Some readers in Waxahachie sent me this. Haven’t read it all, but it looked worthy of a look:
Affidavit and Judicial Notice
C A U T I O N! W A R N I N G!
C A U T I O N!
Notice to agent is notice to principle; notice to principle is notice to agent.
This judicial notice has been presented upon demand for a “driver’s license”, “registration”, or
“proof of insurance”. Accept it now as this is the only documentation that Affiant shall produce.
I, Eddie Eugene Craig, hereinafter Affiant, I, me, my, myself, a natural born sovereign man of the independent sovereign republic known and recognized in international law as Texas, being of sound mind and body, do make the following statements of my own free will and under penalty of perjury, and that all statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and understanding. Affiant belligerently and actively asserts the full retention and authority of all of Affiant’s unalienable rights, and Affiant does not consent to nor in any way waives any of my rights in whole or in part, nor does Affiant authorize or consent to any violation of those rights by any of Affiant’s public servants. Affiant is one of the “People” declared in the respective constitutions. Affiant is NOT now nor has Affiant ever been a “Resident”, “Non-resident”, “Person”, “Individual”, “Taxpayer”, “Corporation”, “Association” “Alien”, or any other type of “legal entity” as those terms are defined within Texas statutory or legislative law, and Affiant vehemently and vociferously denies and objects to any such assertions by any of Affiant’s public servants. Affiant also denies involvement and/or active engagement in any commercial activity upon the roads and highways of Texas or any other state of the union and also denies the “operation” of any “motor vehicle” for that purpose. Affiant is exercising the unalienable right of liberty through locomotion and this right is protected by the respective constitutions. Affiant is traveling as a matter of right in a private non-commercial capacity upon the public right-of-way and attests that this automobile is not subject to either Chapter 522 or Chapter 644 of the Texas Transportation Code, hereinafter TTrC. If you decide to arrest me I demand that I be taken immediately before a magistrate with alleged jurisdiction of this matter and you are obligated to do so with all due diligence and without unnecessary delay pursuant to Transportation Code Sec. 543.002. Failure to comply will result in additional criminal charges being filed against you.
This Affidavit and Judicial Notice is served upon you, hereinafter officer, you, your, or you’re, acting as a local agent for or on the ultimate behalf of THE STATE OF TEXAS, some political subdivision of THE STATE, or any other legal entity in whatever form, hereinafter referred to collectively as STATE. Your authority to enforce the “traffic laws” is strictly and specifically limited to commercial motor vehicles subject to TTrC Chapters 522 and/or 644 as detailed below.
Affiant hereby demands production of your training and certification documents validating your alleged authority to act as a certified traffic enforcement officer under authority properly delegated by the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas to enforce the traffic laws pursuant to Texas Administrative Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, Rule 4.13(b). Be aware that these training requirements are mandatory no matter what type of law enforcement officer you are and MUST be completed BEFORE any lawful authority to enforce state traffic laws may be delegated. You must also be located in one of the specifically defined municipalities or counties meeting the specified criteria within Rule 4.13(a) of that same chapter, to wit:
RULE §4.11 General Applicability and Definitions
(b) Terms. Certain terms, when used in the federal regulations as adopted in subsection (a) of this section, will be defined as follows:
…
(4) department means the Texas Department of Public Safety;
RULE §4.13 Authority to Enforce, Training and Certificate Requirements
(a) Authority to Enforce.
(1) An officer of the department may stop, enter or detain on a highway or at a port of entry a motor vehicle that is subject to Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644.
(2) A non-commissioned employee of the department that is trained and certified to enforce the federal safety regulations may stop, enter or detain at a commercial motor vehicle inspection site, or at a port of entry, a motor vehicle that is subject to Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644.
(3) An officer of the department or a non-commissioned employee of the department that is trained and certified to enforce the federal safety regulations may prohibit the further operation of a vehicle on a highway or at a port of entry if the vehicle or operator of the vehicle is in violation of Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 522, or a federal safety regulation or rule adopted under Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644, by declaring the vehicle or operator out-of-service using the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria as a guideline.
(4) Municipal police officers from any of the following Texas cities meeting the training and certification requirements contained in subsection (b) of this section and certified by the department may stop, enter or detain on a highway or at a port of entry within the municipality a motor vehicle subject to Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644:
(A) a municipality with a population of 50,000 or more;
(B) a municipality with a population of 25,000 or more, any part of which is located in a county with a population of 500,000 or more;
(C) a municipality any part of which is located in a county bordering the United Mexican States;
(D) a municipality with a population of less than 25,000, any part of which is located in a county with a population of 2.4 million and that contains or is adjacent to an international port;
(E) a municipality with a population of less than 5,000 that is located adjacent to a bay connected to the Gulf of Mexico and in a county adjacent to a county with a population greater than 3.3 million;
(F) a municipality with a population of 60,000 or more any part of which is located in a county with a population of 750,000 or more and in two or more counties with a combined population of one million or more; or
(G) a municipality with a population of at least 34,000 that is located in a county that borders two or more states.
(5) A sheriff, or deputy sheriff from any of the following Texas counties meeting the training and certification requirements contained in subsection (b) of this section and certified by the department, may stop, enter or detain on a highway or at a port of entry within the county a motor vehicle subject to Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644:
(A) a county bordering the United Mexican States, or
(B) a county with a population of 2.2 million or more.
(6) A constable, or deputy constable, designated under Texas Transportation Code, § 621.4015, meeting the training and certification requirements contained in subsection (b) of this section and certified by the department, may stop, enter or detain on a highway within the county a motor vehicle subject to Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644.
(7) A certified peace officer from an authorized municipality or county may prohibit the further operation of a vehicle on a highway or at a port of entry within the municipality or county if the vehicle or operator of the vehicle is in violation of Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 522, or a federal safety regulation or rule adopted under Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 644, by declaring the vehicle or operator out-of-service using the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria as a guideline.
(b) Training and Certification Requirements.
(1) Minimum standards. Certain peace officers from the municipalities and counties specified in subsection (a) of this section before being certified to enforce this article must meet the following standards:
(A) successfully complete the North American Standard Roadside Inspection Course;
(B) successfully complete the Texas Intrastate Roadside Inspection Course (Part C), if initial certification occurs on or after January 1, 2006, or if recertification is required under subsection (c)(4) of this section; and
(C) participate in an on-the-job training program following the North American Standard Roadside Inspection Course with a certified officer and perform a minimum of 32 level I inspections. These inspections should be completed as soon as practicable, but no later than six months after course completion.
This notice is given to afford you the opportunity to acknowledge the law, the unalienable rights of Affiant, and to weigh your decisions and actions accordingly and carefully. It is also given in a courtesy attempt to protect you from yourself. Any acts you commit against Affiant that are in violation of law and/or Affiant’s God-given unalienable rights will result in Affiant’s seeking legal remedy against you personally for those acts. Before asserting and acting on the presumption that you are protected by official or governmental immunity from suit and/or liability for whatever acts you perpetrate against Affiant, it is recommended you consult an attorney and confirm that your alleged immunity does not exist under Texas law regarding a tort claim for violation of a self-enacting clause of the Texas constitution and/or for any ultra vires act(s) initiated, conspired to, and/or aided or abetted by you in violation of Texas law. Affiant acknowledges and respects the dangerous duties officers are tasked with and your diligence and willingness to perform those duties. But Affiant wishes to make clear that Affiant does not and will not submit to any violation of Affiant’s unalienable rights in order to facilitate or empower those tasks or duties beyond the powers granted to Affiant’s public servants by Affiant and the People themselves via the laws stated herein.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
—Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
—Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”
—Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945
Officer, you have been warned and properly noticed of the potential circumstances of your actions if you proceed to act against Affiant in any manner contrary to law and Affiant’s unalienable rights. This document is now evidence in any potential proceeding that you have been so informed and you are required by law to secure this document for later production upon demand in a court of competent jurisdiction if you proceed. It is a felony to alter, secrete or otherwise destroy evidence. Your failure to produce this document at trial will result in Affiant filing additional criminal charges against you pursuant to PENAL CODE Sec. 37.09(a)(1) TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and Sec. 37.10(a)(3) TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD.
Officer, as you are acting in your capacity as my public servant it is my right and my duty to inform you that you appear to be operating in ignorance of the law, and while somewhat understandable it is still not excusable. If you take exception to being referred to as ignorant of the law then please consider the alternative, that you are in fact not ignorant of the law, and you are intentionally acting against Affiant in direct violation of said law, which establishes that the act is/was committed knowingly and maliciously on your part. Is this statement more accurate and appealing to you? Therefore, if your intention is to charge and/or arrest Affiant for an alleged offense pursuant to some section of the commercial statutes within the TTrC such as no driver’s license, no insurance, no inspection, no license plates, no registration, speeding, or any other charge so related and based upon your assumption-in-ignorance regarding the proper application and intent of the commercial TTrC, then please be aware of the following:
- Affiant stands upon the right of not being compelled to testify against myself under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Texas Constitution Article 1 Sec. 10. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, providing you with any documentation or statements that can be used against Affiant in a court of law. Affiant therefore politely but firmly refuses to acquiesce to your demands for “…license, insurance, and registration”. Any attempt to punish Affiant for refusal to provide you with any such information shall be construed as an intentional violation of the self-enacting clauses of the respective constitutions as stated above and will result in both criminal charges and related tort actions being filed against you and each Officer involved. This includes, but is not limited to, charges against the officer(s) in question for filing false charges under PENAL CODE Sec. 38.02 in retaliation for Affiant’s refusal to provide evidence or testimony that may be used against Affiant and that any use of Sec. 38.02 for that purpose is unquestionably unconstitutional and unlawful.
- Affiant’s private automobile is asserted as and is to be construed as private property. It is neither public property, commercial use property, nor is it a “motor vehicle” designated for use in either of these capacities. Affiant is either the sole owner or holder under private contract of the private property in question. To Affiant’s knowledge the STATE has no claim or financial concern in/to this property and is not party to any contract with Affiant to that effect, nor has Affiant ever willingly or knowingly consented to the granting of such authority or claim to the STATE or any of it’s agencies or agents, this includes but is not limited to you and your “official duties”.
Driver’s License
- Section 521.001(a)(3) states that the “Driver’s License” is a “temporary license”, “instruction permit” or an “occupational license” and reads as follows:
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE B. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS
CHAPTER 521. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 521.001. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this chapter:
…
(3) “Driver’s license” means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes:
(A) a temporary license or instruction permit; and
(B) an occupational license.
- Is there some undisclosed “secret license” not named in Sec. 521.001(3)? If not then please specify which of the three named variations of the “driver’s license” you intend to cite me for not possessing.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE B. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS
CHAPTER 521. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES
SUBCHAPTER B. GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver’s license issued under this chapter.
- Section 521.021 states that it is a “person” who must acquire the “driver’s license” that is “…issued under this chapter” and can only be one of the three forms listed, so I ask you again, which one?
- The term “Person” as used in Chapter 521 above has no local definition, therefore pursuant to Government Code Chapter 311.005(2) the term is defined as:
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 3. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE B. LEGISLATION
CHAPTER 311. CODE CONSTRUCTION ACT
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 311.005. GENERAL DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply unless the statute or context in which the word or phrase is used requires a different definition:
…
(2) “Person” includes corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity.
- Please be prepared to articulate your understanding of the terms “Person and “legal entity” pursuant to Gov. Code Chapter 311 and your intention to declare by sworn statement under penalty of perjury that Affiant is a legal entity since Affiant asserts by affidavit that he/she is a man/woman and NOT any type of legal entity.
- Please also be prepared to explain what the legal differences are in the license classification requirements as they relate to the types of motor vehicle stated in TTrC § 521.081-085.
- Please be prepared to articulate your understanding of the terms “temporary license” pursuant to TTrC § 521.124, “occupational license” pursuant to TTrC § 521.242, and “instruction permit” pursuant to TTrC § 521.222
- Therefore Affiant demands to know your probable cause, as well as your factual and/or evidentiary basis to assert/accuse that:
- Affiant is/was actively engaged in an occupation, business, or profession that requires Affiant to obtain and use such a license; or
- that Affiant has been convicted of DUI/DWI resulting in the suspension of a commercial driver’s license (CDL) issued to Affiant and in Affiant’s possession for that purpose; and
- that Affiant is/was ordered and is required to be in possession of an occupational license by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction over Affiant to enforce such an order.
- Since the legislature saw fit to require licensing only for those engaged in commerce then there must be a definite commercial relationship between a “license” and a “motor vehicle”, that relationship being that both are being used on the roads and highways for the purpose of commercial business, leaving you with little choice but to acknowledge that the license and its intended purpose is commercial in nature, not private.
- There is no law in Texas that requires a private Citizen to obtain or possess a “driver’s license” for the purpose of traveling upon the roads and highways viatically in their own private automobile/conveyance. It is nothing short of fraud for the various law enforcement agencies and lower courts to apply commercial law to a private Citizen. The law specifically applies only to those actively engaged in using the roads and highways as a place of business and commerce.
- Affiant asserts that Affiant is/was NOT engaging in any commercial enterprise or business on the roads and highways of Texas or any other state of the union when interfered with by you/the Officer, but is/was traveling for Affiant’s own personal business and/or pleasure, and no such license is or can be required for this purpose as Affiant is entitled to full access and use of the roads and highways as they are open to the public as a matter of right for the purpose of private vehicular travel:
NATURAL RESOURCES CODE
TITLE 3. OIL AND GAS
SUBTITLE D. REGULATION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESSES AND OCCUPATIONS
CHAPTER 114. OIL TANKER VEHICLES
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(5) “Public highway” means a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel, even if the way or place is temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or repair.
- If your intention is to charge Affiant with speeding please be prepared to articulate your understanding of TTrC 201.904 and TTrC §§ 545.351& 545.352 regarding what is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing and what specifically constitutes evidence and notice to the public of the prima facie speed limits stated in Sec. 545.352(b)(1)-(5).
- If your intention is to charge Affiant with any other alleged “crime” under the Texas Transportation Code then please be prepared to explain your specific method and reasoning resulting in drawing the legal conclusion that Affiant is subject to the commercial transportation laws and that you/the Officer are somehow not subject to either the training and certification requirements or the specific municipality or county criteria as set forth and mandated as required by Texas Administrative Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, Rule 4.13(b).
- Failure on your part to provide verifiable evidence that you are in fact properly trained, certified, and located in one of the specific municipal or county locations specified and required by law will result in the presumption that you are in fact acting without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
Affiant reasserts that Affiant is not now nor has I the recent past been engaged in any commercial activity, business or enterprise upon the roads and highways of Texas but is doing nothing more that exercising an unalienable right to liberty and the use of Affiant’s private property for private non-=commercial vehicular travel.
I hereby do affirm under penalty of perjury that all information contained in this affidavit is true and correct to the best of my ability and that this information was presented upon request or demand for some form of one or more of the following; “driver’s license”; “registration”; “proof of insurance” or “proof of financial responsibility”.
_____________________________________________________ ________________
Affiant Name Date
_____________________________________________________ ________________
Witness Name Date
_____________________________________________________ ________________
Witness Name Date
John Witten
December 16, 2009
That is worthless as the Bits and Bytes it is written on. The Transportation code section that whatever idiot is trying to bend this to fit his criteria is the Commercial Motor Vehicle Statute (644) This is the section which allows License and Weight (Certified Traffic Enforcement Officers) to inspect under the Federal CMV Statutes Etc. Not your everyday street cop.
The farse about not requiring a drivers license is taking Words out of context and using it for their own good. 521 “Does” require a person whom is operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway to possess a “license. I would be embarassed if whoever composed this “piece” of work has any sort of Legal background.
You should look up people “Copywriting” their name to prevent unauthorized reproduction. It will get you about as far as this would.
vaginal_discharge
December 16, 2009
Joey, are you taking law courses from Mike Treist again? Whatever happened to him?
charlotted
December 17, 2009
Someone spent a lot of time on a worthless affidavit.
His Majesty Sovergin King of Bakers Acers
December 17, 2009
Joey it is very obvious that the [persons] who are commenting on the Affidavit and Judicial Notice above do not understand the word person as it used in the code. I do not know any of these [ persons] but i do know Eddy Craig. He is not a [person] as described in the code. He is a live flesh and blood man not a fictious person, these people do not have a clue as to what they are saying or what Eddy is talking about.These persons are what i refer to as educated idiots who have been educated beyond their intellect. They dont understand definitions when reading the statutes in the code But they are very good at opening their Alagator mouth and quickly overloading their Kill De ASS with tons of igorance.These persons do not know the diference between a commercial vehicle and a private veicle…….. My people pearish for a lack of knowledge
charlotted
December 17, 2009
I may be stupid, or ignorant, or not have a clue, but I know this thing isn’t going anywhere.
His Majesty Sovergin King of Bakers Acers
December 17, 2009
charlotted you are right for the most part. If you hire an attorney. They would not touch this with a ten foot pole because their Bar card gravy ticket would be toast.But on the other hand if you would take the time to read the constitution and the bill of rights you would know that the power lies in the people not attorneys. Attorneys work for the court and they dont love you They throw people to the wolves on a daily basis to protect that Bar card gravy ticket The rule of law that will protect your God given rights as a sovereign will never be brought up. When the people get off their lazy asses and learn to go into court thimselves we will once again enjoy the freedom that thousands of brave men have fought and died for. When the people fear their Government you have Tyranny When the government fears the people you have FREEDOM Get off your ass and learn the law before it is to late Then you too can be a King in this wonderfull land of ours.God Bless
Moral Center
December 18, 2009
Hahahahaha. I am not sure who is a bigger idiot, the writer or His Majesty. John is 100% correct about the origin of this farce. I will also go you one better. It specifically states that operating a motor vehicle is a “Priviledge” not a right. I hope to be there when you hand this to some DPS Trooper.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
December 18, 2009
Well it apears there are more alligators in the pond another one just slithered out and opened his big Igorant mouth!It is only a priviledge if it is a commercial vehicle.By the way igorant is not a bad word it just means you do not know something.You can overcome igorance but don’t be stupid You have a right by law to travel in your private vehicle you people just wont learn to read the definitions sections when reading the code, don:t take my word for it GOOGLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL CASES There are Humpteen of them. You have been deceived by sneaky snakes and the boobe tube.Ifyou love FREEDOM STUDY THE LAW YOURSELF DON’T TAKE ANYONES WORD FOR IT ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, YOUR MONEY
charlotted
December 18, 2009
Two points; Don’t believe everything you read on the internet;
Read the constitution
Just a thought, do you want people driving on the highways that have absolutely no clue about the traffic laws and operation of a vehicle. We are in the age of over-populated areas, super technology, and super means of transportation. This free travel idea was great in 1823, but in 2009, I can’t see your point. Try living with the Mormans in Utah. That might be more suited to your lifestyle. But then again, that’s my un-educated opinion.
