Conclusion: In sum, we hold that neither Dallas County nor its officials are protected by the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment and that both the County and its officials are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm the trial court's findings that the Dallas County system of issuing misdemeanor capias violated both Texas law and the United States Constitution. We reverse the findings of immunity from liability for money damages as to the County and the District Attorney, and hold the former liable for its official policy and the latter liable in his official capacity. We therefore reinstate the jury's award of money damages. We reverse the assessment of attorneys' fees against the State of Texas, and render judgment against the County for the fees.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

You inquire about the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution of portions of article 14.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 14.03 provides as follows:

(2) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an assault resulting in bodily injury to another person and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that there is danger of further bodily injury to that person; or

(3) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed the offense defined by Section 25.08, Penal Code (violation of Court Order), whether or not the offense is committed in the presence of the peace officer.

(b) If necessary to verify an allegation of a violation of a protective order, a peace officer shall follow the procedures established under Section 71.18, Family Code, without leaving the scene of the investigation if there is a possibility of the further commission of family violence. (Emphasis added).

Code Crim.Proc. art. 14.03. Article 14.03 subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) refer to offenses which the Penal Code defines as misdemeanors. See Penal Code ss 22.01; 25.08.

Section 22.01 of the Penal Code, which defines the offense of assault, provides that a person commits an offense if he "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse." Penal Code s 22.01(a)(1). Section 25.08(a) of the Penal Code defines as an offense certain knowing or intentional conduct by a person which violates a protective order issued to restrain him from family violence. [FN1] The actions which constitute offenses under Penal Code section 25.08 if performed in violation of such a court order include committing family violence, communicating directly with a member of the family or household in a threatening or harassing manner, or going to or near the residence or place of employment of a member of the family or household specifically described in the protective order. Penal Code s 25.08(a). You question the constitutionality of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3), of article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest of a person who has committed one of the enumerated offenses, even though the offense was not committed in the presence of the peace officer. Compare Code Crim.Proc. art. 14.01 with art. 14.03. You state in your letter that article 14.03(a)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a misdemeanor arrest without warrant for an offense committed under section 25.08(a) of the Penal Code even when there is no danger to the party protected by the court order. You suggest that article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would allow a warrantless arrest based upon the protected party's report that the order was being violated, since this report would probably be legally sufficient to give the officer probable cause. You do not question the constitutionality of the underlying provision, subsection 25.08(a) of the Penal Code. Your concerns are directed at the arrest procedure which article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes when the officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated section 25.08 of the Penal Code.

You argue that subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of article 14.03 are invalid under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment provides as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Const. amend. 4. Article I, section 9, of the Texas Constitution provides a similar protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure depart from the common law rule that a peace officer has no power to arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant unless it has been committed in his presence or involves a breach of the peace. See, e.g., Crane v. State of Texas, 759 F.2d 412 (5th Cir.1985). Neither subsection (a)(2) or (a)(3) of article 14.03 rest upon any widely recognized exceptions to this common law rule. See 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure s 5.1, at 222-24 (1978).

The common law rule on searches and seizures has provided a starting point for interpreting the Fourth Amendment, but the meaning of this constitutional provision is not controlled by the common law rule. See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 579-81 (1980); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418 (1976); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 157 (1925); Crane v. State of Texas, 759 F.2d 412 (5th Cir.1985); Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368 (4th Cir.1974). In Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the warrantless, nighttime entry into an individual's home to arrest him for a noncriminal traffic offense, absent exigent circumstances.

A dissent by Justice White pointed out that the common law requirement "that a misdemeanor must have occurred in the officer's presence to justify a warrantless arrest is not grounded in the Fourth Amendment." 466 U.S. at 747. It further noted that the Supreme Court has never held "that a warrant is constitutionally required to arrest for nonfelony offenses occurring out of the officer's presence." Id.

In United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a law enforcement officer to make a warrantless arrest for a felony offense in a public place, even though he had adequate opportunity to get a warrant. The court relied in part on the fact that the ancient common law rule was codified in the statute authorizing such arrests. 423 U.S. at 418. It also noted that the American Law Institute (ALI) had incorporated the common law standard for felony arrests in its model statute governing warrantless arrests. 423 U.S. at 422, n. 11. The model statute reads as follows:

(1) Authority to Arrest Without a Warrant. A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed

(b) a misdemeanor, and the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person

(ii) may cause injury to himself or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or

ALI, Model Code of Pre-arraignment Procedure s 120.1 (1975). The Supreme Court did not comment on subsection (b) of the model code provision, which expands the common law authority for warrantless arrests in misdemeanor cases. But see Dawson, State-Created Exclusionary Rules in Search and Seizure: A Study of the Texas Experience, 59 Tex.L.Rev. 191, 221-22 (1981) (U.S. v. Watson makes clear that the sole requirement of the Fourth Amendment respecting arrests in public places is that the officer act upon probable cause).

In Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368 (4th Cir.1974), a federal court of appeals presented reasons why the Fourth Amendment does not incorporate common law restrictions on warrantless arrests for misdemeanors:

[T]he Supreme Court has never given constitutional force to this element of the common law rule. In Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 20 S.Ct. 729, 44 L.Ed. 874 (1900), the Court applied the common law rule but hinted that its restrictions could be relaxed by statute. Subsequent cases have focused entirely on the requirement of probable cause. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). We do not think the fourth amendment should now be interpreted to prohibit warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed outside an officer's presence. The difference between felonies and misdemeanors is no longer as significant as it was at common law.... Maryland courts have criticized the continued use of the common law rule as impractical and illogical, and have invited the state legislature to adopt new rules. Robinson v. State, 4 Md.App. 515, 243 A.2d 870 (1968).... We are most reluctant to adopt a constitutional interpretation that would impede reform in this area. The fourth amendment protects individuals from unfounded arrests by requiring reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed. (Footnotes omitted).

A number of states have enacted statutes authorizing peace officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed outside their presence. See, e.g., D.C.Code Ann. s 23-581; Fla.Stat. s 901.15(6) (warrantless arrest if there is probable cause to believe the person has committed an act of domestic violence in violation of injunction); Kan.Code Crim.Proc. s 22-2401; Md.Code Ann. s 27.594 (B); Ohio Code Ann. s 2935.03; Wash.Rev.Code Ann. 10.31.100. The courts of some states have dealt with the validity of a warrantless arrest of an individual by a peace officer for a misdemeanor committed outside of his presence. See, e.g., State v. Presley, 458 So.2d 847 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984) (test for warrantless arrest in misdemeanor is whether the officer has a substantial reason to believe arrestee is guilty of a crime); LeBlanc v. State, 382 So.2d 299 (Fla.1980) (provision for warrantless arrest for battery committed upon spouse does not violate equal protection clause); Wilson v. Hunk, 367 N.E.2d 478 (Ill.App.Ct.1977) (warrantless arrest for misdemeanor not committed in officer's presence is not illegal arrest); Lurie v. District Attorney of Kings County, 288 N.Y.S.2d 256 (Sup.Ct.Special Term 1968) (arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in officer's presence violates no state or federal constitutional standard); City of Columbus v. Herrell, 247 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio Ct.App.1969) (statute authorizing peace officer to arrest without a warrant any person he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of assault and battery, a misdemeanor, does not violate Fourth Amendment); State v. Bryant, 678 S.W.2d 480 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 (1985) (the rule that a police officer has no authority to make misdemeanor arrest for offense committed outside his presence is a common law rule and not constitutionally required). In Kelley v. State, 676 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. ref'd) the court determined that a search was invalid because it was made pursuant to an invalid arrest for a felony. The court stated that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires the police to have probable cause to arrest a suspect, and since there was probable cause the federal constitution was not violated in this case. 676 S.W.2d at 648. However, since Texas has imposed greater restraints on police conduct than the federal constitution requires, the arrest was invalid because it violated Texas law. The court reviewed statutes authorizing warrantless arrest, including the provision now codified as article 14.03(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but did not comment on its validity. 676 S.W.2d at 649.

Finally, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir.1983), the court determined that Arizona law enforcement officers could arrest for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act under the following state provision:

4. When he has probable cause to believe a misdemeanor has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense....

Thus, there is federal and state case law, as well as legal scholarship, which supports the constitutionality of the arrest provisions you inquire about. We should moreover presume that this legislation is constitutional. See United States v. Watson, supra. We therefore do not believe subsections (a)(2) or (a)(3) of article 14.03 are facially unconstitutional.

Article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly authorize an unconsented entry into a suspect's home to arrest him. A warrantless, unconsented entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). The Supreme Court has held that a warrantless nighttime entry into an individual's home to arrest him for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense was, in the absence of exigent circumstances, prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984). Although the petitioner's step-daughter opened the door for the police, the trial court did not decide whether there was consent to enter and the Supreme Court assumed there was no valid consent to enter the petitioner's home. 466 U.S. at 743, n. 1. In Welsh v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court stated as follows:

Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.

