All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
02:42:43
20130411_Thu_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Jakari Jackson.
This is what we have in store for you for this April 11th, 2013 edition.
Tonight, the Texas bill criminalizing TSA pat-downs is back.
Will it become law?
Or will Texas become a no-fly zone?
Then, Bitcoin crashes over 50% just one day after a bold public prediction by Mike Adams.
And Eddie Craig discloses secrets the police don't want you to hear.
That's up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Top story headline!
Gun control bill clears first hurdle in Senate.
Gun control supporters in the Senate won the first showdown over how to respond to the December shootings in Connecticut.
Thursday's 68 to 31 roll call gave an early burst of momentum to the efforts of President Barack Obama and lawmakers to push for fresh gun curbs through Congress.
Congress hasn't approved sweeping gun restrictions since enacting an assault weapons ban 19 years ago, a prohibition that lawmakers failed to renew a decade later just because they didn't stop Columbine.
Opponents argue that the restrictions would violate the Constitution's right to bear arms and would be ignored by criminals.
Case in point, Columbine.
You have a incident where before these guys ever pulled a trigger, they committed multiple felonies.
What felonies?
They illegally acquired their weapons because they weren't of age to have them.
Let's say they took their guns onto school property, they illegally modified their weapons, and the restrictions of the time didn't keep the guys from getting the guns.
Anyway, let's sit at the center level.
I mean, you have your local law enforcement and other people to deal with.
Your local law enforcement may be very good.
You know, we have many constitutional sheriffs.
You got people like some of our city councilmen here in Austin who don't want you to have any type of weaponry.
So, don't just think it's a big national issue.
Check in on your local authorities as well.
We'll move on.
New York State Police admit wrongly confiscating guns under new laws.
They still wrongly confiscate guns under the old laws, but that's a different story.
Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs has said that police called him to clarify that they had wrongly enforced a pistol permit suspension on a local gun owner under the NY Safe Act.
The confiscation order came following a warning suggesting the man was using anti-anxiety medication prescribed by the doctor.
That's a whole other thing.
They want to take your guns if you're on medication.
I think that first and foremost, it stems from a flawed law that was passed so quickly without forethought on how something would be implemented, said Jacobs.
Certainly, I am disappointed on the fact that we were given information from the state police that it was an individual that we needed to act on immediately.
So if you have any type of, you know, depression issues, and yes, we have documented here at InfoWars several people over the past decade, even before that, who were on the effects of prescription drugs at the time of their shootings, but if you were on some, you know, mild depression medication three years ago, they're trying to take your guns for that.
So it's more of what you're going to see.
So stand up for your rights today, and don't let this come to your state.
Hopefully it's not already there.
Highway Patrol gave Feds Missouri weapon permit data.
We don't give your data out to Feds.
We just keep it here in the logger.
It's not going anywhere.
Missouri's database of concealed weapon permits was twice given to federal authorities investigating social security disability fraud.
Social Security Disability Fraud.
Social Security Disability Fraud.
Not gun trafficking, not a violent crime, not a rape, not a murder.
You know, these guys weren't moving a whole bunch of coke.
It was Social Security Disability Fraud.
A lawsuit from the Studdard County challenged the procedures that required all supporting documents, including certificates, granting concealed weapon privileges to be scanned and retained.
In November 2011 and again in January, Replogal said an agent from the Social Security Administration Office Inspector General received disks with the data each time the agent was unable to read the encryption.
That doesn't really matter.
He still got the information.
The data was turned over because the Office of Inspector General is a law enforcement agency.
So any reason, any reason, doesn't have to be a violent crime, doesn't have to even be a gun crime.
Social Security disability fraud, we need your information.
And then they keep trying to spin you, we don't keep your information and even if we do, we won't give it to anybody unless they ask.
If they ask, we'll just, we'll give them whatever they want.
Judge orders prosecution to prove Bradley Manning intended to aid the enemy.
Colonel Denise Lind ruled that the government has a burden to prove that the soldier aimed to inflict harm on the United States when he sent materials to the whistleblower website, that being WikiLeaks, although Mannion admitted his role and pleaded guilty to a number of specifications presented by the military this year.
Army prosecutors were not satisfied with the plea.
Manning has been held in pretrial confinement since May 2010 when he was apprehended in Iraq on suspicion of providing WikiLeaks with a trove of government documents.
Now, yes, he admits there was some wrongdoing on his part, maybe more than a little wrongdoing.
But the WikiLeaks documents they received, some of it was pretty damning information, other was pretty inconsequential.
But what this article is showing us is that they want to come down hard on whistleblowers.
I believe it was last year the ATF came out and said, hey, if you snitch on this Fast and Furious program, we're going to have some sanctions for you.
It's more the same with this guy.
Yeah, he admits he did some wrongdoing, but they're trying to throw the book at him just because he's a whistleblower giving information to an internet website.
And speaking of internet websites, Leanne McAdoo, one of our new reporters, is doing a special report about Facebook and how Facebook wants even more of your personal data about your everyday life.
I'm Leanne McAdoo and this is an InfoWars News Bulletin.
Facebook will launch its latest data mining device with the release of Facebook Home on April 12th.
The company's new move into the lucrative mobile advertising market comes on the heels of last year's pump and dump scandal which cost investors billions.
The mobile app will first be available to Android users and according to the site, from the moment you wake your phone, you'll be immersed in cover feed.
Before, if you wanted to be inundated with the vacuous status updates of your friends and pictures of their half-eaten breakfast, you had to manually launch the Facebook app.
Well, no more.
Behold, the future.
By replacing the unlock and home screen of your phone, the company that's determined to creep into every area of your life can now flood your phone with pictures, chat requests, and suggestions without even needing to be unlocked.
With Facebook Home, you're basically authorizing the complete surrender of your privacy.
Much like its web-based counterpart that is no stranger to privacy encroachment, Home will collect information like your location, how you connect with friends, what sort of apps you interact with, and your internet searches in order to personalize the advertising that will besiege your handheld device while it's awake.
As we've reported before, Facebook is regularly used by the IRS to scan your account and Twitter feed while conducting audits.
Now, if you launch an app via Facebook Home, information about your purchases could be stored and subject to subpoena, much like all the other information Facebook collects on you.
Law enforcement officials also scour social networks using facial recognition software and have arrested people like this 20-year-old for posting a picture of graffiti to her Facebook-owned Instagram account.
Even something as innocent as liking a religious or political page or attending a rally is collected and can be used against you.
Why then would anyone want to be smartphone shackled to a social network that's known for mining and collecting data and then providing that information to advertisers and other nefarious systems?
Basically, the app signals Facebook's ideal, to have you chronically connected to the Facebook interface so it can be the sole data house of citizen intelligence.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg emphasized that home is built around people, not apps, which means that users can spend more time interacting with their friends and families on their smartphones.
Well, if by family he means keeping you perpetually connected to Big Brother, Big Sis, and DARPA, well kudos to you, Zuckerberg.
Maybe you were right about your Facebook users.
I'm Leanne McAdoo and this has been an InfoWars News Bulletin.
Alright, thank you Leanne for that great report.
Hope to see more of those in the future.
Bitcoin crashes over 50% just one day after a bold prediction by Mike Adams of Natural News.
Now if you guys may remember, Mike was on the show a day or two ago and he gave some predictions to Alex which actually came true quite quickly.
Bitcoin crashed today from $2.66 to a low of $1.05 in a rapid-fire free-fall market crash pattern, erasing $1 billion in currency valuation in a matter of hours.
The real story is that the crash was almost certainly caused by a covert central bank stress test in the pliability of the Bitcoin market.
And you can see the graph right there of the crash.
Wednesday's wild ride came as someone gave away thousands of dollars worth of bitcoins on Reddit.
Bitcoin billionaire is almost certainly not a friend of Bitcoin.
He is likely working for the central banks.
And I would not be surprised at all.
Now, at this point, we can't prove that this was a central banking takeover.
But for those of you who are not aware of what Bitcoin is, it's a online currency, a digital currency that's probably Much more accurate.
A digital currency that's not controlled by a central banking system who has fiat currency that's not backed by any type of gold or any type of valuable asset.
It's just, you know, central banks just make money out of thin air.
Bitcoin was a new way to share money and, you know, it had some problems.
They had some hack attacks and other things.
I'm still interested in the concept of a currency like Bitcoin, maybe not that particular currency, but maybe one in the future when they have better safeguards.
And the digital age, it's going to be very hard to protect things like that, but it's hard to protect your money if it's in the bank.
Even if you have gold and silver at your house, your house could burn down.
So there's no one-size-fits-all answer to your currency needs, but I'd like to see something like that in the future.
And we'll move on to our last report.
Texas bill criminalizing airport pat-downs is backed.
That's back here in Texas.
Because you remember, it wasn't, I believe it was last year, we had the no-fly zone threatened here in the state of Texas because they said the skies will not be safe unless our genitals were photographed and or grabbed.
The House State Affairs Committee heard testimony on a bill by Rep.
David Simpson of Longview that would make intentionally touching travelers' private parts by security officials illegal without probable cause.
The problem is this effort at securing is really treating travelers, innocent people, as criminal suspects and making them submit to unreasonable, very intrusive searches, Simpson said.
And he added to security agents, they're violating people's most sacred areas with their bodies, their body cavity searches.
And that's what they want to do.
They want to train you to be a good little prisoner, teach little Johnny and little Susie while they're young.
Hey, strange people who you don't know can touch on you at a public place if they're wearing a badge and they look official.
So it's just a beta test.
And I really hope we can get through it this time.
People are a little skeptical about the no-fly situation.
I'm probably sure they will threaten that again, but call the bluff.
Okay, they say you can't fly into Texas because, you know, Grandma may have bin Laden in her underpants or whatever else.
Let's move abruptly to our quote of the day.
This one from Thomas Payne.
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.
For if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
That from Thomas Paine.
Stick around after the break.
We'll be right back with Mr. Eddie Craig, a former Nacogdoches Sheriff Deputy.
He's going to be breaking down all the things that the sheriffs and the police and corrupt politicians don't want you to know.
I'm not saying all sheriffs and police are corrupt, but we've had some more than a few incidences Right here in Texas, they checked the two ladies, their orifices, back to front, front to back, using the same glove on both ladies.
So it's stuff like that that you may want to know about.
But in the meantime, if you like this broadcast, if you'd like to see more of it, check out PrisonPlanet.tv and get yourself a 15-day free trial.
And stay tuned, after this break, we'll be right back with Mr. Eddie Craig.
Jakari Jackson here, and I want to talk to you for a second about water.
You know about Pro-Pure, our flagship water purification system, but check out some of our portable water filter products at InfowarsStore.com.
The Clearly Filtered Water Pitcher.
Also, for those of you on the go, we have the Athlete Edition Filtered Water Bottle.
And the R.A.D.
Eliminator Pro-Filtered Sports Bottle that removes radiation.
And keep in mind we have replacement filters for all of these products.
The ever-popular grab-and-go bag favorite, the LifeStraw.
The Crystal Quest Shower Filter System.
And the Aquapod Kit, great for mass storage of water.
And while you're at the InfoWars shop, pick up a copy of our latest book, 31 Days to Survival.
You can find all this and more at the InfoWarsStore.com, and don't forget it's your support that funds our operation.
Sign up for our free newsletter at InfoWars.com forward slash newsletter.
I'm Darren McBreen and these are some of the new items that are available now at InfoWarsShop.com.
Alert the public to Obama's blatant abuse of power with the new Obama t-shirt.
Obama's joker face on the front and come and take it on the back.
It's time to publicly call him out for what he is, a tyrant.
Defend the Second Amendment with our top seller come and take it t-shirts.
And look at that, women's cut tank tops and t-shirts now available.
Nice hat.
Plus, the Don't Tread On Me flag.
And now, you can become a micro-distributor of the InfoWars magazine.
Plus, get your own copy delivered right to your door each and every month.
And if you're tired like I am of you and your family being exposed to polluted drinking water, get the Pro-1 High Performance Water Filter.
It gets rid of all pathogenic bacteria, cysts, fluoride, heavy metals, and numerous other contaminants.
So join the revolution at InfoWarsShop.com.
Hi, folks.
My name is Eddie Craig.
I am here from Rule of Law Radio Network, which is also our LogosRadioNetwork.com website.
I am also going to be soon launching my own site called DowOfLaw.com, which we will have some information for you to look at here momentarily.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Alex for allowing me to come back on the show and present this information to you folks.
Now, what I'm going to talk about today for the most part are your rights, especially when it comes to things like public service and servant encounters involving traffic stops, sidewalk stops, public building stops, so on and so forth.
It would surprise you to a great degree just how much the American people are no longer in touch with what their basic, common, unalienable rights actually are.
We've been indoctrinated into surrendering them to the state and to those that we judge to be in authority over us for far too long.
It's probably one of the biggest reasons for government-controlled schools is simply because this indoctrination process has to be done slowly because what they're telling us about what we have as far as rights are concerned and how they actually treat us in regard to those rights are very much in contrast and in contradiction to each other.
