RE: [tips_and_tricks] FW: Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense
- 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 theSome people like their new argument, that they got at last Friday
> 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.
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 GrayIs that opposed to an "Affidavit of Untruth"? None of the "redemption
> had made in a document that he styled an "Affidavit of Truth."
people" I've met can explain that choice of redundancy for me.
> In theThen why is he there? If the accused was "JOHN SMITH" should we expect
> 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."
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 asToo late. And odds are, a skilled questioner could get him to disprove
> a "sovereign man" and a "sovereign political power holder."
it in five minutes or less.
> Characterizing the criminal case against him as a lawsuit filedMaking a motion constitutes a general appearance.
> 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...Which admits that there IS a "case" TO dismiss, another BIG MISTAKE.
> in which Gray listed several reasons why he believed theDid he pull over himself, or did they make a felony stop? Did he demand
> case should be dismissed or the evidence suppressed, including
> "failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop,"
to go immediately to a magistrate? I bet I know the true answers.
> failure ofNow people will use this to attack any topic touched upon by Gray. So
> 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)
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!
> Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen DefenseThis is why the Pope doesn't drive himself around!
> Texas Appeals Court rules that a person cannot escape a traffic ticket
> by asserting that one is a sovereign.