Statists Gonna’ State, and Almost Always Incorrectly.

What happens when an alleged “investigative journalist” only ‘investigates’ the alleged facts and history of their news and articles from the very sources that taught them to think only from the inside of society’s socialized and collectivist brainwashing box?

In an article written by Barton Deiters (“Deiters”) titled “Law Talk: Who says driving is a privilege and not a right?,” which you can read in its sullied entirety here, we can see some commentary by a former prosecutor turned criminal defense attorney that should be of considerable concern to every American. Why? Because it really shows you just how totally backwards the mindset is of a good many attorney’s, and, therefore, many judges, regarding the People’s unalienable rights.

Understand that I say “many,” because I cannot recall ever having a conversation with any attorney or judge that really sees our individual rights as anything other than “negotiable privileges.” But, I also can’t say that I’ve talked to all or most of them in existence. Still, the chances that the aforementioned mindset is not the “gold standard” across the majority of both attorneys and judges is minuscule at best.

According to Dieters, one Gerald Lykins (“Asshole”), the aforementioned Asshole, is quoted as saying the following:

bio-lykins.jpgGerald Lykins, a criminal defense attorney who once served as an assistant prosecutor in Kent County, says “rights” are regulated by the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions and must be explicitly listed – such as freedom of religion or the right against self-incrimination.”

Now, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I take considerable issue, several in fact, with any attorney that actually believes and says that, ““rights” are Dos Equis - Numero Dos 00000regulated by the U.S. or Michigan [or other state] Constitutions and must be explicitly listed – such as freedom of religion or the right against self-incrimination.”

Any normal person reading this comment would think this Asshole is actually claiming that this is how the People’s individual rights are actually formulated and are to be recognized.  If so, then I must also assume that he believes that government has always existed in the universe, is actually responsible for the creation of light, water, the firmament, the People themselves, and operates completely autonomously outside of the People’s consent and control.

Now, this is a rather big issue to me personally, as this Asshole, and most like him, appears to actually believe that the Bill of Rights contained in the various state and federal constitutions are the original and only source of our individual rights, and that’s just as scary a thought all by itself as it is just plain-ass wrong.

However, that particular misinformed and idiotically myopic  perspective is not why I chose to write this today. Rather, I chose to do so because of the specific subject matter of the aforementioned  so-called ‘investigative journalist’s’ article. Which essentially boils downDos Equis - Numero Dos 000000 to that of two issues, whether or not it is ‘legal’ to “drive” in any state of the union without acquiring a “driver’s license” and various other accouterments associated therewith, or, whether or not the People individually have the right to tell the mis-educated traffic cop to go to hell and learn to do his job correctly. The truly correct answer relies very heavily on legal semantics vs. actual common sense when coupled with verifiable world history, custom, and practice, even since before time immemorial.

Without lending any credence whatsoever to the theory of evolution, and just for the sake of example, we will start with the apes. Before the arrival of man, we must presume that apes could and did travel all over the land mass of whatever continent upon which they lived as it pleased them and their needs and desires moved them to do. They were free to come and go as they chose to wherever they desired, and by whatever means each of the individual apes might choose to travel there, whether by groups that moved in slow meandering foot steps, lengthy marches, or ‘flying’ through the tree tops from tree to tree where such mode of movement was available. And I am fairly certain that it never once occurred to any one or more of them anywhere to require that all apes should get a license for permission to use the trees or forest floor before they could do so.

Fast forward to the ‘cave-man.’ Now, he (and she) was migratory out of necessity, as they had to follow the food, because there wasn’t any farming in those days (Monsanto hadn’t yet arrived to provide BC-Riding-Highcommercial GMO seed vendors to sell them any seeds or gardening tools). Nor were there any supermarkets with frozen mammoth steaks and sabre-tooth tenderloins located just down at the corner of the local watering hole and mammoth graveyard.

It is also more than likely that the most prevalent form of locomotion available was once again by foot. But, that does not rule out the possibility that they may have learned at some point how to tame and ride animals of some sort. However, even though that would have constituted the birth of an entirely new level of technology and method of travel, I’m still pretty certain that no one thought they needed a license to engage in either the capture, training, outfitting, or riding of anything they might have decided to try and use for locomotive purposes. Not even if it was something they figured out how to build and mass-produce for themselves or each other and the contraption resembled the B.C. Comics “wheel-n-stick cycle” or Fred Flintstones “car.”

Fast forward once again to the time of ancient Rome, where men have mastered the use of donkeys, mules, horses, carts, wagons, fancy golden litters, and chariots of all kinds for personal locomotion and use upon the land….Roman Centurion Stopping Chariot 002

… and yet, I simply cannot for the life of me seriously picture a Roman Centurion standing with his foot on the wheel of someone’s wagon or chariot like a city beat cop while he writes them a uniform traffic citation for “no license” and “no registration” on a scroll of papyrus.

Now we get to the late 19th Century. Better known as the latter part of “the old west.” We arrive at a time when both the “motorcar” and the “motorcycle” have just come onto the scene here in America. Most folks couldn’t afford them, and didn’t understand why they would even want one if they already had a good horse. After all, it’s not like there was a Texaco or Shell station selling gasoline in every town or on every third street corner back then. But, more importantly, not even this new technological advancement that allowed one to move so much more freely and faster about the entire land mass of the continent required any form of government approval, license, or permission to purchase, own, and make use of upon any road, open prairie, or wilderness area anywhere.