Crow T. Robot
December 18, 2009
“My people pearish for a lack of knowledge”
My people are the target of genocide, and persish from the muzzle of a gun, or the biological warfare being conducted through the CDC and WHO through the guise of “vacinations” for the common good of the public.
charlotted
December 18, 2009
My people were also targeted for genocide, but since it didn’t happen, I guess they could have just stayed in Europe and helped Hitler become King of the World.
About those vaccinations; 800,000 doses of flu vaccine was re-called because it was too old to be effective. How is that possible when there was such a shortage of the vaccine? This is the govt. we want in charge of our health care?
Half of Obama’s campaign promises have been met. We have a lot of CHANGE, but still no HOPE.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
December 19, 2009
YOU just don’t get it do you Wodrow. To quote Robert Duval in the movie LONSOME DOVE. Charlot if that is your name, i think there is hope for you i am impreased that you know that we still have a constitution. I do see some signs of a Freedom loving Texan in you. However somewhat misguided. I sence that you were educated like me in the public fool system i mean school system i have trouble keeping that straight. Their main goal is to teach you to do as you are told and never think for yourself,because if you start thinking for your self you just might figure things out and start asking questions and we can’t have that now can we. Well i have a question for you. Where did you get the idea that the same laws of 1823 won’t protect you today as it did back then,or 5000 years from now for that matter? The real law says if i damage you or your property i PAY YOU NOT THE STATE COUNTY OR CITY,AND YOU get to say what those damages are.IT dosen’t matter about traffic laws because you have an unaleanable God given constutional guarnted right not to be damaged.But if you are damaged you get the money not the state, county, or city.WHO got damaged?Food for thought. Lets say you get sideswiped by a drunk with no liscens insurance or regestration, you wind up in the hospital You may wind up paying towing,hospital, and other related bills and never get a dime from the party that damaged you. But guess who will get paid if he lived through the crash WHO GOT DAMAGED? My kind of law makes people responsible for their actions they pay you not the state BUT you see the powers that be dont make any money when we follow true law but you do. Government dose not love you but they sure like to take your money.
charlotted
December 19, 2009
So far, the government has ruined the free enterprise system, the banking system, the corporate system of checks and balances, medicare, medicaid, the military, the justice system, the judicial system, the school system, and a few more I can’t think of right now. If you think I am a defender of the government takeover, you really need to re read all my posts, not just the ones you disagree with. I don’t have a clue of what you are trying to say, but know this, if we keep giving this government more and more power, then we will perish from our own ignorance and apathy, as there is no one to blame but the 85% of the people that sit at home and don’t vote and even worse, don’t have a clue of what is happening around them. History teachers can’t tell you who shot president Lincoln, govt. teachers can’t tell what significance Dec 7, 1941 had on the U.S. But they can teach songs to children about how great Obama is and teach how great the unions were. So, you tell me where this country is headed. And who is being DAMAGED. And who loves your money.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
December 20, 2009
well brother john i hope you like crow cause i’m sending you a bucket full call the Rock Dale police department Rock Dale Texas see if they know Eddy Craig About a mounth ago he was returning home from a law seminar he was teaching in Austin when he was stoped for speeding where it was discovered he had no liscens no regestration no proof of insurance no liscens plate the officer who eddy said was very professional called in and the chief ordered him to bring him in where he put up 200 dollar bond was carried back to his car and he drove home. Did you get that? U see he had passed out all of his copies of the affidavit at the siminar but he gave the officer a copy of the siminar material the officer promised to read it Before he could prepare paper work for his case he recived check in the mail for 200 dollars and a letter dismissing ALL CAHRGES Now dose that sound like someone who is igorant of the law? Don’t look now but you got egg all over your face
Alfred Davis
December 20, 2009
WOW! I just don’t have the nerve to try, but sounds like a thing of interest. I would bet that the document is true and correct, sounds real good anyway but I just cannot imagine any law enforcement around here giving the thing a second thought before they did not let you out fo jail or give your car back. This is a fight I personally cannot take on, just call me chicken.
charlotted
December 21, 2009
So, (if this were true) you are condoning driving wreckless on public streets and highways with complete disregard for the rights of others. Eddie Craig has probably done what his law enforcement career could not do for him, that is, get his name in the papers. A Baylor University professor has discredited his theory as I am sure any appellate court will do likewise.
BTW, Rockdale is one word.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
December 21, 2009
There u go again charlotted you sure assume a lot. I have alredy stated that gods law makes every one responsible for his own actions.you don’t harm any one or their property if u do u pay, that stil works today.Question stop signs say stop who says go? Did you get that? There is nothing wrong with safe instruction signs, but man made laws will not stop an iresponsible person from breaking eather gods law or mans laws. A lot of man made law is for revenue not for safety. By the way who pays that so called professor?GOOGLE right to travle ask the professor to explain all the court cases u find there that say u have a right to travel.Thanks for the english lesson But my spelling dose not matter as long as we have a meeting of the minds.
charlotted
December 22, 2009
So, you assume that without these “man-made” laws, people will adhere to the rights of others without any threat of consequences. True, “man made laws will not stop an irresponsible person from breaking either Gods law or mans laws”. Fact, how many law abiding citizens will drive the speed limit without the threat of a ticket, how many will stop at stop signs or not run through red lights, if not for the threat of a ticket or some sort of judicial punishment. My point is, even good people will stretch the limits if there is no consequence to their action, even the threat of a serious wreck, injuring or killing innocent persons. How many drunk drivers intended to kill innocent people when they got behind the wheel. Probably none. True, laws don’t stop all problems, but they at least keep the ratio down and strive to make it better. If your guy Craig is such a great guy, why was he speeding? Isn’t he a responsible person? If a state law didn’t stop him from speeding, what other violations would he commit?
John Witten
December 22, 2009
I would hardly call you posting Un-verified information “Eating Crow”. Post what you may but the Monkey is on “Your” back to prove your Information. That affidavit that you cling to so dearly is a Joke. Again I would be embarassed if someone with a “Legal” Background (Lawyer, or even a washed up has been cop) etc. wrote that. Your Savior “Eddie” Craig is attempting to use statutes that dont apply to him to justify his actions. It would be like me picking words out of your post to form my own sentence and calling it your statement.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
December 22, 2009
John you are a DODO and you sound like a lawyer Lawyers are good at making statements that they don’t understand Like the one about Eddy Craig atttempting to use statutes that dont apply to him. That’s just it you igmo they dont apply to him they are for commerical drivers not private travlers read the code see who it is talking about You got to be an attorney only an attorney can be that igorant or deceptive GOOGLE Right to travel explain all these cases Mr attorney
number1son
December 22, 2009
Let Eddie Craig educate you on traffic issues any Monday night here: http://www.ruleoflawradio.com
Call in and correct the record if you can prove he is wrong and he will listen, be ready to back up your research with sufficient statutes, definitions, findings of fact and conclusions of law. One of our most precious rights is to know the truth. The truth sets us free. Will you help find the truth and set us (and your own children) free or do you have another agenda?
Oh yes, ALL of the previous shows are archived and can be downloaded for free here: http://ruleoflawradio.com/archive/
E-mail Eddie Craig here: Eddie@RuleOfLawRadio.com
“Rule Of Law” http://www.ruleoflawradio.com
Randy “Due Process” Kelton, Deborah “Grand Jury” Stevens, & Eddie “Traffic Code” Craig
Call in live 512 646-1984 or Listen Live 512 485-9010
Mondays & Thursdays 8-10, Fridays 8-Midnight CST
Rule of Law Radio Network is an INTERNET-BASED BROADCAST NETWORK, like GCN, NPR, etc. Rule Of Law Radio Network is an internet stream only, soon to be a syndicated satellite feed. Terrestrial AM & FM stations such as 90.1 are AFFILIATE stations of Rule Of Law Radio Network that simply rebroadcast the Network stream. Rule of Law Radio Network has MANY FM & AM affiliates in various states, and 90.1 FM in Austin is one of them.
Listen and learn!
Eddie Craig
December 22, 2009
To all that have posted comments regarding the traffic affidavit and judicial notice, greetings. I am so glad that you all have your opinions on the affidavit, and for those that tend to disregard or deny the validity of the information therein, I can only say that once again it is obvious that most people are more happy or comfortable with what they think they know rather than the truth of what is.
Commentators such as John Witten, charlotted, and Moral Center, while welcome, truly show their ignorance of the subject matter, but are more likely to simply be agent provocateurs that wish to spread disinformation and doubt about the subject on behalf of those that currently profit the most from it, and to which I say, shame, and may God forgive you for leading honest people astray for your own evil purposes. Did any of you actually go to the Administrative Code and try to read anything at all for yourselves? I sincerely doubt it.
I have spent over eleven years studying the various codes quoted in this affidavit, along with several others, how long have any of you nay-sayers spent doing the same? The “person” that posted the comment stating that the one section of the code quoted in the affidavit dealt with commercial motor vehicles is quite correct, but that person fails to comprehend the whole set of facts.
I want to ask a simple question of the commentators, “Can any governmental agency do that which is not authorized in law?” If there is any amount of truly functional brain-cells collectively among you then you already know that the simple answer is “No”. Without a constitutional provision or statutory law delegating a particular authority to a governmental agency, agent, office or employee, the authority to do that thing or act simply does not exist.
Government may NOT do whatever it likes, it is bound by We the People and the rules WE set forth through the legislature. By operation of the same delegation of authority requirement, the legislature may not delegate any power or authority that was not first delegated to it by We the People. If you think otherwise then you truly have no concept of either a constitution or a republican form of government, so please go back or relocate to whatever communist country appeals to you the most, your kind is not welcome here in Texas. Try Washington D.C., they seem to be socialistic and fascist enough for your ilk.
Now, since the Texas Administrative Code sections shown in the affidavit is where the lawful “traffic law” enforcement authority for the Texas Dept. of Public Safety (TxDPS) originally and specifically is created, as well as how it is to be delegated to local officers, and it grants authority for enforcing traffic law ONLY against “commercial and for hire traffic” how is it to be interpreted that it also applies to “non-commercial and not for hire” private automobiles? We can see pursuant Texas Administrative Code Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.4, that it does not, to wit:
===============================================================
Texas Administrative Code
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
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=1&rl=2
===============================================================
I would now like to ask the nay-sayers, where in these statutes is the authority delegated for regulating “non-commercial and “not for hire” traffic? Can YOU produce the statutory authority that delegates that regulatory power? Can you? Where is it? Tell us all, please! Show me the statute and I will take it all back, every single word and admit publicly that I do not know what I am talking about… any takers? No? Didn’t think so…
Did any of you notice item (2)? Did you notice that it specifically limits the authority to “regulate” traffic to “commercial and for hire traffic”? Can you find any other statute ANYWHERE that delegates ANY original enforcement authority to the TxDPS? I can guarantee you that unless there is some unpublished, super-secret set of law books hidden away from the eyes and access of the People of Texas, it DOES NOT EXIST!!
Everything in the Texas Transportation Code regarding “traffic law” enforcement is administered by the TxDPS, whose authority to enforce is set forth within the Texas Administrative Code, NOT the Texas Transportation Code. The Transportation Code is simply the actual rules regarding the implementation of the authority to enforce and nothing more. And since there can be no rules for an authority that has not been delegated, that means they are strictly limited to what HAS been delegated, specifically COMMERCIAL and “for hire” traffic regulation and enforcement.
These two Rules within the Administrative Code are but one small piece of the puzzle, but both tie directly into Texas Administrative Code Title 37, Rule 4.13 as stated in the Affidavit.
Maybe you wish to also argue that this Rule is taken out of context as well:
===============================================================
Texas Administrative Code
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 §1.4 Programs under Texas Highway Patrol Division
(a) Highway Patrol Service. The program of the Highway Patrol Service is “Police Traffic Supervision and General Law Enforcement on Rural Highways.” This program consists of the following major activities:
(1) Police traffic supervision on rural highways:
(A) police traffic direction;
(B) police traffic accident investigation; and
(C) police traffic law enforcement and patrol.
(2) General police work–primarily on rural highways:
(A) criminal law enforcement;
(B) emergencies and disasters; and
(C) security activities.
(b) Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Service. The program of the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Service is “The Supervision of Commercial Vehicles, Police Traffic Supervision, and General Law Enforcement on Rural Highways.” This program includes the following major activities:
(1) Supervision of commercial vehicle traffic:
(A) assistance to commercial vehicle owners and operators on technical matters;
(B) supervision of motor carrier operations; and
(C) traffic law enforcement on commercial vehicles.
(2) Traffic and criminal law enforcement on rural highways.
(c) Vehicle Inspection Service. The program of the Vehicle Inspection Service is “Vehicle Inspection Station Supervision, Police Traffic Supervision, and General Law Enforcement.” This program includes the following major activities:
(1) Inspection station supervision:
(A) station qualification;
(B) station inspection;
(C) station control; and
(D) supervision of emissions testing.
(2) Traffic and criminal law enforcement by vehicle inspection commissioned officers.
(d) Bureau of Law Enforcement Communications and Technology. The program of the Bureau of Law Enforcement Communications and Technology is “Police Communication and Technology Support.” This program consists of the following activities:
(1) Police Communications:
(A) Transmission and receipt of department messages;
(B) Transmission and receipt of emergency-type messages for other police agencies; and
(C) Other special assistance to other departments and agencies.
(2) Communication Frequency and Interoperability:
(A) Radio Frequency planning and coordination internally and interoperability with other agencies.
(B) Radio and video technical maintenance and repair.
(3) Mobile Technology and Information-Responsible for Mobile Technology and Communications Infrastructure Support.
(e) General Obligations. Personnel of all services, agencies, and units in the department are subject to assignment by the director to perform in any program or activity when he deems such assignments necessary.
(f) Motor Carrier Bureau. The program of the Motor Carrier Bureau is to provide administrative support applicable to the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Service relative to motor carrier safety issues. This program consists of the following sections.
(1) The Motor Carrier Safety Section will provide the support to administer the Motor Carrier Safety Requirements.
(2) The Motor Carrier Records Section maintains all activity reports submitted by the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Service.
(3) The Motor Carrier Compliance Audit Section performs the administrative function of the enforcement of the Motor Carrier Safety and Hazardous Materials Regulations.
Source Note: The provisions of this §1.4 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976; amended to be effective May 27, 1987, 12 TexReg 1565; amended to be effective November 20, 1987, 12 TexReg 4123; amended to be effective December 6, 1989, 14 TexReg 6176; amended to be effective March 2, 1998, 23 TexReg 1987; amended to be effective August 4, 1998, 23 TexReg 7841; amended to be effective July 17, 2003, 28 TexReg 5540; amended to be effective August 13, 2009, 34 TexReg 5409
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=1&rl=4
===============================================================
Under Rule 1.4 above what authority to initiate and administer “programs” is specifically delegated to the TxDPS? Can you find ANY that do not specifically apply ONLY to commercial activities and vehicles? Do you see anything there that allows the TxDPS to enforce these “programs” against ANYTHING that is “non-commercial” or “not for hire”?
So please, I invite you, any of you, to find and produce for public scrutiny the actual statutory enactment that delegates to the TxDPS ANY authority to regulate the private property of the People of Texas, which is what our automobiles actually are, they are not “motor vehicles” as a “motor vehicle” is being used specifically for commercial activities upon the roadways, which is what places them under the Transportation Code statutes for regulatory purposes. Try looking up the definitions for “motor vehicle” and “vehicle” within the Transportation Code, you will quickly find that in every instance it defines “motor vehicle” like this “”Motor vehicle” means a vehicle that is self-propelled.”, and that a “vehicle” is “”Vehicle” means a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.” Notice also that “motor vehicle” is a compound definition in that its definition contains another term that is itself defined later on in that section, specifically the term “vehicle”.
What does the terms “Transportation” and “Traffic” mean in law? Why don’t you look them up before you pretend to know what you’re talking about? Try Black’s Law, you might even gain some insight into terminology within law versus common english. Did you notice that a “vehicle” is only a “vehicle” if “a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway” by it? Hmmm, does Greyhound or trucking companies “transport or draw” persons or property upon the highway for commercial purposes? Now, how many family automobiles are engaged in transporting or drawing the owning family or friends upon the highway for commercial purposes? That’s right, NONE!
By the way, do any of you know, or have you even considered just where the legislature got the authority to “regulate” the People themselves? No? I didn’t think so, but maybe you should start asking those questions. How about this one… “under the authority of what power(s) did the Texas legislature enact the Texas Transportation Code?”
If you said the “Police Powers” then go back to your corner, be quiet, and continue sucking your thumb, let the grown-ups talk.
Since the Texas Constitution does not grant the legislature any authority within its text to form a “Transportation Department” or any “law enforcement” agency or office of any kind other than county Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, and Constable in Article 5, where did the TxDPS and municipal “law enforcement” authority come from?
There can be only one place since the Texas Constitution does not specifically delegate it, and that is from the “General Powers”, which is found in Article 16 General Provisions of the Texas Constitution. And since these agencies could only have sprung up under the general powers of government, what does Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 29 state regarding the general powers of government? Let me guess, you don’t know, because YOU haven’t read it, and if you did, you didn’t understand it. Well, let me help you before you sprain yourself mentally with the effort:
===============================================================
Sec. 29. PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
===============================================================
ANYTHING that the government creates, establishes, or authorizes under the general powers of government is FORBIDDEN to interfere with or to be otherwise utilized in preventing, diminishing, or destroying any right(s) of the People enumerated in the Bill of Rights or that is specifically NOT delegated to the People’s government, thus being unenumerated and STILL retained by the People, not government.
I emphatically state for the record that as one of the People I do not recognize the authority of any other living soul or governmental body to determine which of my unalienable rights may or may not be exercised and when, nor do I recognize any such authority regarding the availability and use of my private property to and/or by my self or family. I hold inseparably to the ideal that no man or group of men may deprive me of any of my unalienable rights or private property except by due process and course of the law of the land. A legislative act or vote is not due process of law, especially if said act is in violation of the People’s United States and Texas Constitution’s respective Bill of Rights, nor may any such act or vote serve to do that thing which the People’s constitutions forbid.
So, UNTIL you can actually cite law that supersedes the existing Texas Constitution provisions, historical case law, and the statutes themselves, you’re all jut blowing hot air with you nay-saying regarding the contents of the Affidavit. Either be willing to put in the effort to PROVE me wrong, and then possibly sound more intelligent than you currently do with your uneducated and uninformed opinions or stop trying to tear down something that you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about and lack the brain-power to understand without an interpreter. Which, by the way, makes you all sound more like major media talking heads than anyone with real brains or information,
By the way, the traffic seminar material on which the affidavit is based has successfully beaten two attempted citations by officers and a third in the City of Rockdale Texas municipal court within which it was introduced by the officer himself, without the accused filing a single document in the case. The court and prosecutor dismissed the case before it could even be assigned a case file number. One of the officers in question WAS a TxDPS Trooper who had stopped a seminar attendee on his way home to Michigan. Upon seeing the contents of the seminar material the officer ceased his illegal search of the unlawfully stopped automobile and told the occupants that they were free to go while immediately returning to his patrol car and making a hasty withdrawal.