But by doing it slowly over time, the way they're doing it, most people have gotten to the point where they don't even notice any longer that they have been deprived of those rights until it's far too late.
Now one of my pet peeves is when I hear folks talk about their constitutional rights or their civil rights.
You need to understand that there is no such thing.
When it comes to the American people, a constitutional right doesn't exist.
Our rights are unalienable, inherent, at birth.
They're given to us by our Creator.
They're not given to us by the Constitution.
In fact, the Constitution sets no limits, creates no authority, and presents no power to the people.
We created that document to serve us, not the other way around.
So we don't have constitutional rights.
We have inherent rights.
There's a big difference.
A constitutional right by definition, when you give it that context, would be the rights and powers and authorities that we grant to government.
The Constitution was created to limit their power and authority, not ours.
And when they refuse to operate within the boundaries of that authority, that's where you and I have the inherent right to take them to task and hold them accountable for what they do.
Now given that, The courts today have pretty much decided that any ruling they make will favor government over the people the majority of the time.
And that also is something that we haven't taken enough time and opportunity to be active in preventing.
When we allow the courts to overrule the Constitution in favor of government, then the Constitution itself becomes worthless.
Because now we're being ruled by judicial opinion, not by law, and not by constitutional limitations of governmental authority.
So we need to understand the contrast and difference in that.
Now, along those lines, when Dow of Law launches, what we're going to have is we're going to have a lot of useful tools for the Patriot community.
The whole purpose of this is to organize us instead of letting everyone go after a pet peeve or project the way it's being done right now.
Everybody has their own little pet peeve.
You have the Trans-Texas Corridor, you have driver's licensing, you have registration, you have Gun registration and everybody has their own little pet peeve and area that they want to get to.
Which in and of itself is not bad, don't get me wrong.
But the problem is, is we're going after symptoms.
We're trying to cure the disease by tackling the individual's symptoms.
And that's just never going to work.
It doesn't work in medicine, it's not going to work in law.
So what we have to do is start going to the source.
The people that we have put in place as lawmakers.
When we get rid of a bad lawmaker, we cure a dozen of these symptoms right off the bat.
The more of these lawmakers we get rid of to put in actual people that care about our rights and the constitutional limitations on government first, the better off we are.
As Jefferson said, the best government we have is the government that governs least.
Okay?
And we can all think for ourselves, or at least we would hope so.
And I think we should be allowed once again to reassume that authority and when I say allowed I use that You know, very loosely.
We should take back the power that belongs to us and use it accordingly.
But when this website launches, the purpose of it is to give us the tools and the ability to organize our patriot community into what it should be.
Goal-focused, goal-oriented.
It will provide the tools to make that happen.
It's going to be launched in two phases.
We have some preliminary information that we're going to have, and everything that I'm talking about today, the transportation script, the cross-examination script, and all the other documents that you'll see on the presentation today, you will be able to download from this page and from the links that will be here.
Right now we just have the two script links here.
But by the end of the day, we should have the third link that will have an archived zip file of all the documents that we're using today.
So you can feel free to go to this website in order to do that, which is shown on the screen there.
In Phase 1, part of what we're going to launch is we're going to be launching several tools to make this a much more useful site to the Patriot community.
You'll be able to do online meetings and online classes from our site.
We were going to have open source distance learning software that we are custom developing to suit the needs that we're going to have.
Any member of the site will be able to conduct their own scheduled online meeting, notify and invite people to that meeting.
It'll be both audio and video as you see fit to do.
It will automatically archive that meeting for you in a recording that will be downloadable for a set amount of time.
So any meeting you have, you will be able to download the audio video for.
It gives you whiteboarding capabilities built into the software so you can actually share information from your computer screen with the folks that are attending your meeting.
We will be moving our law classes at Brave New Books to an online resource as well.
Not only will we be giving them live at Brave New Books, but we will also be presenting them online live.
So you'll be able to join in and participate from anywhere in the world as long as you've got an active internet connection.
And again, just like the online meetings, it will be audio-video.
We'll have someone that's sitting there monitoring the session, asking me whatever questions you want to send in, and we'll be happy to answer them while the class is progressing.
That being said, once we get that launched, that will be part of the main tools that we'll have.
the online meetings, the online classes.
We're going to have resource sections.
We're going to have other people that will be conducting their own portions of meetings and such.
For instance, I am currently talking with Jack Bauer or Michael Golden, as people know him, on his own radio show to also facilitate that through our site to help draw attention and traffic as well.
Basically, if you want to start conducting seminars, meetings, or things of that nature, our website will provide you with the tools to do that very, very inexpensively.
It'll all be available to you for the cost of the membership, which will be approximately the same as the InfoWars membership, about $5 a month.
That's what we're shooting for.
So be prepared for that when it launches.
In Phase 1, those will be the major tools that we launch.
In Phase 2, we're going to also be creating an iPhone and Android-based application called Uh, Tyranny Watch.
And, uh, Tyranny Watch will basically just be a single-click application on your phone that when you activate it will do several things.
Anytime you're having a police encounter or public servant encounter and you need to know that someone has your back, you'll be able to activate that application on your phone.
It will automatically turn on your camera and your audio and start recording the session.
It will automatically start streaming that recording out to our website for archiving.
It will also notify other members of the Dail of Law that someone's in trouble.
It will give them your GPS information via Google Maps if you have that information enabled in the features on the phone.
It will give them a way of finding you and knowing exactly where you are.
They can monitor the streaming video as it goes out from your phone.
Basically, you will have witnesses available to you 24-7 as long as there's someone that can respond to the tyranny watch alert.
So, given that, this will help us become a much more aware community about police encounters.
It will allow people to help each other out, so to speak.
They'll always be able to locate you when you activate the app because it will come up on Google Maps, provided your GPS information is activated on your phone, and so on and so forth.
So that will be one of our second phase useful tools that we're going to have.
That and so much more.
But you can go to the logosradionetwork.com forward slash TAO and you will see this page here and it will give you all the information on the phases and what we intend to launch and more details about the site itself.
Now that being said, I would like to go ahead and begin with some of the presentation material we're going to have today.
Now, my area of expertise is Texas transportation law and legal due process under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is where they designate transportation offenses to be, is actually criminal offenses.
Now, when you study the Texas law on this subject, you come to the conclusion that they're sending mixed messages in the statutes.
According to who is in charge of enforcing these, Traffic citations are administrative because they are enforced first and foremost by the Texas Department of Public Safety, which is defined in the Texas Transportation Code as of the department that's in charge of any chapter in the Transportation Code relevant to enforcement.
The DPS, as they're known for short, is also a state administrative agency under Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code.
And when you go through Title 37 and break it down, it says very clearly that only certain offenses that occur within the Transportation Code are relevant to judicial courts.
All others are administrative and should be going through the State Office of Administrative Hearings, but they're not.
Now under the State Administrative Procedures Act, which is Chapter 2001 of the Government Code, it very clearly states that the courts are not state administrative agencies and therefore they lack any authority whatsoever regarding those particular cases that are subject to the Texas Administrative Code under the authority of the Department of Public Safety when they're not one of the exceptions to the rule that's designated there.
While those exceptions can be charged and prosecuted in a criminal fashion, the remainder of them are administrative in nature.
And that is the majority of the alleged offenses that most people in Texas run afoul of, if they're capable of running afoul of it.
Now, part of what we're going to learn here is what transportation is and what transportation isn't.
Right now we're led to believe that transportation is anyone in a car on the road.
And that's simply not true.
In the case of transportation, when they try to charge you with a crime as violations of those offenses, what we run into is what is a crime and what isn't a crime.
Under what is known as the common law version of law, which is what this country is founded on, the common law of old England, and it was adapted and everything to how the American system of justice and the rights of the people was set up to function so it's not the same common law that existed in england but the majority of it as far as rights principles and moral ethics of law was fully incorporated and indoctrinated into what we have here for our law
Most people don't realize the difference in that, but that's where it's from.
You have common law basis for what occurs, and then you have statutory law.
They are not the same thing.
Though under common sense, the statutory law can't violate the common law principles, you're going to see in what we look at today that that is Very much untrue in the way the law is being applied and written nowadays.
It most assuredly runs afoul of common law principles, and I'm going to show you the proof of that as we go through this.
Now, under common law, an actual crime is defined in this way.
What you have is called malum inse, a wrong in itself, an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction upon principles of natural, moral, and public law.
For example, fraud in and of itself is wrong.
To defraud somebody out of money, property, or anything else is inherently morally wrong.
Murder, inherently morally wrong.
uh... theft inherently morally wrong those are malam in say crimes those are the crimes that common law dealt with so studiously and efficiently at the time of its existence when it was allowed to function the way it was intended
An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state.
Such are most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law without the denouncement of a statute.
As murder, larceny, etc., compared to malum prohibitum.
Now, malum prohibitum is the statutory means of declaring something illegal or unlawful simply because there's a law that says it is.
Not because there is necessarily any harm or injury that occurred because of it.
For instance, when a city ordinance says they can fine you to keep off the grass, no one is injured by you being on the grass.
It is simply malum prohibitum because some city manager decided to make it an ordinance that said you can't do it even though there is no injured party and there is no intent to commit an actual criminal offense.
When you have intent, that's when we get into mens rea, which is the bottom portion of this here.
When we're talking about mens rea, as an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, a criminal intent, guilty knowledge and willfulness.
That, folks, is part of what it has always taken to commit an actual crime.
The desire to commit that crime, the intent, the willingness to commit that crime and cause that harm to another person or their property.
These Malum Prohibitum statutes have gotten so far out of hand that basically they're declaring anything and everything that we the people do as illegal, simply because someone doesn't like it.
And it doesn't matter whether there is an actual injury or not, they simply want us to believe that it's wrong because a small group of people decided to petition a smaller group of people to ask for permission to have it declared illegal for someone to do this thing.
That's basically where we find ourselves.
The majority of our law is no longer Malamense, it's Malum Prohibitum.
And because of that, they are prohibiting virtually everything that we have done in our lives since America began.
They have criminalized virtually every aspect of American life.
You see it when they raid a location that sells raw milk, for example.
You see it when Monsanto is allowed to go out and poison our food genetically, and so on and so forth.
And the only people being prohibited from doing anything are those that are not the big money corporations, such as you and I. Basically, we are now under the thumb of corporate welfare in more ways than one, whether it be actual for-profit corporations or it be the state operating as a for-profit corporation in its own self.
That being said, we need to understand what an actual crime is versus what a malum prohibitum alleged crime is.
This is what brings us into the areas of transportation, which is one of my main areas of expertise.
Now, when we get to transportation, we're going to get to some definitions when we go through this.
And there's some things you need to understand about reading and understanding statutes when you begin to research this on your own.
Terminology in relation to statutes is extremely important.
Everything about statutory language is a gotcha clause.
And 4.6 here, this gotcha of terminology, the compound definition, is one of the key ways of understanding how this system is set up to function.
Semantics in regards to transportation enforcement is extremely important.
Everything is about the language.
Everything is about the definitions in the language.
So that being said, one of the first things you have to pay attention to is what I refer to as a compound definition.
A compound definition can be hard to spot it when you don't know what you're looking for.
But basically speaking, a compound definition is any definition that contains one or more terms or phrases that itself has its own separate definition elsewhere.
Now, one of those primary examples, when we move down to the next portion of this, is you're going to see commercial motor vehicle.
Notice that means a motor vehicle.
Well, right here we have a problem.
You have a definition that uses the same terms as a part of its definition.
Right there we have something that isn't defined.
You're trying to use the term being defined as a part of the definition.
Then you say, when you read this, means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, designed or used primarily to transport property.
Now, another way I use to talk about this in my seminar material, and this is an excerpt from the book that I have in that seminar material, is these are what I refer to as rabbit trails.
In this, there are multiple rabbit trails that you need to look at.
For instance, commercial is a rabbit trail.
Motor vehicle is a rabbit trail.
Vehicle is a rabbit trail.
Transport is a rabbit trail.
Property is a rabbit trail.
Passenger and car and passenger car itself is a separate rabbit trail.
This, folks, is why statutory law is so hard to understand.
And one of the things you'll notice most is that when you see a word or phrase in a statute The worst mistake you can make is to believe you understand that statute.
When you recognize that word or phrase and assume that it means the same thing in the statute that it does in common English that you're familiar with, that will always be a mistake.
And here's why.
If they created a definition for it in the statute, then it is an absolute 100% guarantee that term or phrase is being used in a manner other than the normal.
If it was not so, they would not have to create a separate definition for it within the statute, would they?
They would simply say, go see Webster's.
Or they would include the same definition that's in Webster's.
But they don't do that.
They create their own specialized definition for that.
Now notice, when you look at light truck, it says means a commercial motor vehicle that has a manufacturer's rated carrying capacity of one ton or less.
So right here, light truck contains a separate definition.
So light truck, right off the bat, is a compound definition because it contains another defined term from right up here.
So when we go down a little bit further, And we look at some more of these definitions, you can see, here we have motor vehicle, which is a separate definition from commercial motor vehicle, which we just saw.
When you look at this, we now have a new definition to look at, which is vehicle by itself.
Notice, motor vehicle means a vehicle that is self-propelled.
Alright?
Now, Another key factor to this is going to be the term owner.
When you go look in law and you read some of the things that we have here, owner means a person who A. Holds the legal title of a vehicle.
So again, rabbit trails.
Legal title and vehicle.
B. Has the legal right of possession of a vehicle.
There's three.
Legal right, possession, and vehicle.
And C, has the legal right of control of a vehicle.
Again, three.
Legal right, control, and vehicle.
All of these are rabbit trails that you must find out how these terms are defined in this statute, if it is defined.
Now, there is a hierarchy to determining what the definition of any term or phrase in law is.
First and foremost, you use the legal dictionary.
The legal dictionary, or the statute, I'm sorry.
You use the statute first.
If the definition exists in statute, that definition is controlling.
Now, after that, if the statute does not define any particular definition for a term or phrase, then you go to the legal dictionary and the case law.
Most of the time, the definition you will find in a legal dictionary is based and set on case law.
In blacks, up until the 6th edition became the 7th, they always listed the case law with the definition that defined it and created that definition as it's being used.
So it's very useful in that regard.
However, that tends to show you where to go and research the terms.
And from version 7 forward, they're not listing the case law in Black's Law anymore.
Now they're just listing the definition and letting it go at that.
They're not telling you how that definition came into existence.
When we get to some of those definitions from Black's Law, I want to show you exactly how and why they started doing that.
Now, after owner you see passenger car.
Again, means a motor vehicle.
So a passenger car is a motor vehicle.
Other than a motorcycle, a golf cart, or a light truck, which is a definition we also saw, or a bus, designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons.
Now, transportation here is underlined because, once again, that is an extremely important rabbit trail.
And here's why.
Transportation is one of those terms that is not defined in any Texas code whatsoever.
It's not in any statute.
It's not defined anywhere.
So now we have to go to the hierarchy to find out where we have to look.
Since it's not in the statute, the next place we have to look is actually going to be the legal definition found in a legal dictionary and the case law that goes with it.
So when we look that up, it's going to surprise you.
But we'll get to those definitions also shortly when we start looking through the Black's Law.
So if we go to the next shot, now we finally get to the term vehicle.
Vehicle means a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.
Now let's consider where we got to this point.
You have commercial motor vehicle which says it is defined by a motor vehicle.
Then when you look at the definition of motor vehicle, you see that it's defined according to what a vehicle is.
Now we finally get down to vehicle and what it means.
When you see transported or drawn, transported of course is being part of transportation and drawn simply means pulled or towed behind.
So, drawn tells us that one, we're dealing with some type of trailer in most cases.
Transported, well, when we get to the definition of transportation, you'll see why that becomes important.
Alright, and now we're going to move forward here.
Okay.
When we get to these definitions, we can see that something like commercial motor vehicle is what I refer to as a multi-layered compound definition, because it contains one or more compound definitions within its own.
When you look at the definition of passenger car, it contains a compound definition motor vehicle, which itself contains the term vehicle, and the term vehicle contains the terms transported and drawn.
Hence the layering of the terminology to make it more difficult to determine just what applies within the definition.
This is where I came up with the requirement of following the rabbit trails.
Okay?
I cannot tell you how important it is to be ever watchful for this because this is going to happen in every statute every time they're attempting to write what they're calling the law.
Now the other thing you need to understand about a statute is the statute is not the actual law.
The statute is more akin to a regulation or an agency's or department's interpretation of the actual law.
And then these are submitted to the legislature for their approval, or they're updated by some member of the legislature that wants to create a new addition, change something, or something in reference to it.
But do not assume that every statute is created in and of itself by the legislature.
It has to be approved by them, but it does not necessarily have to originate with them.
Now the difference here between a statute and the actual law, the law is the actual bill that was submitted by one of the houses of the legislature in your particular republic, ours being Texas of course, and then it gets voted on and passed through and it does not actually become a law until the governor signs it.
Or it's passed because the governor didn't sign it within a certain amount of time.
But once it's passed, it becomes the law.
The statute is supposed to interpret that law in a manner that makes it generally acceptable, usable, as long as it does not alter the specific subject matter and intent of the law upon which it's based.
But believe me folks, They've done that in many, many ways in many, many of the republics.
The statutes no longer follow the language or the intent of the actual law.
For instance, the transportation code in Texas was recodified in its entirety in 1995.
Now the Texas Constitution in Article 3, Sections 29 through 35 says how the legislature must create law.
Where their authority to create law comes from and it limits them to be the only people that have the authority to create any actual law that is binding upon the people of our Republic.
Given that, what they've done is, when they recodified, our Constitution here in Texas says that they cannot change the subject matter or the intent and purpose of any statute by amendment.
They have to repeal the act if they're going to encompass anything new.
They have to repeal it in its entirety and resubmit it in its entirety with the new changes.
Folks, they did not do that.
In 1995, they simply renumbered and recodified the old references from Vernon's annotated statutes into what we see as the Transportation Code.
They've also done that to the majority of the other codes here in Texas and virtually every other state of the union.
Now given that, we can see right off the bat when we get into this that what the law can do and what they've tried to make it do definitely do not agree with each other.
Alright, when you're reading statute, keep in mind terminology is important.
And again, this is just to show you what I was saying a moment ago.
Never assume you know the meaning of the words or phrases just because you recognize them.
The way they're being used in law and the way that they apply in law will be different if they've been defined by that so-called law.
When a statute refers to a word or phrase having a common usage, they almost always mean common usage in law.
The rule of statutory interpretation according to the courts is that any term or phrase will always be interpreted in line with its common usage.
What they fail to tell you when they make up these types of rules for interpretation is that they have to follow that same hierarchy of defining that term.
They have to look at how the statute defines it first, If the statute fails to define it, then they have to go to any case law and legal dictionary definitions for defining it, and if that doesn't exist, then and only then can they go to the common English dictionary.
This is the way it's always worked when it comes to law, but we're being misled into thinking that when they say common usage, that they simply mean Webster's or American Heritage, and that's simply not true.
It's common usage in law.
So we have to start looking for the references that are used by those in the legal community first.
And that always starts with the statute itself.
Now, these are some of the definitions relevant to transportation, and you'll see why momentarily.
First off, we have to deal with carrier.
What is a carrier?
Well, according to Black's Law 6 edition, a common carrier is any carrier required by law to convey freight without refusal if the approved fare or charge is paid.
Common carrier in the 8th edition of Blacks is a carrier that is generally required by law to transport passengers or freight without refusal if the approved fare or charge is paid.
Notice what these two definitions have in common.
Fare or charge.
Someone is paying to be moved as a passenger or to have freight, whether it be property or goods, Moved from one place to another, but somebody is getting paid and somebody is doing the paying.
When you look at contract carrier in Black's Law, a contract carrier is a transportation company that carries for pay the goods of certain customers only as contrasted to a common carrier that carries the goods of the public in general.
So those folks are your reasonable definitions of a carrier.
Okay?
You have common, you have contract.
So when we look a little further down in these types of definitions, we're going to come across something else.
Now a carrier is someone that's getting paid to perform this function of moving passengers or freight.
Now let's talk about what happens when it's being done in something like a car or a bus.
There are two terms that are relevant to these types of vehicles, and I will show you why that term is used in these cases shortly.
A driver is someone that is actually getting paid to be behind the wheel of that bus, that taxi cab, or some other conveyance that's being used to transport persons, or in some cases even property, over a highway.
For instance, an individual driving an 18-wheeler is a driver.
He is getting paid either in his own right as the owner of the truck transporting property or freight for somebody.
Or, he is being paid to do so on behalf of some larger company that he's employed by.
But a driver is someone that gets paid.
How do we know?
Again, look at the definition of driver in statutes, look at the definition of driver in law for the legal definitions, and you will find that they are extremely similar.
For instance, in the Transportation Code, a driver is someone that is in control of either a vehicle or a motor vehicle.
But again, that's not a strictly complete definition the way they do it.
And I'll show you why when we get to transportation.
But for now, let's look at what a driver is when defined by law.
A driver, according to Black's Third, is one employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.
Now notice, this is a fairly old definition.
It's still talking about horses, mules, and other animals being used for transportation.
Then we go forward to Black's Fourth, which is about anywhere from seven to ten years apart.
Notice they've added to the definition in the fourth.
A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.
Now the moment you read this definition, and then you read the one out of the six down here, you're going to jump to a conclusion about how this suddenly looks like it actually applies to someone in their own private car.
I'm going to show you why it doesn't.
Alright, driver in black six is a person actually doing driving whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.
When you look at this, notice that the first part of the definition from the original definitions is now completely wiped out.
Any reference to the commercial nature of the definition has been removed.
We need to start asking ourselves how and why?
Well, I'm going to show you.
It was to hide the true nature of this definition from the general public so that you would make the false assumption that this definition somehow applied to you.
You'll notice that it references a person actually doing driving.
Okay?
Notice it also still says whether employed by the owner Of whatever conveyance they're using, in this case it will generally be some type of vehicle, a truck, a taxi cab, so on and so forth, or driving his own vehicle.
The term vehicle here is what's going to hinge on everything that we're talking about, along with the term driving.
Okay?
Can you own your own taxi cab?
Can you be the operator of that taxi service and the driver of that taxi when it's in use?
Absolutely.
In that case you have to have two licenses.
One to operate the taxi franchise and then you also have to have a driver's license to actually drive or operate the car on the road.
So you actually have to have two permits in that case when it's your own vehicle.
Now here, when you get to vehicle and driving, we're going to talk close to the end of this presentation about the seven deadly sins.
Those two terms are going to be listed in the seven deadly sins and you'll see what that is when it comes to fighting these cases in court.
Now, let's look at what traffic is.
They constantly refer to these as traffic stops.
They constantly refer to these as traffic arrests, traffic offenses, traffic citations, so on and so forth.
Well, the term traffic is defined in the Texas Transportation Code, and they simply use it to refer to things that move, whether it be pedestrians, Any type of vehicle or motor vehicle that is on the highway.
That's how they generally define traffic in the Transportation Code.
But let's look at what the legal definition for it has been set to for many, many, many years.
Traffic in Bouvier's 1856 version, which is one of the dictionaries that the Supreme Court starts out with, and if the term is not defined in Bouvier's, they'll move on to Black's.
But generally speaking, they will go to Bouvier's first.
Traffic in Bouvier's 1856 was commonly known as commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.
Now what does that tell us?
It tells us that traffic is commercial.
It tells us that it's commerce.
It has to do with the movements of any type of commodity or passenger that is in exchange for some sort of compensation.
That being said, let's look at Traffic in Black's third.
Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.
The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money.
Traffic includes the ordinary uses of the streets and highways by travelers.
Now notice the term travelers.
Why would a traveler be considered something different than an operator or a driver?
Well, the reason for it is, is the commercial nature of the terminology in reference to what they're doing.
A traveler is not someone getting paid.
They're simply moving from here to there of their own volition in their own property, their car.
Whereas a driver is someone or an operator is someone that is actually conducting business of some type.
They drive their car and get paid for it.
They operate the business and employ drivers or act as drivers because they're getting paid for it.
That's part of the big difference.
Okay, let's move down.
Now, this is where things come to a head.
When we start dealing with the actual term transportation itself.
When you get to transportation, transporting, transported, anything of that nature, you're dealing with transportation.
Transportation in Black's Forth is defined as the removal of goods or persons from one place to another by a carrier.
Remember, we saw carrier at the beginning of this.
Carrier is someone that is conducting a business and getting paid for it.
Therefore, if someone is doing the removal of goods or persons from one place to another by a carrier, then that is someone conducting business.
When you look at the definition in Black Six, the movement of goods or persons from one place to another by a carrier.
And under 49 U.S.C.
section 5102 subsection 12, transports or transportation means the movement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement.
Now there are other definitions of transportation and motor vehicle within Title 49 that are relevant to this, but we don't need to go into those.
When you get to studying your particular republic's transportation or motor vehicle code, or your administrative code, you're liable to find that those codes make references to Title 49 of the United States Code.
The reason for that is, is that almost every motor vehicle code and transportation code is based upon the federal law.
The federal law itself is specifically directed at commerce.
It's the only thing the federal government can regulate in that realm is commerce.
Well folks, I'm here to tell you the same thing is true for your state government.
They cannot regulate your private activity.
They can only regulate the commercial activity that has an opportunity or ability to affect the general public.
This is what is known as a regulable activity.
A regulable activity is any activity where one must have a license or a permit or some sort of governmental permission to engage in that activity.
And almost always that activity has the potential to affect the public health and welfare.
That is where the government gets the power to regulate it, is to safeguard the public from the consequences of people engaging in that regulable activity.
Let's take an example here.
Let's say that you have your own truck and your own trailer, a standard 18-wheeler, and you use it to move goods and property for people for money.
You're using the roads as a place of business.
But at the same time, since you're an independent, all the money to maintain that equipment comes out of your pocket.
