8964 Version 1.003 12/23/07. Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com 888 476 8954
Debunking the PNJ myth of an Administrative Prerequisite to Criminal Prosecution of a Traffic Ticket.
Lawyerdude’s Specific rebuttal to Royce E Mitchell’s completely erroneous Texas ticket template.
This is the 3rd time in as many years that I have filed a formal rebuttal to a mistake made by Royce. This time he did as he usually does. He blocked my messages and called me names rather than attempt to support his unsupportable position. Royce claims that his defective motion has won 3 times but he fails to provide any verifiable details such as name, date, address, etc.
Copyright: Attorney Douglas Palaschak 2007.
This document is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8964.html
Related documents:
This page is almost an orphan.
Toward the creation of a new category of mental illness entitled "PNJ Syndrome" and. . . Debunking the PNJ myth that there are no article III courts. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7274.html
Wikipedia discusses Administrative Law but not its boundaries: Google for “Administrative Law wiki”
Steiner case including 26 USC 7701 definition of “include” : http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/steiner.html
How to win your traffic ticket case: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7260.html
Superb motion to quash by Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.html and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.pdf and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.wpd
Motion 101: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html
Here, take a peek at my book: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8457.html
Briefs/ motions re right2drive: Google for it or 15 are linked here: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
Debunking the PNJ myth that there is an administrative prerequisite to prosecution in traffic court: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8964.html
Top Ten Methods of Analysis: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5521.html and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5521.html
How to analyze a story and identify PNJ drivel: Http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8209.html
Debunking PNJ myths - Attorney Larry Becraft publishes excellent debunking pages on the net.
There are several places where logical fallacies are discussed. One is Reed's textbook called "legal drafting" published by West Publishing.
Www.Quatloos.com has a wealth of data about Dorean group fraud and prosecution.
The Anti Defamation League debunks.
Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center debunks.
Lesson: Once again a PNJ has made the mistake of the wrong definition of the word “includes” In particular Royce mistakenly argued that by statutorily including a path to court the Administrative Procedures Act precluded other paths to court. This issue of definition is resolved by (1) the dictionary; (2) 26 USC 7701, that section of the Internal Revenue Code that defines the word “includes” ; and (3) the Steiner case where the Supreme Court defined “includes” .
Lesson: There is no prerequisite of an administrative decision before a ticket goes to trial! The better argument is the usurpation of the prosecutorial function such as the motion at this hyperlink: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.html and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.pdf and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.wpd
Lesson: Administrative law and Criminal Law are mutually exclusive. All administrative law is always strictly only Executive Branch; the purpose is to save overwhelming supervisory work by the legislative branch that created the various administrative agencies. Tickets are always strictly only Judicial Branch. Codes contain both administrative and penal provisions. The penal provisions are handled in the judicial branch using the criminal rules honed over 1000 years and partly recalled in our various state and federal bills of rights. Royce may or may not learn this lesson today. Lawyerdude took an elective called “Administrative Law 101" in Law School. I don’t know if Royce studied Administrative Law 101. Professors who teach that course often emphasize procedure within the agencies. They neglect to emphasize the boundaries. Royce’s motion sucks for this reason; he was then uneducated in that important subject of the law, to wit: the boundaries between the administration of criminal law and the administration of administrative law. Royce’s motion sucks; The better motion is the Motion to Quash. One is hyperlinked here: : http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.html and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.pdf and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8909.wpd
Today’s Lesson and Lecture: The limitations/ boundaries between Administrative Law and Criminal Law. They are two separate universes even though their provisions be contained in the same Transportation Code, Business and Professions Code, or Health and Safety Code.
The prosecution of crimes is the exclusive province of the duly elected prosecutor. This is so basic. We see it on Law and Order. More specifically, for those who have not watched it, here is how every show begins:
"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."
Traffic codes penal provisions are all criminal and never administrative. All crimes are prosecuted by the duly elected prosecutor.
Royce apparently does not understand that the Vehicle code contains some sections that pertain to the executive/ administrative branch and some sections that pertain to the judicial branch.
Those sections that define crimes are the subject of judicial branch adjudication. The various Administrative Procedures Acts use the word “adjudication”. To the untrained this can be confusing. The adjudication describe in the various APA s are not judicial branch trials.
Cyril’s similar mistake: 11410.10. This chapter applies to a decision by an agency “ Cyril mistakenly thought that the ticket was a decision by an agency. Mistake. The ticket is accusatory instrument, a basis for prosecution in a court of law, not a decision by an agency. http://www.fu.gq.nu/6974.pdf is Cyril’s motion.
Highlights of this lesson:
Lawyerdude Analysis: List of Key Cases and Statutes cited herein:
26 USC 7701: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=7701 1 26 USC 7701 . . . (c) Includes and including: The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. 2
United States v. Herrera , __ F.3d __ 05-3057, 10th Federal Circuit, Kansas. Apr. 19, 2006. Successful argument: Not a commercial vehicle. Search and Seizure (Administrative Automobile Inventory Search -Mistake of Fact - Exclusionary Rule - Good Faith Exception Inapplicable) . A Kansas state trooper pulled over defendant's pickup truck to conduct a random commercial vehicle safety inspection pursuant to a state regulatory statute. Defendant's pickup, however, was not a commercial vehicle subject to such random inspections, about which the trooper was mistaken. The defendant was unable to produce proof of insurance, and the trooper arrested him. The trooper then conducted an inventory search, and discovered 23 kilograms of cocaine. The defendant was charged federally with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He filed a motion to suppress, that was denied. He was convicted, and appealed. Held: Conviction reversed and case dismissed. Ruled: The traffic stop was not based on probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, and was not a valid administrative stop because defendant's pickup was not a commercial vehicle subject to random safety inspections . Hence, the warrantless stop was unconstitutional. Moreover, the trooper's mistaken belief concerning the statutory regulatory scheme did not save the stop, search, and seizure because the trooper had no lawful authority to make the random inspection and there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Thus, the good-faith exception did not apply. 1
United States v. Steiner (9th Cir. 1992) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/steiner.html 1 963 F.2d 381. : "Steiner also argued that
the word 'includes,' which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court's jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument
has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164
(1985), in which this court held that the word 'includes' is one of expansion, not limitation." See also: 26 USC 7701 “. . . (c)
Includes and including: The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be
deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”
2
Lawyerdude’s Specific rebuttal to Royce E Mitchell’s completely erroneous Texas ticket template.
Royce submitted his template and claimed it in message # 38446. The following motion is totally funked. It is typical PNJ drivel. Aside from bad style, the motion is fundamentally erroneous in theory. The motion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitations of (1) administrative law and (2) the commerce clause.
1 The argument should be labeled in the caption and in the first paragraph. Don’t keep the judge wondering.
2 Stop defining words and terms. We speak English.
3 Start inserting quotations from statutes, cases, and constitutions.
4 Make some lists/ tables of statutes and cases.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
LD says: All caps sucks.
Fundamental error. This court has subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases of this magnitude. Granted, the court lacks jurisdiction to review an agency determination in this case. Yes. However, the court has original jurisdiction in criminal case which this ticket is. Fundamental logical error. You repeat this mistake nearly verbatim a half dozen times in this shitty brief.
Defendant asks the court to dismiss plaintiff’s suit.
No. You have the cart before the horse.
A. Introduction Brainless.
1. Plaintiff is THE STATE OF TEXAS, hereinafter "Texas;"
This marks you as an idiot. First, we know from the caption who the players are. Second, it is a fiction called “The People of the state of Texas” The prosecutor originally stepped in for the dead person. Now he steps in carte blanche.
defendant is ___________________, hereinafter "I," "me," "my," or "mine". I am appearing by motion as agreed on the citation.
The is standard PNJ drivel. We know what “me” means, dumbass.
2. Plaintiff sued defendant for "Speeding."
Nope. Some cop gave you a ticket. Nobody sued anybody. Also “sue” is the wrong word. “Accuse” is the right word.
Unless and until a valid complaint is properly filed, I will assume that the charge was intended to be violating Texas Transportation Code Section 545.351, MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
Never use all caps. There is no need to assume, dumbass. It is written on the ticket and it would be written in the caption.