466 U.S. at 750. The court enumerated the few emergency conditions which it has recognized as justifying warrantless searches or arrests: United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43 (1976) (hot pursuit of a fleeing felon); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-71 (1966) (destruction of evidence); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978) (ongoing fire). Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. at 750.

Article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be constitutionally applied to effect a warrantless entry to an individual's home to arrest him, unless consent is given to the entry by a person with authority to consent, or exigent circumstances exist. Whether consent is given or exigent circumstances exist must be decided on the facts of each case.

SUMMARY

Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of article 14.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which authorize warrantless arrests of persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed certain misdemeanors whether or not in the peace officers presence, are not facially unconstitutional. These provisions cannot be used to effect a warrantless entry to an individual's home to arrest him, unless the facts show that consent to the entry has been given or that exigent circumstances exist which justify the entry.

FN1. Section 25.08 of the Penal Code has been amended by Senate Bill Nos. 887 and 1111 of the 70th Legislature, effective September 1, 1987. These amendments do not render your questions moot nor do they change our answer.

HB 823 Clarifies Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle
NRA-ILA August 30, 2005

The following press release was issued today by State Representative Terry Keel regarding HB 823. TO: Media FROM: Terry Keel, State Representative, Austin

RE: FIB 823 by Keel, Effective 9/1/05 Clarifies Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle While Traveling

It is well established in Texas that a person who is traveling has a right to possess a handgun for personal protection. The practical problem with this right has historically been that courts have disagreed on the definition of "traveling". The legislature has likewise never defined "traveling" because a definition invariably has the unintended effect of unfairly limiting the term to a narrow set of circumstances.

FIB 823 becomes effective September 1, 2005, shoring up the right of citizens to carry a concealed handgun while traveling. There have been many inquiries to my office from citizens and media regarding the upcoming change in the law and what it means.

HB 823 provides for a legal presumption in favor of citizens that they are travelers if they are in a private vehicle with a handgun that is not in plain view, they are not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity nor otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, and they are not a member of a criminal street gang.

In plain terms, a law-abiding person should not fear arrest if they are transporting a concealed pistol in a motor vehicle. There is no longer the need for a law enforcement officer to apply a subjective definition of what constitutes "traveling" where the citizen is cloaked with the presumption per the terms of the new statute. Under those circumstances the citizen should be allowed to proceed on their way.

HB 823 represents the first time a presumption has been crafted in favor of a defendant in the modern penal code of Texas. The presumption applies unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist. If the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists. By enacting this evidentiary standard in conjunction with the presumption, the legislation is intended to have the practical effect of preventing in the first place the arrest of citizens who meet the newly specified prerequisites of being a presumed traveler.

It should be noted that the very real problem of citizens having to prove their innocence after arrest by the assertion of their right to carry a firearm while traveling was the reason for a 1997 legislative change which replaced the "defense" of traveling with a classification of the statute of UCW as instead entirely "inapplicable" to a traveler. This change was well-intentioned but did not have the intended effect of protecting honest citizens from potential arrest because the term "traveling" was still left to individual police or judicial officials to define on a case-by-case basis. As a consequence, law-abiding citizens who availed themselves of their right to have a handgun white traveling continued to face arrest and often later prevailed only in a court of law after proving that they were indeed traveling.

In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances. For example, to require someone to have an overnight stay in a journey in order to be classified as a traveler would be unfair to persons traveling great distances in one day. Likewise, a requirement that a citizen be "crossing county lines" may make no sense, such as in areas of Texas where travelers drive hundreds of miles without leaving a single county. Moreover, the ability of police to elicit such evidence and consistently apply its subjective terms on the street in a traffic stop has not proven practical, at all. The new statute instead focuses on a defined set of relevant, objective facts that are capable of being determined on the spot by law officers.

There are several additional important points that should he made in regard to the enactment of FIB 823 and its interface with current law. HB 823 does not give "everyone the right to carry a gun in a car". State and federal laws applicable to firearms must he noted in conjunction with the new statute's terms, particularly the limitation of the presumption to persons who are "not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm." For example, persons subject to an active protective order are not covered by the presumption, nor are persons with any felony conviction or even some misdemeanor convictions for offenses, e.g., family violence. The presumption is likewise inapplicable to persons associated with a criminal street gang, even if they have no conviction for any offense. These as well as all other existing limitations on firearm ownership and/or possession make the new statute inapplicable to persons covered by such prohibitions.