What can YOU nay-sayers produce to prove that you know better about what the law is or what it means and applies to?
I am on the internet radio broadcast of http://www.ruleoflawradio.com on Monday nights from 8pm – 10pm dealing with traffic law questions and issues. If you are actually interested in learning something real instead of acting in ignorance then I invite you to visit the web site and listen in for yourself.
Regards,
Eddie Eugene Craig
Author of said Affidavit
Eddie Craig
December 22, 2009
BTW, the above reply is specifically directed to the nay-sayers, not those that have actually listened to the facts and understand that there is more to the statutes than is visible to the naked and unstudied eye.
To all those that have made a real effort to understand the law and use it to regain their right of liberty and to travel freely without encumbrance of state regulation, I say thank you for your support and your efforts to spread the word and do what is right, for yourselves and your posterity.
Eddie Craig
December 23, 2009
Also, BTW Charlotted, your commentary on how many “good” people would be so considerate of others if not for the fear of getting a ticket from a police officer deserves a response.
Since your assumption and context in this comment is that the fear of a ticket is the ONLY thing that keeps people from becoming totally out of control and irresponsible, how do you explain the fact that in the vast majority of these so-called “public benefit” citations you seem to love there is NO injured party nor was there ever any real threat or danger from the one ticketed?
You seem to automatically presume that a ticketed driver was being reckless or careless, when in fact that is rarely the case. Have YOU never had a traffic ticket that you thought was utter BS but paid it anyway to simply make it go away so you would not be bothered by it any longer? Did you try to fight it? Did you win? If you won on what did you base your argument that convinced the almost totally corrupt and morally bankrupt municipal and justice court judges that you were right and the officer was wrong? Yeah, my point exactly.
As far as some sort of “judicial” repercussion for their actions, just exactly what do you think having to be personally responsible and liable for ones own actions amounts to? If I harmed someone then they can certainly press charges and/or sue me in court. But if I have done nothing to harm that same someone then by what right or based on what harm do they press those charges or file that civil suit? Without the harm, that man or woman has NO STANDING to come after me for anything in a court of law.
The same thing applies in these traffic cases, without any substantive harm, and being made to show proof of that harm, the STATE claims an injury for which there is no substantive harm, which is something that NO OTHER CLAIMANT can do in a court of law. How is that constitutional or lawful?
In the Rockdale case where I was pulled over for “speeding” I happened to be the in the middle of two other automobiles that were traveling in the lane next to me when the officer came by. This particular stretch of roadway was a lined-median divided four lanes. At the time I was in fact being passed by the lead vehicle. When the officer made his u-turn it was the other two automobiles that reacted to him, not me, but I got pulled over anyway, can you explain why that was?
Now, the officer admitted that he had pulled me over based on the alleged charge of speeding, so I asked him on what he based that speed limit and how was the public to be informed of the limit. He again politely responded that it was posted on the speed signs along the side of the road and that was what he used to determine that I was allegedly in violation of the posted speed limit.
So, since your so sure you know more about the subject than I or those that have made an actual effort to read the codes in question, can you please explain the following section of the Texas Transportation Code so that it proves YOUR point rather than mine about the commercial-only applicability of said code regarding speed limits in Texas:
=============================================================================
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 6. ROADWAYS
SUBTITLE A. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER K. ROAD AND HIGHWAY USE; SIGNS
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).
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
=============================================================================
Funny, but it appears that the LAW states that the speed signs and the speed limits that they designate for a particular stretch of Texas highway applies only to those that are “operating” a “commercial motor vehicle” and NOT a private automobile… or am I taking that statute out of context as well?
FYI, a “motor vehicle” and a “commercial motor vehicle” have only ONE distinction between them, the “commercial motor vehicle” can display a hazardous materials placard while the “motor vehicle cannot. If you doubt this then try reading the tables within Sects. 521 and 522 Texas Transportation Code and see if the types of “authorized” “motor vehicles” do not match EXACTLY for each “class” of license. And while your in Sec. 522 why don’t you see that the TxDPS is only authorized to issue a “class” of “commercial driver’s licenses”, there is NO designation for a “private license”.
You can argue that Sec. 521 is where the normal driver’s license is allowed, but you would once again be showing your ignorance. Read ALL of chapter 521 and you will quickly see that the three “types” of “licenses” that make up the so-called “driver’s license” simply are either temporary and must be replaced by some other type of license at some point, in the case of the “Temporary License” and “Learner’s Permit”, or in the case of the “occupational license” can ONLY be issued by a judge AFTER your “real” license has been suspended for a DUI conviction or an APR hearing.
There are only two chapters of the Transportation Code that speak to the subject of licensure, they are Chapters 521 and 522. If you disagree then please find the “other one” and show it to me and the people reading these comments.
Which means that, based solely on the statutes themselves, there is actually only one type of license that the TxDPS can lawfully issue, and that is a “commercial driver’s license”. The license can have different classifications and endorsements, but it is STILL a “commercial driver’s license”.
I don’t expect you to understand anything about rights, freedom of choice, freedom to make use of ones own property for private and non-harmful purposes, or liberty to go when and where one wishes at their own inclination, because from the sounds of your comments you think that these things never existed or should no longer be allowed to do so because we are “over-populated”. I say “horse-hockey” to that mindset.
If it were not for the fact that I personally know so many people like you that do not think that the people in general are capable of governing themselves your comments would be laughable. Is America and the republican form of government guaranteed to every one of the sovereign states not designed for the simple purpose of proving that the people are capable and totally responsible for their own self-governance? That we are each one responsible for our own well-being and seeing that we do no willful or negligent harm to the rights and property of others? If you cannot immediately respond with “Yes” then you are missing the whole point of the grand experiment that is America, and I weep for you and those like you because it is that ignorance and apathy that is destroying this nation one election at a time.
And to John Witten, where do I proclaim myself a savior to or for anyone? I believe that proclamation issued forth from your own hand and no other. You are by far the worst of the lot, you pretend to know something of the subject matter at hand, but I would be willing to bet real money that in a case of open and informed honest debate your mouth would only be good for catching flies.
And as far as the information being “unverified”, just what exactly do you call the statutes on which it is based? If they are “unverified” then they most certainly have no place in law do they? The only thing that I see as being unverified in this entire posting is your knowledge level of the subject matter. How long have you studied the law on this subject? Did you study alone or with friends and lawyers? How about constitutional professors and other learned people? How much legislative history and historical case law have you researched and Shepardized? How much interest does your nay-saying instill in others to learn why you say and do what you do?
“Put up or shut up” seems to be the best response to your comments John. I have been willing to do that for years, despite what others may think or say, I know the facts and truth of what I say to others, do you? Would you be willing to stand your ground in the face of “commentaries” such as yours and charlotted’s or would you abandon what you know is right just to others will like you?
If your answer is “Yes” then you MUST be either a lawyer or a politician, which actually makes you the biggest part of the problem, your an elitist that thinks theirs is the only real truth and valid point of view. I believe the Bible plainly states “woe unto you lawyers”, so please stand on the other side of the room when you speak so that the lightening bolt does leave a charred mark too close to me when you and your kind vanish in a puff of smoke.
Opinions are like a–holes, everybody has one, and John’s is worth less than a crap flavored lollipop.
Good Day
charlotted
December 23, 2009
You know, you can write more and say nothing more than anyone, except maybe a politician. Yesterday a pickup truck just down the road from me ran a stop sign and was hit by another car. How’s that “consideration” thing working for him?
Just because a speeder doesn’t hit someone, doesn’t mean the threat isn’t there. Go ahead and skim the laws, I just hope your “consideration” for others doesn’t hurt anyone.
I see you are also a judge on other people’s opinions. What a guy!!
Eddie Craig
December 24, 2009
Spoken like a true hypocrite Charlotted. I seem to be saying much more of substance than you have so far.
As far as judging the opinion of others goes, this IS a blog commentary is it not? Is it not just simply YOUR opinion that was posted by you as to the validity of the content of the affidavit? I also observe that you made no effort to actually refute anything I have commented on with actual facts, just more of your own opinion that redirects the points off-topic from the actual post. You MUST be a government plant.
I also see that you once again are placing all other people in the same category as the occasional single individual that does something stupid or simply makes an honest mistake, except yourself of course.
You are once again taking one example of something gone wrong and applying it to everyone as if they are all guilty or responsible for the same act. So, I guess under that pretext you’re just as guilty as the driver running the stop sign because you’re aware it happened, correct?
I cannot speak to the cause nor to the fault of the accident you mentioned, but you seem to wish to imply that this one accident proves everything that you stated in your comments is now absolutely true. Please, tell me how you relating the story of this accident bears upon the truth or falsity of the affidavit or my previous comments? Better yet, please tell us all how it makes your point of view more valid than mine and the many others that tend to agree with me on the right to travel freely and the free exercise of our right of liberty.
Please tell me, did that little square piece of plastic make this guy a better driver? How about the person that ran into him? Why didn’t that little piece of plastic protect them both from harm? Since your comments seem to put forth the ideology that being “licensed” by the STATE is a magic cure-all for negligence, being stupid, or even making honest mistakes, then every licensed driver should be a perfect “driver” when they have a “license” in their possession, correct? May I suggest that you try gluing yours to your forehead and running straight into the wall, please let us all know if your still feel protected afterward. I would also recommend that you stock up on Tylenol or Advil, or whatever pain-reliever preference you have for those “oh crap!” days prior to this experiment.
Since we (probably) both agree that having a license did nothing to protect either of the folks in the accident you spoke of, of what benefit is it? You can say “Oh, untrained driver! We are all much safer if everyone has the right training!” Okay, training and licensing, if that is the solution then I ask you again, why are there still traffic accidents? If you and those like you are correct, that having a license is the solution, the cure-all, why do accidents still occur if everyone involved in the accident has a license?
Your theory is as sound as the theory of evolution. If we all evolved from a particular specie of monkey then why are there still monkeys of that particular specie still around, shouldn’t they all be people by now? Oh, wait, maybe those that DID come from evolution wound up evolving into government employees and liberal idiots!
Again, if we all evolved from single cell organisms then why are there still single cell organisms? Shouldn’t they have all evolved into something else by now as well? Maybe they evolved into the single-celled brains of those same government employees and liberal idiots.
Simply put, in deference to you, it is the individual that makes the people around them either safe or in harms way, both by their actions and their choices. Nothing but personal responsibility and liability has ever changed that fact and it never will.
People only learn from their mistakes if those mistakes get made, but they learn most when they must face or pay for the consequences of those mistakes. That is what we call “experience”.
If the driver that ran the stop sign was at fault how much more likely is it that the accident would have been prevented altogether if the guy KNEW that he was to be PERSONALLY liable for every bit of damage and injury that was caused by his negligence? If an insurance company covers his butt, then he is not personally liable. By taking away the insurance and making him know that HE must be liable for every penny anytime he causes a harm would tend to make him, and most folks, much more careful. Personal liability alone would lower the accident rates.
Nobody wants to go into a lifetime of debt because they were stupid or negligent. But that does not mean that accidents will cease to happen or that stupid and irresponsible people will never be born. I’m sure that many parents have puzzled over that very problem for generations, John Witten’s especially.
BTW, who actually profits from the monies taken in from the license fees, traffic tickets, registrations, inspections, and insurance policies in Texas? It is certainly not the People, so who then? If I told you you would only think I was making more “unverified” statutes because you would fail to actually go and read them.
As far as threats and dangers go, the world is full of them, drinking fluoridated water or listening to Nancy Pelosi attempt to validate her existence are both very real threats in America. Only the most blatantly vain, egotistical, god-complex fixated, elitist fool would even attempt to proclaim that they could protect everyone from everything all of the time or even some of the time. An even bigger fool is the one that believes the first fool, especially if the first fool is any type of government employee or agency.
“Skim the laws?” What is that supposed to imply? Apparently you have no actual understanding that the term “skim” as it applies to this subject matter is exactly what YOU have done. I on the other hand have put years of research and study into this subject. I can absolutely prove every point I assert, what can you prove?
It is the fact that I sincerely do have consideration for others that got me involved in this study in the first place. I was tired of watching the People of Texas get defrauded by their government at every turn in a host of ways. Frauds which you seem to fully support because you would accept them and convince others to do the same rather than learn the truth of what is going on and do something about it. That is on you when you stand before God, I am only accountable for what I do or fail to do, so good luck.
Face it, government wants us to BELIEVE that what it does it does for the benefit of the people, and that it can protect us and solve ALL of our problems if we just let them do each of these things and give up just these rights and those rights so they can (the first fool). But government only does what it does for two reasons, money and control. To believe otherwise is to be the second fool.
So I personally would appreciate it if any further comments actually addressed the affidavit and your FACTS concerning why, in your opinion, it is “invalid.” Anything else you put forth is just a smoke screen to cover your lack of actual response to the merits of the affidavit. Produce LAW, I did. The fact that you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding it does not lie with me.
charlotted
December 24, 2009
I’m sorry that you didn’t get my point and your only rebuttal is to call me a hypocrite. I never tried to sell the present policy as a perfect solution. But what is the alternative?
One more question and I will make no further comment. Has this affidavit been challenged in court yet?
Bill Williams
December 24, 2009
Charlotte,
I believe that His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres has already ruled on the validity of the affidavit in his Kingdom. As for Texas, I’m not sure!
Have a Merry Christmas! (And Happy Hanukah Joey)
JoeyGDauben
December 24, 2009
Readers,
Eddie Craig has agreed to be a guest on an upcoming EllisCountyRadio.com show, and we’ll provide details when we can clear the schedules so as to not conflict with Mr. Craig’s radio show.
I think a two-hour discussion on this stuff with live callers would make this easier to follow. Plus, with enough advanced promotion, we might get a very big educational opportunity on all sides by having Mr. Craig come on.
Eddie Craig
December 24, 2009
Having been through the various traffic court numerous times I have learned exactly what the crooked judges and prosecutors try to do to prevent the introduction of the law in the accused’s defense, such as motions in limine, threatening contempt of court if the defense mentions the law, and so on.
The purpose of the affidavit is not to necessarily prevent the officer from doing whatever he is going to do, which is either to write the citation(s) or arrest you. The purpose is to get the actual law he is misapplying on the record and admissible in court where the judge and prosecutor cannot bar its introduction without being charged with tampering with a witness, abuse of official capacity, official oppression, fraud and illegally suppressing evidence.
When the officer initiates a traffic stop he does so based upon his only understanding of the Transportation Code, his training. Ask them, most officers will openly admit that they have NEVER read the actual statutes they charge people under. They have absolutely no clue as to what the real elements of the charge they are making consists of. How does one enforce a law when they have no actual knowledge of what it says? The officers have been trained to believe that it applies to everybody, when in fact it does not. Did anyone look up the LEGAL definitions for “Traffic” and “Transportation” in a law dictionary yet?
Well, here they are:
==========================================================================
Traffic – Bouvier’s (1856)
Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.
Traffic -Black’s 6th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods and money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vegetables, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.
Transportation – Black’s 6th
The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier.
Transportation – 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5102(12)
“transports” or “transportation” means the movement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement.
==========================================================================
We are dealing with the “TRANSPORTATION CODE” and “TRAFFIC LAWS” are we not? This IS the definition of these terms as used in law, where do they apply to private citizens or any one else that is NOT actively engaged in commerce?
The state courts all use Black’s Law dictionary or something similar, the Supreme Court of the United States uses only Bouvier’s 1856 Edition law dictionary.
How many of you are aware that here in Texas the moment an officer pulls you over on a traffic stop you have been placed under custodial arrest? Most of the time the officer never informs you that your under arrest, and almost never reads you your rights even if he does actually place you in cuffs and takes you in. Yet they are REQUIRED by Texas law to do both of these things, so who is the actual criminal here?
The law the officer relies upon to stop you makes it very clear that it is a custodial arrest, pursuant Transportation Code Sec. 543.001-008, where it clearly states at every point what the “arresting officer” is to do with the “person arrested”. Which means that your constitutionally protected rights are in FULL FORCE, and anything this officer does that violates those rights is a crime in and of itself. Sec. 543 even states that id the officer fails to do EVERYTHING that Sec. 543 requires him to do then that officer is guilty of misconduct in office and can be fired for it, it should come as no surprise that the officer fails to do everything required in virtually every traffic case.
The affidavit is meant to be used by the accused as a piece of evidence or testimony obtained by the officer during this arrest, and he is required by law to produce it in court. The court may not disregard the contents of the affidavit as it is a material part of the case as evidence or testimony obtained at the the stop. Since the affidavit contains references to the specific statutes regarding almost ALL of the possible charges being made against you in 99% of traffic cases, the court can no longer bar the introduction of the statutes through threats and coercion.
Why would the courts do that you may ask, simple, its the money. The city and/or county gets a cut of the fines as well as the full court costs for each ticket. It is in the best interest of a municipal or justice court to find as many people guilty as possible, despite the law. If the law was actually allowed to be introduced by a person knowledgeable of the statutes at issue then the court loses the money and has the additional expenses of the trial laid back on the city or county. Therefore it is a rigged system from the beginning to ensure that the defendant loses and the courts get paid.
Texas law makes these types of omissions and suppressions by the prosecutor and the court illegal, but they cover each other by preventing a certified record of the court proceedings from ever being made so there is no actual evidence that the judge and prosecutor have violated the law and the accused’s due process rights in order to ensure a conviction. In most municipal and justice courts there is NEVER a court reporter present, therefore there is no record of the proceeding to use on an appeal or to prove misconduct and official oppression by the officers of the court, but such acts are very real and very lucrative for most of these types of courts.
The affidavit is not there to actually prevent the officer from making his mistakes or threatening him with anything, it was designed to protect YOU by giving you a way to introduce the very laws that prove the officer misapplied the law from the very beginning, and committed a crime by doing so. It provides a way for the law to be introduced that the court and prosecutor would otherwise act to suppress.
Does it seem at all fair that the STATE can accuse you with a violation of a statute but then refuse to allow you to introduce and argue the same statute before the jury? The state used it to accuse you but in the same breath says that you cannot show it to the jury so that they can see that it does not apply in this case.
==========================================================================
How do the courts abuse their interpretive discretion? Let’s create a fictional law to show you how the courts do what they do. An over-simplified but useful example of such a law would be:
• In the constitution we put this clause – “We the people do hereby delegate the authority to the legislature to regulate all CARS colored RED.”
