General Notes on the American “Just Us” System.

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.” — John Adams

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS BOOK

§ / §§ Article or Section / PluralA.B.C. Alcoholic Beverage CodeC.C.P. Code of Criminal Procedure (Texas)C.T.S.T. CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXASE.C. Education Code (Texas)F.C. Family Code (Texas)G.C. Government Code (Texas)H.S.C. Health and Safety Code (Texas)JNA Juvenile Now AdultL.G.C. Local Government Code (Texas)No. NumberP.C. Penal Code (Texas)R.T.C. 0000 Republic of Texas Constitution YYYYT.C. Transportation Code (Texas)TMCEC Texas Municipal Courts Education CenterVACS Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes (Texas)

1

Construction and Use of Certain Words and Phrases.

Unless otherwise expressly provided, in this book:

(a) the past, present, and future tense each includes the other; and(b) all terms and phrases, when used with the same form of capitalization as defined

herein, shall mean it is a reference to a specific person, place, or thing as defined, and when used in all lower case shall be speaking generically and non-specifically using the common English meaning of one or more of the same; and

(c) the singular and plural of any word, term, or phrase each includes the other.

In this book, the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning assigned:

(1) “Arms” shall mean any manner of weapon, regardless of type, construction, capability, or method of use, other than those explosives that could result in mass destruction of an area greater than 100 feet in diameter using a single unit of that type, or that are biological in nature and scientifically engineered or naturally capable of causing mass severe illness or fatalities.

(2) “Authorized” shall mean only those legislative acts lawfully promulgated under the authority of the specifically delegated powers directly granted by the Texas Constitution or is absolutely necessary and ancillary to the performance thereof.

(3) “Unauthorized” shall mean any legislative acts or any other governmental action(s) taken under some alleged authority that is in direct conflict with or in violation of the specific constitutional language or intent used as the basis to create and transfer the delegated power(s), or any other provision(s) of the Texas Constitution as a whole.

(4) “City Attorney” shall mean an attorney that is either directly employed or contracted on an ‘as needed’ basis with any city, town, or village, and that is not elected, appointed, or directly employed as an officer within the constitutional office of county or district attorney.

(5) “Common Law” shall mean that law which was established and applies equally to all men in all places without consideration of gender, race, political affiliation or influence, public office or title, or social wealth and status in society, as was originally written into the Magna Carta and carried forward by Jefferson in wording of the Declaration of Independence, which, by the intent declared within, should have been written as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [, including those now known and used as slaves and regardless of race and national or international origin,] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on

2

such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

(6) “Constitutional,” and any grammatical variation thereof, shall mean in strict adherence and compliance with the plain and common usage of the written language comprising the provisions of the Texas and federal constitutions at the time of their original composition as well as any present-day or future references or inferences to those things created and used for similar purposes.

(7) “Crime” shall mean only those knowingly or negligently willful acts that cause actual visible harm, injury or death to the body, reputation, or property of another man. In other words, no actual victim, no actual crime.

(8) “Unconstitutional,” and any grammatical variation thereof, shall mean any reading or interpretation of plain constitutional language that in any way fails to strictly adhere and comply with the original meaning and intent of the plain language provisions of the Texas and federal constitutions as well as any present-day or future references or inferences to those things created and used for similar purposes.

(9) “Delegated Power” shall mean a non-transferable and non-delegable duty, power, or authority, to do a specific thing as stated and delegated to a specific public office or officer, or that which is absolutely necessary and ancillary to the performance of same, by and within the specific language and provisions of the Texas Constitution.

(10) “Governmental Act” shall mean any legislative attempt to prohibit, limit, or license any individual or collective act of the people and the enforcement thereof.

(11) "Individual" and “Person” shall mean a human being that was or is alive, regardless of age.

(12) “Law” shall mean only that which is lawful and just in providing remedy to an individual for the violation of his rights and property, while the all lower case term “law” shall mean those legislative enactments meant to regulate for the purpose of revenue generation and which shall always be completely inferior to the rights and property of the individual.

(13) “Lawful,” and any grammatical variation thereof, shall mean that which is right and just in the interest of individual rights and property, excluding anything legislatively defined as “legal” or that transfers a superior power to any governmental entity or actor outside of the need to enforce individual rights, and shall be considered synonymous with “Just Powers” and “Constitutional.”

(14) “Legal,” and any grammatical variation thereof, shall mean in accordance with legislative regulatory acts as found in codes and statutes, whether said act be lawful or unlawful in relation to constitutional provisions or individual rights.

(15) “Legal Entity,” means a specific legal fiction that exists only as a matter of law and documentation. Some examples being, but not limited to, a specific corporation, association, limited liability company, or any other type of legal fiction.

(16) “Ordinance,” and any grammatical variation thereof, shall mean those acts created by the City Counsel of a municipality or by the County Commissioners Court of a county, or any office, agency or agent thereof, and pretending to be valid law imposed upon the People but not constitutionally and directly enacted by the Texas Legislature.

3

(17) “Patrinut” shall mean any person who proffers any unsubstantiated and constitutionally or legally incorrect theory or argument that is inconsistent with the common law, Constitutionally sound court opinions and enacted laws, and the rules of common sense and reality. Relevant examples being the legal theories of the “all-caps name” legally converting the People into fictional corporate entities, the legal “straw-man,” the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC-1 and related arguments), the gold fringed flag signifies admiralty jurisdiction, accepted for value (A4V or redemption), birth certificates = stocks, & bonds, one-over-another racial supremacy, or that super-intelligent disguised aliens and/or lizards secretly control the world, among many others.

(18) “People” or “We the People” shall mean, specifically, the collective whole of all human beings located in the geographical and territorial boundaries of any and all land commonly known as belonging to or being part of the United States of America, and generally shall mean the entirety of the people populating the planet Earth.

(19) “Unalienable Rights” shall mean any and all inherent and unalienable rights belonging to every individual living man through which he may freely exercise his will as he sees fit and regardless of whether or not that right is enumerated within any Bill of Rights and excludes the knowing and willful use of any such rights to cause unlawful and unjustifiable harm or injury to any other member of the People or their property.

(20) “Unalienable Rights” shall mean the right of complete and total exercise of any and all natural abilities and desires inherent in any living man to engage in any activity or occupation that he deems himself fit and capable of performing through free exercise of his body, mind, and will, regardless of whether or not that activity or occupation is enumerated within any Bill of Rights, provided that he refrains from the knowing and willful use of any such rights to cause unlawful and unjustifiable harm or injury to any other member of the People or their property

(21) “Transportation” shall mean any and all activity or property that utilizes any public resource, such as a highway, road, or navigable public waterway, as a place of business or commerce for private profit or gain, but it shall not include any actions or property utilizing any such resource by any of the People for their own private personal business or pleasure regardless of circumstance.

(22) “Unconstitutional” shall mean any governmental action, regardless of department, agency or office perpetrating such action, which is in contravention of any constitutional provision or prohibition, or any enumerated or unenumerated right of an individual, and shall be construed to be synonymous with “Unlawful.”

(23) “Union States” shall mean the following fifty states recognized as member states of the united States of America; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,

4

Wyoming, and shall not include Washington D.C. or any federal territory, enclave, protectorate, or foreign country operating under compact or treaty.

Why Attorneys Should be Taught and Tested for Reading Comprehension Before Attending Law School.

A law is only as good as the words used to construct it. A law's Constitutional applicability is only as good as the description of the legal duty those words have created. A law's Constitutional enforceability by those charged with doing so is only as good as their ability to clearly understand and comprehend it. A law's Constitutional sanctions are only valid where an offense against its provisions is specifically and clearly stated so as to convey to the public the necessary elements of how an offense is committed so as to avoid doing so.

If we accept each of these statements as true, then, I have to wonder why it is that attorneys, whose very livelihood depends on the usage and understanding of terms and phrases, constantly ignore what is written right in front of them or try to deny that the written words mean what they say.

To the criminal actors that currently control the power of our courts, and the legislative and executive departments that act to empower them, I hope to make the contents of this book look like a previously unmapped mine field. A mine field that was lain specifically for them by We the People of Texas. More aptly, I would prefer that this book, in the hands of any member of we the People that are willing to make use of the information inside it to its maximum extent and potential, will be perceived by our public servants to be very much like a loaded gun in the hands of people who are willing to use it to protect themselves and what is rightfully theirs, which, for our home-invading public servants at least, is a very dangerous prospect. I hope that by making its contents available to all in an organized and orderly fashion, I can put the power of knowledge back into the hands of the People, as well as an earnest and well-deserved fear in the hearts of our public servants. I want them to fear that not only is their long-usurped power being taken away and returned to its rightful place, but that they might actually be held accountable and made to pay for their unlawful and downright criminal actions for which justice has been a long time coming. For too long we have been unlawfully manipulated, controlled, and defrauded by our public servants in one manner or another, but mainly through the manipulation and preying upon of our own ignorance. This book is intended to change that.

So do not despair or be dissuaded by what you read in the remainder of this introduction. I simply think it best to expose you to the full truth and facts up front, without the sugar coating and political correctness that I feel is largely responsible for getting us to this detrimental point in the first place. There are solutions to all of the negative facts that you will read in the next few pages, and they will be made evident and easily understandable as you progress in your studies

5

of this material. I encourage you to doubt and be distrustful of everything that you read here, whether that be my arguments and information, or those put forth by opposing points of view from friends, family, co-workers, or within our government. I implore you to adopt one very simple and life altering rule in your study of this and any similar information and history, and that is the “AQE” rule, “Always Question Everything.” I would further encourage you to try and get others to open their minds to reason and logical analysis by doing the same.

Another important study method for research such as this is, that we should never begin an exploration of what our government is doing from the perspective that is has a rightful authority to do it. In fact, we should always begin such analysis with several very rudimentary concepts that should always exist in a truly free society, which most people ignorantly and childishly believe that we already have and live in.

First, does the governmental prohibition or enforcement unlawfully affect me, my property, or my right to do or not do something? Second, would the act the government seeks to prohibit or license cause an unlawful harm to the rights or property of another person if I were to engage in it without the license and despite the governmental prohibition or enforcement? Third, does the governmental prohibition or enforcement actually protect other persons or property from any imminent harm by the prohibition or enforcement, or does it only create the false perception of such protection? Fourth, could I freely do something myself to alter my actions that could or would prevent the imminent harm to another person or property so as to remove any need of the government action? Fifth, is there a required fee or license associated with the governmental action that can be avoided by not engaging in the activity to which the fee or license would apply, provided, the avoided action does not deprive me or anyone else of our natural and inherent rights in any way? Sixth, does the payment of such fee or obtaining of such license or the exercise of any benefit attached to same, require me to waive or debase any inherent unalienable right or other privilege or benefit that I might already possess?

Take nothing at face value or upon blind faith, not from anyone or any one source. If the information that you are relying on can’t be readily verified through the normal channels, and if your legal theories cannot be proven with no more than one level of inference from any given set of facts, or if a case opinion thrown your way or cited by any party or source sounds too good to be true, then, odds are it is completely fabricated and serves only to mislead and confound. This is especially true if the case contains anything resembling validation of the numerous and mythical legal theories and arguments spawned within the world of “patrinut” nirvana. My advice, dig a hole, drop it in, kick the dirt back in over it, and walk away without looking back. Then put the source of that misinformation on your shit-list of bad information providers for future avoidance.

That all being said, this book is not meant to be some erudite prose and philosophy on the American legal system. And it most certainly is not to point out how the American legal system

6

is touted as the best in the world, because it simply isn’t. And it certainly is not going to defend the current system with the tired and apathetic statement “it may not be perfect, but it’s the best that we have and that there is.” In all honesty, New York sewer rats have a better justice system than we do. And anyone that actually understands inherent unalienable rights and how they are ignored and abused by the labyrinthine mire that is the American legal system will immediately tell you that our justice system is a complete load of festering crap and corruption. Justice and the protection of individual rights are pathetically inane ideals in relation to modern legal reasoning, methodologies and procedures. Courts and prosecutors at all levels ignore the rule of law the ends of justice, while almost gleefully wiping their besmeared feet upon their own rules of procedure if those rules have been skillfully used by anyone other than a member in good standing of their legal fraternity. Meanwhile, the true intended purpose of government, securing inherent individual rights from stealthy encroachment and/or destruction by the corporate State by means of the protections of constitutional principles and the rule of law, is all but lost in the legal brownnosing surrounding such cases.

This has become the norm to such a degree that it can honestly be said that, except by sheer accident, political motive, or bribery, there is no such thing as justice in the American court system. In the 1998 movie “A Civil Action1,” John Travolta’s protagonist character, Jan Schlichtmann, is suing two large corporations for poisoning a town’s drinking water and causing the illness and death of several of its children. While waiting for the trial jury’s verdict, Schlichtmann is in the hallway of the court with opposing counsel, Jerome Facher, played by Robert Duval. Facher is talking about never having waited for a jury verdict in 40 years of practicing law. As the exchange continues, Facher asks Schlichtmann’s opinion of whose side the jury will likely decide in favor of since it is taking so long for them to deliberate. The dialog goes like this:

Facher: “What’s your take?”

Schlichtmann: “They’ll see the truth.”

