Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

west,tx jp traffic court documents for educational purposes only

Expand Messages
  • legalbeagaleeagle douwanttotouchthis
    have fun reading Moderator/Bear: I m allowing this to the group in case you don t have some of these quotes. From my point of view this would require much
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 19, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Moderator/Bear: I'm allowing this to the group in case you don't have some of these quotes. From my point of view this would require much modification before I would consider filing it in court.

      CAUSE NO. T2009-5096-J3

      THE STATE OF TEXAS                                 ) (                     IN THE JUSTICE COURT

      VS.                                                                  ) (                                   PRECINCT THREE

      Gary Wayne Owens                                         ) (             MCLENNAN COUNTY , TEXAS

       

      OBJECTION TO ORDER

      NO DUTY OF RESPONDENT TO APPEAR

      LACK OF STANDING TO SUE  

      ADMISTRATIVE DEFAULT BY MINISTERIAL JURIST

      ADMISSION OF GUILT THRU SILENCE OF MINISTERIAL JURIST

      MINISTERIAL JURIST ACTING AS JURIST AND PROSECUTOR

      ESTOPEL BY SILENCE

      FORUM NON CONVIENENT

      LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

      LACK OF PERSONAM JURISDICTION

      VIOLATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

      FRAUD BY THE COURT

      ORDER IS DEFECTIVE

      TELECONFERENCE IS APPLICABLE

      1. Respondent states that he has replied to and has maintained contact with this forum out of respect for the law as required by the dictates of his Christian beliefs and therefore the forum and its representative and or representatives should also respect the statutes that give it the very life that it has and adhere to all the statutes, rules, regulations, customs, duties, ordinances, rules, and precedent case law that has been presented to this alleged competent forum.

      Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.            U.S. V Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 "Because of what appears to be lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

       

      2. Respondent brings this action to this alleged competent styled court and alleged competent styled ministerial jurist and states that this court and its jurist is acting in a manner that is in violation of due process, substantive due process, and or at the bare minimum an  unconstitutional act at best and or all statements by Respondent.

      "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)

       

       

                  3. The ministerial jurist in this above styled court is acting in a manner as a judge and prosecutor in the manner at hand and this court and its ministerial jurist was noticed of Respondent claims to fruits of the poisonous doctrine, profiling of truckers for easy targets to generated revenues for the STATE of TEXAS and its counties to fund their treasuries, violations of the interfering with interstate commerce directly or indirectly pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. 1951 (a) (b), the speedy trial act, perjury, subornation of perjury, extortion under color of law, and that by and thru silence is an admission of guilt and since the ministerial jurist of this court is acting as judge and prosecutor in the matter at hand and has not denied any of the allegations, has admitted to guilt in all the matters that Respondent stated in the first correspondence with this alleged above style competent court and its alleged competent jurist.

      U.S. v. Twell, 550 F2d 297, 299-300 (1977) "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading

                 

      4. This forum and its jurist are creatures of statute and therefore must abide by the statutes and or all statutes the give it life and must abide by them to the letter of the law and or statute and or both, and the ministerial jurist of this forum is acting in a manner inconsistent with the very state statutes that gives it life not limited to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the STATE of TEXAS.

      Judicial notice of law, see Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence §§ 104-128                                                                     Am. Jur. 2d, Courts §§ 147-178 Judicial precedents as binding or persuasive

      Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.

      TEXAS Art 28.061 DISCHARGE FOR DELAY If a motion to set aside an indictment, information, or complaint for failure to provide a speedy trial is sustained, the court shall discharge the defendant. A discharge under this article is a bar to any further prosecution for the offense discharged and for any other offense arising out of the same transaction, other than an offense of a higher grade that the attorney representing the state and prosecuting the offense that was discharged does not have the primary duty to prosecute.

      TITLE 18 U.S.C. 208—SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

       

       

      5. Respondent states that being the District Attorneys office and or its actor, agents, and or employees have not responded to the Respondents previous motions and pleadings and or both and the jurist of this forum is acting as both, and or thru exparte hearing and or hearings and by and thru their silence have estopped themselves and or their entity and or both from trying to prosecute the matter at hand.

       

                  6. Respondent states that in order to have standing for this forum and the STATE of TEXAS to proceed with this matter, that they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent and damages, and that to further prosecute this matter would be abuse of discretion, malicious prosecution, malice aforethought, and abuse of process.

      Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) the requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”

      Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases

       

       

                  7. Respondents states as follows that the STATE of TEXAS does not even recognize a driver’s license and therefore the forum is acting in a manner consistent with fraud by the court when the STATE of TEXAS does not recognize a driver’s license, and therefore the Respondent refers back to paragraph (6) and wonders if this forum is trying to hide a dirty little secret.

      This court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a "driver's license." Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex.Crim 375; 320 S.W.2d 360

      We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law.  Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex.Crim 627; 274 S.W.2d 401                                                                                      Information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law. Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex.Crim 546; 258 S.W.2d 317                                                                                               There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense. W. Lee Hassell v The State, 149 Tex.Crim 333; 194 S.W.2d 400

       

                  8. Therefore, Respondent states that being this forum is acting in a manner inconsistent with the Constitutions of the UNITED STATES and THE STATE of TEXAS and the statutes and precedent case law in the STATE of TEXAS, and this forum has lost subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction in that matter at hand and is in administrative default, the bare minimum and the actions by and thru any and all entities and persons has no claims upon which relief can be granted pursuant to FEDERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE RULE 12.

      Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.

      Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) the requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”

       

       

       

       

       

       

                      9. Furthermore, Respondent is in receipt of notice by the Court Clerk of an  alleged competent order from this alleged competent forum dated at, on, or about June 25, 2010 to appear to this alleged competent forum stating I demanded a jury trial of which Respondent does not deny the demand, but upon the silence, slothfulness, not sending discovery requests that were initiated to the alleged competent jurist of this forum several months ago, and or outright ignorance of the alleged competent jurist of this forum and or the ignorance of the prosecuting attorneys office there’s collusion to disregard Respondents due process and or substantive due process and or both, so therefore there’s nothing the alleged competent jurist can do but to dismiss the matter by administrative default and any actions that would be taken against Respondent would be inconsistent with constitutional rights in this matter and Respondent refers back to paragraph (6).

      Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."

      Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.

      Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

       

       

                      10. Teleconference is applicable and convenient to the Respondent in this matter if this alleged competent jurist of this alleged competent forum will do teleconference, but also be informed that it will be recorded and even if the Respondent were to appear in person there will be a court reporter for all matters in this issue to document all the proceedings in this matter.

                                                                                                      Respectfully submitted


      CAUSE NO. T2009-5096-J3

      THE STATE OF TEXAS                                 ) (                     IN THE JUSTICE COURT

      VS.                                                                  ) (                                   PRECINCT THREE

      GARY WAYNE OWENS                               ) (             MCLENNAN COUNTY , TEXAS

      MOTION FOR TELECONFERENCE

                 

       

                  Pursuant to the alleged jurisdiction of this above styled courts ORDER SETTING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE pursuant to Article 28.01 at, in, on, or about 201 North Reagan, in West, Texas on Thursday, the 22nd day of July, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.

       

                  Please note this is not any attempt to delay anything in this matter and or not limited to frustrate matters of this alleged criminal conduct that this above styled court by its own allegations that this above styled court has insinuated in its own correspondences to the Respondent in this matter at hand.

       

                  Please also note this is not attempt to disrespect the law and or statutes and or both and this teleconference will be recorded for accuracy.

       

                  .

                                                                                                      Respectfully submitted

                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                      dated this day 7/19/2010

       

      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                      This is to certify that at, on, or about 7/19/2010 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing motion for teleconference or continuance was faxed to the clerk of the court and above styled court and its jurist


       CAUSE NO. T2009-5096-J3

      THE STATE OF TEXAS                                 ) (                     IN THE JUSTICE COURT

      VS.                                                                  ) (                                   PRECINCT THREE

      Gary Wayne Owens                                         ) (             MCLENNAN COUNTY , TEXAS

       

      ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS CAUSE OF ACTION

      BY DEFAULT AND WITH PREJUDICE

       

      To the above named Plaintiff:

                  You are ordered to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to lack of claim upon which relief cannot be granted, default, silence, and the speedy trial act incorporated in Respondents claims in pleadings and motions and or both.

                  Entered this 22nd day of July, 2010

       

                                                                              

                                                                              Justice of the Peace


      CAUSE NO. T2009-5096-J3

      THE STATE OF TEXAS                                 ) (                     IN THE JUSTICE COURT

      VS.                                                                  ) (                                   PRECINCT THREE

      Gary Wayne Owens                                         ) (             MCLENNAN COUNTY , TEXAS

      The Clerk of the court, will you please enter any and all documents pertaining to the above styled court and the above styled and numbered alleged cause of action for judicial review and or inquiry and or both pursuant to this case and authority:

      15A Am. Jur.2d "Clerks of Court" § 23 and 21 C.J.S. § 251: It is the official duty of the clerk of a court to file all papers in a cause presented by the parties, and to endorse the correct date of the filing thereon. It is the duty of the clerk of the court, in the absence of instructions from the court to the contrary, to accept for filing any paper presented to him, provided such paper is not scurrilous or obscene, is properly prepared, and is accompanied by the requisite filing fee. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by statute, the duty of the clerk of court to file papers presented to him is purely ministerial and he may not refuse to perform such duty except upon order of the court. When the statute requires the clerk of court to file all papers delivered to him to be filed, he is not concerned with the merit of the papers or with their effect and interpretation. The clerk has no discretion in the matter of filing papers recognized by law as properly belonging in the record of causes. It is not for the clerk to inquire into the purposes or contents of such papers, or into the circumstances giving rise to them or attending their preparation. The power to make any decision as to the propriety of any paper submitted, or as to the right of a person to file such paper, is vested in the court, not the clerk. However, where a statute makes it the duty of the clerk of court to file a particular document, a judge is without authority to interfere with such filing. (15A Am. Jur.2d "Clerks of Court" § 23, Filing of Papers). Clerks of court should file all legal papers tendered and as a rule are not concerned with their merits. (C.J.S. § 21 Filing of Papers 251)

       

      TEXAS Sec. 37.09 TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:

      (1)     alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding; or

      (2)     makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.

      (2) (c)  An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is a felony of the third degree, unless the thing altered, destroyed, or concealed is a human corpse, in which case the offense is a felony of the second degree. An offense under Subsection (d) (2) is a Class A misdemeanor.

       

      Respectfully submitted

      Dated this day 7/19/2010

       

       

      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                      This is to certify that at, on, or about 7/19/2010 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing motion for teleconference, and objection faxed to the clerk of the court and above styled court and its jurist

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       




      Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.
    • Michael
      ... As one who is famiiliar with how to plead, and coming from a fact pleading state, the only modification I could make is hitting the delete button. Cheers!
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 19, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        > Moderator/Bear: I'm allowing this to the group in case
        > you don't have some of these quotes. From my point of
        > view this would require much modification before I would
        > consider filing it in court.

        As one who is famiiliar with how to plead, and coming from
        a fact pleading state, the only modification I could make
        is hitting the delete button.

        Cheers!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.