[00:00.000 --> 00:22.200] Okay, we are back. After Midnight Edition on Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com. Okay, [00:22.200 --> 00:27.720] we're speaking with Marcus in Virginia. Okay, go ahead Marcus, you're wondering why the [00:27.720 --> 00:33.600] police officer checked traffic instead of criminal now? Right, yeah, because I want [00:33.600 --> 00:39.000] to find out, well, what would cause them to mark criminals as traffic? Well, it depends [00:39.000 --> 00:45.440] on the state. It may be that in Virginia, traffic violations are considered civil instead [00:45.440 --> 00:53.440] of criminal. Some states call them criminal, some states call them civil. So, on his citation, [00:53.440 --> 01:01.080] he could cite someone, for instance, for breach of the peace. And that could be a misdemeanor [01:01.080 --> 01:07.160] for which he's authorized to release them if they sign the citation. So, he can use [01:07.160 --> 01:20.560] it for a criminal offense or a civil offense. Was this in a municipality? Okay, so it wasn't [01:20.560 --> 01:27.760] a city municipal ordinance. He could probably use this same citation for a county civil [01:27.760 --> 01:36.640] violation. So, in this case, if he stopped you for a traffic offense and labeled it civil, [01:36.640 --> 01:44.280] it's probably because in Virginia, traffic offenses are considered civil offenses. That's [01:44.280 --> 01:50.680] the best guess, not being familiar with Virginia law. Well, the statute that he cites, where [01:50.680 --> 01:57.880] he cites that 2 to 300, specifically says that this violation is a misdemeanor. But [01:57.880 --> 02:06.480] is it? Class 3 or Class 1? Then he's accused you of violating a civil misdemeanor. Civil [02:06.480 --> 02:14.880] misdemeanor. That's a pretty good trick. It probably won't make any difference. If he [02:14.880 --> 02:24.520] cited you with committing a specific offense, then whatever he called it won't change it. [02:24.520 --> 02:33.040] It will be whatever the offense is designated at under law. So, he might have put the wrong [02:33.040 --> 02:42.280] box on the ticket, but if he stated the statute or the charge that he made against you, it's [02:42.280 --> 02:56.160] going to be whatever it's going to be. I can't see that being a fundamental error. They're [02:56.160 --> 03:03.920] going to rule. Oops. Yeah, but when I go into court, I want to know what the complaint is. [03:03.920 --> 03:09.280] Is this criminal or is this civil? I want to know that before I go in. That's the first [03:09.280 --> 03:17.040] thing to ask. Someone has a complaint. So, if this is the complaint, it says it's traffic [03:17.040 --> 03:22.400] or there's a checkbox next to the word traffic, I'm not going to take it as a traffic offense [03:22.400 --> 03:29.560] and not rather than a criminal one. Okay. Question. How will that affect the adjudication [03:29.560 --> 03:42.080] of your case? Well, shouldn't I be served with a complaint first that tell me what they're [03:42.080 --> 03:49.560] seeking to do here? Well, didn't he give you a citation and have you sign it? Well, yeah, [03:49.560 --> 03:58.240] I signed it under duress. Okay. But see, that's constructive notice. So, constructively, you've [03:58.240 --> 04:07.440] been notified of the allegations. So, you have your notice. I'm being the devil's advocate [04:07.440 --> 04:15.760] here. What I signed was a statement basically saying, let's see, I promise to appear at [04:15.760 --> 04:20.320] this time and place. Yeah. You didn't grant jurisdiction. You didn't do anything to promise [04:20.320 --> 04:28.040] to appear. But that establishes constructive notice. So, you've been notified of the allegation [04:28.040 --> 04:34.840] that's made against you. If the officer checked the wrong box, I'm sure the court is going [04:34.840 --> 04:42.920] to say harmless error unless you can show how the checking of that box somehow harmed [04:42.920 --> 04:51.960] you or interfered with your ability to defend yourself in the case. And the reason I'm going [04:51.960 --> 