allowing them to be done, much less a proper way to run a productive hen house and chicken yard.

Lest you forget, abusing the powers of one’s official office for personal gain or to harm the rights of the people to whom you took an oath and swore to protect is outright corruption and criminality on its face.

See, I told you that there was really only one logical cause for our executive and judicial officers to be making so many fundamentally bad interpretations and precedent-setting decisions.

[1] Texas Penal Code, Sec. 39.02, ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY, and 39.03, OFFICIAL OPPRESION.

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

Tao of Law8 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Supreme Court Orders Release of Dallas Salon Owner Shelley Luther

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The True Meaning and Purpose of Individual Rights.

Tao of LawLeave a comment

I have a little thought about something that I would like to express, and that something is the idiotic precept contrived by our American courts that “individual rights are not absolute” and that “government has the power and authority to either take away or diminish those rights” based upon whatever contrived ‘necessity’ it can dream up.

I would argue that, UNTIL someone exercises their rights in a manner that violates the rights of others, then their own individual rights ARE absolute. At the point of harming the rights, person, or property of another, or through such reckless or negligent acts that almost certainly could have resulted in such an injury, then, and ONLY THEN, can those rights be legitimately and temporarily taken away. Try pointing to ANY Bill of rights where it says that there is any other exception to absoluteness to be had in relation to an individual’s rights, because it just ain’t there!!

“Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

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

“The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.

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

The courts are the ones who created the “rights are not absolute” doctrine with absolutely no legitimate constitutional authority upon which to base it, and then promptly began using it stealthily and continuously on an ever-increasing basis to permanently diminish ALL individual rights belonging to the American people for ANY reason the courts themselves have deemed to be a “government necessity,” i.e. their version of the “law of necessity.”

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

Just like any other thing done wrong by our government, our simply accepting that the courts or other parts of government have created their own fraudulent authority to limit our rights as they see fit without any challenge from us will NEVER see it changed back to how it is SUPPOSED to be.

Thomas Jefferson and John Locke made it clear that the formation of societies and the governance of the constitution was never intended to, and never did, authorize any such supposition on the government’s part.

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

“Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422

“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.” –John Locke: Second Treatise, sect. 222.

Therefore, the only LOGICAL and constitutional conclusion in relation to how individual rights are NOT absolute is when they are used to violate the rights of others. Outside of that caveat, there is ZERO legitimate authority for government to deprive or diminish ANYONE of ANY right for ANY OTHER REASON.

Without a doubt the courts have the subject of individual rights not being absolute absolutely WRONG, that their misinterpretation is INTENTIONAL, and that it is being done and used for nothing less than the unconstitutional purpose of increasing the personal and governmental power and authority of such elitist individual’s over areas and subjects where it should NOT even exist. That makes the actions our courts and our government are engaged in absolutely CRIMINAL, because those actions directly and unlawfully violate the rights belonging to ALL of the people for the benefit of only those few who think they should have more rights and power than everyone else, especially over the lives and property of others, and that is neither the American dream nor the original plan for its individual Republics.

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.

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

Vermin/Attorney, Tow-may-to/Tow-mah-to

Tao of Law3 Comments

If you have never read my written document regarding the unconstitutional Bar associations and the more-often-than-not despicable individuals that are members, then you might want to do so AFTER you read this article. I will link the document in at the bottom so you read it after you get there. This article will help you understand the reasons behind the authoring of that document in the first place.

 

‘The Rest Of The Story ‘ – by Paul Harvey Monday, August 01, 2005

If there is a stain on the record of our forefathers, a dark hour in the earliest history of the American Colonies, it would be the hanging of the “witches” at Salem.

But that was a pinpoint in place and time– a brief lapse into hysteria. For the most part, our seventeenth century colonists were scrupulously fair, even in fear.

Colonialists

There was one group of people they feared with reason– a society, you might say, whose often insidious craft had claimed a multitude of victims, ever since the Middle ages in Europe.