Furthermore, as stated in the statute, the presumption will not apply to persons who are otherwise engaged in any criminal conduct. This would include persons who are driving while intoxicated, driving recklessly. committing criminal mischief, or committing any other criminal offense outside that of a minor traffic infraction.

The enactment of HB 823 was the culmination of study, committee hearings and debate by the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. I am confident that the new law will assist law enforcement in doing its job while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens from the threat of arrest for merely exercising their right to arm themselves while traveling----a right to which they are already entitled.

2- Take them to a SS office or mail Certified and get a clerk to stamp as received. They will try everything to talk you out of this. Don't let them. Leave one Copy for them.

3- Make two copies of the stamped received copy and make you an Affidavit of what you have done to this point.

4- Take two original Affidavits with attached SS withdrawal form to your County Recorders office and get both stamped as recorded into the County Records.

5- Send one copy to the Secretary of State or PERSON over the UNITED STATES SS Department and request your Recorded Documents be recorded into their records. Send this Registered Mail with Signature required.

6- After 30 days your unrebutted Recordings are now law and will stand where ever you need them.

7- Then if they or anyone claims you can't quit Charge them criminally with political rights violations and involuntary servitude.

An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is a public or private corporation and however created.

Criminal Responsibility for Conduct of Another

7.23. Criminal Responsibility of Person for Conduct in Behalf of Corporation or Association

An individual is criminally responsible for conduct that he performs in the name of or in behalf of a corporation or association to the same extent as if the conduct were performed in his own name or behalf.

On June 5, 1994, Clinton signed EO 12919 which gives the president executive (dictatorial) control over, well, everything. Once you understand that there is nothing which is being done on Capitol Hill for the benefit of the American people, you begin to understand that everything is being done to the detriment of the American people. Once all of the detrimental things which are being done to the American people from Capitol Hill reach critical mass, EO 12919 gives the president the powers of absolute rule.

According to the United States Constitution, Article 1, only Congress shall make federal law. However, since the "War and Emergency Powers Act" of 1933, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their "laws" are called Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs, not our Constitution, are what is governing America today. The "War and Emergency Powers Act" enables that the president to declare a national emergency, and thereby become a dictator. Presidents can also carefully choose their words and declare a "war" on anything, in order to give them dictatorial control. For example, the "War on Drugs" makes it possible to use federal authorities, such as FBI, FEMA, BATF, and the military against American citizens. A well-known example is Waco. Another example is Hurricane Opal.

After Florida was declared a nation emergency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived on the scene and residents were placed under marshal law (restricted to the point of not going outside their door). When the federal government does this, it is going against the Constitution.

The "War and Emergency Powers Act" is an unconstitutional act on the part of our government, created so that presidents can bypass Congress, and do whatever they choose. It also makes it possible to do away with posse comitatus in cases of "emergency." Posse comitatus is what protects American citizens from the military being used against them. In Germany, the military was used against the German citizens. The German government also had its Gestapo to enforce the dictates of Hitler. Now, in an American "emergency," the military can be used against American citizens and the federal government has its own Gestapo in the form of the BATF, FBI, and FEMA.

These EOs have not been widely publicized. If they were, 250 million Americans would not tolerate it. But you can get copies of them. They are all printed in the U.S. Federal Register and have the force of law when activated by a president. You can contact your congressman for information on how to get copies of these EOs, or check your local library.

Here are a few examples of some of the EOs and their purposes:
10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the United States;
10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;
10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;
10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;
11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;
11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;
11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America;
11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;
11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish Forced Relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;
11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;
11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency").

President Clinton wrote one EO that can cover all of these. He wrote EO12919 on June 3, 1994, which was released on June 6, 1994. This EO will be the only thing he needs to enact in order to become a fully empowered dictator. It covers all of the EOs mentioned previously. The only thing this EO doesn't do is define WHAT the national emergency would have to be in order for this EO to be signed. Please keep that in mind. Anything can be declared a national emergency to facilitate EO 12919 being enacted. Here is the summary of President Clinton's EO 12919:

Part one of the order describes the purpose, policy and how this EO would be implemented. In section 103 of part one, it mandates that federal departments and agencies will be responsible to bring all the things described in this order about. This means that all individual state departments will have no say in what is happening, so it goes without saying that the American citizens will have no say. These federal departments shall identify the requirements for the "full spectrum of national security emergencies." This includes the "military, industrial and essential civilian demand." Part of their job will be to "foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors."