So, if the People already had the fundamental right to sell, purchase, and/or use this new level of technology, how could the government suddenly put so many burdens on the exercise of those very same rights by we the People in modern America? Because the normal red herring response, “there are more cars now and more people have and use them,” is not only totally stupid, it is also without merit of any kind when you consider that the very same assertion is as equally true in relation to guns, and we haven’t let them totally take away the right to keep and bear arms have we?

Therefore, the short answer is, they couldn’t take away or diminish those rights by converting them into privileges, and they actually didn’t. It only appears that way because of the introduction, nay, more like lethal injection, of what has become a never-ending sea of legal semantics into the mainstream of our daily lives. It is being used to perpetrate and perpetuate a profoundly pervasive pollution of the People’s preferred prosaic English parlance while being profusely forced down our throats or shoved up our asses in prolific proportions rivaling that of the Biblical flood. (See what I mean?).

MEME - My Rights Are Not Subject to Technological Advances 1920x1080

Question: If the government couldn’t lawfully destroy the 2nd Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms by simply using the advancement of time, technology, and proliferation as an excuse, then how could they use that same reasoning as the basis to destroy the fundamental right to liberty through locomotion in modern America? Is it not true that the ability to freely move about as our own inclinations and will dictates has always been every bit as much an integral part and necessity of our very way of life as the right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation and protection from thugs, thieves, criminals, ne’er-do-wells, and our own government, at the risk of being redundant?

So, even after all of this discussion of history, custom, practice, and common sense logic, the real question of the hour still remains, “Do the People actually require state permission in the form of fees and licensing of themselves and their private property to simply exercise their common law right to liberty through locomotion by personal use of the public right-of-way for their own private business and pleasure?

In a word, “no.”

Time-and-time again over the years, I have told folks that listen to my radio show that the real truth is that the federal laws are the actual source of all of the People’s trials and tribulations when it comes to exercising our Dos Equis - Numero Dos 0000000fundamental right to be left the hell alone when we are simply moving about on the public right-of-way without causing harm to anyone.

Bring this perspective of rights, liberty, and law up to a cop in a friendly discussion, or with a prosecutor or judge in a court of law, however, and they quickly demonstrate their complete lack of willingness to question what they only think they already know, while steadfastly brushing off every legitimate effort you make to try and show them that the law itself actually disagrees with them. The history, custom, and practice of the fundamental right to liberty through locomotion simply supports our version of the facts and reading of the law far better than it does theirs. Their enthusiasm over being challenged to prove that they are in the right, or actually proven wrong, reminds me of a TV studio crowd watching the most boring game show ever.

Now, the fact that the “transportation/ motor vehicle” laws don’t actually apply to folks that are simply exercising their right to liberty through locomotion on the public right-of-way, is not to say that there are no laws that validly apply to us. Nor am I making any claim or argument that, just because the “Transportation” Code doesn’t apply to us, we are now somehow relieved of our individual duty to exercise our personal rights and use of our property in ways that do not interfere with the equal rights and property of others. The argument is simply one of common sense; just as the rights of all men are to be considered and treated as equal when exercised justly, we naturally and inherently have the individual duty to exercise self-control and restraint so as to avoid unjustly harming others, regardless of the existence or absence of any man-made law. We commonly refer to this concept of individual liberty as exercising the “Golden Rule” of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The fact is, as free and self-sovereign individuals, we are simply bound by a different set of laws than those which apply to our government servants and all the other legal entities that they create. The natural laws that are relevant to we the People could rightfully be argued to apply only to our individual duty to not interfere with or do an unjust harm to the equal rights and property of others under the concept of that Golden Rule. That would mean that no man has any claim or right to act against any other for any purpose outside of a common law tort for an unjust breach of either the Golden Rule or a contract. Which is actually a hell of a lot more liberty than the average modern-day man or woman has ever experienced or will ever be accustomed to in their lifetime. Very few have ever known the feeling of joy and purpose that comes with true personal freedom and liberty.

Even those who have just been released from years of imprisonment will never truly know this joy. Because all they have really done is leave one prison with solid bars and walls for another. Where the only difference is that the new prison’s bars and walls are invisible. This new prison is certainly no less formidable in how it is used to contain and control these people, and it is used just as well against the rest of us.  This new prison is not built of brick and mortar. It is formed by a virtually innumerable and impenetrable number of slyly constructed terms and phrases, which are all stored in volumes of thick leather-bound officious-looking books. This new prison is entirely dynamic in nature. Its walls, bars, windows, and doors are all constantly shifted about to new locations at the whim of the prison guards and the wardens. This new prison is the gelatinous ‘legal’ system, and it understands and cares about our individual rights, freedoms, and liberty about as well and as much as Chris Christie understands self-control and proper eating & exercise habits, which is to say, not in the least fucking bit at all.

