“It’s Only a Few Bad Apples…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Light Camera Citations – Even State Reps Know They Are Bogus

This red light camera enforcement issue goes hand-in-hand with the “administrative surcharges” issue on certain actual traffic citations as BOTH are constitutionally prohibited Bills of Pains and Penalties.

No state legislature, as a matter of constitutional prohibition and mandate, can allow ANY of the contracts with these red light camera companies to remain in force and be paid BECAUSE they were unconstitutional and unconscionable ab initio!

Your legislators, judges and attorneys are blatantly LYING to your face and stealing from you OPENLY in willful defiance of your inherent unalienable RIGHTS! Just how deaf, dumb and ignorant do you intend to remain while your liberty and livelihood is stolen through illegitimate political processes that were NEVER authorized to exist or be used to extort the People of their liberty, lives and property?!?!

It is time to WAKE THE HELL UP!!!

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-rep-epic-video-expl…/




Statutory Breakdown of “Speeding” Allegation Elements in Texas

chevrolet-impala-ss-001-HRWhat are the statutory elements required to actually ALLEGE and PROVE a “speeding” offense in Texas? Believe it or not, there are actually 21 individual statutory elements. Yes, that is a two (2) and a one (1). And it is my experience that the STATE knowingly and intentionally avoids providing the required due process Notice of more than two thirds of them in the criminal complaint and other charging instruments.

Which also means that they are denying the Accused in his/her due process right to Notice and defense of those elements, while also making their job as prosecutor unconstitutionally and illegally easier by not having to prove those that they fail or refuse to allege.

This article is intended to teach you how to perform legal analysis and observation in a “connect the dots” fashion.  Read the statutes below and make your own conclusions about the necessary elements as I have listed them. But, while you do so, be sure to ask yourself how both the court and the prosecution can meet their individual burdens of ensuring that the Accused’s right of due process, including the right of proper, sufficient and timely Notice, are properly met under the statutes, as well as how they are not according to how they actually file the complaint.  And I’ll preface that by pointing out this example.

The STATE cannot rely solely upon the elements asserted in Sec. 545.351(a) OR Sec. 545.352 as the basis for the allegation.

The exercise here is for you to figure out and recognize WHY that is and use it to make a defense according to the remaining statutory provisions.

Here are the individual elements that are actually required to be stated in a valid complaint and proven in a Texas “speeding” allegation according to the various interrelated statutes that follow. Consider that a criminal complaint that fails to state each of these elements is insufficient on its face in substance, as it fails to assert the necessary factual elements that would comprise the required legal Notice to the Accused, as well as that of what the state is required to both allege and prove for the allegation. These are direct violations of the right of due process and a total failure of the state to fully meet its burden of Notice and proof.

  • Who (your name),
  • Where (within the geographical boundaries of the city/county of…),
  • When (on April 1, 2016),
  • Did then and there,
  • What (specific regulated subject matter (while engaging in “transportation”)),
  • While [allegedly] acting as an “operator,”
  • Did [allegedly] “drive” (not “operate” like most complaints allege),
  • A[n alleged] “motor vehicle,”
  • Upon a highway of this state,
  • At a[n alleged] speed of xx,
  • Where the posted speed limit was xxx,
  • Which was [allegedly] greater than reasonable and prudent,
  • Under the circumstances and,
  • Conditions then existing,
  • And [allegedly] without regard for actual and potential hazards then existing,
  • Did [allegedly] fail in his duty to exercise due care,
  • By [allegedly] failing to avoid a collision,
  • With another
    1. Person, or
      1. To wit (the injured person’s name),
    2. Vehicle
      1. To wit (the vehicle year, make and model),
  • That was [allegedly]
    1. Traveling on the highway, or
    2. Entering the highway
  • In compliance with law.

At first you will probably see that the breakdown of Secs. 545.351 and 545.352 below look to be like either a bad web page render or is just a series of random and nonsensical breaks in sentence structure. But, if you really look at where and how the breaks in the sentence structure are done, you will see that it is broken down by its statutory parameters of conditions and objects. By breaking a statute down this way, it helps you greatly in clarifying and understanding how it actually reads and what it all means.


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF
VEHICLES

SUBCHAPTER
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec. 545.351.  MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.

(a)  An
operator
may
not
drive
at
a speed
greater
than
is

reasonable
and
prudent

under
the circumstances
then
existing
.

(b)  An operator:

(1)  may not
drive
a vehicle
at
a speed
greater
than
is
reasonable and
prudent

under
the conditions and
having
regard
for
actual and
potential
hazards

then
existing
;  and

(2)  shall
control
the speed

of
the vehicle
as
necessary
to
avoid
colliding

with
another
person

or
vehicle
that
is
on
or
entering
the highway

in
compliance
with
law
and
the duty
of
each
person

to
use
due care
.

(c)  An operator
shall,
consistent
with
Subsections (a) and
(b),
drive
at
an
appropriate
reduced speed
if:

(1)  the operator
is
approaching and
crossing
an
intersection
or
railroad grade crossing;

(2)  the operator
is
approaching and
going
around
a curve;

(3)  the operator
is
approaching
a hill crest;

(4)  the operator
is
traveling on
a narrow
or
winding roadway;  and

(5)  a special hazard
exists
with
regard
to
traffic,
including
pedestrians,
or
weather
or
highway conditions.


Sec. 545.352.  PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.

(a)  A speed
in excess
of
the limits
established by
Subsection (b)
or
under another provision
of
this
subchapter
is
prima facie evidence
that
the speed
is
not
reasonable and
prudent and
that
the speed
is
unlawful.

(b)  Unless
a special hazard
exists
that
requires
a slower speed
for
compliance
with
Section 545.351(b),
the following speeds
are
lawful:

(1)  30 miles per hour
in
an urban district
on
a street
other
than
an
alley and
15 miles per hour
in
an
alley;

(2)  except
as
provided by
Subdivision (4),
70 miles per hour
on
a highway
numbered by
this state
or
the United States
outside
an
urban district,
including
a farm-to-market
or
ranch-to-market
road;

(3)  except
as provided by
Subdivision (4),
60 miles per hour
on
a highway
that
is
outside
an
urban district and
not
a highway
numbered by
this state
or
the United States;

(4)   outside an
urban district:

(A)  60 miles per hour
if
the vehicle
is
a school bus
that
has passed
a commercial motor vehicle inspection
under
Section 548.201 and
is
on
a highway
numbered by
the United States
or
this state,
including
a farm-to-market road;
or

(B)  50 miles per hour
if
the vehicle
is
a school bus
that:

(i)  has
not
passed
a commercial motor vehicle inspection
under
Section 548.201;
or

(ii)  is traveling
on
a highway
not
numbered by
the United States
or
this state;

(5)  on
a beach,
15 miles per hour;
or

(6)  on
a county road
adjacent to
a public beach,
15 miles per hour,
if
declared by
the commissioners court
of
the county.

(c)  The speed limits
for
a bus
or
other vehicle
engaged
in
the business
of
transporting passengers
for
compensation
or
hire,
for
a commercial vehicle
used as
a highway post office vehicle
for
highway post office service
in
the transportation
of
United States mail,
for
a light truck, and
for
a school activity bus
are
the same
as
required
for
a passenger car
at
the same time and
location.

(d)  In
this section:

(1)  “Interstate highway”
means
a segment
of
the national system
of
interstate and
defense highways
that
is:

(A)  located
in
this state;

(B)  officially designated by
the Texas Transportation Commission;  and

(C)  approved under
Title 23, United States Code.

(2)  “Light truck”
means
a truck
with
a manufacturer’s
rated carrying capacity
of
not
more
than
2,000 pounds,
including
a pick-up truck,
panel delivery truck, and
carry-all truck.

(3)  “Urban district”
means
the territory
adjacent
to and
including
a highway,
if
the territory
is
improved
with
structures
that
are
used for
business,
industry,
or
dwelling houses and
are
located
at
intervals
of
less than
100 feet
for
a distance
of
at least
one-quarter mile
on
either side
of
the highway.

(e)  An entity
that
establishes
or
alters
a speed limit
under
this
subchapter
shall
establish
the same
speed limit
for
daytime and
nighttime.



Now, using the example above of how to break down a statute in order to understand it better, read the following statutes and practice breaking them down in the same manner. Don’t worry about how hard it seems at first, because the more you practice doing it, the easier and more natural it feels and becomes. You will be surprised how much easier it gets. I even did the first one for you so you can learn to see the patterns involved.

Just understand that you ALWAYS want to break and isolate “and,” “but”, or “or,” and most times “if.” You will also want to break at conditional statements like “are,” “at least,” “less than,” “greater than,” etc.

You will be surprised at how you will begin to translate this breakdown practice into virtually everything you read. You will gain insight and understanding in written matter that you never knew you were capable of, and how few other people actually understand the things they are reading because they don’t do it. And that especially applies to attorneys.