Facher: “The truth? I thought we were talking about a court of law. C’mon, you’ve been around long enough to know that a courtroom isn’t the place to look for the truth. You’d be lucky to find anything here that even resembles the truth.”

This may simply be dialog from a movie script, but it is the most accurate verbal depiction of what the dysfunctional American court system has become that I have ever heard portrayed anywhere. This negative viewpoint of modern courts is compounded by my own actual

1 Copyright 1998 Touchstone Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Wildwood Enterprises, and Scott Rudin Productions.

7

Figure 1 - "A Civil Action"

experiences in these courts of “just us,” where it is extremely evident that even the law itself holds no real sway or meaning within their walls.

The American justice system is not about truth or justice, it is about control through manipulation of procedural due process. A judge usurps a forbidden power when s/he rules to alter the content or meaning of what the language and words of a law encompasses. When a judge rules that the law’s language has a particular meaning which is neither evident nor addressed, or acts to obfuscate or diminish that which is clearly and specifically addressed, s/he does so in order to alter that law or statute’s intended and logical application, thereby manipulating procedural due process and unlawfully legislating from the bench.

The power to rewrite the meaning of any law or statute by the addendum or exclusion of words therein is not one delegated to the courts. It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that the only lawfully legitimate and just exercise and extent of the court’s power to interpret law should, is, and always shall be, first, to properly research and rule that the law or statute does not violate any provision(s) of the state or federal constitution and any right of the individual as protected thereunder as that law or statute is expressly written, or second, to rule that the law does violate some constitutional provision or individual right and declare it unconstitutional and void. This is a view that could be easily inferred from the public speeches given by, and the ledgers and notes of the floor debates between, several of the Founding Fathers at the original constitutional convention. Viewed even more so in the speeches and debates from Patrick Henry:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

“Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.”

“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!”

— Patrick Henry (1736-1799), original Founding Father of the United States2

If one were to place themselves at the period in history when these ideals were fresh in the minds of men, he would realize that Henry’s statement was not directed solely at just the

2 Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775)

8

meaning and intent of the wording of the constitution. He was also referring to the all-too personal experiences and fears of once again suffering under an all-powerful government. And it is the sum total of these experiences, fears, and ideals of freedom that were and are the reason for the United States Constitution’s very existence as an instrument of limitation and restraint upon all lawfully exercised powers and acts of the federal government.

How then, did the courts ever come to the conclusion that a state constitution was somehow intended to do far less? Their statist activist rulings over time have essentially declared that a state constitution offers no real and immovable protections of the rights and liberties belonging to the sovereign People, and no real limits or constraints upon the exercise of their own delegated power and authority by the recipient political body intended to act within the territory governed by it.

We are literally teetering on the edge of the abyss where the only remaining question, and, unfortunately, the only remaining answer left us, “when do we decide we have reached the point and the limit where the 2nd amendment is finally necessary to be fully exercised for its true intended purpose, our ability to resist and re-subjugate the government to the will of the people?”

There simply is no delegated authority for the court to “rewrite” the law via “interpretation” in order to make it appear to conform and be acceptable. A law or statute either is or it is not constitutional based solely on its language and context. And anyone but a fool or a partner in crime would be the first to tell you that never should it be assumed that the legislature has acted properly and constitutionally by default. This is true in any branch-independent system of government and adversarial jurisprudence. The determination should always be analyzed thusly, that, if a common man of average intelligence, having read the law, understands its language to permit or prohibit acts that violate the rights of the people as individuals or the state or federal constitutions, then, the only thing the court is empowered to do is to declare it unconstitutional on its face. There is no question that the men of the founding father’s time knew and understood this.

There is a standard retort among public defenders when a client asks why the attorney doesn’t argue in the client’s defense the specific elemental points of a law or statute and the lack of evidence for specific elements of any charge alleged, and it goes something like this: “It doesn’t matter what the law reads or means, it only matters what the judge says it reads or means.” The numerous ethical and moral problems with such a resigned approach by a defense attorney should be self-evident. But, you would be surprised by how many people just accept that this is the way it is, and trust their attorney to be doing his or her best on their behalf. The only way those people could be making a bigger mistake in trusting someone is to knowingly enter into a real estate deal with a known con-man for the purchase of the Golden Gate Bridge. Does it really escape that many people that there simply has to be a reality-based reason that

9

there are so many attorney jokes depicting them as either sleazy scumbag crooks or just plain stupid? And those that are actually neither are of absolutely no help because they have chosen not to practice in these areas of law, but instead are engaged in the relatively safer areas of contract and other commercial law. It is any wonder then that another founding father, John Quincy Adams, held Lawyers in low esteem:

"The mere title of Lawyer is sufficient to deprive a man of public confidence. The most innocent and irreproachable life cannot guard a lawyer against the hatred of his fellow citizens."

— John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), 6th US President

This is also the real and rightful power of a fully informed jury. A fully informed jury can act even where the courts have abandoned their duty to protect the rights and property of the People. Juries can reverse all unconstitutional usurpations by the courts, including those that are intended to exponentially increase the police powers of government to a wholly unconstitutional degree. However, it should come as no surprise that modern Americans will never be allowed to procure a fully informed jury to hear the facts of their case. Why? Because the jury possess the power to overturn bad laws and usurpations of power and authority despite the best efforts of the courts. Which is precisely why American judges have suppressed and denied that right to juries for decades, it takes the power and control away from the judges and their true masters, the State and National Bar Associations.

Later on in this book I will show you in black and white detail exactly how the Texas State Bar is completely unconstitutional and illegal. But for now, just be aware how long overdue it is for we the People of Texas to take back our courts, our right to proper and competent due process, to inform our juries of their rightful authority to determine both the facts and the law, including the proper meaning and application of the law as it is be recognized by the courts. We need to start demanding a fully informed jury for every trial!

What is unbeknownst to most is, that, the so-called civilized world is actually controlled in many hidden ways by those operating from within the legal profession. And it is done not only despite the numerous constitutional prohibitions against injuring the rights of the People, but also in violation of the crystal clear separation of powers and void ab initio clause of the Texas and various other constitutions. The Separation of powers issue also exists at the federal level, just as it does in the several states of the union. And it occurs when the members of any one branch of government acts under an authority or power rightfully belonging to another department or to a member of another department. The States, however, are no better at following and obeying constitutional prohibitions than the federal government happens to be, despite the tired rhetoric of how much and often they fight for the People’s rights against the evils and avarice of the federal government. This is pure Wizard of Oz©3 fantasy on the grandest scale.

3 Copyright 1939 Warner Bros. Film corporation.

10

The whole legal and justice system is one big pathetic joke. But the only ones laughing are the other nations of the world that see how totally hypocritical we the American People have allowed ourselves and our government to become. We revel in allowing our government to openly proclaim freedom, liberty, and equality for all, while it continuously wages egregiously duplicitous wars that result in the mass murdering of literally accumulated millions of people of other sovereign nations. All for nothing less than the ability of elitist special interests to begin or to continue stealing that people’s wealth and natural resources in both the American People’s name and the completely delusional claim of “national security/interests.” All the while, the true purpose and result being nothing more than the unjust enrichment of those elitists in power, whether through government contracts, under-the-table dealings, or through other external financial interests. These power-grabs and backroom dealings are not just limited to the members of the United States Congress and the individual State legislatures. These modern un-American courts can be described as nothing less than the governmental facilitators of each and every progressive failing of limited government that exists in America today, while we the People are guilty of being the enablers of our own downfall and enslavement.

This pathetically apathetic mindset has allowed our public servants to foist upon us the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Acts I & II, the NDAA, and numerous other agencies and programs that are not only grossly and plainly unconstitutional, they are the complete antithesis of a constitutional Republic and individual rights and liberties. And the American courts are upholding every single trespass of this nature as a valid exercise of governmental power and authority, despite clearly worded constitutional provisions and historical writings to the contrary. If opinions allowing actions such as these are true examples of a judge’s exercise of power to interpret and decide what the constitutions and laws really reads and means, then we need to consider publicly charging, trying, convicting, and hanging, more than a few such judges and prosecutors for sedition and treason. Therefore, I would remind you of the words of one of our Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams, who said:

"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."

— Samuel Adams (1722-1803), original Founding Father of the United States

This book is being written for one reason only, to show in clear black and white language why you had better know the laws, statutes, and rules of procedure better than your attorney, and how easy that truly is. Especially since most of them are pathetically inept and stupid when it comes to what is actually written in any of them. It is also my hope to empower you to act whenever possible as your own legal counsel, without the aid of an attorney. It has become my sincere belief that the old adage of the legal profession “He who represents himself has a fool for a client” is only truly accurate if the person needing representation actually is an attorney. Consider that, in all likelihood, this adage was [mis]begotten by an attorney, and has since been

11

propagated by attorneys to give the appearance of their possessing essential skills and knowledge that the average man or woman is incapable of learning and applying with equal competency and aplomb. I am living proof that this perspective is myopically vain and entirely self-serving on the part of attorneys.

Therefore, if you learn nothing else from this book, I sincerely hope that you take away the following facts as truth, that you truly don’t want to put your whole faith and trust in any attorney, and, whenever possible, learn how to properly handle things in court yourself. Why do I say that? The answer is rather simple really. Experience. It has been my continuing disappointment to have yet encountered a judge, defense attorney, or prosecutor that has actually sat down and thoroughly read and researched a statute relating to any type of malum in se or malum prohibitum criminal charge. And those that claim to have read it have been proven time-and-time again to be lying through their teeth or have done so only superficially at best. You can easily prove this to yourself by asking very specific and pointed questions about certain aspects and elements of the actual charge as taken from the laws and statutes themselves. Your attorney will claim to know the answers, and will usually provide you with some nonsense response, just as usually referencing both the aforementioned legal retort and adage. But, if you already know the proper elements and requirements to prove the charge, it should be easily discernable that your attorney is actually avoiding providing you the type of direct and clear response your on-point questions deserve and should receive.

Therefore, it is imperative that you never make the mistake of assuming or believing that your attorney is actually working in your best interest or knows more than you do. But one thing is certain, the less you know, the more s/he can get away with to the detriment of you and your case. However, the inverse is also equally true. If you make the effort to know as much or more than they do, you can learn to recognize and act to prevent your rights from being carelessly discarded and your case from being lost as a matter of “routine judicial expediency.” You will do this by learning the necessary rules and procedures mapped out directly from their own books within this book. Which it is my hope will provide you with all the necessary information to recognize when your attorney is attempting to throw you and your case under the proverbial bus, even when getting paid with money from your own pocket.

Now, wake up and pay attention. This is going to be at best difficult to pick up and understand in some areas, and then it will only get worse from there. Not because the principles and written language are particularly hard to understand, but because of having to figure out how the courts and prosecutors continuously manage to ignore or rewrite both in ways that actually result in misuse and misapplication of the law or statute’s otherwise clear meaning and intent. This hardship in comprehension is mostly due to your current level of indoctrination, limited understanding of your inherent rights and immunities, as well as the true but too often ignored lawful intent and limitations upon our government’s delegated power and authority.

12

So, if you feel like giving up at any point, it might just be a good idea for you to do just that right now, which means that you can stop reading this book. Because, if you can’t make the effort to get through and understand the contents within it, you sure as hell aren’t going to have the stamina, willpower, and rights driven quiet rage required to battle it out with those that seek to usurp every freedom, right, and liberty from you under the unlawful proclamation of an constitutionally improper “exercise of the police power” and any form of “immunity from accountability” unlawfully created and dispensed by the courts to the public actors of other governmental departments. All in direct violation of the separation of powers clause of the various constitutions. But, if you are the kind of man or woman that hates getting your boots pissed on while the asshole doing the pissing tries to convince you it’s really a rainstorm that’s making it wet, then, I suppose you just might need to know a thing or two about how to truly tell the difference. So keep reading.

But do not despair, for there is a way to solve each of these problems, and it starts with knowledge of what the problems actually are. Well, I’ve just done that part. Now you need to learn what you should have been taught from the moment you were old enough to talk. And that is how to solve these problems and keep them solved. That is what this book intends to do. If you will be patient and earnestly studious, this book will eventually become superfluous. You will internalize everything in it to such a degree that it can be stated in complete confidence and with no hesitation without so much as a glance at it. This alone will put you far ahead of most any attorney, prosecutor or judge. Don’t let what they do in their petty courts sway you from the truth of knowing and insisting that the US and State constitutions, laws and statutory procedures are to be followed and your due process rights protected.

The objective throughout this book is to change the way you have been taught to think and analyze information relating to the concepts of freedom and liberty, and the so-called criminal legal system in general. You are going to learn much more about the history and contents of the U.S. and Texas constitutions than you have ever wanted or thought possible. But, it is necessary and imperative for you to see and understand the historical context and intent of what constitutions are all about in the first place4. That will be followed by learning the concepts associated with due process and why knowing and understanding your inherent unalienable rights is so important to receiving it. It is only with a complete understanding of these subjects that you will begin to immediately see and recognize when a law, statute or governmental actor is attempting to violate those rights, thus, prompting you to react accordingly to defend them.

