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

May 7, 2020May 27, 2020 Tao of Law8 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Supreme Court Orders Release of Dallas Salon Owner Shelley Luther

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge Texas Penal Code §38.04 as Being Unconstitutional!

October 26, 2019 Tao of Law2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

The True Meaning and Purpose of Individual Rights.

October 26, 2019July 7, 2020 Tao of LawLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 10, 2019 Tao of Law3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black man who acted as his own attorney acquitted of murder

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

February 27, 2019 Tao of Law3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How soon we forget!

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

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

And Now You Know The Rest of The Story…

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

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

UNDERSTANDING THE LOGICAL, MORAL, AND ETHICAL LIMITATIONS OF DELEGATED POWERS.

December 24, 2018December 24, 2018 Tao of LawLeave a comment

The REAL question, in MY personal opinion, is not IF a government of the People can write laws, but rather, what authority can we delegate to them, which then determines what our public servants in government can write those laws to actually DO, i.e. their constitutionally proper application and impact.

I don’t see ANY authority that was delegated by either the federal OR state constitutions that allows our public servants to create laws REGULATING the behaviors or morals of men who are acting only in their private and personal capacities when those acts result in no identifiable tangible harm to another. In other words, if I have no personal authority to regulate my neighbor’s behavior or morals, then that is a power I cannot lawfully and rightfully delegate to anyone else as my agent so they may do in my stead that which I cannot lawfully or rightly do personally, ever.

Again, in MY personal opinion, when it comes to the PEOPLE, the ONLY valid laws our public servants can write are those stating a particular standard of punishment and process for the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, appeal, and the carrying out of the sentence (incarceration, death, etc.), for an unlawful or unjustifiable harm to the rights and property of any of the People.

Under the guise of the public welfare clause, therefore, the only preventative (malum prohibitum) laws that our public servants would have any valid lawful authority to write are those that are already proven by documented and historical fact to prevent harm to the public generally. Malum prohibitum laws such as “Don’t shit or dump your sewage in the public water supply” or “Don’t destroy public property as it is considered an unlawful taking of the property that deprives members of the Public in general of the benefit and enjoyment of the public property in question.” THOSE kinds of malum prohibitum laws are reasonable and just, but, most of the ones in existence today, whether regulatory or malum prohibitum, are not at all reasonable nor lawfully and rightfully applicable to the Peoples of a constitutional republic.

Furthermore, if I cannot lawfully and rightfully proffer immunity upon myself or my neighbor for the commission of crimes against the rights and property of another, then I simply cannot confer such immunity to my public servants. In the finite universe of such delegated powers and authority, it can be reasonably asserted that immunity in any form would attach to a public servant only if that public servants actions were not violative of other constitutional provisions and prohibitions as found within the Bill of Rights as well as being morally and ethically free from reasonable doubt in relation to even our unenumerated rights. Even then, such actions must be at least minimally consistent with all of those rights, even after guilt is established and punishment rendered, i.e. reasonable and humane treatment while incarcerated for the crime.

The majority of laws our public servants have enacted in the present day are goal oriented, not justice or individual rights oriented. The goals being the control of the general population in a manner suiting the desires of governmental actors, for whatever reason, and for the generation of revenue that flows into that particular government’s coffers, to its actors, and to those that are really pulling the political and “public policy” strings from the shadows. Which they do via any subversive or corporate means they can even tenuously declare as valid and lawful under the constitutions. THAT is the problem as I see it.

The very concept of “public policy” being controlling over our individual rights and privileges is, in and of itself, wholly unconstitutional, as it removes all of our individual rights and privileges and subjects them to the wayward approval or disapproval of whatever constitutes the “public policy” of the moment. The phrase “public policy” is nothing more than a pathetically cloaked euphemism for “the will of tyrants disguised as the will and consent of the governed,” and it is nothing less than the same kind of rule by majority found in a democracy and instituted via the proclamation that “the majority of the people have spoken and agreed.” In point of fact, a form of government based upon public policy is synonymous with the very same form of democratic government that our founding fathers firmly and vehemently rejected as being an acceptable form of government for the American people.

The principles underpinning the Ponzi scheme of public policy is best summarized with a line given by Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, in the movie “The Patriot,” wherein Martin says, “Tell me, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” The epiphany of that realization being that all individual rights, privileges and immunities are now subject to the majority vote of a democracy rather than being fully protected against such actions by the stringent limitations of an actual Republican form of government, which is not only our individually guaranteed right, it is the only form of authorized government to be had in any of the several states of the union, and it is in dire jeopardy of being unlawfully undermined, subverted, and dismantled by the courts and legal profession in general.

