What a waste of time and effort

[Demosthenes]

Nacogdoches man ready to go to jail over his traffic tickets
By MATTHEW STOFF
The Daily Sentinel Monday
December 01, 2008

With his legal documents neatly typed and ready since 1999, Eddie Craig is just waiting to be arrested.

A local business owner with no formal legal training, Craig has studied the law on his own for 15 years, preparing arguments for his case, a rebellion against tyranny and injustice that began earlier this month in municipal court.

At 44, Craig has no driver's license, but still drives a blue 1991 Ford Crown Victoria, which has no license plates, no registration, no insurance and a broken brake light. For these reasons, Nacogdoches police officers issued Craig ordinary citations in December 2007 and again in January of this year.

But Craig's case is anything but ordinary. Instead of paying his tickets
- about $910 in fines for the first one - Craig filed a lengthy affidavit in municipal court denying that any crime had been committed and challenging the standing of the court to prosecute him. There, and in subsequent filings, all researched and authored on his own, Craig cited legal sources like the Magna Carta, the state constitutions of Texas and Arizona and countless subsections of state law and administrative code, all of which he believes supports his case.

Craig objects to nearly every facet of the justice system, from the lack of court reporters in the municipal court, to summonses delivered by mail instead of by hand, to judges whose salaries are paid by the city - an unconscionable conflict of interest, Craig says. But Craig's case really hinges on his worry that government has strayed too far from its original purpose, assuming powers it was never supposed to exact over citizens of a free republic.

"I am trying to be left alone," Craig said. "I want the right to travel from place to place without harassment. I want the right to use my property for its intended purpose without harassment. I want my right to not have to pay fees to anyone for the right to use my property. It's really that simple. We can't be a nation of free people if we're not really free."

ARGUING THE LAW

Explaining his position, Craig shifts his tone rapidly, espousing philosophical platitudes one moment and pedantic readings of the law the next. His most grounded legal theory centers around the principle of "corpus delicti," a Latin phrase meaning "body of the crime."

Citing old Supreme Court rulings invoking the phrase, Craig says that the government must prove that he intended to commit harm in order to convict him. "I'm not accused of harming anyone. Therefore the state has no standing to bring the case," he said.

But Ron Beal, a professor of law at Baylor University, who studies Texas administrative law, disagrees.

"All corpus delicti means in modern times is that you must prove that he actually committed the crime, not that there was a harm," he said. "We don't have to show that because he didn't have a license he crashed into people. We just have to show that he committed the crime, which has been designated by the state as harm."

Craig does not find this point of view convincing. To him, the driver's license amounts to nothing more than a tax, with no grounding in public safety. "How does a piece of plastic in your pocket protect me?" he said.

Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, which issues the state driver's licenses, offered multiple answers to Craig's question. "If you have a driver's license, that means you've been through some form of skills testing and also have knowledge of the rules of the road. And, of course, if you have a driver's license, it's easier to get insurance, which is absolutely critical," he said. And, Vinger noted, the rules of the road are codified in state law.

Perhaps predictably, Craig disagrees. Beginning with the premise that no free man has authority over any other free man, Craig concludes that the lawmakers also lack the authority to require licenses, insurance or license plates.

"The legislature is one of limited powers delegated by the people,"
Craig said. "If the people do not have that authority individually, they cannot delegate it to their representatives. That would be asinine."

Beal said, however, that such power does exist, explicitly conferred by the Texas and federal constitutions. "Simply put, if the Legislature decides that it's in the public welfare for people not to drive cars without a license, then that is a final determination by the government.
If we don't like it, we have to vote everybody out who was in favor of that and elect people who will take that law away," he said. "When we approved our constitution, we gave the Legislature the police power to regulate us to the degree that we'll tolerate, or we'll vote them out of office."

But Beal's reading of the law is unlikely to deter Craig, who simply rejects the right of the Legislature to rule "by fiat or say so."

When Nacogdoches' Municipal Judge Juanita Springer denied Craig's motion to dismiss the case and set a trial date for Nov. 17, Craig didn't show up. Instead, he is waiting for the police to act on the newly-minted warrant for his arrest.