Government was never intended nor authorized by the People to declare non-harmful acts to be petty crimes, nor to use those petty offenses to ensnare us in the fictitious “just us” system for

4 Two very good books on this subject are:“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” by Philip Hamburger, ISBN-13: 978-0-226-11659-4 (cloth) ISBN-13: 978-0-226-11645-7 (e-book)“Tocqueville’s Nightmare, The Administrative State Emerges in America, 1900-1940 by Daniel R. Ernst, ISBN: 978-0-19-992086-0 (cloth)

13

the purpose of generating unlawful and unconstitutional tax revenue. And believe me, that is precisely what these petty offenses are designed and meant to do. They have nothing to do with public safety, crime prevention, or apprehension of actual criminals, nor are they a just and due punishment for a palpable harm perpetrated upon another living being. Government was never meant to regulate or interfere in our lives and behavior in any fashion, unless and until our own actions actually caused harm to another or their property. The role of government is not to prevent potential crimes perpetrated by evil thoughts and will, but to apprehend and justly punish those that have actively engaged in doing so.

Though much of this is beyond the scope of this particular book, you must earnestly seek to unlearn all of the indoctrinated lies and nonsense you have been force-fed your entire life. Then, you must be retaught the proper hierarchy of political power and authority in America and the several states of the union. Because it certainly isn’t supposed to be the government at the top. Government is not supposed to be dictating the minutiae of our lives and property as if it has some lawful right or delegated power to have any say and control over them. It was not designed that way, and it should not be allowed to continue to act that way. My sincere hope is that, by proper application of common sense, factual and analytical truth-based education, we can come to a real understanding of what is being done to us in our own name. We must then have the willingness to stand together and act upon that accumulated knowledge to once again return government to its proper place as a servant of the People, not our self-proclaimed master, if not to abolish it all-together.

Throughout this book I will explain each phase and step of a criminal proceeding in Texas, from the initial encounter to the final appeal. I will be showing you how the statutes either suggest or require that step to be performed, how those operating within the system are actually doing it, which is almost always incorrectly, and what you have to do to deal with everything that they do. I will also be addressing the case law relevant to each phase, step, and statute where applicable or available. I will also try to inform you of every dirty, underhanded, rotten, unjust, and downright unfair and illegal trick that I have witnessed or heard about having been perpetrated by prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. And lastly, for each of those steps, I will be discussing exactly how the courts and attorneys in general have gotten it wrong to such a degree that they are primarily responsible for many violations of your constitutional protections and inherent unalienable rights, your criminal due process rights, and common sense criminal procedure in general.

Don’t despair, we can win, we just need to be better educated than the major players want us to be, and have, in fact, tried every underhanded trick in the book to discourage and prevent us from becoming.

14

General Notes on Ordinances Are Not Law

Setting the Stage for Lawful Authority.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."

— James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution, 4th US President

This quote from James Madison sets the stage for our discussion in this chapter of what is and is not Constitutionally and Lawfully created State “law” here in the great State of Texas. In case you haven’t noticed, we are all awash and floundering in an ocean of rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes, or, more accurately, we are being pushed under and held down against our will to the point of drowning. And our rights, liberties, and freedoms, and those of our children, and our children’s children, are being forcibly drowned right along with us. You have the ‘right’ to choose to have an at-will abortion (legalized murder in my opinion), but you can’t grow a garden in your front yard if you live in the city. You have the right to drink a man-made concoction called alcohol for so long and in such quantities that it kills you, but you can’t smoke a plant that grows naturally. You have the right to purchase and own property, but, you can only modify, repair, or use it how and when the government gives you specific written permission to do so, and only after you pay its agents a ‘reasonable’ fee to purchase that permission of course.

Just how, when, and where did we come to be in the path of this horrific tidal wave of corporate government’s regulatory meddling in virtually every area and aspect of our daily private lives and property? Well, allow me to introduce and welcome you to the world of ‘administrative law,’ where your inherent, unalienable, and constitutionally protected rights and immunities mean nothing, and where every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane with an official title and a pen can make all that you thought was yours simply vanish with the brandishing of either.

Now, a smart man, one who cherishes his rights, liberties, and freedoms, would probably be asking himself, “Just how are our public servants able to do this to us? By what lawful authority, if any, do they claim to be able to do it? How do I escape it or make them stop? Do I have the power to do either?” Meanwhile, your common everyday Joe, also known as the ‘not so smart’ man, the one in love with his uncomplicated comfortable life and family, or the one who lives for his sports, beer, and ‘doin’ his own 'thang,’ is simply thinking “baa-haa-haa” about all of this information, because it detracts from his ‘valuable’ time being spent with the other.

Knowledgeable Patriot:

15

Hopefully, this chapter will provide the answers to all of these questions and more, as well as others that you probably never thought to ask or even knew that you should, provided you care to read far enough to reach the answers. Many of you will not. Many of you will scoff at what I am about to show and explain to you, especially if you are an attorney. But, that changes nothing about the truth of the documents and facts I will use to do so. Oh, and if you are an attorney, try to maintain a loose sphincter muscle so as to keep your mind open to the insertion of new ideas and levels of understanding, and please stop with the petulant child-like riposte “That’s your interpretation!” to everything you are shown that refutes the statist controlled ideology and mindset that your conniving kind has foisted upon the American people for untold generations.

Only in America could a group of people that is as [allegedly] educated as attorneys pretend and are believed to be, could an attorney listen to a non-attorney read verbatim directly from a statute or a court opinion and still make the retort “That’s your interpretation!” It’s not an interpretation when it is being read word-for-bloody-frickin’-word you sanctimonious statist moron! Everything you self-important idiots do is self-contradicting. You sit in your courts and declare with such profound wisdom that which any sane, ethical and moral individual already knows, that “laws must be written so that the average man of reasonable intelligence can readily read and understand their duty under that law.” Yet, when a man of reasonable or higher intelligence reads your statutes and points out that it doesn’t say what you keep saying it does, or that it doesn’t require of him what you keep insisting it does, your only response prior to setting the armed dogs loose on him for civil disobedience and your fabricated ‘criminal’ acts, is to say “That’s your interpretation!” It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that if every single word of every single statute or court opinion literally requires interpretation by only those in the judiciary in order to be properly understood every single time it’s read or applied by or to someone, then that statute or court opinion is completely Unconstitutional as being vague, ambiguous, and incomprehensible to any man of reasonable intelligence.

This book is not being written for the sake of the attorneys, and unlike them, the rest of you will have to learn to cope with the fact that your feces doesn’t smell like fresh-baked blueberry muffins and that you don’t already know every damn thing in the world. Which means, what you are about to read requires a paradigm shift in how you have been taught to think about the powers and authority of government in general, and certain socially proclaimed and accepted authorities falsely presumed to be inherent to government and its actors and agents in particular.

Consider the following if you will; we know, or at least should know, that as individuals and not monarchs, our power to make law is binding only upon ourselves and those over whom we have immediate authority, such as our family or children in general, which would also include all of what we own that constitutes our private property. We also know that our personal law-making power does not extend to or bind our neighbors, nor does it extend to any other individuals or families. It simply cannot and does not extend to anyone that does not knowingly and willingly consent to our authority and what personal law we have made for ourselves. Nor

16

are we allowed to assume that such an authority to bind others to that law belongs to us by default, or that its existence and application are perpetual.

We also know that we the People created a system of government whereby we provided that one specific group of people was to be delegated some of our limited individual power to make law, and for the purpose of this discussion, we will call that group the “Legislature.” We even went so far as to set down specific mandatory guidelines as to exactly how the Legislature was to create and enact those laws. We also intentionally failed to provide them with any means by which they could delegate or transfer that lawmaking power to anyone else, even its political subdivisions, regardless of the reasons why they might want or feel the need to do so.

And it should come as no surprise or point of contention that inherent in this delegated ability to make law is the same natural and lawful limitations that we each share as individuals. The limitation being that which I spoke of earlier, the fact that we have absolutely no authority to make any law that binds our fellow man to our individual decrees against his will and without his consent. As a rule of natural law, we can Lawfully bind only that which we create, or that which willingly consents to be subject to our authority. In the natural law, and in a truly free world and society, we cannot Lawfully compel other men to do anything at all by the use of force.

The rules of exception to this are few, but extremely important to understand and apply. As a first rule, we have a lawful duty to refrain from unjustly harming the person or property of anyone else. As a second rule, we have the lawful right to defend ourselves and property from harm by anyone else, as well as to provide aide to any other person in defending themselves and their property. As a third rule, we may Lawfully arrest, convict, imprison, or otherwise punish other men for any manner of intentional or negligent violations of the first rule. However, certain powers within the third rule would apply only if an Unlawful harm to one or more human beings or their property is the basis for its application, and then only if all the tenants of due process were followed and a proper finding of guilt by a jury the accused’s peers was made. In other words, no actual human victim suffering a harm or loss, then no actual crime was committed and no punishment of any kind is allowed. It should be noted that all three of these rules are inherent in the right to protect oneself, one’s family, and one’s property from those that would do harm to either.

We have no lawful authority as individuals to delegate a power and authority that we do not possess ourselves, nor can we delegate and empower our agents to act in a manner dictating how anyone else must live their life or manage, use, and care for their property. The concept couldn’t be simpler, if we cannot Lawfully exercise a power ourselves, we cannot empower others to do so for us. We are only Lawfully justified in making law against our fellow man to the point of providing us all with just remedy if another human being uses either their mind, person or property in a manner that Unlawfully and intentionally or negligently harms our person or property, or that of someone else. Otherwise, none of our friends and neighbors, or even total

17

strangers, owe us anything as individuals or as a society, and we cannot Lawfully bind them to do so. But don’t take my word for it, take that of the United States Supreme Court:

Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation , and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state , and can only be taken from him by due process of law , and in accordance with the Constitution . Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter . Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.5

Can the Petty Bureaucrats Come Out and Play?

Now let us imagine that there is another small group of people that is not in any way a part of the Legislature, and let’s call them “Petty Bureaucrats” for the purposes of our discussion here. And then imagine if you can, a world where the Petty Bureaucrats have seized control of virtually everything that the Legislature has not. Consider also that this group of Petty Bureaucrats, much like the Legislature, are people that you don’t even know, didn’t vote for, and certainly didn’t agree to surrender your individual rights to.

Despite this, the Petty Bureaucrats suddenly start coming to you and threatening to punish you with all manner of fines and fees because you didn’t get their permission to fly your

5 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).

18

American flag on the front of your house, or to build your tool shed, or you planted the wrong kinds of flowers in your yard, or your grass is too tall or too short, or your house is the wrong color, or your dog isn’t registered or is the wrong breed, or your children were playing in their front yard unattended, or you are comfortably living off the electrical grid in a solar powered home, and these Petty Bureaucrats simply don’t like that you are doing any of it. The Petty Bureaucrats are all claiming to have not only the authority to create and alter any or all of their arbitrary rules governing these things, but also to have the authority to compel you, and everyone else that isn’t one of them, to comply with those rules at all times. In other words, they claim the right to use any level of physical and punitive force they deem necessary to compel you to obey every one of the policies and rules they make. This is where Madison’s blossoming concerns with the creation of voluminous numbers of petty laws begins to really show its roots.

Eventually, the Petty Bureaucrats grow bolder and begin to demand your absolute and unquestioning obedience to their rules, no matter how Orwellian, ridiculous, or violative of your rights and property those rules might be. They are willing to act even to the point of retroactively making your everyday actions criminal. Now imagine that, despite the sum total of these rules numbering in the hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands, and even though you have no actual knowledge of a particular rule’s existence, its provisions and elements, or the legal duty it allegedly places upon you, the Petty Bureaucrats can still use their other fabricated rules to punish you for violating that heretofore unknown rule. All the while telling you that ignorance of each and every one of their petty and arbitrary rules is no excuse or defense against any allegation of violating them. Lastly, imagine that these rules are then made to appear as if they are actual binding law, just as if they were passed by the Legislature, the only body to which we delegated that power and authority. Ask yourself, if we the People delegate our lawmaking power only to the Legislature, and the Legislature is forbidden to delegate it to anyone else, then, how did the Petty Bureaucrats get their grubby hands on it so as to create all these rules with which to vex us?

Then try asking yourself this question, how can you reasonably do anything at all with your own time, person, or property, if these Petty Bureaucrats can create and demand obedience to any kind of rules they want, making anything you do illegal unless you pay them for a permit or license to do it, while setting whatever sort of punishment they desire if you offend their rules? Oh, and don’t forget, if they accuse you of violating their rules, and you fail to prove otherwise in the court system that they preside over and control, you can be made to pay them even larger sums of money, which they get to keep. Surely justice will prevail, however, since you can expect everything to be totally fair and impartial in such a system, right? I mean, one of their employees accused you, and will also be the witness against you, and their city attorney will be the prosecutor, and their municipal judge will preside over the trial. Why should it make any difference that every one of them work for the same corporate entity that controls it all and gets to keep at least half of the monetary fine if you and the 1000 other people a day get convicted at an average rate of $300.00 each in this fair and impartial system of theirs? What could possibly

19

go wrong in either the “fair and impartial” or the “truth and integrity” departments in a system like that?

What is the Difference Between Law and Corporate Policy?

Let’s be clear from the beginning of this presentation and argument as to what is and is not proper and binding “law.” You have been taught to obey every little rule, regulation, ordinance, demand, or order from any presumed lawful authority alleging to act under any of these. But, what if that authority was all simply a legal illusion and not a lawful fact? What if it was nothing more than an effort to make you more easily controlled and manipulated by those that think you are just a part of their Monopoly board game, all so they can treat you and your neighbors like a walking piggy bank?

Let me state the obvious for anyone that has actually bothered to read the Texas constitution; ordinances, regulations, rules, and statutes are not the “law.” And I am going to prove it to you using the same concepts of rights, liberty, and constitutional government that you may possibly have heard about as a child, or were told as an adult were quaint but unsustainable ideologies of earlier times. But, to do that, you have to understand that you have been taught and indoctrinated slowly over time into forgetting and leaving them behind. Despite the efforts of the State, as heard through its Statist rogue-judge sponsored rhetoric on the pro-constitutionality of ordinances and agency rules and regulations having the force and effect of law, I can offer incontrovertible evidence that this rhetoric is not only false, it is outright treasonous6 and

6 Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow thegovernment of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 918, 932, 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

Constructive treason. Treason imputed to a person by law from his conduct or course of actions, though his deeds taken severally do not amount to actual treason. This doctrine is not known in the United States.

High treason. In English law, treason against the king or sovereign, as distinguished from petit or petty treason, which might formerly be committed against a subject.

Misprision of treason. See Misprision of treason.Petit treason. In old English law, the crime committed by a wife in killing her husband, or a servant his lord

or master, or an ecclesiastic his lord or ordinary. 4 BL Comm. 75.Treason-felony. Under the English statute 11 & 12 Vict., c. 12, passed in 1848, is the offense of

compassing, devising, etc., to depose her majesty from the crown; or to levy war in order to intimidate either house of parliament, etc., or to stir up foreigners by any printing or writing to invade the kingdom. This offense is punishable with penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, etc., under statutes 11 & 12 Vict., c. 12, § 3; 20 & 21 Vict., c. 3, § 2; 27 & 28 Vict., c. 47, § 2. By the statute first above mentioned, the

20

seditious7 in its assertion. And you need to understand just how serious those particular crimes are in general, but even more so when perpetrated by those within the very government we entrusted to protect our rights from such crimes. Both crimes can carry the death penalty for the offender, and both were once two of the most feared offenses with which one could be charged.

And while I fully recognize and understand the legal landscape as it currently exists and is utilized by both the various governmental actors and the courts, as well as the fact that the State and its political subdivisions want us all to simply allow them to continue conducting business as they wish, and have been doing for several generations now, none of this changes the facts of what you are about to read. Our State government, at every level, wants to simply throw away the State constitution and pretend that it never existed. They already act as if it has no real ability to chain them down by limiting their power and authority, or to protect us and our liberties from governmental encroachment and destruction. And as long as we remain ignorant and apathetic in the rightful exercise of our sovereign power, by allowing statist sycophants to remain in control of their entrenched Unconstitutional system, that might be somewhat true. I hope that this book, by exposing this corruption to the light, is at least a step forward. Maybe it is a chance for others to see and understand the same problems that I see, and begin to do something about them, because none of us can do it alone.

In Defense of Rights and Liberty, Where Do We Stand as Free Men and Women?

The State Constitution cannot defend itself. It requires the support of we the People. Especially our willingness to fight against and hold accountable, literally if need be, those in government that would undermine the People’s power and authority to limit and restrict them in all of their actions, not just those they care to surrender back to us. That is but one purpose of our Texas Constitution, while another is to provide written protection of our individual rights from invasion or destruction. But what good is that when our servants refuse to read it, recognize it, or act to ‘reinterpret’ it to mean something that provides little to no protection at all for the very people who created it?

government is enabled to treat as felony many offenses which must formerly have been treated as high treason.7 Sedition. Communication or agreement which has as its objective the stirring up of treason or certain lesser commotions, or the defamation of the government. Sedition is advocating, or with knowledge of its contents knowingly publishing, selling or distributing any document which advocates, or, with knowledge of its purpose, knowingly becoming a member of any organization which advocates the overthrow or reformation of the existing form of government of this state by violence or unlawful means. An insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an overt act; attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquility [sic] of the state. See 18 V.S.C.A. § 2383 et seq. See also Alien and sedition laws; Smith Act.

21

But, it is very important to remember, we the People are not bound to this system of government as it currently exists, only our governmental agents are. We are bound only to maintaining it in Republican form. We have the inherent and unalienable right to get rid of the existing and highly corrupted system and make it anew, so that it serves us rather than oppresses us. Yet, each time such efforts are made, those in current governmental control strive to vilify those of us that work to bring information like this and the ideals it instills in us to light. They constantly throw up legal barriers and blockades to prevent meaningful change by and for the People. When we seek meaningful ways to regain control of our runaway government, it responds by creation of even more Orwellian statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations that act to restrict or prohibit our ability to regain that control peaceably. Understand that when I refer to a “corrupted system,” I am not actually referring to the system itself, or even every part of it. I am referring to the corrupt men and women that presume to control it and use it to pursue corrupt ends through corrupt means. It is those men and women that we must stop and appropriately punish for their acts. The imaginary ‘system’ can be revamped to do things more correctly and in line with the original intent inherent in individual rights and freedoms, while correcting the thoughts and behavior of a psychopathic human being is a totally different undertaking. And in the case of the psychopaths that run and control our government at every level, the entirety of their fortunes and property of any kind and nature should be held forfeit, and each of them sentenced to manual labor building and paving roads and hand-crushed granite driveways, sixteen hours a day, six days a week, for the rest of their natural lives. And that means not only the politicians, but also the Wall Street brokers, bankers, and other agents and officers of the Federal Reserve and all of its subsidiaries. We can save America by totally outlawing any sort of financial speculation on anything, especially the American health and welfare through production and commerce, as that inevitably leads to corruption of the system as a whole through production, market, and price manipulations.

Thus, these psychopaths keep pushing us ever nearer the point where only armed rebellion will carry forward the people’s will to be free from the abusive and oppressive use of government-initiated force and control. It might be worth noting at this point that President John F. Kennedy once said “He who makes peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.8” It should not even be a point of contention or discussion that no one should or Lawfully can be coerced through threat of fine or force to accept or support government ‘services’ at the barrel of a gun. No one has the lawful authority to force another to buy what he is selling or to support him financially against the other’s will. This used to be known as extortion, and it has always been a crime. Why, then, is it something that is now acceptable simply because the individuals doing it claim to be acting under governmental authority? Especially since the totality of any governmental authority comes solely from we the People, and it is a power that we ourselves do not individually possess.

8 Kennedy’s remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, 13 March 1962.

22

The grand experiment in freedom and liberty that is America is not failing, it is being sabotaged from within. It is not being done simply by people with too much money and too little respect for those they consider to be beneath them, it is also through the use of a legal and political system run amuck. Where everyone in public office is more akin to a rabid Queen of Hearts9 than their fellow Texans and all other Americans. Theirs is an absolutely Unconstitutional system designed, controlled, and monopolized by elitist and statist-minded State Bar10 attorneys, whose every act is to use both systems, the judicial and State Bar, to deprive honest Americans and Texans of their rights and property, one stealthy and Unconstitutional administrative encroachment at a time.

Figure 2 - The United States Supreme Court strikes again.

But, all we have to do to stop it is wake up from our fluoridated and indoctrinated stupor and work to be better and more thoroughly informed about what is being done and who is actually doing it. Then, we must read and understand fully the ground rules that we put in place within our State constitutions to limit the power of our government. Because I assure you, I have not found a single reference within the Texas Constitution where we gave our State government unlimited power and a free hand to do as it damn well pleases for its own purpose and ends. Our legislators and our courts have both forgotten that a constitution is a product of the People’s will, not the government’s.

9 Literary character in "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” written by English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll, originally published in 1865.10 See the chapter on “The State Bar Act is Unconstitutional in Texas.”

23

The Inmates Have Stolen the Keys to the Asylum and the Armory, and Are Rewriting All the Procedural Manuals.

We must not continue to allow our servants to use their public offices, offices created and controlled by the very instrument they act to subvert and destroy, to claim power and authority as the sole interpreter and arbiter of our Constitution’s meaning or the limitations of its delegated authority. To see just how bad such a scenario truly is, imagine an asylum forcibly taken over and now fully controlled by the inmates. Inmates that have taken power and authority that was never intended for them to have and control. Inmates who now get to decide the purpose, meaning and intent of every law, regulation, or rule that could or would constrain them within the walls of the asylum or in their actions toward others, or, which they can simply choose to throw any part of away and resort to making their own.

Just how long would the inmates be willing to remain locked up within those confining walls if they and they alone get to decide what those written limitations really mean and how they should be applied, and to who? Just how safe would the rest of humanity be if those inmates decide to leave the asylum and take over the world using any means that they themselves deem appropriate? What if the inmates decide to simply rewrite the ‘laws’ and the rules to make it ‘legal’ for them to kill anyone that gets in their way or threatens to take away their newfound power and ability to do as they please, or, what if their new ‘laws’ allow them to simply hire a band of thugs, give them a uniform, costume jewelry, and a license to kill with impunity if they perceive a threat to their new employer’s every want and desire? What then?

The Role That Attorneys Play in the Knowing Destruction of Our Individual Rights and Freedom.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not think that every attorney is bad, because some of them are already dead, and others don’t work in this corrupt area of law in order to earn a living. But for those that do, I hold dog shit in higher esteem. And regardless of whether or not you’re the kind that cares to admit it and face today’s reality, this corrupt ‘Legal’ judicial system is precisely where we find ourselves being subjugated into eternal Legal suffrage. Judges and attorneys have created a completely Unconstitutional and elitist system of law and government that was never intended and is grossly incompatible with the precepts of individual rights and liberty. A system so completely and inextricably entangled in and controlled by an attorney-created-and-manipulated language called “legalese.” Through the Unlawful and ever-expanding use of judicial ‘legal interpretation,’ the courts have facilitated the usurpation and transfer of enormous power and control from the People, and instilled it in every branch and petty department of

24

government. An act which is itself a direct violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and which has resulted in even further and ever increasing infringements upon our individual rights, liberties, and property.

In man-made law, terminology, and the meaning of that terminology, is everything. Allow me to demonstrate “legalese” in action by asking a question, “When one person takes the life of another, what is the difference between self-defense and murder?” Think about it, both terms of “legalese” can be applied to the existence of a dead body, but what makes them different? The simple answer is this, facts and circumstances. Which term of “legalese” gets applied to the reason the dead body exists is controlled by the facts and circumstances that are present. One set of facts and circumstances makes you a murderer, the other makes you justified in taking a life. And this is true in every case involving the application of criminal law, regardless of the accusation being levied.

This truth is every bit as applicable to a case involving an alleged “transportation” or “code enforcement” offense that is considered “criminal” as it is to a case involving murder. How can that be true you ask? Try using the same formula of analytical reasoning; do the facts and circumstances of the case prove that you were acting in a legal capacity of a commercial nature or do they not? One set of facts and circumstances makes you a “driver” or “operator” of a “motor vehicle” that "failed to control speed under the circumstances and conditions then existing" resulting in "a collision with another person or vehicle Lawfully entering or upon the highway" who can be charged and found guilty of “speeding,” and another set of facts and circumstances that proves you were simply traveling in your private capacity and are not subject to the code or the charges codified within it.

Judges and attorneys have taken control of everything, and the biggest tool at their disposal for all of this legalized theft and subversion of rights is the utter abuse and corruption they have introduced into our language through the use of “legalese,” which can be described as nothing less than a ‘secret’ language that is intended to be taught and known only to the members of the private Bar monopoly controlled by attorneys and judges. “Legalese” defined is “The specialized or technical language of the legal profession, involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman.11” The success of this corruption of our language can be traced to the use of legalese in everyday conversations to replace words of common usage and meaning with legal terms having an uncommon and lesser or unknown legal meaning, while still appearing to be the same common usage word. In this way, when lawyers and judges speak, they are actually talking in code, while simultaneously giving the appearance to everyone else that they are speaking the same language as the rest of us. And as the bard once said, “therein lies the rub.”

11 FYI, the term “layman” means you, me, and anyone else that isn’t an attorney with ‘specialized legal training,’ which, after years of experience dealing and arguing with attorneys and judges, I can readily presume consists mainly of constant lectures on how to be truly inept and stupid while actually sounding competent and intelligent.

25

Judges, virtually all of which formerly were or still are attorneys, have laid claim to being the sole determiner of the meaning and application of the provisions of the Texas Constitution. The very instrument that created their office, delegated to them certain powers and authority, and controls their actions in the exercise thereof, or so we thought and intended. Did you get all that? Judges, have Unlawfully usurped the power, to make themselves, the sole determiner, of how and when, the Texas Constitution binds not only them, but every other department of government, and has used it to Unlawfully transfer sovereign power and authority from we the People to themselves. Is my earlier foray into discussing the inmates and the asylum beginning to make sense to you yet? Do you see any similarities between that scenario and the one I am discussing now? In the case of Chisholm v. GEORGIA,12 Justice Wilson of the United States Supreme Court, then presided over by First Chief Justice John Jay, wrote the following:

Suffice it, at present to say, that another principle, very different in its nature and operations, forms, in my judgment, the basis of sound and genuine jurisprudence; laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those, whose obedience they require. The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.