05:01.120] here is we need to bring questions to the court that if we get a positive answer to [05:01.120 --> 05:10.560] the question, we'll make a difference. If we bring the issues before the court that [05:10.560 --> 05:18.080] make no difference, that are distinctions without a difference, all we're doing is so [05:18.080 --> 05:26.640] much fluff and bluster. And the court's not going to like it one little bit. Even if he [05:26.640 --> 05:31.240] was inclined to rule for you, he may rule against you because you're bringing just jump charges [05:31.240 --> 05:43.160] to it. Hello. So sorry. Eddie dropped out for a minute. Yeah. Okay. We had a power glitch. [05:43.160 --> 05:52.160] Sorry. Okay. So Marcus, did that make sense to you? Actually, the phone went mute on my [05:52.160 --> 05:58.920] end for like 15 seconds. I didn't hear half of what you said. Okay. What I was saying [05:58.920 --> 06:06.840] is that you may win on your issue. You may be right that he checked civil and it was [06:06.840 --> 06:15.440] really criminal. But in the end, as it goes to the adjudication of the case, it's a distinction [06:15.440 --> 06:25.280] without a difference. And generally, I try to avoid raising issues that don't matter [06:25.280 --> 06:33.760] because one thing it kind of, it'll prejudice the court against you. And the other, you'll [06:33.760 --> 06:40.120] spend a lot of time addressing an issue that's not going to help you when there may be issues [06:40.120 --> 06:51.640] that actually will. Generally, in a complaint, if the complaint gives substantial notice, [06:51.640 --> 06:59.840] then it is sufficient. If the complaint tells you what crime you're being accused of, and [06:59.840 --> 07:08.080] generally the reasons you're being accused of that crime, that's all that it really requires. [07:08.080 --> 07:14.480] And a complaint is designed to be presented by a lay person. That's why we have attorneys [07:14.480 --> 07:20.360] prepare information. And information looks just like a complaint, except it's prepared [07:20.360 --> 07:26.800] by learning counsel and is expected to be legally correct. The complaint doesn't have [07:26.800 --> 07:27.800] to be. [07:27.800 --> 07:33.160] All right. But there was no information in this case. The attorney filed absolutely nothing. [07:33.160 --> 07:34.160] Generally... [07:34.160 --> 07:36.160] His signature on anything. [07:36.160 --> 07:42.480] Okay. In a lot of states, and I suspect Virginia is one of them, I know Texas is one of them, [07:42.480 --> 07:48.400] on a traffic citation, they generally pursue on the citation. And I used to, I thought [07:48.400 --> 07:53.960] there was a statute on that, but Eddie Craig tells me there's not. [07:53.960 --> 07:55.880] On which specific one? [07:55.880 --> 08:04.520] On pursuing prosecution of a traffic citation on the citation itself and not an information. [08:04.520 --> 08:09.680] Right. Because what that does is that goes against the state constitution, which specifically [08:09.680 --> 08:16.080] states it is an indictment or an information that grants the court jurisdiction. And 2.05 [08:16.080 --> 08:24.640] says that in any county with a criminal district court, there must be an information filed. [08:24.640 --> 08:30.480] And they say if there is no criminal county court or there is no county attorney, then [08:30.480 --> 08:36.200] you can proceed on complaint alone. But that goes against what the state constitution says [08:36.200 --> 08:40.240] grants jurisdiction to the court. [08:40.240 --> 08:45.040] So is that, and that's a question that probably hasn't been adjudicated or if it has, the [08:45.040 --> 08:52.160] judge just blew it off. But I, you know, this is Texas law and I suspect that these issues [08:52.160 --> 09:00.160] are going to be covered in Virginia law and probably in a similar manner. Does that make [09:00.160 --> 09:01.160] sense? [09:01.160 --> 09:02.160] Sure. [09:02.160 --> 09:11.800] So you might look at the requirements for information. It may be that you can demand [09:11.800 --> 09:12.800] an information. [09:12.800 --> 09:17.760] I don't know if you've gone mute again. [09:17.760 --> 09:23.400] In North Carolina, you could demand an information and then they had to produce one. But if you [09:23.400 --> 09:34.840] didn't demand it, they didn't have to produce one. Okay. Do you have any other questions? [09:34.840 --> 09:40.400] Well there was one other thing in the trial. I didn't feel it and I didn't perform that [09:40.400 --> 09:48.720] well. But I did do one thing. I kind of embarrassed the judge as far as the, you know, the attorney [09:48.720 --> 09:57.320] from the other side tried to present me with this computer printout from the DMV about [09:57.320 --> 10:01.640] my license. Okay. Just saying I've not been certified or verified or anything. There's [10:01.640 --> 10:11.480] no signature on it. I just complained this is not admissible. I don't see how they can [10:11.480 --> 10:17.560] even accept that as evidence. Nothing but a computer printout. [10:17.560 --> 10:23.680] It's testimony on the part of the prosecutor if the prosecutor presented it. The prosecutor [10:23.680 --> 10:32.160] is not allowed to testify. The only way the attorney can get that in is he has to have [10:32.160 --> 10:38.600] a witness reference it to give foundation for the entering of the document. [10:38.600 --> 10:44.280] Well but my understanding Randy, if it's a government record with no signature, no seal, [10:44.280 --> 10:51.240] no nothing, it is an unverified document and cannot be admitted for evidence or any other [10:51.240 --> 10:52.240] purpose. [10:52.240 --> 11:01.520] Actually it can if you have a witness testify to its validity. For instance, he asked the [11:01.520 --> 11:08.280] witness are you familiar with this document? I said yes I am. Will you tell me the nature [11:08.280 --> 11:17.360] of this document? Well I downloaded, I made a request. I queried the computer database [11:17.360 --> 11:22.000] for certain facts and this is what the computer printed out. Well it wouldn't be signed to [11:22.000 --> 11:27.760] verify it or anything of such thing but you have a live human being testifying to its [11:27.760 --> 11:28.760] validity. [11:28.760 --> 11:36.240] Well yeah but what I've seen here in Texas is if you ask them for something of that nature [11:36.240 --> 11:42.200] in order for it to be certified they write up a separate letter certifying the document [11:42.200 --> 11:46.240] that they provided to you is in fact valid and original. [11:46.240 --> 11:56.400] Right but in court when an attorney is developing testimony he can introduce documents that [11:56.400 --> 12:03.160] don't have to be verified because the witness can verify them on the stand under oath. In [12:03.160 --> 12:06.560] this case did the attorney have a witness on the stand? [12:06.560 --> 12:07.560] Yes he did. [12:07.560 --> 12:23.720] Did he ask the witness something? That's what he's supposed to do. Did he create foundation [12:23.720 --> 12:35.600] for the document? Did he ask questions about this information of the witness? You see the [12:35.600 --> 12:41.480] prosecutor can't produce this information. The prosecutor has to get a witness to talk [12:41.480 --> 12:49.800] about it and once the witness talks about it then that gives foundation for entering [12:49.800 --> 12:57.560] whatever the document is into evidence. He has the police officer on there and he says [12:57.560 --> 13:05.840] did you write a citation to defend it? Yes I did. This document I'm holding up do you [13:05.840 --> 13:13.520] recognize it? Yes I do. Is this the citation you wrote? Yes it is. That's foundation. Now [13:13.520 --> 13:20.280] he can enter that into evidence because he had a witness verify it. So the witness is [13:20.280 --> 13:27.000] entering that into evidence through the attorney not the attorney. The attorney can't produce [13:27.000 --> 13:35.000] anything on his own because then he would be entering evidence and testifying and witness [13:35.000 --> 13:41.920] and the prosecutor or the attorney can't testify. Does that