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

June 3, 2021June 4, 2021 Tao of Law4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge Texas Penal Code §38.04 as Being Unconstitutional!

October 26, 2019 Tao of Law2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 13, 2019February 24, 2020 Tao of LawLeave a comment

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

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

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

“I hate to have to be the one to point it out to you, but you are simultaneously minimally correct and massively incorrect in your asserted facts here.
Yes, you are correct that PRIOR to 1983 there was no such term/phrase in the statutes of the Texas Transportation Code (“TTC”) defined as that of “driver’s license,” therefore, no one could be rightfully convicted of an offense that claimed an individual didn’t have a form of license that the law itself made no mention of as even being required.
However, even the definition of “driver’s license” that existed from 1983 forward was changed and rendered legally useless with the alleged enactment of SB 971 by the 78th Texas Legislature in 1995 (unlawfully so, but presumptively changed nonetheless).
SB 971 created an entirely new form of license TERMINOLOGY (driver’s license), BUT, it DID NOT actually create ANY new form of license, it was only made to APPEAR that it had done so. If fact, it actually REMOVED all valid forms of existing ‘permanent’ licenses, which previously existed in ONLY three specific forms, that of “chauffeurs,” “operator’s,” and “commercial operator’s” licenses. However, you will NOT find a single reference to ANY of these previous forms of permanent license ANYWHERE in the entirety of the TTC as it currently exists.
When actually reading the definitions of “driver’s license,” “license,” and “commercial driver’s license” provided within Chapters 521 and 522 of the TTC, you will find it includes only three specific forms of “license,” a “temporary license,” “learner license,” and “occupational license.” And before you go jumping the gun by thinking you know what these terms mean in relation to either the law or a license, let me say, no you don’t.
Each of these “licenses” actually have three very specific things in common; 1) each license is only a very short-term temporary form of license in and of itself; 2) each license is dependent upon either the requirement that the holder obtain some other more permanent form of license to replace it within a certain number of days in the near future (temporary and learners licenses), or it requires the holder to have surrendered some other form of permanent license in order to obtain it after a conviction for an offense that results in the revocation of that previous form of permanent license (occupational license); and 3) each of these forms of license are specifically and individually defined in the TTC as having specific prerequisites and existing conditions for obtaining them.

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

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

Once you actually study the definitions of these three ‘new’ forms of license, you will plainly see these facts to be absolutely true. Which then leads us to several constitutional problems with not only the statutes themselves being vague, ambiguous and overbroad, but also that the entire enactment of SB 971 is a total fraud and 100% violative of specific requirements and prohibitions within the Texas Constitution that make the entire code absolutely unconstitutional and unenforceable. Understanding the specific details and their significance takes considerable time and effort however, and there are very few who actually have invested the time and effort required to come to that understanding to its last and finest level of detail, and I am one of them, if not the only one in the entire state of Texas.
Also, you are incorrect in assuming that your list contains ALL instances of what can and does invalidate previously existing ‘case law.’ The changing of the underlying law itself CAN and DOES invalidate prior court rulings on that specific law that are in existence prior to those changes. Hence, these legislative changes statutorily invalidate your cited case law precisely because the existing case law is now in direct conflict with the new statutory changes, albeit, this holds true only if the new statutes themselves are actually valid, which they aren’t. But, that is something you would have to prove on the record in a court of law having the power to set precedent by declaring the statutes unconstitutional. This is something that I can absolutely prove using nothing more than the actual legislative bill that comprises SB 971, certified public records, and the Texas Constitution itself. These records alone provide ample evidence that the new version of the TTC and its underlying statutes ARE 100% invalid and unenforceable in their entirety, but that is a separate issue from your statements here.

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

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

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

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

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

Black man who acted as his own attorney acquitted of murder

Statutory Interpretation 101 – Using Definitions From Another Statute or Code

April 24, 2019 Tao of Law2 Comments

There is no shortage of self-proclaimed “legal experts” on Facebook and other social media. Prior to the advent of this form of communication such people were more commonly referred to as “jail house lawyers” by the courts and prosecutors. Judges and prosecutors coined the phrase as a derogatory inference of the credibility and reliability of legal information and tactics such people attempted to impart to their peers, most commonly from within the same cell block in which the “jail house lawyers” themselves were also incarcerated as arrested or convicted criminals.

Those same prosecutors and judges have often referred to me in the same manner, as I am not a member of their elitist club. A club that, from what I have personally observed for all intents and purposes, has only minimal qualifications for being a member; 1) the ability to spend untold sums of money to obtain an education and degree in adhering to someone else’s opinions about the law rather than the actual law, 2) the innate ability to completely ignore and disregard the laws necessity of providing for and protecting the fundamental principles of right, wrong, and justice, and 3), the willingness to forgo even the most basic forms of morality and justice for a paycheck and career advancement.

In modern times, however, the vast majority of these “jail house lawyers” have not only never been in jail, they have never so much as stepped foot inside a courtroom or waged a legal battle of any kind. And those that have, of which there are damned few, usually got their asses handed to them by the prosecution and the court. Not all of them mind you, but most certainly the greatest percentage of them. Afterwards, the losers could be found standing or sitting around and complaining about how their trial was rigged and the prosecutors and judges are all corrupt and incapable of doing their jobs correctly. These are also the same losers that almost invariably did absolutely nothing right in preparing for and fighting their case properly. The even rarer number of people that actually did prepare and do everything properly, correctly, and had the law on their side from the very beginning, but actually lost their case anyway, are the only ones that have any right to complain about how they lost because of a corrupt prosecutor or court justice. All others are just idiots blaming the system for their own inadequacies and failure at properly understanding and preparing for what lay before them in the moment.

However, decades of experience in learning and doing all of these things myself has taught me quite a few things about “jail house lawyers,” the most important things being that:

the majority of them are completely ignorant and clueless to a mind boggling degree about how to find, read, comprehend, and then apply facts and law to their court cases; and
not all of them are totally wrong or incorrect in what they say and do, but those particular individuals are as scarce as hens teeth and Dodo birds.

A perfect example of one of these totally ignorant and clueless “jail house lawyers” is a gentleman on Facebook who calls himself “El Hotepsehkemwy Pero.” He has made multiple statements of fact over time about how to properly read and interpret statutes that I have challenged him on as being nothing short of intentional deception because they are so far off the mark of how to properly read and understand statutes that it borders on the ludicrous. An action and mentality for which he is, unfortunately, not at all unique in the Patrinut realm. Here, in his own words, is a perfect example of what I mean by ignorant jail house lawyer, and precisely what the prosecutors and judges were inferring about such individuals when they coined the phrase:

El Hotepsehkemwy Pero You got it…

But; let me now help you take it one step farther brother…

Can you find a; “motor vehicle lease statute” in your state…?

El Hotepsehkemwy Pero That’s where you define intent of use…

It is intended to be used for…?

“Private use” OR ” your trade or business”…?

El Hotepsehkemwy Pero And where does the State define its intended use…?

“except where otherwise defined”…

See; 26 USC 770; Definitions – (h)…

(h) Motor vehicle operating leases…

Hmmm… defined in the IRC(Internal Revenue Code – listed as title 26 in the United States Code; abbreviated as; USC – but; use US Code in search engines as it will pull up University of Southern California otherwise)…

Also note; when Congress meets to address issues – each session deals with “certain” issues and then when things are implemented upon resolution of issues we see the associated changes within the codes…
Recently the IRC has been going through updates…
Changing of wording and placement of definitions mainly…

My response to this totally incorrect reading and understanding of how statutory construction and the definitions found therein do and do not work when it comes to reading and application was fairly straightforward:

Tao Lauw El Hotepsehkemwy Pero – Uuuhh, yeah, that concept you speak of above, how to read and apply any particular statutory definition or principle found in a completely different set of statutes to another completely different set or specific of statute(s), is ALSO patently incorrect.

You are once again attempting to equivocate or convert the definition or context of a term or phrase legally defined in one statute dealing with a totally DIFFERENT object within the law, an object that is only ANCILLARY to the actual subject matter itself (transportation/ commerce), with the meaning and purpose of a totally different object or collection of objects in another section of law. It simply does NOT work that way. Unless the ‘other’ section you are making a comparison to actually states that the definition from another completely different statutory section you are claiming applies to the section you are reading DOES apply, than it is NOT legally binding upon the meaning of the term or phrased in that other section UNLESS a court rules that it IS applicable. STOP DOING THAT!! The ONLY exception to this rule is the use of CRIMINAL/PENAL CODE definitions across other PUNITIVE statutory provisions where the same term or phrase is NOT defined locally within the statutes.

That said, you can try and use it for comparison when the section you are attempting to decipher and argue has no definition of its own, IF you can make a logical fact based argument as to why it should be interpreted that way, BUT, you CANNOT make the conclusion yourself that no other definition can be used or applied. You have to have an argument that convinces the court to do that for you, if it legally can.

You do this by arguing that:

“The Legislature created no new or different definition in Section XX.XX for the particular term or phrase “<TERM/PHRASE>,” but, they DID define that same term or phrase over here in Section YY.YY, in which they defined “<TERM/PHRASE>” in this way:

… “<TERM/PHRASE> means blah blah blah blah.”

“As the content and context of Section XX.XX appears very legally similar and related to the same specific statutory object as that of Section YY.YY, then it would logically appear that the same legal meaning found in Section YY.YY can and should be applicable to Section XX.XX, and I move the court to provide a judicial determination as to that point.”

But you most certainly DO NOT do it in the manner you keep trying to do it in. Not ever.

One of the responses I received in relation to this manner and explanation of how to properly read and apply the definitions found within statutes was this:

Timothy Herries Tao Lauw I get what you’re saying. But I don’t understand what is inherently wrong with applying other code definitions, especially ones of higher authority, when the code referenced in this post specifically references “except where otherwise defined”. This would start off as any definition given in any other code until/unless rebutted.

Timothy Herries Tao Lauw
I’m so confused. Except where elsewhere defined…. How can that be interpreted any other way? It doesn’t make logical sense to me.

My reply to this query was equally straightforward:

Tao Lauw Timothy Herries – Then try to understand it this way:

Statute Section A defines a TERM/ PHRASE in this way:

“<TERM/ Phrase> means xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxx.”

Statute Section W defines the SAME TERM/ PHRASE in this way:

“<TERM/ Phrase> means yyy yxyxyxy yyyxxyyxy yyyy.”

Now, ARE the two definitions the SAME?

The correct answer is NO!

Furthermore, Section W is precisely what is meant by the phrase “except where otherwise defined,” i.e. “Section A’s definition means THIS, except where otherwise defined, such as in Section W, where the definition means THAT.”

In no way does this exception allow the definition found in Section W to replace the definition found in Section A, for which there are TWO very specific reasons, 1) Section A already defines the term in the manner required for Section A, not Section W, and 2), the rules of statutory construction prohibit this form of reading precisely because Section A DOES have its own LOCAL definition of the term or phrase. When a section of statute has a LOCAL definition, then THAT definition is 100% controlling UNLESS the local provision contains language specifically deferring to some other general or specific definition found elsewhere.

A perfect example of this is found in Section 521.1211 of the Texas Transportation Code, which reads:

Sec. 521.1211. DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR PEACE OFFICER. (a) In this section, “peace officer” has the meaning assigned by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, except that the term includes a special investigator as defined by Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice that the LOCAL definition of “peace officer” SPECIFICALLY states that the definition found in another section of law is controlling in this local section, BUT, it ALSO adds to the other sections definition with its own local alteration/ addition to the definition in the form of the statement “… except that the term includes a special investigator as defined by Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Therefore, Section 521.1211 of the Texas Transportation Code IS the “except where otherwise defined” local statutory exception to the definition originally found in Article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The moral of this story being, be careful whose information and advise you choose to rely on when it comes to fighting a court case or some governmental agency on your own. Not all knowledge and information is equal in relation to the firsthand court experiences, knowledge and study that has gone into formulating and developing it. Despite the popular Patrinut opinions to the contrary, there are not always multiple ways to skin a particular law like there may be for cats. Law has its fairly strict channels and procedures, which, for the wholly ignorant and inexperienced jail house lawyers and Patrinuts who may be reading this, means it is intentionally designed to not be so nearly open-ended as one might be able to practice when skinning cats or anything else.

This design is necessary to prevent wholly arbitrary or intentional misapplications of the laws by the very people responsible for knowing and upholding them properly, not to trick and deceive the unwary populace into being unaware that the Queen of England, the Pope, or the Post Master General is the ultra-super-secret none more secret super authority over all of America and its people. Yes, the majority of Patrinuts DO believe exactly one or more of those situations to be the case, thus making them the ignorant equivalent of “Flat-Earthers” in the world of law and how it works.

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

October 1, 2017February 15, 2021 Tao of Law12 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 10 of Colautti Ibid, reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Devil is [Always] in the Details.

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

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

For instance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinctions Without a Difference.

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

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

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

An example of this would be something like:

“The term ‘Fruit’ includes red apples.”

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

Now look at this example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 31, 2017June 13, 2019 Tao of Law5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case closed.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

CATCH & RELEASE – THE ‘NOTICE TO APPEAR’ SCAM

July 26, 2017September 2, 2017 Tao of Law2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Legal White-paper – Notice to Appear (last updated 08/31/2017 @2000hrs):

Plea to Jurisdiction Motion – Not a Legal ‘Person’ Subject to Speeding Statutes (last updated 08/04/2017 @0230hrs):

The Tao of Law 2.0 – The Texas Courts Survival Guide

July 5, 2017February 13, 2020 Tao of Law6 Comments

Texas How to… the “Docket Call”

This Chapter of the new traffic seminar book goes into the detailed “how to…” of handling the fictitious “docket call” proceeding that the lower courts have concocted and use to waste your valuable personal time, lose time from work, and basically cost you more in time and money in an effort to make you fold rather than fight when you receive a “uniform traffic citation.”

This information is accurate and up-to-date at the time of this writing, so you can rely on it for at least the next two years. However, be aware that legislative actions can be implemented at designated times throughout the time between legislative sessions, so it is always best to verify any statutory references with what is currently in publication in your state.

Here in Texas you can find the current versions of all state statutes on the Texas Legislature’s web site located here.

Your comments and feedback are welcome and appreciated.

Statists Gonna’ State, and Almost Always Incorrectly.

April 21, 2017August 1, 2017 Tao of Law5 Comments

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:

“Gerald 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 regulated 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 down 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 commercial 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….

… 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?).

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 fundamental 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 pursuant 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.

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……