TRANSPORTATION
CODE

TITLE
7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE
B. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

CHAPTER
522. COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSES

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec.
522.003.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(3)  “Commercial driver’s license” means
a license
issued to
an individual
that authorizes
the individual
to drive
a class of
commercial motor vehicle.

(4)  “Commercial learner’s permit” means
a permit
that restricts
the holder
to driving
a commercial motor vehicle
as provided by
Section 522.011(a)(2)(B).

(5)  “Commercial motor vehicle” means
a motor vehicle
or
combination of
motor vehicles
used
to transport
passengers
or
property
that:

(A)  has
a gross combination weight
or
a gross
combination weight rating of
26,001
or
more pounds,
including
a towed unit
with a
gross vehicle weight
or
a gross vehicle weight rating of
more than
10,000 pounds;

(B)  has
a gross vehicle weight
or
a gross vehicle weight rating of
26,001
or
more pounds;

(C)  is designed to
transport 16
or
more passengers,
including the driver;
or

(D)  is
transporting hazardous materials
and
is required
to be placarded
under 49 C.F.R. Part 172, Subpart F.

(8)  “Department
means
the Department of Public Safety.

(9)  “Disqualify” means
to withdraw
the privilege
to drive
a commercial motor vehicle,
including
to suspend,
cancel,
or
revoke
that privilege
under a state
or
federal law.

(10)  “Domicile” means
the place
where
a person
has the person’s
true,
fixed,
and permanent
home
and
principal residence
and
to which
the person
intends to
return whenever absent.

(11)  “Drive” means to
operate
or
be in
physical control of
a motor vehicle.

(12)  “Driver’s license” has
the meaning
assigned by
Section 521.001,
except
the term
does not
include
a commercial learner’s permit
unless
otherwise provided by
this chapter.

(13)  “Drug” has the meaning
assigned by
Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code.

(14)  “Employer” means
a person
who owns
or
leases
a commercial motor vehicle
or
assigns
a person
to drive
a commercial motor vehicle.

(15)  “Federal act” means
the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. App. Section 2701 et seq.).

(16)  “Foreign jurisdiction” means
a jurisdiction
other than
a state.

(17)  “Gross combination weight rating” means
the value specified by
the manufacturer
as the loaded weight of
a combination
or
articulated vehicle
or,
if
the manufacturer
has not specified
a value,
the sum of
the gross vehicle weight rating
of the power unit
and
the total weight of
the towed unit
or
units
and
any load on
a towed unit.

(18)  “Gross vehicle weight rating” means
the value specified by
the manufacturer
as the loaded weight of
a single vehicle.

(19)  “Hazardous materials” has
the meaning
assigned by
49 C.F.R. Section 383.5.

(20)  Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 941,
Sec. 43, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

(21)  “Motor vehicle” means
a vehicle,
machine,
tractor,
trailer,
or
semitrailer
propelled
or
drawn
by mechanical power
and
used
on
a highway.
The term does not include
a vehicle,
machine,
tractor,
trailer,
or
semitrailer
operated exclusively
on
a rail.

(22)  “Non-domiciled commercial driver’s license” means
a commercial driver’s license
issued by
a state
to
an individual
who
is domiciled
in
a foreign jurisdiction.

(22-a)  “Non-domiciled commercial learner’s permit” means
a commercial learner’s permit
issued by
a state
to
an individual
who is
domiciled in
a foreign jurisdiction.

(23)  “Out-of-service order” means:

(A)  a temporary prohibition against
driving
a commercial motor vehicle
issued under
Section 522.101,
the law of another state,
49 C.F.R.
Section 383.5,
386.72, 392.5,
392.9a, 395.13,
or
396.9,
a law
compatible with
those federal regulations,
or
the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria;
or

(B)  a declaration by
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
or
an authorized
enforcement officer of
a state
or
local jurisdiction
that
a driver,
commercial motor vehicle,
or
motor carrier operation
is
out of service
under 49 C.F.R.
Section 383.5,
386.72, 392.5,
392.9a, 395.13,
or
396.9,
a law
compatible with
those federal regulations,
or
the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria.

(23-a)  “Person
includes
the United States,
a state,
or
a political subdivision of
a state.

(24)  “Secretary” means
the United States
secretary of transportation.

(24-a)  “Seed cotton module” means
compacted seed cotton in
any form.

(25)  “Serious traffic violation” means:

(A)  a
conviction
arising from
the
driving of
a motor vehicle,
other than a
parking,
vehicle weight,
or
vehicle defect violation,
for:

(i)  excessive speeding,
involving a
single charge of
driving 15 miles per hour
or
more
above
the posted speed limit;

(ii)  reckless driving,
as defined by
state
or
local law;

(iii)  a violation of
a state
or
local law
related to
motor vehicle traffic control,
including
a law
regulating
the operation of
vehicles
on highways,
arising in
connection with
a
fatal accident;

(iv)  improper
or
erratic
traffic lane change;

(v)  following
the vehicle
ahead
too closely;
or

(vi)  a violation of
Sections 522.011
or
522.042;
or

(B)  a violation of
Section 522.015.

(26)  “State” means
a state of
the United States
or
the District of Columbia.


Sec. 201.904.  SPEED SIGNS.
The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 541. DEFINITIONS

SUBCHAPTER
A. PERSONS AND GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES

 

Sec.
541.001.  PERSONS.  In this subtitle:

(1)  Operator” means, as used in reference to a vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.

(2)  “Owner” means, as used in reference
to a vehicle, a person who has a property interest in or title to a
vehicle.  The term:

(A)  includes a person entitled to use and possess
a vehicle subject to a security interest;
and

(B)  excludes a lienholder and a lessee whose
lease is not intended as security.

(3)  “Pedestrian” means a person on
foot.

(4)  “Person” means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.

(5)  “School crossing guard” means a responsible
person who is at least 18 years of age and is designated by a local authority
to direct traffic in a school crossing zone for the protection of children
going to or leaving a school.


Sec. 24.013.  AIRCRAFT FUEL CONTAINERS;  OFFENSE.

(a)  A person commits an offense if the person
operates or intends to operate an aircraft equipped with:

(1)  a fuel container that the person knows does
not conform to federal aviation regulations or that has not been approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration by inspection or special permit;  or

(2)  a pipe, hose, or auxiliary pump that is used
or intended for transferring fuel to the primary fuel system of an aircraft
from a fuel container that the person knows does not conform to federal
aviation regulations or that has not been approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration by inspection or special permit.

(b)  An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony
of the third degree.

(c)  A peace officer may seize an aircraft
equipped with a fuel container that is the subject of an offense under
Subsection (a).

(d)  An aircraft seized under Subsection (c) may
be forfeited to the Department of Public Safety in the same manner as property
subject to forfeiture under Article 18.18, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(e)  An aircraft forfeited under Subsection (d) is
subject to Chapter 2205, Government Code.

(f)  In this section:

(1)  “Federal aviation regulations”
means the following regulations adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration
as those regulations existed on September 1, 1985, except a regulation in
existence on September 1, 1985, that is inconsistent with a regulation adopted
after that date:

(A)  certification procedures for products and
parts, 14 C.F.R. Part 21;

(B)  maintenance, preventive maintenance,
rebuilding, and alteration regulations, 14 C.F.R. Part 43;  and

(C)  general operating and flight rules, 14 C.F.R.
Part 91.

(2)  Operate” means to use, cause to use, or authorize to use an aircraft for air navigation and includes:

(A)  the piloting of an aircraft, with or without
the right of legal control;

(B)  the taxiing of an aircraft before takeoff or
after landing;  and

(C)  the postflight or preflight inspection or
starting of the engine of an aircraft.


Sec.
541.002.  GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.  In this subtitle:

(1)  “Department” means the Department
of Public Safety acting directly or through its authorized officers and agents.

(2)  “Director” means the public safety
director.

(3)  “Local authority” means:

(A)  a county, municipality, or other local entity
authorized to enact traffic laws under the laws of this state;  or

(B)  a school district created under the laws of
this state only when it is designating school crossing guards for schools
operated by the district.

(4)  “Police officer” means an officer
authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations.

(5)  “State” has the meaning assigned by
Section 311.005, Government Code, and includes a province of Canada.


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE J. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 724. IMPLIED CONSENT

SUBCHAPTER
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec.
724.001.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(1)  “Alcohol concentration” has the
meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

(2)  “Arrest” includes the taking into
custody of a child, as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code.

(3)  “Controlled substance” has the
meaning assigned by Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code.

(4)  “Criminal charge” includes a charge
that may result in a proceeding under Title 3, Family Code.

(5)  “Criminal proceeding” includes a
proceeding under Title 3, Family Code.

(6)  “Dangerous drug” has the meaning
assigned by Section 483.001, Health and Safety Code.

(7)  “Department” means the Department
of Public Safety.

(8)  “Drug” has the meaning assigned by
Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code.

(9)  “Intoxicated” has the meaning
assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

(10)  “License” has the meaning assigned
by Section 521.001.

(11)  Operate” means to drive or be in actual control of a motor vehicle or watercraft.

(12)  “Public place” has the meaning
assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code.


Download DOC FileBreakdown of Elements in a Speeding Charge

Download PDFCriminal Complaint

Texas Legislature – Why Statist Idiots Should NOT Be Elected to Public Office (1)

MEME - Texas Legislature - Sen. Juduth Zaffirini 1920x1080

This letter is a response from one of our many Statist and inept Texas State senators. And like most, she is clueless about individual rights and who can and cannot do what, with what, and when, or to whom. So, I decided to show her what I think would have been a proper redress of her response letter:
=======================================================
=======================================================

Dear Madam,

First, how are the other girls in the local cat-house doing? I ask only out of concern that you might have to return there for your future employment, because your response to me is not only ineptly inaccurate and misinformed, it goes to proving that you certainly aren’t cut out to act as MY representative in MY republican form of government. In fact, it shows precisely why people like you should not be allowed to serve in government at all.

Your response letter paints you as someone that clearly does not understand the concept of individual rights and liberty, while also demonstrating that you don’t even remotely comprehend the standards of a Republican form of government. But it also makes it clear that you are at the very least either a STATIST liberal or the pawn of those who are. Your response is ample evidence that you believe most strongly in the church and religion of the STATE as somehow being the supreme authority and master of the People. And you maintain this mindset even though we created both the government and your position within it. And in that regard, your very existence is completely dependent on our consent, which you have only so long as we choose to remain mostly ignorant and apathetic of just how little all people like you are actually needed or wanted anymore. Which tells me that you are even less than clueless as to your actual place in the political food chain, which is properly at the bottom with the rest of the discarded whale shit.

In your letter, you asserted that “Freedom to travel is a right granted by the United States Constitution.” This statement is unquestionably and demonstrably incorrect and misinformed. If you think not, then please answer me this; just HOW did the founding fathers get around BEFORE the constitutional convention that created the federal constitution? How did they travel from their homes to Philadelphia Pennsylvania BEFORE the constitution existed and allegedly GRANTED a “right to travel?” Did they do it all by FAX and teleconference until they could create the constitution so they could actually travel there and meet in person? Did they use mail that was brought in on horseback? Oh, wait, they couldn’t have done that, that would be traveling, and the constitution didn’t exist yet to grant them that right.

Maybe you would respond to me by saying that they had the Articles of Confederation as their authority granting the right to travel from place to place? Do you think that answer is actually any better in terms of its stupidity considering that the people were traveling about the globe long before either of those documents even existed? And you should know and understand that even today We the People have the same right to locomotion and travel from place to place regardless of the existence of either of these or any other document.  Does this concept of yours regarding “liberty through paperwork” suddenly sound as idiotic to you as your declaratory misstatement of facts did to me? Good. Then you can now see my point as to why I view you as unfit to represent me or any other living being in any capacity that requires decision making authority. Personally, I wouldn’t give you the authority required to scrape used chewing gum off the bottom of tables.

As John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying:

JFK - Opinion Without Thought

And you clearly have very little concern or consideration of thought about vomiting what is certainly nothing more than your unresearched and wholly unsubstantiated and cliched opinions in the face of those for whom you took an oath and are required to serve as well as to keep them fully and accurately informed of the facts and the laws. And you spew your illiteracy openly upon all with a straight face and no readily apparent emotional qualms as to the detrimental affect of your disinformation, which makes you nothing less than a psychopath yearning for an upgrade to sociopath. And just in case those words are also too big for you to comprehend, let me assist you there as well:

psychopath [sahy-kuh-path] noun
1. a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
sociopath [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] noun
1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 

But, let’s get back to the discussion of your overall incompetence.

I know that individual rights and liberty may seem like a new concept to you, but I am appalled by your complete lack of understanding of the fact that the state and federal constitutions DO NOT grant a single right to the People. ALL of the People’s INNUMERABLE (I know, it’s also a big word for you, but it simply means “you can’t count them”) rights are inherent and unalienable. And we may lose them ONLY as punishment for an actual crime committed against other living beings or their property. We the People neither transferred nor surrendered ANY of OUR individual rights to you or any other member of the Texas Legislature in your capacity as one of our governmental actors and public SERVANTS, and this includes, but is not limited to, our right of liberty through locomotion of our own whim and choosing. We gave each of you a very limited delegation of authority to act on OUR behalf in the protection of these inherent fundamental individual rights, not your flawed personal designs, desires, and vision of individual liberty or the equally reprehensible perspective of the corporate state. Especially when it directly conflicts with your first and most high mandate of protecting each and every one of the People’s individual rights and property.

I am also appalled that you totally fail to understand that, in terms of serving in a governmental capacity, it is YOU that have no “rights.” It is YOU that has ONLY delegated privileges in the exercise of your delegated powers, powers that may not be exercised against and to the detriment of the very source of those powers, We the People. And most assuredly not against our private individual lives and property in any adverse way or manner. At least, not outside of having been convicted for committing an actual crime that harmed other people or their property. Furthermore, those delegated powers do NOT provide you with any authority to apply them in any other areas of our collective lives that we did not specifically grant to you. As any delegation of power and authority to handle our PUBLIC business is NOT a simultaneous delegation to meddle and interfere in our private lives and business. Meaning that it is all of you that are the ones acting under PRIVILEGE, because you cannot act without first being so authorized by We the People in exercising ANY of those powers and authority at all. All of the rights we have and exercise as individuals is NOT subject to a majority vote by anyone, as that would make us a democracy and those rights a mere privilege. And you know full well that we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. And We the People do not exercise any sort of privilege in our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We do it as a matter of RIGHT! And you and your kind have clearly forgotten that irrefutable fact.

The People’s individual rights existed long before ANY political or corporate state or constitution EVER did. They existed long before the Articles of Confederation or even the Magna Carta. These all just happen to be documents that the People of the day created and forced upon you, our public servants in government, at the point of a sword or the barrel of a musket to ensure that you all remembered to recognize that fact. Obviously you, and many others like you, don’t remember like you should, or even understand the eventual consequences of trying to once again make yourselves kings and queens with some imaginary divine and absolute power to rule over and dictate to the rest of us. These limitations upon government’s ability to act were written down so that the group of so-called “elites” who once held power in the former form of kings and queens, of which you apparently consider yourself a member, would know and remember it too. It was written down so that all forms of government, meaning YOU, could never come back later and say “I didn’t know that was wrong of me to do.”

You also have it wrong when you stated “The ability to travel on public roads in Texas, however, is a privilege granted by the State … .” Really? Just WHO the hell do you think actually owns the roads in Texas? Is it the People, who’s money is taken in numerous unconstitutional and illegal taxes to pay for those roads, or is it the corporate “STATE” that thinks it can both forcefully steal our money to pay for them and then continue to charge us for their use forever-after by licensing it back to us for numerous yearly fees and permissions?  Just because you people have knowingly and willfully defrauded the public for more than 70+ years by intentionally misapplying the statutes regulating “transportation,”  which is ENTIRELY a commercial occupation, does NOT mean that it is now a valid measure by which the state may deprive the People of their right to liberty through locomotion! Your blatant statist ignorance is more than apparent in its joining with the mindset held by most of our legislators in that proclaiming “we’ve always done it this way” somehow translates into “its perfectly lawful that we do it this way.”  And that simply isn’t so.

MEME - Grace Hopper - We've Always Done It This Way 1920x1080

The “Transportation” code you speak of was created by SB 971 in 1995, and was codified in several different enactments within Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes prior to that. But even those prior enactments have ALWAYS applied to and regulated only one thing, “TRANSPORTATION.” “Transportation” is an OCCUPATION, i.e. a BUSINESS USE of the highways for private profit or gain or the performance of public duties, and that code regulates only those things that relate to the specific legislatively mandated PRIVILEGED subject matter of “TRANSPORTATION,” not the private travel and use of the highways by the people themselves as a MATTER OF RIGHT!!  Check the caption title of SB 971 as it was written by the 74th Legislature in 1995 for yourself and see that this is true.  Provided that you can actually read the Bill rather than simply spouting off your own uninformed and inept perceptions of reality rather than the actual law that proves you to be either willfully ignorant or a knowing deceiver when it comes to providing informed and accurate answers to the people you claim to represent.

So sorry lady, a term I use loosely in this case, but the United States Supreme Court called and said that they have given their opinion on the matter of the “right to travel/ locomotion” many times already, just as the Texas courts have. And you should already know that the gist of their collective opinions is rather simple, the People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to use the roads for their own private business and pleasure WITHOUT permission or consent via licensing, registration or any other federal or STATE regulatory scheme outside of regulating traffic flow, because it is the people that own them and have every right of private use upon them for their own private business or pleasure. For one to engage in “transportation” is, however, an extraordinary use, and THAT is why it is a PRIVILEGE that requires these forms of regulation through licensing and registration of person’s and equipment. But the People’s RIGHTFUL use cannot be constitutionally converted into such a privilege and then licensed back to them for a fee.