Regardless of how much those in control of our government really want us to believe and accept that they are the sole power and authority that gets to determine what our rights are or how we may use them, it is, and always has been, our individual inherent right to take any action necessary to sustain and live our lives, protect our selves, family, and property, and to make use of that property, as we see fit. Which we may do, just so long as we take due care to stay within the parameters of the Golden Rule, as that is the only true limitation upon the free exercise of our individual rights. Such exercise is not a mere privilege to be granted or taken by the whims or majority vote of the People as a political body or state, or by any constitution, or by our various and numerous agencies of government at any level.

The right to liberty though locomotion is just one of the fundamentally inherent rights necessary to maintaining our very existence on this planet. History and custom not only proves this to be the case the world over, it is what is supposed to be the very basis of the People’s rights and liberty in what was once the wild and untamed frontiers of common law America, just as it once was when we were a part of England as the Colonies. Both English and American history makes it very clear, it is history, custom, and practice that makes the law and binds the People, regardless of how many modern day statist-minded attorneys and judges try to tell you different.

This should have never really been open to any form of negative debate. The People have always had and do have an absolutely fundamental individual right to liberty through locomotion upon the public right-of-way for personal business and pleasure versus the privilege of ‘driving’ for the purpose of commercial business intended to generate private profit or gain by an extraordinary use of the public right-of-way as a “transportation highway.” One is a common law protected inherent right, the other is a privileged profession or occupation. They are not in any way synonymous other than they both utilize the same public resource, the public right-of-way, albeit for very different purposes.

I will remind you once again that it is federal law that is the original source of this controversy, not because of how federal law actually reads or what it does, but rather, how the states have tried to completely hide what it actually says and does in a way that allows them to interfere with and control our individual rights, while illegally taxing us for the free exercise and enjoyment of numerous fundamental rights ancillary thereto.

But what is your evidence proving any of that to be true!!” you say? Well, would you be more willing to take the word of a previous United States President about it rather than simply trusting mine?  Would you believe me any more readily if that President told you himself that this is exactly what has happened, that the legislatures, courts, and executive departments of every state of the union, have knowingly and willfully acted fraudulently and criminally to convert the free exercise of every individual’s right of liberty through locomotion into a taxable privilege so that they could sell it back to us for a fee and use it to control and monitor our every movement about the entire continent? Really? That would make you feel better about believing me on this subject? Well, okay, then that is what I’ll do.

I now turn you over to the obliging hands, and words, of President Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States from April 12, 1945-January 20, 1953, who tells us the following:

Harry S. Truman – Speech to Fraternal Order of Eagles on Automobile Safety 08-14-1937.
Harry S. Truman – Speech on CBS  Announcing the Passage of the Drivers’ License Bill (S. 25) on  02-07-1939.

Now, I’m not going to call Mr. Gerald Lykins a liar or anything……… , well, actually…, yes…, yes I am going to call him a liar! Because he is a liar!! A big fat statist liar that should be disbarred, sued, and jailed for legal malpractice and incompetence. Not to mention just being an elitist asshole and total menace to individual rights and the public health and welfare. Which, in reality, makes him absolutely no different than any of the rest of the attorneys that engage in a profession that is soooo corrupt, diseased, immoral, unethical, and dishonest, that it makes professional prostitution seem completely healthy, moral and ethical by even the most prudish of Catholic standards. This particular class of persons are so unbelievably low that earthworms can shit on their heads as easily as birds shit on cars.

Attorneys are precisely the reason that we should always begin any “Transportation/ Motor Vehicle” Code case with a Motion of Special Appearance as being the absolute very first thing we do in the matter. Even if the cop does what the law actually requires them to do by taking you immediately before a magistrate, which is mandatory here in Texas Dos Equis - Numero Dos 0000pursuant Sec. 543.002, Texas “Transportation” Code, the FIRST and ONLY words out of your mouth before anything else must be “On and for the record judge, I am here by Special Appearance to challenge this law enforcement officer’s and your court’s unsubstantiated legal presumption of personal jurisdiction over me in this matter, for which I will be filing a written challenge moving the court for a signed written order ruling solely on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, until such time as that challenge has been filed and answered, and an order ruling upon it has been signed by the court, I cannot answer any questions or provide any documents that could possibly be used against me in a court of law or to potentially incriminate me in some way of which I am not currently aware. Therefore, I do not knowingly and voluntarily waive any of my fundamental or protected rights whatsoever, and I demand my right to assistance of counsel who is to serve in an advisory capacity only. Further Respondent sayeth not.

So, the next time you see or hear an attorney open their mouth with an opinion about what rights you do or don’t have, or even as to how they work, just hand them a shovel and tell them to not leave that pile of shit that just came out of their mouth lying around for some unwary individual to step in. Dos Equis - Numero Dos 000

Then, when they are done cleaning up their mess, take back the shovel…….

… and slam them with the flat side of it really hard, right in the face!

You won’t believe the feeling of immense joy and satisfaction you will get from finally understanding that the only true benefit that attorneys provide to society is that feeling the rest of us get when we have the chance to beat on one of them like a $3.00 piñata at a Mexican fiesta or for target practice to sight in our new gun.

.

Remember……

MEME - Rope, Tree, Attorney 1920x1080

English Language Words versus Legal “Terms of Art” – The Corruption of an Entire System of Language by the Legal Profession.

