BEWARE OF KNOWN FRAUDSTER & AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, EDDIE CRAIG

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!
Advertisements

Mortgage Fraud Examiners Tried To Warn Homeowners Of Stall Hacks Like Mark Stopa But Met With Resistance From Scammers & Their Useful Idiots

https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/Authorities-Foreclosure-lawyer-Mark-Stopa-made-nearly-5-million-off-clients-homes_172178605

Final Jesinoski Opinion Proves Garfield Wrong

Neil Garfield has repeatedly asserted on his blog that all a borrower needs to do is send a rescission notice to the creditor in order to effectuate a rescission, whether or not a TILA violation occurred.  And he has tried to con ignorant borrowers into paying $3000 for his useless “TILA RESCISSION PACKAGE” of related legalistic puffery.

Here’s proof that Garfield’s theory of TILA rescission, and of the SCOTUS Jesinoski opinion, is plain wrong.

In 2018 the Jesinoskis appealed the District Court ruling against them, and the 8th Circuirt Court of Appeals held this:

<blockquote>On remand, the district court[1] granted summary judgment, concluding the signed acknowledgment created a rebuttable presumption that the Jesinoskis had received the required number of copies. The court also concluded the Jesinoskis failed to generate a triable question of fact rebutting the presumption. We affirm.</blockquote>

<a href=”https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13589908972768400499&#8243; rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>JESINOSKI v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 883 F. 3d 1010 – Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2018</a>

You can interpret this to mean that a TILA violation is a condition precedent to TILA rescission. No violation = NO RESCISSION.

Fraudsters Radio Show

Fraudsters Radio Show was created to expose and discuss crackpot theories, scams, scammers, frauds, and fraudsters everywhere and in every industry…LIVE and IN PERSON!
You can hear the show live every Monday 1:00-2:00 PM Eastern on the following:

MOST SO-CALLED FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS DON’T KNOW THIS

Mortgage Fraud Examiners has been warning homeowners for years that contractually they must send a “grievance” letter to their bank/servicer of any wrongdoing within their contract before filing a lawsuit, or they’ll get booted out of court. The bank’s are beginning to catch on: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18360324978391780375&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr