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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] FW: Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 2 , Sep 8, 2010
      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.