Evans, Ralph Kenneth ( 2015 )

'76, 3Lf5 J -(JL
This document contains some RECEIVED IN
Cou:tffiges that ar~ of P?or quali&OURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
.. Criminal Appeals al the time of tmagmg.
201 E 14th St, Austin, TX 78701 MAY 06 2015
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus/\\~ a A ~ Cl
. C h
Th 1s ourt as J ur1s · d'1ct1on
· . n~uSun~ICOStal ' ewk
to h ear th'1s petl·tlon
pursuant to The Federal Constitution and Art 5
Section 5 (c), Art 1 Sec. 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 27 and 29
Texas Constitution and has the duty to do so.
This petition is brought before this court for just cause and crime against me
and denial of my right to liberty and travel, including Fraud, False imprison,
Armed Kidnapping, using false and bogus citations 5949, 5960 and 08907 still
pending in Grand Saline Texas Corporation administrative Court without
Jurisdiction criminal conversion of true name into a corporate legal person,
denial of a 7th amendment trial, denying me the right to travel on the public
road in the State Of Texas. Policy enforcement officer Burns claiming I had to
have a Drivers license before I can travel on the public the runs through the
Corp city of Grand Saline of the "the State of Texas" has make two false arrest
the present one was on may 2nd 2015 he took me to the Sheriffs commercial
Jail and placed me in prison with out arrest authority or jurisdiction with the
only jurisdiction of officers of corporations which is not me.
Policy enforce officer Burns stopped me again on May 2, 20 15 while I was
traveling on U.S. Highway 80 in Grand Saline and claimed he had two warrants
for my arrest for failure to appear. I told him he did not have any lawful
warrants for my arrest he ignored me. I told him and did appear and I had
witnesses. He put me in irons and took me to jail. I ask him has he look at the
evidence in the court showing there were no such license in "the State of Texas"
as a drivers license in "the State of Texas" and the speed signs were for
commercial drivers hauling people and goods for hire. He ignored that also. It is
evident that Burns is using his office for highway robbery with the aid of the
officers of the city court and the city counsel to bring in funds for the city. It is
also evident no fair trial can be had in the city court. The last thing Burns said
to me at the jail was that he was going to arrest me every time I come to his
town for not having a license.
I could go on with this petition and bore the court telling it something it knows.
Instead I petition the court to issue this writ and put a permanent restraining
order on all the agents of the corporate city of Grand Saline, Texas from
violating my rights and denying due process. Also I petition this court to revoke
all licenses of all parties that are a -party to this matter and award any other
'tutio the court dee air· ·. d just·q _ ~ ~
.r- "' · ··~ ~ Non-resident S~aJ:· ,.
An no a corporate legal person or capi -!Jtu;~. legal fiction. _,,' :.;~ ·'· · ''
Mail location: 171 private Road 5710
Hold for Ralph-Kenneth Grand Saline, Texas (near 75140)
,,
, ..... ..
--.I"J - )..
Certificate of Service
This petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Document mark I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, included
mailed to Criminal Appeals Court 201 E 14th St, Austin, TX 78701 by certified
mail with return receipt requested this 4th day of May 2015.
By me,
Mark
/
l124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she
has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act,
the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449
U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v.
Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
The about would apply to any officer of the State that took the
on-resident
Seal:
ocation: 171 private Road
Hold for Ralph-Kenneth Grand Saline, Texas (near 75140)
Copy to Grand Saline Texas Mayor and City Counsel by private
,._'
cj}/fL
Document in support of Writ Habeas
Corpus
Right to Travel
In order to understand the correct application of the laws frights in question, we
must define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many
terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus
resulting in the misapplication oflawsjrights in the instant case.
The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and "used for commercial purposes" on the
highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or
cargo.
The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for
any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Unites States Code chapter 18 Section 31

Driver- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with
horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street
railroad car.
Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of
skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are
responsible.
Bouviers law dictionary ( 1856)
"Highway" includes any state or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley,
driveway, parkway or place, under the control of the state or any political subdivision of the
state, dedicated, appropriated or opened to public travel or other use;(40)
"Driver" means any person who drives, operates or is in physical control of a commercial
motor vehicle, or who is required to hold a commercial driver's license;(25)
chapter 246 section 14-1
Sec. 14-12f. Provisions inapplicable to certain vehicles. The provisions of sections 14-
12b, 14-12c, 14-213b and 38a-364 shall not apply to any private passenger motor vehicle
registered to the federal government or any state or municipality or any such vehicle bearing
dealer, repairer, manufacturer, transporter, experimental or junk number plates.

CT vehicle code
i •
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage,
used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:
"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general
sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being
reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of
business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added]
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p. 717.
"Travel-- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go
from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train,
an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make ajourney."
Century Dictionary, p.2034.
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from
one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or
"traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place
to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the
purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
Clearly shown, driving and traveling are two different things as well as the difference
between a regular vehicle and one noted as a motor vehicle as one involves commercial use
for private gain and the other does not. Many users of the public roads use it for their place
of private gain. Such fields as taxi drivers, tow truck drivers, and many other transportation
services that lawfully must register and insure their motor vehicle as well as obtain a drivers
license.
"Where a term has two meanings differing in the degree merely, it is to be understood in
the larger sense wherever it occurs unless it appears to have been used in the narrower
sense, by some form of direct expression, or from the context, the nature of the subject
matter, or the res gestae."
Miller v. Miller (1867) 33 Cal. 353, 355.
"A state cannot impose restrictions on the acceptance of a license that will deprive the
licensee of his constitutional rights".
Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d. 325, 144 A.L.R. 839
2
•
Since we understand the definitions from above, it is important to get into some cited
court cases on traveling and/ or other rights:
·CONNECTICUT COURT CASE:
The constitutional right to travel from one State to another ... occupies a position
fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly
established and repeatedly recognized .
. . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been
suggested, is [p631] that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a
necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event,
freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right
under the Constitution.
Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification
for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is
constitutionally impermissible. If a law has
no other purpose ... than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those
who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.
United States u. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968).
(Supreme court case quoted in case)
Shapiro v. Thompson (No. 9) 394 U.S. 618
Argued: May 1, 1968
Decided: April 21, 1969
Other United States Supreme and State Superior Court Cases on the topic:
"The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which ipdividuals must
submit personal information to the DMV (the operation of motor vehicles) is itself
3
.•
integrally related to interstate commerce."
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000, United States Supreme Court
Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing,
intelligent acts done with a sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences.
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S. Ct. 1463 (1970)
"The people shall have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common
good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for the redress of
grievances"
Constitution of the State of California, Article 1, Section 10
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may
prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579. United States Supreme Court
To further reinforce the rights vs. privilege argument, there is also this case which ruled
that a "right" cannot be converted to a "privilege":
"No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License of Fee for the exercise
of the Right" Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 373 U.S. 262
United States Supreme Court
"If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that Right, the Citizen
may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right with Total Impunity. See
Schuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S 262."
United States Supreme Court
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere
privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot
rightfully be deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 221.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without
due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
4
-·
IKent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right
to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does
not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for
private gain."
Barney'vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon,
in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one
who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a
stagecoach or omnibus."
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who
uses the highway as a place of business? In State vs. City of Spokane, the Court also noted
a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the
latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of
free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th
Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."
Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them."
-Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.·"
-Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
Constitutional rights."
5
1- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no driver's license,
no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is
a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".
The information above has clearly and adequately explained that personal traveling is
a natural right that the DMV or any state/city can not infringe, molest, permit, license,
and/ or deprive a citizen of. However, if I was traveling commercially, I would need the above
mentioned items as I would be "driving" a "motor vehicle." However, in this instance the
traveling is not commercial meaning the traveler is neither an "operator" nor "driver" of a
"mjl~r /ffle" ,/which i~ ~ ~t l)Pf~ required for_ the personallY- traveling citizen.
~~,~~~on-resident Seal/<·''·
Mail location: 171 private Road 5710 ~ . 1: '
Hold for Ralph-Kenneth ~ '."·-- /
Grand Saline, Texas (near 75140) - ·· ·>
~
/ .
6
In the matter of fraudulent claim numbers 5949 and 5950. ·
Notice and warning this act by the U S Congress was enacted in 1934 and signed by the President and
is forever inviolate
Rules Enabling Act, Ch. 651, Pub.L. 73-415,48 Stat 1064, enacted June 19, 1934, 1064
73d CONGEESS. SESS. II. CI-IS. 651, 652. JUNE 19, 1934.
[CHAPTER 651.]
AN ACT
To give the Supreme Court of the United States authority to make and publish
rules in actions at law.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States
shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the district courts of the
United States and for the courts of the District of Columbia, the forms of
process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in civil
actions at law. Said rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the
substantive rights of any litigant. They shall take effect six months after their
promulgation, and thereafter all laws in conOict therewith shall be of no further
force or effect.
SEC. 2. The court may at any time unite the general rules prescribed by it for
eases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil
That in such union
action and procedure for both: Provided, however.
of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law
and declared by the seventh amendment to the Con-
stitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. such
united rules shall not take effect until they shall have been reported to
Congress by the Attorney General at the beginning of a regular session thereof
and until after the close of such session.
Approved, June 19, 1034.
This notice by me
~ ~$-1 ;:!J.,..!~nd not EVANS RALPH
'· .
.,
--
~ -. ... . - . - ..
,' .
·tJ ~' ~.,
Texas courts on driver license
Page- Tex. 401
Claude D.CAMPBELL, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 27245.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 12,1985
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his
operator's license was suspended.The County Court, PanolaCounty, Clifford S. Roe, J., rendered
judgment, and an appeal was taken.The Court of Criminal Appeals, Belcher, C., held that proof that
defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain
allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
1. Automobiles Key 353
Upon a charge of operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while operator's license is
suspended, the state has burden of showing that defendant had been issued an operator's license to
drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway, that such license has been suspended, and that, while
such license was suspended, defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
2. Automobiles Key 352
Proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not
sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
3. Automobiles Key 136
There is in Texas no such license as a "driver'$ license."
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, forthe State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted, in the County Court Panola County, for unlawfully operating- a motor vehicle
upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended, and his punishment was
assessed at a fine of $25.
[1 ]Under such a charge, the state wasunder the burden of showing that there had been issued an
operator's license to appellant to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway;that such license had
been suspended;and that,whilesuchlicensewas atsuspended, appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a
public highway.
To meet this requirement, the state here relies upon testimony that appellant drove his pick-up truck
upon a public highway in Panola County, on the date alleged, and that he drove said motor vehicle
while his license was suspended
Page - Tex. 402
[2, 3]"This proof is insufficient to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information
because a driver's license is not an operator's license.We have held that there is no such license as a
driver's license known to our law.Hassell v. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400; Holloway v.
State, 155 Tex. Crim. 484, 237 S.W.2d 303; and Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317.
Proof of the driving of an automobile while the driver's license was suspended does not sustain the
allegations of the information.The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment
is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.
Page- 360 Tex.
Frank John CALLAS, Appellant,
V.
STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 30094.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 7.1959.
Prosecution for driving motor vehicle on public road after operator's license had been suspended. The
County Court at Law, Potter County, Mary Lou Robinson, J., entered judgment of conviction and
defendant appealed.The Court of Criminal Appeals, Woodley, J., held that where testimony showed
that only two persons were in or around truck at time defendant was apprehended and patrolman
testified that the other person was not the driver of truck, and largely upon this testimony jury found
defendant guilty, and after jury retired police officer filed complaint charging other person with driving
motor vehicle with violation of restrictions imposed on his operator's license and such other person
was convicted upon his plea of guilty, defendant's motion for new trial setting forth conviction of such
other person should have been granted in order that defendant might have the benefit of evidence
regarding conviction of other party in another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Criminal Law Key 938(1)
In prosecution for driving after operator's license had been suspended where testimony showed that
there were only two persons including defendant in or around truck at time patrolman reached it and
patrolman testified that other person was not driving panel truck, and after jury retired patrolman filed
complaint charging other party with driving motor vehicle and he was convicteduponhispleaof
guilty, defendant's motion for new trial should have been granted in order that he might, in another
trial, have the benefit of evidence regarding conviction of other party .Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 6687b,
§ 1 (n).
McCarthy, Rose & Haynes, Amarillo,for appellant.
Lon Moser, County Atty., E. S. Carter, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Amarillo, State's Atty., Austin, for the
State.
WOODLEY, Judge.
The complaint and information allege that appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public road "after
the Texas Operator's License of the said Frank John Callas had ***been suspended" and further
alleged that appellant had received an extended period, of suspension "of said Texas Operator's
License*** "and that said suspension had not expired.
We have searched the record carefully and find no evidence that the license which had been
suspended was a Texas Operator's License, as alleged in the information.
If appellant was driving a motor vehicle, it was a panel truck used as a commercial vehicle in
appellant's business, the appropriate license for its operation being a Commercial Operator's License,
and not an Operator's License.See Art. 6687b. Sec. I (n), Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.
This Court has held that there is no such license known to Texas law as a "driver's license".See
Hassell v. State, 149 Tex. Cr.R. 333, 194S.W.2d400; Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546, 258 S.W.2d
317.
There were but two persons in or around the panel truck. One was Walter Schaff, who was seated in
the driver's seat when the patrolmen reached it. Patrolman Kirkwood testified that Schaff was not
. .
driving the panel truck, and largely upon his testimony the jury found that appellant was the driver.
After the jury retired, Officer Kirkwood filed complaint charging Schaff with driving [Page- Tex 361] a
motor vehicle in violation of restrictions imposed in his operator's license. Information was presented
by the County Attorney and Schaff was convicted upon his plea of guilty.
Appellant's motion for new trial setting forth the conviction of Schaff after the close of the evidence on
appellant's trial should have been granted in order that upon another trial appellant might have the
benefit of the evidence regarding the conviction of Schaff.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is granted; our former opinion herein affirming the judgment is
withdrawn, and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded
Page-Tex.317
BROOKS v. STATE.
No. 26458.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 27, 1953
From a judgment rendered by the County Court, Culberson County, defendant appealed.The Court of
Criminal Appeals, Belcher, C. held that information, charging defendant with driving a motor vehicle
upon a public highway while his "driver's license" was suspended, charged no offense.
Reversed with directions.
Automobiles Key 351
Information, charging defendant with driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his "driver's
license" was suspended, charged no offense. Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 6687b, § 27.
George W. Walker, Van Horn, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted for the violation of Art. 6687b, § 27, V.A.R.C.S.; and his punishment was
assessed at a fine of $50.
The information upon which this conviction was predicated alleged that appellant "did then and there
unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle upon a public [Page- Tex. 318] highway, to-wit: U. S.
Highway Number 80, situated within said county and state, while his, the said Keith Brook's, drivers
license was suspended."
In Hassell v. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400, 401, we said:
"There being no such license as a 'driver's' license known to the law, it follows that the information, in
charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without such a license, charges no
offense." See also Holloway v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 237 S.W.2d 303.
Because the information fails to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution
ordered dismissed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
Page Tex. 400
HASSELL v. STATE.
No. 23353.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 15,
1. Automobiles Key 137
Under Drivers' License Act it is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a motor vehicle over a
highway of Texas without having a license, either as an operator, a commercial operator or a
chauffeur, but one holding a license as a commercial operator or chauffeur is not required to have an
operator's license.Vernon's Ann.Civ. St. art. 6687b, §§2,3,44.
2. Automobiles Key 351
Information alleging that defendant operated a motor vehicle upon public highway without a "driver's
license" charged no offense under Drivers' License Act, since a driver's license is not known to the
law because the act only authorizes issuance of operators' commercial operators' and chauffeurs'
license and use of term "driver" interchangeably with term "operator" would not be authorized in view
of definition in the act of term driver as meaning every person who drives or is in actual physical
possession of a vehicle. Vernon's Ann.Civ. St. art. 6687b, §§ 2, 3, 44.
Commissioners' Decision.
Appeal from Hunt County Court; Wm. C. Parker, Judge.
W. Lee Hassell was convicted of operating a motor vehicle upon a highway without a license, and he
appeals.
Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.
G. C. Harris, of Greenville, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The conviction is for operating a motor vehicle upon a highway without a license; thepunishment, a
fine of $50.
By what is commonly referred to as the Drivers' License Act, and appearing as Art. 6687b of Vernon's
Annotated Civil Statutes, the Legislature of this State provided for the licensing of operators of motor
vehicles over the public highways of this State. Sec. 2 of Article II of the Act reads as follows:
"Drivers must have license.
"(a) No person, except those hereinafter expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a
highway in this State unless such person has a valid license as an operator, a commercial operator,
or a chauffeur under the provisions of this Act.
"(b) Any person holding a valid chauffeur's or commercial operator's license hereunder need not
procure an operator's license.
"(c) No person holding an operator's, commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license duly issued under
the provisions of this Act shall be required to obtain any license for the operation of a motor vehicle
from any other State authority or department.Subsection (c) of Section 4 of Article 911A and
Subsection (b) of Section 4 of Article 9118, Revised Civil Statutes, is hereby repealed."
Sec. 44 of Art. VI of the Act provides the penalty .for the violation.
Page Tex. 401
[1 ]It is by these statutes made unlawful for any person to drive or operate a motor vehicle over a
highway of this State withouthaving a license, either asan "operator," a "commercial operator," or a
"chauffeur."One holding a license as a "commercial operator" or "chauffeur" is not required to have an
"operator's" license.
Certain exemptions and exceptions from the operation of the Act are provided in Sec. 3 of Art. II
thereof.
. .
The information upon which this conviction was predicated alleged that appellant "did then and there
unlawfully operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway, to wit. State Highway No. 24, without a
Driver's License."