• The legislature immediately passes a law that reads – “All RED CARS shall have seatbelts installed at the factory.”
• The courts rule that the above law is totally within the powers We the People delegated in the preceding instance. Is this law within the delegated powers granted to the legislature? BUZZZZZ!! No it is not! Did we delegate any authority to the legislature to regulate the FACTORY and the MANUFACTURING of the cars? NO!! So the law is invalid despite the fact that it purportedly pertains only to RED CARS.
• The legislature calls a special session and amends the above law to read – “All RED CARS shall have seatbelts installed within 60 days of leaving the factory, and all such seatbelts shall have an over-the-shoulder harness configuration.”
• Is the new law valid? NO!! The authority to “regulate” does not imply the authority to require physical and expensive alteration forcing additional expenses upon the new owner to pay for it out of their own pocket, therefore it is still not within the delegated authority. However, if the factory were to begin installing these items themselves of their own volition, the legislature could then regulate their use within the RED CAR.
• The legislature calls another special session and amends the above law once again to read – “All CARS shall have seatbelts installed within 60 days of leaving the factory, and all such seatbelts shall have both a waist and over-the-shoulder harness configuration with a single point of interlocking attachment to retard unilateral momentum or ejection of the driver in the case of a collision.”
• How about now, is the new law in compliance with the delegated authority? No, absolutely not, the new law has unlawfully extended legislative authority to ALL CARS, not just those that are RED, and it still requires physical alteration at the owner’s expense.
• Okay, the legislature calls yet another special session and amends the new law after much argument and debate with the People to read as follows – “All CARS painted any of the varying shades of RED, regardless of the color’s descriptive name, shall have seatbelts installed at government expense within 60 days of leaving the factory, and all such seatbelts shall have both a waist and over-the-shoulder harness configuration with a single point of interlocking attachment to retard unilateral momentum or ejection of the driver in the case of a collision.”
• NOW Is the amended law valid? The answer is still NO! The People did not authorize any “variation” of the color RED; we only authorized authority to regulate CARS painted the specific color of RED and nothing more. Also, since the only money that government obtains comes from the People themselves, then the stipulation that public funds would be allocated to fund the physical alteration of private property at public expense is also unacceptable.
• This is the way that stealthy encroachment of a legislative power begins, and it must be stopped before it starts forward on the always downward trend of the People’s rights like the one we are living in today.
• The legislature would also not have the authority to obtain an enhanced or extended regulatory power over new subject matter by the passing of a law that reads – “All CARS manufactured in this state must be painted RED at the factory, and no other colors or color schemes such as pen-striping may be used for the exterior finish of such CARS.”
• Any such law would be immediately null and void as We the People did not grant the legislature authority to regulate the painting of the car at the manufacturer, we only granted the authority to regulate it if the manufacturer painted it RED and shipped it from the factory that way.
• The legislature taking the matter into court would change nothing. The court has no power or authority to act contrary to the specific delegation of powers defined and presented by the People within the respective constitutions. If the court has no law upon which to act then there is nothing that confers jurisdiction for them to act.
==========================================================================
The statutes within the Transportation Code and the Administrative Code and the majority of the various other codes are administrative in nature. What is the purpose of administrative rules? Are they not for the INTERNAL use of those to whom they apply? In corporations it is called “corporate policy”, but that policy ONLY applies to those that are employed by that corporation and not to anyone else. The same is true of administrative codes, they only apply to the administration of the various governmental agencies and those things created and managed by those agencies.
Did government create the People or did the People create government? How about the STATE, whom created whom? The People ARE the state, everything else is therefore subordinate to the People, including and especially the GOVERNMENT! That is what a republic is, the rights and freedoms of the individual is superior to that of the whole. If this were not so then we would be a democracy, which we are not. Democracy is nothing more than “mob rule”, and that form of government was specifically rejected by the founding fathers.
I used commercial law in the affidavit BECAUSE it is the only law there is for the actual things being regulated, TRAFFIC and TRANSPORTATION, and John is absolutely correct in his statement that I am “using laws that don’t apply” to me. That is the entire point here John, the STATE is trying to use those same laws against the People when in fact, they simply DO NOT APPLY TO THE PEOPLE!
Do you somehow think that fact is not worth being aware of or making known to others?
Well, I do.
God bless, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Folks
John Witten
December 24, 2009
Eddie,
How are you going to defend your Theory against this section of the Transportation Code.
You cant reference “Certain Sections” without taking into account the “Pertinent” ones.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES; NOTICES AND PROMISES TO APPEAR
Sec. 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle.
Sec. 543.002. PERSON ARRESTED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE. (a) A person arrested for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor shall be immediately taken before a magistrate if:
(1) the person is arrested on a charge of failure to stop in the event of an accident causing damage to property; or
(2) the person demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate or refuses to make a written promise to appear in court as provided by this subchapter.
(b) The person must be taken before a magistrate who:
(1) has jurisdiction of the offense;
(2) is in the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed; and
(3) is nearest or most accessible to the place of arrest.
Sec. 543.003. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: PERSON NOT TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE. An officer who arrests a person for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor and who does not take the person before a magistrate shall issue a written notice to appear in court showing the time and place the person is to appear, the offense charged, the name and address of the person charged, and, if applicable, the license number of the person’s vehicle.
L I B Dang
December 26, 2009
Moral Center, You really should not call people names, that is not polite, and it just stirs up anger in people, which just wastes a lot of time.You are exactly right driving is a privilege, if you are a fourteenth amendment creation of government. United States citizens have no rights whatsoever. They have only “privileges”granted to them by their creator.I know this sounds strange to you, as it did to me when I first heard of it, but I found the third edition of Blacks Law Dictionary to be most enlightening;on page 809 under Fourteenth Amendment. “The Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution of the United States became a part of the organic law July 28, 1868, and its importance entitles it to special mention. It creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; forbids the making or enforcement by any state of any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and secures all “persons” against any state action which is either deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denial of the equal protection of the laws”.
A citizenship that is “distinct” from that of the states. On page 596 of said dictionary; Distinct “Clear to the senses or mind; easily perceived or understood; plain; unmistakable. … Evidently not identical; observably or decidedly different”.
United States citizenship is unmistakably, decidedly different from state Citizenship. What is the difference? United States citizens are referred to as “persons”. On page 1355 of said dictionary we find; Person “Corporations are “persons” as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment”
What is a corporation? On page 438 of said dictionary. Corporation. “An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation”…
On page 146, Artificial Persons. “Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons”.
Are you an artificial person created by congress via the fourteenth amendment, or are you a creation of nature and natures God?
State Citizens have absolute authority over the government we created. The government has absolute authority over the U.S. citizens it created. Natural persons have Rights given to him by God as established in the organic law of this land,The Declaration of Independence, and are protected by the Constitution.All public servants before taking office must swear an oath to protect the Constitution thereby protecting our rights.
Artificial persons have privileges or “civil rights” and as with all things “civil” there are contracts involved. U.S.citizens have privileges granted to them by their creator,that they may keep only as long as they sign contracts with the state and abide within the rules of that contract.Contracts such as a drivers license, or fishing license, or privilege tax license, or Marriage license etc.etc. Do you get the picture?
What Mr. Craig is doing is putting the officer and courts on notice that he is not an artificial person which is chattel property of the state, or capital for them to draw upon at will, but a sovereign with rights which they are under contract to him to protect. The courts know this, but they also know as the Declaration of Independence states “all experience has shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer,while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”. Eddie Craig and the man who claims sovereignty over his humble abode have made an attempt to show you all how to reclaim your freedom, and enlist your help in securing that freedom for our posterity. All they have received in return are words of hatred and insult. Shame on you. Shame on you all.
Eddie Craig
December 27, 2009
Hello again All,
John, thank you for finally asking a reasonable question and I am obligated
to provide you with an answer to your inquiry.
Please notice that in section 543 that an “officer” is authorized to perform
the arrest of a “Person”. What makes you think that I, or the vast
majority of folk, meet the definition of a “Person” as that term is defined
for use in this statute? What is the definition for “Person”? Let’s find
out:
===========================================================================
[
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.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.103, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
[
===========================================================================
You will see in Sec. 541.001(4) that “Person” is defined, and it is defined
in compliance with Government Code Chapter 311, which controls the base
definitions of certain terms used in all Texas Codes, as well as in the
Transportation Code within Subtitle C, to wit:
===========================================================================
[
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 3. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE B. LEGISLATION
CHAPTER 311. CODE CONSTRUCTION ACT
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 311.005. GENERAL DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply unless
the statute or context in which the word or phrase is used requires a
different definition:
(1) “Oath” includes affirmation.
(2) “Person” includes corporation, organization, government or
governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust,
partnership, association, and any other legal entity.
(3) “Population” means the population shown by the most recent federal
decennial census.
(4) “Property” means real and personal property.
(5) “Rule” includes regulation.
(6) “Signed” includes any symbol executed or adopted by a person with
present intention to authenticate a writing.
(7) “State,” when referring to a part of the United States, includes
any state, district, commonwealth, territory, and insular
possession of the United States and any area subject to the
legislative authority of the United States of America.
(8) “Swear” includes affirm.
(9) “United States” includes a department, bureau, or other agency of
the United States of America.
(10) “Week” means seven consecutive days.
(11) “Written” includes any representation of words, letters, symbols,
or figures.
(12) “Year” means 12 consecutive months.
(13) “Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of
limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not
create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 479, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts
1989, 71st Leg., ch. 340, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
[
===========================================================================
You will then see that Chapter 311 Government Code applies to the entirety
of the Transportation Code, to wit:
===========================================================================
[
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
…
Sec. 1.002. CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. Chapter 311, Government Code (Code
Construction Act), applies to the construction of each provision in this
code except as otherwise expressly provided by this code.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
[
===========================================================================
You will also notice that the term “Person” in Chapter 311 limits that term
strictly to “legal entities”, not to actual living breathing people. This
meaning is further reinforced by the legislatures own rule books regarding
statutory construction, to wit:
===========================================================================
[
Reading Statutes and Bills
Prepared by the Research Division
of the
Texas Legislative Council
Published by the
Texas Legislative Council
P.O. Box 12128
Austin, Texas 78711-2128
• Do not skip over words that you do not know or fully understand. Do not
rely on context for the meaning of a word about which you are unsure. Do
not assume a word (e.g., “person”) has the same meaning that it has in
everyday conversation.
[
[
Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual
On page 14 of the drafting manual we find:
…
(h) “Person.” It is often desirable to define “person” broadly, such as
“an individual, corporation, or association.”1 Although this
violates the rule against giving a word an artificial meaning, the
advantage of avoiding unnecessary repetition and the long-standing
practice of so defi ning this word outweigh the policy behind the
rule. Section 1.07 of the Penal Code defines “person” in this way
and, as already noted, Penal Code definitions also apply to penal
laws outside the code. While it is legally unnecessary to redefine
“person” in a penal law outside the code (except to provide a
different definition), the express adoption of that definition
(see the following subsection) may be helpful to alert users of the
statutes who may be unaware of the general application of Penal
Code definitions. The definition of “person” in Section 311.005,
Government Code, applies to those codes to which the Code
Construction Act applies and that do not otherwise define the term.
[
===========================================================================
We look on page 17 of the drafting manual and we find:
===========================================================================
[
…
Section 37.02, Penal Code, reads:
Sec. 37.02. PERJURY.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with
knowledge of the statement’s meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to the
truth of a false statement previously made and the
statement is required or authorized by law to be made under
oath; or
(2) he makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132,
Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
The phrase-by-phrase discussion of Section 37.02 follows:
1. “A person ….” “Person” is defined by Section 1.07(a)(38) of the
code to mean “an individual, corporation, or association”; each of
those entities is also defined by Section 1.07. The current Penal
Code, unlike earlier law, provides in detail in Sections 7.21–7.24
and 12.51 for the criminal punishment of corporations and
associations as well as for the criminal responsibility of
individuals who act for them. The drafter must use the terms
“person,” “individual,” “association,” and “corporation” carefully to
reach the precise class of potential violators intended to be covered.
Although the Penal Code generally says that “a person commits an
offense if he” does so-and-so, because of the legislative council’s
policy concerning the use of masculine personal pronouns, “a person
commits an offense if the person …” is now preferred.
[
===========================================================================
Dr. Frederick Graves, a practicing attorney of over 20 years and the author
of Jurisdictionary explains the rules of statutory construction thusly:
By the rule of ejusdem generis (Latin: “of the same type”), courts
should interpret general terms at the end of specific lists as including
only things of the same type as those specifically mentioned in the
list. For example, if a statute lists “oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and
other fruit”, the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase “other
fruit” to mean other citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included.
The courts are allowed to assume the legislature intended by “other
fruit” to include all the many types of citrus, kumquats, tangelos,
limes, etc. When the legislature lists items of similar kind and adds
“and other”, the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word “other” to
include only items of the same type.
Simple enough?
Another rule of statutory interpretation is inclusio unius, exclusio
alterius (Latin: include one, exclude others). If a statute specifically
refers to lemons (and does not mention limes or grapefruit or “other
fruit”), courts should obey this rule and not expand the legislative
intent to include limes and grapefruit. It is not the domain of our
courts to expand what the legislature says beyond what the legislature
specifically says!”
With all of the above references placed firmly before you it should now be
clear that the definition of the term “Person” as defined and used in Sec.
541.001(4) above is also limited strictly to legal entites. The word
“individual” as used to define the term “Person” falls under the rule of
ejusdem generis. As previously shown in the Texas Legislative Council
Drafting Manual discussion of Sec. 37.02 PENAL CODE, when the term
“individual” is used alongside other legal entities it is there to describe
“one that is acting on their behalf”.
===========================================================================
[
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.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
[
===========================================================================
Now notice also the definition of “Police Officer” in Sec. 541.002(4), it
is an “officer” that has been “authorized” by the “Department” as defined
in Sec. 541.002(1) as an “agent” of the “Department”.
But in Sec. 543 that you posted in your comment John you did not include
all of the relevant parts to that subchapter, and as you stated, if one is
going to cite something then cite all of the relevant parts.
Notice the prevailing use of the term “Person” in that subchapter, and that
the scope of the definition from Sec. 541.001(4) is the entirety of Subtitle
C of the Transportation Code, which is where Sec. 543 is located, therefore
this definition of “Person” applies.
===========================================================================
[
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES;
NOTICES AND PROMISES TO APPEAR
…
Sec. 543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN OFFENSES.
(a) An officer shall issue a written notice to appear if:
(1) the offense charged is speeding or a violation of the open
container law, Section 49.03, Penal Code; and
(2) the person makes a written promise to appear in court as
provided by Section 543.005.
(b) If the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle licensed
in a state or country other than this state, Subsection (a) applies
only as provided by Chapter 703.
(c) The offenses specified by Subsection (a) are the only offenses for
which issuance of a written notice to appear is mandatory.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 17.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
[
===========================================================================
In case you missed it in my previous post, it is statutorily impossible for
a private automobile to speed. The statutes directly address speeding as an
offense that can be committed only by commercial motor vehicles.
But the real question you failed to ask about Sec. 543 is “Isn’t this in
violation of the Texas Constitution?” If it is used against one of the
People then the only possible answer is “ABSOLUTELY”! If however, it is
used against a legal entity or those that have contractred to act on the
behalf of a legal entity as an “Individual” that works for or is employed
by a “Person”, then they have assumed the liability as well as the
consequences of violating the rules as they apply to that entity.
The Transporation Code is not written by the legislature, it is written by
the Texas Public Safety Commission (Government Code Sec. 411.001(1)), and
the TxDPS works for and is controlled by that commission pursuant Sec.
411.003(a):
===========================================================================
[
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE B. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
CHAPTER 411. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 411.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Commission” means the Public Safety Commission.
(2) “Department” means the Department of Public Safety of the State of
Texas.
(3) “Director” means the public safety director.
(4) “Internet” means the largest nonproprietary nonprofit cooperative
public computer network, popularly known as the Internet.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 791, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 1999.
…
Sec. 411.003. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION.
(a) The Public Safety Commission controls the department.
(b) The commission is composed of five citizens of this state
appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the
senate. Members must be selected because of their peculiar
qualifications for the position and must reflect the diverse
geographic regions and population groups of this state.
Appointments to the commission shall be made without regard to
race, color, disability, sex, religion, age, or national origin.
In making an appointment the governor shall consider, among other
things, the person’s knowledge of laws, experience in the
enforcement of law, honesty, integrity, education, training, and
executive ability.
(c) Members serve staggered six-year terms with the terms of either
one or two members expiring January 1 of each even-numbered year.
(d) The governor shall designate one member of the commission as
chairman of the commission to serve in that capacity at the
pleasure of the governor. The commission shall meet at the
times and places specified by commission rule or at the call of
the chairman. The chairman shall oversee the preparation of an
agenda for each meeting and ensure that a copy is provided to
each member at least seven days before the meeting.
(e) A member serves without compensation for service on the
commission but is entitled to per diem for expenses as
provided by the General Appropriations Act.
(f) The commission shall develop and implement policies that provide
the public with a reasonable opportunity to appear before the
commission and to speak on any issue under the jurisdiction of
the commission.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 258, Sec. 20.01, eff. September 1, 2007.
[
===========================================================================
Please notice also that each member of the commission is appointed by the
governor, which would make this commission an executive branch agency.
The People only granted the authority to make law to the legislature, as in
the legislative branch of government. That power may not be delegated to
any other office, commission, or agency of government, especially one that
exists in a different branch of government. The division of powers put in
place within the Texas Constitution absolutely forbids this ability.
Now, pursuant Government Code Sec. 411.004(1)-(5) we see that the
commission is responsible for the rules contained within the Transportation
Code. To put it simply, the commission wrote the Transportation Code,
not the legislature. The legislature simply wrote the actual regulatory
laws on which the code is based, but not the code itself. You can also
see that the commission can formulate plans and policies and adopt RULES,
which is exactly what the Transportation Code is, the rules that the TxDPS
must follow. We the People DID NOT grant the legislature or any other
agency of government any authority whatsoever to regulate the rights of the
People. I cannot give someone else the authority to regulate you, you
cannot give someone else the authority to regulate me. It does not matter
how many people vote on it or demand it, none of us have that authority
over one-another.
The People are liable under laws, not rules or policies, which are
non-binding and voluntary on the People, they CANNOT be made mandatory
upon us by our public servants. If they could do so then the constitutions
would be nullities because everything could be controlled by statutes,
right?