B. Facts
3. On ______________, 200__, I was arrested by officer _____________, hereinafter "__________," I.D. NO. ___________, who claimed that I was "speeding," to wit "driving" ___ in a ___ mile per hour zone. Without admitting of any probable cause to believe that my family automobile was Texas’ motor vehicle, or a commercial vehicle made the subject of the Texas Highway Department speed limit signs [Texas Transportation Code §201.904], or that I was the "person" made the subject of the statutes in question, _________________ charged me as indicated supra.
You would not be arrested.
Stop quibbling over the definition of a motor vehicle. It includes your car, dumbass.
The “commercial vehicle” argument is inapplicable for your car. The word “family” is stupid. You have the same rights whether you are in a “family” or not.
The Texas speed limit signs apply to everybody, dumbass.
As to the “commercial” argument, it is better applied using the commerce clause. See, for example, some of the 15 right2drive briefs that I have listed and hyperlinked here: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
4. To this date, no agency hearing by the Texas Department of Public Safety has been conducted or even scheduled with 10 days notice as is required by law.
Wrong twice:
1 No agency determination is required. Agency hearing is not a prerequisite to criminal prosecution, dumbass.
2 If there were a law requiring it, then here would be a good place to quote that fucking law, dumbass.
have not waived my right to any agency hearing and determination.
C. Argument & Authorities
5. I am entitled to procedural due process of law in accordance with Article the Fourteenth (1868) of the Constitution for the united States of America (1787) and in accordance with Article 1, Sec. 13, of the Texas Constitution, Texas Bill of Rights.
Hey dumbass, you missed the 2 main ones: Criminal provisions of the U.S. bill of rights; (2) criminal provisions of the Texas Bill of Rights. Quote them, dumbass.
Your key error: “ 6. This case is a contested case within the meaning of the Texas Government Code, 2001.003. DEFINITIONS, which states: “
"In this chapter:"
Your key error: “ (1) "Contested case" means a proceeding, including a ratemaking or licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are to be determined by a state agency after an opportunity for adjudicative hearing. “
(Emphasis mine throughout.)
Only a judge or jury can impose the criminal punishment contemplated in a traffic ticket. An administrative tribunal has no authority to punish you. They could take your license but they cannot impose a criminal punishment.
This is the heart of your mistake. This speeding ticket is not a case withing the meaning of 2001.003. The ticket is not about ratemaking; it is an accusation of crime. You err in your false conclusion that this or any criminal proceeding is the type of issue for an administrative hearing. Here is court application of a principle “commercial vehicle” issue somewhat akin to the principle to which you allude:
United States v. Herrera , __ F.3d __ 05-3057 (10th
Cir. (Kansas.) Apr. 19, 2006). (Not a commercial vehicle.)
Search and Seizure (Administrative Automobile Inventory
Search -Mistake of Fact - Exclusionary Rule - Good Faith
Exception Inapplicable) .
A Kansas state trooper pulled over defendant's pickup truck
to conduct a random commercial vehicle safety inspection
pursuant to a state regulatory statute. Defendant's pickup,
however, was not a commercial vehicle subject to such random
inspections, about which the trooper was mistaken. The
defendant was unable to produce proof of insurance, and
the trooper arrested him. The trooper then conducted an
inventory search, and discovered 23 kilograms of cocaine. The
defendant was charged federally with possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute. He filed a motion to suppress,
that was denied. He was convicted, and appealed. Held:
Conviction reversed and case dismissed. Ruled: The traffic
stop was not based on probable cause, or reasonable
suspicion, and was not a valid administrative stop because
defendant's pickup was not a commercial vehicle subject to
random safety inspections . Hence, the warrantless stop
was unconstitutional. Moreover, the trooper's mistaken
belief concerning the statutory regulatory scheme did not
save the stop, search, and seizure because the trooper
had no lawful authority to make the random inspection and
there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Thus,
the good-faith exception did not apply.
7. Texas, via its agent, ____________, claims that I am required to comply with the posted speed limit signs and that I must comply with those statutes which require commercial vehicles to be operated within the posted speed limits. I deny that allegation. Instead, I assert that a family automobile is not a motor vehicle, or commercial vehicle within the definitions of the Transportation Code, and was not envisioned as being the subject intended by the legislators who passed these statutes into law. Moreover, I maintain that I am not the "person" defined in the Texas Code Construction Act, Sec. 311, or in the Texas Transportation Code, §541.001. Therefore, since my legal rights to travel and to property are at issue, I am entitled to an administrative hearing prior to any judicial action on this matter. Texas Government Code, §2001.051. Opportunity for Hearing and Participation; Notice of Hearing states as follows:
"In a contested case, each party is entitled to an opportunity:
"(1) for hearing after reasonable notice of not less than 10 days; and
"(2) to respond and to present evidence and argument on each issue involved in the case."
