[00:00.000 --> 00:17.000] Look you man, look you man, Jah Jah is coming, look you man, Jah Jah is coming, [00:17.000 --> 00:31.000] Look you man, look you man, Jah Jah is coming, look you man, Jah Jah is coming, [00:31.000 --> 00:57.000] Look you man, look you man, Jah Jah is coming, look you man, Jah Jah is coming, [00:57.000 --> 01:11.000] Okay we are back, the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens and Randy sorry that we kind of interrupted your call there to take Mike Hussein and Lisa but we're going to finish up here now. [01:11.000 --> 01:15.000] We usually spend a long time with you so I wanted to get those other two calls in. [01:15.000 --> 01:20.000] Okay so please go ahead with where you were headed Randy. [01:20.000 --> 01:36.000] Well the reason I kind of had called was the guy with the traffic ticket was the fact that if you won't go in and plead, if you go in personally they're going to... [01:36.000 --> 01:37.000] Randy are you there? [01:37.000 --> 01:39.000] Yeah I'm here, can you hear me? [01:39.000 --> 01:47.000] Okay yeah if you go in, repeat yourself, back up a little bit because it sounded like your phone cut out for a second or something. [01:47.000 --> 01:59.000] Okay I was just saying you know if you go in personally on a ticket you're going to hit the clerk, you're not going to see the judge and they're just going to shine you on [01:59.000 --> 02:10.000] and so what you want to do especially if you review your paperwork and it puts them on the dime because you just challenged jurisdiction, you haven't appeared generally, [02:10.000 --> 02:22.000] you haven't given jurisdiction and you basically come after them with the fact that the citation is not a complaint, it is not a summons and that their process is insufficient [02:22.000 --> 02:34.000] because they have not followed the capias and you know it's insufficiency of process and now they're stuck, they're totally stuck because you've appeared, [02:34.000 --> 02:45.000] you've fulfilled your promise, now they have to prove their jurisdiction and they can't and they never will be able to. [02:45.000 --> 02:46.000] Hello? [02:46.000 --> 02:47.000] Okay. [02:47.000 --> 03:04.000] That sounds interesting to me but still I'm still kind of iffy on the insufficiency of process, what you've given me is something very general, [03:04.000 --> 03:16.000] it sounds good but I need something more specific in how they have not, on the insufficiency of process. [03:16.000 --> 03:19.000] Okay, you have your service of process, right? [03:19.000 --> 03:25.000] I mean none of these things is a complaint, it's not a summons, right? [03:25.000 --> 03:27.000] We've got that right. [03:27.000 --> 03:40.000] 543-005 authorizes the officer to serve process on you for a violation of the transportation code by way of a citation. [03:40.000 --> 03:50.000] Well, but all process issue, now in the JP courts, the rule that applies to them is the municipal courts [03:50.000 --> 03:59.000] because it's not specified in the JP under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it's 45.202A. [03:59.000 --> 04:05.000] All process issuing at a municipal court shall be served or shall be served when directed by the court, [04:05.000 --> 04:13.000] by a peace officer or marshal of the municipality within which it is situated under the same rules as are provided by law [04:13.000 --> 04:20.000] for the service by sheriff's or constable's process issuing out of the justice court so far as applicable. [04:20.000 --> 04:24.000] So basically they have to have a process server do this. [04:24.000 --> 04:32.000] The problem we have is a special statute takes precedence over a general statute. [04:32.000 --> 04:39.000] And when we're dealing with the transportation code, we have a special statute within the transportation code [04:39.000 --> 04:46.000] that would take precedence over the general statute in the Code of Criminal Procedure. [04:46.000 --> 04:53.000] Well, there's another thing about that particular section too in the wording there, Randy, and it's when directed by the court. [04:53.000 --> 04:58.000] The court does not have to direct the delivery by an enforcement officer. [04:58.000 --> 05:04.000] But if that enforcement officer, when directed by the court, fails to do it, there's a problem. [05:04.000 --> 05:10.000] But I've already discussed that particular