Tag: 3Mules

2023 / 24 California DMV Handbook

The Mules walked into Porterville to stock up on groceries. While we were there, we stopped at the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to get the 2024 California Drivers Handbook. 2024 was not available. We picked up the 2023 California Drivers Handbook. As we were thumbing through the 2023 Drivers Handbook, we noticed that there was very little attention given to an equestrian , a person riding a horse.

While there is excellent reference and mention to pedestrians, and their right to walk on California roads and highways, as well as cyclists to do the same, the equestrian, the person riding a horse was given a brief few words that were totally and completely inadequate to informing the public, that a person riding a horse has the same legal right to be on and using California roads and highways as the high-speed motorist (HSM). If you go to CA vehicle code 21759, the equestrian, a person riding a horse, as well as a person driving a horse, and a person walking a horse you will see is explicitly lined in and covered in the vehicle code.

The purpose of the California Driver’s Handbook is to educate the California driving public and all other legal users (pedestrians equestrians cyclists) as to their responsibilities and rights when driving and traveling on California’s highways and roads. Yet the mention, acknowledgement in the California Drivers Handbook of the equestrian is almost non-existent.

So what’s going on here? Is this some kind of willy nilly accident by those who wrote this California Driver’s Handbook for 2024? No. It’s no willy nilly accident of forgetfulness by those who wrote the handbook. It was done for a reason. And what’s going on is they are conditioning the public mind to view a person riding a horse, an equestrian, as somehow to be illegal on California’s roads. And then a call is made to CHP. CHP knows the scheme. They will come out and order the equestrian such as the Mules to stay off the road if you don’t comply with this illegal order they will illegally arrest the equestrian and impound your horse. Which has been done to the Mules multiple times. It’s an incremental first step towards eliminating the equestrian, person riding a horse totally from the California roads and highways. The next step is to start reducing equestrian rights under the vehicle code.

While horse owners may not want to do it themselves, walk, ride their horse on California’s dangerous roads. (Due mainly to the excessive speed California drivers are allowed to drive on California roads and highways.) Instead choose to use their horse in a recreational mode, attending various events by the use of an automobile. The act of doing, getting out on the road with your horse and riding it on that road to get to necessary places you need to go, must be preserved. It must be protected. That is where the line in the sand must be drawn against the incremental elimination of this sacred relationship between human being and horse. It’s sacred, it’s been on this earth for literally ions. And this is a real concerted attack on that relationship.

This attack on the equestrian, a person riding a horse, and the right to do so on California’s public roads, will not end there. It will not end with eliminating the equestrian right to ride California’s roads. It will morph. It will travel into your right to have access to facilities to drive your pick-up truck and horse trailer to compete and enjoy your horse. It will morph. It will travel on to every venue it can find. Because its sole purpose in the end is to destroy this sacred relationship between human being and horse which has been on this earth for eons.

Once again, I repeat myself. There is no better place to draw the line in the sand then where the Three Mules Journey resides or anybody else with similar intent, a place where no weapons are used or carried a place for those who choose to serve it by walking with respect and reverence for the ground on which they travel upon showing that basic right to walk your horse, ride your horse, drive your horse, on California’s highways and roads in any one of all four directions how you choose when you choose. It is the responsibility of the Mules as well as all others who love this ages old sacred relationship to not stand by and watch it be diminished and destroyed. It is the energy of perseverance and creativity that the Mules choose to use to protect and preserve this most sacred place in which the Mules reside.

Share this:

UPDATE: 3 Mules vs State of California/CHP

The case of 3 Mules versus State of California / CHP has taken a necessary turn in the road.  As the Mules engaged in a long lengthy process moving our lawsuit through the court system, it became obvious to us that it was unlikely we would win this case due to qualified immunity. And the defendants’ attorney general (AG) would request a summary judgement which would stop the case cold. Never to make it to trial. 

Winning a settlement was not the primary reason for filing the lawsuit. The primary reason for our lawsuit was to bring public awareness and discussion to the absolute constitutional right for all American citizens using a strong well maintained public thoroughfare to move freely in America how they choose, when they choose. Consequently, the Mules have decided to drop this lawsuit. The spiritual energy of this case has become so strong it can no longer be contained within the courtroom walls. Where lawyers will argue over technicalities, details and procedures attempting to bury it. Out of sight out of mind. 

The above being said and understood this case and its accumulated energy is not over by any means. 3 Mules vs. State of California has left the confines of the courtroom and moved its purpose and energy to the field (outside) where the action is. Where the High Speed Motorist (HSM) is actively on a daily basis killing and maiming fellow motorists and all the other legal users (cyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians) with total disregard for the law and simple basic common sense and courtesy to SHARE THE ROAD. 

Note: The Mules will be serving as a platform moving, living, carrying no weapons along the public thoroughfare providing all California citizens the opportunity to see and discuss their constitutional right to move freely in this state and country and make their own unique contribution towards that end.

For right now it’s popular to stay inside and be safe. There will come a time the abstract misery felt for being that way will become so strong and people will do anything to get away from it. It is the responsibility for those who know this to keep the light of freedom shining outside so when those who stay inside have had enough of the inside, the light of freedom will be shining and not the darkness staring them in the face telling them to go back inside and be safe.

The Mules want to acknowledge and thank Attorney Todd T. Cardiff for his pro bono service in getting this case and all the issues connected to it up front and out on the public thoroughfare. It will now be the job of the Mules to keep it there all day every day, one step at a time.

The Mules

Statement from Attorney Todd T. Cardiff:

On July 28, 2022, the court entered a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss Sears v. CHP. Such dismissal stipulated that each party bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Cardiff, John Sear’s attorney, explained why the case was dismissed at this point.

While it was no doubt that Plaintiff was arrested under the wrong statute (Veh. Code § 21954) pedestrian outside of crosswalk, the doctrine of qualified immunity requires particularized facts to establish liability for law enforcement officers. The doctrine of qualified immunity, which is a solely judge made doctrine, was originally intended to protect officers who made a mistake when making split second decisions. It has now been twisted to grant immunity to all officers, unless what they have done is so egregious that no reasonable police officer could believe that they were acting within the bounds of the law or constitutional rights. As recently held by the Supreme Court, the violation must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” (Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (2021) ___U.S.___ [142 S.Ct. 4, 7, 211 L.Ed.2d 164, 168].) In other words, immunity protects “‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” (White v. Pauly (2017) 580 U.S. 73, 79 [137 S.Ct. 548, 551, 196 L.Ed.2d 463, 468].)

While it is arguable that Mr. Sears was in complete compliance with the law, there was not any case law holding that leading mules by reigns was “driving” under California Vehicle Code section 21050. In addition, it was not clear what “duties” would be applicable to a someone driving a mule. Significant research into the legislative history of Vehicle Section 21050 did not resolve the issue. The vagueness of the law, by default, would have rendered finding liability against Officer Agredano almost an impossibility. Further, while we believe that the officer was giving an unlawful order to simply “stay off the road” (which was impossible), again, research failed to uncover case law with particularized facts supporting Mr. Sear’s rights. Finally, it was determined that an adverse decision could seriously impact Mr. Sear’s right to travel with his mules.

Although the judicial portion of this case is over, the issue is not resolved. Law enforcement must enforce the law without bias. If ranchers can utilize all lanes of traffic to herd or “drive” livestock, then such right must be afforded those who wish to only use a portion of the lane to safely travel on the picturesque backroads of California. (See Cal. Food and Ag. Code §§ 16902, 16903.) Cal. Veh. Code section 21759 places the duty on the motor vehicle driver to “reduce speed or stop…to insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in charge of the livestock.” Mr. Sears will be seeking to introduce legislation that clarifies that those who wish to use alternative forms of travel, including riding, driving or leading horses or other livestock have a right to use traffic lanes in a way that protects both the animals and the drivers. “Share the road” must become the law, not a just a pithy, but unenforceable slogan.

