4:30
Eddie speaks again on the use of criminal complaints for fine-only ‘mala prohibita’ offenses. He lists 12 items per his research of 230 years of law pertaining to “breach of the peace” court cases to add to his litany of subjects to take in front of the Texas Legislature. Most criminal complaints, as sworn to, do not rise to the level an actual breach of the peace (as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary): that is, a felony (e.g., overt, or threat of, violence). By using the phrase “against the peace”, the statutes are suggesting that a “breach of the peace” has occurred. One cannot sue because they filed a false complaint, but once it is withdrawn you can sue for malicious prosecution because you now having standing that it was withdrawn because it was invalid.
Randy: The courts will put up a fight on this, given last several decades of case law, but finds it logical.
Deborah: This fits with founding principles.
Eddie: Victims of crimes should receive consideration, not the State. This too is against founding principles.
Randy: A [coerced] jury might find this a very compelling argument.
34:30
Anthony (TX) updates us on his case concerning his garage arrest. There are no records at the clerk’s office. He asks how to file motions.
Randy: Go to JurisImprudence.com and look for blanks of complaints, motions, etc. There are many ways to go after these guys. Look up Sections 17.05, 17.30, and 37.10 in the TX Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate secreted the papers to the prosecuting attorney.
Deborah: Anthony is 17 and cannot file criminal complaints.
Eddie: He can file motions in his defense though.
Randy: It’s tough to being under-age while wanting to go take on the System. Anthony’s parents need to take up the torch. The police don’t care about the laws anymore. [William Norman Grigg’s articles prove this in spades.]
Get a court-appointed attorney and warn him/her about bar grievances.
Deborah: Anthony could still file a motion to dismiss at the next scheduled “arraignment”, as she told him on the last show.
Randy: There is nothing to dismiss. Charge the court with abusive process. The court has claimed authority to appear but has no subject matter jurisdiction because he hasn’t been accused of a crime. Move the court to disqualify itself. Tomorrow’s show will be about due process.
1:05:10
Melissa (TX) received a call from a law firm about six thousand dollars in speeding tickets. They wanted her to pay by phone [huh?].
Eddie: I know this law firm. They are a private debt collection law firm that falsifies information. They are trying to extort money. Get Mike Mirras’ program.
Deborah: Don’t argue about the debt. This is about something else.
Melissa: These tickets date from 2003, 2005, and 2006.
Eddie: Then they are too old to collect on (due to the 2-year statute of limitations) if they’ve never taken you to trial for them. However, if they issued a warrant, it’s probably still out there (locally, not state-wide). If the officer didn’t file out a complaint, there should not be an arrest warrant.
1:20:35
Carolynn (TX) answered a joint discovery case management in her federal mortgage lawsuit. The other party also filed an answer and is pressuring her to sign, but she has problems with their answers.
Randy: Federal lawsuits require joint discovery case management so that the parties can figure out how much time to allot to discovery, etc. Just deny their answer, as they will do to yours.
1:27:10
Brian (MN) just purchased JurisDictionary. He is calling back about his illegal search & seizure case in April. He wants to know about Miranda.
Randy: Miranda only comes into play if the police questioned you prior to reading you your rights and then tried to bring your testimony from that into court. Other information subsequent to that initial questioning is irrelevant to the Miranda ruling.
What crime did the policeman think you committed when he stopped you?
Deborah: Stealing a vehicle because he had dirty fingernails. It was ridiculous.
Brian: What’s a good strategy?
Randy: Civil case of false imprisonment. Send tort letter to city council/major. 60-day minimum prior to lawsuit usually. Identify the police department in the Monelle sense: the officer acted per department policy.
1:45:20
Marshall (OR) asks a thought-provoking question regarding how “commerce” is defined in traffic law. For instance, say someone has a landscaping business and a truck with that type of equipment in the back. Is that commerce?
Randy: Only if you are on the clock while driving.
Marshall: How about someone paid to haul debris away?
Randy: You’re being paid to remove the debris off of the property and nothing else. Where you take it is irrelevant to the client.
Marshall: In any case, don’t I have a right to engage in a business without a license?
Eddie: Yes. It depends upon whether the business affects the public’s health and safety.
Marshall: Who gets to define “public health and safety”?
Eddie and Deborah: There is no right to do business on the roadways, which are paid for by the public. You are profiting at someone’s expense and adding wear-and-tear to the road surface. [NOTE: This damage to the road surface is principally due to the weight of the vehicle and pressure in the tires. And it is an exponential effect.] That is not a right. You may travel to go from A to B however, just like every other member of the public. That is the purpose of the roadways, long recognized by the courts. One is a right, the other is a privilege. Thus businesses can be regulated. So if the business/trade only occurs at the business at the terminus of one’s travel on the roadways, there is no business taking place on the roads. Transporting passengers and/or goods for hire is engaging in business.
Eddie: If you are operating under the auspices of a corporation, you would then be engaged in commerce: for instance, someone engaged in hauling lumber to a building site while working as the agent of a corporation.
Randy: I have concerns about this line of reasoning. The commerce occurs when he gets to the building site and drops off the lumber. If they are only getting paid to build the building, the transporting of the lumber is only a cost. The corporation does not profit from that activity. Same as a farmer taking goods to market.
Eddie: That’s two different things. One is a human being. The other is a corporation, that is, a privileged entity. Everything the corporation [“creature of the State”] does is privileged activity.
More on this in another ROL show. Stayed tuned.
4:30
Eddie speaks again on the use of criminal complaints for fine-only ‘mala prohibita’ offenses. He lists 12 items per his research of 230 years of law pertaining to “breach of the peace” court cases to add to his litany of subjects to take in front of the Texas Legislature. Most criminal complaints, as sworn to, do not rise to the level an actual breach of the peace (as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary): that is, a felony (e.g., overt, or threat of, violence). By using the phrase “against the peace”, the statutes are suggesting that a “breach of the peace” has occurred. One cannot sue because they filed a false complaint, but once it is withdrawn you can sue for malicious prosecution because you now having standing that it was withdrawn because it was invalid.
Randy: The courts will put up a fight on this, given last several decades of case law, but finds it logical.
Deborah: This fits with founding principles.
Eddie: Victims of crimes should receive consideration, not the State. This too is against founding principles.
Randy: A [coerced] jury might find this a very compelling argument.
34:30
Anthony (TX) updates us on his case concerning his garage arrest. There are no records at the clerk’s office. He asks how to file motions.
Randy: Go to JurisImprudence.com and look for blanks of complaints, motions, etc. There are many ways to go after these guys. Look up Sections 17.05, 17.30, and 37.10 in the TX Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate secreted the papers to the prosecuting attorney.
Deborah: Anthony is 17 and cannot file criminal complaints.
Eddie: He can file motions in his defense though.
Randy: It’s tough to being under-age while wanting to go take on the System. Anthony’s parents need to take up the torch. The police don’t care about the laws anymore. [William Norman Grigg’s articles prove this in spades.]
Get a court-appointed attorney and warn him/her about bar grievances.
Deborah: Anthony could still file a motion to dismiss at the next scheduled “arraignment”, as she told him on the last show.
Randy: There is nothing to dismiss. Charge the court with abusive process. The court has claimed authority to appear but has no subject matter jurisdiction because he hasn’t been accused of a crime. Move the court to disqualify itself. Tomorrow’s show will be about due process.
1:05:10
Melissa (TX) received a call from a law firm about six thousand dollars in speeding tickets. They wanted her to pay by phone [huh?].
Eddie: I know this law firm. They are a private debt collection law firm that falsifies information. They are trying to extort money. Get Mike Mirras’ program.
Deborah: Don’t argue about the debt. This is about something else.
Melissa: These tickets date from 2003, 2005, and 2006.
Eddie: Then they are too old to collect on (due to the 2-year statute of limitations) if they’ve never taken you to trial for them. However, if they issued a warrant, it’s probably still out there (locally, not state-wide). If the officer didn’t file out a complaint, there should not be an arrest warrant.
1:20:35
Carolynn (TX) answered a joint discovery case management in her federal mortgage lawsuit. The other party also filed an answer and is pressuring her to sign, but she has problems with their answers.
Randy: Federal lawsuits require joint discovery case management so that the parties can figure out how much time to allot to discovery, etc. Just deny their answer, as they will do to yours.
1:27:10
Brian (MN) just purchased JurisDictionary. He is calling back about his illegal search & seizure case in April. He wants to know about Miranda.
Randy: Miranda only comes into play if the police questioned you prior to reading you your rights and then tried to bring your testimony from that into court. Other information subsequent to that initial questioning is irrelevant to the Miranda ruling.
What crime did the policeman think you committed when he stopped you?
Deborah: Stealing a vehicle because he had dirty fingernails. It was ridiculous.
Brian: What’s a good strategy?
Randy: Civil case of false imprisonment. Send tort letter to city council/major. 60-day minimum prior to lawsuit usually. Identify the police department in the Monelle sense: the officer acted per department policy.
1:45:20
Marshall (OR) asks a thought-provoking question regarding how “commerce” is defined in traffic law. For instance, say someone has a landscaping business and a truck with that type of equipment in the back. Is that commerce?
Randy: Only if you are on the clock while driving.
Marshall: How about someone paid to haul debris away?
Randy: You’re being paid to remove the debris off of the property and nothing else. Where you take it is irrelevant to the client.
Marshall: In any case, don’t I have a right to engage in a business without a license?
Eddie: Yes. It depends upon whether the business affects the public’s health and safety.
Marshall: Who gets to define “public health and safety”?
Eddie and Deborah: There is no right to do business on the roadways, which are paid for by the public. You are profiting at someone’s expense and adding wear-and-tear to the road surface. [NOTE: This damage to the road surface is principally due to the weight of the vehicle and pressure in the tires. And it is an exponential effect.] That is not a right. You may travel to go from A to B however, just like every other member of the public. That is the purpose of the roadways, long recognized by the courts. One is a right, the other is a privilege. Thus businesses can be regulated. So if the business/trade only occurs at the business at the terminus of one’s travel on the roadways, there is no business taking place on the roads. Transporting passengers and/or goods for hire is engaging in business.
Eddie: If you are operating under the auspices of a corporation, you would then be engaged in commerce: for instance, someone engaged in hauling lumber to a building site while working as the agent of a corporation.
Randy: I have concerns about this line of reasoning. The commerce occurs when he gets to the building site and drops off the lumber. If they are only getting paid to build the building, the transporting of the lumber is only a cost. The corporation does not profit from that activity. Same as a farmer taking goods to market.
Eddie: That’s two different things. One is a human being. The other is a corporation, that is, a privileged entity. Everything the corporation [“creature of the State”] does is privileged activity.
More on this in another ROL show. Stayed tuned.