make sense? As far as I know that [13:41.920 --> 13:48.200] printout was not produced in the cop's vehicle. That was produced somewhere else. I don't [13:48.200 --> 13:56.920] know where they got it from. Did the prosecutor ask the policeman about the printout? I don't [13:56.920 --> 14:05.840] know. No. So then the objection was foundation and then what he would have done and had to [14:05.840 --> 14:10.880] do is ask the policeman some questions so that the policeman would answer the question [14:10.880 --> 14:18.560] by referencing this document and once the witness referenced the document then it can [14:18.560 --> 14:26.600] be entered into evidence otherwise it lacks foundation. So that was probably the objection [14:26.600 --> 14:35.720] you needed to bring. You might want to get jurisdictionary. It goes through these kinds [14:35.720 --> 14:42.920] of basic details and one thing that may make it more interesting to understand is that [14:42.920 --> 14:49.720] when attorneys go to law school they don't learn this kind of stuff. They don't learn [14:49.720 --> 14:55.800] this until they get out in the real world. They don't have a clue as how to write a [14:55.800 --> 15:01.880] motion or how to file a motion. All this stuff that's in jurisdictionary attorneys have to [15:01.880 --> 15:10.840] learn once they get out of law school and a good portion of them never do. Okay, do [15:10.840 --> 15:16.840] you have any other questions? Well, my point is that I'm sure the cop just looked it up [15:16.840 --> 15:23.040] on his computer screen in his vehicle. He did not see that particular printout until [15:23.040 --> 15:28.840] that day. Well, I think what Randy is saying is the whole point is that it wasn't referenced [15:28.840 --> 15:36.280] in court in the proper manner so it doesn't really matter. Okay. It wasn't properly entered [15:36.280 --> 15:40.520] into evidence and this is what Randy was saying that these kinds of things they go through [15:40.520 --> 15:46.480] in the jurisdictionary course. Yeah, the attorney can't come up and say, well, Your Honor, I [15:46.480 --> 15:54.560] have this document objection foundation. The attorney can't produce documents to the court. [15:54.560 --> 15:59.960] Witnesses have to produce the documents or reference the documents before the attorney [15:59.960 --> 16:03.360] can present them to the court. That's what I was going to was foundation. Yeah, it doesn't [16:03.360 --> 16:10.560] really matter where the cop saw it or when. What matters is how it was entered in evidence [16:10.560 --> 16:16.440] in court or if it was and if it was was it entered properly. Well, but the other question [16:16.440 --> 16:21.280] is, does the cop have first-hand knowledge upon that document's generation? Exactly. [16:21.280 --> 16:27.400] That was a question he would have to ask the policeman. Do you have knowledge of this? [16:27.400 --> 16:34.640] And can you testify to the veracity of this? The evidence would be entered by the witness, [16:34.640 --> 16:39.960] not by the attorney. Yeah, but see the cross on that from your side should also be how [16:39.960 --> 16:49.640] do you have knowledge of this? Precisely. Because he very well could have knowledge [16:49.640 --> 16:53.640] because, oh, well, Sally so-and-so brought it to me and said that's what it was. Well, [16:53.640 --> 16:59.440] that's hearsay testimony. Yeah. See, I was in court once and I had worked up an amortization [16:59.440 --> 17:06.960] of a loan on a house that the guy was trying to repossess the house. And the attorney got [17:06.960 --> 17:15.960] up there and asked me who it was and I told him. Said, were you contacted by the plaintiff [17:15.960 --> 17:21.480] to prepare an amortization of the loan on this particular piece of property? I said, [17:21.480 --> 17:28.040] yes, I was. Did you prepare that amortization? Yes, I did. This document I'm holding, is [17:28.040 --> 17:34.520] this the amortization you prepared? Yes, it is. Your Honor, I moved this into evidence. [17:34.520 --> 17:41.600] See, he got me to talk