3 Mules Legal Fund Status

The Mules raised $2500 using the GoFundMe platform to usher our lawsuit into federal court. 

Itemized record of all expenses incurred by Attorney Todd T. Cardiff while working on the lawsuit:

DateDescriptionTotal
2/5/2021Postage for Mail Service of Complaint$6.60
3/19/2021Delivery services of summons on Agredano$95.00
3/28/2021Delivery services of summons on CHP$35.00
4/1/2021Postage for Meet and Confer letter$0.55
4/1/2021Letterhead (3 ); Envelope (1)$5.00
4/15/2021Federal Court Fees for Attorney Admission$331.00
8/30/2021Mileage to attend hearing in court and return$105.05
11/22/2021Legislative Intent Service$990.00
TOTAL EXPENSES 3 MULES vs State of CA$1568.20
3/5/2021Attorney Trust Fund – Beginning Balance$2505.30
5/10/2021Payment of costs-$473.15
11/22/2021Payment of Leg. Intent-$990.00
11/22/2021Mileage costs-$105.05
Balance refunded to 3 Mules$937.10

Cardiff-Invoice-p1

Image 1 of 6

An amount of $937.10 was left unspent after dropping the lawsuit. This remaining $937 will be spent on things the Mules will need. The Mules will show on the ledger below a picture of item purchased, receipt, and the remaining balance.

DateDescriptionTotal
8/2/2022Refund from Legal Fund $937.10
9/6/2022Farrier-50.00
10/4/2022Domain Name Renewal-$30
10/6/2022Saw Palmetto-$30.02
10/17/2022Rope-22.78
11/29/2022 Wormer-30.44
11/24/20221000 Denier Nylon Tarp-88.29
12/8/2022Hay-29
1/7/2023Horse shoes-12.53
1/13/2023 Camping Gas Stove -45.89
2/2/2023Website hosting-348.00
2/25/2023Website spam blocker-100.00
3/5/2023County of Los Angeles Animal Control-40
3/9/2023Powerbank107.30
Remaining Balance$2.85

1000 Denier Nylon Tarp $88.29

Image 1 of 8

$88.29 1000 Denier Nylon Tarp

Share this:

Little Girl (1990 – February 28, 2022)

On February 6, 2022, after it was discovered Little Girl had arthritis, Lori Ann and Chuck came to Carpenteria to pick her up, and transport her to Jane’s, where Lady had had been retired for a number of years. Little Girl seemed to be doing okay.

On Monday, February 28, Jane noticed that Little Girl had a nosebleed and was running a fever. After that she started bleeding through the back end and then soon after she passed away. The veterinarian believed it was cancer. Little Girl was born in 1990. I bought her in 1993.

Little Girl’s spiritual energy and her soul is no longer connected to the body. Her soul once again is in eternal motion and her body has returned to dust. I feel that Lady and Little Girl’s spiritual energy will be resting and waiting at Jane’s for what is next to come.

I know lots of people will make comments as to how sad I must be with Little Girl’s passing. I am not sad, not at all. I feel Lady’s and Little Girl’s presence and energy as I write this post. I know that energy will be with me for a long time to come as I move freely in any one of all four directions whether it’s over the next mountain, across the next valley, or into the next jail.

I know the spiritual energy that dwells within Lady and Little Girl’s soul is eternal. Their presence is with me now and they will become a part of the energy that surrounds, guides, and protects us. God bless this beautiful place, the Three Mules Journey and all those who have chosen to live in service to it and dwell within it.

If you have taken a photo of Little Girl over the years, please share your photo, location, and date in the comments.

~THE MULES

Share this:

3 Mules vs State of CA/CHP Timeline

The following is a history timeline of our lawsuit of 3 Mules v. California Highway Patrol (CHP) from point of arrest to present date and will be kept up to date to inform all those interested in the progress of this case. Click on the date to read further details.

