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.

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

September 10, 2019 Tao of Law3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 3, 2019August 4, 2019 Tao of Law1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

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

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

Tao Lauw Yesterday at 2:13 PM
Something that all of you Texas people should know about “traffic stops” as they pertain to the ACTUAL law itself:
The law itself DOES NOT AUTHORIZE a warrantless detention or arrest for failure to have, produce, or display a license, proof of insurance, or registration, and it NEVER HAS.
THIS is the authorizing statute, and it is the ONLY ONE of its kind in the entire Transportation Code:
======================
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES; NOTICES AND PROMISES TO APPEAR
Sec. 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of THIS SUBTITLE.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
======================
The statute authorizes a warrantless arrest ONLY in relation to offenses defined within Subtitle C of the Texas Transportation Code, which encompasses ONLY Chapters 541-600.
Everything that relates to COMMERCIAL/ DRIVER’S LICENSE is codified entirely within Chapters 521 and 522 of the Code, while registration is confined to Chapter 502, and “PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY” is in Chapters 601. NONE of these chapters are in Subtitle C, at all, period.
In other words, the vast majority of “offenses” that they perform a warrantless traffic stop for are NOT authorized by law to be done in such fashion. The stop itself is wholly illegal under the letter of the law, because the code limits the authority to ONLY those offenses within “this subtitle,” which IS subtitle C and Subtitle C ONLY, as you can plainly see.
That said, however, it does NOT mean that they won’t do it ANYWAY. So, YOU are the only one that will ever raise this issue and challenge the validity of the warrantless detention/arrest and false imprisonment that was perpetrated by the officer without any lawful authority once the case goes to court, because THEY certainly aren’t going to do it, not EVER.
.
To those of you in other states where “traffic” cases are prosecuted as CRIMES rather than civil infractions, I would start looking for a similarly worded statute in YOUR own state and see what limits it placed on the warrantless arrest authority of the officers in relation to “traffic stops.”

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

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

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

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

Common Problems Encountered when Filing Legal Pleadings in the Lower Courts.

July 23, 2019February 24, 2020 Tao of LawLeave a comment

Court Clerks have no Judicial Authority.

The court clerks refuse to allow you to file your pleadings in the case, claiming that you either must enter a plea before you are allowed to do so, or, because of some other alleged legal or court policy requirement(s).
The court clerk(s) claim that the judge can’t or won’t read the pleadings unless you have already entered a plea to the charges in the case.

For #2, s/he (the court clerk), is 100% incorrect as to the judge’s ability/requirement in reading the pleadings, as that is their fucking job. What the judge actually cannot legally do is conduct an ex parte proceeding or personally meet or engage in direct communications about the facts and evidence of the case with one party in the absence of the other party.

For #1, pleadings filed in a case are not evidence of the facts of the case, but of the relevant law itself as it may apply to the facts of the case, and do not constitute “direct communications” with the judge for such purposes. Again, the court clerk is giving legal advice on this subject, which they simply cannot do!!

So, in relation to either or both of these actions by court personnel, you need to file a judicial conduct complaint against the presiding judge who runs the court with the judicial conduct commission for knowingly and willfully allowing his/her court clerks to give legal advice to defendants in violation of law, and for improperly delegating and authorizing the clerk’s to illegally exercise judicial powers that they do not and cannot have, as well as exercising those powers not only improperly, but also in direct violation of the code of criminal procedure and the fundamental due process rights of the Accused!! Conducting a judicial proceeding and the taking and entering of pleas into the record are judicial powers residing in one with actual judicial authority, therefore, only judges and magistrates have such authority delegated to them in order to exercise such powers, not mere court clerks or prosecutors.

Once this is done, then you can file complaints about the clerk(s) in question by name directly with that same judge. You may, at this point, inform the judge that you have supplemented these complaints against the clerks by also filing complaints with the judicial conduct commission regarding the judge’s unlawful acts and biases inherent in allowing this illegal behavior to go on within their office. Be careful that your statement cannot be viewed and misconstrued as an attempt to threaten or intimidate the judge into making some decision or taking some particular action in the case one way or another. You do this by making damned sure that you filed the judicial conduct complaints first, before you even make the judge aware of the fact when you are filing your complaints against the clerks.

Now you can file a motion to Recuse or Disqualify this judge from ever hearing your motions or your case because of his or her criminal conspiracy to perpetrate violations of state law directed toward causing harm and detriment to the public generally and those appearing before it specifically, countless violations of the rules of criminal and civil procedure as well as the codes of judicial ethics and professional conduct, because you now have a demonstrably substantiated belief that no one, including you, can get a fair and impartial trial from such a biased and incompetent judge.

Simple as pie… unless it’s a shit pie, and you made that pie yourself, so don’t! If you do these things correctly and timely, you can make them regret ever coming near you, much less trying to prosecute you for their bullshit.