Words. Can you even imagine the state of your life, or our society, if we didn’t have words? Whether spoken or written, we could not have gotten where we are today without words. We use them to describe and define so much of our world, even to sometimes provide a voice to our innermost thoughts and ideas. As humans, we use words to add dimension to our thoughts, to convey our ideas, to communicate with one another, and to further our learning and mutual understanding of so many things. At least, most of us use them for that purpose.

But, there are those among us that have always sought to use our complex language of words in ways intended to provide themselves with some advantage over those less educated in the intricacies of our language and may not fully understand the meaning of the words and phrases used to implement it. These individuals of evil or self-serving intent, a class of people we commonly refer to as “grifters,” devised methods of writing and speaking that was geared toward intentionally deceiving particular individuals, or the masses in general, when weaving and pursuing some scheme to eventually separate the targeted individual or group from their hard-earned money, the majority of which was sure to wind up in the grifter’s pocket.

The most common vernacular for such persons are “con men” or “con artists.” The tradecraft of such individuals is not difficult to understand. They are nothing more than thieves, i.e. common criminals. But, unlike robbers and thugs, they rarely use force or weapons as the preferred tool by which they ply their trade. Instead, they use charm, wit, and words to facilitate thievery upon their intended victim(s) by fraud and deception.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, however, these types of con men haven’t disappeared, nor have they been legally wiped out. Oh no. They still exist today, and in much larger and widespread numbers than ever before, while plying their trade much more openly before the public. This should make it clear to the rest of us that they have simply gotten much better at organizing and operating more comfortably out in the open while becoming much less noticeable as a criminal element than they used to be. In fact, they have actually managed to legitimize themselves and their entire profession by turning their practice of fraud and deception into an actual socially acceptable and highly lucrative form of ‘legitimate’ business.

Who are these modern-day grifters? Well, in today’s world such deceitful and deceptive individuals are more commonly known by a far more prolific and nefarious singular name, attorneys, aka, lawyers. That makes it imperative that you fully understand that there are no bigger, better organized, and more “legal” crime syndicates on the planet than those of the National and State Bar Associations. The members of these associations have an actual license to lie, cheat, and steal in the name of “The State” and its totally corrupted form of “law” and “justice” that truly serves no one but themselves.

What you are going to see in this book is an attempt to explain precisely how this is all designed and setup to carry out the very same plan of fraud and theft that the con men of yesteryear were so well known and notorious for. Only now, those con men are in total control of the very system that was once used to protect the public by hunting them down and prosecuting them for their actions. But, those days are now long gone.  Read on and see for yourself just how true this actually is in modern America.

Dealing with a Condescending Prosecutor or Judge.

Whenever a prosecutor or judge is actually arrogant enough to make the statement “I’m not going to argue the semantics of the law with you,” consider, and remind him or her, that the law itself, including the statute(s) that s/he is trying to use against you, is actually comprised of nothing but legal semantics.

Remember, our American laws are not written in common everyday English, but, rather, they are written in a language known to a particular few as legalese. Legalese itself is not merely constructed of words and sentences, but is a particularized and meticulously crafted language unto itself. It is a language made up entirely of carefully chosen and defined terms and phrases that look and sound exactly like those with which you are normally readily familiar, but, they actually have an altered or alternative legal meaning and context. Which is to say, they are the legal semantics.  These terms and phrases are also known by another name, terms/phrases of art., which we will discuss in more detail momentarily.

The American Heritage Dictionary online defines legalese thusly:

le·gal·ese  (lē′gə-lēz´, -lēs´) [1]

n.

The specialized or technical language of the legal profession, especially when considered to be complex or abstruse.

The Collins English Dictionary online provides us with the Webster’s New World College Dictionary’s more expanded, and rather clarifying, definition of the term:

le·gal·ese  (lē′gə-lēz´, -lēs´) [2]

n.

The conventional language of legal forms, documents, etc., involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman.  (Emphasis added).

In this definition, you can see where legalese is both known, and intended, to be incomprehensible to the layman, i.e. the non-attorney. Thus, giving the legal profession a monopoly control, use, and understanding of its own language disguised as our common everyday English language, which that system uses to the utter detriment of all those who fail to become adequately fluent in the language themselves. Be warned, this isn’t your simplistic high school French or Spanish class we’re talking about here.

You see, the very explanation of legalese itself is an example of legal semantics in operation. For lack of a better suited and simplified explanation of the issue as to what legalese is, just remember the following; legal semantics is the process of altering the usage and meaning of commonly familiar and ordinary words and sentences by simultaneously converting them into legalese and applying an alternative and undisclosed legal meaning and context to them rather than the common everyday meaning and context even though the terms and phrases you read or hear may look, sound, and are spelled the same way that you are normally familiar with.

In which case, the only proper response to such a statement from ANY attorney would be:

I know you won’t argue with me about it, because you are legally and linguistically incompetent to do so, and would lose that debate within a matter of minutes if you tried. Therefore, I suggest that you just stand over there quietly and remember why it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool rather than to open it and remove all doubt.

Terms/Phrases of Art.

So, what exactly is a term/phrase of art, and why is it so important to recognize the difference between such terms and phrases when compared to the common English usage of similar appearing and sounding language?

The online version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines “term of art” this way:

A word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession. [3]      (Emphasis added).

While the online version of West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, Edition 2, defines the phrase in this way:

A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context. [4]   (Emphasis added).

