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

FW: Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense

Expand Messages
  • Patrick McKEE
    “Redemption” & other PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY strike again. In FACT it appears to me that he did almost everything BUT address the REAL ISSUES such as the agency
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 8, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      “Redemption” & other PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY strike again.

       

      In FACT it appears to me that he did almost everything BUT address the REAL ISSUES such as the agency charged with PRIMARY JURISDICTION of violations of the Texas TRANSPORTATION CODE, the LAWFUL APPLICATION of the provisions in question & ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS of law.

       

      “Prior to trial, Gray filed several motions with the trial court. These motions were based in part on various representations that Gray had made in a document that he styled an “Affidavit of Truth.” In the affidavit, Gray contends that he is “not the person, ‘JUSTIN WAYNE GRAY,’ named on any papers submitted in this case,” but instead “is a living, flesh and blood son of God by the Christian name of Justin Wayne Gray.” Gray also referred to himself throughout his pleadings as a “sovereign man” and a “sovereign political power holder.” Characterizing the criminal case against him as a lawsuit filed against a sovereign, Gray asserted that he has no contract or agreement with the State of Texas or Travis County, “is not a party of the body politic or corporate,” and “has not joined in the above captioned suit.” Gray also filed a document styled “Motions to Dismiss,” in which Gray listed several reasons why he believed the case should be dismissed or the evidence suppressed, including “failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop,” failure of the State to “invoke jurisdiction,” “failure to obtain and correct the true name of the Defendant,” “failure to explain the nature and cause of the accusation,” and a claim that his arrest violated the war powers clause of the United States Constitution. Other motions and documents filed by Gray asserted that the case should be dismissed by “default” based on the failure of the State to respond to Gray’s motions and pleadings. The trial court denied all of Gray’s motions.”  Justin Wayne Gray v. The State of Texas .  TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN, NO. 03-09-00408-CR (2010)

       

      http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/tx-sovereign.pdf

       

      And given the FACT that he was stopped for SPEEDING, I wonder WHAT the court would have done IF PRE-TRIAL he had DENIED being “engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire” & given the court NOTICE of the statutory authority for the SPEED SIGNS.

       

      § 201.904. SPEED SIGNS.  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 semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses). Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

      http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.006.00.000201.00.htm#201.904.00

       

      Patrick in California

       

      Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

       

      "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus


      From: Larry Becraft [mailto:becraft@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:25 PM
      To: Lex_Rex@yahoogroups.com; TheAmericanRepublic @yahoogroups.com; LibertyTree@yahoogroups.com; THINKERSROUNDTABLE_GROUP@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense

       


      http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3254.asp

      Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense
      Texas Appeals Court rules that a person cannot escape a traffic ticket by asserting that one is a sovereign.

      It is not a defense to a speeding ticket to claim that you are sovereign, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled last month. Austin Police Officer Tammy Barrett had pulled over Justin Wayne Gray after he passed through a school zone while allegedly driving 44 MPH in a 20 zone on December 4, 2008. When Barrett asked Gray for his license and registration, his response was unusual.

      "I am Texas Republican sovereignty," Gray said. "I do not recognize this as a legal traffic stop."

      Gray then handed Barrett a piece of paper with his name and date of birth. Barrett verified this information and found that Gray's driver's license had been suspended. Barrett then arrested Gray. Before the trial, Gray filed an "Affidavit of Truth" that asserted he was a "sovereign man" and "a living, flesh and blood son of God by the Christian name of Justin Wayne Gray." As a sovereign, he argued that the state of Texas had no jurisdiction to put him on trial. A Travis County jury found Gray guilty, and Judge Carlos Humberto Barrera sentenced him to 45 days in jail and a $250 fine. On appeal, Justice Bob Pemberton found no merit in Gray's argument.

      "Gray characterizes himself as a sovereign exempt from the laws of this state," Pemberton wrote. "We disagree. A 'person,' as that term is defined by statute, means an individual, corporation, or association. An 'individual' means a human being who is alive. Gray is a person subject to the laws of this state. We overrule Gray's third issue."

      The appeals court also found that Barrett had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop. Once stopped, the arrest for driving on a suspended license was justified because Gray's license was, in fact, suspended at the time of the stop. The court overruled Gray's objection to the use of his name which was misspelled in court documents as "JUSTIN WADE GRADY." Gray insisted that the all-capital letters could not apply to him because only the initial letters of his name are capitalized.

      "The record reflects that at the beginning of the proceedings, the state misspelled Gray's middle and last names in the manner indicated above," Pemberton wrote. "However, Gray brought the misspelling to the attention of the trial court and the misspelling was subsequently corrected. The amended information, jury charge, and judgment of conviction all reflect the correct spelling of Gray's name.... We affirm the judgment of the trial court."

      A copy of the decision is available in an 85k PDF file at the source link below.

      Source: Gray v. Texas (Court of Appeal, State of Texas , 8/18/2010)

    • Frog Farmer
      ... What s a mother to do?! ... Some people like their new argument, that they got at last Friday night s meeting, so well that they just cannot wait to try it
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 8, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Patrick McKEE wrote:

        > "Redemption" & other PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY strike again.

        What's a mother to do?!

        > In FACT it appears to me that he did almost everything BUT address the
        > REAL ISSUES such as the agency charged with PRIMARY JURISDICTION of
        > violations of the Texas TRANSPORTATION CODE, the LAWFUL APPLICATION of
        > the provisions in question & ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS of law.

        Some people like their new argument, that they got at last Friday
        night's meeting, so well that they just cannot wait to try it out! So
        they skip over most of what should come first. I see lots of reasons
        for this guy to lose, and I wanted him to win!

        > "Prior to trial, Gray filed several motions with the trial court.

        Motions grant jurisdiction. Too bad. Next...

        > These motions were based in part on various representations that Gray
        > had made in a document that he styled an "Affidavit of Truth."

        Is that opposed to an "Affidavit of Untruth"? None of the "redemption
        people" I've met can explain that choice of redundancy for me.

        > In the
        > affidavit, Gray contends that he is "not the person, 'JUSTIN WAYNE
        > GRAY,' named on any papers submitted in this case," but instead "is a
        > living, flesh and blood son of God by the Christian name of Justin
        > Wayne Gray."

        Then why is he there? If the accused was "JOHN SMITH" should we expect
        to see every John Smith in the phone directory show up to say it is not
        them in the complaint?!

        > Gray also referred to himself throughout his pleadings as
        > a "sovereign man" and a "sovereign political power holder."

        Too late. And odds are, a skilled questioner could get him to disprove
        it in five minutes or less.

        > Characterizing the criminal case against him as a lawsuit filed
        > against a sovereign, Gray asserted that he has no contract or
        > agreement with the State of Texas or Travis County, "is not a party of
        > the body politic or corporate," and "has not joined in the above
        > captioned suit."

        Making a motion constitutes a general appearance.

        > Gray also filed a document styled "Motions to
        > Dismiss,"

        ...Which admits that there IS a "case" TO dismiss, another BIG MISTAKE.

        > in which Gray listed several reasons why he believed the
        > case should be dismissed or the evidence suppressed, including
        > "failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop,"

        Did he pull over himself, or did they make a felony stop? Did he demand
        to go immediately to a magistrate? I bet I know the true answers.

        > failure of
        > the State to "invoke jurisdiction," "failure to obtain and correct the
        > true name of the Defendant," "failure to explain the nature and cause
        > of the accusation," and a claim that his arrest violated the war
        > powers clause of the United States Constitution. Other motions and
        > documents filed by Gray asserted that the case should be dismissed by
        > "default" based on the failure of the State to respond to Gray's
        > motions and pleadings. The trial court denied all of Gray's motions."
        > Justin Wayne Gray v. The State of Texas. TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS,
        > THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN, NO. 03-09-00408-CR (2010)

        Now people will use this to attack any topic touched upon by Gray. So
        if anyone were to raise his loss to me in explaining why I should lose,
        I'd have to point out that he was a moron or imbecile and at worst I am
        an idiot clown. Big difference!

        Regards,

        FF

        P.S.:

        > Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense
        > Texas Appeals Court rules that a person cannot escape a traffic ticket
        > by asserting that one is a sovereign.

        This is why the Pope doesn't drive himself around!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.