One group of people were hated and feared from Massachusetts Bay to Virginia. The Magistrate would not burn them at the stake, although surely a great many of the colonists would have recommended such a solution. Our forefathers were baffled by them.

In the first place, where did they come from? Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of them was aboard.

“VERMIN.” That’s what the Colonist called them. Parasites who fed on human misery, spreading sorrow and confusion wherever they went.”DESTRUCTIVE.” They were called.

And still they were permitted coexistence with the colonists. For a while, anyway. Of course there were colonial laws prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft. Somehow a way was always found around all those laws.

In 1641, Massachusetts Bay colony took a novel approach to the problem. The governors attempted to starve the “devils” out of existence through economic exclusion. They were denied wages, and thereby it was hoped that they would perish.

Four years later, Virginia followed the example of Massachusetts Bay, and for a while it seemed that the dilemma had been resolved.
It had not, somehow the parasites managed to survive, and the mere nearness of them made the colonists skin crawl.

In 1658, In Virginia, the final solution: Banishment; EXILE. The “treacherous ones” were cast out of the colony. At last, after decades of enduring the psychological gloom, the sun came out and the birds sang, and all was right with the world. And the elation continued for a generation.

I’m not sure why the Virginians eventually allowed the outcasts to return, but they did. In 1680, after twenty-two years, the despised ones were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the strictest surveillance.

How soon we forget!

For indeed over the next half century or so, the imposed restrictions were slowly, quietly swept away. And those whose treachery had been feared since the Middle ages ultimately took their place in society.

You see, the “vermin” that once infested colonial America, the parasites who prayed on the misfortunes of their neighbors until finally they were officially banished from Virginia, those dreaded, despised, outcasts, masters of confusion were lawyers.

And Now You Know The Rest of The Story…

Kill Lawyers

 

White paper the unconstitutionality of the American and State Bar Associations and the disenfranchisement of the the American people from participating in an entire branch of our own government.

A Case for Treason (The State Bar Act of Texas is Unconstitutional) White Paper (Eddie Craig)

The Lawful Use of “Includes” and “Including” Revisited…

Tao of Law12 Comments

“Includes” and “Including,”
They Don’t Work Like You May Think.

The use of “includes” and “including” in relation to many statutory definitions, like “motor vehicle” for example, is an important key to unlocking and understanding what a statute actually encompasses and applies to so you can then fully understand its overall meaning. When you look at how the terms are used in the language construction of a statute, you come to realize that, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. You also need to remember that the use of these terms does not serve to in any way alter or remove the specific subject matter context within which every statute must be read in order to be properly interpreted, which is the biggest failing of every modern-day attorney or judge throughout Texas and elsewhere. The courts and attorneys simply don’t or refuse to read the statutes within the specific confines of the legislative context specifically identified in the caption/title of the Bill responsible for the legislation that created it.

Surely by now you have figured out that something is off about this statutory shell game, and, hopefully, it is causing you to pause and ask yourself the question, “Does the state consider my private conveyance a ‘motor vehicle’, and if so, why?” Well, to be absolutely clear, the numerous minions of the state, based solely upon their own unsubstantiated opinions, legal conclusions, and legal presumptions, do consider your private conveyance to be exactly that, a “motor vehicle.” But, the fact is, the actual law and its related statutes do not support any of those opinions, presumptions, or conclusions as actually being true once you actually understand how to properly read them and the kind of incorrect logic and interpretations that attorneys and the courts utilize to keep this insight and understanding out of the hands and minds of the general public.

This is especially true if a statutory definition uses “includes” or “including” as its constructive formula. For as I stated a moment ago, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. If a statute does use these terms, or some grammatical variation thereof, then truly understanding the following explanation of how these terms legally work is wholly necessary to interpreting the statute correctly and in accordance with all other laws of “this state” on the same subject, pursuant Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code. This also means understanding the United States Supreme court cases that have already ruled on the following as being the only proper use and method of statutory interpretation applicable to these two terms in relation to law. Thus, the following legal argument requires a proper understanding of how the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, have declared the terms “includes” and “including” actually function in law.

“I See Incompetent People, but They’re too Incompetent to Know They’re Incompetent.”

So, when the legislature writes a statutory provision that states that the use of terms like “includes” and “including” are to be read as follows, ““Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded,” it is imperative that you understand how any type of “enlargement” (meaning expansion or generalization) of the statute must be legally construed and applied by the courts so as to not constitute a rewrite of the law itself, or the Legislature’s intent in enacting it.

However, it is readily apparent that the majority of attorneys and judges that I have had the [dis]pleasure of interacting with have absolutely no clue about how to properly do this. They simply use these terms to unconstitutionally and unlawfully encompass anything and everything, anyone and everyone, ranging from a “commercial motor vehicle” to a “tricycle” or from a “driver/operator” to your three-year old riding their “tricycle/little red wagon.” They are completely, utterly, and uncompromisingly clueless about how these terms are required to be interpreted and used in order to maintain not only the original legislative intent, but how to also properly understand and apply the law or statute in question, or, even more importantly, how to not apply it to the persons and actions of any other specific class of individuals to whom it cannot and does not lawfully or legally apply.

“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). … As judges it is our duty to 485* construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.” Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987).

Note 10 of Colautti Ibid, reads:

“[10] The statute says that viable “means,” not “includes,” the capability of a fetus “to live outside the mother’s womb albeit with artificial aid.” As a rule, “[a] definition which declares what a term `means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.” 2A C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07 (4th ed. Supp. 1978).”

Even federal statutory codes show us, albeit more clearly than those of a particular state, exactly what is meant by the congressional or state legislative decree that a statutory definition is “expansive” in relation to the use of terms so defined:

“The term ‘includes’ and ‘including’ do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.” –27 CFR 72.11. (Emphasis added).

This is irrefutable evidence of a completely unacceptable level of professional judicial and legal malpractice and incompetence in my opinion. Our lives and property are being placed into the hands of individuals that are utterly incompetent and clueless about the very thing upon which their entire career rests, revolves, and evolves, a comprehensive understanding of the proper operation of law in its entirety. Which means, although they are actually required to know how to properly read law, interpret it, understand it, and apply it, as well as how to do each of these things in a manner that remains consistent with, and entirely within, its proper legislatively intended context, they are utterly devoid of the necessary desire and/or competency to do so. If they are incapable or unwilling to do those things properly, then they shouldn’t be allowed to remain as a sitting judge or a ‘licensed’ attorney. Period.

If you ever meet an attorney or judge that isn’t unfamiliar with or incorrectly using these terms, then they are either fresh out of law school or cost so much money per hour that you would need two mortgages on your home to even hire them for a 15 minute consultation on your case, neither of which is a viable alternative for the vast majority of people that are in need of legal help. Demonstrably, every other attorney and judge you will encounter is simply flying along just below the judicial system’s “incompetence/malpractice” radar so they can defraud people of the most money they can before their clients realize just how hard they’ve been screwed and left holding the bag in their own case because their attorney never filed a single legal pleading or did a damned thing to actually help them. If you truly wish to prove to the world that you are a gullible fool, then trust an attorney to do the right thing or act in your best interest before their own. If you don’t already know what I’m talking about from your own personal past experience, I would like to help you out by selling you this nice little toll bridge property I own that crosses over the San Francisco bay. I’m willing to let it go real cheap if that would help?

How Can a Statute be “Enlarged” by Adding Something not Written and Still Avoid Being Unconstitutionally Vague, Ambiguous, and Over-broad?

In relation to law, the term “enlargement,” when used in relation to “includes” and “including,” means that a statutory definition is not to be considered “fixed or limited” to only the exact things specifically listed, but, rather, it is to be read as generally encompassing anything not listed that would still normally fall within the same object classification as those objects that are specifically listed. However, you must also understand that a statute that is deemed to be vague and non-specific runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a law must be understandable by men of reasonable intelligence so as to properly understand what is being prohibited or what duty it places upon them to perform or avoid. Which means, the terms “includes” and “including” are able to be “enlarged” only in certain specific ways, and those ways require that the definition be read only as being “enlarging” so as to encompass those things that fit naturally within the same specific class of persons, objects, locations, or legal entities actually listed in the original “includes” or “including” declaration. This will remain true even when the definition contains the provision “… includes, but is not limited to…” as a part of its declaration, as this is simply linguistic legal trickery via camouflaged redundancy where statutory definitions are concerned.

What this basically means is that all of the items following “includes” or “including” must have an identifiable and natural class relationship in order to be considered a viable addition to the “enlargement” intent and functionality of the statute. If there is any kind of oddball item listed in that same definition that does not appear to fit in with the classification represented by the majority of the other things listed, then that oddball thing must be subjected and limited to an interpretation that actually harmonizes it with all the other listed items in the “includes/including” language framework.

An example of this of this kind of apparently legally conflicting definition would be something like, “The term “Person” includes a natural person, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity,” or, “the term “Person” includes an individual, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity.”  Both of these definitions contain either the term “natural person” or “individual” preceding what is otherwise an entire list that “includes” or is “including” only “legal entities,” i.e. they list  something/one that is naturally existing and tangibly real with something that is nothing more than an intangible contemplative legal fiction that does not naturally exist at all.

The terms “natural person” and “individual” are normally construed to be part of a completely different naturally existing and tangibly real classification than that of all the fictional entities specifically listed alongside them (a naturally existing living breathing being), right? But, how can that be without actually violating the rules pertaining to the use of “includes/including” in statutory law? In cases like this, the only acceptable interpretation is one that can logically harmonize everything that is listed into a singular object classification without culminating in a “ridiculous result/outcome.” Otherwise, if this simply isn’t possible, the rules of statutory construction and interpretation relating to the proper use of “includes” and “including” have been violated, making the resulting interpretation legally unsound and inherently incorrect, thus, challengeable as being unconstitutional and void for vagueness and ambiguity .

But how would one go about harmonizing such totally dissimilar terms into a single harmonious classification that is not somehow ridiculous to conclude? Well, in this case, the one that makes the most logical sense is to try and harmonize the object term(s) that are in the minority and whose normal classification is completely different from the other things listed (“such as natural person/individual”) so as to concur with the same classification that can also be reasonably and logically associated with the majority of the other similar object terms listed (“legal entities”). In simpler terms, the logical choice for a place to begin is to reconcile the few with the many in the most harmonious fashion possible. So ask yourself, how would a “natural person/individual” (a naturally existing living breathing being) be capable of fitting into the same legal classification as that of an unnatural fictitious “legal entity” so that the rules of statutory construction and interpretation relating to the use of the terms “includes” and “including” in law are not violated? What sort of classification could that even be? Well, figuring that out is actually easier and more logical than you might think.

You first have to understand that “legal entities” have no physical existence, they are entirely fictional and incapable of acting of their own volition (no hands, arms, legs, or even a brain see), and therefore, can act only through one or more “natural persons/individuals” serving and acting as its agent(s). This is the only physical form in which such an agent can exist and function for the benefit the legal entity. The most logical examples are found and understood by asking yourself this simple question, “Isn’t every officer, agent, employee, or trustee of a ‘legal entity’ actually a ‘natural person/individual’?” Realistically, can they be ever anything else? Can a second “legal entity” act as the agent for the first “legal entity” sua sponte without a “natural person/individual” making the decisions and then acting on behalf of the second “legal entity” as well? Of course not, as that would be a “ridiculous result.” Who in their right mind would try to argue that two legal fictions somehow cooperatively acted entirely on their own to commit a crime while having no tangible form of existence by which to reason, contemplate, and perform such actions? Well, believe it or not, an attorney or a judge would, and they would not even bat an eye at how ridiculous and insane they sound, and actually are, for insisting it’s even remotely plausible.