Therefore, your assertion that “Travelers on public roads, for example, are subject to stop and arrest for violations of rules of the road listed in the Texas Transportation Code” is ALSO incorrect. Considering the legislature made it VERY clear that the regulated activity encompassed by the recodification, and the acts codified in Vernon’s prior thereto, related solely to the subject matter of “transportation,” then, it is inarguable that ONLY those person’s actively engaged in “transportation,” i.e. COMMERCIAL USE OF THE ROADS FOR PERSONAL/CORPORATE PROFIT OR GAIN THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS, GOODS, OR PROPERTY, FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE BY A CARRIER, are subject to the “rules of the road listed in the Texas Transportation Code.” Not only because those are the ONLY actual actions that are involved in acts of “transportation” upon the highways, but also because the People themselves are not so engaged, and therefore, their actions are NOT in any way related to the subject matter of SB 971, which is what created the code itself! And if the People’s actions are NOT related to the subject matter of SB 971, which IS limited specifically to “transportation” as a commercial occupation, then NOTHING in that code, INCLUDING “rules of the road” contained in Subtitle C, can be lawfully or legally applied to the People, their private conveyances, or their actions. Perhaps if you actually UNDERSTOOD the LEGAL meaning of the terms and phrases you so casually throw around as a legislator you might be able to comprehend the actual and legal difference!

And there IS a very big difference in the proper legal application and the current misapplication of the “transportation” code. A difference that is created by the legal semantics of the terms and phrases used therein to describe the activity of “driving” and “operating” rather than “traveling” and “private use.” In most people’s common everyday usage, the meaning of the terms “driving” and “operating” are taken to be synonymous with “traveling/ private use.” However, in terms of the regulatory legal meaning and use when relating to legal definitions limited specifically to the subject matter of “transportation” within the code, “driving” and “operating” both mean “DRIVING OR OPERATING IN AN OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS FOR WHICH ONE IS BEING PAID.” Which means that you provided your answer without first verifying whether a single assertion of alleged fact within it was actually constitutionally and legally correct. You simply assumed, and then stated how you understood and want it all to work. And all without actually knowing or caring to know by verifying the information you were asked to address. But this time your false assumption was limiting to making an ass out of you rather than me. Which goes a long way to proving that you are also a fucking statist libtard idiot that understands nothing about statutory meaning and construction and the UNLIMITED rights of the People in contrast to the VERY LIMITED powers of government. At least, that is the impression I have formulated based upon your inept response for the purposes of THIS discussion on the “right to travel/ locomotion” and the functioning of a proper Republican form of government in general.

Do you actually think that the political body of the state is something other than the People themselves? We the People have EVERY RIGHT to use the roads for our own personal business and pleasure using our own cars and other conveyances. Those conveyances are our private property,  to which we have every right of acquisition, disposal and use, just as we do with any other thing or property that we might lawfully and rightfully purchase and make use of, and just as the very roads themselves are OURS! The roads belong to US, NOT to YOU or the corporate state!! Our individual right of private use is not subject to a vote, the whims of social policy, or any STATE mandated licensing and regulation.

Perhaps you honestly don’t know this, which I doubt, but even the Texas Administrative Code makes it abundantly clear that the sole agency to whom all “transportation” enforcement authority is assigned and delegated by statute, the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas (“DPS”), is limited in that authority to regulatory programs relating to “commercial and ‘for hire’ traffic.” Those regulatory programs have NEVER applied to the privately traveling general public in any way. And it is not and never has been a “state granted privilege” for We the People to exercise any of these rights. And at the risk of sounding repetitive, the roads are bought and paid for BY US for OUR use, just like our cars and other conveyances. Neither the STATE nor you own them or have ANY lawful authority to REGULATE them in any way involving licensing, registration, inspection, mandatory insurance of any kind, or anything at all having to do with the sale or purchase for private use. WE ARE THE ONES THAT OWN THE ROADS AND OUR PRIVATE CONVEYANCES!! Get it?!?!  You are nothing more than the appointed caretaker of OUR roads and the duty-bound protector of our right to free access and use of our private property upon them unencumbered by governmental interference and intrusion. And part of your duty is to ensure that those roads are maintained in good working order for OUR private personal use, NOT yours, and certainly not that of any BUSINESS alone.

Texas Administrative Code

Next Rule>>
TITLE 37 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART 1 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 1 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER A OBJECTIVE, MISSION, AND PROGRAM
RULE §1.2 Mission

The mission of the Texas Department of Public Safety is:

(1) to supervise traffic on rural highways;
(2) to supervise and regulate commercial and “for hire” traffic;
(3) to preserve the peace, to investigate crimes, and to arrest criminals;
(4) to administer regulatory programs in driver licensing, motor vehicle inspection, and safety responsibility; and
(5) to execute programs supplementing and supporting the preceding activities.


Source Note: The provisions of this §1.2 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976

Add to that the proof that the regulatory programs run by the DPS relates ONLY to the above stated mission of “regulating commercial and ‘for hire’ traffic” as found within Rules §1.3(b) and §1.4 of the Administrative Code, and you have evidence of a massive fraud being perpetrated by the state and its administrative agencies upon the general public for the purpose of fraudulent and unconstitutional mass taxation outside of constitutional authority and prohibitions.  In other simpler words, conspiracy and collusion to defraud and extort monies from the People.

The corporate “STATE” is both created and paid for by We the People, and is empowered to contract for the purposes of the planning, building and care-taking of OUR roads. The roads belong to the PEOPLE, and using them is NOT a privilege granted to us by ANYONE, least of all our SERVANTS or a legal fiction in the form of a political body called the “STATE!” It is a RIGHT that we have always had and still hold regardless, because WE have paid for those roads with OUR money. We paid for a SERVICE that we rightfully expect to be provided by our public servants, NOT a transfer of rightful ownership or totalitarian control over something that belongs to all of the People as a public resource. The roads are for OUR shared individual use in conducting OUR personal business and pleasure as a matter of RIGHT!! ONLY those that are using the public roads for PRIVATE PROFIT AND GAIN or in a governmental capacity are acting under a privilege. The privilege of using a publicly owned resource for personal/ corporate profit or gain or public service. The rest of us ARE NOT you moron!!

Disrespectfully signed,

YOU’RE FUCKING FIRED!!

Texas – How to Disqualify a Bad Judge

MEME - Liar Liar - Disqualify Judge 001 1920x1080

 

How do you go about getting rid of a bad or corrupt municipal or justice court judge?  It’s not really as hard as you think, at least not in Texas.  However, one thing that you need to be aware of is that, while the rules for disqualifying a municipal judge are laid out in writing and are pretty straightforward in Chapter 29 A-1 of the Texas Government Code, there are apparently no such written rules directly applicable to justice court judges.  But, we are necessarily going to try and use the same rules regardless. How?  By asserting the argument that there must be equal protection and application of the laws in order for us to do so.

I would also highly recommend that you spend some time devoted to reading and understanding Chapter 30 of the Texas Government Code as well. It contains several provisions that I have learned are NOT being complied with by MANY Texas municipal courts of record. And their failure to comply could possibly be grounds to challenge the validity, and thus the entirety of jurisdiction by what can only be construed as an UNLAWFULLY functioning court.

Ask yourself these questions;

  • Do we not have the SAME rights and requirements of due process in BOTH courts under either type of judge?
  • Aren’t they both bound by the same rules of procedure and judicial canons under which they claim to be acting?
  • Don’t they both violate the same rights of the Accused when they act to ignore or deny the proper application of the rules of procedure and evidence, as well as the judicial canons that require them to act fairly, impartially, and in compliance with the law?
  • And when they don’t comply with and follow those rules, don’t you have a RIGHT to seek remedy for the resulting rights violations in order to protect your right to have a fair and impartial proceeding and trial before an impartial and properly behaving judge?

The correct answer to each of these of course, is yes, and that you DO have a right to a fair and impartial judge in every proceeding and at trial. Too bad that you aren’t going to get any of that though!  At least, NOT unless you know HOW to make sure that you at least get the chance to have it.

So, the intent of this article is to show you HOW to do that.  At the bottom of this article there is linked in a complete Motion that you can use and adapt to your own case to seek the disqualification of a badly behaving judge.  BUT, be very aware that any Motion to Disqualify filed in a Texas court is REQUIRED to be signed under penalty of perjury before someone authorized by law to administer oaths.  Which means that you have to sign it in front of a Notary.

Thus, you CANNOT prepare one of these Motions in advance BEFORE going into court each time because the specific facts that each such motion must allege and have written into them supporting your right to a disqualification of a bad judge have not yet occurred, which means that you can write the Motion only AFTER the judge has misbehaved. THIS is why we MUST find a way to record the proceedings if at all possible so we can create a verbatim transcript of everything that transpired in the proceeding and gave rise to the need to disqualify.  Make sure that you do only ONE original copy of this motion (which should ALWAYS be the case for ANY original pleading or affidavit). Then, AFTER it is signed and notarized, you can make all of your extra copies for filing.

I am putting the body of the motion in this article so you can read it without having to download it first.  That way you can see if it fits your particular needs before doing so.  Just remember that the text written in the article is NOT complete as is required by an actual Motion that you would file. There is also the fact that the web SUCKS at keeping the proper document formatting that you use in the actual document.  So download and use the MS Word document instead of copying the text from the article.  Also, take note that the example Motion is an AMENDED Motion, meaning that it was a second filed version that incorporated changes from the first filed version of the pleading.  If you are filing this as your FIRST original pleading, be sure to REMOVE anything referring to the pleading being an amended version.



 

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Disqualify Judge AMENDED

TO THE HONORABLE 26th DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD:

COMES NOW EDDIE EUGENE CRAIG, pro se, the Respondent in this matter, who asserts as follows:

Assertion of Rights

Eddie Eugene Craig (Respondent) asserts all his/her unalienable rights, privileges and immunities at Natural Law, Common Law and Maritime Law, and all his/her commercial rights relevant to this state.

Special Appearance

Respondent asserts his/her special appearance, objecting to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.

Objection to Non-judicial Decision-making

Respondent objects to and does not consent to any assignment or any referral of this case, in any part, to any decision-maker other than a duly elected or properly appointed judicial officer exercising full authority of a municipal court judge and who has an active and current oath of office on file.  Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (12 May 2008) (“If the parties consent”) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)).

Objection to use of private law

Respondent objects to the use of unpublished cases.  A cite to “WL” and “Lexis” is a reference to materials not publicly accessible.  For such references even to begin to be meaningful, a full copy of the opinion for each “WL” or “Lexis” reference must be attached.

Respondent Contact information

Contact information for Respondent Respondent is as follows:

Mailing Address:

c/o 1313 Mockingbird Ln.

Austin, Texas [78704]

Phone & Email Information:

Tel.            512-999-9999

Fax :          None

Email  myemail@somemail.com


Plaintiff Contact information

Contact information for Plaintiff City of Rockdale/ The State of Texas is as follows:

Mailing Address Regional Presiding Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield:

26th Judicial District Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield

Williamson County, Texas

P.O. Box 24

Georgetown, TX 78627

Phone & Email Information:

Tel. Phone:            (512) 943-1226

Fax:                                   (512) 943-1188

Mailing Address City of Rockdale Municipal Court:

505 W. Cameron Ave.

P.O. Box 586

Rockdale, TX. 76567

Phone & Email Information:

Tel.            (512) 446-0812

Fax :          (512) 446-6258

Mailing Address City Attorney Michelle Lehmkuhl:

505 W. Cameron Ave.

P.O. Box 586

Rockdale, TX. 76567

Phone & Email Information:

Tel.            (512) 446-2511

Fax :          (512) 446-6258


Table of Contents

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Disqualify Judge AMENDED.. 1

Assertion of Rights. 1

Special Appearance. 1

Objection to Non-judicial Decision-making. 2

Objection to use of private law.. 2

Respondent Contact information. 2

Plaintiff Contact information. 3

Table of Contents. 4

Table of Authorities. 4

Discussion. 5

Reservation of additional objections. 5

Summary of Respondent’s Arguments. 5

ISSUE:        Is the City of Rockdale Municipal Court bound by the Code of Crim. Proc. in Class C fine-only misdemeanor proceedings?. 7

ISSUE:        Did the court violate Respondent’s right of due process by ignoring specific rights codified in the Code of Crim. Proc.?. 9

ISSUE:        Did the Court violate the laws of this state and Respondent’s right of due process by requiring that a plea be entered before a court clerk rather than a proper judicial officer in a proper judicial proceeding?  13

ISSUE:        Did the Court violate Respondent’s right of due process by failing to follow the requirements of the Code of Crim. Proc. and the Code of Judicial Conduct?. 14

Request for Relief. 16

Verification. 18

Certificate of Service. 18

ORDER.. 19

Table of Authorities

Cases

Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 668 (1975) (Blackmun, J., dissent)…………………………. 1

Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 344 (1980) (Powell, J., and Stewart, J., dissent)     1

Ex Parte Greenwood, 165 Tex. Crim. 349; 307 S.W.2d 586; 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2350 11

Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (12 May 2008)………………………………………………………. 2

Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14, 28 (1985) (dissent)…………………………………………………………. 1

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art. 1.05 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. ART. 2.03 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 7

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art. 2.04 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art. 2.05 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.1.05 (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………. 12, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.1.14 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.2.04 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.2.05 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.28.01 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………….. 11, 12

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.32.48 (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………….. 11

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.002 (Thomson/West 2011)…………………………. 8, 9, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.018(b) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………….. 12, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.019(f) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………….. 12, 14

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Art.45.028 (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………… 10

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. CHAPTER 45 (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………… 8

 

Statutes

Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 10……………………………………………………………………………………… 12, 14

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Chapter 29-A (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………….. 5, 7

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 29.055(c) (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………………… 6

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 29.055(c)(1) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 6

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 29.055(c)(2) (Thomson/West 2011)……………………………………. 6

Tex. Gov. Code Ann. Sec. 311.016(4) (Thomson/West 2011)………………………………… 12, 13

 

Discussion

Reservation of additional objections.

Should a “complaint” ever exist, and should STATE ever satisfy its Due Process burden by serving such “complaint,” Respondent reserves the right to supplement this motion should there be defect, error, or irregularity with such “complaint.”

Summary of Respondent’s Arguments.

Respondent originally filed this Motion to Disqualify presiding Judge Jerry Waggoner (“Judge Waggoner”) of the City of Rockdale Municipal Court (“Court”) on or about November 22, 2012. The original motion was filed pursuant Chapter 29 A-1, Gov. Code, as soon as was practicable after Respondent realized that Judge Waggoner had absolutely no intention of following the law or providing those before his court with even an appearance of fairness and impartiality or the right to fundamental due process. To date Respondent has received no response or other information as to the disposition of the original filing.

Pursuant Chapter 29 A-1, Gov. Code, Judge Waggoner was required to forward the motion to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield for review in his capacity as regional presiding judge (see Sec. 29.055(c)(1)). From all appearances, Judge Waggoner knowingly, willingly and intentionally ignored this requirement and failed or refused to forward the original motion as required by law.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, pursuant Sec. 29.055(c) , Gov. Code, was required to cease and desist all further action (see Sec. 29.055(c)(2)) until such time as a ruling on his disqualification was returned by the regional presiding judge. Judge Waggoner further ignored this requirement of law and proceeded forward in this matter by the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Respondent under the guise of failure to appear for the so-called “trial.”

These acts alone prove that Judge Waggoner has no respect for the laws associated with the duties of his office, the due process rights of Respondent, or promoting even the general appearance of fairness and impartiality, therefore, his actions demand disqualification of a constitutional nature, if not actual divestment of his office and authority.

Respondent reasserts the following original points of authority and argument as the original basis for Respondent’s demand for the complete disqualification of Judge Waggoner and the dismissal of this matter.

Respondent argues that presiding Judge Waggoner is hereby disqualified ab initio pursuant Chapter 29 A-1, Gov. Code, from presiding over any proceedings in Respondent’s matter.

Respondent shows by the facts stated herein that Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally did violate specific laws relating to the duties of his office, numerous canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics, and acted with bias and prejudice against Respondent in the preliminary proceedings held in the Court.

Furthermore, Respondent shows by the facts stated herein that Judge Waggoner’s actions under color of law have deprived Respondent of protected fundamental rights, including but not limited to, the right of due process, which deprives the Court of all personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent.

Furthermore, Respondent shall show that Judge Waggoner’s actions under color of law, while absent all lawful jurisdiction, constitute criminal acts for which criminal complaints are to be filed by Respondent with the Milam County grand jury pursuant Art. 2.03, Code of Crim. Proc.

Lastly, Respondent has also filed several judicial conduct complaints (see attached) against Judge Waggoner with the State Judicial Conduct Committee for violations of multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics.

ISSUE:                 Is the City of Rockdale Municipal Court bound by the Code of Crim. Proc. in Class C fine-only misdemeanor proceedings?

If this were an actual criminal case, then, Respondent expects that Judge Waggoner and City Attorney Michelle Lehmkuhl (“Attorney Lehmkuhl”) would be required to obey the laws as codified in the Code of Crim. Proc. This is especially true considering that, while acting under color of law and in their official capacities, said law governs the duties of their respective offices relating to the prosecution of all alleged “criminal” cases.

