TN trucker challenges notorious extortion trap: New Boston, Texas
The racket is run along a road fronted by the Texas department of public safety, and pours F$181 fees into city coffers for every bogus ticket written against a truck driver.
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., March 6, 2023 – A Tennessee truck driver is challenging a notorious interstate trap afflicting trucks from every state in the union.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network
The snare is run by New Boston, Texas, city government. The challenger is a bachelor rig operator Michael James, who is doing his own legal work in building a record of abuse, fraud, due process violations and extortion in proceedings still in municipal court at the hand of city court judge.
Mr. James is set for his third hearing in the matter Thursday, March 9, 2023.
It’s in the same Texas city in which county a jury in October 2022 convicted a woman for capital murder who had killed a woman to rip a baby from her womb to call him her own. New Boston is just west of Texarkana, which bigger city is on the Texas-Arkansas line.
Mr. James is waylaid by the New Boston’s “no trucks” extortion trap that involves a sign posted too late for a truck to turn around and not go down a public road delivering travelers to a Wal-Mart facing Interstate 30, an east-west route.
Coming off the interstate, a driver comes onto McCoy, a main drag, and takes an immediate left turn onto James Bowie Drive. This access road leads to several facilities, including Bowie County court officials and the Texas department of public safety, under the noses of which the city operates its racket of long standing.
Fully engaged on James Bowie drive, a driver passes a “no trucks.” sign. The hauler can do nothing but continue on and arrive at the parking lot of the Wal-Mart, where officers await to ticket the driver and operator.
Mr. James passes the sign on a rainy night, 60 feet from the intersection, not having seen it. In the Wal-Mart lot, officer Robert Daniel asks if he had seen the “no trucks” sign, and issues him an unsworn ticket.
The “VCO truck on prohibited street” trap operation is easily settled. Most truckers pay the F$181 fine as the price of doing business, and remember on future trips to make no traffic at the cash registers of the New Boston Wal-Mart.
Mr. James does what other truckers don’t. He arrives in the municipal court to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. He makes two appearances thus far. He files at first a six-page motion to dismiss, and after a second appearance he files a 11-page motion to dismiss with exhaustive analysis of the racket’s janky presentation and lack of legal basis. It’s main grounds: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Both filings are below.
Says a New Boston letter: “You are required to to appear in person at the City Council Chambers *** on or before the aforementioned date, and should you not appear, a failure to appear charge may be filed and a warrant may be issued for your arrest.”
Options for the trucker include guilty (send in the money), not guilty (“You must check trial by judge or trial by jury,” the letter says), and nolo contendere, which is the same as pleading guilty — just pay the F$181.
Standing ground with legal basis
Mr. James chooses an option that is obliquely mentioned in the letter. It states, “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a show cause hearing *** has been scheduled for Thursday, January 12, 2023 *** .”
That’s it — a show cause hearing. Demanding a show cause hearing is Mr. James’ best option, recognizing his legal rights for a show cause hearing, Mr. James contends. And that is making appearance and challenging subject matter jurisdiction. That is done before entering a plea or accepting the authority of the court or the lawfulness of the citation.
Mr. James says entering a plea waives the crucial question of whether the charge and the case are sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, are the ticket and the alleged offense genuine matters of law upon which the city employee playing the role of judge can exercise state authority in a criminal matter?
This letter is dressed up as government business under color of law. New Boston staffers are shocked that a trucker comes on the scene to contest fraudulent activity in person.
t’s not clear how a city court can hold a trial by jury, as the document pretends. American municipal courts are administrative enforcers of ordinances upon residents, and generally do not involve juries, but judge findings of fact and law. Tennessee municipal courts have no punitive authority, but operate under a F$50 fine limit per constitutional limitation, and have authority to levy fees in the nature of civil liquidated damages (City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001)).
A show cause hearing, as Mr. James says, is for the officer only, to show his cause. Mr. James insists on interrogating the officer and the judge demands he enter a plea. As Mr. James’ motion tells it:
To which the city court says, “Well, I just plead ‘not guilty’ for you. This is your arraignment and you’re supposed to plea.”
Accused respectfully argues NO, it’s not. “This is the officer’s show cause hearing, not my arraignment,” which the city of New Boston municipal court letter dated Dec. 29, 2022, says and contradicts Judge Young MISTRUTHS in open court to me.
Accused states “The city court has NO “subject matter jurisdiction” to forward and/or to adjudicate the case, but must dismiss the case ministerially.”
Twice, Mr. James interrupts his profitable travels and makes appearance in New Boston. Had he not shown up, a warrant would have been issued for his arrest. Twice, the cop is no show.
Racketeering operation
➤ The judge refuses to dismiss despite no subject matter jurisdiction, asking if Mr. James wants the case sent to the next level, the county court (he says no; a void case cannot be transferred).
➤ The court has no subject jurisdiction because no city ordinance authorizes the sign, nor places any limit or control on James Bowie Drive, which is a public road, meaning open to the public.
➤ The sign is not in keeping with the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, and not of a type authorized
➤ The sign constitutes entrapment, and interferes with federally regulated parties involved in interstate commerce.
➤ The accusations against Mr. James are criminal in nature. In Texas, municipal corporation courts do not have criminal jurisdiction, Mr. James says. And how, he demands, is an unsworn charging instrument valid as a charging instrument in a criminal matter?
➤ Lori Hancock the clerk refuses to enter filings as filed, and does not give them to the judge. Mr. James says she is in violation of her oath under state law, and party to fraud.
Says Mr. James before signing his motion as an affidavit in front of a notary's signature:
The case is an ambush, turning innocent acts by truck drivers in interstate commerce into a crime for purpose of ticketing and extracting money from them in breach of Texas penal code § 31.02, extortion, and accused’s right of free movement and communication upon the federal highways.
At least two or more persons in the municipal corporation appear to conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.
Does scam cash flow have OK of city council?
James motion deconstructs New Boston racket
Ink on paper — Mr. James’ 1st motion to dismiss
‘State of Texas’ vs. James — 3rd hearing set