As for showing a court clerk the actual law on what is required prior to the taking and entering of a plea in Class C fine only cases, you must be sure to use the law that actually applies, which is found in Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 45, rather than using the general statute found elsewhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Let’s look at what Chapter 45 says about the entering of a plea by a defendant in a Class C fine only misdemeanor case:

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

Art. 45.023. DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

(a) After the jury is impaneled, or after the defendant has waived trial by jury, the defendant may:

(1) plead guilty or not guilty;

(2) enter a plea of nolo contendere; or

(3) enter the special plea of double jeopardy as described by Article 27.05.

(b) If a defendant is detained in jail before trial, the justice or judge may permit the defendant to enter any of the pleas described by Subsection (a).

(c) If a defendant who is detained in jail enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the justice or judge may, after complying with Article 15.17 and advising the defendant of the defendant’s right to trial by jury, as appropriate:

(1) accept the defendant’s plea;

(2) assess a fine, determine costs, and accept payment of the fine and costs;

(3) give the defendant credit for time served;

(4) determine whether the defendant is indigent; or

(5) discharge the defendant.

(d) Notwithstanding Article 45.037, following a plea of guilty or nolo contendere entered under Subsection (b), a motion for new trial must be made not later than 10 days after the rendition of judgment and sentence, and not afterward. The justice or judge shall grant a motion for new trial made under this subsection.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Renumbered from Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 45.31 and amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, Sec. 21, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Amended by:

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 691 (H.B. 2679), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.

Art. 45.024. DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO PLEAD. The justice or judge shall enter a plea of not guilty if the defendant refuses to plead.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Renumbered from Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 45.35 and amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, Sec. 22, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

===================================.

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

Okay, the first thing to understand is, when does the statute declare the defendant’s plea may be taken in relation to a Class C misdemeanor?

Art. 45.023(a) DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

1. after the jury is impaneled!; or

2 after the defendant has waived trial by jury!

The only exceptions to this are in subsection (c), which are inapplicable in this particular instance if you are not currently in jail, and those found in another part of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the usage of a citation as a complaint if the defendant decides to plead guilty and pay by mail or knowingly signs a waiver allowing the usage of the citation as a valid complaint at trial. These conditions are also not usually applicable in the instant matter if you are trying to file pleadings in a case, because that indicates that you are fighting and going to trial in an actual court.

How about the procedure that is required if a defendant refuses to enter a plea before a proper magistrate in a proper judicial proceeding rather than before a mere fucking peon of a court clerk or power-drunk prosecutor who thinks they are somehow authorized to impersonate a judge?

Well, can we not all see that Code of Criminal procedure Art. 45.024 plainly states that the “justice or judge shall enter a plea of not guilty?” Can we all not see that the rules of criminal procedure says absolutely nothing about court clerk’s or prosecutor’s being even remotely authorized to take or enter the Defendant’s plea themselves.

The “CYAC” Maneuver.

One last thing, when this kind of behavior by the clerk(s) and the court has been the norm, then, before you leave, you should directly ask the clerk this specifically worded question:

“Based upon your actions and comments when I’ve previously tried to file these pleadings, and despite the fact that no verified complaint appears to be filed in the court record, is this court going to issue a warrant for my arrest on the charge of “Failure to Appear” after I leave simply because I would not submit to entering a plea just so I could file legal pleadings for my own defense in this case??“

This is what I like to call just one of many types of “CYAC” maneuvers that one must be prepared to make when engaged in fighting a case on their own, and it stands for “cover your ass carefully.” If you have ever served in the military, especially in an area where everything is done according to internal politics instead of rules and regulations, then you really understand why such acts are necessary for self-preservation.

That said, you really want an answer to this question on video, and for several very good reasons:

it serves as proof that:
1. a valid verified criminal complaint does not exist in the record at the time the plea was demanded by the clerk or the court;
1. there is a complete lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction without such a verified complaint, as, technically, a case cannot even legally exist absent a valid complaint, which means NO COURT’S JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION HAS BEEN INVOKED as a matter of law;
1. there are intentional and numerous illegal acts being perpetrated by the court clerks AND the judge(s) that violate state and federally protected due process rights by preventing you from filing pleadings and making a proper defense in the case in violation of those same due process rights;
1. judges, their court personnel, and prosecutors, are all engaged in conspiratorial criminal conduct by doing all of these things in violation of the law and your due process rights; and
if they do issue a warrant after the fact, you have set the stage for proving that the charge itself and the issuance of the warrant is based upon the knowing and willful falsification and tampering of a government record, aggravated perjury, is 100% malicious and retaliatory, and was done absent all forms of lawful jurisdiction and legal authority; finally
If they answer “no” to this question, then you have that on record as well, and can use it against them later if they go ahead and issue a knowingly fraudulent warrant anyway.

Always be thinking ten moves ahead of them at all times, not just when you think about it. Plan your course of action by being proactive rather than reactive! It works much better for you in the long run. And most of all, DO NOT PROCRASTINATE!! If something has to be done by a specific date or within a certain time frame, JUST DO IT RIGHT NOW and get it out of the way!!

This is why we read and study, so we know, so we can use, so we can fight, so we can WIN OUR FUCKING CASE!!

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.45.htm#45.023

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

June 17, 2019June 18, 2019 Tao of Law4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.