Home | Cause | Timeline | Criminal| Civil | Resolution | Final Judgments | Constitutional Right | Links

October 7, 2014

Dear Honorable Members of the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence

I am here to testify on interim charge 2 regarding;

      1. criminal offenses outside of the penal code,

      2. ambiguities in the law

      3. mens Rae

      4. and the Rule of Lenity

The best way to help you here is to tell you of my personal experience with criminal jurisprudence on our Land of Texas. I was a Real Estate Broker and through great sacrifice, hard work, and long hours I built a business. I, and my business, served the public and created jobs for over 5 years. I built my business into one of the largest brokerages in Houston with 21 full time agents. In one day my business, my career, and my life were destroyed by those who act in the name of the State of Texas.

As any licensed to practice law has a duty to know, the question of mens rae is immaterial and irrelevant if there is no Actus Reus. To translate from ancient Latin to present day English, the mental state, or intent, of a person is not subject to speculation by the government if there no action at issue that has been established by Law to be a crime. In other words; you do something that is legal, such as a Governor exercising his legal right to veto. A prosecutor cannot then speculate about what the Governor's intent was to make the veto, ex post facto, illegal.

The Law of the Land, known as the Uniform Commercial Code codified in our Texas Business and Commerce Code, secures to the owner of a Checking Account the right to request their bank withhold payment on a check they have written. There are no stipulations in law regarding the reason for the request. In other words; the act of requesting a withholding of payment is not an actus reus that is a criminal offense. Therefore the mens rae, in other words the purpose for requesting the hold, is not subject to speculation by the government. Our Constitution's prohibition against ex post factor law forbids the government from making the act illegal by speculating about the intent, the mental state, the mens rae, of the owner of the account when the asked their bank for to withhold payment.

Even without knowing the UCC or the financial laws of Texas, in the B&C code, it should be obvious to all that requesting a bank to withhold payment on a check is a legal act, protected by Law, and cannot possibly constitute the criminal offense of a theft. Without even getting into the legal elements it is commonly understood that theft is requires (1) a taking of property, and (2) a taking of property that the accused as no right to take. Obviously a request to your bank withhold payment is not a taking as the bank would have to be complicit in the crime if it was. Furthermore it is not you, but the bank, that commits the act of taking if a withholding is to be characterized as such. The bank could disregard your request and then no 'taking' would have occurred. Lastly, to characterize the withholding of payment is to presume the funds in the bank account are the property of the check holder. But any Attorney has a duty to know that title to funds does not transfer by the issuance of a check.

With disregard for our Constitution and Laws the State of Texas, through the hands of the prosecutors through which it acts, accused me of theft because I asked my bank to withhold payment on a check. To avoid the fact that there was no actus rues they put their focus on speculating as to what they thought was my intent, or mens rae, for doing so.

Being the subject of an arrest and charged with a crime of moral turpitude was sufficient to immediately destroy my business. I could no longer serve the public or create jobs through what I had built with a self financed post high school education, sacrifice, investment, and many years of long hours and hard work.

Please see and for more.

Return to Links