It is insisted that the information charges no offense, because a "driver's license" is neither
recognized nor authorized to be issued under the Act and, by reason thereof, it constitutes no offense
to drive a motor vehicle without such a license.
[2]0nly three types of licenses are authorizedorrequiredundertheAct. These are "operators,"
"commercial operators," and "chauffeurs," and they are specially defined in the Act.The term
"driver"--as used in the Act-is defined to be: "Every person who drives or is iri actual physical
control of a vehicle."ln view of this particular definition of the term "driver," it cannot be said that such
term may be used interchangeably with or given the same meaning as the term "operator."
There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in
charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without such a license, charges no
offense.
Because of the defect in the information, the judgment is reversed and prosecution ordered
dismissed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court
of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
MORE:
City ofPoway v. City of San Diego (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 847,280 Cal.Rptr. 368
~ Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court ofNevada 542 U.S. 177, (2004)
.,:!: Brown v. Texas EXCERPT
~1 UNITED STATES v SALINAS 940 F.2d 392
. .
Texas Transportation Code - Section 201.904.
Speed Signs
Texas Transportation Code- Section 201.904. 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.
r • •• ,..
To: Dan Flynn Texas House member
When can I expect the common law court to be open again that was closed by Bar Card
attorneys since you have sworn an oath to uphold law it is the duty of the Texas
legislature to make sure all courts are open See Texas "bill of Rights" Art 1 Sec 13 and
15 Texas Constitution. I have a right to be tried by common law in a common law court ..
See attached 1934 act of the federal congress. Proof that I have the right to be tried in
common law. To deny me that Right has denied me remedy and justice and allows the
fraud artist attorneys to continue with their extortion using fraudulent commercial
document and fraudulent commercial process without venue or jurisdiction Closing the
common-law court is an unlawful act no court in Texas has jurisdiction to do so. When a
judge or court moves without jurisdiction it is an act of treason. The state agents
criminally convert my name to a all capital letter corporate fictional name fraudulently
and is not harmless error. Then they use capital letter corporate fictional fraudulent name
to service the crime victim.
November 8, 2014 the Grand Saline a for profit Corporation sent out their revenue agents
(Police) to arrest me and issue a unlawful tax citation by criminally converting my name
to a corporate fiction. Then on November 13, 2014 sent me a notice of a pre-trial hearing
set for hearing for a difference fraudulent fictional corporate person then was on the
fraudulent tax collector (Police policy enforcement officer's) tax citation and affidavit. At
the hearing there was no one present except a woman with a side arm and a Commercial
agent attorney claim to be the prosecutor no judge no plaintiff no grand jury indictment
no contract and no damage party. It was evident he was acting as judge plaintiff grand
jury without any type of contract or damage party. I attempted to talk to him that no law
had been violated by me. He did not want to listen. He said he was going to give me a
trial and I ask him what would happen if I didn't show for the fictional actor. He said he
would issue a warrant for my arrest. It further evident he is using because I said so law
which is criminal abuse, oppression and rights violation.
The courts have ruled many time "There is in Texas no such license as driver's License"
Art 6687b sec 3(c) is evidence that the courts have correctly ruled.
Texas Transportation code Section 201.904 define whom the speed sign on the highways
and roads and it is commercial vehicles.
11
Therefore since the i amendment Court has been unlawfully close by agents ofthe
commercial bar assoc. this House and Senate must move to reopen the Art 5 sec 15 Court
11
mandated by the Texas Constitution and the i amendment court mandated by the
federal constitution as mandated by Art 1 Sec 13 and 15 of the Texas constitution which
of you ~~ok an oath o;d. 14th da..y fNove~er 2014 Seal·.,·····_
~ Non-resident ....
-
\' ·.
~...
• :. I 1
,..: ·,' , .......
::: ;:. .;
Mail ocation: 171 private Road 5710 ·.: f '\' ,-
Hold for Ralph-Kenneth
Grand Saline, Texas (near 75140)
Private delivery this 14th day ofNovember 2014 to Dan Flynn office Canton Texas. -- ,.
Art. 5 Sec. 14
Sec. 14 . .JUROR QUALIFICATIONS. (a) The legislature shall
prescribe by law the qualifications of grand jurors and petit jurors.
(b) The legislature shall enact laws to exclude from serving on juries
persons who have been convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery. or other
high crimes. (Added Nov. 6, 2001.)
TEMPORARY TRANSITION PROVISION.~
Sec. 15. COUNTY COURT; COUNTY JUDGE. There shall be
established in each county in this State a Colinty Court, which shall be a
court of record;