Eddie Craig, who FALSELY claims to be a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” (a “former cop” and a “former law enforcement officer”) and an “EXPERT” in the law. Specifically, Eddie Craig FALSELY claims that he was a “DEPUTY SHERIFF” in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his “CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT” as a “DEPUTY SHERIFF”, he found out that all traffic law (and all traffic-related law enforcement) was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and corrupt.
Eddie Craig makes these intentionally fraudulent claims about himself and his background in order to deceptively “TRICK” the American people into thinking that he is a GENUINE AUTHORITY in the law. But, none of this is so.
THE TRUTH:
The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” for a period of TWO WEEKS in 1992, at which time, he was unceremoniously “FIRED” (“NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”)!
That’s right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a “PART-TIME” job as a county “JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was “FIRED” TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 (“NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”)! It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his “CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT” as a “DEPUTY SHERIFF” for which he claims he “left the Air Force”.
See this case. Muniz v. Davis, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4860473033812235072&q=%22Eddie+Craig%22+muniz&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, “Muniz [a litigant in a traffic-related case who Eddie Craig duped] also asks the Court to consider the [written] expert statement of Eddie Craig, attached as an exhibit to Muniz’s First Amended Complaint… . In the statement, Craig opines that the actions of the law enforcement officers in this case were unlawful [as if Eddie Craig would know]. ALTHOUGH MUNIZ CLAIMS THAT CRAIG IS A FORMER SHERIFF’S DEPUTY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT [TO THIS EFFECT OR] OF CRAIG’S PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS [AS AN ALLEGED “EXPERT WITNESS]. Simply put, THE COURT HAS NO BASIS TO CREDIT CRAIG’S ASSERTIONS [AS AN ALLEGED “EXPERT” WITNESS]… . ” On this basis, the court CORRECTLY determined that EDDIE WAS NOT AN “EXPERT WITNESS” AND REFUSED TO CONSIDER HIS AMATEUR STATEMENT. (in the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 35% through the text). Note that the reason that there was “no evidence before the court” that Eddie Craig was a former Sheriff Deputy is that HE IS WAS NOT A DEPUTY SHERIFF, much less an “EXPERT WITNESS” in matters of the law.
ANALYSIS:
Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any “valuable inside knowledge” of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig’s “EXPERIENCE” in his “CAREER” as a “LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” and “DEPUTY SHERIFF”.).
OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some “expert”.
Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9860090939829240302&q=%22taylor+v.+hale%22+%22appears+to+contend%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver’s license. The court wrote, “Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER’S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]… he was MERELY ‘TRAVELING’… . [He claimed that] THE STATE… CAN [ONLY] REGULATE ‘COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY’ through the requirement of a [driver’s] license BUT NOT ‘TRAVELING’ [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term ‘OPERATE’ MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff’s argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS ‘TRAVELING’ AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT ‘OPERATE’ A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG also falsely claims]…. . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]… . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT ‘OPERATING’ a motor vehicle BUT MERELY ‘TRAVELING’ strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO ‘OPERATING’ A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE ‘OPERATED’ ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. ‘OPERATING,’ as the word is used in [the STATE driver’s license law]… DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state’s public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL… . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE’S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE”. It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver’s license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in “INTERSTATE commerce”. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17234956748209348154&q=%22Myles+v.+State%22+%22was+not+a+hired+driver%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, “THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN ‘COMMERCE’ WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG falsely claims], AND … I WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, ‘I don’t DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].’ Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED.” Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles’ theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of EDDIE CRAIG, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE”. It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver’s license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in “INTERSTATE commerce”. But, EDDIE CRAIG does not know enough to even realize this.
EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER ARGUED FRAUDSTER CRAIG”S ARGUMENTS ARE ALL LOSSES!
LivingLiesTheTruth 
Eddie Craig’s website just got taken down and most of the google results about him are slander. Obviously, when the commies hate you, you are probably in the right.
LikeLike
It was taken down because he’s a known fraud.
LikeLike
i have also had a case dropped to specially after i told them that i would put a lien on there performance bond,or surety bond.that will stop the bs. do that i bet them dam! cops will start waking up then or report there ass to washington and the irs fraud commission.with a rogatory letter.because all case’s is about a tax,and the court has no power over real people without one a victim reading what happen to them into the record.over these little bs. things its all about commerce under the UCC1 for these trolls.now let someone tell me different.ive known this info for yrs.and has filed papers to prove it ive made every prosecutor attorney and administrator look like a fool.that came against me.then they get mad.and then want to try and put you in jail if your scared to go to jail for being right then you need to stay a slave and just keep making and thinking another man with a dress on in these fake courts is jesus.and he can’t be wrong in these courts and just throughyour bibles out the window or give it to someone thats going to use it for the better.like the amish do you think government tell them and the menonnites what to do? hell no.there.and folks stop using these attorney for stuff like this. they are officer of the courts working mainly to turn you in (ATTORNEY+ means to turn you in).and judges do not suppose to be talking trying to help the prosecutor.if he does he is practicing color of law from the bench..and bench men bank in the legal system!!! free info.
LikeLike
Good for you Geno! Your words are true my friend! Yes, This website is SCREAMING “Troll.” This website is an empty shell of bullshit built by an algorithm.
The average person-even the highly educated and “informed” people-have the slightest inclination of what the UCC even is, let alone read and understand it! I’ve personally sifted through DOZENS of Supreme court rulings on the subject (and IN FAVOR OF) one’s right of travel as a human being. It’s about understanding the laws of 2 things, and 2 things only: COMMERCE and human/substantive and Constitutional RIGHTS! People need to wake the F** up and shed their wool and invoke not only their Constitutional rights, but their human (Substantive) rights-the rights given to them by our Creator!!
“Coporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow”
Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864!
LikeLike
Craig, nor anyone else using to his B.S. has ever won a case making such stupid arguments! Furthermore, I’m calling out Geno as a fraud and liar like Craig.
He claims to have had a case dropped after threatening to “put a lien on there performance bond,or surety bond.” A total lie, bet he can’t prove it!
LikeLike
I know I’m wasting my time; show us the court case you won, you can’t because it never happened.
LikeLike
Funny wins never show on your court records
LikeLike
You’re obviously on a a bad acid trip.
LikeLike
It is not true ->It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver’s license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in “INTERSTATE commerce”.
You should read City of Chicago v. Collins 175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898)
“Anything which cannot be enjoyed without legal authority would be a mere privilege, which is generally evidenced by a license. ( Cate v. State, 3 Sneed, 120.) The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege, but a right. Tiedeman on Limitations of Police Power (sec. 281,) says, in distinguishing between a license and a tax: “It is therefore conclusive that the general requirements of a license for the pursuit of any business that is dangerous to the public can only be justified as an exercise of the power of taxation or the requirement of a compensation for the enjoyment of a privilege or franchise.”
I can only conclude that you are wrong about Mr. Craig intentions to help others.
LikeLike
This was a case dealing with a tax, like most people not literate in the law, you really don’t understand what you’re reading, and takes matters out of context.
What you quoted from the case was NOT the holding, but merely dicta, which has no legal precedence.
LikeLike
Correct. ANYONE who actually knows law (and how to read it) knows that there are only TWO types of cases: CIVIL & CRIMINAL. The ONLY other authority granted to the government is for the regulation of commercial activity. OF COURSE, DON’T LET TRUTH (FACTS, EVIDENCE, & LAW) STAND IN THE WAY OF ONE’S MINDLESS INDOCTRINATION.
LikeLike
I just finished a 3 year long battle with Los Angeles county superior court of the state of California. Driving on a suspended license. I had an open minded judge, a corrupted prosecutor and a police officer that never gave a sworn statement.
Long story short, I won in December. All charges dropped against me.
Just because you wrote a rant on this blog it doesn’t mean you’re right. I’ll believe the judge and his ruling over your ignorant butt
LikeLike
Without knowing your case, don’t know why the case was dismissed, but it certainly wasn’t because of the nonsense fraudster Craig regurgitates.
LikeLike
what’s the case #? etc…? thanks
LikeLike
FOR THE HOAXES OF DEBORAH TAVARES, CLICK HERE. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)
LikeLike
Your ignorance is mindboggling. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks but no PROOF debunking his so called theory. In the words of Marc Stevens and others “what facts or evidence do rely on to make your assertions true”? Good luck with your enslavement. You have been indoctrinated into the slave cult well. LOL….
LikeLike
Actually its your “ignorance is mindboggling.” He’s NEVER won case, and its obvious from the cases anyone he’s so-called helped hasn’t either. You’re the typical mindless dupe!
LikeLike
For more on Eddie Craig and the law, CLICK HERE. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax&p=1176723#post1176723.
LikeLike