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law then goes on to provide us with some clarity as to exactly why this differentiation of language is important to know and fully understand, as it is the precise avenue by which the perversion/corruption of our common language use and understanding  has taken place.

A term of art is a word or phrase that has a specialized meaning in relation within the context of a particular field or profession when used within the law. Terms of art abound in the written law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses more than one risky outcome for the same person based upon the same set of facts and circumstances. However, when used in the context of constitutional protections in law double jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial where they were acquitted (found not guilty) of the alleged crime.

The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art has very real legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.

Upon appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court’s ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with them both. According to the Supreme Court, “punitive damages” is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit. Both the trial court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals were conflating two different terms of art, “compensate” and “punish,” in order to make a finding favorable to the government over the person the government had wronged.

The legal system constantly and subversively construes our every use of language as using the legal terms of art rather than the common and ordinary meaning and usage used by laymen. The primary reason that there is any misunderstanding at all about this fact is because those professionally operating within the system are constantly telling the rest of us that, unless the law creates a specific definition for a given term or phrase, then, they too are always using the same regular English words and sentences in their everyday common and ordinary meaning and context rather than terms and phrases of art having an entirely different legal meaning and context.

However, we know, and can logically prove, that this claim is totally false. We know it is false because, unless there is an actual legal issue, they have no reason to be communicating with us at all. In other words, whenever an attorney or judge makes the statement that they are construing a term or phrase in its common and ordinary meaning and context, they actually mean its common and ordinary meaning and context in relation to law, not common English.

Therefore, whenever they communicate with us, regardless of their purported reason, they are still using legalese terms and phrases, not common English words and sentences. Which, in turn, means they are actually always communicating with us using only the common legal meaning and context as commonly defined by a particular term or phrases legal usage, not its common everyday English usage. The governmental and legal systems simply cannot communicate with us in any other way or language, as the only language and context they know and understand is that of the law itself, i.e. legalese. Which makes the terms and phrases of legalese within the law the only means by which they can communicate and interact with us at all. Pick up and start reading any written communication from any governmental office or agency, or from any law firm, and you are immediately being bombarded with legalese that uses numerous terms and phrases of art even though everything in that communication will appear to be many of the same words and phrases that you have been familiar with and using your whole adult life. However, appearances have never been more deceiving than when they come from government or those in the legal profession.

For those people that want to fight every single court battle as if it were a contractual agreement and obligation involving waiver and mutual consent, this understanding is paramount to achieving any level of actual success in resolving whatever issue(s) they are bringing to your door. Why do I say this is true and necessary? Well, consider this example:

How do you enter into a contractual negotiation with someone else, and how exactly do you define and satisfy the necessary terms of that contract as far as offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds?

How do you know exactly what is being offered and exchanged, and contractually required, if not by the terms of the contract itself?

How do you know what the other party is promising to offer, do, or deliver to you in return for your consideration, and what must that consideration be comprised of, federal reserve notes, gold or silver, or a bushel of potatoes every week for ten years?

Now, what if none of the parties attempting to enter into this contract spoke the same language, and couldn’t communicate in any way so as to directly understand one-another? Before you could move forward with establishing the contract, you would need either an interpreter, or, one or both of you would need to learn the other’s language to the point of fluency, correct?

So, if you are going to argue that the system is trying to ‘contract’ with you during every interaction with its offices or agents, don’t you think it more than just a little beneficial to be able to understand the language of this ‘contract’ so as to comprehend precisely what the offer is, as well as the potential penalty for either party if they fail to fulfill their individual part(s) of the agreement? Wouldn’t that same understanding also be useful in exposing and renegotiating or refusing the unfavorable or unacceptable terms or unconscionability of the agreement as offered?

Personally, I think it would be tantamount, as compulsory contracts are nothing new when it comes to governmental coercion and corruption of the rule of law. But, unless they want to start an outright civil war, they are not quite ready and willing to abandon any and all semblance of complying with certain rules and requirements of certain contractual agreements as they relate to substantive and procedural due process.

Be aware, I am not saying that contractual arguments are the arguments to make in many of these cases that we are forcibly compelled to endure and get through, but, it is a good example of how to think about what is actually happening in relation to lawful and legal process and procedural requirements, as they are also specific contractually obligating terms already agreed upon by the very construct of government and the creation of the laws that contain them. This is what makes a violation of those laws by those within the system a very big deal, even though it may not look or feel like it at the time.

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=legalese.

[2] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/legalese.

[3] Oxford Living Dictionaries, English  “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/term_of_art.

[4] West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Term+of+Art.

How to Control [and Legally Embarrass] a Bad Judge – Episode 1

When you have a prosecutor and a judge conspiring and acting to further a case despite a lack of jurisdiction, especially when that lack of jurisdiction is based upon an insufficient complaint and charging instrument or lack of admissible evidence by which to prove ALL of the necessary elements of the alleged offense(s), just how are you supposed to deal with it?

Such little circus sideshows are usually played out by the judge and prosecutor in a tag-team performance during the motions hearing, which is where the judge will most certainly attempt to deny your motions without ANY legal basis or rebuttal relevant to a single thing in your motion(s). What the judge is failing to provide in this denial is what we call the necessary “findings of fact and conclusions of law” that provide the supporting legal grounds for the denial. Neither of which they actually ever have in such cases.  This is why you should ALWAYS file a supporting “Motion to Reconsider,” or, in certain circumstances, a “Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” with any other actual motion that you file that results in an appealable negative order, ruling, or judgement.  DO NOT put either of these motion requests into the same motion that initiated the action order, as they will be automatically denied when the actual motion itself is denied.

Now, once you make ANY form of argument that the statutes are being legally misapplied to you and your private activities, you are most likely going to prompt the prosecutor or judge to say something like “Are you saying the code/ statutes/ laws don’t apply to you?” At this point the prosecution is going to chime in and supply some totally irrelevant and idiotic example claiming that some five-to-ten year-old child will suddenly be able to take off in mommy and daddy’s car any time they want because licenses aren’t really required. An example which is not only moronically stupid on its face, but also has absolutely NOTHING to do with the facts and evidence of the case before the court.

The prosecutor’s little forays into fantasy land, along with their side trip to ridiculous park, will be fully sanctioned by the judge if you fail to object properly. However, these little stories are NOT testimony per se, as this is only a motions hearing, but they ARE completely ludicrous fabrications and are not at all relevant to the facts and case before the court. So, when you object to this moronic commentary DON’T say stupid Patrinut shit like “I object, s/he’s testifying and misstating the facts judge!” Instead, stick to the commentaries total lack of relevance and the prosecutor’s dumb-assery for having made it as your basis for making the objection:

OBJECTION!  How badly the prosecutor would allow their child to behave if these statutes never actually applied to the Accused or the general public is completely irrelevant to the matter before the court, and serves no legitimate purpose other than demonstrating that the prosecutor should probably be sterilized and not allowed to care for children in general. That idiotic example of coulda’ shoulda’ woulda’ is not the law, it cannot be substituted for the law, and it has nothing to do with the actual law and facts before this court.  Therefore, I move that if the prosecutor wishes to engage in the fabrication of delusional and irrelevant fantasies that s/he resign and either write fiction books or run for public office in the legislature. Otherwise, I move that the prosecutor be instructed to stick exclusively to the facts and evidence relevant to this matter rather than their red herring theories on ‘possibility’.

Take note, as there was no actual admissible and countermanding evidence and/or any legal brief(s) filed by the prosecution alleging any opposing statutes, facts, or law that serve to rebut those contained in your own motion(s), the judge and the prosecutor have no legal leg to stand on for denying them, especially with the judge acting biasedly for the prosecution by simply denying them without legal grounds. Their imaginary “what if” example scenarios are NOT the law, nor are they the basis of the law. Just as they are NOT evidence of anything whatsoever, other than as an example of a vivid and totally irrelevant imagination.

So, one possible response to a judge that makes such an obviously prejudicial and biased statement of this nature would be:

Judge, I believe the burden of proving that the specific regulatory statutes at issue in this matter actually DO apply to the Accused rests upon the Prosecution, rather than upon the Accused to prove that they do not. It’s called “the presumption of innocence.” I would move the court to look it up in the Code of Criminal Procedure under Arts. 2.01, 2.03(b), 11.43, 35.17.2, and 38.03.

Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to allege even a single fact in the complaint and/or charging instrument that the Accused was actively engaging in some form of commercial “transportation” activity upon the highway, which is the ONLY way that these specific regulatory statutes legally CAN apply. On these grounds I move that the court take judicial notice of Article 38.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads:

Art. 38.03. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.

Further still, SB 971 as enacted by the 74th Legislature in 1995, which is the enactment that created the entire “transportation” code in its current recodified form, including the various statutes at issue in this matter, regulates a specific type of business or business related activity, that of “transportation.” An activity in which the Accused was NOT and never has been engaged, the allegation and proof of which is an essential  required fact element that the prosecution cannot presume to be true or legally prove due to a lack of admissible evidence relating to and proving said activity.

The prosecution is duty-bound to set forth EVERY element that is required to be proven at trial IN the complaint AND the charging instrument, AND must prove EVERY element at trial with ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, not hypothetical and overly ridiculous red herring arguments and contrived situations that have no relevance or bearing upon the facts of the case.

Finally, neither this court nor the prosecution may simply presume ANY required fact element of an alleged offense to be true, as that subverts the right of the Accused to the presumption of innocence of EVERY element of an alleged offense, which is fatal error, being a clear violation of the Accused’s right of due process and all. There can be no reasonable legal debate as to whether or not the act of “transportation” is a necessary fact element of the alleged offense considering that it is the specifically stated subject matter of the very legislation that created the recodified “transportation” code and the statutes therein.

There is no such fact element alleged in the complaint and charging instrument, and the state has no admissible evidence that would serve as proof of that necessary element. This lack of admissible evidence also proves that the arresting officer could not possibly have had any articulable facts or evidence supporting reasonable suspicion or probable cause, thus making the warrantless detention, seizure and arrest of the Accused completely unlawful in the first instance. Which, in turn, makes it more than clear that the state is attempting to unlawfully apply the “transportation” code and its regulatory statutes to a completely unrelated subject matter activity to which it simply and legally does NOT and CANNOT apply as said activity is entirely OUTSIDE of the code’s subject matter jurisdiction and application.