===========================================================================
[
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE B. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
CHAPTER 411. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 411.004. DUTIES AND POWERS OF COMMISSION. The commission shall:
(1) formulate plans and policies for:
(A) enforcement of state criminal, traffic, and safety laws;
(B) prevention of crime;
(C) detection and apprehension of persons who violate laws; and
(D) education of citizens of this state in the promotion of
public safety and the observance of law;
(2) organize the department and supervise its operation;
(3) adopt rules considered necessary for carrying out the department’s
work;
(4) maintain records of all proceedings and official orders; and
(5) biennially submit a report of its work to the governor and
legislature, including the commission’s and director’s
recommendations.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts
1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1999, 76th
Leg., ch. 1189, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
[
===========================================================================
For the sake of not making this any longer than I have to please refer back
to my previous posts on the subject of who is the servant and who is the
master.
JoeyGDauben
December 27, 2009
Eddie, I’m going to try like crazy to listen to your show tomorrow night, but has there not been a court of appeals (in either one of the 14 courts of appeals in Texas) or state Supreme Court ruling on any of this?
Case law is just as valid as a statute, if I’m not mistaken.
And a lot of the time, the law won’t be the issue in court, it will be the procedure. If you win at the procedure part, you win the case. Are you in agreement with that part at least?
Eddie Craig
December 28, 2009
Joey, as a matter of fact there have been numerous Texas cases over the years that have addressed this issue directly, or at least parts of it.
The following Texas cases all showed that there was nothing in Texas law called a drivers license at the time the cases were heard. Since then the term “driver’s license” has been added to the statutes, but the types of license to which the term applies has not. There has been absolutely no change as whom the law was written to regulate, for obvious reasons.
There is also case law that shows the right of the People to make full use of their private property, including their automobile, as a matter of right.
1.3.16 Citizen’s RIGHT to travel upon public highways includes RIGHT to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580.
The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a COMMON RIGHT which he has under the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
Vernon’s Civil Statutes of State of Texas Annotated p. 119 Note 9 “Generally “public road” is road used by public as matter of right.” Atchison Transportation & Shipping F. Ry. Co. v. Acosta, (Civ. App. 1968) 435 S.W.2d 539 ref. n.r.e
“The streets of the cities of this country belong to the public. Primarily, every member of the public has a natural right to the free use of such streets in the normal pursuit of his private or personal business or pleasure. The right of the public at large to the free use of the streets is paramount to the natural right of the individual. … The power of the city in exercising such control is limited only by the Constitution and general laws of the state, … But neither the Legislature nor the city commissioners has the power to take away or unreasonably abridge, the natural rights of the Citizen to the use of the streets in the manner and for the purpose we have set forth above.” City of San Antonio v. Fetzer, 241 SW 1034
Even federal courts have ruled in similar fashion:
“Even though government has legitimate and substantial purpose behind legislation, purpose cannot be sought by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when less drastic means for achieving same basic purpose are available… [There is a] Right of “all Citizens” to be free to travel within and between states uninhibited by statutes. U.S. C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 8” Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065
“There exists a constitutionally protected right to travel. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14” Wherrett v. Doyle, 456 F.Supp. 203
“Constitutionally protected right to travel is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation.” Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217
But above even all of this are cases by the Supreme Court of the United States that make the issue crystal clear, but the lower courts within the various states all choose to ignore these cases because it interferes with the money flow, which is itself a violation of long standing procedure and judicial requirement, not to mention the defendant’s right to due process of law.
“The right to travel is a well established constitutional right.” Coolman v. Robinson, 452 F.Supp. 1324
“Freedom of movement is fundamental right which may be restricted only where necessary to further most compelling state interests and such regulations must be narrowly circumscribed in order to withstand constitutional challenge for over-breadth and vagueness.” Gayle v. Governor of Guam, 414 F.Supp. 636
“[The] Right to travel is constitutionally protected.” Agee v. Vance, 483 F.Supp. 729, affirmed 629 F.2d 80, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 46, certiorari granted Muskie v. Agee, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 453 U.S. 280, 69 L.Ed.2d 640
“Right to travel and to freedom of movement, particularly within United States, are fundamental rights of all Citizens of the United States.” Gautier Torres v. Mathews, 426 F.Supp. 1106, reversed Califano v. Gautier Torres, 98 S.Ct. 906, 435 U.S., 1, 55 L.Ed.2d 65
“[S]ince the right to travel is a constitutionally protected right, any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional”. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995 (1972)
“The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law”; Schachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)
“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment”; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113 (1958)
The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways § 163
The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a COMMON RIGHT which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another’s RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added). See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.
1.3.53 Undoubtedly the RIGHT of locomotion, the RIGHT to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the RIGHT, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a RIGHT secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. (Emphasis added). See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274.
“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV – the operation of motor vehicles – is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States
The RIGHT to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (Emphasis added)
Our government is out of control and thinks that it has risen above the People, and that it can deny us in whatever it likes for its own ends and uses ignorant and/or corrupt lower court judges and lawyers to get its way.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO LEGISLATION, OR RULE MAKING which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizen, and AGAINST ANY STEALTHY ENCROACHMENT THEREON.”
Boyd v. US, 116 US 616 (1886).
“No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
1.3.82 “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262
This is an excerpt from the traffic seminar book that I think pretty well states my point of view on who we are and why the government is required to recognize these facts:
1.2.4 The legislature does not, and in fact cannot, have a power or authority that is beyond the power and authority of the People themselves as individuals to grant to it. To see the truth and context of this statement try asking yourself this series of questions:
1. Do you, as one man (or woman), have the authority to tell your neighbor(s), against their will, what they can or cannot do on their own private property or in their own home?
2. Do you, as one man (or woman), have the authority to tell your neighbor(s), against their will, how tall, short, or of what type their grass can be in their own yard?
3. Do you, as one man (or woman), have the authority to force your neighbor(s), against their will, pay you a monetary fine because they do not mow or water their lawn when you think they should?
4. Do you, as one man (or woman), have any authority to demand that your neighbor(s), against their will, have only certain lawn ornaments or exterior fixtures on their own home or property?
5. Do you, as one man (or woman), have any authority to determine anything about what your neighbor(s), against their will, owns, says, or does on or to their own property?
6. Do you and/or a small group of your neighbors, as a group in agreement, have any authority to hold a vote intended to force payment of a tax on one or more of your neighbor’s properties, against their will, and spend the money for the “benefit of the neighborhood” as your group sees fit to mandate?
7. Do you and/or a small group of your neighbors, as a group in agreement, have any authority to vote to make mandatory on one or more of your neighbor’s properties, against their will, a maintenance regimen and schedule, as your group sees fit to mandate?
8. Do you and/or a small group of your neighbors, as a group in agreement, have any authority to vote to monetarily fine one or more of your neighbors, against their will, for failure to perform the upkeep of their property in any manner that your group sees fit to mandate?
9. Do you and/or a small group of your neighbors, as a group in agreement, have any authority to vote to deny one or more of your neighbor’s, against their will, the use of any part or thing that is their property for any particular reason that your group sees fit to mandate?
10. Do you and/or a small group of your neighbors, as a group in agreement, have any authority to vote to make one or more of your neighbor’s, against their will, paint their house a particular way, drive a particular car, or have a particular number of children, as your group sees fit to mandate?
11. Do you and/or a small group of your neighbors, as an individual or a group in agreement, have any authority to resort to the use of threats, force, or violence in order to exert your will upon one or more of your neighbors for the purpose of enforcing compliance or consideration for any of the circumstances or conditions enumerated above?
1.2.5 If you answered anything other than “NO” to the above questions then perhaps you should consider running for public office, because only those who seek to be elected to public office for the power and prestige would have the audacity to think that the People ever granted their legislators or any other level of government such authority over them. Not a single one of us in this seminar have the authority to do even one of these things to our neighbor against his or her will. Any such authority can ONLY come from a mutual agreement to be bound by the rules in question and be susceptible to the fines and/or taxes that we all agreed would be instituted for that purpose. No man or woman is obligated or has a duty to agree to these types of rules or to be regulated by their peers and/or the “government”. Because no such authority can be delegated by the People the government has no authority to force any one of the People to accept and abide by such rules and regulations against their will, PERIOD! The government does not have unalienable or inherent “rights”, it has delegated powers, it is a legal entity, a fiction surnamed the state, and it has been supplanted by THE STATE, and any alleged power or authority exercised by THE STATE or its political subdivisions that was not specifically delegated by the People is a power that has been usurped and is therefore absolutely unconstitutional and unlawful.
1.2.6 The People CANNOT delegate a power and authority to their servant government that the People themselves DO NOT HAVE! The ONLY exception to any of the above situations is the same exception that has always existed even before the founding of our nation, the protection of individual rights and property, to wit:
• Your neighbor has no right to steal from you or your other neighbors, nor you from them.
• Your neighbor does not have the right to disturb the peace or destroy the property of you or your other neighbors, nor you theirs.
• No one has the right to physically assault someone except in self-defense or preservation of life, whether one’s own or another’s, and you and/or your neighbors are perfectly justified in preventing and/or interceding in such an act.
• No one has the right to steal or destroy the property of another, and you and/or your neighbors are justified in interceding and preventing such an act.
• The fact that the perpetrator wears a badge or bears a political office label does not grant them blanket authority to ignore these basic rights of human interaction and to commit those same offenses under color of that badge or office, and you and/or your neighbors are justified in interceding and preventing such an act.
1.2.7 The list can go on but the point is that it is only when one or more individuals are engaged in an act or acts that is directly or imminently detrimental to the rights or property of another that the power and authority of a third party to intervene and directly regulate or prevent the act in question arises.
1.2.8 While preparing this documentation I began reading a book by a gentleman named Peter Eric Hendrickson entitled “Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America”. The book is a sensible and well-written point-by-point examination of the real facts, case-law, and statutes governing the federal income tax and those to whom it applies, I highly recommend it. In his book Mr. Hendrickson stated this precept of sovereignty and authority far more eloquently than I. Beginning on page 34 of this book he wrote:
“Before discussing the characteristics of law, which is the product of a state, it is necessary to briefly comment on sovereigns, who are the precursors to the state. A sovereign is a free-standing, independent agent, whose right to exist and act are inherent by nature. While much weird and degenerate philosophy has been fabricated over the centuries alleging social contracts, mystical fatherlands, divine right and the like, ad nauseum, the simple and incontrovertible facts are:
• No human being can assert a claim of authority by right over any other human being;
• All human agencies [government, corporations, etc.] are merely subordinate constructs which can claim no authority beyond that of their creators; furthermore all agencies can assert nothing for themselves and assertions made on their behalf can have no demonstrable standing beyond that of the speaker or speakers, who are just other human beings;
• No one can claim more or superior rights to those of any one else.
Therefore, regardless of whether or not each of us really has a right to act freely, no one else has a right to interfere with our acting freely. So, we are all sovereign by default at least, if not by design. Our power-to-act is not dependent upon or answerable to any other person or any other person’s creation.
States, on the other hand, are not sovereign, except as to other states.”
1.2.9 There has NEVER been a vote by the People to do away with this common-sense approach to the delegated powers of government, at least as it pertains to the People themselves. And if these points sound familiar to you then congratulations, you have obviously been exposed to the Holy Bible at some point in your life, because each of these points is based on biblical principles that were put in place to govern the relationships of every man with his neighbors since before the time of the exodus.
1.2.10 The current occupants of the various seats of government currently operate under the false and treasonous presumption that there is nothing that they cannot do unless the various respective constitutions specifically prohibit it. This clearly demonstrates that they not only miss the point of a constitution, but that they also fail to understand the purpose of their duties defined within it. The very fact that a constitution does not speak to or grant a particular power or authority to a governmental body can only be construed by a sane individual as meaning that it is specifically prohibited. To argue otherwise renders the purpose of a constitution totally moot. These moronic arguments might as well issue forth a decree that “…since the constitution does not specifically prohibit the government from tattooing the People, the legislature hereby orders that within the next thirty (30) days everyone within the borders of THE STATE OF TEXAS must get a tattoo across their forehead reading “PROPERTY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.” — And if you’re one of those in government that thinks that this decree is perfectly okay — Here’s your sign!
1.2.11 However, assuming that a specific power and authority was delegated over the creation and regulation of certain legal entities such as corporations and other statutorily created fictions more commonly known in law and statute as “Persons”, then the following arguments are being made.
1.2.12 The People are not “Persons”. There has never been and can never be a legislative act that has or would convert the status of the individual sovereign People to that of an individual “Person” created and subservient by and to the government. We are real, natural born, flesh-and-blood, God-breathed, living men, women, and children; we are not and never shall be “Persons”.
1.2.13 Our rights and freedoms cannot be licensed, regulated, taxed, fined, abrogated, derogated or otherwise subject to any legislative or democratic (read “mob-rule”) act or vote, they are unalienable! The form of government within Texas, as well as the several states and America as a whole, is NOT that of a democracy, it is not a democratic republic, it is a REPUBLIC, and that is all that We the People have ever authorized. We will not and should not settle for anything less. What does the Texas Constitution state:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
“Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”
1.2.14 How about the Constitution of the Untied States? What did the Founding Fathers see fit to proclaim as the only valid form of government within the individual states of the union:
Constitution of the United States
Article IV
Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
… … …
1.3.31 The Constitution of the State of Texas, Article I, § 2 provides that:
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
1.3.32 The People of Texas have reserved the right to abolish, alter, or reform our government at anytime and that all political power is inherent in the PEOPLE, not the government. The Texas legislature was not granted any power to control or regulate the People. Their regulatory control is strictly defined by the written will of the People in the instrument known as the Texas Constitution, and its regulatory authority is limited to those things that the People empowered the legislature to create and nothing more:
Sec. 17. TAKING, DAMAGING, OR DESTROYING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. No person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority shall be subject to the control thereof.
1.3.33 The legislature did not grant any privileges or franchises to the People, nor were any part of the People’s rights or property created under the authority of the legislature as such, and are therefore not subject to the control thereof.
1.3.34 The right to not be subject to the whims and fancies of the legislature was also reserved by and for the People and is forever specifically denied to every level of government in Article 1, Sec. 29:
Sec. 29. PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
1.3.44 Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions, the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Texas Natural Resources Code even joins in on this common point:
NATURAL RESOURCES CODE
TITLE 3. OIL AND GAS
SUBTITLE D. REGULATION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESSES AND OCCUPATIONS
CHAPTER 114. OIL TANKER VEHICLES
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 114.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
…
(5) “Public highway” means a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel, even if the way or place is temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or repair.
1.3.83 Thus, there can be little doubt that, when the Sovereign People travel upon the streets or highways in the several states of America, they do so as a matter of RIGHT and not privilege, and THE STATE may not interfere with the exercise of the right. The authority for such use of the roads andf highways for the purpose of travel is described variously as a RIGHT, a COMMON RIGHT, an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, an IN/UNALIENABLE RIGHT, and a RIGHT protected by the Constitution of the United States for every Citizen within the several states of union known as America. Let us then examine the importance of these terms to the Sovereign People by defining their meaning.
1.3.84 RIGHT — In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one’s claim to something out of possession; (c) a power, prerogative, or privilege as when the word is applied to a corporation . (Emphasis added). See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
1.3.85 RIGHT — As relates to the person, RIGHTS are absolute or relative; absolute RIGHTS, such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his personal liberty; RIGHTS which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth in the kings dominion, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.
1.3.86 RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . . (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
1.3.87 Absolute — Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligatio, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.
1.3.88 Unalienable — A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.
1.3.89 Put those words together, absolute unalienable right, and the result shows from these definitions that the states have an obligation to acknowledge the RIGHT of the sovereign People to travel on the streets or highways in the several states of America. Further, the states have the duty to refrain from interfering with this RIGHT and to protect this RIGHT and to enforce the claims of the sovereign People to it.
1.3.90 Now, if the sovereign People have the absolute RIGHT to move about on the streets or highways, does that RIGHT include the RIGHT to travel in an automobile and that it is a form of private property that may be used accordingly? Many of the cases previously cited have already emphatically stated “YES”, but there are more cases in support of this proclamation. The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question:
1.3.91 Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted RIGHT of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the RIGHT of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren RIGHT. Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added). See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513.
1.3.92 These words of the Supreme Court of Texas were reiterated by the Idaho Supreme Court, which later quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O’Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. In the original ruling the Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;
1.3.93 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The RIGHT to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural RIGHT. It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen’s natural liberty –an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of RIGHTS. (Emphasis added). See: Spann supra.
1.3.94 Let us take a moment and speak to the issue of property, as it is a man’s right to own and make use of his property that is most affected by the issues presented herein:
1.3.95 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines property thusly:
Property — The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is not a nuisance in itself. See: In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623.
1.3.96 The United States Supreme Court states:
1.3.97 The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law. Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the RIGHT to acquire, use and dispose of it. See: Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74. (emphasis added)
1.3.98 These authorities point out that the RIGHT to own property includes the RIGHT to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways for our own personal business and pleasure, and it is for those purposes that we the sovereign People have an absolute RIGHT.
1.3.99 If THE STATE wishes to argue that the People have no right to “operate” a “motor vehicle” without THE STATE’s permission, then perhaps the STATE would care to refer back to the previous arguments and case law cited herein as it pertains to the People’s rights as at no point have the People argued for the right to conduct commerce on the highways through the use of a motor vehicle for commercial purposes.
1.3.100 We the sovereign People have made no argument that anyone has the right to “operate” a “motor vehicle” upon the highways. THE STATE’s own statutes clearly show that in every single instance within the statutes in question the term “motor vehicle” and/or “vehicle” are defined as a “self-propelled device designed and used for the purpose of transporting passengers or property”. The People have so far argued nothing more than the fact that we have the right to use our private automobiles and our own roads and highways for the purpose of private personal business and travel.
1.3.101 We the People are certain that the STATE is, or at least should be, fully aware that there is a very legal difference between an automobile and a “motor vehicle” The terms “traffic” and “transportation” are defined as things relating directly to commerce by commercial common carriers. We the People are refuting THE STATE’s presumptive application to the People of the commercial TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, as it does not and cannot apply to the People’s right to travel, but only to those that are using the public way for commercial purposes of gain.
As far as winning at procedure goes, in theory you are correct, but the corruption of the various courts at every level have rendered this difficult to say the least. I can show that virtually every “traffic” court conviction in Texas is absolutely void because none of the required procedures created to protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the statutes governing the procedure were followed, making the everything a violation of the accused’s due process rights.
You are NEVER given a fair trial in a traffic court case, the entire procedure is handled from beginning to end in the grossest possible manner to ensure that the accused is NOT granted a fair and impartial trial, and this needs to stop.
In Texas a traffic offense is treated as a CRIMINAL offense! Therefore the burden of proof for a traffic ticket is (supposed to be) exactly the same as it is for a murder trial, and that is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Only civil trials may be decided on “a preponderance of the evidence.”