The Monk and lawyer Todd Cardiff discuss our lawsuit that we brought against the State of California and CHP in regards to our unlawful and illegal arrests on January 23, 2020 and the importance of keeping the public thoroughfare open to all citizens no matter what mode of transportation they choose, via equestrian, motorist, cyclists, pedestrian. 
Share this:

Part I: Mules Rebuttal to CHP Summary Incident Report

On January 23, 2020, the Mules were arrested by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and charged with the failure to obey a lawful order. The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney decided to drop the case and not file charges.

The Mules have subsequently filed a lawsuit, Mules vs State of California / CHP claiming our arrest to be unlawful. This case is now in on-going litigation.

The Mules filed a public records request and have obtained the arresting officer’s Summary Incident Report. The report consists of six pages.

The Mules will be posting a series of rebuttals and comments to the contents of this report.

The following is the first segment in a series of responses to this report.

3Mules-Rebuttal-to-CHP-Narrative-11.27.21Download

CHP Officer Narrative: I was on duty in a marked CHP patrol vehicle and was in full and distinct CHP uniform. At approximately 1128 hours, I received a call from CHP dispatch of an individual walking two mules eastbound in the westbound lane of Nacimiento Lake Drive from Chimney Rock Road. I responded to the area from US 101 at San Marcos Road and arrived with the individual at approximately 1155 hours. I could see a white male walking eastbound on the westbound shoulder pulling two mules.

Mule Rebuttal: I was not “pulling” the mules. I was leading the mules. They were walking behind me willingly at approximately the same speed as which I was walking. “Pulling” infers force. There was no force involved.

What it looks like leading the mules versus pulling the mules.

CHP Officer Narrative: Both mules were wearing packs and walking in the westbound lane and were blocking approximately half of the traffic lane.

Mule Rebuttal: We weren’t “blocking” the traffic lane. Blocking infers we were stationary with the intent of preventing forward motion of something in motion. We were not stationary. We were walking at approximately 2-3 miles per hours in a forward motion on the side of the road.

CHP Officer Narrative: I pulled alongside in the opposing lane and rolled down my passenger side window to make my first contact. I greeted the individual and engaged him in conversation. He didn’t acknowledge me and kept on walking eastbound.

Mule Rebuttal: The reason I didn’t acknowledge him was because he basically stopped in the middle of the road with his CHP cruiser, had no warning lights on, and tried to engage me in a conversation with traffic moving at high speed in both directions unaware of the dangerous hazard he was creating. I was not going to subject myself and my mules to that danger by stopping and engaging the officer in conversation.

CHP Officer Narrative: I drove forward, made a U-turn and was now parallel alongside him in the eastbound lane. I called out to him for my second contact. I told him that he can’t be blocking the traffic lane.

Mule Rebuttal: Once again, he uses the word “blocking.” Blocking infers setting up a stationary road block to prevent anybody from getting by. We were not doing that. We were walking from 2 to 3 miles per hour moving forward down the side of the road.

CHP Officer Narrative: He yelled back at me saying, “How do you know I was in the lane? Do you have any god damn proof?” I activated my rear warning lights as traffic began to build up behind me.

Mule Rebuttal: This was the first time the officer used his warning lights to notify traffic of his stationary position on the highway (blocking traffic) and the reduction of their speed would be necessary.

CHP Officer Narrative: I informed him that passing motorists have been calling him in as a traffic hazard

Mule Rebuttal: The motorists are the traffic hazard for refusing to obey the law and share the road with myself and mules as we were walking on the side of the road. They were the ones who were the traffic hazard. They had an absolute choice: obey the law, slow down, and stop if necessary, so that we could all pass each other safely. Or, refuse to do that and pass us at high speed, swerve out into the opposing lane to get by as fast as possible before they hit another car coming in the opposite direction. They made that choice. Nobody forced them to make that choice. Certainly not the Mules.

CHP Officer Narrative: and I told him to stay off the road.

Mule Rebuttal: And once again the CHP officer tells us to stay off the road. Telling myself and my mules to stay off the road was not a lawful order, but just the opposite. It was an unlawful order as we had the right to walk on Naciemento Lake Road.

