[00:00.000 --> 00:05.160] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [00:05.160 --> 00:11.720] In a rare bipartisan defeat for Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday [00:11.720 --> 00:18.120] to keep Guantanamo open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees [00:18.120 --> 00:20.560] to facilities in the U.S. [00:20.560 --> 00:26.000] U.S. District Judge John Bates says the U.S. can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo [00:26.000 --> 00:29.240] indefinitely without any charges. [00:29.240 --> 00:34.540] Judge Bates said after 9-11, Congress gave the President authority to hold anyone involved [00:34.540 --> 00:39.200] in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks. [00:39.200 --> 00:44.680] A Pentagon report said 74 released Guantanamo detainees returned to terrorism. [00:44.680 --> 00:52.000] However, the Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating 45 unnamed recidivists while [00:52.000 --> 00:58.120] only a few of the 29 people identified can be independently verified as having engaged [00:58.120 --> 01:00.120] in terrorism since their release. [01:00.120 --> 01:04.760] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [01:04.760 --> 01:11.280] A new Cornell University survey on trends on union intimidation is providing labor supporters [01:11.280 --> 01:16.320] with critical ammunition in their struggle to pass a card check bill. [01:16.320 --> 01:22.080] The survey singled out a baked goods company called Earthgrains for its strong arm tactics. [01:22.080 --> 01:27.640] In 2000, when its Kentucky plant tried to organize, Earthgrains videotaped employees [01:27.640 --> 01:33.240] talking to union representatives, confiscated union literature, interrogated employees about [01:33.240 --> 01:39.520] whether their co-workers supported unions and threatened their jobs and retirement plans. [01:39.520 --> 01:45.960] According to the study of over 1,000 union organizing drives, such tactics are now standard [01:45.960 --> 01:46.960] practice. [01:46.960 --> 01:51.800] Management threatened to close plants and cut wages and benefits in half the cases. [01:51.800 --> 01:57.120] The survey found that what distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous employer [01:57.120 --> 02:03.760] opposition to unions is intense and aggressive anti-union campaigning of a kind previously [02:03.760 --> 02:06.040] found only at Walmart. [02:06.040 --> 02:11.520] Fifty-five percent of non-managerial workers say they would vote for a union, but only [02:11.520 --> 02:14.840] 12.4 percent are actually organized. [02:14.840 --> 02:20.800] Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report. [02:20.800 --> 02:26.400] World renowned biologist Pushpa Bhagava says genetically modified organisms, GMOs, are [02:26.400 --> 02:31.200] a major contributor to Americans sharply deteriorating health. [02:31.200 --> 02:37.640] Investigations in India revealed most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such [02:37.640 --> 02:44.080] as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. [02:44.080 --> 02:45.480] Many calves died. [02:45.480 --> 02:52.160] In the US, farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming GM corn. [02:52.160 --> 02:56.640] Some had false pregnancies and others gave birth to bags of water. [02:56.640 --> 03:26.360] Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn. [03:27.360 --> 03:55.080] The survey found that what distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous [03:55.080 --> 03:57.480] governments? [03:57.480 --> 04:00.840] School and learn the golden rules So, what are you? [04:00.840 --> 04:05.040] Acting like a bloody fool If you get hot then you might get cool [04:05.040 --> 04:07.940] Bad boy, bad boy Whatcha gonna do [04:07.940 --> 04:10.580] Whatcha gonna do When they come for you [04:10.580 --> 04:13.460] Bad boy, bad boy Whatcha gonna do [04:13.460 --> 04:16.260] Whatcha gonna do When they come for you [04:16.260 --> 04:19.160] You took it on that one You took it on this one [04:19.160 --> 04:21.800] You took it on your mother And you took it on your father [04:21.800 --> 04:24.520] You took it on your brother and You took it on your sister [04:24.520 --> 04:46.460] Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you? [04:46.460 --> 04:52.200] This is the rule of law. [04:52.200 --> 05:01.320] Kelsey and Deborah Stevens rule of law radio. Tonight we are going to talk about this somewhat [05:01.320 --> 05:13.080] controversial court ruling, Supreme Court ruling, Montejo v. Louisiana. And we want [05:13.080 --> 05:22.600] to go to the point of law because it would seem that we need to not get caught up in issues or [05:22.600 --> 05:32.120] arguments that are supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the trial court. So, Randy, [05:32.120 --> 05:39.000] can you please explain this? Yes, I have a rant. Okay. I keep hearing about, it seems like most [05:39.000 --> 05:45.400] every Supreme Court ruling that comes down that has anything to do with civil rights, [05:46.360 --> 05:52.040] everybody starts jumping up and down and screaming and ranting and raving about how all this horrible [05:52.040 --> 06:00.600] stuff is being done by the Supreme Court. And then I go read the case and all the stuff these people [06:00.600 --> 06:09.160] are jumping up and down and making all this noise about are simply not there. This particular case, [06:09.160 --> 06:16.120] a lot of hoopla about it. The court has said that the police can interrogate you even after [06:16.120 --> 06:25.880] you ask for an attorney. It says no such thing. This case is focused on a very fine point of law [06:25.880 --> 06:32.760] and people tend to read these cases and then put into them every personal issue they have [06:33.800 --> 06:38.600] and assign those to the case and then rail against the issues they put in there. That's called a [06:38.600 --> 06:43.880] straw man. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, Randy, just to take the devil's advocate position [06:43.880 --> 06:51.240] of what you're saying. I think it has to do with the position that someone needs to hold in their [06:51.240 --> 06:58.200] mind when they're reading this document. Because when I'm reading this, I had all kinds of questions [06:58.200 --> 07:05.800] and considerations and concerns because I was coming from the point of view of a jurist. And [07:06.440 --> 07:12.200] we talked about it, all the different issues that are brought up and there's many issues, [07:12.840 --> 07:18.840] how much rights the police have as far as interrogation or investigation and all these [07:18.840 --> 07:24.200] sorts of things. But, you know, we discussed that it has to do with when you're reading this [07:24.200 --> 07:34.120] document, are you the jurist or are you sitting on the court of appeals? And so, you know, that [07:34.120 --> 07:39.960] kind of changes things. Yeah, that's exactly it. So it's not so much that everybody wants to interject [07:39.960 --> 07:47.400] their own thing, as much as you just have to know what position you're in. You know, [07:47.400 --> 07:53.800] what position you hold when you're reading this document and what actions you are authorized or [07:53.800 --> 08:03.000] required to take based on that knowledge. Exactly. It goes to focus. When you read case law, [08:05.400 --> 08:14.840] the court of appeals, when they get a case, they expect the trial court to develop the facts in [08:14.840 --> 08:21.800] the case. And I've talked about a trial court's duty earlier. It is the duty of the trial court [08:21.800 --> 08:30.520] to apply the law as the appeals court gives it to them, to the facts that are developed in the case. [08:31.960 --> 08:40.040] On the other hand, when the appeals court addresses an issue, they must presume that the trial court [08:40.040 --> 08:47.960] did its job and properly adjudicated the case so that it accurately defined the facts at [08:47.960 --> 08:54.280] issue in the case. So they have to accept the facts the way the facts were brought to them, [08:55.240 --> 09:01.880] unless there is a specific issue concerning a fact. And in reading through this case, [09:02.680 --> 09:05.560] I'll admit when I read the first sentence, I had a hiccup. [09:05.560 --> 09:11.800] I had a preliminary hearing required by Louisiana law. I said, give me a break. Yeah, I know all [09:11.800 --> 09:18.840] about those preliminary hearings, but that was not an issue in the case. So I'd have to consider [09:18.840 --> 09:24.200] that somewhere else. I only consider the issue before the court. And when you do that, [09:24.920 --> 09:34.600] you find these cases make real good sense. So Randy, okay. Is it not the job of the [09:34.600 --> 09:41.400] the job of the judge who may be sitting on this appeals court or the Supreme Court to say, [09:42.280 --> 09:48.520] wait a minute, I want to see the documents of this so-called preliminary hearing? Why [09:49.560 --> 09:58.200] do the judges on this appeals court or the Supreme Court have to just totally take at face value [09:58.200 --> 10:08.200] whatever the trial court give them with absolutely no investigative powers or questions whatsoever? [10:08.200 --> 10:16.200] That doesn't seem right to me. Well, when we say that the trial court must apply the law as it's [10:16.200 --> 10:23.320] given to them to the facts, he doesn't get to decide what he thinks the law means. [10:23.320 --> 10:32.840] On the other hand, the appeals court doesn't get the option of second-guessing the trial judge. [10:33.400 --> 10:38.280] The appeals court wasn't in the courtroom. They didn't hear the evidence presented. [10:38.280 --> 10:44.440] They didn't hear the examinations of the witnesses or the objections of the attorneys. [10:45.240 --> 10:49.560] They didn't have all of this information to work from. The trial judge did. [10:49.560 --> 10:56.120] And they have to give the trial judge, the prosecutor, and defense counsel all credit [10:56.920 --> 11:01.960] for forming all the issues. So there's no check and balance whatsoever in that situation? [11:01.960 --> 11:07.880] Yes, the check and balance is in place. It is the place of the defense counsel if he has a question [11:07.880 --> 11:14.920] about a fact to bring the fact to issue before the trial court, I mean, before the appeals court. [11:14.920 --> 11:23.640] If he brings it to the court as a point at issue, then they can address it. But if the defense counsel [11:23.640 --> 11:29.320] said, I have no problem with these facts, the way they're developed, because I don't raise an [11:29.320 --> 11:33.240] objection to them, then the prosecution says, I have no problems with these facts. They're [11:33.240 --> 11:40.280] stipulated. So it's not the place of the of the court of appeals to come in and say, [11:40.280 --> 11:45.960] well, you guys don't know what you're talking about. Why not? Then again, why not? Actually, [11:45.960 --> 11:55.800] they can. If there is a glaringly obvious miscarriage of justice, they can come in [11:55.800 --> 12:02.760] on their own and say, wait a minute, guys, you got to change this. But unless there is some reason, [12:02.760 --> 12:08.760] they don't second guess the trial judge. Otherwise, there would be no point of having a trial, [12:08.760 --> 12:14.760] a preliminary trial judge. You might as well just go to the appeals. If they're going to make all [12:14.760 --> 12:20.760] the decisions anyway, what's the point of having trial? We have to get some kind of separation to [12:20.760 --> 12:26.840] make these things make sense. And this is the way we've it's been done. And it's been, you know, [12:26.840 --> 12:32.920] a separation to make these things make sense. And this is the way we it's been done. And it's been [12:32.920 --> 12:39.240] very effective for a very long time. Well, Randy, what who is to make the decision [12:39.240 --> 12:47.000] that there is a glaring error? I mean, one person's, you know, one man's treasure is another [12:47.000 --> 12:52.840] man's trash, so to speak. I mean, one person can say there's a glaring error and another person [12:52.840 --> 13:00.840] could say, oh, that's a fine point of law or a loophole in some obscure, uh, antiquated, [13:00.840 --> 13:02.840] uh, statutes of the... [13:02.840 --> 13:03.840] Exactly. [13:03.840 --> 13:04.840] And that's... [13:04.840 --> 13:05.840] Okay. [13:05.840 --> 13:06.840] So who's to make that decision? [13:06.840 --> 13:08.840] Isn't, isn't that what the higher courts are for? [13:08.840 --> 13:09.840] Yes. [13:09.840 --> 13:10.840] That's what they're for. [13:10.840 --> 13:20.400] If, if the attorneys, if, if the parties in the trial court believe that the trial judge [13:20.400 --> 13:31.200] made a glaring error, then they, uh, address the error and they, they will brief out, they'll [13:31.200 --> 13:37.840] bring the law to the court of appeals and say, hey, we believe the judge misapplied [13:37.840 --> 13:39.840] the law to the facts. [13:39.840 --> 13:44.860] But you're saying the judges in the higher courts, they don't have that power? [13:44.860 --> 13:49.160] It's up to the attorneys of the, who's representing either side? [13:49.160 --> 13:50.600] Right. [13:50.600 --> 13:53.400] If it's not broke, don't fix it. [13:53.400 --> 13:57.880] If neither side is raising an objection to the facts brought to it, there's no reason [13:57.880 --> 14:03.560] to address the facts because we trust learned counsel on both sides to adequately adjudicate [14:03.560 --> 14:04.560] the case. [14:04.560 --> 14:09.000] Well, uh, Randy, let me, let me, let me just bring this case to you. [14:09.000 --> 14:10.000] Okay. [14:10.000 --> 14:16.520] As, uh, say you're sitting on a court of appeals and there's a case and the argument is because [14:16.520 --> 14:25.240] so-and-so was white, therefore he committed the murder and neither side is arguing and, [14:25.240 --> 14:31.680] uh, jury convicted and the defense attorney isn't raising a snake and the prosecutor's [14:31.680 --> 14:34.840] saying, yeah, that's the way it is. [14:34.840 --> 14:38.120] And you're on the court of appeals. [14:38.120 --> 14:45.400] Hello, can you just say, oh, well, uh, they said because the guy's white, he committed [14:45.400 --> 14:50.480] the murder and, uh, neither sides raising an objection, so, uh, that's just the way [14:50.480 --> 14:51.480] it is. [14:51.480 --> 14:53.080] Uh, how is that justice? [14:53.080 --> 14:58.840] They can, they can raise the issue to the Sponte from the appeals court. [14:58.840 --> 15:04.920] First time they can say, this is a manifest, uh, miscarriage of justice. [15:04.920 --> 15:08.400] The judge can't