about it and tell what it was before he asked to enter it into court. [17:41.600 --> 17:47.880] He established foundation. And you have to do that before, an attorney has to do that [17:47.880 --> 17:52.600] before he can enter evidence. Yeah, see, that's how I'm going to use the [17:52.600 --> 17:57.280] criminal complaints of my traffic cases to file charges on the officer in the court is [17:57.280 --> 18:02.200] I'm going to get him to testify to the criminal complaint that he signed under penalty of [18:02.200 --> 18:07.520] perjury. And I'm going to have him lay that foundation in court. So then I'm going to [18:07.520 --> 18:11.200] file for aggravated perjury because it contains false statements. [18:11.200 --> 18:17.000] I actually did that in court. I had a little fender bender and we were sitting in the middle [18:17.000 --> 18:20.400] of the street and this sheriff's deputy come by and said, ah, that's just a minor fender [18:20.400 --> 18:23.960] bender. You need to move these cars out of the street so you don't cause a wreck. So [18:23.960 --> 18:29.280] we moved him in a parking lot. But then a local cop showed up and he wrote me a ticket. [18:29.280 --> 18:37.240] I get to court and I asked the officer, uh, did you write the citation? Ask him, do you [18:37.240 --> 18:42.560] recognize this document? He said, yes, I did. I do. Is this a citation you wrote me at the [18:42.560 --> 18:49.760] time of the accident? Yes, it is. So tell me, uh, how did the accident happen? And he [18:49.760 --> 18:53.400] said, well, uh, apparently an objection, your honor. [18:53.400 --> 19:00.800] He said, you asked him the question. He's non-responsive. He said, apparently I asked [19:00.800 --> 19:08.200] him to describe the accident and he can only testify to what he personally saw. And so [19:08.200 --> 19:14.120] I turned back to the officer and he said, objections sustained. Did you see the accident? [19:14.120 --> 19:19.120] Or no, I didn't. Well, how'd you know an accident occurred? Well, uh, I said, well, where were [19:19.120 --> 19:22.880] you when the accident occurred? He said, I was on another call. Well, when you got to [19:22.880 --> 19:27.560] the scene, how were the cars positioned in the street? Well, they weren't in the street. [19:27.560 --> 19:32.920] Well, where were they? Well, they in a parking lot. Well, did you measure the skid marks [19:32.920 --> 19:39.160] in the street? Well, there were no skid marks. Did you examine the glass patterns? Well, [19:39.160 --> 19:43.920] there were no glass patterns. Then how did you know an accident occurred? Well, I talked [19:43.920 --> 19:51.160] to you and I talked to the other person involved in the accident. So tell me officer Pringle, [19:51.160 --> 19:56.120] when did you commit aggravated perjury? When you signed this citation stating that you [19:56.120 --> 20:00.160] had personal knowledge that I'd committed this crime or just now when you swore it, [20:00.160 --> 20:06.400] you didn't. Prosecutor jumped up, objection, objection. Yes, your honor. I object to this [20:06.400 --> 20:12.880] is horrible. I need you to arrest him for aggravated perjury. And the judge looked at [20:12.880 --> 20:19.160] me like they had a brand new prosecutor there. He looked at me like, you jerk, new prosecutor. [20:19.160 --> 20:27.520] You pull this crap all on him. He found me guilty and charged me 10 bucks. That was his [20:27.520 --> 20:33.680] way of saying, OK, OK, I know you made your point. But my new prosecutor is not going [20:33.680 --> 20:39.080] to lose their first case. But anyway, you can actually you can do that. I just couldn't [20:39.080 --> 20:45.680] get the judge to arrest him. OK, enough of my stories. I'm probably getting chastised [20:45.680 --> 20:50.360] for telling too many stories too late at night. OK, so listen, we kind of need to move on [20:50.360 --> 20:54.680] so that we can finish up with the other callers. So we're waiting forever. OK, thanks. All [20:54.680 --> 21:02.280] right. Thanks, Marcus. OK, we're going to go now to Dan in Connecticut. Dan, Dan, thanks [21:02.280 --> 21:06.840] for calling in. What's on your mind tonight? Oh, nothing much. I had a revolutionary new [21:06.840 --> 21:16.760] idea for your broadcast. I present to you the rule of law moot court. We had thought [21:16.760 --> 21:24.680] about that. Really? Yeah. Yeah, we'd rather that the entire country was just full of moot [21:24.680 --> 21:32.480] courts. We needed someone to. I was thinking about it myself. And I've been listening to [21:32.480 --> 21:37.080] a lot of these broadcasts. I've, you know, of course, been a loyal listener for so many [21:37.080 --> 21:41.800] months. And I figured there were a lot of people who called in. They just really weren't [21:41.800 --> 21:47.520] familiar with the entire process. But I'm not sure where the jurisdiction would be. [21:47.520 --> 21:53.480] But I figured we could just randomly select it somehow. But if anything, you could probably [21:53.480 --> 21:59.840] have Mr. Graves preside over it as the judge of the moot court. Well, I had an idea for [21:59.840 --> 22:06.840] the moot court to help people get more comfortable in court. I had planned on having the judge, [22:06.840 --> 22:16.840] the prosecutor and the bailiff in their underwear and the defendant, the only one dressed. Well, [22:16.840 --> 22:22.840] how can you take them serious if they're in their underwear? It'll make it less intimidating. [22:22.840 --> 22:28.600] Somehow I don't think we could get Dr. Graves in his underwear. Yeah, I don't think you'd [22:28.600 --> 22:32.840] need to. But honestly, I was just thinking about that tonight. You know, and I figured, [22:32.840 --> 22:37.720] wow, that'd be such an awesome idea if we could do this over the program, probably have [22:37.720 --> 22:42.920] the preliminary hearings maybe on your Monday show and your Thursday show. And the Friday [22:42.920 --> 22:47.920] one would be the trial. And of course, we would just randomly select the jury from callers [22:47.920 --> 22:55.840] who volunteered. That could be interesting. I thought so. And the jurisdiction and the [22:55.840 --> 23:01.520] type of crime would be randomly selected. And if you wanted me to, I could just write [23:01.520 --> 23:08.000] up like a different script of what the defendant and what the plaintiff saw and just see how [23:08.000 --> 23:17.080] it happened. How do we let the jury deliberate? That's a good question. They could probably [23:17.080 --> 23:28.520] do it over Skype. Yeah, we could have the moot court so we could just have them each [23:28.520 --> 23:35.160] make their own determination. I'd like to think about that. Yeah, they could probably [23:35.160 --> 23:40.960] do it over email. But I know there's a lot to think about. Obviously, it's impossible [23:40.960 --> 23:46.160] to convene it in person. But if we could do that and we could have like, you know, just [23:46.160 --> 23:54.800] some kind of randomly generated case, and I would volunteer to be the defendant because [23:54.800 --> 24:01.400] it would be so much fun. I'd really love to do that. [24:01.400 --> 24:12.160] Then Eddie, you want to be the prosecutor? I'll take either side as you like. I don't [24:12.160 --> 24:16.360] know if I can be as totally dishonest and screwed up as they are, but I'll do my best. [24:16.360 --> 24:23.040] I could be a really dishonest prosecutor. I don't know if I can lower my IQ that far, [24:23.040 --> 24:30.560] Randy. Too beer-ous and I have no problem. Well, yeah, I could go back to having some [24:30.560 --> 24:38.240] Korean soju. That'd probably do it. Formality high, good for flavor. That's a good idea. [24:38.240 --> 24:46.440] Go with absinthe. Don't cut any corners there. Yeah, well, you know. Formality high, I just [24:46.440 --> 24:53.120] recommended that to my son-in-law to take vulcanized rubber off of concrete. Well, they're [24:53.120 --> 24:59.880] in every vaccine on the market right now. So many other uses for it. It's an enhancer [24:59.880 --> 25:06.800] in Korea. All right. Good suggestion, Dan. Do you have anything else for us? No, that [25:06.800 --> 25:12.000] was it. I was just brainstorming this and I figured I'd throw the ball at you and see [25:12.000 --> 25:17.720] where you ran with it. We could do it for a civil case, too. Yeah, if we ran with it, [25:17.720 --> 25:24.480] it got hit between the eyes. That sounds like it'd be interesting. Well, that was just it. [25:24.480 --> 25:28.880] I figured I'd throw that at you and see if you wanted to take and run with it in the [25:28.880 --> 25:35.040] future, hopefully when public officials weren't trying to maliciously prosecute you. Yeah, [25:35.040 --> 25:41.680] that would be nice if I could get to that point. Well, I think you're almost there and [25:41.680 --> 25:46.480] I think when you beat the rap on this thing, you'll definitely be there and they'll know [25:46.480 --> 25:50.840] who Randall Counten is and not mess with him. So, anyway, a good hit. Well, I've got two [25:50.840 --> 25:58.720] of them going on at once. Okay. All right. Thank you, Dan. No, not a problem. Let me [25:58.720 --> 26:02.720] know if you need any help with that. Okay, thanks, Dan. Yeah, bye. Okay, we're going [26:02.720 --> 26:07.840] to go now with our final caller, Brian in Pennsylvania. Okay, Brian, thanks for calling [26:07.840 --> 26:15.520] back in. What's on your mind? Oh, sorry, guys. My internet connection sucks this evening [26:15.520 --> 26:22.640] and Stupid Alex Jones comes on the listening line. Oh, so you were just calling in to listen? [26:22.640 --> 26:34.160] Yeah. Alex, who? Oh, okay. Well, go ahead. Well, actually, I don't know if I had mentioned [26:34.160 --> 26:39.280] it by number, but I had talked about the Clean Water Restoration Act and for all the listeners [26:39.280 --> 26:43.480] and hopefully the people that are going to listen to the archives, it is Senate Bill [26:43.480 --> 26:56.280] 787. That's SB 787. And actually, OpenCongress.org is a pretty good site and they have also some [26:56.280 --> 27:03.400] other tracking software, I guess, built into that. If you were to search SB 787 on OpenCongress.org, [27:03.400 --> 27:08.760] you could find other bills being tracked by like-minded individuals, it seems, because [27:08.760 --> 27:15.800] Ron Paul of the Fed Bill is there. Good deal. I might clue you in on some other stuff that [27:15.800 --> 27:23.400] you weren't already on top of. All right. Good deal. Thank you, Brian. I do actually [27:23.400 --> 27:27.960] have some other suggestions for listeners that I wish I would have learned myself. You [27:27.960 --> 27:30.720] know, I've always tried to plug out at the time when I could. I think they're a great [27:30.720 --> 27:39.120] research tool. But I just recently learned of 1984USA.com. Have you ever heard of them? [27:39.120 --> 27:48.520] No. Tons and tons of archives, news articles, information, and knowledge base to maybe bring [27:48.520 --> 27:56.440] people up to speed if they're unfamiliar and, you know. 1984USA.org? 1984USA.com, I believe. [27:56.440 --> 28:04.160] Okay. Great. Wow. It is chock full of stuff like that USA versus US.info. You might be [28:04.160 --> 28:08.680] familiar with that. It kind of breaks down the commercial, you know, the fornication [28:08.680 --> 28:15.600] that took place decades and decades ago that split the Constitution from the land and kind [28:15.600 --> 28:22.560] of took this, you know, different route that we're on right now. Great. That's about it. [28:22.560 --> 28:27.560] Okay. All right. Well, thanks, Brian. Thanks for the call. Yeah, I appreciate your broadcasting. [28:27.560 --> 28:33.600] All right, guys. Do y'all have anything else? No, ma'am. Other than I'm glad he said chock [28:33.600 --> 28:38.560] full of information instead of chock full of nuts. We got enough of those, Lou. Really? [28:38.560 --> 28:46.480] Okay. Well, very good. Well, then this concludes our After Midnight Broadcast edition of The [28:46.480 --> 28:53.480] Rule of Law. And we'll be back on Monday night. [29:16.480 --> 29:23.480] Thank you very much. [29:46.480 --> 29:53.480] Thank you.