CHP Officer Narrative: The individual began using a tirade of insults.

Mule Rebuttal: Well, I don’t know if it was a tirade of insults, but I wasn’t very happy with the way the officer was handling the situation.

CHP Officer Narrative: I could see that the mules were now on a wide, flat shoulder and were out of harm’s way. With traffic building up behind me, I advised him to stay out of the lane and I left the scene.

Mule Rebuttal: Whenever there is room, we will always relent and go as far away from the lane of traffic as possible. That is a given. Many many times on these rural roads in California that option is not available. We have no choice but to walk in the lane of traffic. Walk on the road. We have the right to be doing so. The motorist must share that road. The road does not belong exclusively to a high speed machine called the automobile.

CHP Officer Narrative: At 1222 hours, I received a second call from CHP dispatch of the same individual blocking the traffic lane with two mules.

Mule Rebuttal: Once again, he uses the word “blocking.” We weren’t blocking anybody. We were walking 2-3 mph on the side of the roading heading south towards Paso Robles.

CHP Officer Narrative: I waited for CHP unit 9-1, Officer A to assist me with this incident. In the meantime, two witnesses came to my location and advised me of the dangerous traffic hazard the mules were causing.

Mule Rebuttal: The two motorists complaining about the mules being a dangerous traffic hazard for being on the road demonstrates the total misunderstanding by the motoring public of equestrian rights to use that road. It also demonstrates the negligence of the state of California, CalTrans, and CHP to properly inform the motoring public of their obligation under the state vehicle code to share the road. If the officer knew the law, he would have informed them of their obligation under the state vehicle code to yield and share the road instead of using their complaints of us being a hazard to justify our arrests.

CHP Officer Narrative: Officer A and I drove out onto Nacimiento Lake Drive and I made contact with the individual for a third time. I could see the subject walked eastbound on the westbound shoulder with the two mules in the westbound lane.

Mule Rebuttal: The CHP Pedestrian Tip Card states that pedestrians should walk facing traffic when there is no sidewalk and you have to walk on the road.

CHP Pedestrian Tip Card

Mule Rebuttal: The Mules when walking these rural roads that have posted speed limits that far exceed their ability to safely accommodate all legal users, find ourselves many times crossing back and forth on the road to get on the side that provides ourselves the most room and safety for ourselves and the motorists passing us.

CHP Officer Narrative: The shoulder was wide enough that they all could have walked single file, posing less of a hazard, had the subject made the choice to do so. I recognize this to be extremely dangerous and his continued refusal to comply and walk he and the mules single file on the shoulder posed a hazardous situation to the subject, the mules, and the motoring public.

Mule Rebuttal: If I was to walk single file on that narrow road with very little room for the high speed automobile to get by us without side swiping us, it would be a big mistake. When I recognize the extreme danger of allowing a high speed automobile to what I call “thread the needle” going by us at break neck speeds, it is extremely dangerous for ourselves, the motorist, and the automobiles in the opposing lane. So when I find myself in this situation and I do many times, especially when crossing bridges, I literally get out in the lane of traffic because there is no place else to be and stop the motorist, jump up and down, wave my arms, and make sure the motorist knows that they must slow down. I literally have to force them to do so. They always get by us safely and nobody gets into a bloody wreck. 

CHP Officer Narrative: I positioned my patrol vehicle blocking the narrow shoulder and exited to make contact. Officer A positioned his patrol vehicle in the lane to the rear of mine with the overhead emergency lights activated. He exited his vehicle and stood in the westbound lane to flag and warn oncoming traffic. The subject was irate and agitated saying that this was a public thoroughfare and he had the right to be there.

Mule Rebuttal: Of course I was agitated and irate. If a motorist was stopped by a CHP officer and told that he had no right to be in his car and driving down the road, what kind of behavior would you expect from that motorist?  

CHP Officer Narrative: I explained that I was concerned for his safety. He said that traffic needs to slow down, if I was truly concerned about his safety.

Mule Rebuttal: Yes that’s exactly what the officer should have been involved in is slowing traffic down for the safety of myself, the mules, and the ignorant motorists.  

CHP Officer Narrative: I told him that I witnessed his mules walking two abreast in the lane. I told him I wanted to make this as easy as possible and I asked him for identification. He said I knew who he was and to look at his website. He refused to give me any form of identification. I tried to reason with him and asked for his ID. He went to his saddlebag and produced a California ID card identifying him as John Cheney Sears. Mr. Sears went on to say that the speed limit should be 25 mph, people need to share the road, and that the CHP has him on surveillance.

CHP Officer Narrative: I asked him to work with me and stay out of the traffic lane.

Mule Rebuttal: Once again it was impossible to stay out of the lane of traffic due to the lack of anywhere else to be. 

CHP Officer Narrative: He stated that he would not do that.

Mule Rebuttal: Well of course I didn’t do that, I couldn’t do that.  

CHP Officer Narrative: I gave him a lawful order three times and told him that he may receive a ticket or worse, go to jail. The legal order was based upon section 21954(a) VC, Pedestrian Outside a Crosswalk.

Mule Rebuttal: Nacimiento Lake Road (G14) is a rural area. There are no cross walks any where. When you have to go across that road because of blind curves and get to the safer side for the safety of myself, the mules, and the ignorant motorist, that’s what we do. And we have the right to do that. And there are no cross walks on that road. 

CHP Officer Narrative: Mr. Sears stated that if that happened, I would be opening up a can of worms. I told him that I didn’t want to take it to the next level. He said, “What happens, happens.”

Mule Rebuttal: The danger to the motoring public continues because of the reckless driving of that public. They make the choice to drive recklessly at high speeds. We don’t force them to do that. That is their choice. 

CHP Officer Narrative: Officer A and I positioned our patrol vehicles at the intersection of Nacimiento Lake Drive and San Marcos Road. With the belief that the danger to the motoring public would most likely continue, I drove out to Mr. Sears’ location with the MVARS camera activated. Once again, I was able to see Mr. Sears walking his mules in the eastbound traffic lane, rather than on the shoulder, in defiance of my lawful order, a violation of California Vehicle Code section 2800(a).

Mule Rebuttal: The order was not lawful. We have the right to be on the road. We have the right to use it. And there was no place else to go. As I stated previously, if there was, we would be there. Anytime there is enough room for us to remove ourselves as far as possible from the high speed motorist, we do so. But in many cases, especially on that road, there isn’t. The order was not lawful. You can’t give an order that is impossible to comply with and call it lawful. 

CHP Officer Narrative: I made a U-turn and activated my red lights to warn approaching traffic. Six vehicles including a Semi-tractor pulling a low boy trailer with heavy equipment had to utilize the opposing lane to get around Mr. Sears and his mules.

Mule Rebuttal: Well why did he have to do that? Because the semi-tractor refused to slow down and stop if necessary so we could all safely pass each other. The semi-tractor was blatantly breaking the law in front of the CHP officer and the CHP officer did nothing to address that. 

CHP Officer Narrative: Had Mr. Sears walked the Mules single file as directed, there would have been much less of a hazard presented.

Mule Rebuttal: Far to the contrary, once again, there is extreme danger had we been walking single file. The semi-tractor would have side swiped us. 

CHP Officer Narrative: I returned to the San Marcos intersection and waited for Mr. Sears to arrive.

CHP Officer Narrative: The situation posed an extreme danger to Mr. Sears, the mules, and the motoring public. Nacimiento Lake Drive is a winding roadway with ascending and descending elevations. The shoulders are narrow offering little room for a horse and even less for a vehicle. Mr. Sears was previously in an area of blind curves when CHP dispatch first received calls of him blocking the eastbound traffic lane. Mr. Sears was now about to travel east of San Marcos Road where the roadway is similarly dangerous.

Mule Rebuttal: CHP officer did not offer any assistance in alternate routes,  nor did the officer offer a trailer ride to get to Paso Robles. We had no cell reception to call anybody. In the CHP dashcam video, the officer states that he has no cell reception either yet he was able to call for a trailer to take us to jail in San Luis Obispo but not a tralier ride to Paso Robles.  The only way for us to physically get out of the area was to continue walking as we could not sprout wings and fly away, which is what we told the officer as well. CHP Officer turned his back on us and walked away as seen in the dashcam video. 

CHP Officer Narrative: At 1312 hours, I notified my supervisor/Sergeant and advised him of the ongoing situation involving Mr. Sears, the mules in the lane, and the defiance of a lawful order. I explained that if the dangerous situation continued, I may have no other choice but to arrest Mr. Sears. Sergeant concurred with me.

Upon Mr. Sears’ arrival, I exited my patrol vehicle and detained Mr. Sears. Officer Abel held the mules and I placed Mr. Sears under arrest for disobeying a lawful order, without incident. I advised Mr. Sears of his Miranda Rights which he invoked. Mr. Sears went on to yell that this was an unlawful arrest, we had no right to do this, and we were “fucking cowards.” his two mules were turned over to San Luis Obispo County Animal Services for safe keeping. All of Mr. Sears’ property was taken to the Templeton CHP office for safe keeping. Mr. Sears was transported to the San Luis Obispo County Jail and turned over to jail staff for booking.

Mules Rebuttal: Once again, it was not a lawful order, but just the opposite. The officer and the Sergeant had other choices, such as providing escort, providing a trailer ride to Paso Robles. The Mules could not sprout wings and fly away. If the CHP was able to summon Animal Services for a trailer so quickly, why couldn’t they trailer us past the area they thought was dangerous and drop off us to continue our journey to Paso Robles which was less than five miles way rather than drive us to San Luis Obispo 40 miles away. The CHP had other choices, just as the high speed motorist had a choice to obey the law to slow down and share the road.

Share this:

Lady (1980-October 7, 2021)

Lady, the mule who I purchased in 1986 in Coarsegold, CA when she was about 6 years old, and then roamed and wandered all over the western United States for 26 years, and in California for the past 9 years, has laid her physical body to rest on this day, October 7, 2021, at age 41 in human years. In horse years, we calculate this to be 114 years old.

The Mules want to give a special thanks to Jane, her parents, and Tucky for the wonderful care and place to spend her last years.

Myself, the Monk, says to myself how best to honor this wonderful soul who became an essential part of my life. If you have taken a photo of or with Lady, please share with us in the comments with the location and date and we will add to a video that we are compiling to remember her. 

When I was saying goodbye to her for the last time [on 9/20/21], we both knew there was an understanding that we would come together once again to wander and roam over the face of this Earth practicing the ages old sacred ways of the nomads.

Lady, Monk and Jane

The body dies and returns to dust. The spirit is eternal. Lady will have many paths and choices to choose from. We hope she chooses to return with us and continue to contribute her energy to the Three Mules Journey in a way unique and peculiar to herself.

The Mules

Share this:

Weeping Willow

Nature’s air conditioner a weeping willow tree. 🌴🌴 Step in under its umbrella and I bet it’s 20° cooler than when you step outside of it. Sure seems like that to us.

Share this:

Acorns

The Mules have been processing acorns. First gathering, then shelling, then pounding into a cornmeal type consistency, then leeching in water for about 5 days, then drying out, at which time they’ll be ready to eat.

After shelling the acorn and it’s still green and moist it’s pretty easy to pound them up into a cornmeal consistency. They leach a lot faster than if you were to leach them when the acorns are in a whole condition.

What do they taste like you ask and wonder? Well not good, not bad. The Mules suspect when the grocery stores are empty and you’ve been walking all day in search of something to eat, a bag of acorn flour in your pack that you can reach into and get some to eat, will taste pretty good. Of course at that point and beyond, taste is not really much of a concern. When the stomach wants food, it’ll take anything it can get without the slightest protest as to what it is or what it taste like.

Share this:

Mule Advisory Board

The Mules have been in California traveling, walking, and using the county, city, and state public thoroughfares for almost nine years living with respect and reverence for the Earth that supports us. Through this experience, we have come to the obvious observation that the California public thoroughfares, especially the rural thoroughfares, are dangerous and unsafe.  To deal with this condition, the Mules have created the Mule Advisory Board to advise the California Governor, State Legislatures, Caltrans and CHP. 

The rural county and state roads have been constructed to be very smooth allowing the modern automobile to travel them at extremely high and dangerous speeds. These roads are also very narrow allowing little or no room for automobiles and the other legal users such as equestrians, cyclists, and pedestrians to safely pass each other. Cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians are being illegally removed from these public thoroughfares simply because there is no room by which to use them alongside motorists. 

For over eight years, the Mules have passed a huge amount of roadside memorials representing the many people who have needlessly lost their lives to the unsafe conditions of California’s public roads. The Mules are holding the State of California and Caltrans responsible for the deadly and dangerous road conditions which have been responsible for the bloody carnage which has been allowed to go on far too long.

The Mule Advisory Board has issued the following directives to be implemented immediately:

1) Mandatory speed limit reduction from 55 miles per hour (mph) to 30 mph on all county and state roads where a designated condition of extremely dangerous road has been established. The designated condition of an extremely dangerous road would be any section of a road that has blind curves and a narrow passage with little or no shoulder for all the legal users to pass each other safely. The 30 mph speed limit will be in effect until an alternate pathway for the other legal users (pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists) is constructed not further than one mile from the line of travel from the road in question.

2) Rest Stops. On any newly constructed alternative pathways for non-motorized travelers, places to stop and rest for not less or more than a 24-hour period must be provided along the route every ten miles. 

3) Signage – signs must be posted every four miles on both sides of the road, stamping down and stamping into the public mind that sharing the road is the law. And for the well-being and safety of all legal users this law must be practiced and obeyed.  

4) Enforce CA Vehicle Code 21759: The driver of any vehicle that approaches a horse drawn vehicle, any ridden animal, or livestock must exercise proper control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear necessary to avoid frightening the animal and to insure safety of the person in charge of the animal.  

CA Vehicle Code 21759

The above directives are to be implemented immediately, for the purpose of bringing a state of the art public thoroughfare and trail system to the people of California. 

The Mules will be delivering a copy of the Mules Advisory Board’s directives (shown below) one step at a time, all day every day, to the California Governor and State Legislatures, all CalTrans District Offices, and every CHP District Headquarters. As well, the Mules will be delivering and spreading throughout the State the ever mounting level of energy emanating from our lawsuit, Mules vs. State of California. The energy emanating from this lawsuit will show itself to have no bounds. It will blanket the State and relentlessly work to bring a state of the art public thoroughfare and trail system to the people of California. 

The Mules

MULE ADVISORY BOARD DIRECTIVE:

Mules-Advisory-Board-Letter-of-DirectivesDownload
Share this:

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

On May 20, 2021, the California Attorney General attorney for California Highway Patrol (CHP) answered the Mules’ complaint with a long detailed diatribe trying to justify the Mules’ arrest on January 23, 2020.

The Mules under state law clearly have the right to travel/walk on all county, state roads in California. The Mules right to do so as well as all other legal users – cyclists, pedestrians was clearly violated.

This case, 3 Mules vs California/CHP is a gift that has been laid down on a table its one-inch thick and a foot square. It has been infused with glowing beautiful light sent from the nomadic way of life that has been practiced for thousands and thousands of years here on this earth. The effect this case will have will be far reaching and multi-dimensional.

The spiritual energy being accumulated in and around this case will never relent, protecting this sacred, nomadic way of life and all those who give their energy to it.

~The Mules

Read Defendents’ Answer to Complaint

Read The Mules Complaint against CHP

Share this: