Valid travel identification document issued by another government, which is allowed to be used and possessed.
LICENSE FROM OTHER AUTHORITY. A person holding a driver’s license under this chapter is not required to obtain a license for the operation of a motor vehicle from another state authority or department.
Requiring participation in the Social Security System to be allowed to travel on the roads of California, as the S.S. System is a PONZI Scheme, where billions of dollars have been stolen from people’s pay, and GIVEN to others who have not earned it.
The Social Security System is founded on the Marxist principles of redistribution of wealth, through stealing from people’s pay. Both Ponzi Schemes and Theft violate the laws of Texas, namely;
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL, 17.46(b)(21) Promoting a Pyramid Promotional Scheme, as defined by Section 17.461;
Sec. 17.461. PYRAMID PROMOTIONAL SCHEME.
Texas Penal Code Title 7 Chapter 31 Section 31.03 Theft
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already ruled six times that there is no such thing as a Drivers License known to Texas law. These six cases have never been Reversed, never been Overturned and have never been Withdrawn, which are the ONLY three conditions that can make them invalid. Those six cases are:
W. Lee Hassell v Texas, 149 Tex. Crim. 333 and 194 S.W. 2d 400, 401 (May, 1946) which states,
“There being no such license as a “driver’s license known to the law, it follows that the information in charging the driving of a motor vehicle without such a license, charges no offense”.
Holloway v State, 237 S.W. 2d 303, 304, (March, 1951) states,
“In Hassell v State, an information alleging that the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a “drivers license” was held insufficient to charge an offense since a drivers license is not known to the law.”
Hines v State, 248 S.W. 2d 156, (April, 1952) states,
“In [the Holloway] case, the complaint charged that he had a “Driver’s License revoked. We held that there is no such license provided for in the statute and, therefore, there was no allegation that he was a licensee.”
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals apparently got so frustrated in having cases appealed to their court referencing the allegation of driving without a drivers license, that they singled out the ruling in Claude D. Campbell v Texas, 160 Tex. Crim 627, 274 S.W. 2d 401, (Jan. 1955) in its own cite note #3, that
“There is in Texas no such license as a “driver’s license”.
Keith Brooks v State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546: 258 S.W. 2d 317“, states,
“Information charging defendant with driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his “driver’s license” was suspended, charged no offense. In Hassell v State, we said: There being no such license as a ‘drivers license known to the law, it follows that the information in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without such a license, charges no offense. See also Holloway v State, Texas Cr. App 237 S.W. 2d 393. Because the information fails to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed. Opinion approved by the court.”
Finally, Frank John Callas v State, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S. W. 2d 360 states,
“This court has held that “there is no such license known to Texas Law as a driver’s license”.
These cases are unoverturned, not withdrawn, nor reversed, and they have been fully Shepardized.
I therefore cannot possess an item that the Texas Supreme Court has already ruled SIX TIMES, does not exist.
18 USC 31(6) states that a Motor Vehicle is:
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
Therefore, to arrest me, or to issue a citation, or to create a criminal complaint against me, for the FALSE allegation of NO DRIVERS LICENSE, or NO TEXAS DRIVERS LICENSE, or NO D.L., is PURE FRAUD, and violates the following criminal laws:
AGGRAVATED PERJURY
PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION
Sec. 37.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Court record” means a decree, judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other document issued by a court of:
(A) this state;
(B) another state;
(C) the United States;
(D) a foreign country recognized by an act of congress or a treaty or other international convention to which the United States is a party;
(E) an Indian tribe recognized by the United States; or
(F) any other jurisdiction, territory, or protectorate entitled to full faith and credit in this state under the United States Constitution.
(2) “Governmental record” means:
(A) anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record;
(B) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government;
(C) a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States;
…(3) “Statement” means any representation of fact.
Sec. 37.02. PERJURY.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement’s meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath; or
(2) he makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 37.03. AGGRAVATED PERJURY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:
(1) is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and
(2) is material.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
Sec. 37.04. IMMATERIALITY.
(a) A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under the rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under Section 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that the declaration mistakenly believed the statement to be immaterial.
(c) Whether a statement is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
Sec. 37.05. RETRACTION.
It is a defense to prosecution under Section 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that the actor retracted his false statement:
(1) before completion of the testimony at the official proceeding; and
(2) before it became manifest that the falsity of the statement would be exposed.
Sec. 37.06. INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
An information or indictment for perjury under Section 37.02 or aggravated perjury under Section 37.03 that alleges that the declarant has made statements under oath, both of which cannot be true, need not allege which statement is false. At the trial the prosecution need not prove which statement is false.