C’mon Alice, don’t you get it now? Don’t just blindly follow the white rabbit through the looking glass and down the hole! Sure, step through and crawl down if you must, but first, make sure that you have your head out of your ass and are paying apt attention to everything else that is going on and how it works! Your very survival may well depend upon it.

If you haven’t read or don’t like “Alice in Wonderland,” then you can use whatever other metaphor best serves to help wake you up and convey the understanding that the terms “natural person/individual” do not and cannot be lawfully construed in a manner that allows a statutory definition’s interpretation to add We the People to the same legal classification as that of a “legal entity” when we are acting privately on our own behalf and not on behalf of a legal entity. We must actually be acting as an authorized officer, agent, employee, fiduciary, or trustee of one or more of the specific types of legal entities specifically listed in that same definition that we are inferentially being alleged/alleging to represent. It is imperative that you realize that the use of this kind of logical reasoning is almost never the case when it comes to the statutory interpretations and applications that We the People are being unlawfully subjected to on a daily basis.

The Devil is [Always] in the Details.

This ability to create and require a specialized interpretation of a law or statute is precisely what makes “includes” and “including” into what is commonly referred to as “legal terms of art.” It is the knowing and willful misuse and abuse of the rules of statutory interpretation and application for these legal terms of art that have been and are being used to deceive people into thinking that something “included” means one thing, while the attorneys and the courts ignore the mandatory rules of interpretation so as to interpret the same term of art in a myriad of ways so as to get their own desired outcome in a particular case at hand. That is why it is so important to understand these terms, so that you do not accidentally or unintentionally leave them the means to do so.

When used in law, “includes” limits the items listed to a readily identifiable naturally occurring relationship. This is done via what you could call a “relational class,” which is simply a classification that is naturally relative to all of the things that are listed, but that also allows for “enlargement” by naturally “including” other objects that fall within that same natural relational class so as to be considered as properly inclusive with the other listed items, even though they are not specifically made a part of the list by actual name.

For instance:

“The term “Fruit” includes oranges, limes, and lemons.”

In THIS configuration, the term “includes” is capable of “enlargement” because ALL of the things listed have a natural class relationship, that of being members of the family of citrus “fruit.” Therefore, “fruit” as defined here, can be EXPANDED to encompass other citrus fruits like “grapefruits” and “kumquats”, but cannot ‘include’ “apples,” “watermelons,” or “bananas,” because they don’t share the fruit class relationship of “citrus” fruit or any other kind of identifiable and naturally occurring relationship.

Now, consider this variant definition, where dissimilar objects that do not share a common classification are “included” in the list together:

“The term “Fruit” includes apples, pears, oranges, limes, and lemons.”

In this configuration, the term “includes” is absolutely not reasonably capable of “enlargement” because all of the things listed do not share an identifiable natural class relationship between them which would allow anything else that is not listed to be added and relatively matched to ALL of them as a class, nor is there any logically reasonable way to formulate a class relationship that would allow this definition to be expanded beyond those specific types of fruit expressly listed. Thus, a statutory list with this configuration of items is strictly limited to only those things that are expressly listed. By explanation of this point, not only are these items not all citrus fruits, they cannot even all be classified as “fruits that must be peeled before eating.” or as “fruits with an edible skin,” In short, no other natural class relationship exists between them.

I can hear you analyzing this and thinking, “this point seems to run counterintuitive to the previous discussion on creating an interpretative relationship between “natural person/individual” and a list of only legal entities,” but, that analytical comparison would be flawed, as you have to remember that this is only because of the “ridiculous result” prohibition. Trying to logically construe these various fruits into a unified class that would allow the definition to expand to encompass other things would produce a ridiculous result (example: you decide the common class relationship should be “things you use to make smoothies,” which would not be a naturally occurring and reasonable classification of any one or more of the kinds of fruit listed, right?). After all, using the smoothie example, you could, conceivably, decide to throw some actual vegetables into that smoothie mix as well, right? Vegetables are not naturally associated or recognized as a class of “fruit” or can be naturally related to all of the specific items listed short of declaring the relationship to be “things that are grown on vines or trees,” right? So, that example would produce an overly vague and broad “ridiculous result,” right? But, we were able to reach a naturally conclusive outcome between “natural person/individual” when these terms are being listed alongside only legal entities in a manner that did not culminate in a “ridiculous result,” as no legal entity can function ‘naturally’ and without the aid of a living breathing agent, right?  See, this is not something that is so difficult or contradicting after all, despite what attorneys and judges would prefer to have you believe and blindly accept as true.

Distinctions Without a Difference.

“Including” would work the same way as “includes” wherever it is used.

Now, be aware of the fact that the use of “includes” in the following example would be considered an “enlargement,” because everything listed SHARES a natural associative trait in common. However, this “enlargement” presumes that the existing list is NOT already exhaustive of the things it lists. Which means that, in order for a particular list of “included” objects to actually be capable of “enlargement,” there must first be another object having the same natural relational/associative class that is not already specifically listed but is class-applicable simply because it has the same naturally occurring class relationship (see the “citrus” fruit examples above).

Therefore, if the list provided is already exhaustive, meaning there is nothing that is not listed that could reasonably be construed to match the existing classification of the other items, then the list is actually legally incapable of “enlargement” and is, therefore, expressly limited by default to only those things expressly listed, even though all the statutory language necessary for authorizing the list to be “enlarged” actually exists.

An example of this would be something like:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes red apples.”

Now, under this configuration, the definition of “Fruit” cannot be said to “include” any other color variations associated with apples, as it specifically limited what was to be “included” into the definition of “fruit” by two specific criteria for the class. The thing to be “included” must be an “apple,” and the only acceptable color allowing the “apple” to be considered as “fruit” is “red.” Therefore, by default, this definition specifically excludes by omission all green, orange, yellow, or other color variations normally associated with apples, even though they otherwise share 100% of all the other natural class qualities of apples that would otherwise make them appear to be reasonably “included” in this list. So, even though this definition used the term “includes,” which is to be considered a term of enlargement, not limitation, the list is not actually capable of being “enlarged” to encompass anything that does not meet the two specific criteria contained in the definition.

Now look at this example:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes red McIntosh apples.”

In this definition, we can see two different qualifiers being used that guarantees that the scope and meaning of the term “fruit,” as listed, is prohibitively limited to a single variety of red apple out of the approximately 2,500 total varieties grown in the United States, and the approximately 7,500 total varieties grown around the world, regardless of their color. As defined, not only is the list of apples that can be used to meet the definition of the term “fruit” required to be red, they are also required to be of one single specific variety, McIntosh. Which means that, no other variety of apple, red or otherwise, would be applicable and able to be ‘expanded’ into this definition. It is essentially the same as writing the definition thusly:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes only red McIntosh apples.”

Therefore, while using “includes and “including” in its constructive language, it can be logically concluded that the result of a definition containing numerous specific qualifiers pertaining to the listed item(s) is that the ability to ‘expand’ the meaning and application of the definition to encompass other class-similar but otherwise unlisted objects is being exponentially reduced.

I would also add that when the legislature intends the definition to be non-expansive from the very beginning, they will write the definition using the form, “The term ‘fruit’ means…” or “means and includes,” which then immediately limits the definition to encompassing only those specific things that are expressly stated in the list following the term being defined (full credit to my friend and media colleague Dave Champion, author of “Income Tax: Shattering the Myths,” for this clarification).

You must be aware of how these two terms work or you will never actually understand what a law or statute using them truly means, much less how it is lawfully and legally allowed to be interpreted and applied, which means that you will almost certainly lose your case, then possibly your money, your house, or your freedom.

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.

When in Rome…

Tao of Law1 Comment

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

The Soldier vs. The Gladiator.

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

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

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

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

The Original Roman Colosseum.

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

 

The New American Colosseums.

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

The New Gladiators.

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

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

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

 

The New Praegenarii.

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

The Attorneys.

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

The Patrinuts.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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