So anytime your expenses outweigh your profits, you're losing money.
So in order to generate a profit at some point, you may decide that it's simply easier to forego certain maintenance procedures or to prolong the time between them in order to lessen the expense of maintaining that equipment.
Now let's say that you get this large contract where you're taking A huge amount of cargo, which is basically in excess of what your equipment is actually rated to carry in and of itself without special permits.
But let's also say, for instance, that because your profits have been relatively low as of late, you decided that you would forego your maintenance on this equipment for the past year and a half.
You haven't kept up the tire pressure, you haven't done any maintenance on the engine, you haven't checked any of the framework, the air brakes, none of the standard equipment that needs to be kept in safe working condition so that this piece of equipment operates in a manner that makes it safe.
Now you go out on the road with dysfunctional air brakes, carrying an excess amount of weight, What chance do you have when you reach 70 miles an hour of actually stopping that 85,000 pound missile that's barreling down the highway with all these other cars?
Does that give you the ability to directly affect the public health and welfare?
Of course it does.
86,000 pounds plus
coming at you at seventy miles an hour with no brakes or the fact that the uh... you stress the frame in the trailer and now you've got stress fractures in the main supports and your load is too heavy you hit a dip or bump or something in the road that causes that frame to flex suddenly that entire trailer snaps in half dumps all of that cargo at seventy miles an hour right in the middle of the highway it's possible I've seen it happen
So these are the reasons why these activities are regulable.
So the state can say you can't engage in this activity unless you do these things to make sure that your operation does not present a danger to the public.
However, that is something completely different from you and I when we're out on the highways in our own cars just going from point A to point B. The first major difference is we're not engaged in transportation.
We're not getting paid by anyone to get in that car, get on that road and do anything.
It doesn't matter if you're going to or from your job.
It doesn't matter if you're going to the supermarket to buy groceries.
No one is paying you to transport anything in your car.
It's simply you and your needs that motivate your desire and ability to get in your property, go to the store, get what you need, and bring it home for your family.
It's not commerce.
The state can't regulate that activity because it's not commerce.
Now, lots of people like to scream and holler about public safety.
Well, I want to make sure that somebody behind the wheel of a car knows what they're doing.
I want to make sure they're licensed.
I want to make sure they're insured.
I want to make sure that if they run over a member of my family, that this happens and this happens and this happens.
Well, folks, you run into the exact same dangers whether you're in a car, on a bicycle, or skateboarding or anything else.
The courts have said many years ago that cars themselves are not inherently dangerous.
It's the people behind the wheel, just like the person pulling the trigger on a gun, that makes that device or that instrument lethal or dangerous.
It's not the instrument itself that does that.
Same thing the court said when they said speed limits are really inapplicable because of how they operate.
They're arbitrary in nature.
A car can kill just as easily at one mile an hour as it can at 70, and this is true.
It all just depends upon how it's being used, and the intent for which it's being used.
And use is one of those things that is very important when it comes to the idea of transportation.
You have to be using it with the intent of engaging in transportation before it applies.
So that being said, Real briefly, I just want to show you that there is tons of case law on this subject.
Again, this is an excerpt out of the chapter 2.2 of my book on the Texas Transportation Code, and it is full of case law.
Since the very invention of the automobile to current, there's been case after case after case at state and federal level that specifically says That there's a distinct difference between commercial use of the roads and the right of the people to use the road for non-commercial purposes.
One is a privilege, the commercial.
The other is a right.
It is a right of liberty.
The courts ruled a long time ago that we have the right to move from place to place.
Even the federal constitution is recognized as having given us the ability to go from state to state however we wish, anytime we wish, without government interference.
Now, in one of these cases, Williams versus Fears, the United States Supreme Court ruled the following.
Undoubtedly, the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty.
And the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.
Now, Vernon's civil statute to the state of Texas used to have this in it.
Generally, public road is road used by public as a matter of right.
Doesn't say privilege, it says right.
There is a distinct difference between a privilege and a right.
A privilege is something someone granted to you and that same someone can take it away just as easily as they granted it.
That's really all a license or permit is, is a grant of authority to do something that would be otherwise illegal without that license.
That right there is the signal that the people can't be licensed because we're exercising a right to do something, which is to use our personal property, our car, upon our road, which we own.
The state does not own your roads, folks.
You appointed the state as their caretaker.
They are to keep them in good working order for us, the people, so that we may use them for our private business and pleasure.
That's what they're for.
They're not for the conducting of business.
They're for the general public to use for our own private convenience and pleasure.
Period.
That's why they can license the privilege.
Because someone is using what belongs to everyone to generate private profit for themselves.
Trucking companies, private haulers, taxicabs, they use our roads as a place of business to generate gain.
That can be licensed because they are a threat to public safety in order to forego certain things to increase how much they can gain.
And we did that with the example on the truck.
Now, when we go down to the next case, we can see that we have Texas case law on this subject as well.
The streets of the cities of this country belong to the public.
Primarily, every member of the public has a natural right to the free use of such streets in the normal pursuit of his private or personal business or pleasure.
The right of the public at large to the free use of the streets is paramount to the natural right of the individual.
The power of the city in exercising such control is limited only by the Constitution and the general laws of the state.
But neither the legislature nor the city commissioners has the power to take away or unreasonably abridge the natural rights of the citizen to the use of the streets in the manner and for the purpose we have set forth above.
City of San Antonio versus Fetzer.
Right here in Texas we have case law that says exactly what I'm talking about.
Both the transient public and the owners of a budding property have the right to the free passage of vehicles on the public highways.
Now, the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.
This is always talking about the rights of the people to use the road.
Now, one of the problems with these case opinions, however, is the following.
It still uses the seven deadly sins to define the activity that these cases are the subject of.
The operation of vehicles, driving of vehicles, and so on and so forth.
The problem is, is vehicle in and of itself is defined as something specific to transportation.
As we saw early on in the definition of transportation, that's a commercial activity.
Everything about the Transportation Code is commercial.
You can't find anything in it that makes it anything other than commercial.
Though it doesn't spell it out in plain, clear language that it's commercial only, the fact that it's a Transportation Code tells us what its subject matter limitation is.
Transportation.
And like I said, that term is not defined in any Texas Code anywhere.
Why do you think that is?
Because if that definition was given out, and people were wise to what it actually applies to, then the state cannot do what it's doing by stealing money through illegal revenue generation on traffic citations, forcing everyone to register a car, or get a license, or get insurance, or to get inspections.
If they're not engaged in the regulable activity of transportation, the state would lose billions of dollars of this revenue it's generating by creating the appearance that this statute and these definitions and terms apply to everyone.
They don't.
It is one great big lie.
That's the reason the title of my book, where these excerpts are taken, It's called the Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. The Lie.
And believe me folks, it's a lie.
Alright, again, this is the case that we read at the bottom.
The reference there is Thompson vs. Smith.
This case also makes it very clear that it is the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways.
And when you read case law opinions, you're going to find out that they use a lot of terms that a lot of people in the patriot community disagree with, such as citizen, and so on and so forth.
A lot of this I don't care for one particular way or the other.
My goal is to take their own law and beat them black and blue with it at every single opportunity.
And as we get into dealing with this issue of transportation when it comes to a traffic ticket, the traffic stop itself, and your rights there that are being negated at every turn, and then taking the issue to court, you're going to see exactly how this works.
Now I'm going to tell you the two major money makers for the state, at least the state of Texas, is financial responsibility tickets and speeding tickets.
Those are their two favorite things to go after the general public for.
They will use these to generate revenue by the billions of dollars every single year.
Just in the city of Austin, Texas in 2010, The Austin Police Department issued over 304,000 traffic citations.
That doesn't include the Sheriff's Department.
That doesn't include the Department of Public Safety.
That's simply the City of Austin all by itself.
The City of Austin generated over 64 million dollars in revenue on those citations in 2010.
Fifty percent of that revenue goes to the state of Texas.
If you think they're not making money on this, think again.
Now look at all the major metropolitan areas in Texas that do this.
And by the way, Austin is one of the top three, if not the foremost, of the traffic ticket capitals here in Texas.
They issue more, they collect more fines and money, the whole nine yards.
You have Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and so many others that will also top millions of dollars.
But when you look at every single thing involved in transportation that the state uses to steal money out of the pockets of the general public, they generate more than nine billion dollars per year in revenue through illegal fines and fees to the general public here in Texas.
Doesn't matter whether you're passing through, you actually have to live here.
They're stealing from you, folks.
Hand over fist.
And the problem with that is, is most of you are ignorant of it, most of you don't know it's being done, and most of you give it away willingly rather than fight for the rights you have.
Now I'm going to take these two particular types of citations real quick and I'm going to show you exactly part of the problem.
The first one we're going to begin with is the Financial Responsibility Statute itself.
Now, Chapter 601 of the Texas Transportation Code is where you're going to find what they call the Driver Safety Responsibility Program.
In that, they have all the requirements for how someone must be protected financially when it comes to the operation or driving of a motor vehicle or vehicle.
In Section 601.053, Evidence of Financial Responsibility, I'm going to read you subsection A here, and then I'm just going to let you look at the seven things that follow.
The seven things that follow are the types of financial responsibility that the state of Texas recognizes, and when we get to the bottom of this, you'll see why this statute creates an immediate problem for the right of due process.
So let's look at subsection A.
As a condition of operating in this state, a motor vehicle to which Section 601.051 applies, the operator of the vehicle, on request, shall provide to a peace officer, as defined by Article 2.12 Code of Criminal Procedure, or a person involved in an accident with the operator,
evidence of financial responsibility by exhibiting one of these seven things that will be listed.
We've got motor vehicle liability insurance policy, standard proof of motor vehicle liability insurance form, insurance binder, surety bond certificate, certificate of a deposit with the comptroller, certificate or a copy of a certificate of deposit with the appropriate certificate or a copy of a certificate of deposit with the appropriate county judge, certificate of self-insurance covering the vehicle, et cetera, But let's look at subsection B.
Except as provided by subsection C, an operator who does not exhibit evidence of financial responsibility under subsection A, which is what came right above here, It is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of section 601.051.
Right here we have an immediate due process problem.
You have a statute that officially declares the operator guilty by default.
If you don't prove your innocence By pulling up one of these seven things and showing it to the officer, then you are immediately presumed guilty by the statute.
So you have two very serious due process issues.
This statute reverses the burden of proof.
The state no longer has to prove you didn't have one of these things for financial responsibility.
You must prove that you did.
So the burden of proof is completely reversed.
Second thing it does is it presumes guilt over innocence, which it is absolutely forbidden to do.
The third problem with this comes out to be that it is actually unlawful under the mandate of bills of attainder and bills of pains of penalties, which are outlawed by every constitution we have in every republic.
Bills of pains of penalties and bills of attainder are forbidden And I'll show you what the definition of that is when we get that far down.
But right now, these two primary due process issues are at stake here.
Reversal of the burden of proof and the declaration of guilt over innocence by the statute and legislative mandate of this statute.
That creates an immediate problem.
Now, when we go a little further, we get into the deal of speeding.
Now again, we're going to be looking at the specific statutes that relate to this.
First and foremost, whenever something occurs that the public has to have knowledge of before they can be charged with an offense under it, there has to be something that tells them what their duty is.
Well, according to statute, presumably, the duty of every person to travel a particular speed on the highway is set by the speed signs that are posted at intervals along the highway.
Well, there's a problem.
In Texas law, there is only one section that specifically identifies what the purpose of a speed sign is.
And again, it's not to regulate the general public.
It is to regulate those engaged in the regulable activity of transportation for commercial purposes.
What proof do I have of this argument?
The statute.
When we look at the statute, you see section 201.904, which is out of subchapter K, road and highway use regarding signs.
201.904 is titled Speed Signs.
And it reads, the department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semi-trailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire, meaning buses.
So folks, how much plainer can you get about what's being regulated by a speed sign?
Everything in this definition is commercial.
Everything.
Nothing has to do with the private car.
Nothing.
The difference here is what's being referred to.
Vehicles.
Drivers.
Operators.
Those are what we're talking about.
All of those are things that are regulated for the purpose of transportation, which in and of itself is the commercial activity being regulated by this code.
These are the little things that the courts and the prosecutors and the money machine doesn't want you, the general public, to know or understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you it's a lie.
It's been a lie for a long time and the money that has been stolen from us is egregious in nature in its sheer amount.
When you go down, there are two other statutes relevant to any speeding charge in Texas.
545.351 and 352.
When you look at, uh, move back up to the top of that for just a second.
When you look at 351, you'll see it is titled Maximum Speed Requirement.
Here it tells you an operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
Now that language has to appear in the actual criminal complaint against you in a speeding charge.
They actually have to cite that you operated the vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
That has to be a part of the complaint.
When you move down to B and you look at an operator, and again, this is an operator that they're talking about here.
And you'll notice also when you're reading statute that the definition for the same term will change.
In this section of the code it will be defined this way, then that same term in another section of the code will be defined a different way.
Such is the case with operator, such is the case with driver, such is the case with vehicle and motor vehicle.
And in some instances they'll even use them as if they're interchangeable, when in fact they're not.
Now, an operator may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing.
And, when we go to the next section, that is continued as far as the condition.
The second condition is, shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
Now the problem you're going to run into with this is the following.
This right here tells us very clearly that one of the elemental conditions required to be proven in a speeding charge is that a collision occurred.
That is never proven.
That's never even alleged in the complaint.
The traveling at a rate that's greater than reasonable and prudent is certainly asserted.
It's a requirement.
So why, even because it says and, and then we get part two here, this is also a requirement.
It's mandatory.
It doesn't say or this condition.
It says and this condition.
So not only must you have exercised due care with a speed that is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing, but you also must have done so with the intent of avoiding a collision.
So the only way that you could violate this section is if a collision occurred, because obviously you were not able to avoid it, meaning either the person entered the roadway illegally and not in compliance with law, which makes the fault theirs, or you were traveling at such a speed that you could not take reasonable care and act prudently in order to avoid a collision with somebody who did enter the highway in a lawful, legal manner.
That's the only way you can violate this.
But again, they never prove a collision.
At all.
It's never even mentioned.
So let me tell you how they get away with doing that.
When you look a little further, it gives you some other information about when subsection A and B kick in.
It talks about the operator approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, the operator approaching and going around a curve, approaching a hill crest, traveling on a narrow or winding roadway, or there's a special hazard that exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians or weather or highway conditions.
Okay?
But again, all of these are relevant to the conditions that are in A and B above.
So you can't, just because you're going faster than the posted speed limit, under these conditions and in these sections, unless they can prove A and B, none of this applies.
But again, B is never mentioned with the requirement of producing the collision and showing that it occurred.
Let's go to the next one.
When you go down to 3.52, you run into what is known in law as prima facie speed limits.
Now here, prima facie simply means that on its face, at first glance, first impression, there's a number of ways to look at it.
But when you do, you will see that prima facie simply means that.
All evidence, no withstanding evidence, whatever, this is how it appears to work.
A speed in excess of the limits established by subsection B, which would be the following, or under another provision of this subchapter, is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.
Well, there's a book in publication here in Texas called the District and County Attorney Association's Guide to Traffic Stops.
When you read that book, it tells you very specifically on page 18 that going faster than the posted speed limit, in and of itself, is not an offense.
What?
I mean, what's the first thing a cop tells you when he pulls you over?
Do you know why I stopped you?
You were going faster than 55 and you're in a place that's marked 45, so you were speeding.
He hasn't mentioned anything about the requirement for a collision.
He hasn't mentioned anything about the fact that going faster than the posted speed limit, in and of itself, is not an offense.
Why?
Because they're going to play on your ignorance of these facts.
To get you to pay the ticket without argument.
They're going to steal your money.
And you're going to help them.
Because you are going to say, too much time out of my day, too much trouble, too much hassle, too big a problem, I got things to do, I got a life to lead, I don't want to be stuck in court, I don't want to have to go out there and pay the parking fees.
You name it.
You'll come up with a million excuses why you hate to pay it, but you're going to pay it.
That folks is exactly what the system counts on.
The fact that you are more than willing, because it's more convenient to pay the $200, than to take time out of your day, miss work, have to hire a babysitter, or anything of that nature, in order to fight it.
But that's one of the reasons the system has managed to stay alive as long as it has.
More people pay than fight.
This system would die within a month if everybody fought their ticket.
You would drive the cost of prosecution so high That they couldn't afford to keep it alive.
They would have to set the fines and fees in the thousands of dollars range to even break even.
And the moment they start putting fines and fees on top of these charges like that, it's a guarantee everyone will fight it because no one could afford to pay it.
So right now the prices on these fines and fees are set at a level that is just painful enough to make people not want to pay it and thus change their behavior, but not so high as to make them want to put up a fight.
And that is the point.
The more people that go in and pay without a fight, the more profitable the system is, because they didn't have to expend any extra money to hire counsel, to pay somebody to appear on behalf of the state, to have the judge sit there, to have the clerk sit there, generate all the paperwork, generate all the legal notices, which they also never do, and so on and so forth.
It's all about your acquiescence to them stealing your money as quickly and easily and painlessly as possible.
They count on that from you.
And they get it for the most part.
And I'm here to tell you it needs to stop.
As long as we let them do it, they will do it.
Because there's money in theft when you're the government.
Now, when you go down through this, you'll see that they list the various speed limits that are lawful here, there, and everywhere.
When they charge you, they attempt to charge you specifically for violation only of going faster than the posted speed limit.
But let's scroll down here for just a second.
Now, anywhere in here do you see the language, both in the part right immediately before this or here, where it says anything about the speed being reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing?
Go down one more.
Again, not there.
Nothing in that language appears here.
Yet it is in 3-5-1 where it deals with the collision.
Now, the case law I've read on complaints says that that language must be there.
But it only appears in 3-5-1 dealing with the collision.
It's not in 3-5-2 dealing with the prima facie speed limits.
So why is that a problem?
Well, it means that the language of 351 has to apply to the complaint.
Therefore, the elements of the actual alleged offense that exist in 351 must also be a part of the complaint.
And they're not.
They never allege that you failed to avoid a collision.
They never allege that the result was a collision.
In which case, that's the only way you could actually get charged with speeding.
Doesn't matter whether you're a commercial driver or not.
The only way that charge can be lawfully levied is if there was a collision.
Whether it be with persons or property.
But according to this, it says another vehicle entering the highway.
Doesn't say anything about if you left the highway.
Doesn't say anything about if you collided with a tree or somebody's fence post.
It says another vehicle entering the highway.
They tend to ignore that.
And so do we.
Because we don't know the law, we don't read it, we don't see why it's important to us.
Well, I'm going to tell you it's important to you because it's being used to commit robbery, theft, fraud, extortion.
That's why it's important to you.
These are the rules your public servants are supposed to play by, and they're not.
And they're taking advantage of you while they're doing it.
Now, the next thing I want to point out to you is this.
In the 601.053 statute regarding the proof of insurance and financial responsibility, where it determined that you were guilty before you were innocent, and that the burden of proof is now on you rather than the state.
We need to see what Texas law says about that, and the law will be the same in your state as well, whatever code it may be in.
But when you look at the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, there are certain responsibilities assigned to certain officers in regards to the presumption of innocence.
For instance, one of the duties of district attorneys, down the very last line you can see, they shall not suppress facts or secret witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.
Yet in a speeding case, They secret the fact that a collision has to have occurred before you could be charged.
They don't bring that up.
They don't mention it.
It's not even relevant to them.
In the case of the insurance, they don't bring up that if the complaint simply says, failure to show proof of insurance, the complaint is faulty.
Because insurance is only one of the ways financial responsibility could be met.
There's a whole list of them there.
The state never bothered to look and see if you had any of them.
They required you to prove that you have it, rather than the burden of proof being that they had to show that you had it.
That's a problem.
Now, on top of that, they know that this deals with a commercial activity known as transportation that the state can regulate, but at no time have they alleged or brought any proof that you were somebody engaged in that activity.
So how can you be guilty of an offense under a statute that has absolutely nothing to do with you unless you're engaged in that regulable activity, known as transportation?
You don't use the roads as a place of business, yet you're being charged under a statute that applies only to that special group of people and individuals who are.
It's theft.
It's fraud.
And you need to know it.
Let's go to the next section.
Here are two other statutes relevant to the presumption of innocence over the presumption of guilt that 601.053 of the Transportation Code creates.
In Article 11.43, presumption of innocence, again this is out of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, no presumption of guilt arises from the mere fact that a criminal accusation has been made before a competent authority.
So just because a cop gives a magistrate a ticket, they can't immediately presume you're guilty of anything.
But they do.
If you don't believe that, go to one of these kangaroo courts and just watch how far they're willing to push it to violate your rights.
In Article 38.03, Presumption of Innocence, all persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for or otherwise charged with the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.
Again, this right here runs directly afoul of 601.053.
Not only, and the speeding citation as well under 351, because they never proved the element of the collision.
They never asserted the element of engaged in transportation to be a subject of that particular regulatory statute.
Never prove that.
The required elements are never proven in these cases.
Because the first element required is that transportation was being engaged in.
That, after all, is the regulable activity, the subject matter, over which the state has authority to punish and enforce.
If you're not engaged in that activity, they have no business dealing with you in the first place.
Alright, last but not least in regards to 601.053 and all the other statutes such as 521.025 of the Transportation Code where it says that if you don't produce a license then you're guilty of not having a license and so on and so forth.
Let's look at why that presumption of guilt over innocence and the reversal of proof is a problem.
Here we have the definition of bill of attainder.
Now, in case you didn't know this and have never heard it before, bill of attainders and bill of pains and penalties are synonymous.
The exception being that a bill of attainder was usually for offenses related to things punishable by death, whereas a bill of pains and penalties was relevant to any lesser offense.
But basically, a simplified definition is, it is a legislative or administrative predetermination of guilt without judicial review.
And what you saw in 601.053 is a legislative predetermination of guilt.
It's an administrative predetermination of guilt.
Why do I say that?
Because unbeknownst to most people, Texas and many other states have implemented surcharges to particular type of offenses.
Not only that, there is no requirement before these surcharges can be levied against you that you actually be convicted of the offense you're being accused of.
If they actually write you a citation for failure to provide financial responsibility or to maintain financial responsibility, And you go to court, that court will immediately file a notice with the Texas Department of Public Safety who will immediately tack on those surcharges to your registration and your insurance renewals and force you to pay them even if you never get convicted of the offense in court.
And it will be a very hard uphill battle to get that changed and to not have to pay those fees.
Because you have to find a way to compel the court that sent that information in to send in new information telling the DPS that they can't charge those fees because they had to dismiss the case or you weren't found guilty.
They make it as difficult as possible for you to get your money back or to not have to pay the money at all.
And that's intended.
But technically, the full definition of Bill of Attainder means legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial.
What exactly is an administrative fee that the DPS can charge you that a jury never rules on if it's not a Bill of Attainder or Bill of Penalties?
That's exactly what it amounts to.
You're sitting here telling me that I have to pay you these fees, but no jury ever charged me those fees.
No judge ever reviewed whether or not that fee was valid.
In fact, it was a judge that told you to charge me without ever taking me to court.
That's a problem, folks.
When you look at this, an act is a bill of attainder when the punishment is death and a bill of pains and penalties when the punishment is less severe than death.
Both kinds of punishment fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition under U.S.
Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 as to Congress and Article 1, Section 10 as to state legislatures.
Okay?
And that is what it is in Texas.
Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Bill of Rights forbids that.
Okay.
Notice, Bill of Pains and Penalties is the same thing as a Bill of Attainder, just for lesser offenses than death.
As a punishment.
Alright folks, as you can tell, I had to shuck the jacket because I'm about to get in the area that I'm most passionate about and part of what I teach in my classes down at Brave New Books here in Austin.
This is the transportation script that I wrote and am currently recommending for use whenever you're engaged in any type of public interaction Most appropriately a transportation stop, but it can be used in any situation where you're having to deal with any type of public servant who is attempting to exert some sort of authority over you or your property or something of that nature.
So that being said, there's a couple of general rules when it comes to dealing with public officials.
One of the things I've got here on the transportation script is it's best for you to memorize as much of the actual questions portion as possible.
The instruction portion, don't worry about memorizing, you just need to know the basic premise of why the instructions are what they are, so that you can apply them properly to the questions and the context in which you're having to use them.
That being said, one of the major rules I stress vehemently to the people in my class is, you're no longer in the world of rights and safety.
You're in a world of government intolerance of the very people that empower and create it.
The government wants you to be its subject, not the other way around.
Never leave home ever again without some form of recording device with you.
Doesn't matter if it's your cell phone, doesn't matter if it's a voice recorder, doesn't matter if it's multiple of either.
Don't leave home without something that records.
Anytime you find yourself in a situation where you are about to have to deal with a public servant, I don't care if it's someone you've known for years, But you are going to see them in their official capacity as whatever they are, a court clerk, court of record clerk, the county clerk, whatever, you record that encounter.
You never know what your public servants are going to attempt to do at any given time anymore.
Police officers are being trained to treat us as the enemy.
They are, first and foremost, the ones you have to watch out for.
Never talk with a peace officer, police officer, or any other type of officer if you're not recording the encounter.
Alright, now in the transportation script you'll notice the yellow highlighted area at the top, the do's and don'ts.
These are very important things you need to know.
You don't have to memorize these, you just have to know why they exist and what they are for.
The first one is, do remember that an officer is required to read you your rights before questioning or searching you if they have placed you in a custodial arrest.
Now one of the things that most people in Texas do not know is that every time you are stopped for an alleged transportation stop, you are already in a custodial arrest.
There are many sections of Texas law that make that clear, but the one that will make it the most pointed will be Chapter 543 of the Transportation Code, where it talks specifically about the arresting officer may release the person arrested from custody and so on and so forth.
You also have a Texas court case that says very clearly that that arrest that occurs in 543 is a custodial arrest.
They will always tell you, however, that you're not under arrest.
They will tell you that you're in a custodial detention.
This is a lie.
The reason they're doing this is to get you to start talking freely.
Because under arrest, you're liable to watch what you say.
Under arrest, they have to read you your rights, which is what this is dealing with.
If they don't tell you that, and you just talk freely, Then anything you say can and will be used against you and you can't get it suppressed later because the court will view it as a voluntary statement.
So you need to know immediately that the moment the lights come on in Texas relating to any form of traffic stop, you are already in a custodial arrest and you need to act accordingly.
That being said, when you look at this and you read 543.001-009 of the Texas Transportation Code, you will see that that's the case.
You'll also see that the reading of your rights is a mandatory requirement that works in your favor unless you're dumb enough to continue to talk after you've been so informed of this.
And you can see that under Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Be aware, however, that the cops almost never read you your rights.
Never.
Not when they arrest you, not when they search your car, not when they do any of that.
And they're required to do it.
So, these are the things you need to be aware of.
That means anything you say that can be incriminating like using the seven deadly sins or agreeing with the officer that you were driving or that this is a vehicle, anything you say or do in that regard is a nail in your coffin at trial.
Because you're basically admitting that what he's accusing you of, the regulable activity of transportation, is actually applicable to what you're doing to your car, and to your actions, and to you personally.
When in fact it isn't.
But because you're so used to these terms that they're using, you simply agree with them.
That's your first mistake.
So one of my major rules is, there's three parts to this.
You shut up.
You keep shutting up.
And when you've done that, you shut up some more.
Now, we'll get to that in the do's and don'ts in the next one here.
Right now, let's finish this up.
Oh, keep it back up, please.
Okay.
Since they never read you your rights, and you are in a custodial arrest, and the officer is lying to you about the custodial arrest, you need to make sure you know that, okay?
You are always in a full-blown custodial arrest.
Okay, now pop that other one up.
Alright, don't ever answer an officer's questions.
There's no requirement for you to answer their questions.
I don't care what they tell you.
There's no requirement for you to give them anything that they want.
Yes, Texas law says you have to give them a license, you have to give them registration, you have to give them proof of insurance.
Problem!
That's a due process violation.
The law is attempting to make it mandatory that you waive a protected right in order to exercise some alleged privilege or exercise an actual right of another type.
And it can't do that.
No law can do that.
That law is invalid on its face the moment it attempts to do that.
So you have the right to remain silent, use it.
However, remaining silent does not mean become a deaf mute.
You still need to talk and you still need to respond in certain ways.
It's just not going to be in a way that implicates you or provides them with evidence or information they can use against you.
That's what be silent means.
Not stop everything, It simply means don't be saying and doing anything that helps them and hurts you.
That is the reason why I have a major three-part rule about everything here, and that is everything that comes out of your mouth has to be directed to one of three specific purposes.
Invoking a right, demanding a right, or protecting a right.
If anything you're saying or doing isn't intended to do one of those three things, then you're doing the wrong thing.
That being said, it simply means, again, to not be a deaf mute, that you are not to provide any information or documents in response to the officer's demands or questions.
That means you don't give him a license, you don't give him registration, you don't give him proof of insurance or anything else.
All of these will be considered at trial to be a waiver of your protected right to remain silent.
It will be considered a waiver of the requirement that they mirandize you before they seize evidence and statements that they can use against you.
And believe me, folks, all of this information can be used against you.
It can also be used to further incriminate you.
An example being, let's say your birthday was yesterday.
And you have a license that you give the officer that says your birthday was yesterday.
Can the officer under Texas law charge you for driving without a proper license?
Absolutely.
It expired yesterday, on your birthday.
So, unbeknownst to you, you provided him with something that he can actually charge you further with.
And he's got the actual evidence because you gave it to him.
If the prosecutor demands you produce your license at trial so he can show that it was expired on the date the citation was issued, what are you going to do?
You're going to have to produce it.
You can't have it suppressed because you voluntarily gave it to the officer at the time.
You waived your right to remain silent by giving it to him.
Same thing goes if you have the wrong or an expired insurance card.
Same thing applies with registration, any of it.
They can't compel you to waive your right to remain silent and not to self-incriminate in order to meet their requirement of tell me that you have what I want.
Because what they want is for you to allow them to get you in that vice of pay us money or we'll come after you for more money.
That's what they're after.
So, again, the three fundamentals.
Any information or documents in response to the officer's demands or questions is going to hurt you.
Invoke your fundamentally protected right to remain silent and to assistance of counsel, and then simply refuse to waive those rights.
How do we do that?
Well, you waive it because you complied with the officer's demands.
The moment you comply, it's waived.
You're done.
It's over.
You cannot get that back.
You cannot ask the information be suppressed because the courts will say you gave it up voluntarily.
The foremost thing to remember in these situations is to not engage the officers in idle conversation, dialogue, or chit-chat.
Why?
Because the more comfortable you are and the more talkative you become, the more likely you are to say or do something that's going to hurt you somewhere down the line.
Or, that will give this officer more information he needs to conduct what he's going to refer to as articulable probable cause or a heightened reasonable suspicion to say that you were doing something more illegal or that would give him an opportunity to go fishing down a different path so don't just talk again if you're doing that you're doing it wrong
Now, this is known as my self-imposed rule of invoke, demand, and protect.
Once you've invoked these rights, you never waive or abandon them by ignoring the procedures I'm giving you here.
Any question the officer asks, like where are you coming from, where are you going, who are you meeting, they have nothing to do with the stop.
Stop answering those questions.
It's none of his business.
He has no right or authority to know that.
The only way he's going to get those answers is because you give them to him.
And he has no business knowing.
Stop giving your whole life up to these people just because they tell you they want it.
They are used to simply getting additional information that may allow the officer to continue his witch hunt and escalate the severity of the charges he might make against you.
Also, never answer questions like, do you know why I pulled you over?
Or, are you aware that you stopped helping this guy screw you over?
That's what he's doing.
When he asks those types of questions and you answer, what are you doing?
You're giving him evidence.
Well, yeah, I guess you caught me speeding back there or running that stop sign or going through that red light.
Thank you for the confession that he has on his audio video recording and we'll use against you in a court of law.
Stop answering questions.
Just don't.
Next slide, please.
You do need to remember to do the following immediately when you realize you're getting pulled over.
First and foremost, roll up all of your windows and lock all of your doors.
Why?
Because these guys are getting more aggressive every day about jumping in your car without any probable cause, coming in from the passenger side, your side, and just pulling you out of the car for no good reason, yanking your keys out of the ignition and refusing to give them back, any of those things.
Roll your windows all the way up, lock all of your doors.
That keeps them outside and you inside.
Until they can give a viable reason why that needs to change.
Don't give them the opportunity to do that.
My personal habit, I'm not going to get into my habit because I don't recommend most people do it.
You get the document by going to the website and downloading it.
You can read what my habit is, but I'm not going to talk about it here.
Do remember, however, that my objective here is not to get anyone hurt or injured.
You have to use your own judgment as to how far you're willing to press your rights and keep them.
That's entirely an individual requirement.
You and only you know the situation you're in at the time.
You and only you have reason to believe this officer is going to lose control and do something that will seriously injure you.
You need to take that into consideration whatever happens.
Okay?
But that being said, you need to be very careful that it gets to a point that is documented that you did not waive that right willingly.
That you were forced to do it.
Don't ever roll down more than one window at a time if you do remain in your car when you get stopped.
No matter what the officer tells you to do, one window, one window only.
I don't care if there's cops at every window saying roll this down, don't do it.
One window only.
Why?
Well, If you create more than one air vent in that car by rolling down multiple windows, you will create a cross breeze inside of that car.
If you do that, that immediately gives the officer the opportunity to say he smells something coming from the car.
With a single window down, that is impossible.
Nothing can exit the car in that manner.
There's no wind to blow it out the window for this officer to allegedly smell.
So don't ever do that.
Because the first thing he's going to do when he can't get what he wants one way, is he's going to attempt to escalate the stop and get it another.
Don't ever roll your one open window down more than two and two-and-a-half inches.
Again, no matter what the officer tells you.
If he tells you you have to roll your window all the way down, just sit there and say, Officer, I like the window where it is.
I can hear you just fine.
I'm comfortable with it right here.
I don't want to roll it all the way down.
I'm not going to roll it all the way down.
There's no law that requires you to do that.
Now be aware that he will get upset by this and he will attempt to threaten you, but he's not at a point yet where he can actually justify anything he does that consists of violence.
He can yell, scream, and holler at you all day long, but he can't start trying to break you into anything because you won't roll it all the way down.
So just keep that in mind and keep going.
Now, when we go forward on this and we look at the next do's and don'ts, Don't ever provide an officer with any documents or other information they demand.
The legal ramifications to your fundamentally protected rights are devastating.
Again, everything you give out voluntarily will be considered exactly that.
Voluntarily.
It can be used against you and there will be no chance of you to have it suppressed because you waived the right to remain silent and not provide that information.
Don't ever give your consent to an officer to search your car for any reason.
That's just dumb.
Don't do it.
Without a warrant, they don't have a reason to search your car unless they actually put you in the back of theirs with the intent of taking you to a magistrate, which is where they're supposed to take you, even though they take you directly to jail.
You need to be aware that that also is illegal in most states, including Texas, and that you can sue them for false imprisonment when they do that.
But that's beyond the scope of this presentation.
If you want to know more about that, come to my classes down at Brave New Books or join Tile of Law when it launches and you'll get to learn about it online.
If you give them consent, here's the potential downside.
You are asking for the incriminating evidence to get planted in your car or evidence that you may not have even known was in your car to be discovered.
You could have had a friend in there that got nervous and had a joint in his backpack or his pocket or whatever and immediately threw it under the front seat when the cop pulled you over.
You could have got stopped yesterday by another cop And you had someone with you that did something similar.
And now today you get stopped again and thinking, well, I'm alone.
There's nothing in the car.
I don't have anything.
So yeah, go ahead and search.
And you got a joint laying on your front seat that your friend threw there and you knew nothing about.
Don't consent to a search that doesn't have a warrant attached to it.
Just don't.
This is the key reason you don't get out of your car because they have to have a really good reason, such as actually saying, we're taking you with us in order to get into that car to perform a search without that warrant.
The search incident to arrest requirement that allows them to do it without a warrant, even though you're in a custodial arrest, they're lying to you about that and haven't informed you of that.
So if they attempt to search the car at this point, the search can get thrown out and suppressed as being illegal.
And they know it.
So, don't ever give consent to search.
Okay, next one.
Alright, the officer is going to almost always insist you are not under custodial arrest, but rather are simply being detained or a part of an investigative detention.
Again, that's a lie.
No officer has the authority to simply walk up and demand that you answer questions, produce ID, or provide them with your private information.
But they're going to try to do that, okay?
So, it doesn't matter whether they're doing it verbally, it doesn't matter whether they're demanding you give it to them in the physical form on an ID, they can't just walk up and demand it and you're not required to give it to them.
Be aware that when you won't submit and give them your information, though, their favorite tactic is to start threatening you, and they're going to start trying to say they're going to charge you with failure to identify, which here in Texas is one of their favorites.
But the problem is, when you read the failure to identify statute, there's only specific ways to commit that offense.
And in either case, in order to charge you for not providing information, The officer is required to have already arrested you for some other type of offense.
Failure to identify is not an arrestable offense in and of itself, except in the Subpart B, where it gives the requirement that you don't provide false information in a legal detention.
But notice the contrast.
In a legal detention, you can't give false information, but you can refuse to give any.
Whereas in a lawful arrest for some other offense, you shouldn't give false information, and don't, but they also, at that point, they say you can't refuse to give them name, address, and date of birth.
And that is the only three pieces of information you're required to give.
But nowhere are you required to provide that information at any time on a physical form of ID.
You don't have to do it with a license.
You don't have to do it with a passport.
You don't have to do it with any form of physical identification.
Verbal is enough, as long as you provide those three pieces of information if you've been lawfully arrested or detained.
Now, given that, when you go down a little further on that and you be aware that you don't give them the information, they're going to try to charge you with failure to ID, or they're going to attempt to charge you under, after these following conditions, as I just stated, under the arrest versus the detention.
They may try to charge you with obstructing governmental operation as well.
Again, you cannot obstruct governmental operation simply by refusing to say anything.
Nor can you do it by verbally responding or interfering with what they're doing by not being quiet.
It has to be some sort of physical interference before you can be charged with that obstruction of governmental operation that they try to use.
But they will do anything they can to intimidate you, if you let them.
You need to maintain a calm, cool, self-composed posture at all times.
You want the video evidence to show you never lost self-control.
If anyone lost control, it was the officer or officers on the scene.
They got upset.
They lost their temper.
They made threats.
They assaulted you or your car.
Okay?
That's what you want the evidence to show.
When you start standing up for your rights, I guarantee you, these guys are going to start being upset.
But when we get to the questions, you're going to see exactly why that's important.
Now, when you go down, don't need to give them physical ID, you just simply need to verbally give them those three pieces of information.
Alright, let's go to the next.
Now, how do you know when you are in custody and are required to provide these three pieces of information?
How do you know when you are in custody where the officer is required to read you your rights?
Well, this legal equation, as I call it, was taken directly from the case law dealing with that particular aspect of the term custody and functional equivalent of custody.
Custody is custodial arrest or functional equivalent of a custodial arrest.
And like I said, here in Texas, 543 of the Transportation Code tells you you're in a custodial arrest by law right off the bat.
A functional equivalent of custodial arrest is when a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, Would believe that he or she is in police custody to a degree associated with a formal arrest.
In other words, you can't say, am I free to go, and the officer turns around and says yes.
If you say am I free to go and the officer says no, now you have the legal presumption of custodial arrest.
That becomes very important with that 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when they must inform you of your Miranda rights before they proceed.
Next.
Okay.
Now, everything you do is directed at protecting yourself.
Everything.
And you need to remember these two important factors about any traffic stop.
The purpose and intent of every transportation stop is to escalate it to either a DUI or drug bust.
Always.
That is where the officer will attempt to escalate the stop to if given the opportunity.
That's just another reason why you do not answer his questions, you do not get into chit-chat or idle talk with the officer that will give him any reason to latch on to any statement that you make and allow him to escalate it to one of these two much higher and much more dangerous offenses.
So do not do any of those things.
This is what they're going to attempt to do.
Be aware of it.
Expect it.
Prevent it.
Do not attempt to educate the officer.
Don't tell him what his job is.
Don't tell him who you are.
Don't tell him, you know, this is what the law says you have to do.
I know my rights and blah blah blah.
You're attempting to educate an officer on the side of the road.
Unfortunately, most of these guys, besides not caring, don't have the IQ for it.
Now that's not to say there's not good officers.
There are.
I fully agree that there are.
But the good ones are too few and far between to stand up by themselves to resist the bad ones.
They need our help.
Once they see they're not outnumbered, maybe they'll get a voice.
Maybe they'll get in a group and make a voice.
I don't know.
But the only way to do it is to know this for yourself at the moment.
So let's get with it.
Once you know the officer's name and his badge number, you're going to use that as often as possible while you're going down the things in this script.
Why?
Because you want that officer associated with every illegal activity you can get him into while he's got you.
So you want to directly relate him and what he's doing to some violation of your rights at every single opportunity.
That also makes any video record self-authenticating.
When everyone that's in the recording is known, no one has to testify as to, well, this is that person, this is that person, this was made here, this was made there.
It becomes self-documenting and self-authenticating when everybody's name is stated for the record.
When everything in it is agreed that, yeah, that's what was said, that's who it was, and that's when it was done.
By doing these things and getting his name and everything introduced and making him answer you like he wants you to answer him, you make that recording self-authenticating, including the one you're making, not just the one he's making.
Remember, you don't leave home without a recording device.
This includes in your car.
I've got multiple ones in mine.
Good luck on finding all of them to prevent me from having the record I need.
Again, everything you say is directed at one of the three rules.
Invoke.
Demand.
Protect.
Always.
Next slide.
Question one.
For the record, may I get your name and badge number, please?
This is the first thing you ask when the officer approaches your car window.
You want to know who it is you're dealing with and how to identify them.
Make sure that your recording catches their name and badge number.
That makes your recording self-authenticating.
Immediately, Let's just say, for instance, the officer said his name is Davis and his badge number is 123.
Officer Davis, badge ID 123, is there a recording being made of this encounter?
Again, you want him to tell you whether or not he's making an official record of this.
The things highlighted in yellow, while not required, will help you possibly down the line when you start asking the question about, you know, when you ask for this information and they say, well, we didn't make a recording or the equipment was malfunctioning.
These three things will help you prove that's a lie if you got an answer to them on your recording.
So these are optional, but potentially helpful.
Officer Davis, badge number 123.
What is the emergency and how can I help you?
Again, we're not going to assume we did anything wrong.
We're not engaged in transportation.
We're not commercial.
Therefore, his authority to pull us over for some alleged offense under that code is non-existent.
Therefore, we have to ask, why are you stopping me?
Do you have a problem and do you need me to help you?
Because in Texas and most other republics, they can ask for help from the people to subdue a criminal or things of that nature, and you're required to help if you can.
So we're going to ask.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, what facts or information are you alleging gave you probable cause to stop and accost me?
Right there, we're asking the officer to validate his authority.
What alleged facts are you relying on as your authority to do what you're doing to me right now?
Now, of course, he's going to cite immediately something related to transportation.
When we get to trial, that's going to become very important, not only in our defense, but also in our federal lawsuit when we sue everybody in the food chain after this case is over.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, do you have a properly signed and issued warrant authorizing you to search me or my property?
Again, documenting the right.
Do you have a warrant?
And this warrant is specifically directed at searching, okay?
Can you search me or my property?
If he says yes, simply ask to see a copy of the warrant.
Texas law is now written where the officer is not required to have the warrant in his possession.
Used to, he had to have it with him.
However, even though he doesn't have to have it in his possession, if you demand to see it, he must produce it as soon as it's practicable.
Once he gets you to jail, if the magistrate sends you to jail, once he brings you into the magistrate, which is where he is supposed to take you first and foremost, but never does.
Again, if he takes you directly to jail, you've got a lawsuit for false imprisonment that you can go after him with.
I recommend you do that.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, do you have a properly signed and issued warrant of arrest that accurately describes or names me as the person to be arrested?
Again, you're going to arrest me, where's your warrant?
Okay?
Your warrant either has to state me by name or description as the person it applies to.
Where is it?
Again, if he has it, has to see it.
If he doesn't give it to you right then, he's required by law to still produce it as soon as practicable.
For the record, I am not operating in a for hire capacity by engaging in any form of transportation or other commercial use of the highways.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, please acknowledge that you have been so informed.
Now this officer is not going to know what you're talking about, and he's not going to care.
He may refuse to answer and so on and so forth.
However, you want an answer to every question you ask.
When they don't answer, do what they do.
Keep repeating the question until they respond.
He may say, I don't care, I don't know.
Doesn't matter.
But you want an answer to this question before you allow him or yourself to move on.
Very important that you get this.
Because once he admits That you told him you were not operating in transportation, and he continues to do something to you using that as his authority.
He has admitted his authority was gone, and he held you anyway.
That is going to be a very big problem for him in federal court.
I had no authority to keep you there, but I did it anyway.
Well, we're going to prove to him why that's a very bad idea.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, am I under custodial arrest?
Again, this is where he's going to lie.
If I am not under custodial arrest, am I free to go?
And again, he's going to tell you no.
You cannot get the same answer to these two questions.
They're completely opposite to each other.
Either you're in a custodial arrest and not free to go, or you're not in a custodial arrest and you are free to go.
They can't be the same answer.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, what is the articulable probable cause that leads you to believe that I have committed or am about to commit a crime that authorizes you to stop and detain or arrest me?
Again, the officer is going to cite some alleged transportation offense as his initial probable cause.
You want that in the record.
He's already admitted up here that you told him you were not in transportation, and now right here he's saying, but that's still what I'm going to use as my authority to accost you, or do anything else to you.
For the record, Officer Davis, badge number 123, in order to protect my rights and not waive any by error or accident, I wish to clarify my legal understanding of the situation.
You said that I am not free to go, so I must conclude that I am in a custodial arrest and not simply an investigative detention.
Therefore, I am invoking all of my fundamentally protected rights, including my right to remain silent and my right to assistance of counsel.
From this point forward, I do not consent to providing you with any information or documents that could or will be used against me in a court of law or to possibly incriminate me.
So please do not ask me to produce anything and give it to you.
From this point forward, please do not ask me to answer any questions or to perform any tests relating to any matter whatsoever without my attorney present.
Alright, now the clincher to that setup is going to be this.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, do you intend to harm, injure, or punish me by any method of assault, arrest, and or incarceration because I have invoked these fundamentally protected rights?
Now that's going to create an immediate problem for the officer.
Understand this, when you refuse to produce the demanded documents or to answer any questions, the officer is going to begin to get upset and continuously state the following.
The law requires that you produce a driver's license and other information on demand of a law enforcement officer.
Well again, they're also prone to falsely accusing you of obstructing or interfering with a public duty or officer or just outright threatening to commit acts of violence against you and your property.
Don't fall for the intimidation tactic.
That's what this is.
Invoking and refusing to waive your fundamental rights is not and cannot be converted into a crime.
And if they do arrest and charge you falsely for interfering or obstructing, then you get to sue everybody.
Why?
Because they just punished you for invoking those protected rights.
They're doing what they're doing because you invoked the right not to let them.
But the moment you waive that right, you won't get it back.
And you need to keep that in mind.
So just remember, when the officers continue to demand that you produce a license, registration, proof of financial responsibility, or any other information or documents, despite their threats, all you do is keep repeating the following.
For the record, Officer Davis, badge number 123, no law is valid if it requires me in any way to waive any fundamentally protected right in order to exercise any other right or alleged privilege.
And no law can convert the free exercise of any right into a crime.
I have repeatedly informed you that I choose not to waive any of my fundamentally protected rights.
So I ask you once again, officer, do you intend to harm, injure, steal my property, or otherwise punish me for invoking my fundamentally protected rights?
Again, we're putting them between a rock and a hard place on making this choice.
Because remember, their video record is showing that all you're doing in a calm, cool, collected voice is invoking your rights.
The rights that you have that are inherent.
They're not constitutional rights.
They're not civil rights.
They are unalienable, inherent rights.
And he can't have them unless you give them away.
So don't.
If he's going to harm you, he's going to do it anyway.
If he's going to threaten you, he's going to do it anyway.
Keep that to a minimum whenever possible.
But don't waive your rights until you can prove that the only reason you waived them was because of the threat of violence against you or your property.
Okay?
That's very, very necessary.
The courts will give them every possible opportunity to escape if you assist them in any way.
So don't.
Now, warning, be prepared for the officer to do or threaten precisely that, that he is going to harm, injure, or punish you or your property in some form or fashion.
So again, they're going to start threatening you with all kinds of things, including the falsified criminal charges we've already discussed.
You only need to use this sub-item A portion of this once.
Anytime you deal with a particular officer, use it on that officer and it's only required that you do it once because the record will show that you notified him and gave him the chance and the opportunity.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, due to your attitude, demeanor, and your continuous threats to falsify charges and commit acts of violence against me and my property while displaying a deadly weapon, I feel physically threatened and in fear for my life.
I demand that you cease and desist and that you get a supervisor here immediately.
I do not consent to any of your actions, the use of force against me or my property, or to being forced to exit my car for any purpose, especially so that you may attempt to steal my property and or assault, injure, or kill me.
Again, we're telling the officer exactly what we expect him to try to do.
And it's now a part of the official record.
Now it's on his back to make sure that anything he does does not give the impression that that is what he's trying to do.
This actually sets it up to protect you from the officer's actions by making it known to him exactly what you are expecting those actions to be.
And so will any jury that sees or hears this recording.
And that, folks, is what we want.
We want a record that shows a jury in either court, whether it be at trial or at the federal level when we're suing, doesn't matter.
We want to show that we did nothing wrong.
We simply invoked our rights.
We asked the officer to respect that.
And all he could do was threaten us with violence when we did so.
That's not going to bode well for him on the other side.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, you are fully aware that I have already invoked my fundamentally protected right to remain silent and my right to assistance of counsel.
Do you intend to continue in your unlawful efforts to violate my rights?
Just keep repeating this like a broken record.
Once you invoke these rights, stand on these rights.
So far I've had, since this script has been updated and used, I've had two people that have been the only ones that have used it properly because they took it with them and they had it memorized.
One was a young lady from the Ukraine who's been here for several years and I find it rather ironic that someone from that part of the world that is used to having their rights limited to such a large degree comes all the way to America to begin to exercise rights that all of us have and she's doing it better than we Americans are because we don't even know what our rights are anymore!
Now that's irony on the hoof right there, I gotta tell you.
The other gentleman was someone that who every time he's been stopped has gotten arrested.
Every single time he's been pulled over the cops have taken him to jail.
The first time he used this script was the first time he went home instead of to jail.
Why?
Because despite all their threats against him while they were outside his car The only thing that they could do was show that he had done nothing wrong by invoking his rights.
And anything they did to him, outside of writing that citation, was not going to go well for them later.
So folks, there is a purpose to this script.
It wasn't put together just off the top of my head.
Everything in here is designed to do something toward invoking, demanding, or protecting your fundamental rights.
Now that being said, we're going to go a little further down here and see other ways these guys have been trained to make that harder to do.
So, it is my belief that the information you are demanding may possibly be used against me in a court of law or an attempt to incriminate me.
And that's true.
It will be.
And if that is so, then upon the advice of legal counsel, I must respectfully decline to provide you with any information or evidence that possibly can or would be used against me for those purposes.
Do you have the right not to provide it?
Don't.
Not a hard choice, folks.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, I am asking you again, do you intend to continue to deny me in my rights and to falsely imprison me, or am I free to go?
You keep repeating this section down here, and this record is going to be self-authenticating all the way through, and they're going to have a severe problem with anything they do other than just issuing the ticket.
That is the purpose.
When you start doing this, if they start threatening to break your windows or anything of that nature, you need to know basic safety protection for yourself.
Cover your eyes and like this for the side of your face and look down at the center console of your car so that anything they do won't come flying into your face.
But if you do this correctly and you don't lose your temper, the odds of that happening get lower and lower with each passing question.
Because you don't get out of hand, and they do, the video evidence is going to show that.
Somebody's going to wind up sued on the back end, and it's going to be in your favor.
So, the other thing about the escalation of the stop when it comes to DUIs or drug busts.
These are the things I'm going to tell you about next.
When you are in that car, it is very important that you do not put your face against that 2 to 2 1⁄2 inch crack you have on the window.
Don't turn and speak directly through it.
Don't speak directly into the officer's face.
Don't roll your window down any further than the 2 to 2 1⁄2 inches.
When you talk, you can do it in this manner.
Whatever you've got to do, tilt your head up, but don't speak directly into the crack or anything else.
And here is why.
The officer is then going to attempt to escalate this by making false allegations.
He's going to say he smelled drugs, he smelled alcohol, anything and everything to give him the grounds to come after you since he can't do anything more with the transportation stop.
You've blocked him at every turn.
He wants that DUI or drug bust.
That's what he wants.
Don't give it to him.
Now the young lady from the Ukraine that I was speaking of They did this to her.
This question is based entirely on what they did to her.
Right after they got her stopped, she called me so I'd be on the phone with her and could tell her what to do while they had her pulled over.
And she was pulled over by a Travis County deputy here in the Austin area on this particular occasion.
He was joined in short order by three others, including a supervisor.
Now, what he did was after they had already written the ticket, they refused to give her back her identification, which was a passport and a student ID.
That's what she used for identification.
They wouldn't give her her identification back, nor would they give her a copy of the citation even though she had already signed it.
They held her there for another 48 minutes trying to get her to get out of the car by doing the following.
What they did was illegal.
But if you don't know how to respond immediately to what they do right here, this video is no longer going to be helpful to you in a court of law.
It's going to be hurtful.
Why?
Because the officer has made an allegation regarding a potential offense that you have failed to rebut the moment it was made.
A jury sees or hears that, and immediately the presumption of guilt is going to creep into their minds.
So you must expect this, you must be prepared for it, and you must respond appropriately.
The moment the officer says something of one of these two things here, Sir, Ma'am, I smell alcohol or marijuana and I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle.
Or, Sir, Ma'am, are you aware that you did something and I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle.
Alright?
Beware!
The moment they say something like this, they are making an attempt to escalate.
Stop it in its tracks.
This is how you respond to this.
Officer Davis, badge number 123, your statement is patently false and an outright lie.
Are you now trying to fabricate probable cause by making false statements into the record and false allegations against me?
Now the young lady I'm talking about, when they pulled this out of the hat on her, had no clue how to respond.
Fortunately, I was on the phone listening.
I told her to say exactly this, and she did.
This was what happened next.
Uh, ma'am hold on please, I'll be right back.
And the officer turns and walks away to go get advice on what do I do now?
She caught me red-handed, flat-footed, making a false accusation, and the recording shows that she expected it.
Her response was too quick not to expect it.
But I'm practiced at this.
I know how this works.
So having me on the phone with her prevented what would have otherwise been a possible bad outcome for her.
Now, This officer walks away for several minutes.
He comes back to the window with his supervisor and they start arguing with her about the alcohol and everything else.
She keeps repeating this and saying, look, I invoke my rights.
I'm not getting out of my car to do a breathalyzer.
I'm not getting out of my car to discuss anything with you because I've invoked my right to remain silent and I've invoked my right to assistance of counsel.
Getting out of my car to do anything of that nature will not help either of us, and I'm not doing it.
Ma'am, we'll be right back with you.
And they turn around and walk away from the window again.
She's not waiving her rights, folks.
No matter what they tell her, or what they threaten her with, she's not waiving her rights.
When this was all said and done, All they did was finally give her back her ID and a copy of the citation and she went home.
Yes, they held her up for a couple of hours.
Okay?
And they wrote her tickets for things that she could have easily done if she was willing to waive her right to remain silent and everything else by producing the documents they wanted.
But believe me, when you get to trial and you start arguing not engaged in transportation, the last thing in the world you want is the state prosecutor to stand up there and say, well, they produced a license, which is associated with transportation.
They produced the registration, which is associated with transportation.
They said they were driving a vehicle, which is associated with transportation.
And they gave them proof of financial responsibility, which is also associated with transportation.
The record now shows clearly that you confessed that transportation is absolutely relevant to what you were doing, and the officer was fully justified in pulling you over to issue that citation.
That, folks, is what Waiving Your Rights has accomplished by producing the information they are demanding.
Like it or not, they expect you to waive your right of due process, your right to self-incrimination, and everything else to accommodate their desire to generate revenue off the backs of you and I. It really boils down to that.
It's about money and nothing else.
They enforce these laws to generate that revenue.
It has nothing to do with public safety.
Absolutely nothing.
I mean, how does having a sticker with the 11 on it rather than a 12 hurt anybody?
How does having a license that expired yesterday versus next week hurt anybody?
It doesn't.
It doesn't hurt anyone.
The only people that these things apply to are those engaged in the regular activity that we call transportation.
And when you get down to it in transportation, we have to worry about the issue of going to trial, which again is one of the things that we do in my class down at Brave New Books every Sunday from 2 to 5.
In that class, we do practical application of this knowledge.
We teach you how to act and behave at the stop.
We teach you how to interact with an officer.
We teach you how to go to court, make your arguments, present your case, file documents, do what needs to be done to defend yourself.
That's practical application of this knowledge.
Part of this knowledge from transportation deals with what I call the seven deadly sins.
Terminology, like I said at the beginning of all of this, is extremely important in relation to this.
Terminology is everything.
Semantics is everything.
Anytime at trial they attempt to say that you're in violation of some transportation statute or some city ordinance relating to transportation, they're going to have to use one or more of these seven terms to refer to what you're doing.
If they attempt to prove their case without ever using any of these seven terms, then their case dies with what they're doing.
Because without these terms, they cannot prove the elements of the statute have been met.
If they can't prove the elements, each and every one of the elements, for a particular accusation, then that accusation falls flat on its face.
If it's got five required elements, they have to prove all five.
They cannot prove four.
They can't prove two.
It's an all or nothing deal.
They have to prove them all.
If they fail to use these terms in relation to that accusation, they can't do it.
So why are these terms important?
Well, again, they all relate to the issue of transportation.
All of them are defined, or should have been defined, within the Transportation Code.
The seven deadly sins, as we have them listed, are 1.
This state.
Most of you are going to see this term, this state, and you're going to make an assumption.
And everybody out there ought to know what the real meaning of assumption is.
Okay?
It does what to you and me?
This state is presumed to be the geographical region we know as Texas or Louisiana or Mississippi or whatever particular state you're in.
That's an assumption, folks.
This state is one of those phrases that is not defined in any law anywhere.
This state is not even in the legal dictionaries.
Why?
When you presume something about a law, you're making a mistake.
There is no case law that says what this phrase means.
So what makes you think you are qualified, neither as a judge or a lawyer, To make that determination yourself.
It's an assumption about what it means.
Don't fall for it.
This state is not the geographical region of Texas.
This has to do with a commercial area that we're not in and don't want to be in unless we go there voluntarily by participating in that regulable activity.
We're not going to do that.
We're not going to admit to that.
Two, police officer.
Now in Texas, I say that's one of the seven deadly sins because police officer is defined in the Transportation Code separate and apart from peace officer which is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure under 2.12 like we saw at the very beginning.
So why the disparity?
Why is there a peace officer definition in this code and a police officer definition in the Transportation Code?
Well, again, you want to know all the details of that, come to my class.
The class teaches you how all this works and why.
Right now, we're just dealing with the terms you need to be aware of.
Third, transportation.
Again, not defined in any Texas Code anywhere.
But we did see what it actually means.
It means commercial use of the roads by a carrier for conducting business for compensation or hire.
That's what it means.
It has nothing to do with your private travel to and from anywhere in your car.
Nothing whatsoever.
The other is motor vehicle, vehicle, The term drive, and any grammatical variation thereof, such as driver, driving, driven, whatever.
And the term operate, and any grammatical variation of that particular one, such as operator, operating, or operated, and whatever.
All of those are the seven deadly sins of terminology.
Anytime these terms or phrases are used in a trial or any judicial proceeding for which you are dealing with a citation, you need to be objecting to the use of the terms.
There is a right way and a wrong way to make this objection.
i'm going to show you the right way the objection to be made comes in three parts The first part of the objection is beginning the objection by clearly stating the specific legal terms, which would be any of the seven deadly sins, that were used by whoever you're objecting to.
Doesn't matter who used it, you're objecting to it.
Two, that the legal meaning of these terms is being assumed as is their applicability to you and your alleged actions.
And the terms have not been properly defined.
That's the other thing you'll never see the state do in court.
The state will never say, well right here in statute section such and such, the definition of driver is this, and the definition of vehicle is this.
They will never ever do that.
Never.
If they do that, you get to argue it.
If you get to argue it, you get to argue what I'm telling you about transportation being commercial.
They can't have that.
That will interfere with the revenue stream.
Everybody knows what I'm showing you here.
The money flow stops.
That can't happen.
They're choking to death as it is.
They can't steal enough from us overnight.
If they're not properly defined, then the assumption is that they mean what everybody thinks they mean rather than what the law says they mean.
Nor are any of these terms and facts of their definitions currently before the court as facts to be considered in this case.
There's no fact before the court that says a driver is A or that I was acting in the capacity of a driver during this alleged offense.
That didn't happen and there's no evidence in front of the court that shows that it happened or that it's even applicable.
Three, that the use of these terms by anyone is an inappropriate and premature legal conclusion based entirely on the aforementioned assumption.
And two, So, when you do the objection, remember that it has to be timely.
You have to object within two to three seconds when you hear this term or phrase or group of terms or phrases pop out of someone's face.
You have to be listening.
One of the things I teach in my class primarily is this.
You must learn to listen to what you hear.
You can hear everything that's going on and not be listening to any of it.
Therefore, you can't respond to it, recall it at a later time, or use it because you don't know what it was.
You have to listen to what you hear.
So you have to be paying attention to what everyone in that courtroom is saying when it's the prosecutor, the judge, or any member of the jury if they're asking questions, or whoever is sitting in the witness stand.
You have to be listening, you have to be expecting of what's going to come out of their mouth, because they have to use the seven deadly sins to prove their case.
You must be listening for them, as well as all the other facts and information you're going to need as you progress.
This is going to be the objection.
Now when you get there, there's something I want you to understand and think about this.
See if you can name a single government issued license or permit that is issued for any purpose other than engaging in some commercial activity for compensation or hire.
When you start thinking about all the governmental licenses and permits that exist, if you think about how it's applied at every point and used at every point, it will eventually dawn on you where the commercial aspect of that license or permit pops up its ugly head.
All of them are commercial, folks, no matter what you're told.
They are commercial.
The objection we're going to make is this.
And remember, in court, an objection must be begun with the word OBJECTION.
A lot of people tend to forget that, but don't.
OBJECTION to the use of the terms and whatever terms you're objecting to.
Let's say, for instance, the prosecutor is questioning the officer and the prosecutor said, when the defendant was driving his vehicle, And it gets that far before you can object.
There's two of the seven deadly sins you need to be objecting to.
Drive and vehicle.
So this is how the objection will go.
Objection to the use of the terms drive and vehicle.
They assume facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion.
Now remember, this was the prosecutor that said these terms.
That's why we don't use the last four words.
Had this been the witness on the stand, such as the officer, we would have added the four words by the fact witness.
The prosecutor is not a fact witness.
He was not present at the time of the alleged offense.
So we stop with conclusion when we make our objection when the prosecutor, the jury member, or the judge attempts to use any of the seven deadly sins.
When the officer or any other witness on the stand uses them, we use the full objection including the last four words.
Okay?
And that's really what the bottom paragraph there is telling you, why the fact by the fact witness gets added or not used.
That being said, folks, this is pretty much the summary of the transportation script and how we use it.
It's meant and designed to protect you and your rights from the encroachment that these people are performing upon our daily lives at every turn.
It's up to us to stop them.
Only with information and the desire to use that information will we be successful.
I would like to thank you all for listening.
I'd like to thank Alex for having me here.
Thank you so much.
Please come visit RuleOfLawRadio.com or LogosRadioNetwork.com and I will happily allow you to download the information.
All the documents that we went over today will be available on the LogosRadioNetwork.com forward slash TAO.
And you can get all that, plus the two scripts that we're talking about.
Give them a once over, learn them, commit them to memory, and use them to protect you and your rights in the future.
▲
Export Selection