set of wording with numerous individuals [05:10.000 --> 05:16.000] and they all seem to agree that it refers to when it is directed by the court [05:16.000 --> 05:22.000] because a little further down there is a stipulation that the court may deliver the process by mail. [05:22.000 --> 05:28.000] Now, it doesn't even specify that it has to be certified mail. It just simply says by mail. [05:28.000 --> 05:34.000] Yeah, but even with that, there's a special statute in the transportation code. [05:34.000 --> 05:40.000] When you're adjudicating a violation of the transportation code, [05:40.000 --> 05:49.000] the special statute in the transportation code would prevent the general statute in the commercial code. [05:49.000 --> 05:52.000] Granted, not arguing that point. [05:52.000 --> 06:02.000] They still have to have an examining trial, and they've never had one, and the court never directed the guy to do it, so they're stuck. [06:02.000 --> 06:09.000] What they're trying to do is they're trying to get around the fact that what they're doing is just, you know, hey, give me your money. [06:09.000 --> 06:19.000] Yeah, I agree they didn't have an examining trial. I was just going after the issue of insufficiency of summons. [06:19.000 --> 06:24.000] Well, but it is in the summons. [06:24.000 --> 06:26.000] Actually, 543-005. [06:26.000 --> 06:31.000] The criterion of the summons is out of the court. Does it have the court seal on it? [06:31.000 --> 06:47.000] 5-005 is still a special statute. It authorizes the police officer who issues the citation to release the person on a promise to appear, which amounts to a summons. [06:47.000 --> 06:54.000] And we have to give a special statute precedence over a general statute. [06:54.000 --> 07:04.000] Well, he works for the executive branch, and we're talking about the judicial branch. I can't see how in the world you can get across that boundary. [07:04.000 --> 07:23.000] Well, then we have to make a constitutional challenge, and as long as the statute stands, even if it's unconstitutional, if it hasn't been challenged, then it still stands, and we have to deal with it. [07:23.000 --> 07:30.000] Yeah, the benefit of doing it with that constitutional challenge is it's going to force them to do one of two things. [07:30.000 --> 07:45.000] They either have to review that process and remove it because it's not within the officer's power, or if they wish to keep that process, they have to admit that it can only be used against commercial entities that they themselves created and not us. [07:45.000 --> 08:11.000] That might be a good challenge to take them on with, but as far as the way it is right now, the law is in place, and it hasn't been challenged constitutionally, and until it is, we have to deal with it. [08:11.000 --> 08:24.000] Does that make sense? Well, maybe so. I haven't read that part of it. I just know that typically these citations are flawed from the beginning. [08:24.000 --> 08:37.000] Oh, well, you're right there. There's no argument on that point. They're flawed from the get-go because, one, first thing, they're issued against the party to which they do not apply. Subject matter jurisdiction is nonexistent. [08:37.000 --> 08:47.000] That's what is going to be legally hard for them to get around. In practice, they just simply ignore it. [08:47.000 --> 09:01.000] So that's the one we need to hammer them with, and I'm looking at going after the judge for attempting to enforce a statute against me that doesn't apply to me. [09:01.000 --> 09:11.000] I've got some stuff coming up in Austin that I want to do that with. If I can get them to stop arresting me long enough. [09:11.000 --> 09:16.000] Well, stop asking for trouble, and maybe they won't. [09:16.000 --> 09:24.000] I have another warrant out in Austin for me. What for? All those stupid tickets again. Traffic tickets? [09:24.000 --> 09:35.000] Yeah, my ex wasn't sending me the notices to appear, and I had about a half a dozen of them, so I can't complain too much. They sent me a half a dozen before they issued warrants. [09:35.000 --> 09:41.000] But it's really getting annoying getting thrown in jail for those. [09:41.000 --> 09:44.000] Okay, any more comments, Randy? [09:44.000 --> 09:46.000] Any more comments, Randy? Any questions? [09:46.000 --> 10:04.000] Well, I was going to say on the group thing, the guy that came down to witness my trial today, Chuck wants to reform a group that was going on earlier out of the, what is it, the Freedom Bookstore down there? [10:04.000 --> 10:05.000] Uh-huh. [10:05.000 --> 10:12.000] Oh, it's with James, the one that was on every Monday night? [10:12.000 --> 10:20.000] Yeah, and I guess they wanted to get the group going again without the one guy or whatever. I didn't quite follow all that. [10:20.000 --> 10:24.000] Without the, wait a minute, I forgot the guy's name. I thought he was- [10:24.000 --> 10:25.000] James. [10:25.000 --> 10:29.000] I thought he was the one that was teaching down there. [10:29.000 --> 10:42.000] Well, I guess the guy that was teaching it is no longer allowed down there, so they want to get the group going again, but they definitely wanted to get the 10 to 21 Admiralty Tim Turner stuff going. [10:42.000 --> 10:44.000] Oh, down at Brave New Books you're talking about? [10:44.000 --> 10:47.000] Yeah, Brave New Books. That's what I'm thinking of. [10:47.000 --> 10:53.000] Wait, Harlan said that he wants to sell Tim Turner DVDs? I need to talk to him about it. [10:53.000 --> 10:57.000] No, I think they want to get those Monday meetings started back up. [10:57.000 --> 11:00.000] They want to get the Monday meetings going again with the- [11:00.000 --> 11:05.000] Oh, but to do it with the, but to teach the Admiralty Law, the Tim Turner stuff, you mean? [11:05.000 --> 11:07.000] Yes, exactly. [11:07.000 --> 11:25.000] Oh, okay. All right. Well, let me, yeah, okay. If anyone out there, if they're, we're not on 90.1 right now. We're on, we're just on the Internet, but maybe on Monday what I'll do is I'll announce that anybody who wants to do that to go and put their, [11:25.000 --> 11:34.000] call Brave New Books and give them your name so that Harlan can give me the list so that we can do something about that to have a study group. [11:34.000 --> 11:48.000] And I probably really should talk to Greg and them about it and because of Tim because, okay, Tim does encourage that people get together in study groups, but I mean if there's going to be like, [11:48.000 --> 11:58.000] I don't know how he'd feel about like 50 people sharing one DVD. That's getting a little much, I would think. You know, he may want to break it down and like have- [11:58.000 --> 12:11.000] I don't know if people are involved in this thing, so I just bring it up because y'all mentioned it and I know that Chuck, the guy that was there today, said he wanted to get this re-going, but it would be just a study group versus the way it was before. [12:11.000 --> 12:21.000] Okay, okay. All right. Well then, yeah, that sounds really good. Yeah, I'll- Yeah, and I want to promote it and I want to get you guys into it and all that. [12:21.000 --> 12:35.000] And I told him, you know, I'd participate and help out as much as I could. Sure. And then the other thing I want to throw out there is the one guy was talking about brewing beer. [12:35.000 --> 12:44.000] Oh yeah, Dan. And I've been a home brewer for 33 years, so if you want to do a brew of law, I'll be- [12:44.000 --> 13:00.000] Ah, brew of law. Well, hey, Randy, maybe you could help us fix this Foster's lager that we got from the keg that was left over for my birthday party because like I said, we've got like a dozen or so double-sized wine bottles filled with Foster's lager, [13:00.000 --> 13:06.000] and there's nothing wrong with it at all other than it's just kind of flat, so maybe you can help me and Randy fix it. [13:06.000 --> 13:14.000] We could- Well, there's a couple of ways we could reprime it with the carbonation if you want to try it. Yeah, hell yeah, we want to try it. [13:14.000 --> 13:24.000] But I'm talking about doing a brew of law batch. You guys pick the type of brew and we'll get it going. All right. [13:24.000 --> 13:32.000] Randy's own special brand of beer, Fun Beer. How about that? It's Randy, Randy Double Buck. [13:32.000 --> 13:42.000] That'll work. Well, I like dark beer. I mean, I like heavy beer, okay? I like, you know, like Guinness. Dark beer. [13:42.000 --> 13:56.000] I like Guinness, okay? When I lived in New England, when I first started getting into riding motorcycles, Harleys, I bought my first Harley up there, okay? And I would go, you know, I would go down to the biker bar and everything, [13:56.000 --> 14:05.000] and I'd always be drinking