It would seem that the opinion in Chisholm has long ago settled the issue of individual consent being a necessary component for binding other men to man-made laws, not to mention the determining of exactly who exercises what form of lawful sovereignty in America, and the superior form of both consent and sovereignty has always been inherent and invested in we the People, never in our governmental actors. It is that shift in the presumed and authoritative sovereignty that was and is being Unlawfully facilitated by attorneys through their Unconstitutional and unjust legal system.

What Part Does the Texas Constitution Play in Law Making?

We must reforge our dedication to being free individuals, and relearn what we have been taught to forget or disregard about how our system of government is supposed to work to serve the People in the most general sense, not ‘manage’ and control our every need and want. If we wish to be truly free, then we must act together to ensure that our rules placing limits on such power and authority are not only set down in writing, but fully obeyed. And when they are not, to then consistently deliver proper punishment and/or imprisonment as necessary upon our public servants for any and all betrayals of our trust, rights, and property. The constitutions that created and organized our individual sovereign Republics is in every respect the superior law as set forth by We the People. Each individual constitution is our chains, our walls, our restraint, our barrier, upon and against a dangerous and violent beast called government. And it was forged and built to bind down and contain the beast, so it could go only as far as we choose to allow it. It should

12 Chisholm v. GEORGIA 2 U.S. 419 , 457-8 (1793) Justice Wilson.

26

have never been a problem for the courts to recognize that the intent of binding down anything with chains and walls, by definition, is so that it does not have unlimited range to wander and go where and do whatever it might will. It is fully intended that the thing bound be limited by the length, breadth, and strength of those chains and the height and solidity of those walls. And one of the parts of the beast that the chains and walls are meant to bind are the courts themselves.

For instance, when any judge in any court, especially a court of limited jurisdiction, such as a municipal or justice court, makes a ruling in contradiction to the actual unambiguous language and intent of any constitutional provision, that ruling or opinion is automatically void. It is not voidable, it is simply void. To borrow a quote from an opinion of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Norton v. Shelby County13, “An Unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Which is precisely the prearranged outcome the people of Texas intended by the inclusion of Art. 1, Sec. 2914 in the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution. There should be no reasonable basis to argue against the proposition that this clause was fully intended to prevent governmental overreach and abuses of delegated authority without any need for judicial intervention. And it would be nothing less than utter statist idiocy to argue that a State constitution is in any way less binding upon State actors, or those of its political subdivisions, than the federal constitution would be against its own federal officers and employees, even when they are allegedly acting in their official federal capacity within the territorial boundaries of the Union States.

Couple that with the fact that, under a Republican form of government and our State Constitution, municipalities have no immunity from Unconstitutional and otherwise Unlawful acts. Add what the Texas Supreme Court has tried to do by Unlawfully legislating from the bench in the Tooke15 decision, an opinion that is in direct violation of multiple constitutional prohibitions,16 and you have the makings of a federal lawsuit against a municipality that is very expensive for it to lose. If you consider what was actually implied by the court in Tooke, what it really boils down to is the court saying “we find the statutory language so ambiguous on so many points, creating numerous possible and conflicting interpretations, that we will simply settle on the one we like best that does not diminish any governmental power.”

13 Norton v. SHELBY COUNTY , 118 U.S. 425 (1886) – This case appears to be unreported, however, it has been cited by no less than 581 opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court dating up to 2007 or later.14 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.15 Tooke v. CITY OF MEXIA , 197 S.W.3d 325 , 49 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 819, 820, 2006 WL 1792223 (Tex. Jun. 30, 2006)16 Texas Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 29, Bill of Rights, Art. 2, Sec. 1, Separation of Powers, Art. 3, Sec. 1, Senate and House of Representatives, prohibiting such acts.

27

Which raises this question, if the statutes are vague and ambiguous to such a degree that even the justices of the Texas Supreme Court cannot clearly determine and agree upon statutory meaning and legislative intent, why then wasn’t the statutory sections at issue declared Unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous rather than the court acting even more Unconstitutionally and Unlawfully to rewrite them via opinion to mean what the court itself wanted?

Is it really so hard to see and understand that these acts, as violations of the Texas Constitution, are criminal in and of themselves? How do attorneys and judges live with themselves after figuratively stabbing the entirety of the People of Texas in the back like this? Not to mention those same acts are being perpetrated in the other Union States by their own elected den of thieves. This makes our judiciary no more honest than a back-alley mugger. And it makes the other political subdivisions of the State (municipalities and counties), and their officers, no better than the scavenger scum that come along afterward and pick over the mugger’s unconscious or dead victim to see if anything of value was overlooked that they might take for themselves. Thus, rendering the unalienable inherent rights and property of the People into nothing more than prey for government wolves and weasels. Those same wolves are unafraid of their intended victims, because the wolves have metaphorically declared defending yourself against their predations completely illegal, so as to more easily render themselves immune to the defenses the People rightfully preserved to themselves and might otherwise have.

But, don’t take my word for it, take that of the United States Supreme Court, which held in Owen v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE that “A municipality has no immunity from liability under [Title 42 USC] 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability. Pp. 635-658.17”

And yet, time after time, no matter how egregious the behavior and acts of its officers and employees, or the culpability of the municipalities in that behavior and those acts, the Texas courts, and those of the other Union States, constantly dismiss municipalities as defendants from the people’s lawsuits using various forms of longwinded and contrived grounds of immunity.

Municipality – A Corporation by any Other Name, Would Still be a Corporation.

Now we add the insight on the lack of municipal immunity found in Owen18 to the following statutory revelations from the Texas Local Government Code:

17 Owen v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE , 445 U.S. 622 (1980) – This case has been cited within no less than 309 opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court dating up to at least 2012.18 Ibid.

28

Type 'A' Municipalities - Sec. 51.013. AUTHORITY RELATING TO LAWSUITS. The municipality may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, and answer and be answered in any matter in any court or other place.

Type 'B' Municipalities - Sec. 51.033. AUTHORITY RELATING TO LAWSUITS. The municipality may sue and be sued and may plead and be impleaded.

'Home Rule' Municipalities - Sec. 51.075. AUTHORITY RELATING TO LAWSUITS. The municipality may plead and be impleaded in any court.

Notice that the legislature specifically excluded all ‘Home Rule’ municipalities from being sued by omitting the specific language “may sue and be sued” from Sec. 51.075. However, you might also notice that the ability to sue was just as equally omitted, creating a potentially interesting legal quandary that we will have to deal with a little later.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that we the People never granted or delegated anything even remotely resembling immunity from liability and accountability to our governmental agents and actors, and the fact that it would be totally impossible to do so, since, as individuals, we possess no individual, sovereign, official, qualified, or discretionary immunity to hide behind for any Unlawful harms we might perpetrate, we can plainly see Tooke19 and the governmental immunity argument as a perfect example of what kind of detrimental consequences will inevitably and unavoidably result when the inmates take over and remain in charge of the asylum.

It would behoove you to notice that the term “immunity” does not appear in any version whatsoever of the Texas or federal Constitutions. It is entirely a judicially constructed fiction of theoretical legal contemplation. In other words, a complete and total lie based upon fraud through shrewd and constant linguistic manipulations and substitutions of legalese for common English with arcane and self-serving legal theory substituted for actual justice. It is a fraudulent doctrine not only because there is no constitutional basis for it, nor simply because it is not being properly and consistently applied and used to protect only those governmental actors that are doing the Lawfully right and correct thing in the right way. It is a fraudulent doctrine because it is being used almost exclusively to protect those governmental actors that knowingly and willfully act in bad faith and with malicious intent in violation of individual rights, property, sovereignty, the constitution, and the original form of the Common Law. And it would be a monumental endeavor of imagination to see how it is being used for any beneficial purpose to the People, rather than as a governmentally developed tool used for destroying what remains of our inherent unalienable rights and liberties, as well as the Texas Constitution itself.

And those facts notwithstanding, it should be a straightforward and simple matter for anyone with reasonable intelligence and knowledge as to what a true Republic is, coupled with even

19 Ibid.

29

rudimentary reading and comprehension skills, to be able to clearly see that the Legislature not only intended to waive immunity relating to municipalities, they actually had no choice but to waive it, as the legislature never actually had or has it to delegate in the first place. But, that simply isn’t good enough for the Texas Supreme Court, who decided to rewrite clearly worded legislation to yet further increase governmental power, authority, and immunity where none had previously existed, and to simultaneously remove all remedy for wrongdoing from a place where the people never intended to have need to seek such remedy, in the courts against our own public servants.

So, I ask you, at what point does usurpation of power and authority by our public servants, in direct violation of constitutional prohibitions and the law itself, become a criminal act? At what point do we Texans and the People of the Union States become forced to once again initiate armed rebellion to take the matters of government into our own hands like the colonists finally found necessary to do when abused under the boot-heel of King George, and later, we Texans under the muskets and canons of General Santa Anna? And what other viable options are left us by which we may hold our public servants accountable for their actions when the courts have abdicated their duty to protect the People’s individual sovereignty from government intrusions and usurpations? Instead, the courts are actively ruling through the use of Unlawful opinions to transfer that inherent and unalienable sovereignty from the people to the government and its actors, and then, through judicial fiat, Unconstitutionally declaring the whole lot of them immune from personal accountability and liability to we the People for any and all crimes that they may engage in.

So, to fully answer any those questions, we have to understand first and foremost that it certainly wouldn’t be Unconstitutional or Unlawful if we the People were driven to the point of actually taking up and bearing arms to make lawful citizen’s arrests of these “officials,” and then, convening public grand juries and tribunals to indict, judge, and convict those that deserve no less than expulsion from public office and/or prison for their part in this betrayal, as we fully reserved ourselves that right in Art. 1, Sec. 2, of our Bill of Rights within the Texas Constitution, where it is written:

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.

Let me paraphrase that section just a bit so as to make it very clear as to who is actually in charge here, what we have the power to really do, and by what authority we can do it:

30

All political power is inherent in the people, and… founded on their authority, and… for their benefit.… they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

The “their” and “they” referred to in that section is not speaking of individual members, departments, or agencies of government, it is speaking of us, ourselves, the People, both as individuals and as our own collective political body. A body having a far higher power and authority than that of the servant government that we created. And we must understand something very important to this point, and that is that, in the entire history of mankind, never once has a government that has Unlawfully seized power and authority from its people has that government ever voluntarily, willingly, and peacefully surrendered it back to the people from whom it was stolen.

Since every iota of power and authority the Texas Supreme Court can exercise must Lawfully come from us, the People, through our State Constitution, how can the court, or our government in general, grant immunity to anyone if we the People didn’t delegate our own immunity to any of them first? Furthermore, what lawful immunity do we have as individuals that we could possibly give away to our agents? I can think of only one, and it is a simple concept to establish its validity. As individuals, we have very limited immunity for any of our actions that result in injury to another or their property, and then only if our actions are Lawfully justified, such as an act of self-defense or the knowing and consensual participation of the injured party in the act that caused them injury. After that, only a jury of our peers, comprised of people that know us, our character, and our pattern of behavior, can rightfully decide if our actions were Lawfully justified under any other set of conditions and circumstances. As the one accused of causing the injury, we cannot make the determination of our own innocence or lack of culpability.

And that holds no less true for governmental actors that endeavor to violate the rights, persons, and property of we the People. We are not and never have been the subjects of government! It was not created to rule over us, but to serve us by protecting the very rights it now seeks to diminish or destroy.20 Yet, that is precisely what the Texas courts have tried to do, Unlawfully convert government into the master of the People of Texas instead of requiring it to act properly in fulfilling its role as a servant in protection of every individual’s rights. The cumulative result being the incorporated governmental version of Frankenstein’s monster. And we know how that eventually turned out, don’t we?

Therefore, we must ask ourselves these questions: How can the servant rightfully claim immunity from all accountability and liability for the wrongs done his master by the servant’s own hand, or claim to have rightfully taken or received from the Master that which is not and

20 Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

31

never was the Master’s to possess or give? Only a statist sycophant or psychopath could respond with an answer that makes this scenario acceptable, and yet, politicians and attorneys of every stripe and caliber proclaim support for this position every single day. Which leads us to yet another pair of questions: “Isn’t psychopathy one of the primary mental disorders exhibited by the people we normally commit as inmates to asylums?” and “Didn’t we discuss the peculiar and disturbing similarities of this inmate/asylum scenario earlier?”

We the People didn’t authorize any of this, and how could we? As individuals, we never possessed that power over our neighbors or other men, so, how could we delegate it to our governmental servants? It should be axiomatic rationale that the Master’s servant can have no delegated power greater than that which the Master himself possesses. And the Texas Constitution specifically withheld any power allowing the judiciary to rewrite the law or to create its own, which is the only thing that the judicially fabricated immunity doctrine could possibly be, judicially decreed and created law that violates the separation of powers clause, and thereby also, every other provision of the Texas Constitution discussed herein. As one of the People, I have taken time to read and study the history of our prior Texas constitutions, and what I have researched causes me to stand up and shout out loud that all of the above actions by our government simply cannot be Lawful because they are, each and every one, unquestionably Unconstitutional. It is an Unlawful usurpation of power and authority deserving of a prison sentence or death by public hanging for those that would attempt to Unlawfully and traitorously seize and wield our own power against we the People.