Therefore, the state has no case, as the prosecution simply cannot prove that these statutes apply without first proving that the Accused was engaged in the regulated activity of “transportation.” Which is legally impossible to do using only a law enforcement officer’s personal or professional opinion during testimony absent other admissible substantive evidence supporting that conclusion, as the officer is not qualified to make such legal determinations and conclusions and then offer them as factual opinion and evidence through testimony at trial.

Whereby, on these legal and constitutional grounds, I move for your immediate disqualification for bias, prejudice, judicial incompetence, and multiple violations of state law, the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, the rules of judicial and professional conduct, and criminal offenses constituting felony violations of Abuse of Official Capacity and Official Oppression under Sections 39.02 and 39.03 Penal Code.

In other words, ‘judge,’ fuck you, fuck the prosecutor, and fuck the rest of the dirty wharf rats whose asses and nut sacks you both kiss every day to hold onto your corrupt lying-ass jobs.

“It’s Only a Few Bad Apples…”

As you all should be aware of by now if you listen to the radio show at all, I have been working on a felony “Evading Arrest or Detention” case for the last several weeks. And if you have been listening for the last few years, then you are also aware that many of the facts and arguments I make on certain subjects have never been litigated or argued in the State of Texas Courts in a manner that addresses all of the in pari materia statutes on the particular subject. Which means that there is little to no “case law” relating to the specific argument.

The document that is posted here is a Motion to Quash Indictment that has been filed in the 63rd Judicial District Court in Terrell County Texas. I am posting it here with the full knowledge and consent of the individual that is being accused in the matter. I am also providing PDF documents for the four pleadings that I wrote for this case in links at the bottom. That way you won’t have to copy the web page and then try to massage it back into a formatted Word document if you find anything in it you might be able to use.

The Motion to Quash is quite long, but it had to be in order to cover all of the unconstitutional and illegal acts being perpetrated by the federal and local public officials in the matter so as to railroad this man into a prison sentence just to finally get rid of him. And if you can read this document and not get pissed off, then you are what is inherently wrong with America today, because it exposes the outright in-your-face corruption of the judicial process and system that runs all the way to the very top criminal court in Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. And there is no one to blame for this sort of corruption but the self-serving attorneys themselves.

I am also going to link in copies of several of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals own case opinions that proves that the Court has been and is actively engaging in and sanctioning statewide criminal violations of Texas law by every lower court and prosecutor in the entire state. And that the sanctioning of these violations is done with the specific intent of denying every individual accused of a crime in their right to substantive and procedural due process. In other words, I believe that I have proven the entire judicial department of the State of Texas to be engaging in organized criminal activity that goes above and beyond even that which we have known or suspected, and they were kind enough to provide the evidence against themselves in their own opinions.

This leaves us having to ask, just when is this bullshit going to be enough to make we the People stand up, charge, convict, and hang every damned attorney and judge in the entire country from the nearest horizontal object strong to hold them aloft until all of their kicking and squirming ceases? Think about the following statements really really hard; is there anything, and I mean anything, that has gone wrong with the course and history of this country, any incident, any disaster, any war, any terrorist governmental attack, unconstitutional law, or violation of individual rights, during its entire existence, that was not conceived, implemented, or justified by some attorney or attorney wanna’be?

Think about that. The founding fathers despised attorneys, even though many of them were attorneys. It was a bunch of Pharisee lawyers that had Jesus condemned to death. Then we had ‘Honest’ Abe Lincoln orchestrating the civil war. The prohibition era and the ‘legal’ alcohol poisoning murders of over 10,000 Americans was overseen by President Woodrow Wilson when the federal government laced all alcohol products with a poisonous recipe of chemicals that included “4 parts methanol (wood alcohol), 2.25 parts pyridine bases, 0.5 parts benzene to 100 parts ethyl alcohol” and, as TIME magazine noted, “Three ordinary drinks of this may cause blindness.” (In case you didn’t guess, the alternative phrasing “drinking that stuff will make you go blind” also isn’t just a figure of speech.). Harry S. Truman oversaw the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he went to law school to be an attorney, but never completed the degree after he won reelection as presiding county judge, even though he was informed by the state bar that he was already qualified to join the bar due to his prior court experience. Lyndon B. Johnson, the leading contender in the conspiracy to kill then President John F. Kennedy, went to law school, but never finished either — presumably because he could not have possibly passed the [pretend] ethics portion of the education. And that theme continues on through today with the Clintons and Obamas. This ‘profession’ is literally stealing everything from us, one step and piece at a time, and it must be stopped. But only we can do it. And we cannot do it by keeping our heads in the sand in the hope that the attorneys will simply pass us by because we choose to ignore their presence.

Remember, everything that Hitler did to the people of Europe and to our fighting men was ‘legal’ by the terms of the German-attorney made and enacted laws. And attorneys are doing the same things here, they have just set up a way to remove the middleman.

Like I said, the document is long, but it is an attempt to cover every possible exit and loophole that the corrupt individuals within the courts and judicial system might seek to squeeze their rat-like personages through so as to deprive an innocent man of not only his liberty, but also the few remaining months of his life with his family and friends.