If this were an actual “criminal” case, then, both Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl are specifically required and directed to follow the provisions of Chapter 45, Code of Crim. Proc., and other related provisions elsewhere within the Code of Crim. Proc., in all “criminal” cases, which the court record (or lack thereof) clearly shows they have not done, to wit:

Art. 45.002. APPLICATION OF CHAPTER.Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to those proceedings by this chapter.  If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.

(Emphasis added)

Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc., requires and directs that all “Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to those proceedings by this chapter.”

Furthermore, Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc., clearly requires and directs that “If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.”

If this were an actual “criminal” case under the provisions of Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc., then, by the usage of the term “shall,” this article clearly makes mandatory the requirement that municipal and justice courts of this state comply with all the relevant provisions of Chapter 45 in general and specifically Art. 45.002, Code of Crim. Proc.

Therefore, if this were an actual “criminal” proceeding, the court record (or lack thereof) clearly proves that Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally ignored virtually all procedural due process requirements and rights belonging to Respondent, and Judge Waggoner did so in direct violation of the laws of this state and of the United States.

Therefore, Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl have officially declared the Code of Crim. Proc. irrelevant to these and all other criminal proceedings held in the City of Rockdale Municipal Court, both by their respective actions and failure to perform even a single item of any article therein in accordance with the plain and common language of the codes provisions during all proceedings thus far.

Thus, Respondent has good cause to believe that these facts substantiate his/her assertion and conclusion that this is not and cannot be a “criminal” proceeding, and, therefore, can only be a non-case, i.e. it is civil, and, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction, as does Judge Waggoner.

Therefore, by acting without jurisdiction outside of all constitutional and lawful authority, and in violation of Respondent’s fundamental protected rights, Judge Waggoner is criminally liable for his/her actions and disqualified for all purposes.

ISSUE:                 Did the court violate Respondent’s right of due process by ignoring specific rights codified in the Code of Crim. Proc.?

As addressed in Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, Respondent, by law, is entitled to proper notice, i.e. service, of a written copy of both a criminal complaint and proper charging instrument, i.e. an “information,” “not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution…” under the provisions of Arts. 1.05, 2.04, 2.05, and 45.018(b), Code of Crim. Proc., to wit:

Code of Criminal ProcedureArt. 1.05. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED.  In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.  He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof.  He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.  He shall have the right of being heard by himself, or counsel, or both;  shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.  No person shall be held to answer for a felony unless on indictment of a grand jury.

Art. 2.04. [28] [34] [35] Shall draw complaints

Upon complaint being made before a district or county attorney that an offense has been committed in his district or county, he shall reduce the complaint to writing and cause the same to be signed and sworn to by the complainant, and it shall be duly attested by said attorney.

Art. 2.04 (emphasis added).

Art. 2.05. [29] [35] [36] When complaint is made

If the offense be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall forthwith prepare an information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court having jurisdiction; provided, that in counties having no county attorney, misdemeanor cases may be tried upon complaint alone, without an information, provided, however, in counties having one or more criminal district courts an information must be filed in each misdemeanor case. …

Art. 2.05 (Thomson/West 2005) (emphasis added).

Art. 45.018. COMPLAINT.

(a)  For purposes of this chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation charging the accused with the commission of an offense.

(b) A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint.  The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection.

(Emphasis added)

Respondent filed his/her Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss with the trial Court in a timely manner, long before his/her commanded appearance for a sham “pretrial” proceeding in which the only objective of the court and the prosecution was to coerce Respondent into either making a deal or entering a plea. Neither of these are proper purposes for commanding a pre-trial appearance before the court according to the statutes of this state codified in Art. 28.01, Code of Crim. Proc.

Without so much as reading them, Judge Waggoner dismissed Respondent’s points of law and argument relating to there being no complaint and proper charging instrument filed in the court record, and no proper, sufficient and timely notice of either instrument being served upon Respondent. Judge Waggoner refused to even acknowledging the due process violations created by proceeding in the knowing absence of a sworn complaint. As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has themselves set the filing of a complaint[1] as the minimum bar to investing municipal and justice courts with jurisdiction of a Class C misdemeanor cause, which Respondent believes is a constitutionally and statutorily incorrect ruling, how is it even remotely lawful for the court and the prosecutor to proceed against Respondent knowing full well that jurisdiction has never been conveyed by the filing of a proper complaint?

As no proper complaint was ever filed into the court at the time numerous pre-trial proceedings were initiated and conducted by the prosecutor and himself, Judge Waggoner, acting absent all jurisdiction in the matter, issued numerous instruments simulating legal process in violation of Sec. 32.48, Penal Code, and conducted several judicial proceedings prior to jurisdiction allegedly being obtained by the filing of a criminal complaint.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner acted in concert and collusion with the prosecutor to deny Respondent in a fair, impartial, and speedy trial by allowing prosecutorial proceedings to commence without such a complaint having been filed, thus preventing the speedy trial “clock” from ever being started in the case. The result being that Respondent’s right to a speedy trial is directly harmed by being preliminarily processed for prosecution without benefit and protection of any passage of time being charged against the State for failure to timely commence the trial on the merits.

Additionally, it is statutorily impossible for Respondent to comply with the requirements of Art. 45.019(f), Code of Crim. Proc., by challenging the complaint until a complaint has been filed and served upon Respondent, which was never done. When a complaint is neither filed nor served upon the accused until the day of trial, it is not only statutorily impossible to challenge the complaints form and substance pursuant Art. 45.019(f), Code of Crim. Proc., it also makes it statutorily impossible for Respondent to comply with Art. 28.01, Code of Crim. Proc., by filing a Motion to Set Aside or “Quash” the complaint no less than seven days prior to any pre-trial proceeding.

To date, the requirements of Art. 45.018(b), Code of Crim. Proc., have not been complied with, thus, violating Respondent’s protected right of notice as denoted by the use of the phrase “is entitled to” pursuant Sec. 311.016(4), Gov. Code, and as recognized and protected by Art. 1.05, Code of Crim. Proc., and [Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 10], to wit:

Texas ConstitutionArt. 1, Sec. 10.  RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.  He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof.  He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. Government Code

Sec. 311.016. “MAY,” “SHALL,” “MUST,” ETC.  The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:

(1)  “May” creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.

(2)  “Shall” imposes a duty.

(3)  “Must” creates or recognizes a condition precedent.

(4)  “Is entitled tocreates or recognizes a right.

(5)  “May not” imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with “shall not.”

(6)  “Is not entitled to” negates a right.

(7)  “Is not required to” negates a duty or condition precedent.

(Emphasis added)

By right and law Respondent is entitled to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court at any time and in personam jurisdiction prior to any general appearance, and to have the response to such challenges addressed by actual points of law and evidence submitted into the record of the court. Neither the court nor the prosecution has ever met this requirement. In fact, the jurisdictional challenges posed by Respondent were simply ignored by Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl, while both were acting under color of law, with Judge Waggoner again proceeding sua sponte to simply declare by fiat that the court had jurisdiction, despite no legal evidence of that fact being submitted into the record by either the prosecution or the court.

ISSUE:                 Did the Court violate the laws of this state and Respondent’s right of due process by requiring that a plea be entered before a court clerk rather than a proper judicial officer in a proper judicial proceeding?

Under color of what law and authority does Judge Waggoner and Attorney Lehmkuhl act to ignore and deny the laws of this state by allegedly authorizing a mere clerk of the court, Wrenie Wheeless (Wheeless), to impersonate a judicial officer by conducting judicial proceedings for the purpose of taking and entering a plea upon the official record of the court?

ISSUE:                 Did the Court violate Respondent’s right of due process by failing to follow the requirements of the Code of Crim. Proc. and the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Respondent has procedural due process rights protected by the requirements of Arts. 1.05, 2.04, 2.05, 1.14, 45.002, 45.018(b), and 45.019(f), Code of Crim. Proc., and [Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 10]. If this were an actual “criminal” case, then, by failing to comply with these provisions of law relating to the duties of his office regarding “criminal” prosecutions, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally violated the due process rights of Respondent, thus creating the impression of bias and partiality on behalf of the prosecution.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally spoke to Respondent in a condescending, belittling, and contemptuous tone and manner before other peoples currently present in the court on September 13, 2012, thus creating the impression of bias and partiality on behalf of the prosecution.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by acting sua sponte on behalf of the prosecution to deny out-of-hand several written motions challenging jurisdiction of the court and other related matters of law that were never rebutted or challenged by the prosecution, and did so without holding a proper pretrial hearing of the motions for the purpose of oral argument by Respondent.

Furthermore, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by soliciting and accepting advise from Attorney Lehmkuhl to deny Respondent’s motions, despite Lehmkuhl admitting that, even though she was the prosecutor assigned to the case, she had never read them. In so doing, Judge Waggoner, while acting under color of law, and by colluding and conspiring with Attorney Lehmkuhl to deny Respondent’s due process rights under color of law, violated numerous canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, to wit:

CANON 1 – Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.

CANON 2 – Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety In All of the Judge’s Activities.

  1. A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
  2. A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

CANON 3 – Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

CANON 3A – Judicial Duties in General.  The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law.

CANON 3B – Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(2)     A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(4)     A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

(5)     A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

(6)     A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

 

CANON 6 – Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct

CANON 6C – Justices of the Peace and Municipal Court Judges.

(2)     A justice of the peace or a municipal court judge, except as authorized by law, shall not directly or indirectly initiate, permit, nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning the merits of a pending judicial proceeding.

CANON 8 – Construction and Terminology of the Code

CANON 8B – Terminology.

(1)     “Shall” or “shall not” denotes binding obligations the violation of which can result in disciplinary action.

(8)     “Law” denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions and decisional law.

Request for Relief

Therefore, Respondent requests that regional presiding judge Billy Ray Stubblefield grant his/her special appearance and enter a finding and order declaring that Judge Waggoner is disqualified for all purposes from presiding over any proceedings involving Respondent in the instant matter.

Furthermore, Respondent requests that regional presiding judge Billy Ray Stubblefield direct the Court to dismiss the false charge of failure to appear and recall the subsequent warrant of arrest issued by Judge Waggoner in direct violation of the laws of this state.

Furthermore, Respondent requests that regional presiding judge Billy Ray Stubblefield direct the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.

[1] Ex Parte Greenwood, 165 Tex. Crim. 349; 307 S.W.2d 586; 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2350

05.0699E EC – MTDR – Disqualify or Recuse Judge (AMENDED)

State Constitutions vs Ordinances – WHO has the legitimate power to make binding public law in your republic?

Okay,
 
I received an interesting email from someone in South Carolina (S.C.) that brought up the following issues with the judge’s bench book as used in their courts. Here is what he asked about:
 
==============================
 
I read your piece about city ordinances.
This is from the SC Summary Court Judge’s Benchbook:
 
“The uniform traffic ticket, established under the provisions of Section 56-7-10, may be used by law enforcement officers to arrest a person for an offense committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer if the punishment is within the jurisdiction of magistrate’s court and municipal court.” (S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-15). The uniform traffic ticket may also be used by law enforcement to cite individuals for violations of county or municipal ordinance violations. (1990 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90- 48). County and municipal uniform ordinance summons were established under the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-80, which provides as follows: (A) Counties and municipalities are authorized to adopt by ordinance and use an ordinance summons as provided herein for the enforcement of county and municipal ordinances. Upon adoption of the ordinance summons, any county or municipal law enforcement officer or code enforcement officer is authorized to use an ordinance summons. Any county or municipality adopting the ordinance summons is responsible for the printing, distributing, monitoring, and auditing of the ordinance summons to be used by that entity. (B) The uniform ordinance summons may not be used to perform a custodial arrest. No county or municipal ordinance which regulates the use of motor vehicles on the public roads of this State may be enforced using an ordinance summons.”
 
(B) is especially interesting to me, since if an officer is detaining you for any reason, that is a custodial arrest. Isn’t it?
 
Thanks for your time and efforts.”
 
==============================
 
This was my initial reply back to him:
 
Is there something that you wish for me to see here that would lead me to think that S.C. is somehow different in the area of ordinances? I’m just trying to figure out what it is you wanted me to see in it that would make me think otherwise?
 
==============================
 
His reply was:
 
So what you’re saying, and I’m just asking, is that this piece from the judge’s benchbook is bullshit? That it doesn’t matter what it says?
Trying to get clear on this. That’s all.
 
==============================
 
And this is my response by which I hope to make things more clear to him, and to all of you, that might run into something similar in your own state.
 
========
 
No, it reads precisely as it SHOULD when being used for “persons” involved in a relationship with the corporate entity that created the policy in question, and to which such comments can lawfully claim that ordinances apply.
 
Did you compare your legislative article of the South Carolina Constitution with the claims made in that statute? Because I did, and the constitutional sections read exactly as I expected them to read, that ONLY the legislature of S.C. has law-making power.
 
 
 
Now, if some OTHER provision of that constitution delegates such power to municipalities and counties, then WHERE and for WHAT PURPOSE does it do that? Because, if it DOES do that, then the following isn’t going to hold true, but if it DOESN’T, then the following facts are irrefutable.
 
The legislature CANNOT redelegate a delegated power, and you will find TONS of case law on that subject saying exactly that. So, it doesn’t matter if the state legislature attempted to enact legislation to make it APPEAR that these ordinances are ‘public law,’ as long as you and others know to challenge the assertion by pointing out WHY they CANNOT actually BE ‘public law’ under the S.C. state constitution.
 
So, since that means that ordinances CANNOT be treated as actual ‘PUBLIC LAW’ without first being in direct violation of the state constitution and the powers delegated therein, what then are they?
 
The short answer is that they are MUNICIPAL/COUNTY CORPORATE POLICY, and corporate policy is binding ONLY upon the following:
 
1) the corporate entity itself that created the policy,
2) those that are directly employed by the corporate entity, or
3) those that are employed as contractors with that corporate entity, or
4) those that knowingly and willfully CONSENT to being bound by the entity’s policies.
 
If the municipality/county CANNOT constitutionally create binding ‘public law,’ then how else would ordinances have any lawful authority over or application to members of the public and NOT be in direct violation of the state constitution if it is not through voluntary consent?
 
If you will search for it on your legislative web site, I am more than certain that a search for statutes that contain a STATUTORY definition of the term “law” will produce several hits.
 
On the Texas legislative web site for example, you would first click on the “SEARCH” menu at the top, leave the “What Code” section blank, and in the search field type (WITH the double quotes but NOT the period) “law means.” Then, repeat this, but type in the search field “law includes.”
 
There will be at least one or two results from these two searches that include ordinances, school board policies, agency regulations, and numerous other NON-LEGISLATIVELY CREATED policies as part of the definition of ‘law’ as it relates to “this state.”
 
In Texas you will actually get 17, only about four of which contain a definition like this one:
 
30) “Law” means the constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States, a written opinion of a court of record, a municipal ordinance, an order of a county commissioners court, or a rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.
 
 
 
The problem there is, the legislature CANNOT do by subversive statutory decree what it is completely forbidden to do directly. Especially by using a mere definition of terminology to circumvent the constitutional limitation upon who can make binding public law.
 
Which means that, in court, we should be demanding to know the following:
 
“Judge, I have a right to proper notice of and to understand the nature and cause, do I not? So, are you stating that the charges against me relate to some alleged offense under an ACTUAL PUBLIC LAW specifically enacted by the S.C. Legislature, or, am I being charging with some alleged offense written only into some ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy that is considered to be ‘law’ only because it has been unconstitutionally defined as ‘law’ within some statutory definition of that term, but which ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy was NOT enacted by the legislature as is constitutionally required in order to actually BE binding public law?”
 
It really shouldn’t be a mind-blowing effort to reason out this is not only unconstitutional and illegal, because it IS fraud, but that any attempt to move forward as if the action is valid would itself be an act of official oppression, official misconduct, and outright treason and sedition as a subversion of the respective state constitution.
 
Therefore, the only logical and state constitutionally sound conclusion that one can make about ANY statute or ordinance that relies upon a definition of this sort, is that ANY statute using that definition CANNOT be directly applicable to the PUBLIC, but is applicable ONLY to those “persons” as I previously described and enumerated above.
==============================
Remember folks, we DIDN’T authorize ANY of this ordinance and private rule and regulation making bullshit by our public servants.  Especially over us, our private property, or any other part of our private lives.  It was USURPED (ILLEGALLY STOLEN/TAKEN), by the attorneys through ‘legal’ subterfuge and seditious and treasonous acts resulting from their takeover of EVERY department of government. Creating an unconstitutional aristocracy for themselves right here in America.
We the People collectively and individually have every RIGHT to fight back and say no, and to enforce that refusal with force of arms if need be. Both our state and federal constitutions reserved that right to the PEOPLE, not just the ‘states’ as they would have you believe, and THAT is precisely what the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that we COULD do when and if it ever became necessary.
Well, that time is here, that time is now.  The constitutions won’t defend themselves, and the crooks certainly aren’t going to start abiding by them now, as is evidenced by the daily violation of their principles and protections by those most subject to obeying them.  They openly and unapologetically abuse us, steal from us, and openly murder us on the streets and in our homes.  WHEN will it be enough to push you over the edge to where you are willing to get out of your damned armchair and stand with each other to demand, resist, and ensure through forceful resistance if needed, that this will NOT be allowed to go on or ever be put in place again?  When did we Americans allow ourselves to become such moral and slothful cowards?
Please take the time to read my much more in-depth article in the issue of ordinances by clicking here.

Texas Red Light Camera Citations – Class Action Suit Filed

For those of you that are regular listeners to my radio show on Rule of Law Radio / Logos Radio Network, you have often heard me make mention of all of the very substantial reasons that red light cameras are completely unconstitutional right out of the gate.  And, as noted in one of my other previous posts, they are even more illegal and unconstitutional when implemented via municipal ordinance rather than by state law or statute. I even posted one of my last blog updates with information relating to this very thing in the form of a video and an updated red light camera “kiss my royal individual sovereign ass” response letter.

Today, I have even bigger and better news in that particular arena. And that news revolves around the very highly regarded desire to end the unconstitutional fiasco created by these programs. That desire has finally reached a point of fruition that will hopefully culminate in the long-sought-after removal of these cameras and the injustices that they have wrought upon every person that has ever received one.

That being said, this post contains several documents relating to a class-action lawsuit that has just been filed against a multitude of Texas municipalities for their unconstitutional and downright illegal red light camera citation scams.I would HIGHLY recommend that anyone that has EVER received one of these citations relating to a Texas municipality try and contact the law firm that filed the suit and see if you can be included as a Plaintiff.

Their first amended complaint (attached) was filed in federal court just a few days ago, and it will provide all of the lurid details as to the inner workings and corrupt practices that have been engaged in for more than eight years by some of these municipalities, and slightly fewer years for some of the others, but, each and every one illegal and unconstitutional before they were ever voted upon to be enacted.  This red light camera scam was born and foisted upon the people of Texas back in 2007 by the Texas Legislature in yet another attempt to steal money from the people through unconstitutional legislation (Texas Constitution).

When I first read the complaint, I recognized all of the same arguments that I have been using in my discussions with activist groups on this subject. Many of which are also part of the red light camera chapter in my second upcoming book on the judiciaries intentional denial of legal due process in misdemeanor cases handled in Texas courts. It is noteworthy because the large law firm that has filed the suit on behalf of their client are actually validating all of the arguments I have been making all along by making those same arguments in their complaint. It is noteworthy because it is irrefutable proof that going to law school is NOT a prerequisite to understanding what our constitutions and statutes actually say and mean, nor does it require judicial interpretation by a judge or an attorney to be understandable.

Real law and justice does NOT require specialized training to comprehend, to fight for, or to adjudicate, as long as you are not arguing and ruling based upon some personal or political agenda rather than the actual facts, the circumstances, the law, and the constitutionality of all of the above. It requires only that one have an above average grasp of right and wrong as well as the predominate written and spoken language where the law will be practiced. The false belief in specialized training was originally established, and is being maintained, by the elitist legal fraternity through the various Bar Associations and law firms, who currently have a monopoly on access to the courts, the tools used in the legal industry, and recognition as being one knowledgeable in the law, even when they aren’t.  This is a judicial system that the attorneys and judges have created entirely for themselves, not we the People. It is the Bar that constantly changes the purpose of law, the manner of arguing and filing pleadings, and every other manner of process and procedure meant to make even what was once the simplest of actions into a legal quagmire to the uninitiated layman. There can never be equal justice under the law because the practice and methods of achieving that justice are known and controlled by only a select few.  And all of it is entirely violative of justice and the rights of the people to substantial and substantive due process.

That being said, enjoy the read, because I certainly did!

(OCR’d) RLC Lawsuit – City Attorney Representation Letter

(OCR’d) RLC Lawsuit – Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

(OCR’d) RLC Lawsuit – Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Suit

(OCR’d) RLC Lawsuit – Plaintiff’s Request for Records

(OCR’d) RLC Lawsuit – Plaintiff’s Request Interrogatories

(OCR’d) RLC Lawsuit – Plaintiff’s Standing Order to ATS

General Notes on Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility

MEME - DPS Says - if Eddie is right 01

Okay, the ‘hyper down-and-dirty’ version of this issue is this. State law does NOT authorize the stopping, detaining, arresting or impounding of persons or cars for lack of registration, a driver’s license, or for lack of proof of/actual financial responsibility. The “Registration” chapter is Chapter 502, the “Driver’s License” chapter is Chapter 521, and the “Financial Responsibility Act” is codified in Texas “Transportation” Code Chapter 601.

The statutory authority for ANY “authorized” officer to make a WARRANTLESS arrest relating to a “transportation” ‘offense’ is found in Sec. 543.001, “Transportation” Code. The warrantless arrest power given is specially and specifically limited by Sec. 543.001 to ONLY those offenses specifically codified “in this subtitle,” meaning Subtitle C of the “Transportation” Code. When you look, you can easily see that Subtitle C encompasses “Transportation” Code Chapters 541 – 600 inclusive. Everything in Subtitle C, other than Chapter 548 Compulsory Inspections, are either moving or mechanical ‘offenses.’

Notice that the “Registration,” “Driver’s License,” AND “Financial Responsibility Act” chapters ALL fall OUTSIDE of the aforementioned chapters legislatively authorizing warrantless arrest.

The prosecutor and/or the judge WILL try to argue that the officer IS authorized to perform a warrantless arrest for such ‘offenses’ under the provisions of Art. 14.01(b), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  The problem with that assertion and foundational argument is that it runs head-first into the judicial rules of statutory construction that the courts themselves have developed.

One of the primary points of these rules is this, where a statute within a particular code creates a local and specific element or condition to some subject matter controlled by that code, that code’s local provision supersedes and controls over ANY general statute dealing with the same subject matter, unless the local provision specifically states that the general provision will control.

Well, Art. 14.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure IS a general statute, while the provisions of Sec. 543.001 are local and specific to the “Transportation” Code and makes no mention of Art. 14.01 as being controlling in that instance. Therefore, the rules of statutory construction automatically limit the applicability of any law enforcement officer’s GENERAL authorization to make warrantless arrests under Art. 14.01(b) to those ‘offenses’ that are NOT related to the Texas “Transportation” code.

In this particular case, the “same subject matter” IS the statutory authority to perform a warrantless arrest for an ‘offense’ allegedly committed in the arresting officer’s “presence or view.” Therefore, the argument is that that “Transportation” Code’s local and specific provision controls over the Code of Criminal Procedure’s general provision in this instance, limiting the officer’s power of warrantless arrest to ONLY those ‘offenses’ found in Subtitle C of same.

This would tend to work the same way with the towing thing.  No authorization exists in statute to tow the car, just as there exists no authorization to perform a “transportation” stop in relation to a license plate scan or computer retrieval that comes back saying “no insurance.” This ALSO becomes an issue because, under Texas case law, the information that comes back to the officers on their cruiser computer is HEARSAY in a court of law, and it is INADMISSIBLE if properly challenged. Therefore, the computer information alone CANNOT be the basis for a seizure any more than it can be for a warrantless arrest. The city is deemed to know and understand this fact, and is opening themselves up to a major law suit for doing it in the first place.

Finally, there is the issue of Sec. 601.053, “Transportation” Code, in relation to the ‘offense’ of “Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility,” and that is that it’s completely repugnant to the right of due process, making it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  The statute does three very unlawful things in relation to the right of due process. It unlawfully requires production of potentially incriminating information to an officer, it reverses the burden of proof, taking it from the shoulders of the State and shifting it to the back of the accused, and it makes a presumption of guilt over innocence if the accused fails to provide actual evidence that s/he is NOT guilty.  Consider the language it uses by reading just the underlined parts of the statute:

Sec. 601.053.  EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

(a)  As a condition of operating in this state a motor vehicle to which Section 601.051 applies, the operator of the vehicle on request shall provide to a peace officer, as defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, or a person involved in an accident with the operator evidence of financial responsibility by exhibiting:

(b)  Except as provided by Subsection (c), an operator who does not exhibit evidence of financial responsibility under Subsection (a) is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of Section 601.051.

(c)  Subsection (b) does not apply if the peace officer determines through use of the verification program established under Subchapter N that financial responsibility has been established for the vehicle.  If a peace officer has access to the verification program, the officer may not issue a citation for a violation of Section 601.051 unless the officer attempts to verify through the program that financial responsibility has been established for the vehicle and is unable to make that verification.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1423, Sec. 18.06, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 15A.01, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 153 (S.B. 181), Sec. 1, eff. May 24, 2013.

Subsections (a) and (b) are responsible for the primary and readily evident due process violations previously mentioned. And you can see that subsection (c) also has issues with violating due process through lack of probable cause, as it does not take into consideration the possibility of the system not having accurate and up-to-date information, even if the officer does have access and gets back bad info, which they very often do. Nor does it make any exception that denies the officer the ability to issue a citation if s/he does NOT have access to the verification system.

This act and its related statutes are just constitutionally reprehensible all the way-round in the denying and destroying of due process and probable cause, along with the rights of the accused to both, by its blatant attempt to ignore or destroy them altogether.

 

MEME - Einstein - Dumb Motherfuckers

 

Texas court opinions ruling that information from computer systems is HEARSAY if the information was input by other persons and not internally formulated and produced by the computer directly.

Computer Data is Hearsay