You might also want to consider why the word “among” was used when describing the inherent and unalienable rights of all men. We are taught from a very early age that the only rights protected by the constitutions are those that fall within those three categories of “… Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, but, how is it logically possible for those three to be “among” only themselves when the wording clearly indicates that they are simply three among others?

Who Makes Binding Law and Who Makes Directory Policy?

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a-comin'.” ― Captain Bill McDonald Texas Ranger

The power to create binding public law, which we previously discussed while detailing the only reasonable interpretation of the lawful extent of such law in a truly free society, was delegated to the Texas Legislature via the Texas Constitution under the provisions of Art. 3, Sec. 1.21 In relation to municipalities, Art. 11 of the Texas Constitution, neither creates nor delegates

21 Art. 3, Sec. 1. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and House of Representatives, which together shall be styled "The Legislature of the State of

32

any authority whatsoever allowing ordinances to be treated or publicized as binding law upon the general public. The ability of municipalities and counties to enforce their local edicts as if they are binding law is a concoction of totally Unlawful and Unconstitutional fabrications as to the meaning and intent of the Texas Constitution. These rewrites of the original meaning and intent have been created and perpetrated by what is currently and entirely an attorney-controlled and manipulated government. These attorneys are Unlawfully and Unconstitutionally operating from within the legislative, judicial and executive departments as appointed or elected officials, and it has been this way since at least 1939,22 which was when the State Bar Act was enacted. Read the State Bar Act 23 yourself. It clearly states in Sec. 81.011(a) that “The state bar is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judicial department of government.” That means any member of any office within that administrative judicial agency is Constitutionally forbidden to hold office in any other department, or exercise any power belonging to any person or officer in any other department, by the provisions of Article 2, Sec. 1, Texas Constitution. And yet, attorneys with current Bar cards are occupying and controlling the most powerful and influential offices in every governmental department. This is how this completely Unconstitutional and Unlawful ordinances scheme was able to be implanted into our laws, despite it being specifically forbidden by the Texas Constitution. The attorneys, the self-declared monopoly holders on the “practice of law,” have supplanted our Constitutional Republic with a judicial oligarchy.

Consider the fact that the terms “ordinance” and “ordinances” appear exactly once each within the entire Texas constitution, neither in any context that would even appear to grant them the authority of binding law upon the public. In fact, such administrative pretend law-making (formerly known as the King’s prerogative 24) can be nothing more than directory only, and is precisely the form of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking that the creation of a Constitutional Republic was specifically intended and designed to do away with.

In fact, Art. 11, Sec. 5 contains a specific constitutional prohibition25 on the use of ordinances by municipalities, a prohibition specifically barring any attempt to create an ordinance that would act in violation of any provision of the Texas Constitution or the laws of “this State.” This prohibition is echoed in the Charter of every single “home rule city” in Texas, but it is no less true in relation to a “general law” or any other type of municipality, as none of them can

Texas."22 See the chapter on “The State Bar Act is Unconstitutional in Texas.”23 State Bar Act online: http://tinyurl.com/3sqetqn24 "Is Administrative Law Unlawful," ISBN-13: 978-0-226-11659-4 (cloth), ISBN-13: 978-0-226-11645-7 (e-book), by Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Author of "Law and Judicial Duty and Separation of Church and State."25 In pertinent part, Art. 11, Sec. 5, states “The adoption or amendment of charters is subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by the Legislature, and no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State.”

33

Lawfully violate any provision the Texas Constitution any more than the State itself can. The fact that the corporate State and those that pretend to act under its name and authority rather than the People’s is constantly endeavoring to ‘legally’ destroy our rights, liberties, and Constitutional Republic as a whole, changes nothing about the treasonous and seditious nature of such endeavors, because such acts are and always will be Unlawful, Unconstitutional, and outright criminal in nature.

This Constitutional prohibition on municipalities and counties possessing and exercising legislative powers is further reinforced by the provisions of our Bill of Rights in Art. 1, Sec. 29 of the Texas Constitution. In our American court opinions, nowhere has the discussion of the limited authority of corporations, even when disguised as a municipality, been more thoughtfully and thoroughly detailed than in Chisholm,26 wherein Justice Iredell wrote:

The differences between such corporations, and the several States in the Union, as relative to the general Government, are very obvious in the following particulars.

1st. A corporation is a mere creature of the King, or of Parliament; very rarely of the latter; most usually of the former only. It owes its existence, its name, and its laws, (except such laws as are necessarily incident to all corporations merely as such) to the authority which create it. A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people.

2nd. A corporation can do no act but what is subject to the revision either of a Court of Justice, or of some other authority within the Government. A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless, in the special instances where the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself.

3rd. A corporation is altogether dependant [sic] on that Government to which it owes its existence. Its charter may be forfeited by abuse. Its authority may be annihilated, without abuse, by an act of the Legislative body. A State, though subject in certain specified particulars to the authority of the Government of the United States, is in every other respect totally independent upon it. The people of the State created, the people of the State can only change, its Constitution. Upon this power there is no other limitation but that imposed by the Constitution of the United States; that it must be of the Republican form. I omit minuter [sic] distinctions.

In Chisholm, the Jay Court decided States lacked sovereign immunity and could be sued for war debt incurred during the Revolutionary War. And it was this judicial decision that was the inspiration and reason for the creation of the 11th Amendment to the federal constitution, to provide the immunity that had not previously existed. But, that immunity was ruled upon only in relation to the political body of the State itself, and only in relation to lawful debts incurred. It said and did nothing to provide immunity to State actors that violated their oaths of office and acted contrary to either the provisions of the State Constitution or State laws. Yet, that is

26 Chisholm v. GEORGIA 2 U.S. 419 , 448-9 (1793) Justice Iredell

34

precisely the extent to which the judiciary at every level has continuously expanded the concept of immunity for every department of government. And I can personally see no necessary distinction between any normal corporation and one that also happens to act as an incorporated municipality when it comes to the ability to make binding law versus corporate policy, in that, neither of them have the Lawfully delegated Constitutional power and authority to do the former.

Furthermore, the only Constitutional mention of ordinances by counties is in relation to taxation, which, if the State were being honest and forthright as to the proper limits of even that power and authority, could never be applicable to anything other than property owned and used by legal entities (incorporated business’) for private profit or gain. And since “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,”27 it simply stands to reason that government has no Lawful power and authority to destroy private property or inherent rights which are privately owned and possessed by any individual member of the People, while there exists no such limitation upon the property of those legal entities which its own laws created and control. After all, legal entities are entirely creations of law, and the legislatively created laws control every aspect of their existence. This is precisely the concept of our governmental system that I speak of. Our government is a legal contemplation, a fiction, and We the People created it. It is our law, written in the form of our State constitutions, that creates, defines, and binds it. And it is we, through that law, who are the true masters, and we who are ultimately responsible for controlling it, not the other way around.

So, the current attorney-created judicial concept that the People, meaning you and me, when acting in our private capacity or by use of our private property, are somehow required to surrender our rights and be bound by administrative regulatory rule making, regardless of the name under which it is exercised, is simply not true. We are natural-born men and women with inherent unalienable sovereignty and rights far superior to the authority and power delegated to any governmental or legal entity, for government is our fictional creation, and it is entirely bound by our law, the Texas Constitution.

Furthermore, despite the recent barrage of judicial activism and legislative efforts directed at making it appear to be commonly accepted conventional wisdom that government is the master of the People, the facts are that government does not have a natural or inherent right to exist or to exercise any authority whatsoever over anyone, anywhere, at any time. Quite the contrary in fact. Government is not a naturally occurring living thing, nor does it have inherent or natural rights. It has only the delegated authority and power that we the People have seen fit to allow it to exercise. It is not our master, but the other way round, because we are the only true sovereigns in relation to ourselves, our rights, and our liberties. And we as people cannot give away a power that we as individuals do not already rightfully possess. Can you Lawfully give away or sell property belonging to your neighbor or to a stranger, or pledge him or her into contractual obligations or servitude without his or her knowledge and consent, except as part of the

27 McCulloch v. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

35

punishment resulting from conviction of an actual crime? The only Lawful answer is an absolute “no you can’t,” which is no less true for the State. The State’s only lawful authority comes from us, the sovereign People, and not from any higher authority or itself, because there is no higher authority than we the People where the State is concerned. And for just that one reason alone, if the State were actually allowed to tax or dictate the use of even one individual’s private property without his knowing and voluntary consent, it would be an Unlawful violation of every individual’s inherent unalienable right to acquire, own, use, and dispose of private property as they see fit. As each of us are sovereign individuals, we have no inherent and lawful power to take or tax what rightfully belongs to another sovereign against their will or without their consent. Therefore, we have no lawful sovereign power and authority to delegate such authority and capabilities to our servant government to wield against and oppress our fellow man, as that power could just as easily be turned back on us by a rogue and abusive government (sound familiar?). To better understand these points, we turn once again to the court’s discourse in Chisholm:28

To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves 'SOVEREIGN' people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.29

Having thus avowed my disapprobation of the purposes, for which the terms, State and sovereign, are frequently used, and of the object, to which the application of the last of them is almost universally made; it is now proper that I should disclose the meaning, which I assign to both, and the application, [2 U.S. 419, 455] which I make of the latter.30 In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently [sic] to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker.

Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect Creator: A State; useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a State as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that, which is divine: Of all human contrivances, it is certainly most transcendently [sic] excellent. It is concerning this contrivance that Gicero says so sublimely, 'Nothing, which is exhibited upon our globe, is more acceptable to that divinity, which governs the whole universe, than those communities and assemblages of men, which, Lawfully associated, are denominated States*'.

28 Chisholm v. GEORGIA 2 U.S. 419 , 454-5 (1793), Justice Wilson29 “They” in this context is a direct reference not to any department or agency of government, or even the political or corporate bodies of the States themselves, but to us, the PEOPLE!30 Justice Wilson is referring to the term “sovereign” and how it applies in the context of belonging to the State or to the people thereof.

36

Let a State be considered as subordinate to the People: But let every thing else be subordinate to the State. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the Government has often claimed precedence of the State; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence.

… …

If then it be true, that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation , and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge, whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter, are so essential to the former. There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question, arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them.

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country , but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African

[2 U.S. 419, 472]  

slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

So, never let the communist state minions at organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, or those within our own corrupt government at the NSA, FBI, DHS, or any other federal alphabet or State agency, tell you for one minute that you are somehow an anti-government radical, extremist, or criminal simply because you dare call yourself a sovereign individual with rights superior to the delegated powers and authority granted offices and agents of the State and federal governments, because the Supreme Court has already conceded the fact that you are.

37

And don’t be so damn ready and willing to believe such libelous and slanderous poppycock about anyone else just because these agents of corruption tell you so. Learn to think for yourself, before you have no ability left to think or make a choice!

The Proof of the Fraud and Betrayal.

Okay, enough with the background information, but just be certain that too many around you, and possibly even yourself, would not have fully comprehended or understood the importance of what you are about to read without it.

As anyone can plainly see in Table 1 below, not a single requirement necessary to legislate, meaning to create binding public law under the delegated law-making powers found in Art. 3, Secs. 29-40 & 43, Secs. 56-58, or Sec. 62 of the Texas Constitution, is met by any municipality or county.

Table 1 - Texas Constitution Sectional Provisions

Art. I ConstitutionalRequisite/Prohibition

Section Legislature Bound By?

Municipality & County Bound By?

Inherent Political Power and Republican Form of Government Required Sec. 2 Yes / Yes31

Bills of Attainder Prohibited Sec.16 Yes / Yes32

Laws Violating any Provision are Null and Void Sec. 29 Yes / Yes

31 Under the Texas Constitution, the people decreed that the only form of government having actual authority to act in the name of the people and to create law binding upon the public must be Republican in form, which municipalities are certainly not, as their form of government is almost invariably that of council/manager, not people/representative. The members of a city council do not actually represent or serve the people therein. Nothing in a municipal charter states that the municipality must operate only in the best interest of the entire collective of people within its territorial boundaries, and they rarely do so, as the council and manager almost invariably act only in the city’s own corporate interest (i.e., for profit) and the fat six digit a year paychecks of those that hold controlling offices within it. Check the financial records of any city in Texas with a population over 5,000, and you will find that virtually every city manager has at least a million+ dollar “golden parachute” agreement that must be paid to them if they are asked to resign or are fired before the contract expires. Why would a city manager care about doing or allowing anything that would get them fired with a deal like that covering their posterior?32 This is where things like red light and speeding camera citations, parking tickets, and any other form of “civil offense” for which there is an administrative punitive punishment without judicial review are in direct violation of the Texas Constitution and Constitution of the United States. Municipal courts in Texas have absolutely no civil jurisdiction of any kind for any purpose (yet), which is required for judicial review of any civil or administrative (which is only a particular form of civil) cases that pretend to have punitive sanctions (which is also problematic in the punitive sense as civil punishment requires some sort of consensual agreement, the terms of which having been violated by one or more of the attached/signatory parties).

38

Art. III ConstitutionalRequisite / Prohibition

Section Legislature Authorized?

Municipality & County

Authorized?

Law Making Power Sec. 1 Yes / No

Enacting Clause Sec. 29 Yes / No

Bill Required Sec. 30 Yes / No

Origination in Either House Sec. 31 Yes / No

Reading on Floor of Each House Sec. 32 33 Yes / No

Revenue Bills Sec. 33 Yes / No

Defeated Bills & Resolutions Sec. 34 Yes / No

Subjects & Titles of Bills Sec. 35 Yes / No

Amendment by Reference Sec. 36 Yes / No

Reference to Committee Sec. 37 Yes / No

Signing Bills & Legis. Journal Entry Sec. 38 Yes / No

Time of Effect Sec. 39 Yes / No

Special Sessions Sec. 40 Yes / No

Revision of Laws Sec. 43 Yes / No

Local and Special Laws Sec. 56 Yes / No

Notice of Intent Sec. 57 Yes / No

Seat of Legislative Government Sec. 58 Yes / No

Continuity & Suspension Sec. 62 Yes / No

How then, is it even remotely possible that municipalities and counties in Texas usurp and pretend to create binding law under a legislative authority that they so clearly don’t have under the Texas Constitution, and how is it that the courts are not declaring these acts completely Unconstitutional when challenged? Especially considering that those same courts have already ruled on numerous occasions that the Texas Legislature cannot delegate the law-making power34 granted it by the Texas Constitution. The logic could not be any simpler to follow than this –

(1) The People delegate law making authority only to the two combined houses styled as the Legislature of the State of Texas and to no other governmental body, entity, or political subdivision.

33 There is a secondary issue with this section relating to the 4/5th vote required to suspend this rule and the actual emergency conditions required to exist before that vote is even cast in order to authorize such suspension. That will be discussed in detail in chapter *77.34 *77 Place case law here

39

(2) The Texas Constitution makes no provisions whatsoever to allow the delegation of that legislative power to anyone.

(3) The courts rule time-and-time again that the legislative power is non-delegable,35 and any attempt to do so would be constitutionally and automatically void pursuant Art. 1, Sec. 29, Texas Constitution.

(4) Texas Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 56, provides specific areas of local concern in which the legislature cannot Lawfully legislate at all, and that section makes no provision for anyone else doing so in its place.

(5) Municipalities are forbidden by Art. 11, Texas Constitution, from using their charter or any ordinances created under that charter, to violate any provision 36 of the Texas Constitution.

(6) Therefore, logic dictates, that, since the legislative power is vested solely in the Legislature, and municipalities and counties are forbidden by the Constitution to violate any provision therein, they have no Constitutional, and, through logical progression, no Lawful power to create binding public law at all.

(7) Thus, in relation to all of the above stated facts, logic again dictates that anything they enact and attempt to apply to the public can be nothing more than directory policy, not mandatory law.

So, what we really have as modern government is one that refuses to recognize any real limits whatsoever on its power and authority. Nor does it wish to recognize that it was actually created and intended as a servant and not a master of we the People, even though all that it is and is authorized to do actually came from us. However, be certain that government officials and their agents will be the first to tell you that we the People have a plethora of fictitious man-made limits on our own individual power and authority, and that they have the rightful authority to increase, alter or abolish those limits on a whim. And the maraschino cherry that tops off this statist insanity sundae, these same people are actually daring to openly declare and act as if they and they alone are, in fact, the real masters. And in their mind, the People must acquiesce and comply with all that they demand and require of us without argument, refusal, or resistance.

It is now apparent that, much like the nanomite experiment that went horribly wrong and transformed an entire race of humanoid beings into a fusion of organic, cybernetic, and mechanical, our government is trying to completely evolve itself in similar fashion, while developing a behavioral pattern more in line with that of the Borg than the one we originally designed for it. Soon, all the People of America, and the world over, will hear the mechanical-sounding voice of their once servant government saying:

“We are the Government. Lower your will and surrender your rights and property. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness and

35 *See footnote on Tooke, and constitutionally prohibited ibid.36 Art. 11, Sec. 5, Texas Constitution ibid.

40

Figure 3 – Jean Luc Picard and the Borg Queen during his assimilation process into the Borg collective.

property to our own. Your culture and all that you have will be adapted to service us. Resistance is futile.”

Forging the Chains.

Call me simple-minded, but I cannot reconcile a lifetime of all that I have learned and know from experience, and the beliefs developed from that experience, with what I am currently being cajoled and ordered to believe. And when that hasn’t worked, to then be compelled to accept and obey regardless, usually by threat or use of brutal or deadly force, and always against my will and without my consent. So much for the concept of ‘the consent of the governed.’ Why has the Supreme Court and its subordinate tribunals failed us so? Why has the high court never justly ruled to protect the sovereignty and individual power of we the People? Oh, wait, it did…37

Is there any part of this description, which intimates, in the remotest manner, that a State, any more than the men who compose it, ought not to do justice and fulfil engagements? It will not be pretended that there is. If justice is not done; if engagements are not fulfilled; is it upon general principles of right, less proper, in the case of a great number, than in the case of an individual, to secure, by compulsion, that, which will not be voluntarily performed? Less proper it surely cannot be. The only reason , I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, is, that he binds himself . Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorized [sic] by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this; why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired. A State, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest State, like a dishonest merchant, willfully [sic] refuses to discharge it: The latter is amenable to a Court of Justice: Upon general principles of

37 Chisholm v. GEORGIA , 2 U.S. 419 , 456-7 (1793), Justice Wilson

41

right, shall the former when summoned to answer the fair demands of its creditor, be permitted, proteus-like, to assume a new appearance, and to insult him and justice, by declaring I am a Sovereign State? Surely not. Before a claim, so contrary, in it first appearance, to the general principles of right and equality, be sustained by a just and impartial tribunal, the person, natural or artificial, entitled to make such claim, should certainly be well known and authenticated. Who, or what, is a sovereignty? What is his or its sovereignty? On this subject, the errors and the mazes are endless and inexplicable. To enumerate all, therefore, will not be expected: To take notice of some will be necessary to the full illustration of the present important cause. In one sense, the term sovereign has for its correlative, subject, In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States . Under that Constitution there are citizens , but no subjects .

The term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet 'foreign' 8* is prefixed. In this sense, I presume the State of Georgia has no claim upon her own citizens: In this sense, I am certain, she can have no claim upon the citizens of another State.

In another [2 nd ] sense , according to some writers 9*, every State, which governs itself without any dependence on another power, is a sovereign State. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the State of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said, by their late instructors, to have done, surrendered the Supreme Power to the State or Government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other States, and of the United States, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the Supreme Power in their own hands; and on that Supreme Power have made the State dependent, instead of being sovereign; these are questions, to which, as a Judge in this cause, I can neither know nor suggest the proper answers; though, as a citizen of the Union, I know, and am interested to know, that the most satisfactory answers can be given. As a citizen, I know the Government of that State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge of this Court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the 'People of the United States,' did not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is NOT a sovereign State. If the Judicial decision of this case forms one of those purposes; the allegation, that Georgia is a sovereign State, is unsupported by the fact.

Government now pretends to Lawfully exercise a power and authority that we never delegated to it, and never possessed as individuals so as to delegate it. Government presumes to act in our name while it usurps the power and authority to take not only our own individual rights and property away, but also that of our fellow man. All through stealthy encroachment enabled by legislative and judicial duplicity. And it does so in complete violation of our individual will and consent, while dictating to us what constitutes the rightful and lawful use of either. Our own servants even go so far as to charge us extortive taxes, fees, and fines, to use and control our own private property, while completely ignoring the fact that we are not legally created entities that

42

are subject to the abject control and rule of government. Because, if we were, such rule would ultimately serve to oppress and subjugate us all. Pretty much just like where we are at right now. So, once again, the question must be asked, just how did government get that power and authority when we ourselves don’t have it to give? Our government is not only demonstrating living textbook examples of how to commit treason and sedition, it is also perpetrating acts against the American People similar to those used in the ‘cold war’. And it is a war being waged by every level of our own government.

What? You don’t believe me? Aw, now you’ve gone and hurt my feelings. Okay, no problem. Just let me throw some more wood on that tiny spark of analytical thought and reason that might still be smoldering, buried deep in the dying coals of what we once called the deep recesses of your mind, and we will see if I can convince you otherwise.

Pay heed to these words taken directly from Art. 11, Sec. 5, Texas Constitution, and think well on what they mean when read as the plain and intelligible words they really are. Words that require no judicial interpretation to make their meaning as clear as a space observation portal force field on the Starship Enterprise; “no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State.” This language is echoed in the very city charter that every “home rule” city in Texas relies upon for their authority to act like an incorporated municipality. And while it should be a common sense inference and understanding that neither a city charter nor any ordinance passed under that charter can violate the Texas Constitution, both the constitution and the city charter each contain crystal clear language that specifically states that neither can do so. You would think that would be the only thing necessary to prove that everything else we are about to discuss on the subject of ordinances is a moot point, but there are plenty of attorneys and judges that can’t read and understand plain English that are all too willing to argue and try to prove you wrong. Now, I could have said unethical, immoral, pandering, sleazy, inept, unconscionable, corrupt, statist, scumbag attorneys, but that would just be unnecessarily redundant. But I digress.

What then, if not a direct violation of Art. 1, Sec. 29, and Art. 3, Secs. 29-40 of the Texas Constitution, is the absurdly false claim that a municipality has the lawful authority to legislate for the purpose of creating civil and criminal ordinances having punitive consequences upon the public, and how does this assertion contradict the concept of a constitutional republic as being our true and proper form of government as a whole? And don’t try to give me that ass-kissing attorney spiel about it means whatever a judge says it means, because that is the exact pile of aromatic equine fertilizer that I am talking about being an Unconstitutional and Unlawful exercise of judicial authority in the first place.

Anyone with a normally functioning brain, meaning almost categorically non-attorneys, would know and vehemently assert that it takes an absurdly high level of gall and stupidity to argue that a municipality is not bound by such language simply because the legislature created a

43

statutory definition that purportedly allows the municipality or county to do that which is clearly forbidden by constitutional prohibition. But, leave it to a self-serving mealy-mouthed constitutionally subversive statist lunatic with a juris doctorate degree and a god complex to say that the written words of the People of Texas don’t mean what they say, but mean only what another attorney ‘come high priest in a black robe says they mean, and in any way it suits them, regardless of the original common meaning of the words or even the meaning assigned by statute or underlying law.

The City Attorney - A Walking Talking Phallus With an Expensive Wardrobe and Education, but No Brain.

Which brings us to the special breed of all-too common scumbag leeches that have so tightly attached themselves to the tender nether-regions of our society, and are sucking our life’s-blood from us one petty tax, fine, and fee at a time, the city attorney. If Hell has a place within it that is considered an even worse shit-pit than the area that is generally populated by the vilest of the damned, rest assured that it is reserved specially for attorneys and judges the world over, but municipal city attorneys and judges most particularly, maybe even a federal Supreme Court justice or nine. Based upon my own personal experiences with these sub-human creatures, I have come to the conclusion that Satan himself firmly believes most attorneys to be even lower than the petrified whale shit resting a thousand feet below the floor of the Marianas Trench.38

Now that you know the special class of low-life bag of flesh and bones that you are going to be dealing with, we need to understand that these people, and I use that term in reference most reluctantly, would argue with a stop sign about what color it is and what purpose it serves if there is a cent to be stolen by making or winning the argument. You know that it’s a really cold day out when you see an attorney walking down the street with his hands in his own pockets. You will also know an attorney has run completely dry of all valid legal points and arguments, and is failing miserably to put up a good argument, when he showcases his ignorance and frustration by resorting to personally slanderous attacks. Eventually, he will make use of the statement “well, that’s your interpretation” in response to your legal points and arguments, as if that will somehow legally invalidate them and make them dry up and blow away. So, knowing that, understand that their desire is to make what is right before your eyes and plainly written in black-and-white to actually appear to be something other and more beneficial to them than it actually is.

38 The lowest point in the sea on earth is the Pacific Ocean's Marianas Trench. It's near Guam and is 35,840 feet (10,924 m) deep.

44

Figure 4 - The city attorney, the black sheep of even the blackest sheep.

The only argument that a city attorney could even possibly make as to how the language in Art. 11, Sec. 5 is not placing strict limitations on the creation and application of ordinances is to argue that a “home rule” municipality is actually an extraconstitutional entity capable of creating ordinances outside or regardless of any authority or prohibitions found within the Texas Constitution, State law, or its own charter. And then, only by making the equally asinine argument that none of these writings really mean what the words used to write them actually say they mean on their face. Wow, talk about delusions of grandeur and godhood. Do any of these assertions seem at all reasonable and proper to you? What if he’s right? After all, why would the people actually want limited power and authority in their municipal government? Don’t we all know and accept the idea that constitutions were created to bind down the People and not the government? And that it does so by ensuring that virtually anything perceived or proclaimed to be a governmental right and necessity at the State or local level would always hold higher authority and trump individual rights? Now, even though that scenario is absolutely ludicrous and despotically insane, I wouldn’t bet my own money against there being a petty-fogging shyster city attorney that would try to protect his fat corporate paycheck by attempting to make a supporting case with such arguments.