So READ this, and don’t just think or wonder about it, DO something. SAY something. SCREAM something, at someone, anyone, everyone, that we are sick and tired of this kind of thing being done not only to us, but in our own name, by a bunch of corrupt self-serving communist-state loving sycophants!!

It is time to choose. Do you want FREEDOM, or freedumb?

Attorneys – The Unqualified Stupidity of “Qualified” Immunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Footnotes:

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

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



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



For Whom the Bell Tolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Algebra Formulas for “Transportation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Define Person as Boolean

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

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

  If Transportation = False then

        IsPerson = False

  Else

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

          IsPerson = False

    Else

          IsPerson = True

    End IF
  End If
End Function

 

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

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

The Times They Are a Changin’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alas, Poor Liberty, I Knew Him Well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

[2] The new death penalty standards in America.

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

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

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

Attorneys – Truth and Consequences

This post (all typos and such in original) was made in my “Tao of Law” legal discussion group on Fecalbook (not a typo):

About the Law called Right to travel where it’s saying on here you do not have to have drivers license and tags insurance and registration.Well ive talked to five attorneys this week and they laughed about that.With that being said why do everybody have license and tags on there cars if it was easy to get dismissed in a court.My guess is you can’t get it dismissed in court.Can anybody enlighten me on how I can beat it?? Thanks


My Response went thusly…

“Let me try to understand your logic:

You asked a series of known habitual liars about an area and matter of law from which they stand to hugely profit under the status quo, about a non-legal solution to that same issue that would serve to deprive them of that profit, and you expected the answers you got to be truthful and correct by being in actual compliance with the actual law, as well as respectful of the constitutionally protected rights of the individual and generally in the best interest of the public?

Have you actually LIVED on Earth long? lol

Your post reminds me of the old riddle of the fork in the road;
==================================

You stand at a fork in the road. Next to each of the two forks, there stands a guard. You know only the following things in order to choose the correct path and continue forward, as you cannot go back the way you came:

1) one path leads to Paradise, the other leads to Death;

2) you cannot distinguish any references or differences between the two paths to help you choose;

3) you also know that one of the two guards (“TRUTH”) always tells the truth and the other guard (“LIAR”) always lies (guess which one that is in your question…), but you don’t know which is which anymore than you know the correct path at this point;

4) you are allowed to ask only one of the guards one question to try and discover which path leads to Paradise;

5) once you choose and start down whichever path, there is no turning back or changing your mind.

So, the riddle is “what is the one question you can ask either of the two guards in order to properly apply the answer and guarantee that you choose the correct path to Paradise?”

Answer: The correct question AND application of the answer is:

Question: Ask either guard “What path will the other guard say is the path to Paradise?”

Application of answer: Take the OPPOSITE path from that which the guard pointed to.

ANALYSIS:

Now, IF TRUTH ALWAYS tells the truth, and LIAR ALWAYS lies, then the logic is:

If you asked TRUTH which path LIAR will say is the path to Paradise, then TRUTH will point to the path to Death, because TRUTH is telling the truth about what LIAR will say.

If you asked LIAR which path TRUTH will say is the path to Paradise, then LIAR will point to the path to Death, because LIAR is lying about what TRUTH will say.

Therefore, no matter WHICH guard you ask the question to, you ALWAYS take the opposite path from the one that is pointed to. This also illustrates the point of asking the question the CORRECT way, as you can quickly learn by simply changing the question from asking one of the guards about the road to Paradise to asking instead about the road to Death and then doing the same analysis.

Enjoy Paradise!”


The moral of the story is, generally speaking, attorneys are notorious liars and thieves that control our society with their own private criminal cabal utilizing a system of legalized slavery and theft through regulatory codes that are wholly unconstitutional when applied to the People in their private lives and activities, and, who are, in my humble opinion, totally worthless and a ruinous festering rot upon a truly civilized and moral society. They do this by utilizing knowing and willful misrepresentations of not only the law, but also of legal facts, evidence, and general principles relating to individual rights, truth, and moral and ethical justice.

The rule of law is nonexistent wherever and whenever it may by twisted and perverted by attorneys more interested in a victory or a fee more than in right, wrong, and justice.

And even though I would not expect an attorney to theoretically have enough moral substance and actual guts to even physically slow down or stop a bullet, I am sure that there would be many who would be more than willing to stack them ten deep and conduct such experiments with a variety of weapons and calibers to determine the validity of that theory for as long as is necessary to fully exhaust the supply of attorneys required to conduct such a study and reach a final conclusion.

NOTE: Please watch your local newspapers for applications to become an associate member of the research team.  😉

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Also, before becoming a lawyer, a group of us created the “right to travel vs driver’s license”  issue way back in 1972.  You use all of our research, court cases and tactics we developed almost 45 years ago.  We sold pamphlets, cassette tapes and gave seminars.  And it was BS then and is BS now.  I was amazed that it was still around.
You should rethink misleading people on this issue – you are perpetrating a fraud.  Not very patriotic of you.

Here then is my response to this admonition, which I reserve the right to amend over time as necessary for completeness and accuracy as time and information allows (same thing I told him in my emailed response):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property Rights:

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

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

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

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

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

The Origin of Ownership:

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

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

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

Every Citizen is Entitled to Own Property:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Protection of Property Rights:

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

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

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

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

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

Rights Associated With Ownership:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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