Our fundamental individual rights were never meant to be subjected to the whims of public policy or democratic vote any more than they were intended to be subjected to government licensing and regulation, as both of those political schemes serve to do nothing less than to convert individual rights into privileges granted or taken away by the ever changing winds of either governmental or public approval. Therefore, both measures are wholly violative of the very foundational concept of individual rights and immunities from governmental and public derogation and abrogation.

Of course, there are and always will be those people that will have their issues with this way of thinking. Case in point:

==========================
“Serious question though

You know I despise encroahment on past liberty rights as much as anyone.

However, I must admit that circumstances change as populations swell or change.

If the people lean on legislators to reduce drunk drivers and keep idiots off the road inclined to cause stupid wrecks and kill, do they have a duty and obligation to the people to enact something, like registration, insurance and a license?

I have to go there.”
==========================

My response to this inquiry is as follows:

==========================
“Not to my way of thinking.

HOW do ANY of those regulatory schemes change the behavior, morality, or ethics of the person who committed the act in the first place? After all, they usually already HAVE those regulatory trappings and STILL decided to endanger others by their actions, correct? So, no, I don’t see regulation or licensing as a constitutionally proper use of the delegated powers to govern.

The government CAN write laws that provides appropriate PUNISHMENT for an act that presents or results in the reckless endangerment or actual harm to the public or to specific individuals. That actually falls within the “public health and welfare” clause quite nicely and appropriately. Unlike the regulatory schemes you mentioned, that punishment WOULD have a direct impact upon the actor that might prevent future occurrences.

In essence, it once again comes down to the legislation of behavior, morality, and ethics rather than simply legislating a punishment for failing to take seriously one’s public duty to exercise due diligence to NOT violate the rights and property of others, whether that failure was knowing and willful or simply negligent to the point of criminality.
See, no registration or license required.”
==========================

John Locke’s concepts on government are all about the strictly limited nature of delegated powers and authority. You can read about the intricacies of his thought on this issue in his writings titled “Two Treatises on Government.” Locke’s philosophy and perspective regarding the finitely limited form of governmental power and authority was so strict that the premise of his thoughts on the subject could be boiled down to virtually a single phrase, “the only legitimate power of government is to articulate the laws of nature.”

I agree with Locke’s premise on limited powers and authority of our government, but only up to a certain point. Our form of government, by logical and constitutional necessity, already prescribes a very strict set of boundaries within which the powers of government are allowed and are actually required to operate in order to be constitutionally lawful, especially when those laws are being directly applied to we the People or our property. The laws of nature simply can’t and don’t account for everything that is involved and evolves when men form societies and associations for their mutual protection and interaction.

For example, Nature does not provide for the willful and wrongful acts of men against other men. The law of “survival of the fittest” is not the law of men, it is the law of the jungle. Under this form of law crimes such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, extortion, fraud, or anything else, simply do not and cannot exist. Human societies are not supposed to be jungles, and the premise of “survival of the fittest” and “might makes right” is not the foundations upon which they are conceived and built.

Furthermore, the laws of Nature are neither cognizant of nor recognize any kind of individual rights or private property interests, nor do they provide for any form of remedy for those creatures whose ‘rights’ were harmed by another. The mother antelope has no court where she may file criminal charges against nor sue the lion or cheetah for killing and eating her young, right?

Therefore, my opinion is that the only legitimate power and authority of government is to first protect my individual rights and private property from harm or destruction, and second, to provide me a way to obtain enforceable remedy from the wrongdoer if such a harm were ever perpetrated, and third, to provide for the necessary punishment of those who would commit crimes against the rights and property of others in whatever form such harm may be perpetrated. Beyond that, government and the people should have no intercourse or relationship on a day-to-day basis.

So, while some of the laws of Nature have a limited place in human society, defense of self or of others for example, I stand by my assertions as to what I believe comprises the only constitutionally lawful form of law making authority and enforcement of laws that we can rightfully empower our government to write in relation to we the People within our collection of individual sovereign Republics.

Actual Defense Motions & Criminal Complaint for Challenging Texas Transportation Code Cases.

July 25, 2018 Tao of Law2 Comments

Apologies for My Extended Absence in Posting New Content.

Hello all. I realize it has been awhile since I’ve posted on the blog, but I have been swamped with rewriting the legal due process and ‘traffic’ seminar material, organizing and preparing for the availability of on-line classes, and trying to design an upcoming greenhouse aquaponics project (which I will be starting another blog on when I get it going).

Now that my extended absence has been explained, let’s get to the grist of this new article.

“Yippee Ki-yay, Motherfucker.”

For all you People that have been subjected to the highly fraudulent processes and procedures associated with being issued, and then having to deal with, a “transportation” related citation alleging the commission of a Texas Transportation Code regulated offense by some willfully ignorant and indoctrinated ‘bot minion of THE STATE OF TEXAS, I announce that it is time for you to rejoice. Below you will find three embedded documents that explain why. I hope that you never have to use them, but, if you do, that you have the best chance possible in stomping the shit out of the opposition.

How to Read and Use Seminar Documents…

Just like all of the documents in the seminar material, you will find colored highlighting of certain sections of text. Each color has a specific meaning and requires a specific action by you when using the document. I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to do this in a Word document so as to work just as well for those people who happen to be color blind, so please do your best.

The text that is highlighted in yellow signifies a piece of factual information that is specifically relevant to your case and its associated persons and events. These facts will take the form of dates, times, names, places, reference numbers, personal pronouns, etc., etc. For those facts that are repeated throughout the document, you can simply do a search and replace the text of the default fact to change it into the text specific to your case. This is especially easier than a manual replacement of each personal pronoun reference in the document. Personal pronouns will be terms such as I, you, he, she, it, we, they, me, him, her, us, and them.

Text that is highlighted in light blue (Cyan) signifies text that, if factually true, correct, and relevant to your specific matter, can simply have the Cyan highlighting removed and other wise left unchanged (except where there is also yellow highlighted text signifying a specific fact that needs to be changed). However, if the highlighted test is not true, correct, and relevant to your specific matter, it should be selected and completely deleted from the document.

In order to make certain that the use of search and replace didn’t confuse a personal pronoun reference for yourself with that of the officer, judge, or other party or person involved in facts of the matter as stated within the document, each personal pronoun use has its own qualifier prefix.

For instance, any personal pronoun that applies to you, as the Respondent, in the document, is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “res,” as in “reshis/her,” “reshim/her,” “ress/he,” etc., etc. By doing a search and replace for either of these strings of characters (minus the double quotes), you can choose to replace each occurrence with the appropriate personal pronoun, such as “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”, “his” or “hers”, etc., etc.

By the same token, any personal pronoun that applies to a specific officer in the document is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “off[Badge#],” as in “off[7856]his/her,” “off[7856]him/her,” “off[7856]s/he,” etc., etc. By doing a search and replace for either of these strings of characters (minus the double quotes), you can choose to replace each occurrence with the appropriate personal pronoun, such as “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”, “his” or “hers”, etc., etc.

Lastly, and just for an FYI kind of point, any personal pronoun that applies to a specific judge in the document is highlighted in yellow and has the prefix “jud[#],” where the pound sign (#) represents some number associated with that particular judge, i.e. the 1st judge I saw in the case was …, and the 2nd judge I appeared before or issued some order was …,” for which I’m sure you can figure out the rest of it from the above examples.

What the Embedded Documents Actually Are.

“Freedom! Yeah Baby!” ~ Austin Powers

The first document is an editable copy of a criminal complaint that YOU will be filing against the judge, in his/her magisterial capacity, who presides over the court in which your case is to be heard, if a certain condition precedent has been set, which it almost certainly will be.

This criminal complaint addresses the various highly illegal ‘form letters’ that are being used and issued as a fictitious and fraudulent legal order and summons by virtually every magistrate of every justice and municipal court in the entire Texas republic, regardless of what actual form that letter may actually take. Suffice it to say that, whatever form this letter does take, it still will not be in the form actually required by law to constitute a legally valid order and summons. The kicker is, that, the magistrate, as the head of the court and the one legally responsible for all that goes on there, by issuing these illegal form letters, is actually guilty of several high crimes and misdemeanors under both Texas and federal law. Crimes that unavoidably result in knowing and willful violations of your due process rights.

You will be filing this criminal complaint against the magistrate of the court based upon specific Texas law regarding the mandatory requirements for a specific ‘legal process’, which is the technical name for legal documents like judicial orders, warrants, summons, etc. The term usually refers to the kinds of legal documents that are required to be served at some specific point in time relevant to the progression of a prosecution, on a particular party associated with the matter before the court, and commanding some specific action from them, such as to appear in court on some stated specific date and time for instance. In this particular case, the legal process with which we are taking issue is that of imitating a legally valid summons, which the aforementioned form letter is fraudulently pretending to be.

The second document is an editable copy of a Motion to Quash the Unlawful Summons, i.e. the illegal form letter, which is to be filed jointly with the first document (criminal complaint).

When you read through this document, you will see what you need to be looking for in a valid legal summons, as well as what specific statutes govern the requirements for that specific type of legal process. Similar information will also be stated in the criminal complaint.

The third document is an editable copy of a Motion to Quash the Unlawful Citation & Complaint, which is also based upon specific legal requirements for such instruments under Texas law and the right of due process that are glaringly non-existent on the face of the citation and the criminal complaint created by THE STATE OF TEXAS.

Respondent’s Legal Armor, Sword, & Shield – The Documents.

Use them in good health and with extreme prejudice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case closed.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

CATCH & RELEASE – THE ‘NOTICE TO APPEAR’ SCAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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