In fact, I challenge you to confront the city attorney and/or municipal judge in your own municipality, after doing your own research and verification of this information of course, and see just how vehemently s/he will insist that they and the city can do exactly what they’ve been doing, albeit Unlawful and Unconstitutional, and despite all the Constitutional facts and evidence to the contrary. And all because a treasonous and seditious coven of attorneys, abusing their

45

judicial authority and capacity as activist judges, decided entirely on their own to rewrite the meaning of the Texas Constitution from the bench.

The Problem with Common Sense is That it is Not All That Common, Especially in Attorneys and Legislators.

Using the parameters of each of the constitutional provisions listed in Table 1 above, how is it not absolutely clear that a municipality and county have zero power to create any form of publicly binding legislation or rulemaking, regardless of what name or purpose you give it? The only way any of their ordinances could ever be binding upon anyone in the public arena is if members of the public individually consented to be bound, at least at some point. However, that would also mean that those same individuals could choose to either continue or withdraw that consent at any future point for any reason they so desire. They could basically pick-and-choose what ordinances they consent to be bound by while ignoring those that they do not. This is precisely the core concept of self-governance by the consent of the governed, and being a free and independent people with inherent and unalienable individual rights. A concept that says that the rights of the few or the one, are not subject to the vote of the many or the claims of governmental necessity or “social justice” within society itself. This is a concept where our individual rights do not depend on who can convince the majority to vote a particular way. This same concept of a collective political body was addressed in Chisholm39 as well:

By a State I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: And it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members: It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals . It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those, who think and speak, and act, are men.

Now let’s take these constitutional points to another problematic area of legal theory and argument for the State, that being prosecution of ordinances as State crimes using a criminal complaint.

In reviewing the legal requisites of a criminal complaint as found in Art. 45.019(a), we find that one of the requisites is that the complaint must allege “an offense against the law of this state.” This is Art. 45.019 in its entirety:

Art. 45.019. REQUISITES OF COMPLAINT.

39 Chisholm v. GEORGIA 2 U.S. 419 , 455-6 (1793), Justice Wilson

46

(a) A complaint is sufficient, without regard to its form, if it substantially satisfies the following requisites:

(1) it must be in writing;(2) it must commence "In the name and by the authority of the State of

Texas";(3) it must state the name of the accused, if known, or if unknown, must

include a reasonably definite description of the accused;(4) it must show that the accused has committed an offense against the

law of this state, or state that the affiant has good reason to believe and does believe that the accused has committed an offense against the law of this state;

(5) it must state the date the offense was committed as definitely as the affiant is able to provide;

(6) it must bear the signature or mark of the affiant; and(7) it must conclude with the words "Against the peace and dignity of the

State" and, if the offense charged is an offense only under a municipal ordinance, it may also conclude with the words "Contrary to the said ordinance".

(b) A complaint filed in justice court must allege that the offense was committed in the county in which the complaint is made.

(c) A complaint filed in municipal court must allege that the offense was committed in the territorial limits of the municipality in which the complaint is made.

(d) A complaint may be sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths.

(e) A complaint in municipal court may be sworn to before:

(1) the municipal judge;(2) the clerk of the court or a deputy clerk;(3) the city secretary; or(4) the city attorney or a deputy city attorney.

(f) If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, the defendant waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity. Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an objection to a charging instrument be made at an earlier time.

(g) In a county with a population of more than two million that does not have a county attorney, a complaint for an offense under Section 32.41, Penal Code, must be approved by the district attorney, regardless of whether a collection proceeding is initiated by the district attorney under Section 32.41(e), Penal Code.

Now, let’s take a good look at one particular portion of the statutory language, specifically, the part that reads “the law of this state.” What does that phrasing actually mean in relation to this specific statute, or to statutes in general? Well, let me try and show you what my theory and arguments are in relation to this phrasing.

It is my theory and argument that the legislature has attempted to Unconstitutionally amend the Texas Constitution by statutory fiat. Thereby, Unconstitutionally delegating its law-making power to municipalities, counties, and numerous other subordinate agencies and officers thereof, by Unlawfully declaring their ordinances to be “the law of this state.” In other words, the

47

legislature appears to have Unconstitutionally declared such acts to be actual biding law by doing absolutely nothing more than defining it as such in some statute. Shown in Figure 4 is a cumulative list of all statutes across all Texas codes where the term “law” has been specifically [and Unlawfully and Unconstitutionally] redefined by the legislature to encompass non-legislatively created and enacted ordinances, rules, regulations, statutes, orders of commissioners courts, and judicial opinions of courts of record:

Figure 5 - Code Search Term "law means"

You will notice that there are 17 matches to the search phrase “law means” that are found across all the codes in Texas, as opposed to only two when searching for the phrase “law includes.” In the latter two, the definitions are not in any way relevant to the discussion here, and of the 17 shown above, only seven of them bear on this theoretical legal discussion. Those seven definitions, in numbered order as shown in Figure 5, are items 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17.

In each of these definitions you will see one term that speaks volumes about the legislative chicanery that I described earlier, and that term is “ordinance.” Certainly there are other terms in these definitions that are just as Unconstitutional in usage and application, but for now, let’s concentrate on that one in particular. In so doing, we can see that each of these definitions of the term “law” pretends to statutorily grant the legally binding authority of an actual legislatively enacted law to the term “ordinance.” Now, we know that, pursuant Art. 3, Secs. 29-40, as is shown in Table 1, an ordinance enacted by a city council or a county commissioner’s court is in no way a lawful and constitutional enactment of law by the State legislature. So, let’s take a look at each of these seven definitions in Table 2 and see just exactly what the legislature has tried to

48

do with them, as well as determine if they violate any provision(s) of the Texas Constitution. And remember, we are only looking at the specific issue of ordinances at the moment.

Table 2 - Relevant statutory definitions of the term "law."

Code Art./Sec. Text

Election 1.005(10) "Law" means a constitution, statute, city charter, or city ordinance.

Government 554.001 (1) "Law" means:(A) a state or federal statute;(B) an ordinance of a local governmental

entity; or(C) a rule adopted under a statute or

ordinance.

(2) "Local governmental entity" means a political subdivision of the state, including a:

(A) county;(B) municipality;(C) public school district; or(D) special-purpose district or authority.

Local Government 361.021 DEFINITION. In this subchapter, "law" means a state statute, a written opinion of a court of record, a municipal ordinance, an order of the commissioners court of a county, or a rule adopted under a statute.

Penal 1.07(30) "Law" means the constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States, a written opinion of a court of record, a municipal ordinance, an order of a county commissioners court, or a rule authorized by and Lawfully adopted under a statute.

Property 111.004(24) "Environmental law" means any federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance relating to protection of the environment.

49

Transportation 702.001 "Traffic law" means a statute or ordinance, a violation of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, that regulates, on a street, road, or highway of this state:

(A) the conduct or condition of a person while operating a motor vehicle; or

(B) the condition of a motor vehicle being operated.

Transportation 706.001(9) "Traffic law" means a statute or ordinance, a violation of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine in an amount not to exceed $1,000, that:

(A) regulates an operator's conduct or condition while operating a motor vehicle on a highway or street or in a public place;

(B) regulates the condition of a motor vehicle while it is being operated on a highway or street;

(C) relates to the driver's license status of an operator while operating a motor vehicle on a highway or street; or

(D) relates to the registration status of a motor vehicle while it is being operated on a highway or street.

I find it a very telling and frightening admission by the Legislature that the term “Law” within the Election and Penal codes specifically recognizes any constitution, presumably including the State of Texas Constitution, as “law,” but in relation to the Government code, where the government itself has codified its own internal rules and regulations, the definition of the term does not include a reference to any constitution at all. Consider that for a moment. But notice also that, nowhere is a Lawfully enacted legislative bill referred to as, or included in, any statutory definition of the term “law.” This could very well be evidence of a constitutionally abhorrent smoking gun, that statutes themselves are not and have never been “law” any more than these other petty enactments are, as none are in compliance with Art. 3, Secs. 29-40, Texas Constitution.

When it comes to electing these liars and thieves to office, they “officially” recognize the Texas Constitution as authoritative on the process and procedures for doing so, but, when it comes to how government itself is to perform its duties and protect the individual rights of the people, it has specifically omitted the State constitution as having any authority at all as any form of “law.” So, I’ll ask again, how is it even remotely possible for the legislature to empower a

50

mere ordinance with the same force and effect as an actual State law enacted in compliance with Art. 3, Secs. 29-40 of the Texas Constitution, using nothing more than a statutory definition? Once again, constitutionally and Lawfully speaking, it absolutely isn’t possible, because at best, it’s sedition, and at worst, it’s treason. And who do we have to thank for destroying the rule of law and bringing our beloved Republic to the brink of utter destruction? Without a doubt, the chief architects and engineers are self-serving money-grubbing power-mad statist elitist attorneys and judges, that’s who.

Furthermore, how does any statutory definition that pretends to do what these seven do, and still manage to avoid being a direct violation of those same constitutional sections and their respective provisions? Also, how is such a statute not immediately void pursuant Art. 1, Sec. 29 of the Bill of Rights within the Texas Constitution? And lastly, since this is such a perfect real-world example of the state legislature and the courts Unlawfully altering our State Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government, a government under the control of the People, and also the manner in which we decided that all laws binding upon us were to be made and enacted, how is this not an outright ongoing act of sedition by those that we have elected to public office?

That is a rhetorical question of course, because it is, at a minimum, an ongoing act of sedition, for which I have a rather simple throwback solution from a bygone era:

51

Figure 6 - A simple solution.

Compromised Criminal Complaint Becomes an Unconstitutional Due Process and Inherent Rights Violation.

However, when it comes down to the issue we started with, a criminal complaint that must allege a violation of “a law of this state,” and after having taken all of these issues and evidence into consideration, any criminal complaint that cites a violation of any ordinance, rule, regulation or statute is not valid upon its face in either form or substance. Not in form, because it does not allege the violation of a law constitutionally enacted by the State Legislature, which is a fundamental requirement of any criminal complaint, and not in substance because there is no way for any member of the public to violate a non-constitutionally enacted “pretend” law that has no legal force and effect upon the People. In which case, it is nothing less than massive political, financial, and brute force fraud and extortion to even consider criminally or civilly prosecuting any non-law using the power and force of the State, because the State literally has absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is equally true when it comes to the city attorney pretending to represent the State in the matter when it should be crystal clear that a city attorney cannot be delegated any constitutionally lawful State prosecutorial powers as those are delegated to only two specific elected offices,40 the county and district attorney, just like the lawmaking power is to the legislature. Therefore, the State has absolutely no lawful standing or authority to enforce or prosecute these matters as if they actually were law, and neither does any political subdivision because no such power was ever delegated to them by We the People, nor was it granted to the individual departments of government to delegate their assigned general powers. These facts and conditions are precisely what makes any form of administrative law and its application to the public completely Unlawful and a downright criminal act of fraud and sedition.

At What Point Do the People Decide That the 2nd Amendment is Okay to Apply in Defense of Our Rights and Liberties?

Pretend laws. That is precisely what ordinances and all of these other Unconstitutional enactments really are. Pretend laws, non-laws, because they are not, as all the evidence has proven, constitutionally enacted law by the State legislature, and, therefore, are not law at all, but merely corporate policy suggestions and preferences that cannot and do not bind anyone in the public! At best, they can bind only those that are performing their official duties in some official

40 See the chapter titles “The City Attorney - No Lawful Delegation of Prosecutorial Powers” to better understand the full gamut of details and facts that make this power constitutionally impossible to delegate to a mere city attorney.

52

capacity on behalf of the municipal, county, or State Corporation, or some legal entity that was created entirely by their laws and is under their direct control and authority. Thus, proving that the Texas Legislature has and still is engaged in treason and sedition against the Texas Republic, our Constitution, and we the People!

It further provides incontrovertible evidence that the judicial and executive departments, via the cops, courts and prosecutors, are defrauding the public in a massive multi-billion dollar a year corporate sponsored scam that violates our constitution, our rights, and our liberty in every conceivable way. And they get away with it because the judges, acting entirely outside of their delegated authority and in violation of the separation of powers clause, have unilaterally granted immunity from prosecution and suit in a plethora of ways, and if you somehow manage to overcome those legal obstacles in a lawsuit, the court can still simply indemnify the public official(s) for their wrongdoing.

Thus, making themselves and all other public servants virtually unassailable for their Unlawful and often illegal actions, unless you know the many nuances of their legal system and how to navigate it. And where they can be held accountable, the scope of that accountability is very well-tailored to effect minimal impact and expense upon those that control the scam from on high.

When Our Own Government Becomes the Terrorists.

Lastly, consider this, since the taking away of life, liberty and property from every American is the ultimate goal and purpose of every despotic anti-American government and terrorist organization the world over. Therefore, doesn’t it make sense that these same actions and goals, when pursued and used against you and I, against the American People, by every level of our own government, actually serves to provide aid and comfort to the ideals, morale and efforts of those we have been told are our enemies? Don’t you already know that to be the very definition of treason?

53

Figure 7 - Art Acevado knows it's true.

54