Sec. 37.07. IRREGULARITIES NO DEFENSE.
(a) It is no defense to prosecution under Section 37.02 (Perjury) or 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that the oath was administered or taken in an irregular manner, or that there was some irregularity in the appointment or qualification of the person who administered the oath.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under Section 37.02 (Perjury) or 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that a document was not sworn to if the document contains a recital that it was made under oath, the declaration was aware of the recital when he signed the document, and the document contains the signed jurat of a public servant authorized to administer oaths.
ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY
PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICE
Sec. 39.01. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter:
(1) “Law relating to a public servant’s office or employment” means a law that specifically applies to a person acting in the capacity of a public servant and that directly or indirectly:
(A) imposes a duty on the public servant; or
(B) governs the conduct of the public servant.
(2) “Misuse” means to deal with property contrary to:
(A) an agreement under which the public servant holds the property;
(B) a contract of employment or oath of office of a public servant;
(C) a law, including provisions of the General Appropriations Act specifically relating to government property, that prescribes the manner of custody or disposition of the property; or
(D) a limited purpose for which the property is delivered or received.
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 39.015. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES…
With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this chapter.
Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 378, Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007.
Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
(a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or
(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is less than $20;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $20 or more but less than $500;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the thing misused is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $200,000 or more…
(e) If separate transactions that violate Subsection (a)(2) are conducted pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the use of the things misused in the transactions may be aggregated in determining the classification of the offense.
(f) The value of the use of a thing of value misused under Subsection (a)(2) may not exceed:
(1) the fair market value of the thing at the time of the offense; or
(2) if the fair market value of the thing cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the thing within a reasonable time after the offense.
OFFICIAL OPPRESSION
Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 39.04. VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PERSON IN CUSTODY…;
(a) … a peace officer commits an offense if the person intentionally:
(1) denies or impedes a person in custody in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, or immunity knowing his conduct is unlawful…;
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor…
(d) The Attorney General of Texas shall have concurrent jurisdiction with law enforcement agencies to investigate violations of this statute involving serious bodily injury or death.
(e) In this section:…
(2) “Custody” means the detention, arrest, or confinement of an adult offender…
TORTS
It is clear that if you charge me with NO DRIVERS LICENSE, you and your co-conspirators will have committed the following Civil Torts against me, and I can and should sue you and your agency for:
Conspiracy, for you have conspired with others to extort funds from the people outside the strict, limited, delegated powers that we entrusted you with when you gave us your OATH OF OFFICE, that we received and accepted as your contractual promise to not violate ANY of our rights at ANY time in ANY manner, while in OUR Office.
Breach of Contract, for you have breached your OATH OF OFFICE by issuing False Charges in violation of the many laws shown in this Notice.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, for you are in fact a Fiduciary in OUR Office, and you have breached that duty by issuing False Charges, without MY delegated permission, collecting extortion and using it for your and other co-conspirators’ pay.
Common Law Fraud, for you have committed fraud against me, in your attempt to extort money from me by using False Charges.
Immunity Is Waived By The Illegal Acts Of The Agent. When a state official or agency performs an illegal or unauthorized act, the official or agency is no longer acting for the State. Federal Sign v Texas S. Univ. 951 SW2d 401-401
The performance of an illegal or unauthorized act waives both immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Kubosh v City of Houston, 2 SW3d 463, 468-69.
A private litigant does not need legislative permission to use the State for a state official’s violation of state law. Federal Sign. Id.
Therefore according to Dillard v Austin I.S.D., 806 SW2d 589, 598, I now demand to know who is the head person of the governmental unit or agency that is performing or threatening to perform against me.
According to San Antonio v McKinney, 936 SW2d at 283 and Lake County Estates v Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 400, your municipality is NOT PROTECTED from suit by the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, by causing me to fear reprisals from you and other State Agencies.
Defamation, for you have invaded my interest in my reputation and good name.
Libel and Slander, for you have published my name in False Charges, and have further threatened to compel other agencies to penalize me if I do not pay your extortion.
Negligence, for you have been negligent in your public servant duties, acting outside the confines of a republican form of government, by issuing False Charges in an attempt to receive money.
Negligent Misrepresentation, by having a pecuniary interest in the False Charges, by the funds received thereby going into the general funds of the City, from which you are paid, and misrepresented your actions as being lawful when they are not.
Common Law Breach of Warranty, by having warranted your actions and behaviors with a BOND, to be lawful at all times during your public service, when you have violated so many laws for issuing False Charges.
QUESTIONS TO ASK THE OFFICER WHO PULLS YOU OVER:
Did anyone ORDER you to file a charge of No Drivers License against me?
If they did, please identify them by badge and name, to avoid the criminal and civil liability, that otherwise will attach to you.
Is it a POLICY of the agency you allege to work for, either written or unwritten, for you to charge people with No Drivers License, when they either already have one from some other governing entity, or when they are exempt by law?
If so, identify who wrote or authored the POLICY to do so.
If you were not ORDERED, and there is no POLICY for you to charge me with No. Drivers License, ARE YOU WILLING to face the civil and criminal charges for filing false documents into court for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the proceedings?
Are you aware that filing a false document into court for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the proceedings, after you have had an opportunity to withdraw the false document, constitutes AGGRAVATED PERJURY, a FELONY 3?
Are you willing to commit a Felony 3 for the purpose of trying to collect a few hundred dollars in your budget to share with the other participants of the collection scheme?
Are you working alone or with one or more other individuals who are using the powers of their office with you using the powers of your office, to collect funds that otherwise would not be lawfully collected, so that you can all share in the unlawfully gained funds?
Have you ever read any of the laws that I have cited, quoted or shown you in the above documents?
Do you believe my car or pickup truck had a gross combination weight of 26,001 or more pounds, with or without the rating of towing more than ten thousand pounds?
Based on the appearance as it is now, do you believe that my car or pickup truck was designed by the manufacturer to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver?
Do you believe that my car or pickup truck is required to bear a placard under 49 CFR part 172 Subpart F?
Are you required by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to know all law and all case law?
Are you required to be personally aware of the boundaries of your office and actions, so that you can cautiously guard against violating any one of the people’s rights?
Did you know that you can be personally liable for torts and crimes, if you violate even one law in the process of you trying to cite or charge me with NO D.L.?
ONE LAST WARNING:
In case your fine City lawyer has already lied to you and told you that you are protected from liability, please know that crimes committed by public officials strip them of Official Immunity and Sovereign Immunity. See Hopkins v Clemson Agricultural College, 221 U.S. 636 and Old Colony Trust Co. v Seattle, 271 U.S. 427. There, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “But immunity from suit is a high attribute of sovereignty – a prerogative of the State itself – which cannot be availed of by public agents when sued for their own torts. The 11th Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State’s citizens. To grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.”
Conspiracy, for you have conspired with others to extort funds from the people outside the strict, limited, delegated powers that we entrusted you with when you gave us your OATH OF OFFICE, that we received and accepted as your contractual promise to not violate ANY of our rights at ANY time in ANY manner, while in OUR Office. Breach of Contract, for you have breached your OATH OF OFFICE by issuing False Charges in violation of the many laws shown in this Notice. Breach of Fiduciary Duty, for you are in fact a Fiduciary in OUR Office, and you have breached that duty by issuing False Charges, without MY delegated permission, collecting extortion and using it for your and other co-conspirators’ pay. Common Law Fraud, for you have committed fraud against me, in your attempt to extort money from me by using False Charges. Immunity Is Waived By The Illegal Acts Of The Agent. When a state official or agency performs an illegal or unauthorized act, the official or agency is no longer acting for the State. Federal Sign v Texas S. Univ. 951 SW2d 401-401 The performance of an illegal or unauthorized act waives both immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Kubosh v City of Houston, 2 SW3d 463, 468-69. A private litigant does not need legislative permission to use the State for a state official’s violation of state law. Federal Sign. Id. Therefore according to Dillard v Austin I.S.D., 806 SW2d 589, 598, I now demand to know who is the head person of the governmental unit or agency that is performing or threatening to perform against me. According to San Antonio v McKinney, 936 SW2d at 283 and Lake County Estates v Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 400, your municipality is NOT PROTECTED from suit by the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, by causing me to fear reprisals from you and other State Agencies. Defamation, for you have invaded my interest in my reputation and good name. Libel and Slander, for you have published my name in False Charges, and have further threatened to compel other agencies to penalize me if I do not pay your extortion. Negligence, for you have been negligent in your public servant duties, acting outside the confines of a republican form of government, by issuing False Charges in an attempt to receive money. Negligent Misrepresentation, by having a pecuniary interest in the False Charges, by the funds received thereby going into the general funds of the City, from which you are paid, and misrepresented your actions as being lawful when they are not. Common Law Breach of Warranty, by having warranted your action.
No comments:
Post a Comment