my Guinness, right? Pull up on my little Sportster, going in there, drinking my Guinness, and my nickname was Ninety Weight [14:05.000 --> 14:19.000] because those Sportsters require such heavy, they require like 90-weight oil, okay? And then like the Guinness is so heavy, you know, like the heavy oil, and then like I look like I weigh 90 pounds. [14:19.000 --> 14:26.000] So that's my nickname, Ninety Weight, in the motorcycle circles. [14:26.000 --> 14:41.000] You know, what's interesting is actually Guinness is a very non-alcoholic beer compared to, say, like a porter, and the stouts are a derivation, a stronger or a more robust form of a porter, [14:41.000 --> 14:56.000] and that's what a Guinness stout is. But the Guinness itself is pretty low alcohol, especially nowadays with the taxation over there. They've really reduced it down. It's almost like a light beer with a dark, you know. [14:56.000 --> 15:02.000] Bummer. Well, maybe we could make a brew of Law that's like similar to Guinness but has a decent alcohol content. [15:02.000 --> 15:13.000] Yeah, that'd be very easy to do, something in the porter style that you would love it, and it's got plenty of kick, believe me. Awesome. I love the frothy thing, too. [15:13.000 --> 15:21.000] So if you guys want to do it, let me know. I'm up for it. All righty, I'm loving it. Okay, thanks, Randy. Good night. [15:21.000 --> 15:28.000] Okay, good night. All right, we got one more caller. We're going to go back to Brian in Pennsylvania. [15:28.000 --> 15:32.000] Hey, Brian, thanks for calling back in. What's on your mind? [15:32.000 --> 15:41.000] Oh, hey, guys. Yeah, I forgot to mention before something very important that was in my notes that I overlooked. [15:41.000 --> 15:54.000] Senate Bill 787, that is only in the Senate right now. I don't believe it doesn't even have a number for the House, but that is the Clean Water Restoration Act, and it's being pushed again, [15:54.000 --> 16:00.000] and it is very threatening to property rights that we were talking about before. [16:00.000 --> 16:09.000] It would really impair, you know, our strong point that we have currently under the law of federal jurisdiction. [16:09.000 --> 16:14.000] Federal jurisdiction is very, very limited, and this would go against that. [16:14.000 --> 16:22.000] So you need to call your senators and representatives as well and let them know that that's bunk and to vote no. [16:22.000 --> 16:27.000] Okay, excellent. All right. All right, thank you for the information. [16:27.000 --> 16:35.000] If you were to, you know, go to hourofthetime.com, a couple posts down, they do have a good write-up on it. [16:35.000 --> 16:43.000] Okay. All right, that's really about it. Okay, excellent. Very good. Good evening. [16:43.000 --> 16:53.000] Okay. Have a good night. Okay. Well, I believe that that is it for tonight's show. [16:53.000 --> 16:59.000] Okay. Thanks, guys, for staying with us for overtime. Thanks to all our listeners. [16:59.000 --> 17:06.000] Looks like our stream's held up quite fine. Everyone's still out there listening. We appreciate that a lot. [17:06.000 --> 17:18.000] And so I guess we will be back on Monday evening. So thanks, listeners. Again, Eddie and Randy, of course. [17:18.000 --> 17:40.000] Good night, all. Okay. Good night, all. Good night. We will see y'all on Monday evening. [17:48.000 --> 18:11.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [18:18.000 --> 18:43.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [18:43.000 --> 19:10.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [19:10.000 --> 19:32.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [19:32.000 --> 19:52.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [19:52.000 --> 20:12.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [20:12.000 --> 20:37.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [20:37.000 --> 20:57.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [20:57.000 --> 21:17.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [21:17.000 --> 21:37.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [21:37.000 --> 21:57.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [21:57.000 --> 22:17.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [22:17.000 --> 22:37.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening. [22:37.000 --> 22:57.000] We will see y'all on Monday evening.