Evans, Ralph Kenneth, WR-75,351-02

Background

Petitioner (Ralph/Evans) filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging arrests and citations issued by Grand Saline police, asserting the city/court lacked jurisdiction and engaged in extortion through traffic enforcement.
Central legal claim: petitioner asserts a constitutional right to "travel" on public roads without obtaining a state-issued driver/operator license when not engaged in commercial driving, and that tickets for lack of a "driver's license" are invalid.
Petitioner alleges procedural and substantive defects: conversion of his name into a corporate fiction, denial of a jury/Seventh Amendment/common‑law trial, false arrest, and that municipal court proceedings were unlawful administrative/advisory panels without jurisdiction.
Petitioner relies on statutory/constitutional theory distinguishing "driving" (commercial operation) from "travel" (noncommercial use of highways), arguing licensing and speed signage apply only to commercial drivers.
The filing cites numerous authorities (U.S. Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decisions) to support propositions about the fundamental right to travel, limits on state licensing power, and the legal meaning of "driver" vs. "operator" or "driver's license" under Texas law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of arrest/citation for driving without a license	Petitioner: no state "driver's license" applies to noncommercial travel; citations are void and arrests unlawful	City/State: statutes require licensure (operator/commercial/chauffeur) for operation on public highways; enforcement is proper	Court decisions require proof of the specific licensed category alleged; information phrasing matters (see holdings reversing prosecutions when information charged a nonexistent "driver's license")
Right to travel vs. state licensing	Petitioner: travel is a fundamental right; noncommercial travel cannot be converted into a license‑regulated privilege	State: vehicle operation regulation is within police power, especially for commercial driving and safety	Supreme Court precedents recognize a constitutional right to travel but permit reasonable regulation tied to safety and commerce; differentiation between commercial driving and private travel is relevant but not absolute
Jurisdiction of municipal/city court proceedings	Petitioner: Grand Saline court is a corporate administrative forum lacking jurisdiction and thus its proceedings are void	City/State: municipal courts have jurisdiction under state law to adjudicate certain traffic and municipal offenses	Texas constitutional and statutory provisions govern courts and jurisdiction; defects in venue/charging instrument may invalidate prosecutions where statutory elements are not alleged or proven
Conversion of name to corporate fiction / remedies	Petitioner: use of all‑caps or corporate name is a fraud depriving him of due process; seeks writ and injunctive relief against city agents	City/State: procedural naming conventions and service rules do not convert a natural person into a corporate entity; courts apply statutory and procedural rules	Courts do not accept "name fiction" theories as a basis to void proceedings; relief requires showing statutory or constitutional violation in process or jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (federal courts' jurisdictional limits and void orders when acting without jurisdiction)
United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (officials' oaths and limits on authority)
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264 (Supreme Court authority on jurisdiction and federal supremacy)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (right to interstate travel as fundamental)
Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (limits on state control of personal information; discussion of license regimes and commerce implications)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (authority to require identity in limited circumstances)
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (liberty interests implicated by travel restrictions)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional protections when rights are at stake)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (limitations on converting constitutional rights into licensed privileges)