"When they proceed on it, then the judge is acting on her own authority, as will be the police officer, and the city will get sued," Craig said.

A STAND FOR IDEALS

As he resists the intrusion of government in his life, Craig has emerged as an unlikely kind of agent provocateur, calculating moves he believes will goad the state into acting illegally.

"My purpose here is to get the court to do exactly what they've done, which is violate my rights, violate the law and commit a crime, which they've done in spades," Craig said. "I have looked at this just like it was a game of chess. Here's what the law says they have to do, and everywhere they were supposed to do it and did not, they lost a chess piece."

Springer, who heard Craig's arguments and was unmoved, invited him to appeal her decision to a higher court.

"His motions were not based on any laws that are in place," she said.
"He just was arguing that we had not authority to do certain things that we do have the authority to do."

In her time on the bench, Springer has never heard any arguments like Craig's. She said most people just pay their tickets.

Craig acknowledges that he's making a lot of work for himself. But he has pored over arcane legal texts for more than a decade preparing for this crusade against injustice, and the threat of arrest is no hindrance.

"I became interested because one year I watched the county of Nacogdoches threaten my mom and step-dad with foreclosure on their property for back taxes. For years, I've watched all kinds of law enforcement officers write tickets for no crimes whatsoever, just to take money. And I have gone to court before and watched them railroad people through with no opportunity to defend, no opportunity to do anything other than just pay up or go to jail. That's wrong."

Craig also admits that his fight is an uphill battle. Deep down, he said, he believes he can win his case, set a precedent and earn his "personal liberty." But he's wary of the possibility that some higher court will issue a gag order, keeping his winning legal opinion out of the public's view and the flow of money steadily flowing into state coffers.

"I won't know 'til I get there," Craig said.

ONGOING VIGILANCE

Eddie Craig's fight against the power of government is, of course, only the latest in a long history of civil actions, protests, nation building and wars based on the principles of freedom and justice.

Though he never mentioned any connection to the group, Craig's own brand of rebellion most closely resembles the tactics of the Republic of Texas, a band of radicals, which rejected the 1845 annexation of Texas by the United States. By invoking sections of international law and rules governing treaties, the Republic of Texas questioned the validity of Texas' statehood and denied that federal laws were valid here.
Leaders of the group were jailed in 1997 after they took two "occupiers"
hostage and held them captive at their "embassy."

And while Craig has never demonstrated any propensity for violence, his pugnacious questioning of the law has inspired at least one other man to follow his lead rejecting laws usually embraced by most.

Last year, Michael Sullivan of Pollock filed his own self-authored motion for dismissal for charges that came after he mailed his driver's license back to the Department of Public Safety in protest. After some research, Sullivan found that the Nacogdoches county attorney, Jefferson Davis, had not properly filed his oath of office with the county clerk, which, Sullivan claims, invalidates all his official actions. He is still waiting to hear what will happen in his case.

The volume of reading and hours of work, plus the risk of jail, make it unlikely for most citizens to begin rejecting their traffic tickets on deep, ideological grounds. But if more are inspired to challenge the assumptions of law and society, Craig said it will be a victory for the people, whether the government wins or not.

"It's the people's responsibility to hold them accountable, which is exactly what I'm trying to do."

[LPC]

Instead of paying his tickets - about $910 in fines for the first one - Craig filed a lengthy affidavit in municipal court denying that any crime had been committed and challenging the standing of the court to prosecute him. There, and in subsequent filings, all researched and authored on his own, Craig cited legal sources like the Magna Carta, the state constitutions of Texas and Arizona and countless subsections of state law and administrative code, all of which he believes supports his case.

This reminds me of something I read today about Jeffrey Dickstein.

From United States v. Roy W. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 90 TNT 248-20, No. 90-6077 (10th Cir. 11/27/1990), cert. den. 500 U.S. 920:

[Dickstein's] first filing was an 84-page motion to dismiss, lavishly larded with citations to the Declaration of Independence, colonial history and a plethora of nineteenth century Supreme Court cases.