8. Administrative hearings, where created by law, are included in my right to procedural due process of law.
9. The City of __________________ Police Department is attempting to enforce statutes of the Texas Transportation Code against me as the agent of Texas in this case and hence falls within the administrative control of Texas’ Public Safety Commission [Texas Government Code, Department of Public Safety, Local Cooperation, §411.009].
10. The statute I am apparently accused of violating is found in the Texas Transportation Code, §545.351.
The heart of your error:” 11. The Texas Transportation Code is administered by the Texas Public Safety Commission, an agency of THE STATE OF TEXAS, plaintiff in this case. “ This is slopping thinking. It contains several mistakes:
1 Any peace officer can enforce the penal provisions of the Transportation code. Similarly any peace officer can enforce the Penal provisions of the Business and Professions code that makes it a crime to practice law without a license. You fail to realize that all contains both administrative and penal provisions - even the penal code.
The Texas Transportation Code, §411.001. Definitions states as follows:
"In this chapter:
(1) "Commission" means the Public Safety Commission.
(2) "Department" means the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas.
(3) "Director" means the public safety director."
12. Moreover, the Texas Transportation Code, §411.004. Duties and Powers of (Public Safety) Commission, states as follows:
"The commission shall:
(1) formulate plans and policies for:
(A) enforcement of state criminal, traffic, and safety laws;"
13. The Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS") is an agency of Texas. The Texas Government Code, §411.002 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, states as follows: "(a) The Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas is an agency of the state to enforce the laws protecting the public safety and provide for the prevention and detection of crime." The Public Safety Commission controls the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas [DPS], Texas Government Code, §411.003.
14. The Texas Public Safety Commission and DPS are subject to the Texas Government Code, §2001.001. Purpose, which states as follows: "It is the public policy of the state through this chapter to:
(1) provide minimum standards of uniform practice and procedure for state agencies;
(2) provide for public participation in the rulemaking process; and
(3) restate the law of judicial review of state agency action."
Not relevant.
15. Where rights are affected, an agency hearing is mandated by law
LD says: And where my criminal rights are affected, an agency hearing does not afford adequate protections and that is why the ticket directs me to appear at a criminal court.
and said hearing is one which I am entitled to receive (Texas Government Code, §2001.051, supra). Unalienable rights to travel and to property are affected by the actions of Texas in this case. See Texas Government Code, 2001.003, supra. I have not waived my right to any agency hearing and determination.
The government code pertains to matters other than penal provisions. This ticket is pursuant to a penal provision of the code. Penal provisions trigger higher standards of due process. That is why you are sent to a criminal court.
16. Texas has had neither its agent who is charged with enforcing the Texas Transportation Code, the Texas Public Safety Commission, nor the DPS, to notify me of any agency hearing to this date with respect to the actions of its agent in this matter. Ten days notice is required before any hearing can be conducted (Texas Government Code, §2001.051, supra).
17. All administrative hearings are conducted by an administrative law judge. The courts are specifically excluded from adjudication of traffic laws by exclusion from being administrative law courts empowered to conduct administrative hearings. The Texas Government Code, §2001.003. Definitions defines a state agency as follows:
"(7) "State agency" means a state officer, board, commission, or department with statewide jurisdiction that makes rules or determines contested cases. The term includes the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of determining contested cases. The term does not include:
(A) a state agency wholly financed by federal money;
(B) the legislature;
(C) the courts;
(D) the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission; or
(E) an institution of higher education."
Not relevant. This pertains to administrative law. Administrative law and Criminal Law are mutually exclusive.
18. This court is not an administrative law court but is a judicial branch court established under the Texas Constitution, Art. 5, Sec. 1, or by virtue of empowerment as a political subdivision of the State of Texas via its city charter. In either event, this court is not an administrative agency court as is provided by the Texas Administrative Procedures Act, Texas Government Code, Section 2001.
LD says: True.
Aha. Another fatal error: 19. The judicial courts are only empowered to review final agency determinations, LD says: Judicial courts are empowered to review final agency determinations and original criminal prosecutions. This ticket is the latter.
and specifically, a Travis County District Court, not a City of ______________, Texas, Municipal Court. The Texas Government Code, §2001.171. JUDICIAL REVIEW, states as follows:
"A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within a state agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter."
LD says: If the department had, for example, sent you a notice that a $10,000 hazardous waste fee had been assessed on your car, then you would contest that administratively. By comparison, penal provisions are adjudicated in criminal court.
Texas has not exhausted any of its administrative remedies, much less all of them.
Good joke. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a policy designed to exhaust the individual human, not the agency. Granted there are cases where the agency was precluded from acting prior to exhaustion but none of those were criminal cases. The penal provisions are administered in criminal court.
20. The Texas Government Code, §2001.176. PETITION INITIATING JUDICIAL REVIEW, states as follows:
"(a) A person initiates judicial review in a contested case by filing a petition not later than the 30th day after the date on which the decision that is the subject of complaint is final and appealable. (b) Unless otherwise provided by statute:
(1) the petition must be filed in a Travis County district court;"
21. Texas has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted because it has failed to follow its own procedures that require an agency hearing and determination prior to any judicial review of its determination.
22. There is no final agency determination in the record because no agency hearing has been conducted. Without that determination, there is nothing for the court to consider.
23. Without a final agency determination, no court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. In any event, this court never has jurisdiction to hear a contested case under Texas adminstrative law.
24. Without jurisdiction, any action taken by the judge in this matter—with the exception of dismissal—would be in complete absence of jurisdiction and not merely in excess of jurisdiction.
25. Without jurisdiction, and since there is no provision by which the defects in this case can be corrected by the plaintiff, the judge has no choice but to dismiss this matter with prejudice.
26. I am attaching my affidavit to this motion to establish facts not apparent from the record and incorporate them by reference.
D. Conclusion
LD says: All of the above is irrelevant. Although a judicial court reviews a final agency determination, this same court also has original jurisdiction in all criminal cases including cases arising from the penal provisions of the Transportation code and all other codes such as the Business and Professions code.
27. I was charged with violating ______________ of the Texas Transportation Code.
Key mistake by Royce: “Texas has an agency charged with enforcement of the Texas Transportation Code. LD says: Whoops. Superfluity does not vitiate! The code may have listed agencies but the code does not limit enforcement to these agencies. In addition to the agencies mentioned in the code, all peace officers can enforce all penal provisions. Indeed any citizen can enforce all penal code provisions using the various methods of either a citizen’s arrest or by complaint to the duly elected/ appointed prosecutor.
That agency is subject to the Texas Administrative Procedures Act.
Fatal error: The Texas Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency hearing and final determination prior to judicial action. LD says: Error! There is an independent path to court. The courts have original jurisdiction in criminal matters including the penal provisions of the state bar act, the transportation code, the health and welfare code, and every state code.
LD says: Important Logical Fallacy. The statute defines a path to court. Royce mistakenly presumes this to be the only path to court. This is a variation of the logical fallacy employed widely by PNJ regarding tax laws. The code says “For purposes of this code the word “state” includes the District of Columbia. The PNJ say “The code only pertains to the District of Columbia.” Section 7701 of the tax code specifically defines “include” and so does the dictionary. A similar logical fallacy was put forth and rejected by the 9th circuit in the Steiner case. Here is 26 USC 7701: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=7701 26 USC 7701 . . . (c) Includes and including: The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Here is the pertinent quote from Steiner case: "Steiner also argued that the word 'includes,' which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court's jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word 'includes' is one of expansion, not limitation." United States v. Steiner (9th Cir. 1992) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/steiner.html 963 F.2d 381.
Royce continues:
No agency hearing or determination is in the record because no hearing has been conducted.
The courts do not have jurisdiction to make agency determinations, only to review them. Without an agency determination, no court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. Error: This is a fundamental logical error. Path A has an administrative prerequisite. Path B has no such prerequisite. Path B is the original jurisdiction in all criminal cases.
28. Therefore, Texas has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted. Because there is no claim, this case must be dismissed. Because there is, and can be, no jurisdiction in any court without an administrative determination on the record, and because the only judicial court review mandated by law is in the Travis County, Texas, District Court, this case must be dismissed with prejudice.
LD says: Texas is not seeking relief.
If the prosecutor files a case then he will be speaking on behalf of an imaginary victim fictitiously named “The People of Texas” or some such similar fictional name. He formerly spoke for the dead victim until now when then courts realize the value of making you pay your victim. They have invented a victim.
Nonetheless they have original jurisdiction if the prosecutor so elects.
If he has not filed a paper then file a Motion to Quash.
E. Prayer
There is no prayer in a criminal defense motion.
29. For these reasons, I ask the court to sustain my motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction and enter a final judgment dismissing Texas’ cause of action with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Why would you respect them?
End of the motion.
Royce digs himself in deeper with additional logical fallacies:
Royce says: You claim that tickets fall under the penal provisions. They do not. Traffic tickets fall under the Transportation Code in Texas. The Penal Code is a separate code and contains its own provisions.
LD says: This is the heart of your ignorance. The penal code is not the sole location of penal provisions, dumbass. Example: California drug laws are in the Health and Safety code. They are enforced by the police. You fail to realize that most codes contain penal provisions. Penal provisions are enforced by police in courts of law. The other provisions are administrative. A speeding ticket is a memorialization of your having committed a crime. You fail to realize that a code is merely a collection of laws arranged for your convenience. The law says clearly that including a statute in a code does not change its meaning. You have made a big mistake here. As I explained clearly: A code contains both administrative provisions and penal provisions. Your transportation code is no different. The penal code provisions are enforceable by all peace officers and by all citizens via a complaint to the prosecutor.
Royce says: That particular motion has won every time used, and I used it at least three times. If I was wrong, I would have lost.
LD says: Wrong. In traffic court many motions simply go unrebutted.
LD says: Also, you have provided no verifiable names, dates, phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, etc. to prove that the motion was ever filed by anybody anywhere.
Royce says erroneously : My filings win; yours do not.
LD says: Oh, I must have missed it. Please publish the verifiable data pertaining to this motion having won. I publish several web pages with verified details of my winnings. You have not posted one single verifiable winning motion.
Royce says: Whether I choose to use all caps in a title is not relevant.
LD says: It marks you as weak on writing style.
Royce says: I told you before to look at the difference between concurrent and primary jurisdiction.
LD says: “Go look there” is no kind of argument. What is your point? Can you back up your point?
Royce says: Traffic/transportation codes were written to regulate traffic/transportation. All Traffic and transportation is commercial. Only commercial vehicles may be regulated. Private cars cannot be regulated..
LD says: Wrong. All cars are regulated.
And yet another round:
LD said: Royce's error: In the Government Code the phrase "Contested case" does not refer to a trial in a traffic ticket case. This is standard PNJ practice: Use the wrong definition. Take the word out of context. Specifically: Texas Government code section 2001.003 states: "In this chapter: "(1) "Contested case" means a proceeding, including a ratemaking or licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are to be determined by a state agency after an opportunity for adjudicative hearing." The words must be taken in context. They could readily have said “trial in a traffic ticket case” but they did not. They are talking about something different than your criminal rights! They are establishing a remedy for you in case the agency makes a mistake in assessing a fee for you license plates. They are not establishing a prerequisite to an original trial in criminal court.
Royce says erroneously: The term "including" did not exclude any proper purpose for an agency hearing. Where you have private property, it is not against any criminal law to use your private property in any way you choose that does not interfere with another's same rights. The Founders did NOT envision a state or federal government with rulers capable of dictating your use of private property. There IS no criminal case.
LD says: U R dead wrong Royce. U cannot escape your logical fallacy. "Including" in the quoted text did indeed exclude a criminal trial ! That is precisely the issue. There is no administrative prerequisite to being prosecuted by the duly elected prosecutor. The penal code does indeed envision infringing on your rights, but only within the format of your full panoply of criminal protections. These criminal rights are not the subject of the Administrative Procedures Act. Administrative Law and Criminal Law are Mutually Exclusive. You are arguing now that you have a right to use you car any way that is not harmful including speeding. However, that is not what you argued in your motion, so let's not digress. You got a ticket. That's a criminal case.