|
Legal Documents
7 March A.D. 2009
My pre-trial-de-novo appeal is docketed as No. 08-1096.
That petition for cert will be denied in about two months.
Harmon
UPDATED 01/29/09
Notice of the Mandate
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Mandate_Ntc.pdf
Mandate from the state
appellate court. http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Mandate.pdf
My letter of today to them and to the list of cc:
recipients regarding that Mandate and the current status of the case
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Letter_Status.pdf
CCA ruling of "refused" regarding my
petition for
discretionary review. I have 90 days from that date to file my
petition
for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which date is 24
February
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Pet_Refused.pdf
Update: Regarding the habeas
29 December A.D. 2008
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/habeas.htm
Collateral Order Doctrine appeal from the COUNTY
COURT AT LAW OF WALKER COUNTY
Case No. 07-1392APPELLANT’S BRIEF
pdf/02_Brief208CR.pdf
Re: The outrageous delay in submitting the PDR to
the CCA regarding
TAYLOR v. STATE, No. 10-08-00208-CR, from
County Court at Law of Walker County, No. 07-1392, STATE v. TAYLOR
pdf/01_Clerk04.pdf
TAYLOR’S APPLICATION FOR
A PRE-TRIAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
pdf/03_habeas_dc_hlt.pdf
TAYLOR’S APPLICATION FOR
A PRE-TRIAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
pdf/04_habeas_cc_hlt.pdf
Click on pic to
enlarge
On Petition for Discretionary Review of the Judgment of the
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS in
No. 10-08-00208-CR
Dismissing the
COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE appeal from the
COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF WALKER COUNTY
Case No. 07-1392
pdf/05_StatusRpt01.pdf
TAYLOR’S FIRST MOTION
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
pdf/06_mDisc.pdf
TAYLOR’S VERIFIED MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY
pdf/07_mShowAuth.pdf
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
pdf/08_petDR_Col_Ord_Doc.pdf
ExD401 Click on picture to enlarge
TAYLOR'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE and FIRST MOTION TO DISMISS
pdf/ExD402.pdf
Art. 45.018. Complaint [Justice and Municipal Courts]
pdf/ExD404.pdf
JUDGMENT COURT ORDER pdf/ExD405.pdf
Texas Transportation Code pdf/ExD408.pdf
Texas Transportation Code Ex. D-409
Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND;CRIMINAL
PENALTY pdf/ExD409.pdf
JURY TRIAL pdf/ExD410.jpg
ORDER
SETTING COURT APPEARANCE
pdf/ExD411.pdf
TAYLOR'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE,
MOTION TO STRIKE OR RENAME 17 OCTOBER SETTING
FIRST MOTION TO DISMISS and
FIRST MOTION TO QUASH pdf/ExD412.pdf
RE: Offense Appeal - No Driver's License
pdf/ExD413.jpg
CASE RESET FORM pdf/ExD414.jpg
Confirming Docket Call of 6 Feb 2008
pdf/ExD415.pdf
CASE RESET FORM pdf/ExD417.jpg
ORDER
SETTING COURT APPEARANCE
pdf/ExD418.pdf
TAYLOR’S FIRST MOTION
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
pdf/ExD419_mDisc.pdf
Additional Driver's License Cases:
;11 March A.D. 2009
It will be interesting to learn how many other communities treat
traffic ticket recipients this way.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/DueProcessAffid.pdf
Apparently Muscogee County, Georgia didn't listen very well when
the issue of criminal violation of rights came up during the Clinton
administration.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/muscogeecomp.php
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/muscogeesa.php |
The Objective and The Deadline.
by Harmon Taylor:
Having been harassed unmercifully by the judicial system, in the face of
my motive and intent to protect THEIR interests in the matter and to
mitigate THEIR damages, I have made it my goal to get all "no driver's
license" "laws" off the books in all 54 (or is it now 55?) "states" on
or before 31 October 2010. No one should have to go through what I've
been through, and if all that the "judges" can do is abuse the people
trying to work WITH them on solving these types of issues, then to heck
with them! If they want to engage "political power play" games instead
of applying the law equally and uniformly, then let them be on the
receiving end of a few political power plays so as to adjust their
attitudes, perspectives, and demeanors.
About case cites regarding the "right to
travel," there's a change in
"choice of law" about 1965.
Let's talk "funny money" really briefly. With Money (gold and
silver
Coin), the "choice of law" is the Law of the Land. With "funny
money,"
the "choice of law" is necessarily the Law of the Sea, because
"funny
money" is fraud (actually, it's worse; it's Treason) under the
Law of
the Land.
"We" still had Law of the Land after the gold was sucked out of
the
system, because we still had silver in general circulation.
However,
after they assassinated Kennedy, they sucked the silver out of
circulation, as well, which change Kennedy adamantly opposed.
It was
either 1965 or 1969 when the silver was finally sucked out of
the
system, but at that instant, the fundamental "choice of law"
changed
from Law of the Land to Law of the Sea. To take 1965 as the
year of
transition, America went to bed 31 December 1964 under a Law of
the Land system, and woke up 1 January 1965 on the deck of a
barge anchored in the middle of the Rhine River in Germany,
i.e., under a Law of the Sea system.
In that change is a very material change in all of these
"license"
issues. Once the Law of the Sea system started, ALL commerce
became "fair game" for regulation. Thus, the way we approach
"right to travel" under a Law of the Sea system is a little
different from the way we approach it under a Law of the Land
system. Under a Law of the Land system, we can argue "law."
This is where the vast, vast, vast majority of the patriot
community is still stuck, namely arguing "law." That fails in
the Law of the Sea system, because the Law of the Sea system
operates "federally," as in "by private obligation."
So, what you see in my materials isn't argument on "legal"
points, but
rather argument on "commercial nexus" points. To argue the
"law" is
basically to confess the existence of the agreement, which is
about all
that matters. It's NOT all that matters, but it's about 90% of
it. So,
where my materials and approaches are different, it's in the
focus on
getting to the bottom line on the basis for that obligation.
Either
there's an agreement to be enforced or there isn't. Since I
have no
license, there is already no agreement, and STATE's burden to
prove a
commercial nexus is impossible.
Said another way, "driving," or "operating," is commercial
activity.
And, commercial activity is all that any STATE may regulate. No
STATE may regulate "travel," which is, by definition,
non-commercial. All that any STATE may regulate is "commerce."
Thus, for there to be basis for any STATE participation /
regulation, there must first be an
agreement for STATE to enforce. You'll note on the "ticket"
that the
"Commercial vehicle" box is left unchecked. Thus, there was a
confession at the time of the issuance of the "ticket" that
there was no
commercial activity going on. There being no commercial
activity at
issue, there is no authority for STATE to regulate anything.
To compel anyone to engage in commerce is a violation of
rights. To
compel anyone to agree to any particular "choice of law" is a
violation
of rights. But, the biggie is compelled political / religious
association with STATE OF TEXAS. No "driver's license" is used
solely for purposes of engaging in commerce. It's FAR more
frequently used as an "ID Card." I am not a member of "church
of STATE OF TEXAS," and I don't WANT to be a member of "church
of STATE OF TEXAS." That system exists to deny and defy my
God. So, the most fundamental problem STATE has by compelling
ANYONE to get a "driver's license," especially under threat of
criminal prosecution, is that of compelled political / religious
affiliation.
At the end of the day, just be very sensitive to the dates of
the
judicial opinions. Things changed dramatically when the
"Uniform
Commercial Code" came into existence. The key thing that
language does is justify the "funny money" system, which runs on
a Law of the Sea system, because it'd be fraud (and worse) under
the Law of the Land. The Uniform Commercial Code would not
exist if we had a legitimate Money system; so, it's existence is
just one more confession that we have an illegitimate "funny
money" system, thus a Law of the Sea system. Throwing "law" at
the "licensing" issue used to work. But, we can't throw "law"
at it, now. We're dealing with a "moving target," not a
"static target." As the choice of law changes, the target's
size, shape, and location changes. Now, we're not dealing with
"law." We're
dealing instead with "Monte Hall's 'Let's Make A Deal!'" Thus,
for any
"licensing" issue, either there's an agreement or there isn't.
"Federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national," and it
most
certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means
"federal." At
the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact," or "by
treaty."
At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private
obligation."
At the end of the day, we KNOW we're finally "getting it" when
the motto is no longer, "Show me the law!" and is, instead,
"Show me the agreement!"
Click picture below to
enlarge
Click Picture above to
enlarge
Click Picture below to
enlarge
Click Picture above to
enlarge
Click Picture below to
enlarge
Click Picture above to
enlarge
More will be added as soon as it will become
available....Bookmark this page. |