get the appeals court judges can't. [15:08.400 --> 15:09.400] Okay. [15:09.400 --> 15:10.400] That's what I wanted to know. [15:10.400 --> 15:16.520] Because it's, and they can at any time, but they don't, unless it's glaring, they tend [15:16.520 --> 15:27.320] to trust the prosecutor and defense counsel or the two, the attorneys for the two litigants, [15:27.320 --> 15:32.440] they trust both sides to have brought their case before the court. [15:32.440 --> 15:39.000] And then they trust the court to adequately or reasonably adequately apply the law to [15:39.000 --> 15:43.840] the facts and it wouldn't be in the appeals court unless one of the sides felt like the [15:43.840 --> 15:52.120] judge improperly applied the law to the facts, but the, but the appellate judges can object. [15:52.120 --> 15:54.440] You're saying yes, they can. [15:54.440 --> 15:55.880] Do you have case law on that? [15:55.880 --> 15:57.200] Oh, there's plenty. [15:57.200 --> 15:59.320] Uh, it's so spontaneous. [15:59.320 --> 16:05.720] They can, they can address a manifest, a breach of justice. [16:05.720 --> 16:09.280] To respond to from the appeals court at any time. [16:09.280 --> 16:13.760] Well, yeah, they have, that's a check and balance and they have the power to do it. [16:13.760 --> 16:19.000] They normally don't, unless it's glaring, they assume that there are facts that we have [16:19.000 --> 16:24.480] missed that haven't been brought to us and we trust the judge down there to be doing [16:24.480 --> 16:25.760] a good job. [16:25.760 --> 16:30.360] If nobody's raising an objection, unless it's obvious that both sides are slammed. [16:30.360 --> 16:31.360] Okay. [16:31.360 --> 16:32.360] All right. [16:32.360 --> 16:36.800] In fact, I want to get more into this particular case, uh, Randy. [16:36.800 --> 16:42.760] So I want you to explain to everyone how it would seem that everyone's making a big stink [16:42.760 --> 16:47.840] about this case and it could be just a big distraction because it didn't really change [16:47.840 --> 16:48.840] any law. [16:48.840 --> 16:49.840] Okay. [16:49.840 --> 16:50.840] Right. [16:50.840 --> 16:51.840] Right. [16:51.840 --> 16:52.840] Okay. [16:52.840 --> 16:53.840] We'll be right back. [16:53.840 --> 17:21.920] Rule of law, we're going to kill Debra Stevens. [17:21.920 --> 17:51.920] Byepapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapap [17:51.920 --> 17:58.920] at 817-975-2431. That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431. [18:21.920 --> 18:40.080] All right. They don't have the answers, and we are asking the questions. I'm asking the [18:40.080 --> 18:49.360] questions of Mr. Randy Kelton. I'm grilling him. I want to know, what is the deal with [18:49.360 --> 18:59.120] this case, Montejo v. Louisiana? And Randy's saying, it's a big brouhaha where nothing, [18:59.120 --> 19:04.860] no law has actually changed. And it all boils down to what point of view you're looking [19:04.860 --> 19:11.320] at it. As a jurist, I have a lot of questions. And there's potentially a lot of questions [19:11.320 --> 19:17.680] in here, and that's because, Debra, you and I do due process. And we're well aware of [19:17.680 --> 19:22.520] all of the due process violations. That's why when we read preliminary hearing, we [19:22.520 --> 19:27.000] knew there was a big problem with that. Yeah, because I want to know what preliminary hearing. [19:27.000 --> 19:33.240] I want to see the paperwork. I want to know what magistrate, the whole nine yards. But [19:33.240 --> 19:40.720] for the purpose of examining the decision, we need to go to where the court went to. [19:40.720 --> 19:46.240] This is a, they're examining a fine point of law. Yeah. What really is the question [19:46.240 --> 19:51.840] here in this case? Okay. Let me read this first part and it will frame it. Now, we'll [19:51.840 --> 19:58.880] do this the way the Supreme Court and the appeals court did and read this as if these [19:58.880 --> 20:05.520] are the facts uncontested, developed by both sides, and we can accept these as parameters. [20:05.520 --> 20:10.840] Okay. So let's just pretend for a second that the defense attorney actually did his job [20:10.840 --> 20:16.800] and that the police weren't pushing the envelope or whatever. Let's just pretend for a second [20:16.800 --> 20:21.240] that everyone's rights were upheld and due process was followed. Is that what you're [20:21.240 --> 20:26.920] saying, Randy? Yes. Okay. So let's just pretend. Okay. At a preliminary hearing required by [20:26.920 --> 20:33.280] Louisiana law, petitioner Montahale was charged with first degree murder and the court ordered [20:33.280 --> 20:39.360] the appointment of counsel. That is the one time you don't have a right to represent yourself [20:39.360 --> 20:47.800] in court without counsel. Now you can be the lead counsel, but in a case of first degree [20:47.800 --> 20:54.960] murder, you must always have counsel. So we don't know if they took him and threw him [20:54.960 --> 20:59.280] in jail and brought him before a magistrate or if they took him directly to a magistrate. [20:59.280 --> 21:03.960] We don't know any of that. None of that's in contention, but they did take him to a [21:03.960 --> 21:12.160] magistrate and the magistrate appointed an attorney the way the law required. Later that [21:12.160 --> 21:18.800] day, the police read Montahale, his rights under Miranda V. Arizona, and he agreed to [21:18.800 --> 21:27.720] go along on a trip to locate the murder weapon. During the excursion, he wrote an inculpatory [21:27.720 --> 21:34.240] letter of apology to the victim's widow. Upon returning, he finally met his court appointed [21:34.240 --> 21:43.080] attorney. At trial, his letter was admitted over a defense objection and he was convicted [21:43.080 --> 21:48.120] and sentenced to death. Affirming the state Supreme Court rejection, his claim that the [21:48.120 --> 21:55.820] letter should have been suppressed under rule of Michigan v. Jackson, which forbids police [21:55.820 --> 22:03.400] to initiate interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has invoked his right to counsel [22:03.400 --> 22:09.880] at an arraignment or similar proceeding. The court reasoned that Jackson's prophylactic [22:09.880 --> 22:18.640] protection is not triggered unless the defendant actually requested a lawyer or has otherwise [22:18.640 --> 22:26.000] asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. And that, since Montahale stood mute at his [22:26.000 --> 22:34.560] hearing while the judge ordered the appointment of counsel, he made no such request or assertion. [22:34.560 --> 22:42.680] That's the question. And it goes to this consideration most of us have heard is that rights belong [22:42.680 --> 22:43.680] to the belligerent litigant. [22:43.680 --> 22:52.120] Wait a minute. What, what is the question? Did he request counsel and did he invoke his [22:52.120 --> 22:55.560] Fifth Amendment right? That was the question. [22:55.560 --> 22:57.600] Fifth Amendment? Yes. [22:57.600 --> 23:04.760] Then why does it say Sixth Amendment? I'm sorry, Sixth Amendment. I'm brain dead. [23:04.760 --> 23:15.520] He did not object to talking to the police. He didn't ask for counsel. So Sixth Amendment [23:15.520 --> 23:22.120] right is counsel. It goes to, all of this goes to counsel. He didn't object to talking [23:22.120 --> 23:28.280] to the police. He didn't request counsel. Even though the court appointed counsel, he [23:28.280 --> 23:34.320] didn't request it. So he spoke to the police of his own volition. [23:34.320 --> 23:38.000] Wait a minute. How do we know he didn't request it? [23:38.000 --> 23:42.920] Because it is the facts developed in the case say he didn't. [23:42.920 --> 23:47.200] Okay. We're sitting on the court of appeals now. We don't get to ask those kinds of questions. [23:47.200 --> 23:48.600] Is that what you're saying? [23:48.600 --> 23:53.200] No, that's not a question before the court. That's a presumption. That's the set of parameters [23:53.200 --> 23:55.760] before the court. [23:55.760 --> 24:01.280] He stood mute before the court, made no request for counsel, even though the court appointed [24:01.280 --> 24:08.280] counsel, they didn't do it at his request. They did it as a matter of law. There's no [24:08.280 --> 24:16.240] indication he objected to speaking with the police. If that were before the court and [24:16.240 --> 24:20.080] that's the clear statement, he made no objection to talking to them. [24:20.080 --> 24:30.120] So what the question was, was once counsel is appointed, are the police forbidden to [24:30.120 --> 24:41.600] talk to the accused? Or can the accused talk to the police voluntarily if he wants to? [24:41.600 --> 24:50.840] And when the question is framed, well, yeah, I have a first amendment right. I can talk [24:50.840 --> 24:57.200] to anybody I want to anytime I want to. To say that because the court appoints you counsel, [24:57.200 --> 25:03.240] you can no longer talk. You know, we would have a fit about that. I just went to court [25:03.240 --> 25:07.040] Monday and Tuesday and the judge appointed me counsel. [25:07.040 --> 25:13.280] She said, Mr. Kelton, do you have an attorney? No, Your Honor, I do not. Are you going to [25:13.280 --> 25:17.800] hire an attorney? No, ma'am, I'm not. Do you want me to appoint counsel? You can do whatever [25:17.800 --> 25:18.800] you want to. [25:18.800 --> 25:26.840] Well, I'm still not understanding what the real issue is here in this case. [25:26.840 --> 25:34.160] If she appointed me counsel, would that restrict my first amendment right to speak to the police [25:34.160 --> 25:36.120] if I wanted to? [25:36.120 --> 25:41.680] Is that the question or is the question if you spoke, would that be evidence? [25:41.680 --> 25:48.100] Yes, I'm sorry. You helped to finally define the question. Can I voluntarily give evidence [25:48.100 --> 25:56.560] to the police? And if I do, can they use it? And the answer was yes, I can. Even over [25:56.560 --> 26:02.360] objection of my counsel. In this case, counsel didn't object because he didn't have opportunity [26:02.360 --> 26:09.480] to. And although it's not in the case, I would expect that was the argument that counsel [26:09.480 --> 26:15.600] was making that I didn't advise him not to speak to the police because I didn't get [26:15.600 --> 26:19.040] opportunity to. You took him out there before I got to talk to him. [26:19.040 --> 26:27.800] Don't you think that's a little stretching it? I mean, court could appoint someone counsel [26:27.800 --> 26:34.280] and you know, six months later or a year later, you actually get to talk to him. And in the [26:34.280 --> 26:42.880] meanwhile, you've gotten the crapolia beat out of you and water boarded or whatever. [26:42.880 --> 26:49.560] And oh, well, it's OK. It's admissible as evidence because the court appointed you counsel. [26:49.560 --> 26:52.640] That's not what they said. OK, well, then what did they say? [26:52.640 --> 27:01.120] There was no indication of objection, no indication that the individual expressed his desire not [27:01.120 --> 27:05.080] to speak to the police. That's not. No, no, that's not the question. [27:05.080 --> 27:10.440] It's not in the court. It has to be the question. I don't think the question is whether or not [27:10.440 --> 27:16.440] the person actually objected or not. I think the question is whether or not anything the [27:16.440 --> 27:23.040] person said to the police before they actually spoke to the attorney should be admitted as [27:23.040 --> 27:27.960] evidence. Yes, that's what Miranda tells you. But you're [27:27.960 --> 27:34.320] just saying. Anything you say can and will be used against [27:34.320 --> 27:44.440] you. So you're saying that because the person had their Miranda rights read to them. And [27:44.440 --> 27:48.200] they spoke anyway, and we're not going to assume one way or the other whether it was [27:48.200 --> 27:50.720] coercion or not. Right. [27:50.720 --> 27:55.120] Doesn't matter whether they talk to the attorney or not, but because the Miranda rights were [27:55.120 --> 28:00.800] read, anything they said after that can and will be used against them? [28:00.800 --> 28:04.640] Yes. Well, then that's exactly what the Miranda [28:04.640 --> 28:10.000] ruling says. So what's the big deal? That was my yeah, that was what the attorney [28:10.000 --> 28:17.720] was trying to say is once a council is appointed, you leave my client alone until I have opportunity [28:17.720 --> 28:24.800] to talk to my client. The only issue I have here with this is that [28:24.800 --> 28:32.160] this case says on its face that this person, well, he could have been read his Miranda [28:32.160 --> 28:40.360] rights multiple times, but it was clear that the Miranda rights were read to him after [28:40.360 --> 28:43.400] the preliminary hearing. And I thought the Miranda rights were supposed [28:43.400 --> 28:49.960] to be read to him before I thought the Miranda rights were supposed to be read upon rest. [28:49.960 --> 28:55.240] So what is this after the preliminary hearing and then some point later in the day, then [28:55.240 --> 28:57.560] they read him the rights. What about that? [28:57.560 --> 29:06.440] If nobody attempted to question him, then perhaps he was falling down drunk. If no one [29:06.440 --> 29:12.200] attempted to question him, the fact of reading or not reading Miranda rights becomes moot [29:12.200 --> 29:17.720] because that only goes to the use of evidence. The point is they have to be read to the person [29:17.720 --> 29:20.280] before they start questioning. Exactly. [29:20.280 --> 29:26.520] Okay, so it doesn't say anything about questioning. It just says there was a hearing, he was charged [29:26.520 --> 29:29.960] later the day. He was certainly read his rights at the hearing. [29:29.960 --> 29:33.040] No, it doesn't say that. It says later that day. [29:33.040 --> 29:35.920] The preliminary hearing, that's the first thing that's always required. [29:35.920 --> 29:38.360] You assume that. But it doesn't matter because they didn't [29:38.360 --> 29:41.160] question him at the hearing. All right. Well, callers, what do y'all have [29:41.160 --> 29:49.800] to say about it? 512-646-1984. Be right back. We're going to find points [29:49.800 --> 29:59.240] of law. The rule of law. Be right back. [29:59.240 --> 30:03.200] Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback, this is a great time [30:03.200 --> 30:08.120] to buy. With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and [30:08.120 --> 30:12.240] instability in rural financial systems, I see gold going up much higher. [30:12.240 --> 30:17.040] Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. Everybody should have some of their assets [30:17.040 --> 30:20.880] in investment grade precious metals. At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can [30:20.880 --> 30:25.560] buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious [30:25.560 --> 30:30.040] metals market since 1977. If you are new to precious metals, we will [30:30.040 --> 30:34.320] happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision whether [30:34.320 --> 30:38.640] or not you choose to purchase from us. Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values [30:38.640 --> 30:42.760] your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report [30:42.760 --> 30:46.000] any transaction. If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd [30:46.000 --> 30:49.120] like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment. [30:49.120 --> 30:54.880] Call us at 800-874-9760. We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. [30:54.880 --> 31:08.400] 800-874-9760 Yes, Mr. Officer, you're taking the law in [31:08.400 --> 31:35.880] the name of the law. When you're going to stop abuse, you're [31:35.880 --> 31:45.920] going to stop abuse. I still have some issues with this case coming [31:45.920 --> 31:54.200] from the point of a jurist. Maybe these issues should be raised in the trial court. Randy, [31:54.200 --> 31:59.640] you wanted to go into some explanations. This is a real short case. Let me go a little [31:59.640 --> 32:06.840] further here. Affirming the state Supreme Court rejected [32:06.840 --> 32:12.440] his claim that the letter should have been suppressed under the rule of Michigan v. Jackson, [32:12.440 --> 32:18.000] which forbids police to initiate interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has invoked [32:18.000 --> 32:23.040] his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding. The court reasoned that [32:23.040 --> 32:28.760] Jackson's pro-prolactic protection is not triggered unless the defendant has actually [32:28.760 --> 32:36.000] requested a lawyer or has otherwise asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and [32:36.000 --> 32:40.920] that since Montahale stood mute at his hearing while the judge ordered the appointment of [32:40.920 --> 32:47.160] counsel, he made no such request or assertion. The state Supreme Court's interpretation [32:47.160 --> 32:52.840] of Jackson would lead to impractical problems. Requiring an initial invocation of the right [32:52.840 --> 32:58.120] to counsel in order to trigger the Jackson presumption, as the court below did, might [32:58.120 --> 33:04.640] work in states that require an indigent defendant formally to request counsel before an appointment [33:04.640 --> 33:09.680] is made, but not in more than half the states which appoint counsel without request from [33:09.680 --> 33:13.960] the defendant. On the other hand, Montahale's solution is [33:13.960 --> 33:21.820] untenable as a theoretical and doctrinal matter. Eliminating the invocation requirement entirely [33:21.820 --> 33:27.680] would depart fundamentally from the rationale of Jackson, whose presumption was created [33:27.680 --> 33:33.400] by analogy to a similar prophylactic rule established in Edwards v. Arizona to protect [33:33.400 --> 33:39.320] the Fifth Amendment-based Miranda right. Both Edwards and Jackson are meant to prevent police [33:39.320 --> 33:44.980] from badgering defendants into changing their minds about the right to counsel once they [33:44.980 --> 33:50.780] have invoked it, but a defendant who has never asked for counsel has not yet made up his [33:50.780 --> 33:57.640] mind in the first instance. Starry decisis does not require the court to expend a significant [33:57.640 --> 34:02.640] decision to expand significantly the holding of a prior decision in order to cure its practical [34:02.640 --> 34:10.000] deficiencies. To the contrary, the fact that a decision has proved unworkable is a traditional [34:10.000 --> 34:16.600] ground for overruling it. Paine v. Tennessee. Beyond workability, the relevant factors include [34:16.600 --> 34:22.800] the precedent's antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and rather that the decision was [34:22.800 --> 34:28.480] well-reasoned. The first two cut in favor of jettisoning Jackson. The opinion is only [34:28.480 --> 34:35.360] two decades old, and eliminating it would not upset expectations since any criminal [34:35.360 --> 34:44.720] defendant learned enough to order his affairs based on Jackson's rule would also be perfectly [34:44.720 --> 34:50.760] capable of interacting with police on his own. As for the strength of Jackson's reasoning [34:50.760 --> 34:55.520] when this court creates a prophylactic rule to protect the constitutional right, the relevant [34:55.520 --> 35:01.680] reasoning is the weighing of the rule's benefits against its costs. Jackson's marginal benefits [35:01.680 --> 35:09.560] are dwarfed by its substantial cost, even without Jackson. Few badgering-induced waivers, [35:09.560 --> 35:16.040] if any, would be admitted at trial because the court has taken substantial other overlapping [35:16.040 --> 35:21.760] measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation [35:21.760 --> 35:28.360] must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. Once such a defendant has invoked [35:28.360 --> 35:35.040] his right, interrogation must stop. So nothing has changed here. [35:35.040 --> 35:40.160] Okay, okay, okay. I agree. Nothing has changed. And we do have a caller on the line, John. [35:40.160 --> 35:46.680] But before I take the caller, one second here. I see what you're saying, Randy, and I see [35:46.680 --> 35:56.800] what the court cases say, the case law. But I have to raise the issue regarding the proper [35:56.800 --> 36:05.800] role of government here. Okay? This is not a contract. All right? I believe in my heart [36:05.800 --> 36:14.960] the role of government is to protect individual rights and liberties, regardless if the person [36:14.960 --> 36:22.760] asserts them verbally or written or otherwise. All right? This is not a contract. The role [36:22.760 --> 36:29.600] of government, according to proper libertarian conservative values, which I adhere to, is [36:29.600 --> 36:36.440] that the role of government is to protect individual rights and liberties. Period. End [36:36.440 --> 36:46.120] of story. Not if we say, oh, oh, oh, by the way, oh, yeah, that's right. We do have a [36:46.120 --> 36:51.120] right to counsel. Oh, yeah, that's right. We do have a right to keep our mouths shut [36:51.120 --> 36:58.800] or whatever the case may be. Okay? I'm sorry. I cannot go along with this. I don't care [36:58.800 --> 37:03.760] what the case law says. I agree with your position. All right? And so I have to totally [37:03.760 --> 37:12.240] deny this out of hand because it's based on the fact that the person has to verbally assert [37:12.240 --> 37:20.080] or otherwise assert their rights or their liberties. And what if the person is deaf [37:20.080 --> 37:26.720] or dumb or blind or incompetent or whatever? You know, our rights were not given to us [37:26.720 --> 37:34.920] by a piece of paper, okay, or statute or constitution. Our rights were given to us by God. And it's [37:34.920 --> 37:41.160] no man's authority to take it away from us or to deny us of those rights just because [37:41.160 --> 37:48.760] we don't speak up about them. So I say no to this court ruling. And that's my opinion. [37:48.760 --> 37:54.680] Fundamentally different issue, which I happen to agree with. I maintain that we have our [37:54.680 --> 38:00.600] rights and they are our rights unless we voluntarily give up one of our rights. [38:00.600 --> 38:08.520] No, I disagree. And by simply not demanding a right, the courts assume we voluntarily [38:08.520 --> 38:13.600] give it up. And I say hogwash. I say hogwash. You cannot give up a right. [38:13.600 --> 38:19.680] But that is not how the law exists today. Well, then we have to change something. [38:19.680 --> 38:23.040] Yes, I agree. It's like saying, I'm not a woman or I don't [38:23.040 --> 38:29.640] have brown hair. Okay, you are what you are. You have rights and you are what you are. [38:29.640 --> 38:36.320] You're a person and they cannot, rights cannot be taken away. They cannot be granted nor [38:36.320 --> 38:41.880] denied by any government or any court. And I will hold to that to the bitter end. [38:41.880 --> 38:47.320] So we need new law. Okay. All right, but that's why that in order [38:47.320 --> 38:55.320] to understand the case, we have to deal with it the way the law exists today. And one of [38:55.320 --> 39:01.080] the motions that Ken and I have put together is a motion demanding all of our rights and [39:01.080 --> 39:09.720] notifying the courts that we do not waive any right unless that right is waived in court, [39:09.720 --> 39:15.040] in writing, with full disclosure, counsel present, free of coercion. [39:15.040 --> 39:18.640] All right. Otherwise, no right may be assumed to have [39:18.640 --> 39:21.680] been waived. I can't go there. I don't think any right [39:21.680 --> 39:23.240] can be waived, but I understand what you're saying. [39:23.240 --> 39:29.760] I can waive it myself. I have the right to waive a right to remain silent. [39:29.760 --> 39:36.400] Okay, if you want to voluntarily defer it or waive it, that's one thing. Okay, but I [39:36.400 --> 39:42.760] do not agree with the principle in the courts that your rights are waived automatically [39:42.760 --> 39:45.320] unless you speak up. I agree. [39:45.320 --> 39:52.640] Okay, it should be your rights are protected 100% unless you say otherwise. [39:52.640 --> 39:57.680] Okay, that's exactly what this motion goes to. And I agree with that, but that's not [39:57.680 --> 40:03.880] the state of the law today. So when I address this case, I have to discipline myself to [40:03.880 --> 40:08.280] address the case based on the law as it exists and not the way I want it to be. [40:08.280 --> 40:14.040] Melvin, how do you... Okay, all right. And I want to hear how you're going to change [40:14.040 --> 40:19.280] that, Randy Kelton. And I'm going to help you because I do not agree with it. And obviously [40:19.280 --> 40:25.880] you do not either, and neither do many of our members of our audience who hold to libertarian [40:25.880 --> 40:33.040] or classical liberal philosophies. So let's see what John from Texas has to say about [40:33.040 --> 40:34.040] it. [40:34.040 --> 40:35.040] Hey. [40:35.040 --> 40:38.840] Hey, John, what do you have to say about it? [40:38.840 --> 40:50.480] Guys, basically the way I look at it is that, first of all, he voluntarily went with officers [40:50.480 --> 41:01.360] to look for evidence. Okay. Now, I'm assuming his Miranda warning was given prior to this. [41:01.360 --> 41:04.400] Yeah, that's in the case. That's what the case says. [41:04.400 --> 41:13.600] Okay. Because the key to the Miranda is custodial. Okay. If you're not in a custodial situation, [41:13.600 --> 41:21.240] you do not have to Miranda a person. And custodial would mean that they are not free to leave, [41:21.240 --> 41:29.280] to get up and go. Okay. So at this point when he's arrested, he's in a custodial situation. [41:29.280 --> 41:36.520] Basically then, now, Deborah, going to your argument, you have the right to remain silent. [41:36.520 --> 41:49.880] You also have the right to confess, to speak. Okay. Now, so this doesn't happen in a vacuum. [41:49.880 --> 41:57.960] Obviously you're in an interrogation situation. You have detectives of police officers in [41:57.960 --> 42:04.040] front of you. They're discussing this. There's, where's the evidence? I'll take you to show, [42:04.040 --> 42:09.480] I'll take you there to where it is. Okay. [42:09.480 --> 42:10.480] Okay. [42:10.480 --> 42:11.480] And... [42:11.480 --> 42:12.480] You're an ex-investigator. [42:12.480 --> 42:17.120] This all goes to issues of the trial court. This is not the point at hand. [42:17.120 --> 42:18.120] Well, what... [42:18.120 --> 42:21.160] Why is it not the point at hand? [42:21.160 --> 42:27.200] Because Randy just said the appellate court does not deal with these issues. [42:27.200 --> 42:30.840] I'm just kind of taking it from jumpstart and walking through. [42:30.840 --> 42:35.440] Yeah. Now, I had this really intelligent question. [42:35.440 --> 42:36.440] Okay. I'm sorry. [42:36.440 --> 42:37.440] But I forgot what it was. [42:37.440 --> 42:40.440] No, I'll think of it in a minute. [42:40.440 --> 42:47.360] See, John, what I want to ask you is what your opinion is on the point at hand, which [42:47.360 --> 42:58.960] is does the government have the duty to protect our rights whether or not we vocalize them? [42:58.960 --> 43:05.440] Okay. Because what this court ruling says is that your rights are automatically waived [43:05.440 --> 43:11.120] unless you speak up and say, oh, by the way, I claim that right. [43:11.120 --> 43:18.160] And what I'm saying is, no, the government has the duty and the authority and the responsibility [43:18.160 --> 43:26.540] to protect our rights even if we do not waive them and that in the only case can they be [43:26.540 --> 43:29.720] waived is if we specifically waive them. [43:29.720 --> 43:30.720] That is my point. [43:30.720 --> 43:37.360] Okay. I understand what you're saying. Here's the thing. If you sit there and do not... [43:37.360 --> 43:38.360] Wait, hold on. [43:38.360 --> 43:41.480] We've got to go to break and we've got Skylar on the line. [43:41.480 --> 43:43.280] Callers, we like to call in. [43:43.280 --> 43:46.680] I want to know and I don't want to get detracted, okay? [43:46.680 --> 43:50.480] I don't want any kind of dissuasion or distraction. [43:50.480 --> 43:54.400] I want to know what everyone thinks on that one particular point and that one particular [43:54.400 --> 43:55.400] question. [43:55.400 --> 43:59.840] We'll be right back. [43:59.840 --> 44:02.600] Stock markets are taking hit after hit. [44:02.600 --> 44:05.400] Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt. [44:05.400 --> 44:11.320] The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars and more dollars to bail out Wall Street, [44:11.320 --> 44:14.000] banks and the U.S. car industry. [44:14.000 --> 44:19.120] As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the [44:19.120 --> 44:22.360] dollar, the price of silver will only increase. [44:22.360 --> 44:27.520] Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's [44:27.520 --> 44:33.440] most important commodities with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future. [44:33.440 --> 