But this is not how it is done in “traffic court”. You are denied even the most basic right of discovery, cross-examination, production of evidence, and introduction of the law itself to show your innocence. Every municipality gets a cut of the profits made on traffic fines when a conviction is achieved, the remainder goes to the STATE. It is in the best interest, financially speaking, for the municipality to get as many convictions as possible as often as possible, so your due process rights are thrown away to ensure that is achievable with the least possible trouble.
Would any of you folks out there even consider calling such blatant denials of a fair trial reasonable due process? Remember that next time you get called for jury duty in a traffic case. You may think it is a waste of your time, but the person accused chose to stand up for themselves and fight, which should entitle them to your full attention and desire to do what is right and just, not just what the STATE wants, which is money stolen from a conviction.
Eddie Craig
December 28, 2009
Sorry Joey,
Forgot the Texas driver’s license cases I was speaking of:
Cases From Southwest Reporter Regarding No Driver’s License
Complete cases below! Who needs a drivers license?
Answer no one since the court already decided this issue in the following cases:
Here is how the Appellate Criminal Courts of Texas have answered this request: “The court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a “driver’s license.” (Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W. 2d 360.)
And…We have held that there is no such license as a driver’s license known to our law.” (Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W. 2d 401.)
And… “An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver’s license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver’s license known to the law.” (Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W. 2d 317)
And…”There being no such license as a “driver’s” license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense.” ( W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W. 2d 400)
CALLAS v STATE, 167 Tex. Crim. 375 (Tex.Cr.App. 1959)
320 S. W.2d 360
Frank John CALLAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 30094.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
January 7, 1959.
Appeal from the County Court at Law, Potter County, Mary Lou Robinson, J.
McCarthy, Rose & Haynes, Amarillo, for appellant.
Lon Moser, County Atty., E. S. Carter, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Amarillo, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. WOODLEY, Judge.
The complaint and information allege that appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public road `after the Texas Operator’s License of the said Frank John Callas had * * * been suspended’ and further alleged that appellant had received an extended period of suspension `of said Texas Operator’s License * * *’ and that said suspension had not expired.
We have searched the record carefully and find no evidence that the license which had been suspended was a Texas Operator’s License, as alleged in the information.
If appellant was driving a motor vehicle, it was a panel truck used as a commercial vehicle in appellant’s business, the appropriate license for its operation being a Commercial Operator’s License, and not an Operator’s License. See Art. 6687b, Sec. 1(n), Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.
This Court has held that there is no such license known to Texas law as a `driver’s license’. See Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400; Brooks v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 546, 258 S.W.2d 317.
There were but two persons in or around the panel truck. One was Walter Schaff, who was seated in the driver’s seat when the patrolmen reached it. Patrolman Kirkwood testified that S chaff was not driving the panel truck, and largely upon his testimony the jury found that appellant was the driver.
After the jury retired, Officer Kirkwood filed complaint charging Schaff with driving a motor vehicle in violation of restrictions imposed in his operator’s license. Information was presented by the County Attorney and Schaff was convicted upon his plea of guilty.
Appellant’s motion for new trial setting forth the conviction of Schaff after the close of the evidence on appellant’s trial should have been granted in order that upon another trial appellant might have the benefit of the evidence regarding the conviction of Schaff.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted; our former opinion herein affirming the judgment is withdrawn, and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.
CAMPBELL v. STATE, 160 Tex.Crim. 627 (Tex.Cr.App. 1955)
274 S. W.2d 401
Claude D. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 27245.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
January 12, 1955.
Appeal from the County Court, Panola County, Clifford S. Roe, J. No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted, in the County Court of Panola County, for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator’s license was suspended, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $25.
Under such a charge, the state was under the burden of showing that there had been issued an operator’s license to appellant to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway; that such license had been suspended; and that, while such license was suspended, appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
To meet this requirement, the state here relies upon testimony that appellant drove his pick-up truck upon a public highway in Panola County, on the date alleged, and that he drove said motor vehicle while his driver’s license was suspended.
This proof is insufficient to sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver’s license is not an operator’s license. We have held that there is no such license as a driver’s license known to our law. Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. R., 194 S.W.2d 400; Holloway way v. State, 155 Tex.Crim. R., 237 S.W.2d 303; and Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317.
Proof of the driving of an automobile while the driver’s license was suspended does not sustain the allegations of the information. The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.
BROOKS v. STATE, 158 Tex.Crim. 546 (Tex.Cr.App. 1953)
258 S. W.2d 317
BROOKS v. STATE.
No. 26458.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 27, 1953.
George W. Walker, Van Horn, for appellant. Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted for the violation of Art. 6687b, § 27, V.A.R.C.S.; and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.
The information upon which this conviction was predicated alleged that appellant ‘did then and there unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway, to-wit: U.S. Highway Number 80, situated within said county and state, while his, the said Keith Brook’s, drivers license was suspended.’
In Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. R., 194 S.W.2d 400, 401, we said:
“There being no such license as a `driver’s’ license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without such a license, charges no offense.’ See also Holloway v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 237 S.W.2d 303.
Because the information fails to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed. Opinion approved by the Court.
HASSELL v. STATE, 149 Tex. Crim. 333 (1946)
194 S. W.2d 400
W. LEE HASSELL v. THE STATE.
No. 23353.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Delivered May 15, 1946.
1. — Drivers’ License Act — Statute Construed.
Under Drivers’ License Act it is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a motor vehicle over a highway of Texas without having a license, either as an operator, a commercial operator or a chauffeur, but one holding a license as a commercial operator or a chauffeur is not required to have an operator’s license.
2. — Drivers’ License Act — Information.
Information alleging that defendant operated a motor vehicle upon public highway without a “driver’s license” charged no offense under Drivers’ License Act, since a driver’s license is not known to the law because the act only authorizes issuance of operators’, commercial operators’, and chauffeurs’ license and use of term “driver” interchangeably with term “operator” would not be authorized in view of definition in the act of term driver as meaning every person who drives or is in actual physical possession of a vehicle.
Appeal from County Court of Hunt County. Hon. Wm. C. Parker, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for operating a motor vehicle upon a highway without a license; penalty, fine of $50.00. Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.
The opinion states the case.
G. C. Harris, of Greenville, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The conviction is for operating a motor vehicle upon a highway without a license; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.
By what is commonly referred to as the Drivers’ License Act, and appearing as Art. 6687b of Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, the Legislature of this State provided for the licensing of operators of motor vehicles over the public highways of this State, Sec. 2 of Article II, of the Act reads as follows:
“Drivers must have license.”
“(a) No person, except those hereinafter expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State, unless such person has a valid license as an operator, a commercial operator, or a chauffeur under the provisions of this Act.
“(b) Any person holding a valid chauffeur’s or commercial operator’s license hereunder need not procure an operator’s license.
“(c) No person holding an operator’s, commercial operator’s, or chauffeur’s license duly issued under the provisions of this Act shall be required to obtain any license for the operation of a motor vehicle from any other State authority or department. Subsection (c) of Section 4 of Article 91 1A and Subsection (b) of Section 4 of Article 91 1B, Revised Civil Statutes, is hereby repealed.”
Sec. 44 of Art. VI of the Act provides the penalty for the violation.
It is by these statutes made unlawful for any person to drive or operate a motor vehicle over a highway of this State without having a license, either as an “operator,” a “commercial operator,” or a “chauffeur.” One holding a license as a “commercial operator” or “chauffeur” is not required to have an “operator’s” license.
Certain exemptions and exceptions from the operation of the Act are provided in Sec. 3 of Art. II. Thereof.
The information upon which this conviction was predicated alleged that appellant “did then and there unlawfully operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway, to-wit, State Highway No. 24, without a Driver’s License.”
It is insisted that the information charges no offense, because a “driver’s license” is neither recognized nor authorized to be issued under the Act and, by reason thereof, it constitutes no offense to drive a motor vehicle without such a license.
Only three types of licenses are authorized or required under the Act. These are operators’, commercial operators’, and chauffeurs’, and they are specially defined in the Act. The term “driver” — as used in the Act — is defined to be: “Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.” In view of this particular definition of the term “driver,” it cannot be said that such term may be used interchangeably with or given the same meaning as the term “operator.”
In view of this particular definition of the term “driver,” it cannot be said that such term may be used interchangeably with or given the same meaning as the term “operator.”
There being no such license as a “driver’s” license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without such a license, charges no offense.
Because of the defect in the information, the judgment is reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
HOLLOWAY v. STATE, 155 Tex.Crim. 484 (Tex.Cr.App. 1951)
237 S. W.2d 303
HOLLOWAY v. STATE.
No. 25192.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 7, 1951.
Appeal from the County Court, Jones County, Roger Garrett, J. W. E. Martin, Abilene, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. WOODLEY, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted and assessed a fine of $100 under an information and complaint charging that appellant “did then and there unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle upon the public roadways of the state while his drivers license was suspended.”
Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the information to charge an offense.
The prosecution appears to have been brought under the provisions of art. 6687b, Vernon’s Ann. Civil Statutes, commonly referred to as the Texas Drivers License Law, Sec. 27 thereof in part providing that no person whose operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended shall operate a motor vehicle during such suspension. Sec. 44 of such Act provides a punishment for such offense by fine not to exceed $200.
The information against appellant fails to allege that appellant had been issued either an operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license, or that he drove a motor vehicle while such a license was suspended.
In Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. R., 194 S.W.2d 400, an information alleging that the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a “drivers license” was held insufficient to charge an offense since a drivers license is not known to the law.
In Barber v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. R., 191 S.W.2d 879, a complaint charging the operation of an automobile and failure to display operator’s license on demand of a peace officer was held insufficient to charge an offense in the absence of an allegation that accused was, on the date of the alleged offense, a licensee.
The information being insufficient to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
BARBER v. STATE, 149 Tex. Crim. 18 (1945)
191 S. W.2d 879
C. R. BARBER v. THE STATE.
No. 23252.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Delivered December 19, 1945.
Automobile Operator’s License — Complaint.
A complaint charging operation of automobile and failure to display operator’s license on demand by peace officer was insufficient to charge an offense under statute requiring a license to be carried and exhibited on demand, in absence of allegation that accused was, on date of alleged offense, a licensee.
Appeal from County Court of Lubbock County. Hon. Walter Davies, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for failing to exhibit an automobile operator’s license on demand of a peace officer; penalty, fine of $200.00.
Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed. The opinion states the case.
Eugene F. Mathis, of Lubbock, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The brief filed by the State’s Attorney before this Court reflects the views of the Court and is adopted as its opinion, viz.:
“This is an appeal from the County Court of Lubbock County, Texas, from a conviction for failure to exhibit an operator’s license on demand, the punishment, a fine of $200.00.
“The prosecution, however, originated in the Justice Court of Precinct No. 1, Place No. 2, in Lubbock County, wherein the defendant was charged by complaint, (eliminating the formal part thereof), ‘C. R. Barber did then and there unlawfully, while operating an automobile upon a street, within the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, fail to display an operator’s license upon demand to do so by a peace officer, against the peace and dignity of the State.’ This complaint was apparently brought under the provisions of Article 6687b-13 of the Civil Statutes of Texas, which reads as follows:
” ‘Sec. 13 — License to be carried and exhibited on demand — Every licensee shall have his operator’s, commercial operator’s, or chauffeur’s license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand of a magistrate or any officer of a court of competent jurisdiction or any peace officer. It shall be a defense to any charge under this Section that the person so charged produce in court an operator’s commercial operator’s, or chauffeur’s license theretofore issued to such person and valid at the time of his arrest.’
“It will be noted that the statute provides that every licensee shall have his operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. It therefore occurs to us that it is absolutely necessary for the State to allege and prove that the accused was, on the date of the alleged offense, a licensee, for, as we construe the statute above quoted, it applies specifically to a licensee and unless the person accused was a licensee, we fail to understand how he could be guilty of violating the provisions of this portion of the statute in failing to display same upon demand.”
In holding the complaint insufficient to charge an offense under the statute mentioned, we are not to be understood as passing upon the validity of the statute. That question is not before us and is not decided. What we hold is that the instant complaint does not charge an offense under the statute.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
December 28, 2009
CAW—CAW— CAW— CAW HEY JOHN WHAT’S THAT NOISE? You wouldn’t take my little bucket full of crow i afford you instead you opened your Big ignorant alegator mouth again and Eddy Craig has cramed a whole train load down it.Got a little bible quote for you.Even a ignorant man is thought to be wise if he keeps his mouth shut You might want to write that down some where for future referance. By the way are you married to a woman named Charlotted?
JoeyGDauben
December 28, 2009
Tonight’s show is going to be a good one. Majesty, are you and number1son going to be listening? I might even call in to ask a couple of questions if they allow it…
Bill Williams
December 28, 2009
“Even a ignorant man is thought to be wise if he keeps his mouth shut”
I could not find that quote or any paraphrase thereof in the Bible.
I did find this.
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln
Seems like decent advice Your Majesty.
old man
December 28, 2009
Proverbs 17:28 (NIV) Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
Bill Williams
December 28, 2009
Thank you. (I didn’t check alternative translations.)
Eddie Craig
December 28, 2009
Joey,
Yes, we do in fact take callers and answer questions on the air. If you like we can arrange for you to appear on OUR show with your questions or you can call in with them tonight.
Call In line #: 512-646-1984
The show is on the air from 8pm-10pm tonight.
Listen over the internet at http://www.ruleoflawradio.com
Eddie Craig
JoeyGDauben
December 28, 2009
old_man, I know you’re the legal researcher of my clique. What, if anything, can you add or take away from Eddie Craig’s research?
If there’s anyone on this site that knows how to research statutes, it’s my webmaster (number1son knows him personally), who is literally the most brilliant mind (other than mine) that I know.
John Witten
December 28, 2009
I dont see where it gets any more clear than this…..
Sec. 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any PEACE OFFICER may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle.
A Peace officer Is defined in Article 2.12 of the CCP.
Your own definition of Chapter 541 of the Transportation Code for Person is
(4) “Person” means an INDIVIDUAL, firm, partnership, association, or
corporation.
Again different Codes have different definitions and you have to apply those definitions to their specific statutes.
Believe me if there was something Amiss here I would jump on the bandwagon. But there is not. You are confusing people by taking excerpts from different statutes that dont apply to each other and intertwining their definitions. I guess we will have to disagree on this. Good luck in your endeavors.
old man
December 28, 2009
This is what I’ve found by looking at word meanings, including how they’re defined in a law dictionary, as related to the meaning of “person.”
“Individual,” while it can be used as a noun, is primarily an adjective. It describes the nature of a thing moreso than a thing itself.
In the statute, it says a person is “an individual…” I would ask, “an individual what?” You can’t say person, because you can’t use a word to define itself; you can’t say that a person is an individual person. There is no explicit meaning given to the term, so we look at the context.
Individuality has meaning as distinct from a collective. In the context of the definition, I’d say that the meaning of “individual” is a single representative of one of the types of collectives listed: firm, partnership, association, or corporation. I’d interpret the definition to say that a person is a firm, partnership, association, corporation, or a single representative of one of those establishments. If the legislature wanted to show that the definition was meant to include people, as in natural persons: men, women, and children, they would have used more definitive terminology, such as “natural person” or “human being,” in order to prevent any misinterpretation.
old man
December 28, 2009
For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that the Texas Penal Code provides that:
In this code:…
“Individual” means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth…
“Person” means an individual, corporation, or association.
This means that “person” in the Penal Code refers to human beings. The legislature knows how to explicitly include human beings in the meaning of the word “person.” When this is not done, and “person” or “individual” is defined without some similar provision, it would appear that human beings are not meant to be included.
Joey G. Dauben
December 28, 2009
Hey Eddie,
The ECO syndication is very good. As a test, I put “Eddie Craig Texas traffic tickets” into a Google search and ECO links were Nos 1, 2 and 3.
Also, if it’d be easier for some folks, EllisCountyO.com also forwards to this blog.
It’s quicker than typing out Observer, but either URL will work.
Recap:
http://www.elliscountyobserver.com or http://www.elliscountyO.com.
L I B Dang
December 28, 2009
Hey Bill Williams,
In what translation of the Bible did you find a quote from Abraham Lincoln?
I don’t recall ever reading anything written by him an any Bible.I must agree, the quote is good advice. But I am a bit puzzled as to why you think it is good advice for others but not you?
james
January 5, 2010
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.
james
January 5, 2010
Sec. 542.202. POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES. (a) This subtitle does not prevent a local authority, with respect to a highway under its jurisdiction and in the reasonable exercise of the police power, from:
(1) regulating traffic by police officers or traffic-control devices;
(2) regulating the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle;
(3) regulating or prohibiting a procession or assemblage on a highway;
(4) regulating the operation and requiring registration and licensing of a bicycle or electric bicycle, including payment of a registration fee, except as provided by Section 551.106;
(5) regulating the time, place, and manner in which a roller skater may use a highway;
(6) regulating the speed of a vehicle in a public park;
(7) regulating or prohibiting the turning of a vehicle or specified type of vehicle at an intersection;
(8) designating an intersection as a stop intersection or a yield intersection and requiring each vehicle to stop or yield at one or more entrances to the intersection;
(9) designating a highway as a through highway;
(10) designating a highway as a one-way highway and requiring each vehicle on the highway to move in one specific direction;
(11) designating school crossing guards and school crossing zones;
(12) altering a speed limit as authorized by this subtitle; or
(13) adopting other traffic rules specifically authorized by this subtitle.
james
January 5, 2010
SUBCHAPTER C. OFFENSES
Sec. 542.301. GENERAL OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person performs an act prohibited or fails to perform an act required by this subtitle.
(b) Except as otherwise provided, an offense under this subtitle is a misdemeanor.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 542.302. OFFENSE BY PERSON OWNING OR CONTROLLING VEHICLE. A person who owns a vehicle or employs or otherwise directs the operator of a vehicle commits an offense if the person requires or knowingly permits the operator of the vehicle to operate the vehicle in a manner that violates law.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 542.303. INCHOATE OFFENSE. (a) A person who attempts to commit or conspires to commit an act declared by this subtitle to be an offense is guilty of the offense.
(b) A person who falsely, fraudulently, or wilfully permits another to violate this subtitle is guilty of the violation.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
james
January 6, 2010
Here, these give peace officers authority to arrest criminal amd traffic statutes. Some are from the CCP and others are from the TRC. You should be able to figure it out.
Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer’s jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.
(b) The officer shall:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;
(2) execute all lawful process issued to the officer by any magistrate or court;
(3) give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer’s jurisdiction, where the officer has good reason to believe there has been a violation of the penal law; and
(4) arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law, in order that they may be taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried.
(c) It is the duty of every officer to take possession of a child under Article 63.009(g).
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES; NOTICES AND PROMISES TO APPEAR
Sec. 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 543.002. PERSON ARRESTED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE. (a) A person arrested for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor shall be immediately taken before a magistrate if:
(1) the person is arrested on a charge of failure to stop in the event of an accident causing damage to property; or
(2) the person demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate or refuses to make a written promise to appear in court as provided by this subchapter.
(b) The person must be taken before a magistrate who:
(1) has jurisdiction of the offense;
(2) is in the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed; and
(3) is nearest or most accessible to the place of arrest.
Sec. 543.003. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: PERSON NOT TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE. An officer who arrests a person for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor and who does not take the person before a magistrate shall issue a written notice to appear in court showing the time and place the person is to appear, the offense charged, the name and address of the person charged, and, if applicable, the license number of the person’s vehicle.
Sec. 543.005. PROMISE TO APPEAR; RELEASE. To secure release, the person arrested must make a written promise to appear in court by signing the written notice prepared by the arresting officer. The signature may be obtained on a duplicate form or on an electronic device capable of creating a copy of the signed notice. The arresting officer shall retain the paper or electronic original of the notice and deliver the copy of the notice to the person arrested. The officer shall then promptly release the person from custody.
james
January 6, 2010
I dare you to try what this fool has posted Joey. You would be in jail again very fast. Atleast this time the judge would be a lot faster, and you could get out sooner. Atleast your sister did the smart thing and just signed her ticket, I assume. Go ahead and let me know how that piece of junk on top works out for you.
james
January 6, 2010
“I would now like to ask the nay-sayers, where in these statutes is the authority delegated for regulating “non-commercial and “not for hire” traffic? Can YOU produce the statutory authority that delegates that regulatory power? Can you? Where is it? Tell us all, please! Show me the statute and I will take it all back, every single word and admit publicly that I do not know what I am talking about… any takers? No? Didn’t think so…”
Now you can take it all back Eddie!!!! I also want to see it publicly.
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
January 6, 2010
You just dont get do you Woodrow or James you dont understand what a person is do you If you did you would not be making such a fool of yourself to those of us who do understand the definition of personsa ifeel sory for you and all of the people you are leading astray
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
January 6, 2010
JAMES I’ll let my buddy Eddie Craig explane person to you, he has a much more articulate manner than i do`If i tried to do it the first thing i would do is throw a corn cob at you just get your attention or maby a horse bisquit or maby booth cause you seame to be real igornant
james
January 6, 2010
So you now have the statutes and chose to ignore them. That is normal for a FOOL.
Eddie Craig
January 6, 2010
James:
First, may I ask you to show us all how can someone can commit an offense under a statute that does not apply to them? If the statute says it applies only to red cars then that automatically means it DOES NOT apply to white cars, blue cars, purple cars or green cars does it not? Would you not agree that this is common sense at its best and simplest?
In order for one to commit an offense under Subtitle C Transportation Code, Subtitle C must first apply to the one so charged. In other words you must meet the statutory definition of the term “Person”. Please see my previous post on that issue. I suggest you go back and re-read the previous postings and gain more knowledge as right now you are showing the same level of ignorance shown by the “Peace officers” whom are illegally enforcing these statutes that apply only to “RED CARS” against the People to whom they DO NOT and CANNOT apply because they are NOT OPERATING a “RED CAR”.
Check the legal definition of the terms “Traffic”, “Transportation”, “Person”, and “Transported”, which I believe I covered rather extensively in previous posts.
Now, since you think that the Penal Code somehow applies to traffic cases could you please show us the relevant offense(s) codified within the Penal Code for traffic citations? Please give us the Penal Code
sections applicable to “Speeding”, “No Driver’s License”, “No Registration”, “No Insurance”, “No Inspection”, “No Seatbelt”, “Broken Tail Light” and/or any other “traffic” related offense other than DUI, which is not a “Traffic Offense” but a penal code offense.
What do you mean you can’t find one? You mean that in the entire Penal Code there is NO TRAFFIC offenses listed?? Golly, imagine MY surprise, don’t I have egg on my face now.
I also suggest you re-read the posting I made regarding just who or what a “Person” is in regards to Sec. 543.001-543.008 Transportation Code as well as the rest of the STATE’s statutory administration codes in their entirety.
It might also interest you all to know that Texas Administrative Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 29 makes it VERY clear that EVERY so-called “traffic offense” falls under the authority and rules governing the
TxDPS, and ANY contested case except for the specific ones excluded under that rule pertaining to TxTrC Secs. 521, 522, 524, and 724 is subject to Tx Gov. Code Chapter 2001 Administrative Procedure Act. In other words, the STATE MUST have already exhausted ALL of their administrative remedies BEFORE taking you to court in a judicial forum such as traffic court.
How many of you folks out there were ever given an administrative hearing BEFORE you appeared in traffic court? None of you?
How about you James, have you ever gotten an administrative hearing before the administrative judge in the State Office of Administrative Hearings in Austin Texas before having to pay the ticket or appearing in traffic court in any municipality? Imagine my surprise.
Let me ask you this James, how about if I can PROVE to you “any peace officer” is NOT and absolutely CANNOT be a blanket authority granted to “any peace officer” in order to enforce traffic statutes? Would that make you happy enough to actually read and research how each of these codes are interdependent and MUST fit together, rather than you trying to hold onto just one or two sections that SEEM to make your point if taken alone but fall flat on their face when taken in context of the other interrelated statutes?
Now, I know this will be hard for you James, just like it obviously is for John, Charlotted, and some of the other posters on this forum, but please, TRY to engage your brain and use a little common sense
reasoning BEFORE you kick your virtual keyboard mouth into high gear when you try to answer the following questions…… ready?
1. Does the TxDPS meet all the criteria set forth in the definition of an administrative “state agency” pursuant Texas Government Code Chapter 2001?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2001.htm
2. Does Tx. Adm. Code Title 37, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 29, Rules 29.1, 29.2, and 29.3 show that all contested cases over which the TxDPS has jurisdiction are subject to an administrative hearing?
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=P&p_rloc=122094&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=6&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=29&rl=2
3. Is the TxDPS controlled by ANOTHER state administrative agency called the Texas Public Safety Commission pursuant Texas Government Code Sec. 411.003?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.003
4. Does the Texas Public Safety Commission meet all the criteria set forth in the definition of an administrative “state agency” pursuant Texas Government Code Chapter 2001?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2001.htm
5. Who appoints the five citizen members of the Texas Public Safety Commission?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.003
6. Under what branch of state government is the office of the person specified who does the appointing in question 5 created?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4.htm
7. For all intents and purposes does Gov. Code Sec. 411.003(b) apparently limit the qualifications to sit on this commission to only current, retired, or ex-law enforcement personnel?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.003
8. Does Tx. Gov. Code Sec. 411.004 state that this commission is responsible for creating and documenting the rules and procedures that the TxDPS is to operate within?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.004
9. Pursuant Tx. Gov. Code Sec. 411.012 can the governor take direct control over the commission which he appointed and the TxDPS?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.012
10. Since the governor, who is an executive branch officer, appoints and governs the commission members, and can directly control the commission and the TxDPS, does that not make them both executive branch
agencies also?
11. The commission writes the rules and regulations that direct the officers of the TxDPS on how, on what or whom, and when to perform their duties, correct?
12. The Texas Transportation Code statutes ARE the rules and regulations written specifically to deal with “Transportation” in all of its various forms and functions and put forth to inform the TxDPS and
other “authorized” officers as to what and whom those duties apply, correct?
13. Pursuant Texas Admin. Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Rule 1.2, the mission of the TxDPS is to SUPERVISE traffic on the rural highways AND to SUPERVISE and REGULATE COMMERCIAL and “FOR
HIRE” traffic does it not?
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=1&rl=2
14. You DID notice that Rule 1.2 says that the autority to REGULATE is specifically limited to those engaged in COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES upon the highways didn’t you?
15. Pursuant Texas Admin. Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Rule 1.3, the ADMINISTRATIVE and REGULATORY functions of the TxDPS under Rule 1.3(b)(1) and (b)(2) includes DRIVER’S LICENSEs,
VEHICLE INSPECTION and other “Traffic” law related authorities does it not?
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=1&ch=1&rl=3
16. Now, you DO recall that Rule 1.2 specifically LIMITED the TxDPS regulatory authority to regulating COMMERCIAL and “FOR HIRE” traffic don’t you?
17. You also realize that NOWHERE is the authority to regulate COMMERCIAL activities EVER expanded beyond its original scope and application to include the People and their NON-COMMERCIAL activities do you
not?
18. Pursuant Texas Gov. Code Sec. 411.003 is the enforcement of the Texas Transportation Code statutes an executive branch function?
19. You ARE operating under the presumption that Transportation Code Sec. 543 means to convey the power to issue traffic citations and arrest to ANY “Peace Officer” are you not?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.543.htm#A
20. Are Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs, and Constables considered to be “Peace Officers” within Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.12?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.2.htm#2.12
21. Under what branch of government does the Texas Constitution create the offices of Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, and Constable?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.5.htm#5.23
22. Is there any article or section of the Texas Constitution that allows the legislature to create any other office or agency for the purposes of “law enforcement”, “peace officer”, or “police force” other
than Article 5, Sec. 23?
23. If not, then by what delegated constitutional authority did the legislature presume to create municipal police departments, the department of public safety, and the Texas Rangers for the purposes of law
enforcement?
24. You ARE aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the “Police” are not required, obligated, or bound in any way to provide aid or assitance to individual members of the general
public, despite there being laws on the books that allegedly require the rest of us to do so, such as rendering aid in an accident, do you not?
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/04-278/04-278.mer.pet.pdf
25. Now, if the legislature was not specifically delegated this authority by the People within the Texas Constitution, then under what authority did they presume to act if not under the “General Powers”?
26. Is the authority for creating municipalities granted to the legislature under Article 11 MUNICPAL CORPORATIONS of the Texas Constitution?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.11.htm
27. Pursuant Texas Constitution Article 11 municipal corporations are created and operated under the general laws, which are by definition laws passed under the “general powers” of government, correct?
28. Pursuant Texas Constitution Article 11, Sec. 5, municipal corporations may enact “laws” called “ordinances”, which are by definition laws passed under the “general powers” of government, correct?
29. There is no article of the Texas Constitution, not even Article 11, that grants ANY authority to the legislature to delegate to municipalities the ability to create an office for the purpose of “law
enforcement”, isn’t that correct?
30. Is the authority to allegedly create and operate municipal police departments granted to municipalities by the legislature in Local Gov. Code Chapter 341?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.341.htm
31. Who granted authority to the legislature to delegate an alleged authority to municipal corporations that the legislature itself was never delegated and therefore does not possess?
32. If there is no authority specifically delegated with the Texas Constitution, otherwise know as ENUMERATED POWERS, to a particualt branch of government, then anything that branch of government, its
officers, agents, and employees do that is OUTSIDE of their delegated authority is ILLEGAL is it not?
33. However, if there IS a delegated authority to exercise a particular power or authority then the things that are necessarily ancillary to the delegated authority are allowed, correct?
34. Though it may be desirable or prudent to do so, do we agree that the creation of a “Police Force” IS NOT an “ancillary necessity” of the delegated authority to create municipal corporations since these
corporations can exist and function WITHOUT such a police force?
35. Do we agree that since there IS NOT a constitutionally delegated authority granted to the legislature to create any other type of “law enforcement” office outside of those specified in Article 5, Sec. 23
that We the People DID NOT delegate that authority to the legislature?
36. Doesn’t Texas Constitution Article 1, Sec. 29 absolutely forbid ANY LAW created under the general powers of government from acting to abrogate or derogate the rights protected within the entire Bill of
Rights in Article 1 as well as to act in violation of any other provision of the Texas Constitution?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.29
37. Pursuant Texas Constitution Article 1, Sec. 29 aren’t all laws that are written or applied in such a way as to interfere with or in any way diminish the rights of the People granted by God, and the small
portion thereof specifically set forth in the entirety of Article 1, or any other provision of the Texas Constitution, automatically null and void?
38. Pursuant Texas Constitution Article 2 is there not a total prohibition of any person or collection of persons in any one branch of government from exercising any power or authority of any of the others?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.2.htm
39. Do we agree that the office of Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, and Constable are, statutorily speaking, considered “Peace Officers”?
40. Do we agree that these three specific law enforcement offices are created under Article V, Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution?
41. Do we agree that by creating these offices under Article 5 of the Texas Constitution that this MUST make these three specific offices JUDICAL branch offices, not executive branch offices?
42. Do we agree that the Texas Constitution FORBIDS a judicial branch “Person” or “collection of Persons” from exercising ANY power or authority of an executive branch “Person”, office, officer, agent, or employee?
43. How then would it be possible for ANY sheriff, deputy, or constable to enforce ANY part of the Texas Transportation Code and NOT be in direct violation of Texas Constitution Article 2?
44. Do we agree that the legislature has created the office of “COUNTY TRAFFIC OFFICERS” pursuant Transportation Code Chapter 701?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.701.htm
45. Do we agree that pursuant Transportation Code Sec. 701.002 that this “COUNTY TRAFFIC OFFICER” is in fact for all intents and purposes, a deputy sheriff?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.701.htm#701.002
46. Do we agree that if this “COUNTY TRAFFIC OFFICER” IS a deputy sheriff that this position MUST operate under the authority and powers of Texas Constitution Article 5, Sec. 23?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.5.htm#5.23
44. Do we therefore agree that under the prohibition set forth in Texas Constititution Article 2 that Transportation Code Chapter 701 would be ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.2.htm
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.701.htm
45. Do we therefore agree that, as a “Person” established within the judicial department of government as set forth by the Texas Constitution, that the offices of sheriff, deputy sheriff, and constable CANNOT lawfully enforce or act upon an executive code created and administered by executive department “Persons” without being in violation of Texas Constitution Article 2?
46. Do we now agree that the declaration within Transportation Code Secs. 543.001-543.008 absolutely CANNOT grant any authority whatsoever to EVERY “Peace Officer” to enforce Subtitle C of said code?
47. Would this not also mean that, constitutionally speaking, there is NO AUTHORITY for a municipal police or DPS officer to EVER interfere with one or more of the People of Texas that is NOT engaging in an activity for which we granted the legislature regulatory authority or oversight (corporatioons and commerce), or that is not guilty of causing actual harm to another man or his property?
48. If you feel that the previous question is incorrect then would you PLEASE show us all where in the Texas Constitution We the People granted or delegated ANY authority to our servants, the legislature and its proginey, to REGULATE the lives and property of the People of Texas.
49. Can government lawfully tell the People what they can think or eat, where they must live and work, deny access to or use of the People’s own public or private property to those People to whom it belongs?
50. Who is the true government and political power holder within Texas, THE STATE OF TEXAS Corporation, or the People that created the organic state and formed the government by our declarations embodied within the Texas Constitution?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.2
51. How did the People, a superior political power holder to the STATE pursuant Texas Constitution Article 1, Sec. 2, suddenly become subject to administrative governmental procedures and processes, that by definition, deal ONLY with the internal administration of the governmental agencies and the legal entites over which we the People gave them authority?
52. If the People can be and are subjectable, and therefore necessarily subservient, to any and all administrative procedures and regulations instituted by the legislature, then what need do We the People of Texas have for a constitution or a republican form of government since the legislature may do as it pleases by way of statutes despite constitutional prohibitions?
53. Would that not mean that we would then no longer be a republic, but rather an oligarchy, a government and People controlled by a select few with all of the power and authority while we the People have none?
54. What then is to stop those in power from simply writing statutes that then allow them to take whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want?
55. What power or authority then makes us a free People with a voice in our own government and control over our own lives and property?
56. Do we all agree that at this point the power and authority to be free is now totally destroyed?
So James, before your presume that your position is irrefutable I suggest you provide answers to these questions for yourself and THEN worry about whether they show that I am wrong in my assessment of governmental authority. But reason and sanity should show you that I am not.
Otherwise your not proving anything except that you are totally ignorant on the subject of who I am (or aren’t), who you are (or aren’t), what our rights are as one of the individual Peoples of Texas, and most importantly, what the actual limitations of governmental authority are.
If you wish to play it safe and not question their authority then you go right ahead, but I beg you, all of you, to remember the words of Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
– Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 Aug 1776)
I wish each and every one of you reading these posts all the best,
Eddie Craig
Mr. Adams had many other worthwhile observations on our nation -
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.
No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.
Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity’s liberty!
Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy…. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
Samuel Adams quotes:
It is a very great mistake to imagine that the object of loyalty is the authority and interest of one individual man, however dignified by the applause or enriched by the success of popular actions.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.
He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man…The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.
Eddie Craig
January 6, 2010
BTW James, just exactly WHERE is a traffic offense codified to fall within the statutory definition of a “breach of the peace” as it would have to be to meet the requirements of “preserving the peace” pursuant Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.13? Have you EVER seen “Breach of the Peace” listed as a charge on routine “traffic” citation?
Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the duty of every peace officer
to preserve the peace within the officer’s jurisdiction.
One other thing, since ALL traffic offenses, other than those specifically excluded by Texas Adm. Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 29, Rule 1.2, are subject to a requisite ADMINISTRATIVE hearing and not a JUDICIAL trial, then HOW can they be classified as “CRIMES”?
An administrative hearing judge and/or court has NO JURISDICTION over CRIMES and criminal cases, only civil processes and procedures, yet the Texas Adm. Code clearly states that contested traffic cases ARE considered to be exactly the type of “contested cases” that fall subject to and require an administrative hearing. So how do they do it? How do they attempt to classify an “administrative civil offense” as a “crime”? Especially in light of the definition of “Crime” contained in Texas Gov. Code Sec. 71.001(5), which by the way, is the ONLY definition of “Crime” contained in ANY Texas code:
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH
SUBTITLE F. COURT ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 71. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 71.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Assigned counsel program” means a system under which private attorneys, acting as independent contractors and compensated with public funds, are individually appointed to provide legal representation
and services to a particular indigent defendant accused of a crime or juvenile offense.
(2) “Chair” means the chair of the council.
(3) “Contract defender program” means a system under which private attorneys, acting as independent contractors and compensated with public funds, are engaged to provide legal representation and services to
a group of unspecified indigent defendants who appear before a particular court or group of courts.
(4) “Council” means the Texas Judicial Council.
(5) “Crime” means:
(A) a misdemeanor punishable by confinement; or
(B) a felony.
(6) “Defendant” means a person accused of a crime or a juvenile offense.
(7) “Indigent defense support services” means criminal defense services that:
(A) are provided by licensed investigators, experts, or other similar specialists, including forensic experts and mental health experts; and
(B) are reasonable and necessary for appointed counsel to provide adequate representation to indigent defendants.
(8) “Juvenile offense” means conduct committed by a person while younger than 17 years of age that constitutes:
(A) a misdemeanor punishable by confinement; or
(B) a felony.
(9) “Public defender” has the meaning assigned by Article 26.044(a), Code of Criminal Procedure.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1408, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 906, Sec. 12, eff. Jan. 1, 2002.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 855, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.
According to this definition a misdemeanor is only a crime if the punishment involves confinement as a possible part of the punishment for the offense. Which would then lead us to the ONLY other possible conclusion available, which is that the misdemeanors codified within the Trans. Code are CIVIL in nature, NOT CRIMINAL.
It would appear that traffic offenses are NOT considered crimes in the eyes of the government when it comes to review by the Texas Judicial Council regarding the practices and procedures in the handling of these types of cases, therefore, the council NEVER sees or reviews such cases. Does that fact not seem a bit odd to anyone else? Is it possibly because such a review would reveal the monstrous fraud being perpetrated in the name of money and the continuous constitutional violations of even the most basic measures of due process to which the People are entitled as a matter of right? I leave that conclusion up to each of you, but I can see how it would be easily established and proven that this is exactly what is being done.
Since when does the government have ANY authority to arrest one of the People for a CIVIL violation of ANYTHING? THEY DON’T! There MUST be a crime committed and a palpable and provable harm that the crime occurred, this is the foundation of STANDING TO SUE or to CHARGE, in other words the standing to pursue a tort and/or a separate criminal action if the harm is shown to be criminally negligent or intentional in its nature.
Therefore, the ONLY “Person” that can be under this particular administrative authority is one that has subjugated itself to this authority by accepting the license or other “privilege(s)” granted by some governmental agency.
The People DO NOT have PRIVILEGES, we have RIGHTS endowed within us by our creator. The People of Texas created our government and wrote a constitution to keep it subordinate to the People in EVERY respect.
Government and those legal entities that WE allowed it to create are the ones that have and exercise PRIVILEGES.
The fact that many of you cannot accept this does not make me wrong in my assertions and observations, rather it shows you to be blind to the obvious, and totally ignorant of your own power and authority.
Eddie Craig
January 6, 2010
Also, since Article 2 of the Texas Constitution forbids the exercise of any power or authority contained within a specific branch of government by a member of any other separate branch of government would someone please explain in detail how the following is possible. And please remember that this is true at both the state and federal levels of government:
1. Attorneys/Lawyers (for referential simplification hereinafter, referred to as “scumbags”) are automatically enrolled into the judicial branch of government simply by obtaining a license from the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant Government Code Chapter 84, or within their own state, followed by the paying of bar membership dues so that they are in “good standing” with the bar. Do we all agree on this?
2. This means that without benefit of approval or vote by the People, the entire judicial branch is totally populated by these scumbags with the exception of the offices of Sheriff, Constable, Justice of the Peace and municipal court judges, and even then these office are sometimes held by such scumbags. Do we all agree on this?
3. Do we all agree that this places the People’s rights to have access to the courts and to receive remedy for governmental wrongdoing in the hands of these same scumbags that are in control of the People’s courts?
4. Since these scumbags are AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in the judicial branch of government, how then do these same scumbags hold ANY public office in the two remaining branches of government?
5. Is this not a direct and absolute violation of the separation/division of powers doctrine within both the Constitution of the United States and the Texas Constitution?
6. Would it not be true that the ONLY way one of these scumbags can hold a public office in any other branch of government would be to rescind their license, return their bar membership card and thus be “dis-enrolled” from the judicial branch of government?
7. How come we are letting these scumbags get away with this? Oh yeah… THEY control the courts and THEY decide whether or not to prosecute each other… NOW I remember.
Anybody seeing a pattern here that shows WHY we have to be VERY careful in reading the law and how it is to be applied? This is why there seems to be no justice when the law is ignored by these scumbags in the courts, especially traffic courts.
james
January 6, 2010
I think you may be to stupid to comprehend what I am telling you. The following is the exact code that allows peace officers to enforce traffic violations. A traffic stop by definition is an arrest. The liberty to leave is no longer allowed. You have been detained, there for you are arrested. This section gives an officer the right to arrest. They must issue a citation only on two offenses. These offense are speeding and open container. Sec. 543.003 allows officers to issue citations rather than arrest. Now if you wish you may request to be taken before a judge. This would mean you will be arrested, transported to the jail and a judge would be notified you are their at the request to see a judge now. You seem to mix different codes into areas that are very different.
I tell you what, we will start at the first question. Does an officer have a right to enforce traffic offenses on vehicles other than CMVs. Yes this is authorized by the statute listed below. The statutes you list in that trash is for CMV’s. It does not apply to non CMV vehicles.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES; NOTICES AND PROMISES TO APPEAR
Sec. 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle
Eddie Craig
January 7, 2010
James:
You keep insisting that the terms “Person” in Secs. 543.001-543.008 somehow applies to everyone everywhere. However, it does not. You are insisting that the term “Person” means what YOU think it means rather than what the LAW says it means.
Tell us, from WHERE are you getting YOUR understanding of the definition of the terms “Traffic”, “Transportation”, “Person”, “Motor Vehicle”, and “Vehicle”?
You INSIST that Sec. 543 applies to EVERY “Peace Officer” even after I PROVE to you that it simply DOES NOT. The term “peace officer” is NOT defined in Subtitle C, only the term “Police Officer” which is defined in Sec. 541.002(4).
You INSIST that we are all a “Person” as that term is defined in the statutes when we are not.
You apparently INSIST that “Traffic” means everything and everybody when it does not.
You also apparently INSIST that “Transportation” also means everything and everybody when it does not?
I have shown more than adequate proof of these facts and you STILL insist that this one section of the Transportation Code grants authority to any “Peace Officer” to arrest anybody at any time for anything related to traffic, which it DOES NOT because only those ENGAGED IN COMMERCE can be involved in TRANSPORTATION under the Transportation Code!! Sec. 543 IS in the Transportation Code correct? So only those that are subject to the Transportation Code would be subject to the provisions of Sec. 543, or is that too complicated for you to comprehend?
You keep saying that the sections I show you only deal with CMV’s, thats because it is the ONLY law there is for the purpose of regulating traffic!! How dense can you be?
I have YET to see a single post by you or anyone else with a negative opinion that provides any statute authorizing the regulation of non-commercial automobiles.
Either learn to read statutes correctly or stop opening your mouth to prove your ignorance.
The Texas Administrative Code is THE code that defines the operations and authorities of the TxDPS. All “Peace Officers” that are AUTHORIZED to enforce the traffic laws get their authority delegated to them by the TxDPS, ASK THEM! They will tell you they get it from THE STATE.
The ONLY STATE agency given authority to ENFORCE traffic law IS the TxDPS, therefore they are the only place within THE STATE the local “Peace Officers” can GET that authority delegated to them.
All I have done is show you that the ONLY authority granted to the TxDPS that can BE delegated to the local authorities is the same authority that binds the TxDPS. The Administrative Code authorizes ONLY commercial regulation of commercial traffic and activities, not private non-commercial automobiles.
I also see that just like your predecessors, you have utterly failed to refute a single one of the points or answer even one of the questions asked with actual contradictory law, not even law within the same statute I present.
I have responded to each and every post made on this subject using nothing more than the constitution and statutes of Texas, Bouvier’s and Black’s Law dictionaries, and verifiable case law to prove the truth of what I have presented. I believe that I have successfully refuted your application of Trans. Code Sec. 543 twice now by showing that it DOES NOT apply to the People nor does it authorize EVERY “Peace Officer” to arrest everybody that allegedly commits an “offense”, but may do so only against “Persons” who are acting on behalf of those legal entities that are defined as a “Person” by the statutes.
I believe I have shown and proven that YOU misunderstanding, misapplying, and misrepresenting the statutes because you DO NOT read the statutes in their ENTIRETY to make certain of the context and intent. You have not read and researched the actual legislative acts on which these statutes are based. You have not read past versions of these statutes and the related case law to prove what they really mean and to what they really apply.
You have done NONE of these things and yet you proclaim that *I* am the one that is a fool and stupid?
For some reason the Judges and the prosecutors of the Lufkin, Nacogdoches, and Rockdale, Texas municipal courts seem to think that my understanding and presentment have merit or do you think they all either dismissed or “lost” my case just because of my looks?
Now please, let me type this a little slower for you so that it sinks in better…
A n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t I a s k e d
a n d t h e n y o u c a n r e f u t e e a c h o f
t h e m w i t h a c t u a l l a w i n y o u r f a v o r,
i f y o u c a n.
But please try and understand that Sec. 543 DOES NOT mean what you are insisting that it does so stop relying on it, you will drown if you continue using it for a flotation device in support of your position.
I do not truly expect that you will answer any of the questions however, none of your predecessors would address the information I presented point-for-point so I expect nothing more from you than more of the same tirade over Sec. 543 that you are clinging to so desperately.
“You can lead a cop to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.”
Somehow I believe that this quote of mine applies very appropriately to you James. I am considering having T-shirts made from it, would you like one?
Adieu
His Majesty Sovereign King of Bakers Acres
January 7, 2010
James i’m just guessing but i think i smell a power freek cop who gets his thril kicking poor igorant sheep around makes u feel real mocho. Well u better get all the kicking in u can cause your days are numberd.Cause the sheep are begening to listen to some wise ole goats. You remind of a fellow i once met on a bus going to FT Worth as we pased through Waco headed north the bus started to fill up so men started getting up so the ladies could sit down. When we got to Hillsboro a young lady got on about as pregant a girl as i have ever seen looked like she had swoled a giant pumpkin seed u could tell she was in misery so i asked this young man if he would get up and let her sit down.He said naw sur i paid for my ticket and i got just as much right as she do so i’m sitting. Well we came to a little town called Itasca where a long lanky cowboy got on carying a saddle well he spied the situation right away. He said fella get up and let this lady sit down. He said naw sur i paid for my ticket and i’m sitten. that ole cowboy set his saddle in the isle grabed that ole boy by the collar snatched him out of that seat poped him under the chin a sent him scoting down the isle where he landed at my feet I looked dodn at him and said now see there if u had goten up when i ask u to u wouldn’t be spitting out teeth and bleading everywhere. He said yaw sur but you didn’t splane it like he did.So James it looks some one just gona half to SPLANE the statutes to u so u will understand
james
January 7, 2010
My last post for these two stupid fools. You go ahead and try using this and let the media know that you feel this way. This way we all see your stupid pictures on TV later. Also make sure you post a new section with Joey showing your progress. If you continue to drive and use this junk, it will be a joke at some point. I tell you what if you were to speed down the highway, in say Red Oak then at some point you will be stopped. Then you fight your fight. Tis could be some comic relief for the year. Why don’t you bring a camera with you, and record it all. Then you can post it on Youtube where everyone whines aout there rights.
Eddie Craig
January 8, 2010
To James:
Whines about their rights? You MUST be a cop! Only a cop thinks those that stand on their rights as one of the People are “whining” about them. Which makes you worse than the rest.
You think that the only ones that have any rights are you and your badge wearing criminal conspirators. I have seen the mindset before, that only your ilk can think for themselves, guess again. From your own mouth you show the the brainwashing for you is totally complete.
It seems to me that it is the cops doing the whining… “oh please! Take the guns away from these People so a**holes like us can get away with violating their rights without fear of getting shot for it!”
But I say for the record once again, you have failed to rebut ANYTHING, including your own stupidity. Then you resort to personal name calling rather than providing law to support your position.
As I said, I HAVE used this information, it HAS been successful because it IS THE LAW. The fact that it is beyond your comprehension is through no fault of mine or anyone else on this blog. Your just so set in your mind that this is the ONLY way it can or your kind cannot be in control, which is exactly how I would prefer it.
Peace officers are supposed to KEEP THE PEACE, not just enforce every law simply because they are told to, especially when that law violates the rights of the one on whom it is being foisted by brainless robots with guns. Officers take an oath to OBEY and DEFEND the respective constitutions above EVERY OTHER LAW, that includes protecting the rights of the People above every other law, or have you forgotten that? The ONLY purpose of a constitution is to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE BY LIMITING THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.
Please James, just once ANSWER MY QUESTION! WHERE does the Texas Constitution grant ANY authority to the legislature to REGULATE the PEOPLE of Texas?? Please, just post the Article and Section that delegated this authority to the legislature. Show us all where the People gave up their rights to the whims of the legislative vote. I am willing to bet YET AGAIN that you FAIL to do so. You will do nothing more than throw another fit that responds on point to NOTHING whatsoever. Which, I bet, is exactly the way you do your job if you are in fact a cop, when you don’t get your way, threaten and then abuse your authority.
Face it James, you just hate the fact that you CAN’T refute it and that means that soon you will no longer get to compensate for your small d*ck by abusing your authority on the general public, and that just makes you scared as hell.
I say “GOOD! You NEED to be scared of us, because you WORK for US, we do not work for you, period.”
Rick Hanson
January 8, 2010
Thank you Eddie for your analysis of the codes, your presentation of the law and the cases supporting it, and your exposition of the worldview and political framework upon which it rests, which clearly is that of the Founders. Welcome back, Thomas Jefferson!
The people who are blinded to these facts are the very people who are cramming Leninism down our throats, whether they realize it or not (in the latter case, they have been successfully propagandized by the not-so-crypto-Leninist state).
Nomenclature is the stumbling block of the naysayers in this discussion. You have repeatedly pointed out that the crux of their comprehension problem is that they assumed the common definition of the word “person” instead of properly using the definition provided and declaimed by the code itself (and beyond that, some didn’t get the underlying legal idioms and constructions used in the definitions, even after you educated, nay spoon-fed, them on even this too!). That fact that, in every case, the naysayers refused to acknowledge that point may be based on many reasons, but two that come immediately to mind are intellectual laziness and cognitive dissonance. I’d wager that both cases apply to james, and his dissonance can be arrived by way of the fact that, if what you say is correct, he has to face the immediate and painful conclusion that his phony-baloney career is based upon probably the biggest confidence game perpetrated on a people in the history of the world. In james’s mind, this cannot be! Your carefully crafted logical presentation and common sense be damned!
I’m sure that “whin[ing] about their rights” was George III’s first response when he read the Declaration; so james Whatever-His-Last-Name-Is has unwittingly put you in esteemed company. Congratulations.
Yours,
–Rick Hanson
A Member Of The People, And Thus james’s Boss; Proudly “Whin[ing] About [His] Rights.”
L I B Dang
January 8, 2010
Well Eddie,
You did an excellent job trying to convince ole James, but alas, as Proverbs 26: 11 says, “As a dog turneth again to his own vomit,so a fool turneth to his foolishness”
Rick Hanson
January 8, 2010
A day in the professional life of james? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KM1ukwBGv4
Eddie Craig
January 10, 2010
Mr. Rick Hanson, Sovereign, L I B Dang, et alii (and others):
I appreciate the fact that you deem my dissertation worthy of being called, for lack of a better word, “knowledge”, perhaps even “useful”.
I do apologize for may last commentary to James, I let my dislike of stupidity get the better of me, it is one thing I simply have an extraordinarily hard time in accepting in People. It is totally disheartening to me to meet and try to discuss important topics with the kind of people whose very lives are in every respect a like good “blond joke”.
I have tried to present the facts in such a way and manner that I believed even an eighth grader could grasp the concept, alas that level of cognitive skill seems still to escape many in the various branches of public service, which is frightening to say the least.
I appreciate the support and relevance of your postings regarding the facts that I have tried to present. It is those such as you that makes the time and effort involved and invested in order to become even somewhat knowledgeable of these statutory schemes and the heinous acts that have been perpetrated under color of them.
Maybe James would like to attend the next traffic law seminar that we schedule so that he can get the FULL breadth of the scheme placed before him so that he can be in a better position to understand the reason of construction within the traffic affidavit that got all of these opinions flying. It was not put together in a piecemeal manner, but was constructed based on the specific events and facts associated with the common everyday traffic stop, illegal though they may be. We do make the seminar material available online at http://www.ruleoflawradio.com for a fee to help pay the network operation expenses and for the time involved in researching and creating the materials. When you consider the immediate and long-term costs that are associated with even one traffic citation these days however, it is very cheap for the price.
For that reason alone I fully expect the next move by the STATE to be that of instructing all officers that they are to NEVER accept any type of documentation from someone during a traffic stop except the license, registration and proof of insurance, which in and of itself would prove that they are AFRAID of the affidavit and what it can be used to bring to light in court. But we at Rule of Law Radio are working on a plan for that contingency as well. But the fact is that they cannot stop you from being informed, and that is the only way one should be before even attempting to appear in court to fight back. It is essentially the practice of the wise words of Sun Tzu in The Art of War – “Know your enemy.” And make no mistake folks, in the days ahead the courts and those that would make themselves rulers and gods above men WILL be the People’s greatest enemy. The “false prophet” and self-aggrandizing “messiah” of the mindless masses currently usurping the power and authority of the oval office is proof of that.
It would be nice if the folks with the negative opinions would AT LEAST go and read the statutes that I provided the links for in my postings. A double blessing would be that they actually took the time to try and do some reasoning and independent thought process of their own to understand how these things could be lawfully and legally implemented in light of the People’s constitution and the rights we preserved therein, whether enumerated or not.
Again, thank you for the words of support, forgive my loss of patience in the face of self-imposed and stoic ignorance, and I will keep posting the necessary rebuttals until such time as Joey takes the blog down or everyone feels the topic has run its course, which I will presume to be the same event.
God bless and take care,
Eddie Craig
scot
February 9, 2010
To all and Eddie,
This is not some patriot bs, this is using the laws and codes to uphold them to justice. I have never read or heard Eddie on anything, i have three cases against me fro the DPS guys and NONE have gone forward, although they tried to enter me into a no contest after i plead not guilty. All the judges are baffled on what to do, DO YOU KNOW WHY? Becasue I use the following: Transportation Code of Texas, Subtitle I. Enforcement of Traffic Laws, Chapter 701. County Traffic Officers: That only the Sheriff and deputies may issue traffic violations within a county. The DPS officers do not work for the sheriff’s office. The DPS has no authority to issue tickets in Collin County, and if they have a special provision then under what authority are they working?
A DPS OFFICER CAN NOT GIVE A TICKET IN A COUNTY!! Bet James didnt know that!!
Eddie,
Do you have a form you use in the courts for the Admin hearing stuff? I have a ticket in Allen i would like to include it on!!
Sa
letselschade advocaten
February 9, 2012
Youre so cool! Ik dont denk dat Ive leren alles iets als dit voor. Dus Nice om te zoeken uit elk individu uniek gedachten ideeën over dit onderwerp. echt dank u voor begin dit op. deze web site is een ding dat is wilde op het web , iemand met een beetje originaliteit. nuttig werk voor het instellen van iets dat web!