The trial court's assessment was equally eloquent:

The pleadings filed by Attorney Dickstein in this case signal the Court that permitting his future participation will obscure the issues, engulf the case with frivolity, and deflect the proceedings from their object--the orderly determination whether defendant has broken the law or not. Just as a court need not suffer the testimony of a purported expert witness that the moon is made of green cheese, it need not suffer the serving-up of legal swill by Attorney Dickstein in this case. This is so even if defendant, who recites his approval of Attorney Dickstein's pleadings, likes the recipe.

[grixit]

Heh, larding is the process of adding extra fat to keep a lean cut of meat from drying out while slow roasting. It's appropriate when cooking one's own goose.

As for Craig, has he tried firing the judge and the police chief?

[notorial dissent]

Maybe if he works it right he can share a cell with family: stupid, just thing of all the things they would have in common to complain about. I’m sure he can find something Fed to violate once he’s done with the state stuff.

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] a series of poor choices which has probably landed him in a tiny single wide, or cruddy little shotgun shack in Nagadoches [ . . . ]

Just did a web search, and I haven't located anybody by the name of Eddie, Ed, Eddy or Edward Craig who would own any real estate in Nacogdoches County.

http://www.nacocad.org/

So, it must be a tiny RENTED single wide/shotgun shack.

A real entrepreneur, I bet.

[webhick]

Craig drives a Crown Victoria. This means several things:

• You sit in anything called a Crown and the Queen of England can use a part of your male anatomy for ping pong. If you're not male, well...it's Lady's Choice.
• If you wear a paper crown while driving, you may be subject to gangland hits from Rizzle McDizzle and his Hamburgler homies.
• Cops drive a CV, which makes it the universal symbol for oppression. And donuts.
• The gas tanks explode if you rear-end the vehicle. I love me some big booms.

[Doktor Avalanche]

If he had just prefaced everything he said in court with "I'm from the planet Xognard IV and..." they might have shown some leniency.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Instead of paying his tickets - about $910 in fines for the first one - Craig filed a lengthy affidavit in municipal court denying that any crime had been committed and challenging the standing of the court to prosecute him. There, and in subsequent filings, all researched and authored on his own, Craig cited legal sources like the Magna Carta, the state constitutions of Texas and Arizona and countless subsections of state law and administrative code, all of which he believes supports his case.

This reminds me of something I read today about Jeffrey Dickstein.

From United States v. Roy W. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 90 TNT 248-20, No. 90-6077 (10th Cir. 11/27/1990), cert. den. 500 U.S. 920:

[Dickstein's] first filing was an 84-page motion to dismiss, lavishly larded with citations to the Declaration of Independence, colonial history and a plethora of nineteenth century Supreme Court cases.

The trial court's assessment was equally eloquent:

The pleadings filed by Attorney Dickstein in this case signal the Court that permitting his future participation will obscure the issues, engulf the case with frivolity, and deflect the proceedings from their object--the orderly determination whether defendant has broken the law or not. Just as a court need not suffer the testimony of a purported expert witness that the moon is made of green cheese, it need not suffer the serving-up of legal swill by Attorney Dickstein in this case. This is so even if defendant, who recites his approval of Attorney Dickstein's pleadings, likes the recipe.

The Honorable Bobby Baldock is in contention with what's-his-name...you know, the funny ol' judge that gets off some very good zingers?

[grixit]

I'm reading "Game of Thrones". It was actually further down in the to read pile but now i'm anxious to finish it before i see any spoilers.

[Maltese Falcon]

I called in on this crank's radio show last night, just to mess with him.

http://ruleoflawradio.com/archive/

My call starts at about the 1 hr, 42 minute mark.

Particularly hilarious was his assertion that SCOTUS only uses Bouvier's 1856 law dictionary in its opinions.

Holy lol, that was a frustrating listen. "But that's Mo-tur Vee-hicle Code. Look up Vee-hicle"

Are you going to call back on Friday and slug it out some more? You were pretty good at it, but you should be much more forceful. He's not that good at straw man arguments.

[Randall]

With his legal documents neatly typed and ready since 1999, Eddie Craig is just waiting to be arrested.

Nacogdoches police officers issued Craig ordinary citations in December 2007

It took 8 years for this brilliant legal mind to figure out how to get a ticket?