44:40.800] Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce and the yellow metal roars [44:40.800 --> 44:44.840] back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs. [44:44.840 --> 44:54.240] Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and [44:54.240 --> 44:59.480] 401K into a solid investment, silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal. [44:59.480 --> 45:04.920] Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities [45:04.920 --> 45:05.920] for you. [45:05.920 --> 45:35.840] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [46:06.540 --> 46:24.480] And call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K [46:24.480 --> 46:45.160] watching the sparks fly it's not your moral standards it's just your patience [46:45.160 --> 46:54.800] that's on trial okay so John please go ahead and at some point I would like you [46:54.800 --> 46:59.400] to answer my question and we also have Skylar from Texas on the line other [46:59.400 --> 47:06.160] callers 512-646-1984 okay go ahead John okay to answer your question my [47:06.160 --> 47:13.680] opinion on your question okay is that the government does by default protect [47:13.680 --> 47:19.440] your right because the defendant here the suspect can say absolutely nothing [47:19.440 --> 47:25.600] and there's nothing can be used against him and the fact he says nothing can't [47:25.600 --> 47:30.680] be used against him whether he says I want a lawyer I'm evoking my Miranda [47:30.680 --> 47:38.040] right if he says nothing then his rights are sort of pretty much automatically [47:38.040 --> 47:47.640] evoked and that he's not answering any questions he's uncooperative then an [47:47.640 --> 47:55.320] investigator or agent police officer would read him his Miranda right to he [47:55.320 --> 48:04.480] looks at a response either yes I'm gonna lawyer up no I'll speak with you or he [48:04.480 --> 48:14.520] says nothing which should be taken as a no okay so you know I don't understand [48:14.520 --> 48:24.400] my rights or no if he says nothing like no like you can say that no I don't [48:24.400 --> 48:31.120] understand my rights and they have well no I mean if the suspect doesn't say [48:31.120 --> 48:38.200] anything does the officer presume that that's a no to his question do you [48:38.200 --> 48:44.040] understand your rights right he would presume that at that point I would back [48:44.040 --> 48:49.440] off me personally as an investigator and I would assume that he's evoking a [48:49.440 --> 48:58.040] Miranda and that he is not answering questions okay and he's he's not he's [48:58.040 --> 49:02.720] not engaged he's not engaging with me and you wouldn't grab him and bash his [49:02.720 --> 49:12.560] face into a wall no that's you must not be DPS no no no no I was a kinder gentler [49:12.560 --> 49:18.920] in the game home books work better they don't leave bruising no I'm just kidding [49:18.920 --> 49:25.120] but here once again because I'm a constitutionalist I believe in the [49:25.120 --> 49:31.280] Constitution if if I read a Miranda right to you and then you say I'm gonna [49:31.280 --> 49:37.760] lawyer up I don't want to speak to you fine we're done okay we're done at that [49:37.760 --> 49:44.080] point if you say nothing we're kind of done at that point if you're saying [49:44.080 --> 49:49.960] nothing if you're being absolutely silent but if you say yes you know I'll [49:49.960 --> 50:00.120] talk to you then the doors open okay and that's the way I view it I don't know [50:00.120 --> 50:13.000] how that what do you feel about that Deborah well the way I feel is that if [50:13.000 --> 50:21.920] the person proceeds to answer questions and they are not informed of their rights [50:21.920 --> 50:29.760] I don't think that should be admissible as evidence it's normal and because a [50:29.760 --> 50:35.200] good defense attorney would bring up where were you Miranda and at what [50:35.200 --> 50:44.560] point and so if the person was not Miranda's okay everything that he [50:44.560 --> 50:52.840] brought out could be and you know should be bylaw thrown out not allowed [50:52.840 --> 51:01.920] okay and it should only be from point of Miranda forward and if answered in the [51:01.920 --> 51:08.200] affirmative by the defendant question as an as an investigator you have a [51:08.200 --> 51:16.960] recalcitrant individual you're working on you really want to get this guy what [51:16.960 --> 51:24.400] if you question him anyway in badgering him into giving you evidence you can't [51:24.400 --> 51:31.440] use it a trial but it opens doors to find evidence you can use a trial well [51:31.440 --> 51:38.080] then once again it could be just like if you have a something go wrong in a [51:38.080 --> 51:45.000] search warrant it could be deemed as fruit of a poison tree already I 38 23 [51:45.000 --> 51:54.160] yeah and because if I'm questioning you and I said you know you embezzled this [51:54.160 --> 52:02.640] much money from this company you know and it goes no you know I embezzled this [52:02.640 --> 52:06.360] much from over here and my partner was doing this over here and I didn't know [52:06.360 --> 52:12.760] anything that that you had a partner and I have Miranda's do I haven't done [52:12.760 --> 52:21.520] anything and and yet you are in a custodial situation okay and I've [52:21.520 --> 52:24.840] identified myself and everything like this and you know you're the target of [52:24.840 --> 52:34.160] an investigation and so it could be seen as point because even with a suspect who [52:34.160 --> 52:39.960] was not in a custodial situation I often Miranda's so that there would be no [52:39.960 --> 52:45.760] question at all at time of trial with a went that far and you have to think that [52:45.760 --> 52:51.160] way as though an investigator you got to think out that far that you know this I [52:51.160 --> 52:56.440] don't want this to come up to be an issue yes and and I suspect that there's [52:56.440 --> 53:00.240] a lot of people that are listening or saying well you know the police I run [53:00.240 --> 53:08.560] into they don't do that but but then again you were a investigator of far [53:08.560 --> 53:15.200] more serious crimes crimes of people with a lot of money enough to hire [53:15.200 --> 53:25.240] lawyers that's true that's true careful but also yeah but also most police [53:25.240 --> 53:35.040] officers aren't dealing they're dealing with a different type of scenario and [53:35.040 --> 53:42.200] situation in that if it's a real serious crime and they apprehend someone you [53:42.200 --> 53:47.120] know they're more are going to be a witness and then you're going to have [53:47.120 --> 53:52.840] detectives take over you see what I'm saying yes and yeah it'll get passed [53:52.840 --> 53:56.920] over it'll get passed over to a detective you know a police officer is [53:56.920 --> 54:01.000] not going to necessarily interrogate you well if you if you're a police officer [54:01.000 --> 54:07.400] news you stop a drug suspect right and you don't really care about him you want [54:07.400 --> 54:16.160] his supplier so he invokes his Miranda right and you just grill him anyway [54:16.160 --> 54:19.080] because you don't care you're not going to try to prosecute him anyway you don't [54:19.080 --> 54:22.680] care about him you want to get what information you can from him and say okay [54:22.680 --> 54:26.360] I'm not going to use it and then you go use that information to go after someone [54:26.360 --> 54:34.080] else but it all depends all right at this point and this separates the the [54:34.080 --> 54:40.360] good and the bad the ugly okay because someone should ask the question how was [54:40.360 --> 54:46.600] that information developed you know did you have an epiphany did God speak to [54:46.600 --> 54:51.600] you or was the fourth or fifth time you bounced this guy's head off the hood of [54:51.600 --> 54:58.160] the car okay this this information didn't create itself in a vacuum right [54:58.160 --> 55:05.660] it had to come from somewhere and so where did it come from and you know the [55:05.660 --> 55:12.080] guy who gave the information right could be yeah you know I was being interrogated [55:12.080 --> 55:17.080] by this police officer by the side of the road and you know on the fourth time [55:17.080 --> 55:23.960] he pulled the taser trigger I gave up the name of my supplier oh really okay [55:23.960 --> 55:28.640] you know and we have issues at this point and they would say he voluntarily [55:28.640 --> 55:39.600] gave it up like butt cheek well done you know we're we're going to have John on [55:39.600 --> 55:47.280] tomorrow and we're going to talk about investigative techniques and how [55:47.280 --> 55:53.400] police essentially how they're supposed to do what they do but with the [55:53.400 --> 55:58.280] different did I yeah I'm sorry go ahead Randy I'm sorry for the purpose to get [55:58.280 --> 56:05.720] of giving us a good idea of how the policeman is if he's doing the job right [56:05.720 --> 56:11.360] how he will conduct himself and it'll make it a lot easier to to recognize [56:11.360 --> 56:17.960] when they're pulling a shenanigan yeah but ever did I answer your question to [56:17.960 --> 56:27.440] your satisfaction I think so you know good thank you and tomorrow should be a [56:27.440 --> 56:33.120] good lively show oh yeah I'm looking forward to it and I appreciate and thank [56:33.120 --> 56:39.860] you for letting me have the opportunity it's good to have information from the [56:39.860 --> 56:44.160] guys on the inside so you know for the most part we're all on the outside [56:44.160 --> 56:51.600] looking in it's good to have a view from from those inside we had a call the [56:51.600 --> 56:58.240] other night Ben who was a police officer and was excellent we got an excellent [56:58.240 --> 57:07.160] view of the inside of the cop on the street it was a bit chilly did you hear [57:07.160 --> 57:12.920] that John yeah I did what is your make on that oh I didn't hear the show I'm [57:12.920 --> 57:17.040] sorry I'm gonna have to go back to the archive yeah I replayed it on Memorial [57:17.040 --> 57:23.560] Day on May 25th okay yeah I pieced together the whole call he called in [57:23.560 --> 57:29.000] about 20 minutes before midnight on Friday night and he stayed he was [57:29.000 --> 57:35.280] gracious enough to stay on with us to about 15 or 20 after midnight and he was [57:35.280 --> 57:42.800] earnest I believe he was earnest yes I do he was earnest and he gave him real [57:42.800 --> 57:50.000] good image of where they policemen out there on the street lives right now and [57:50.000 --> 57:56.480] frankly he exactly confirmed what I have been seeing and experiencing watching [57:56.480 --> 58:06.920] develop for the last 20 years yeah it's not good we want to fix it okay we'll go [58:06.920 --> 58:10.880] to Skylar when we come back yeah we're gonna go to Skylar thank you John all [58:10.880 --> 58:17.120] right yeah yeah I'm looking forward to it tomorrow all right bye bye okay all [58:17.120 --> 58:20.840] right we're gonna go to Skylar from Texas when we come back callers we like to [58:20.840 --> 58:26.920] call in five one two six four six nineteen eighty four the rule of law [58:26.920 --> 58:56.040] Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens we'll be right back [59:56.920 --> 01:00:05.560] you are listening to the rule of law radio network and rule of law radio dot [01:00:05.560 --> 01:00:34.680] com live free speech talk radio at its best [01:00:35.560 --> 01:00:54.000] okay we are back the rule of law we are taking your calls five one two six four [01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:05.520] six 1984 okay we're gonna go now to Skylar in Texas Skylar thanks for [01:01:05.520 --> 01:01:09.560] calling in what's on your mind tonight what do you have to say about this well [01:01:09.560 --> 01:01:15.120] I just have to say that it's an incremental step toward robbing our [01:01:15.120 --> 01:01:23.400] American citizens but they're right you have no right to be law essentially [01:01:23.400 --> 01:01:29.760] because the law is so abstract and nondescript that you really need a [01:01:29.760 --> 01:01:34.680] lawyer to defend yourself in these situations and to say that you don't [01:01:34.680 --> 01:01:41.560] need a lawyer is what's that word unconstitutional well it's [01:01:41.560 --> 01:01:47.480] inconscionable you're right the law is complex and if you don't have a lawyer [01:01:47.480 --> 01:01:54.200] you are at a terrible disadvantage the problem now is is that you if you have a [01:01:54.200 --> 01:02:00.320] lawyer you're at a terrible disadvantage and I'm glad you brought up that [01:02:00.320 --> 01:02:05.600] specific point because it goes directly to something I wanted to talk about [01:02:05.600 --> 01:02:12.920] fire away sir I want to hear it Tuesday I had a first court hearing on this [01:02:12.920 --> 01:02:22.040] arrest for a criminal trespass this is with us that was my reference to the DPS [01:02:22.040 --> 01:02:30.400] when you say to DPS sergeant McNeil what part of I do not want to talk to you do [01:02:30.400 --> 01:02:41.200] you not understand according to Major Rene the official way of responding to [01:02:41.200 --> 01:02:45.680] that is you grab the person spin him around and smash his face into the [01:02:45.680 --> 01:02:51.040] nearest wall and then throw him in jail leave him in jail overnight and don't [01:02:51.040 --> 01:02:55.600] follow any charges against him or at least that's what Remy said well he [01:02:55.600 --> 01:02:59.200] didn't say it that way he just said he was a familiar with circumstances and [01:02:59.200 --> 01:03:04.440] felt his officers acted in accordance with policy so that's the policy I get [01:03:04.440 --> 01:03:09.480] arrested but then when I went after them they finally filed charges about a month [01:03:09.480 --> 01:03:16.920] later and when I went to the FBI they were waiting to file some papers in [01:03:16.920 --> 01:03:21.360] someone else's behalf they were waiting with handcuffs throw me back in jail [01:03:21.360 --> 01:03:29.120] well I went to court Tuesday morning and this is what they do in Travis County [01:03:29.120 --> 01:03:34.960] they really want you to have an attorney so they agree with you scholar got to [01:03:34.960 --> 01:03:40.160] have an attorney yep so they summoned me to court and sitting there in the courtroom [01:03:40.160 --> 01:03:45.960] and this woman sitting off to the side called my name and I came up and she [01:03:45.960 --> 01:03:49.840] said are you Randall Kelton I said yes I am she said I need to ask you some [01:03:49.840 --> 01:03:56.080] questions no ma'am no questions no I need to ask you some questions I know [01:03:56.080 --> 01:04:02.120] that but I'm not answering any questions well mr. Kelton I need to ask you these [01:04:02.120 --> 01:04:09.000] questions we'll just ask away but I'm not going to be answering and she said [01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:15.460] well you have to have an attorney I said no ma'am and she said you have to [01:04:15.460 --> 01:04:22.320] answer my questions it's a no ma'am I'll talk to the judge she said you can't [01:04:22.320 --> 01:04:26.500] talk to judge unless you have an attorney well I'll take that up with the [01:04:26.500 --> 01:04:36.840] judge she said she said I need to get security in here I said good idea I do [01:04:36.840 --> 01:04:41.120] need to get security in here so she calls security I wouldn't sit down wait [01:04:41.120 --> 01:04:44.480] for him they came in and asked me to step outside so I talked to him and I [01:04:44.480 --> 01:04:51.920] said why sure and they asked me what's wrong was I said well I have a problem [01:04:51.920 --> 01:04:59.080] here I need you to either verify this criminal affidavit that I have made up [01:04:59.080 --> 01:05:07.680] and I already had it printed up accusing the judge of simulating a legal process [01:05:07.680 --> 01:05:14.880] by summoning me to court for a reason not listed in 2801 code of criminal [01:05:14.880 --> 01:05:23.360] procedure or if in fact the judge did summon me to court for a proper reason [01:05:23.360 --> 01:05:27.600] then I want you to take my complaint which I'll write up against the court [01:05:27.600 --> 01:05:39.120] coordinator for impersonating a judicial officer and all of a sudden he got real [01:05:39.120 --> 01:05:47.720] interested and lost all his bluster ah one moment mr. Kelton I need to go talk [01:05:47.720 --> 01:05:53.520] to the court coordinator I'll wait he went in came back out with a document [01:05:53.520 --> 01:05:58.040] he said the coordinator needs you to sign this piece of paper and I looked at [01:05:58.040 --> 01:06:03.680] it it's waiver of counsel no I won't be signing any papers today thank you very [01:06:03.680 --> 01:06:09.000] much and he kind of looked at me a minute trying to figure out what to say or do [01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:15.720] and then he went back inside he came back out and said to wait here that they [01:06:15.720 --> 01:06:24.800] needed to talk to the judge good idea so then after 30 minutes or so someone came [01:06:24.800 --> 01:06:28.640] out and told me to they wouldn't let me go back in the courtroom and that was a [01:06:28.640 --> 01:06:31.760] fight I could have had but I had enough fights already I didn't want to start [01:06:31.760 --> 01:06:35.720] another one so he calls me out and he says mr. Kelton if you come to the [01:06:35.720 --> 01:06:40.160] courtroom that the judge will call you up I go in the courtroom the judge called [01:06:40.160 --> 01:06:47.480] me up turned out it's Ron Earl's daughter Ron Earl was the district [01:06:47.480 --> 01:06:56.040] attorney for 25 years and this is his daughter she called me up and I said [01:06:56.040 --> 01:07:02.760] your honor I have this summons here you want to tell me what this is for it [01:07:02.760 --> 01:07:07.200] doesn't say on the document so I have no way to prepare for this hearing she [01:07:07.200 --> 01:07:13.160] said well we needed to call you in to see if you had an attorney well that's [01:07:13.160 --> 01:07:20.080] interesting your honor I read through 28.01 code of criminal procedure and it [01:07:20.080 --> 01:07:25.160] lists some very specific things for which you are authorized to summon me to [01:07:25.160 --> 01:07:32.280] court for and to see if I have an attorney is not one of them well mr. [01:07:32.280 --> 01:07:37.880] Kelton we need to find out if you have an attorney well I got a telephone and [01:07:37.880 --> 01:07:42.880] you got my address that would have been a lot easier than forcing me to come [01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:50.280] down here on threat of arrest where did you get that authority and I had to give [01:07:50.280 --> 01:07:59.720] her credit we had a witness one one person showed up to watch and he said [01:07:59.720 --> 01:08:05.720] that when you first started talking to her you could see her jaw really tens up [01:08:05.720 --> 01:08:14.120] but then she seemed to catch herself and she did I stepped right on her neck and [01:08:14.120 --> 01:08:19.320] I'm sure it's been a long time since anybody done that to her with her being [01:08:19.320 --> 01:08:29.040] a judge yeah she handled herself with exceptional decorum and I pretty well [01:08:29.040 --> 01:08:34.280] decided because of the way she handled herself that I wasn't really terribly [01:08:34.280 --> 01:08:40.680] interested in disqualifying her she did you justice she appeared to have that [01:08:40.680 --> 01:08:49.120] in her mind young not heavily invested into the system and she seemed like she [01:08:49.120 --> 01:08:54.240] wanted to do the right thing so I'm thinking this is the judge I want to hear [01:08:54.240 --> 01:09:02.880] my emotions I believe so I didn't pursue that issue she said mr. Kelton are you [01:09:02.880 --> 01:09:09.000] going to hire an attorney no mr. Kelton would you like me to appoint you an [01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:15.540] attorney you do whatever you want to well mr. Kelton I will appoint you [01:09:15.540 --> 01:09:29.120] counsel I said judge can excuse me one thing if you appoint me a counsel you [01:09:29.120 --> 01:09:34.960] might want to make sure you appoint someone who really don't like she kind [01:09:34.960 --> 01:09:39.960] of leaned back and looked at me a minute and then she said well mr. Kelton we [01:09:39.960 --> 01:09:46.080] have an attorney wheel and we just picked the one that comes off I said oh [01:09:46.080 --> 01:09:52.680] good that takes you off the hook and she left and pointed me counsel and told me [01:09:52.680 --> 01:09:58.080] to go have a seat that's here my counsel would come speak to me this real young [01:09:58.080 --> 01:10:04.720] guy comes up he's got to be relatively new yeah he came over to me he said he [01:10:04.720 --> 01:10:09.040] was my counsel he wanted me to go into this interview room the first thing I [01:10:09.040 --> 01:10:17.480] told him I guess you pulled the short straw today he doesn't know what that [01:10:17.480 --> 01:10:28.480] meant yet and I have to give him credit I pressed on him I interrupted his [01:10:28.480 --> 01:10:38.360] expectations yes I did and he assured me that it was his intent to adjudicate my [01:10:38.360 --> 01:10:43.200] rights and I assured him it is absolutely my intent that you adjudicate [01:10:43.200 --> 01:10:48.680] my rights and and I also told him you know in all fairness you need to [01:10:48.680 --> 01:10:56.840] understand that when it comes to due process it's what I do he said well mr. [01:10:56.840 --> 01:11:00.520] Kelton I kind of got the impression you were familiar with the code of criminal [01:11:00.520 --> 01:11:08.000] procedure I can quote it to you so I told him you know that I filed some [01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:12.560] documents in the case and he said well he hasn't seen those well you need to [01:11:12.560 --> 01:11:19.880] read them and we kind of had a little discussion I didn't really want to to [01:11:19.880 --> 01:11:28.120] threaten him I was trying to find a way to let him know who I was and what I was [01:11:28.120 --> 01:11:36.520] so that in all fairness I didn't want to bushwhack him because it was very likely [01:11:36.520 --> 01:11:43.600] what I was about to do is a career ender and I didn't want to threaten him with [01:11:43.600 --> 01:11:48.280] that and he's a new attorney if he's an old guy who cares but he said he's a new [01:11:48.280 --> 01:11:55.600] attorney and he he seemed earnest and they mostly are when they first started [01:11:55.600 --> 01:11:59.640] when they first start and I can keep him honest well the one thing I did tell him [01:11:59.640 --> 01:12:06.000] is he said well you know mr. Kelton you are the client so you get to make the [01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:11.080] major decisions whether you're guilty or not guilty but I'm the attorney and it's [01:12:11.080 --> 01:12:15.440] it's my bar card so I have to make the decisions on how to adjudicate the case [01:12:15.440 --> 01:12:23.200] I said well you can make all the decisions you want to so long as you [01:12:23.200 --> 01:12:30.040] properly adjudicate every due process right that I have and make no mistake I [01:12:30.040 --> 01:12:38.080] know every single one of them well mr. Kelton I will adjudicate your case but [01:12:38.080 --> 01:12:43.320] but I'm the one that will decide what arguments get brought up in court and [01:12:43.320 --> 01:12:50.000] what arguments don't I said no that's already been decided the only thing left [01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:56.480] to decide is how well you're going to adjudicate them and he was clearly get [01:12:56.480 --> 01:13:04.480] intense and with good cause they're making that work yeah well I'm I'm [01:13:04.480 --> 01:13:11.040] essentially threatening him and I'm trying to find a way not to yeah we're [01:13:11.040 --> 01:13:17.360] making them trying to work I'm trying not to antagonize him but I'm trying to [01:13:17.360 --> 01:13:21.720] find a way to get this across to it and he said well mr. Kelton you understand [01:13:21.720 --> 01:13:24.920] you could spend up to 90 days in jail for this offense I don't worry about [01:13:24.920 --> 01:13:30.320] that this will never get to court I said look yeah this is what's going to [01:13:30.320 --> 01:13:35.880] happen you're going to wind up asking the judge to remove you from them from [01:13:35.880 --> 01:13:41.520] the case and when you do I'm going to go to the judge and demand that she not [01:13:41.520 --> 01:13:45.360] remove you from the case and the judge is going to remove you from the case [01:13:45.360 --> 01:13:52.940] anyway and when she does I'm going to sue the judge personally for for making [01:13:52.940 --> 01:13:59.280] an administrative decision that interferes with private contract and she [01:13:59.280 --> 01:14:06.440] did that I hope no she hasn't yet we hadn't got that far but he looked at me [01:14:06.440 --> 01:14:14.480] like what in the heck have I gotten into because essentially what I told him was [01:14:14.480 --> 01:14:21.760] as far as I'm concerned your cannon fodder I'm going to use you to get at [01:14:21.760 --> 01:14:32.080] somebody else and now and with that he recognized that you know this is serious [01:14:32.080 --> 01:14:38.160] business this guy's going to be trouble and he he handled himself well I liked [01:14:38.160 --> 01:14:44.720] the guy good it wasn't until later I was going to do a show with Pastor Masset [01:14:44.720 --> 01:14:49.000] and I had his card it had his home phone number on it and I felt bad because I [01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:55.040] really didn't tell him what I had planned so I called him and told him you [01:14:55.040 --> 01:14:57.760] know if you're not real busy you might want to listen to this radio show I'm [01:14:57.760 --> 01:15:05.520] about to do on there you'll find out who I am and what I'm about and it annoyed [01:15:05.520 --> 01:15:11.520] him that I called him at home and he said that he wasn't didn't wasn't good [01:15:11.520 --> 01:15:17.200] with mysteries if I had something to tell him just tell it okay here's the [01:15:17.200 --> 01:15:22.360] deal I'm going to ask you to adjudicate all my rights and you're not going to [01:15:22.360 --> 01:15:26.920] want to do it because it flies in the face of everything the courts have been [01:15:26.920 --> 01:15:33.000] doing and when you fail to adjudicate one single right I will follow bar [01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:37.680] grievance against you for every one of them cut his career out right from [01:15:37.680 --> 01:15:45.360] underneath his legs and he said mr. Calvin you would grieve me frankly in a [01:15:45.360 --> 01:15:55.600] heartbeat say I will do that whether I like him or not and now frankly I like [01:15:55.600 --> 01:15:59.880] the guy and I want to avoid doing that oh yeah that's why I was trying to be [01:15:59.880 --> 01:16:06.080] clear with him and it it it upset him and with good cause and he told me he [01:16:06.080 --> 01:16:10.120] didn't like to be threatened and that's what I was trying to avoid so I told him [01:16:10.120 --> 01:16:18.760] fair enough I was trying to give you a heads up last one from from now on we'll [01:16:18.760 --> 01:16:25.120] just take it as it comes good day and I'm not but five minutes later he called [01:16:25.120 --> 01:16:31.520] back I didn't I didn't answer it I was getting ready for the show he called [01:16:31.520 --> 01:16:38.880] back the next morning and clearly he realized the implications and he was [01:16:38.880 --> 01:16:45.640] concerned yeah this strategy will work okay we're about to go to break we'll [01:16:45.640 --> 01:17:02.920] be right back are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk [01:17:02.920 --> 01:17:08.200] has a 100% track record of returning profits is not affected by [01:17:08.200 --> 01:17:13.320] fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates is publicly traded and SEC [01:17:13.320 --> 01:17:17.840] regulated if this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an [01:17:17.840 --> 01:17:22.840] investment then life settlements is the investment for you our annual rate of [01:17:22.840 --> 01:17:27.800] return has been fifteen point eight three percent for the last 17 years our [01:17:27.800 --> 01:17:32.240] investments are insurance and banking Commission regulated our returns are [01:17:32.240 --> 01:17:36.680] assured by the largest insurance companies even qualified retirement [01:17:36.680 --> 01:17:41.840] plans such as 401ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer we charge [01:17:41.840 --> 01:17:47.240] absolutely no Commission's 100% of your investment goes to work for you please [01:17:47.240 --> 01:17:53.840] visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at eight one seven nine [01:17:53.840 --> 01:18:00.160] seven five two four three one that sleepwellinvestment.com or call eight [01:18:00.160 --> 01:18:07.160] one seven nine seven five two four three one [01:18:30.160 --> 01:18:37.840] I'm sorry but now I can see you you put the fear in my pocket [01:18:37.840 --> 01:18:44.840] looking money from my ass ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again [01:18:44.840 --> 01:19:03.840] ain't gonna help me [01:19:03.840 --> 01:19:11.920] ain't gonna drive me with that same old sucker pun I get it now but then I'm [01:19:11.920 --> 01:19:33.920] back then you had room to move but now you're feeling the run ain't gonna get me with that same old sucker pun [01:19:33.920 --> 01:19:41.080] okay ain't gonna fool me with the same old tricks again okay we have some [01:19:41.080 --> 01:19:47.320] callers online looks like we got Greg from Alabama one of our hosts and it [01:19:47.320 --> 01:19:53.400] just before we go to the calls I got to go back to this case because what it [01:19:53.400 --> 01:19:59.080] looks like it's saying to me and Randy we're discussing on the break we really [01:19:59.080 --> 01:20:06.640] need to review this the court appointed a court appointed defense attorney and [01:20:06.640 --> 01:20:13.400] then the cops read was Miranda and took him all over creation and did God knows [01:20:13.400 --> 01:20:18.840] what to him and the guy writes this letter who knows if he wrote or not but [01:20:18.840 --> 01:20:23.480] I mean you're saying that's a matter for the trial court understand the seems to [01:20:23.480 --> 01:20:27.640] me that the point the whole thing is that even though the court appointed him [01:20:27.640 --> 01:20:34.720] a defense attorney because the guy stood mute all right I even see in the in the [01:20:34.720 --> 01:20:41.400] first paragraph mute he used the word mute it's looking like they're saying [01:20:41.400 --> 01:20:49.440] because he didn't vocalize that he's accepting his you know acting upon his [01:20:49.440 --> 01:20:54.960] right then it doesn't matter and I'm sorry I just can't buy it I have a big [01:20:54.960 --> 01:21:00.520] problem with it we need to we need to look at this closer let's see what Greg [01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:04.160] has to say about it okay let me make one quick comment before we go to break [01:21:04.160 --> 01:21:10.160] okay in reading through the whole case it appeared that the primary question [01:21:10.160 --> 01:21:19.760] was going to Michigan v. Jackson where in Michigan v. Jackson the state court [01:21:19.760 --> 01:21:30.000] held that once there was counsel once the defendant had counsel the police [01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:36.600] could no longer initiate any kind of interaction with him okay so then Randy [01:21:36.600 --> 01:21:43.240] are you trying to say that this court ruling is trying to insinuate that that [01:21:43.240 --> 01:21:52.200] Montejo said hey guys hey cops let's go on a trip no look for the murder weapon [01:21:52.200 --> 01:21:58.960] no okay if he if Montejo didn't initiate the trip or the excursion excursion [01:21:58.960 --> 01:22:05.160] quote-unquote then that means the police did yes they did okay that was the the [01:22:05.160 --> 01:22:09.840] attorney's question he was saying that under Michigan v. Jackson the police [01:22:09.840 --> 01:22:18.840] could not initiate a investigation with him or an interrogation okay well then [01:22:18.840 --> 01:22:24.960] after he had an attorney and what the court distinguished was the difference [01:22:24.960 --> 01:22:33.280] between the individual requesting an attorney and an attorney being appointed [01:22:33.280 --> 01:22:40.560] without the request that had he made a request for an attorney then Jackson v. [01:22:40.560 --> 01:22:45.960] Michigan would have been invoked and no they could not indicate whatever [01:22:45.960 --> 01:22:51.120] initiative but since he made no he didn't invoke the right himself whatever [01:22:51.120 --> 01:22:57.720] then he didn't have that's the point I've been trying to make that's the point [01:22:57.720 --> 01:23:04.240] I've been trying to make all night long okay I don't care if the guy invoked is [01:23:04.240 --> 01:23:11.880] right or not the point is it's his right period okay I don't I don't I this is [01:23:11.880 --> 01:23:17.680] ridiculous okay this is a stupidness I just like the caller said a little while [01:23:17.680 --> 01:23:23.360] ago they're just trying to take it away bit by bit by bit little bit by little [01:23:23.360 --> 01:23:28.480] bit a little fine point here little fine point there and for officer Ben if [01:23:28.480 --> 01:23:35.280] you're listening this is why we harp on fine points of law okay go read it for [01:23:35.280 --> 01:23:42.040] yourself because it goes to fine points of law and it's a big difference the [01:23:42.040 --> 01:23:47.840] little fine points of law these things because this is how our fundamental [01:23:47.840 --> 01:23:55.880] liberties and freedoms are taken away to the point that we are nothing all right [01:23:55.880 --> 01:24:04.680] I'm sick of it I put up with it it ain't no fine point of law we're people all [01:24:04.680 --> 01:24:09.040] right I'm going to Greg I'm mad I'm mad as hell I ain't taking it no more Greg [01:24:09.040 --> 01:24:17.200] what do you have to say about it Wow I can tell you guys I didn't know you guys [01:24:17.200 --> 01:24:21.600] were talking about is that that Supreme Court case yes yes go yeah Greg the [01:24:21.600 --> 01:24:28.080] whole thing is well because the guy didn't verbalize or invoke okay the [01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:32.440] court appointed him an attorney all right but because he didn't say there [01:24:32.440 --> 01:24:37.720] and say oh oh yes I accept my right to have a council then they're saying okay [01:24:37.720 --> 01:24:41.360] well because you didn't vocalize you're right you didn't invoke your right well [01:24:41.360 --> 01:24:46.440] then you waived it that's BS man the whole point is the whole point is I [01:24:46.440 --> 01:24:53.600] don't believe that you automatically waive your rights unless you speak up [01:24:53.600 --> 01:24:59.560] and claim them I say they're your rights period unless you write it down on paper [01:24:59.560 --> 01:25:04.240] that you're waiving them and I'm sticking to that to the bitter end that's [01:25:04.240 --> 01:25:09.160] a perfect segue for why I called and I I didn't know you were I just got back and [01:25:09.160 --> 01:25:13.520] had intended on on listening you guys from the beginning because there's a [01:25:13.520 --> 01:25:18.520] particular case that I helped on and it falls right into what you're talking [01:25:18.520 --> 01:25:23.800] about and I actually wanted to get an opinion from you guys on what to do next [01:25:23.800 --> 01:25:29.280] if you don't mind me doing that go ahead okay of course okay are you talking [01:25:29.280 --> 01:25:35.320] about rights this is perfect I'll try to keep this as sure as I can guy in [01:25:35.320 --> 01:25:42.720] December a guy's mother comes to me says Greg you know anything about DUIs yeah [01:25:42.720 --> 01:25:48.120] what's the deal and then she told me the story about her son and array he hadn't [01:25:48.120 --> 01:25:54.120] been back from Iraq for very long and he was arrested for DUI on private property [01:25:54.120 --> 01:26:00.560] he was not even behind the wheel of the automobile and a zealous cop arrested [01:26:00.560 --> 01:26:06.380] him on private property for DUI well here's problem the attorney that they [01:26:06.380 --> 01:26:10.080] hired said oh you got this one it's not a problem this is just an overzealous [01:26:10.080 --> 01:26:15.120] cop and they're thinking about firing him anyway well come December trial time [01:26:15.120 --> 01:26:20.300] the day of trial the attorney comes out of a room and says look you need to make [01:26:20.300 --> 01:26:25.880] a deal here and and that surprised them and she says because they're gonna you [01:26:25.880 --> 01:26:30.080] could spend time and in jail I know you guys know the old pitch from the [01:26:30.080 --> 01:26:35.200] attorney scared him to death and basically said here you need to sign [01:26:35.200 --> 01:26:39.640] this waiver you waive your right to an appeal and all that and I'll keep you [01:26:39.640 --> 01:26:47.040] out of jail and so reluctantly he did that and when they went before the judge [01:26:47.040 --> 01:26:52.280] for the judge to hear the plea his mother went with him and said look we [01:26:52.280 --> 01:26:56.200] didn't want to do this we don't you know I don't understand this he's not guilty [01:26:56.200 --> 01:27:01.360] of anything and the judge basically said it's not you on trial ma'am do you [01:27:01.360 --> 01:27:07.320] understand these rights and Cody said yeah I guess so and that was it so she [01:27:07.320 --> 01:27:11.160] comes to me she says do you know anything about it I said well when did it [01:27:11.160 --> 01:27:15.160] happen she said on Thursday I said well you still got time left for a notice of [01:27:15.160 --> 01:27:19.920] appeal I looked at the paperwork he signed away his right to appeal but [01:27:19.920 --> 01:27:24.160] there's also there's an argument to that that part that's another story but [01:27:24.160 --> 01:27:29.280] anyway I did a notice of appeal for she she they went down there to the [01:27:29.280 --> 01:27:34.720] municipal court to the clerk and I told her I said what you want is you want a [01:27:34.720 --> 01:27:41.240] copy of a signed or stamped version of this notice appeal she goes down there [01:27:41.240 --> 01:27:45.600] and they said well you have to use our paperwork she calls me up I said well go [01:27:45.600 --> 01:27:48.800] ahead and use their paperwork so she filled it out just like the one I'd done [01:27:48.800 --> 01:27:53.560] handed it in the lady signed it and dated and handed it back handed her a [01:27:53.560 --> 01:27:58.120] copy back but when that happened somebody in the back had noticed who it [01:27:58.120 --> 01:28:00.400] was came out there and said oh wait a minute you can't do this [01:28:00.400 --> 01:28:06.360] the way this right she called me up I said do you have a copy of a stamped or [01:28:06.360 --> 01:28:12.240] signed she signed a notice of appeal she said yes I said don't worry about it if [01:28:12.240 --> 01:28:18.720] we then waited another 14 days because the ruling in in Alabama is that if the [01:28:18.720 --> 01:28:23.320] municipal court doesn't get their paperwork to the circuit court within 14 [01:28:23.320 --> 01:28:27.440] days after the notice of appeal is perfected then the case is deemed [01:28:27.440 --> 01:28:35.480] dismissed after the 14 days he filed a motion to dismiss based on that rule and [01:28:35.480 --> 01:28:43.960] so he just just about a month ago got a summons to court to circuit court to hear [01:28:43.960 --> 01:28:50.080] that that motion he went in there today I schooled him a little bit all I could [01:28:50.080 --> 01:28:55.760] last night he went in with the rule book the whole nine yards the judge said [01:28:55.760 --> 01:29:03.160] called his case and said well the municipal attorney is not here so we'll [01:29:03.160 --> 01:29:08.440] just go ahead and dock in it for September to hear your case and he comes [01:29:08.440 --> 01:29:12.640] out in the parking lot he calls me and I said you need to go back to the judge [01:29:12.640 --> 01:29:17.080] and you said and I said you told her there's lack of prosecution you want it [01:29:17.080 --> 01:29:23.200] dismissed he goes back in there and they had found the municipal attorney and he [01:29:23.200 --> 01:29:28.320] comes in and says look he can't do that because he waved his right to an appeal [01:29:28.320 --> 01:29:35.240] and the judge denied that the motion so I think there's two routes to go and I [01:29:35.240 --> 01:29:42.160] wanted to hear what Randy's direction would be on what to file next okay now [01:29:42.160 --> 01:29:49.640] he needs to file an appeal of this decision and what you wouldn't you [01:29:49.640 --> 01:29:57.120] wouldn't think of a mandamus in this case no because the judge didn't abuse [01:29:57.120 --> 01:30:03.640] any discretion here the judge acted in accordance with law [01:30:03.640 --> 01:30:08.640] never risk all right wait yeah we're going to skip right okay he did wait [01:30:08.640 --> 01:30:15.080] before you say that before you say that now listen to this he perfected the [01:30:15.080 --> 01:30:21.200] notice of appeal based on the rule itself it was perfected regardless [01:30:21.200 --> 01:30:26.760] regardless of what happened before there the circuit clerk perfected that [01:30:26.760 --> 01:30:33.280] notice of appeal in my opinion that would be an abuse of power well the [01:30:33.280 --> 01:30:41.160] judge upheld the fact that he had waived his right to appeal so now what you [01:30:41.160 --> 01:30:47.280] you'll have to do is go back and argue ineffective assistance of counsel argue [01:30:47.280 --> 01:30:57.920] that the plea was was made without full disclosure and with effectively without [01:30:57.920 --> 01:31:03.480] intent because he was misled by his attorney okay well let me ask you this [01:31:03.480 --> 01:31:10.360] Randy how about making the argument that you can't waive your rights anyway and [01:31:10.360 --> 01:31:15.280] so even if I did say I waive them I take them back because they're mine anyway [01:31:15.280 --> 01:31:19.720] what about that because under law you can waive your rights so what does that [01:31:19.720 --> 01:31:23.120] mean that if you do you don't have the right to take them back but you can only [01:31:23.120 --> 01:31:29.040] waive your rights with full disclosure free of coercion okay and also let me [01:31:29.040 --> 01:31:34.520] interject this to Randy now if I'm not mistaken Mike had found this I believe [01:31:34.520 --> 01:31:41.700] after waiving your rights you still have seven days that you can unwaive your [01:31:41.700 --> 01:31:47.880] rights basically and what constitutes full disclosure see he wasn't told that [01:31:47.880 --> 01:31:52.880] so people really aren't told their rights when they waive those rights [01:31:52.880 --> 01:32:00.880] exactly that's what I was saying what constitutes full disclosure anything [01:32:00.880 --> 01:32:08.000] that would have caused him to make it is a reasonable person of ordinary prudence [01:32:08.000 --> 01:32:15.960] in his position to make a different determination that wasn't disclosed that [01:32:15.960 --> 01:32:20.040] lacks full disclosure and if it was in a contract situation it would be fraud by [01:32:20.040 --> 01:32:30.240] non-disclosure well isn't this a contract situation kind of sort of kind [01:32:30.240 --> 01:32:34.760] of looks like a contract but really a criminal prosecution but if you sign if [01:32:34.760 --> 01:32:39.120] you sign a piece of paper isn't that a contract yeah you can apply contract law [01:32:39.120 --> 01:32:49.760] to the interaction because the criminal code doesn't address the contractual [01:32:49.760 --> 01:32:58.560] nature of offer and acceptance all right now there's one other thing now so if we [01:32:58.560 --> 01:33:03.080] rule out the mandamus in Alabama there's a post-conviction remedy it's rule 32 [01:33:03.080 --> 01:33:10.880] okay wait wait stop before we rule out the mandamus you do have a point [01:33:10.880 --> 01:33:20.400] regardless of whether you had a right to appeal or not the law was clear on what [01:33:20.400 --> 01:33:26.560] the clerk must what the local court must do because when the appeal is notes of [01:33:26.560 --> 01:33:32.080] appeal is filed that court loses subject matter jurisdiction and this act was a [01:33:32.080 --> 01:33:37.760] ministerial act that they failed to perform in a timely manner you should [01:33:37.760 --> 01:33:44.840] counter sue in the criminal against the clerk or the court whoever didn't forward [01:33:44.840 --> 01:33:54.960] the paperwork so and also see my argument on that was in conjunction what [01:33:54.960 --> 01:33:59.240] you just said was and what I tried to get across to him was when this came up [01:33:59.240 --> 01:34:04.560] in court and see that he knows what I do people have a hard time arguing these [01:34:04.560 --> 01:34:11.840] cases themselves but the simplicity of it is this if if his signature was good [01:34:11.840 --> 01:34:17.120] and accepted for that waiver then the circuit Clark's signature had to be good [01:34:17.120 --> 01:34:22.560] and accepted for that notice of appeal yes if one if one is one is good both [01:34:22.560 --> 01:34:29.080] are good but if one is bad both are bad if the clerk had a concern about the [01:34:29.080 --> 01:34:35.240] validity then the clerk needed to file a motion with the court to have the [01:34:35.240 --> 01:34:42.640] documents stricken but the clerk did not so once the appeal was filed as it's [01:34:42.640 --> 01:34:50.000] filed now if you have seven days did you get the appeal in within seven days no [01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:54.960] the appeal probably would have been in two days early than the 14 though so not [01:34:54.960 --> 01:35:02.640] within seven days no okay then you can see as far as the the statutory mandate [01:35:02.640 --> 01:35:12.080] yeah I would make them show by case law how they can how a mandate stops being a [01:35:12.080 --> 01:35:21.080] mandate without a motion challenging the filing the issue is not whether or not [01:35:21.080 --> 01:35:29.960] you can appeal this particular case the issue is rather the statutory mandate [01:35:29.960 --> 01:35:36.480] applies so the court is saying that if you've waived your right to appeal even [01:35:36.480 --> 01:35:42.720] if you do file a document it's null and void because you've waived the right and [01:35:42.720 --> 01:35:49.160] you'll say it's not null and void until the court rules that it's null and void [01:35:49.160 --> 01:35:55.940] that's going to be the issue before the court well since since he's got 42 days [01:35:55.940 --> 01:36:04.560] to appeal and you know and saving that would you while you make make motions [01:36:04.560 --> 01:36:10.640] in that regard in this in the circuit court also get the get the appeal into [01:36:10.640 --> 01:36:14.320] the appellate court so that we don't miss the point have you looked at the [01:36:14.320 --> 01:36:24.520] pellet rules concerning motion for reconsideration check in Texas the first [01:36:24.520 --> 01:36:29.800] thing you want to do is wait the 40 days right at the last moment file a motion [01:36:29.800 --> 01:36:34.640] for consideration you've checked to cut check the law motion for consideration [01:36:34.640 --> 01:36:43.060] stops the clock and you take time build your legal brief brief the issue the [01:36:43.060 --> 01:36:51.120] judge ruled on take it back to the judge in a motion for reconsideration I see [01:36:51.120 --> 01:36:56.120] and that stops the clock and you would wait that long to do that I did [01:36:56.120 --> 01:37:00.160] generally take as much time as you can make sure you got your documents in [01:37:00.160 --> 01:37:08.680] order but check to see if if when the clock restarts does it start at the the [01:37:08.680 --> 01:37:12.460] date that it stopped or does it start counting all over again just to make [01:37:12.460 --> 01:37:19.080] sure you don't miss but have your appeal ready when you file for a [01:37:19.080 --> 01:37:24.240] reconsideration but you need to read the rules on the appellate rules to find out [01:37:24.240 --> 01:37:28.400] what those time limits are to make sure you don't miss them but make sure you [01:37:28.400 --> 01:37:32.000] have time to get a good brief together [01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:37.760] you know as another part of this case I had told you about this a while back to [01:37:37.760 --> 01:37:44.240] this was a case where the evidence the prosecution prosecutions evidence [01:37:44.240 --> 01:37:50.600] itself would have gotten him off because they had a forensic document that [01:37:50.600 --> 01:37:57.800] stipulated on the document itself that if there was if he had anything of [01:37:57.800 --> 01:38:02.360] alcohol to drink within 20 minutes of the test then none of the tests would [01:38:02.360 --> 01:38:06.920] have been valid the police officer never asked him that question when I asked him [01:38:06.920 --> 01:38:10.520] that question he said yeah it was probably five minutes after I drank some [01:38:10.520 --> 01:38:18.000] beer that he gave me the sobriety test or the breathalyzer mandamus that's [01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:30.160] that's meat meat for mandamus so is that the route that you would take yeah do [01:38:30.160 --> 01:38:35.360] mandamus but first I'd go for reconsideration on this issue and file [01:38:35.360 --> 01:38:43.000] a motion to revoke your signature on the plea agreement claim ineffective [01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:47.840] assistance of counsel and file about a half a dozen bar grievances against this [01:38:47.840 --> 01:38:53.640] attorney and end his career for him and then move for court appointed counsel [01:38:53.640 --> 01:39:00.280] first get you another attorney appointed to represent him and then crucify the [01:39:00.280 --> 01:39:07.400] last one so that the new attorney is looking at going down the same road and [01:39:07.400 --> 01:39:12.080] give him plausible deniability to adjudicate your case before the court [01:39:12.080 --> 01:39:20.600] we're going to win this by forcing defense counsel to do their jobs and you [01:39:20.600 --> 01:39:26.240] need counsel to protect your rights but right now counsel is I never thought I [01:39:26.240 --> 01:39:31.520] hear you say that yeah he know what the courts will listen to an attorney because [01:39:31.520 --> 01:39:37.520] they're all in the same boat yeah and still the most dangerous man in the [01:39:37.520 --> 01:39:42.960] courtroom is your attorney because he can do what he just did to this guy he [01:39:42.960 --> 01:39:48.000] can screw you he can screw you easier than the prosecutor can so let's give [01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:53.920] him reason to do it right crucify the last one and say you want to be next [01:39:53.920 --> 01:40:00.520] Bubba but look what it gives him now in on the attorney side what the heck are [01:40:00.520 --> 01:40:05.160] they supposed to do go in there and get the judge p.o.ed Adam the judge's gonna [01:40:05.160 --> 01:40:07.920] screw the next client to get back out and the judges can put you out of [01:40:07.920 --> 01:40:14.200] business whether they will or not I don't know but attorneys tend to believe [01:40:14.200 --> 01:40:19.080] they will so if you go in there and kick your attorney right square into behind [01:40:19.080 --> 01:40:23.800] he gets to go to the judge and say judge you know we're all buddies here help me [01:40:23.800 --> 01:40:30.400] out they're cremating me here and pull the judge in on their side and I mean I [01:40:30.400 --> 01:40:41.400] think we can do that that seems like the most effective way it doesn't matter you [01:40:41.400 --> 01:40:48.520] crucify him you know first bar grievance he gets you know I hate to even tell the [01:40:48.520 --> 01:40:52.240] attorney that I'm even considering a bar grievance I want him to get it in his [01:40:52.240 --> 01:40:56.200] hand before he knows anything's coming this particular attorney they appointed [01:40:56.200 --> 01:41:01.760] for me annoyed me because I liked him so I just didn't have it in me to [01:41:01.760 --> 01:41:09.800] bushwhack it so but if he was an old crotchety old buzzard to give me this [01:41:09.800 --> 01:41:14.200] crap well I'm gonna do whatever I want to do and I'm the attorney and I'm gonna do whatever I [01:41:14.200 --> 01:41:20.480] say okay Bubba your call and then you'd find out from the state bar association [01:41:20.480 --> 01:41:24.160] and I filed a bar grievance against them and then we come to me to gripe about [01:41:24.160 --> 01:41:32.240] it I'd tell him what I can't talk to you about that that's secret all right well [01:41:32.240 --> 01:41:36.560] listen Greg you want to stay on the line while we take some more calls yeah okay [01:41:36.560 --> 01:41:39.440] all right we're gonna skip the next break we're gonna take the rest of our [01:41:39.440 --> 01:41:46.040] calls we got Brian Terry Skyler Freeman all right Brian what's on your mind [01:41:46.040 --> 01:41:51.440] how you guys doing this evening good can you hear me okay yeah yeah are you on [01:41:51.440 --> 01:41:56.840] speakerphone no I'm not a speakerphone but trying to use my headset okay yeah [01:41:56.840 --> 01:42:03.040] that's much better all right all right thank you I have a couple questions I [01:42:03.040 --> 01:42:09.200] was wondering I've been doing a lot of research trying to trace my title down [01:42:09.200 --> 01:42:14.120] at um you know the registers all that and you know when I go into the main [01:42:14.120 --> 01:42:18.480] screen there are a bunch of different fields that you can fill out but you [01:42:18.480 --> 01:42:22.480] know I could put in my name for instance instead of you know my address or the [01:42:22.480 --> 01:42:26.000] former property owners what have you I'm wondering you know when I go to that [01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:30.760] next screen and it pulls up you know a public record like say my my home loan [01:42:30.760 --> 01:42:37.120] mortgage whatever how can I file stuff and have it show up there because I've [01:42:37.120 --> 01:42:42.960] been found a lot of this commercial stuff and I think a lot of it is you know [01:42:42.960 --> 01:42:46.640] little phony but some of it you know has some merit and I'm just wondering how I [01:42:46.640 --> 01:42:50.880] can do it and have it show up there because I don't know if I agree with you [01:42:50.880 --> 01:42:56.360] know registered mail being considered filed in the public okay all court all [01:42:56.360 --> 01:43:03.480] county clerks tend to have a section where you file deeds and mortgages and [01:43:03.480 --> 01:43:11.560] in that section you can file anything you want to and they charge you for it [01:43:11.560 --> 01:43:17.360] blood-buried it by the page but it goes into the court record and becomes public [01:43:17.360 --> 01:43:21.720] and that's not necessarily an affidavit right that would be different no [01:43:21.720 --> 01:43:27.080] affidavit same thing you can file it in the same place it's a section of the [01:43:27.080 --> 01:43:31.600] court set aside for public records and you you file with that section of the [01:43:31.600 --> 01:43:34.960] court and anybody can go to the court and look up all the records that are in [01:43:34.960 --> 01:43:40.920] there okay so deeds and such just happen to be the main thing they file but they [01:43:40.920 --> 01:43:45.360] generally accept everything else okay cool because that kind of brings me to [01:43:45.360 --> 01:43:52.200] my next question I was handing out some literature Memorial Day I went around [01:43:52.200 --> 01:43:56.400] and handed out flyers which I actually I sent to you guys so you should have a [01:43:56.400 --> 01:44:00.840] copy of those nice green flyers I was handing out and a copy of Republican [01:44:00.840 --> 01:44:05.200] democracies which is the John Birch Society publication it's an essay [01:44:05.200 --> 01:44:09.880] written by one of the people that are in the JBS anyway I handed those two pieces [01:44:09.880 --> 01:44:15.320] of literature out and strangely enough the next morning I had a non-marked [01:44:15.320 --> 01:44:18.640] police car drive past my house and you know maybe I'm being suspicious but I've [01:44:18.640 --> 01:44:23.560] lived here for a few years and not any not seen any but the police officer or [01:44:23.560 --> 01:44:28.200] the coroner or the volunteer fire chief that live in my same little circle here [01:44:28.200 --> 01:44:32.920] drive by and then this morning you know fully marked police car drove by as well [01:44:32.920 --> 01:44:37.120] you know slowly looking past my house and I was wondering if there would be [01:44:37.120 --> 01:44:41.800] a roundabout way that I could maybe inquire to see if there had been any [01:44:41.800 --> 01:44:48.360] inquiries as to maybe somebody got upset by my publication call the police and [01:44:48.360 --> 01:44:53.840] tell them I think there's some guy driving around here in this car chasing [01:44:53.840 --> 01:45:00.200] out our houses this guy keeps driving by my house real slow and looking over my [01:45:00.200 --> 01:45:06.720] house I'm afraid he's planning something can you get somebody out here to take a [01:45:06.720 --> 01:45:12.600] statement in case something happens I'd like this I thought about being that [01:45:12.600 --> 01:45:17.400] direct also if I couldn't have a roundabout way I did but Randy could he [01:45:17.400 --> 01:45:22.160] legitimately use open records he could legitimately walk right out there in the [01:45:22.160 --> 01:45:27.200] street and say stop what the heck are you and what are you doing cruising [01:45:27.200 --> 01:45:32.640] around my neighborhood exactly I told a friend of mine that where we had some [01:45:32.640 --> 01:45:37.000] reserve officers and one of them went to the convenience store work his wife [01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:41.720] worked and asked her what time she got off and which way she went to go home [01:45:41.720 --> 01:45:48.520] and you know it sounded you know like he's trying to make sure she's okay but [01:45:48.520 --> 01:45:54.160] something in his manner really frightened her and Leon came to me and [01:45:54.160 --> 01:45:58.000] asked me what to do about it I said let's pull him over let him know what [01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:04.920] your concern is and you know if he's got some nefarious ideas if you talk to him [01:46:04.920 --> 01:46:09.320] I think that'll take care of it you do have to know that Leon is six foot seven [01:46:09.320 --> 01:46:16.760] weighs about 500 pounds so what does Leon do he drives up next to him it [01:46:16.760 --> 01:46:26.040] points at him you know Paul and Leon tells him that you been talking to my [01:46:26.040 --> 01:46:31.200] wife and you scared the heck out of her when you scare her you make me mad and [01:46:31.200 --> 01:46:36.600] he said the cop reached down and put his hand on his pistol and he said we need [01:46:36.600 --> 01:46:43.160] to get an understanding here one of us has a pistol and one of us don't care [01:46:43.160 --> 01:46:48.600] yeah well remember you know we do have the we do have the liberty to go to the [01:46:48.600 --> 01:46:52.320] store in the middle of the night and we we can go back home and watch TV she was [01:46:52.320 --> 01:46:57.240] working there and he made it sound like he wanted to make sure she got home safe [01:46:57.240 --> 01:47:04.680] but there was something in his demeanor that didn't didn't fit right I told Leon [01:47:04.680 --> 01:47:11.560] that wasn't exactly what I had in mind but I suspect it'll work all right well [01:47:11.560 --> 01:47:15.840] listen we have some other callers on the line Brian I think you addressed it [01:47:15.840 --> 01:47:20.360] fairly enough I maybe I'll maybe take you up on that direct directness when [01:47:20.360 --> 01:47:24.720] I see how things pan out a few days I've been pretty busy but uh yeah I like that [01:47:24.720 --> 01:47:30.880] myself all right thank you thank you so much Brian thank you for your support [01:47:30.880 --> 01:47:33.880] too Brian's one of our longtime listeners [01:47:33.880 --> 01:47:40.240] longtime callers he's the Pennsylvania Brian long time supporters of rule of [01:47:40.240 --> 01:47:44.560] law radio and we love you Brian thank you so much for your support all right [01:47:44.560 --> 01:47:49.520] we're going to go to Terry from Louisiana hey Terry thanks for calling in [01:47:49.520 --> 01:47:55.720] what's on your mind tonight hey I wanted to touch a couple of things up first of [01:47:55.720 --> 01:48:03.600] all I wanted to update y'all with my case traveling without a license I went [01:48:03.600 --> 01:48:11.120] through court May the 11th and I carried my seat recorder because the court [01:48:11.120 --> 01:48:17.760] reporter was not documenting the minutes of court and all the district attorney [01:48:17.760 --> 01:48:25.520] has fit and did more allow me to do it and just so happened the judge stepped [01:48:25.520 --> 01:48:29.720] out of his chambers and was standing around talking to some of the officers [01:48:29.720 --> 01:48:35.240] now motion to him and he allowed me to go into his chambers and we had a long [01:48:35.240 --> 01:48:43.280] powwow and I showed him some of the stuff I had and everything and Supreme [01:48:43.280 --> 01:48:50.200] Court rulings about sovereignty and all that kind of stuff and he basically [01:48:50.200 --> 01:48:57.480] told me he said look I'm retiring today he said the criminal charges you got [01:48:57.480 --> 01:49:03.000] against the officer and planning to bring against the district attorney you've [01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:08.920] got Kate he said but I don't want to be involved [01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:16.520] I've been doing this I'm 80 years old he said I'm retiring today he said let me [01:49:16.520 --> 01:49:23.760] relieve myself from this I said well if you'll give me an extension for 30 days [01:49:23.760 --> 01:49:32.440] I will honor your wishes and allow you to relieve yourself from this simply by [01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:39.480] retiring and so basically that's what we did we went back out in the court he [01:49:39.480 --> 01:49:43.480] didn't make a decision on having the tape recorder or not having the tape [01:49:43.480 --> 01:49:51.520] recorder the standing judge of that parish he called her on the phone and [01:49:51.520 --> 01:49:57.440] she said she couldn't find anything that said I couldn't have it but she didn't [01:49:57.440 --> 01:50:04.720] like to have it because it might conflict with what they had well that's [01:50:04.720 --> 01:50:09.680] the reason to have it yeah it might catch them in a laugh so she didn't [01:50:09.680 --> 01:50:15.640] really want it but it was his decision so basically that's where I stand and I [01:50:15.640 --> 01:50:22.320] go back in the 22nd with another judge and I start all over again except we go to [01:50:22.320 --> 01:50:31.360] trial with a new judge and he's gonna walk in through a brand side good yeah [01:50:31.360 --> 01:50:38.000] well what I really wanted to address is this other guy that is got a pretty good [01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:46.160] situation here with the DUI at at call it in before Brian yeah great now I was [01:50:46.160 --> 01:50:51.800] listening then this is just my opinion because of my studies and everything the [01:50:51.800 --> 01:50:58.200] first thing is how come the police officer was on private property how come [01:50:58.200 --> 01:51:05.400] the property owner did not tell him that he had about 30 seconds to vacate or he [01:51:05.400 --> 01:51:11.760] was just to be arrested for trespassing well there's one reason there's one [01:51:11.760 --> 01:51:19.360] reason if you are in public view and you are intoxicated even if you're on private [01:51:19.360 --> 01:51:23.920] property generally I know it's that way in Texas you can be arrested for public [01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:29.000] intoxication yeah and that would give him standing to enter the property how's [01:51:29.000 --> 01:51:35.520] that Greg how's that in Alabama you know that that portion of public [01:51:35.520 --> 01:51:41.600] intoxication I didn't even look at what I did look at strongly was a lot of case [01:51:41.600 --> 01:51:47.280] law in regard to private and it basically flip-flops back and forth [01:51:47.280 --> 01:51:52.040] Supreme Court rulings because of there was one particular case where a man was [01:51:52.040 --> 01:51:59.360] in a driveway and he started up his car and they they then pulled right behind [01:51:59.360 --> 01:52:05.320] him and arrested him and long story short Supreme Court ruled on that case [01:52:05.320 --> 01:52:14.240] that they were in their full capacity to arrest him because it it was it made [01:52:14.240 --> 01:52:18.400] common sense that the man was about to drive out on the road that's the [01:52:18.400 --> 01:52:27.760] dangerous area let me throw this out here this is my study and everything in [01:52:27.760 --> 01:52:35.200] our study has to convert back to Constitution and common law we always [01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:39.320] want bring them back to common law and Constitution because everything that's [01:52:39.320 --> 01:52:44.920] made eye of context with the Constitution is not law at all now [01:52:44.920 --> 01:52:51.640] private property if you bring them back to constitutional and common law they [01:52:51.640 --> 01:52:57.640] do not have jurisdiction on common law without a invitation by the property [01:52:57.640 --> 01:53:07.640] owner here's the problem at least in Texas the statutes say that the penal [01:53:07.640 --> 01:53:15.320] code governs and then the code of criminal procedure and where the code [01:53:15.320 --> 01:53:20.200] of criminal procedure or rules of civil procedure don't address an issue then [01:53:20.200 --> 01:53:27.880] the common law governs so anything that's addressed by penal code code of [01:53:27.880 --> 01:53:33.640] criminal procedure rules of civil procedure it trumps the common law yeah [01:53:33.640 --> 01:53:38.280] and here's what i want to i'm going to ask eddie about this too as far as this [01:53:38.280 --> 01:53:42.440] case that you're talking about terry that they're arresting the man in his [01:53:42.440 --> 01:53:47.320] driveway because they're assuming that it's most likely that a reasonable [01:53:47.320 --> 01:53:52.120] person would think that he's going to back out of the driveway and drive well [01:53:52.120 --> 01:53:56.440] has a crime been committed no because he didn't actually back out of the [01:53:56.440 --> 01:54:00.440] driveway and get on the street and i'm going to i want to talk to eddie about [01:54:00.440 --> 01:54:05.160] this because this all has to do with commercial law as well regarding [01:54:05.160 --> 01:54:10.520] driving and the driver's license and the license and the commercial code and the [01:54:10.520 --> 01:54:14.200] and the whole nine yards and and and randy speaking of [01:54:14.200 --> 01:54:18.840] the intoxication in the public and the whole thing i had a policeman come on my [01:54:18.840 --> 01:54:25.960] property on my birthday and tell me that [01:54:25.960 --> 01:54:33.400] we could not drink alcoholic beverages in my backyard after [01:54:33.400 --> 01:54:39.160] curfew he didn't say anything about that we were intoxicated [01:54:39.160 --> 01:54:43.480] or public intoxication or anything like that [01:54:43.480 --> 01:54:50.120] he said if you're outside on private property you're drinking [01:54:50.120 --> 01:54:53.400] in public and there's no drinking in public [01:54:53.400 --> 01:54:59.400] after curfew okay very and i said can you please tell me what the law is on [01:54:59.400 --> 01:55:02.760] that because is this some new court ruling or is [01:55:02.760 --> 01:55:07.560] this a city ordinance or is this state law or is this federal or what [01:55:07.560 --> 01:55:12.040] and he just looked me straight in the eye and told me [01:55:12.040 --> 01:55:17.320] that's the way it is that's the way it's always been i've been a cop for 30 years [01:55:17.320 --> 01:55:22.760] and i just knew okay whatever dude i knew that i just had to do whatever he [01:55:22.760 --> 01:55:25.800] said or he was going to haul all my friends to jail on my birthday [01:55:25.800 --> 01:55:30.360] and i'm sorry but that is wrong there's a there's a technical legal term for [01:55:30.360 --> 01:55:35.400] that it's called tyranny horse poop that's [01:55:35.400 --> 01:55:39.560] it's called police state and i ain't going to put up with it [01:55:39.560 --> 01:55:44.120] let me say this my my understanding once again we go back to the [01:55:44.120 --> 01:55:49.560] constitution it starts with the first words of the [01:55:49.560 --> 01:55:54.120] constitution we the people and [01:55:54.120 --> 01:56:01.400] we have the authority and we delegate or assign [01:56:01.400 --> 01:56:08.040] the authority that they have actually actually uh that has now changed it's [01:56:08.040 --> 01:56:12.120] called we the courts because all the important things [01:56:12.120 --> 01:56:14.920] can never change that's what i'm telling you is [01:56:14.920 --> 01:56:18.280] right there reality here's the reality of everything [01:56:18.280 --> 01:56:22.680] the courts use case law as law but they're just opinions [01:56:22.680 --> 01:56:25.800] that's all they are but the problem with it is [01:56:25.800 --> 01:56:29.000] if if a court rules a certain way it becomes law [01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:32.600] that's what's wrong okay let me tell you what [01:56:32.600 --> 01:56:38.440] case law really is it's common law [01:56:38.520 --> 01:56:42.760] when people say they want to go back to the common law i say i don't [01:56:42.760 --> 01:56:48.200] common law is law ruled by judges i want the judges control [01:56:48.200 --> 01:56:54.520] by statute not by their own opinions i didn't take common law to be that at [01:56:54.520 --> 01:56:57.400] all common law is what's ruled by the people not [01:56:57.400 --> 01:57:05.240] by judge yeah it's it's you go back common law is is what has been ruled [01:57:05.240 --> 01:57:10.520] and the people don't issue court rulings the court does [01:57:10.520 --> 01:57:16.520] and frankly it scares me it when you've got to take the whole picture [01:57:16.520 --> 01:57:22.760] and that's that's what i i've looked at a lot of people i don't just listen to [01:57:22.760 --> 01:57:25.560] y'all i've i've looked at a lot of other people [01:57:25.560 --> 01:57:31.240] everything i've been studying myself are you are you saying you listen to evil [01:57:31.240 --> 01:57:38.520] rival networks come on i listen to evil rival people [01:57:38.520 --> 01:57:43.560] and in reality they're not rivals because we're all trying to achieve the [01:57:43.560 --> 01:57:49.480] same thing and that's precisely we're all on the same page [01:57:49.480 --> 01:57:52.920] i say that with affection [01:57:53.240 --> 01:57:57.640] but basically what happens is everybody out there [01:57:57.640 --> 01:58:04.440] wants to take a small piece of something and bend it to fit their situation [01:58:04.440 --> 01:58:11.400] but if you will read the constitution for the words that it says and the [01:58:11.400 --> 01:58:15.080] declaration of independence for what it said [01:58:15.080 --> 01:58:19.080] not try to read anything into it quickly we're out of time [01:58:19.080 --> 01:58:22.440] right there yep all right i agree with you [01:58:22.440 --> 01:58:27.000] absolutely let me run through this right no no no we can't yeah we're about to go [01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:31.000] off the air i'm sorry thank you so much terry and thank you i'm [01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:34.120] sorry skyler freeman will have to take your calls tomorrow night [01:58:34.120 --> 01:58:37.960] thank you greg agenda 21 talk he's on friday night [01:58:37.960 --> 01:58:41.720] him and don terry and mike hussein halloway [01:58:41.720 --> 01:58:46.440] okay it's in the 21 talk dot com check out his show tomorrow night six to eight [01:58:46.440 --> 01:58:49.080] and tuesday's eight to ten and we'll be back [01:58:49.080 --> 01:58:52.840] tomorrow eight to midnight thanks guys thank you [01:58:52.840 --> 01:58:55.320] greg all right we'll see y'all tomorrow night [01:58:55.320 --> 01:59:09.080] will of law radio [01:59:09.080 --> 01:59:22.280] uh [01:59:39.080 --> 01:59:46.080] It's a dream, let's move You better treat me good