Section 104 empowers FEMA to oversee the carrying out of the EO. FEMA has already been "on the scene" with the several "national emergencies" that have taken place (hurricanes and floods are a couple of examples). When this EO is implemented, FEMA will be responsible to be an advisor for the National Security Council. It will coordinate the plans and the programs for the "authorities and functions delegated." It will establish procedures to resolve conflicts and issues that may come up while implementing this order. FEMA will report to the president on a regular basis.

According to Part Two of Clinton's EO 12919, the president will delegate authority to allocate the materials, services, and facilities necessary to promote the national defense. The various agency heads that will have designated assignments will be: The Secretary of Agriculture, The Secretary of Energy, The Secretary of Health and Human Services, The Secretary of Transportation, The Secretary of Defense and The Secretary of Commerce. FEMA will be used to resolve any problems with issues between the various agencies. All department heads will give their findings to the president for approval. We will be going into detail about what these department heads will be doing a little further on in the report.

Part Three of EO 12919 explains how this will be financed. The Federal Reserve will be heavily involved. Under section 310 it is discussed how the critical items list they will need to take care of the national emergency will be handled. Each agency head will ensure that all the critical components and technology items are available from reliable sources to "meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency."

Part Seven concerns me. It's entitled "Labor Supply." It is almost common knowledge to freedom lovers that there are civilian labor camps on military installations. There are also processing centers where people can be separated to go to the various camps. It will be the Secretary of Labor's job to: (a) "Collect, analyze and maintain data needed to make a continuing appraisal of the nation's labor requirements and the supply of workers for purposes of national defense." Under section (c) they are to "formulate plans, programs and policies for meeting for defense and essential civilian labor requirements." Section (e) talks about the Secretary of Labor determining the jobs and the skills that will be critical to meeting the labor requirements for defense as well as essential civilian activities. Keep in mind that FEMA is the organization behind the civilian labor camps. They are also the organization that will make this executive order go smoothly.

Part Nine, Section 901, is interesting. It talks about the National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER). This is an executive branch composed of people of various parts of the private sector, along with full-time federal employees. Its purpose is to train people in executive positions in the federal government in case of an emergency that would require that type of employment. FEMA, of course, will coordinate the NDER program activities of the departments and agencies.

In section Part Six, Section 602, we get down to what it means to the average citizen. In the case of a presidential decree of national emergency, this is how you and I will be affected:
The president of the United States, with the help of federal agencies, will have control. We will not be including all the subsections, just the ones that hit American citizens where we live:
(a) They will control all transportation, "regardless of ownership." This means that if they need your car, they've got it. They will control all public transportation also.
(b) They will control all forms of energy, including "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)." This means the federal government will have complete control over who will have power (electricity, etc.) and who won't. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us at their discretion.
(c) They will control all farm equipment. Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources." They did this in Russia. The farmers worked for the government.
(d) They will control all fertilizer. This means that any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements--nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--will be able to be confiscated by the government. The reason they have this combination is because it includes anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it.
(e) They will control all food resources. ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals...." This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores." That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "UN World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the UN 4th World Conference on Women in September, 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize."
(f) They will control all food resource facilities. This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage (including cold food storage)." They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed." In other words, they will control anything that has to do with food.
(j) They will control all health resources. This means EVERYTHING. They will have control over all "materials, facilities, health supplies, and equipment (including pharmaceutical, blood collecting and dispensing supplies, biological, surgical textiles, and emergency surgical instruments and supplies)." They will be able to come into your home and take your medicines.
(k) They will control all metals and minerals.
(m) They will control all water resources. ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements." Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house.

How many of you folks knew about this? I find it very interesting that one person, the president of the United States, has the authority to control every person in the country. This EO gives step by step instructions on the complete take over and control of every American.

One of the main things that trouble me is that it eliminates the dignity and individuality of human life. It brings Americans down to the level of domesticated animals. Animals have no control over their owners. Animals have no possessions. Domesticated animals don't eat unless their owners feed them. Some animals work for their owners. Some animals are used in lab experiments for research purposes. Animals are sometimes put to sleep when they become old, crippled or weak.

We have had an abnormally large number of presidentially declared "national emergencies." Each time, FEMA has been on the scene. In two instances I know of, they have not allowed people out of their own homes (after Hurricane Opal and the flood in Pennsylvania). Could these be practice runs?

© 1996 Paula Demers - This report may be reprinted. Ms. Demers is a patriot from Florida. I daresay that if there were just a few more decent and honorable and brave people in America who loved their country as much a Paula does, we would not have a dictator as a president. (DWH)

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association.
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".

Office of the Attorney GeneralState of Texas

SUMMARY

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas