[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:06.000 --> 00:12.000]  Dr. Don Lowe, microbiologist-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto,
[00:12.000 --> 00:20.000]  says preliminary research suggests the seasonal flu shot may put people at greater risk for getting swine flu.
[00:20.000 --> 00:26.000]  A top White House official told Jewish leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday
[00:26.000 --> 00:32.000]  U.S. strategy was to bring a UN Human Rights Council report critical of Israel's war in Gaza
[00:32.000 --> 00:37.000]  to its natural conclusion and not allow it to go further.
[00:37.000 --> 00:41.000]  Federal researchers have discovered waters downstream of pharmaceutical plants
[00:41.000 --> 00:48.000]  are more heavily contaminated with drug residue than waters elsewhere.
[00:48.000 --> 00:53.000]  The Federal Reserve has told the Gold Antitrust Action Committee
[00:53.000 --> 00:58.000]  it has gold swap arrangements with foreign banks it doesn't want the public to know about.
[00:58.000 --> 01:05.000]  Gaza says the disclosure suggests the Fed is involved in surreptitious manipulation of the gold price.
[01:05.000 --> 01:10.000]  The Fed's disclosure came this week in a letter to Gaza's lawyer, William Olson,
[01:10.000 --> 01:18.000]  denying Gaza's administrative appeal of a freedom of information request to the Fed for information about gold swaps.
[01:18.000 --> 01:24.000]  Gold swaps are transactions where gold is temporarily exchanged between central banks.
[01:24.000 --> 01:28.000]  Gaza says the letter comes at a sensitive time in currency and gold markets.
[01:28.000 --> 01:34.000]  The U.S. dollar is showing unprecedented weakness and gold is showing unprecedented strength.
[01:34.000 --> 01:39.000]  European central banks appear to be withdrawing from gold sales and leasing
[01:39.000 --> 01:45.000]  and the International Monetary Fund is being pressed to take the lead in a gold price suppression scheme
[01:45.000 --> 01:52.000]  selling gold in the guise of providing financial support for poor nations.
[01:52.000 --> 02:00.000]  Spanish police have arrested Juan Alberto Poch, an Argentinian military pilot accused of taking part in death flights
[02:00.000 --> 02:06.000]  in which hundreds of opponents of Argentina's military junta were thrown from planes into the sea.
[02:06.000 --> 02:09.000]  Poch is wanted by courts in Argentina.
[02:09.000 --> 02:15.000]  Prisoners on the death flights were told they were being moved from one jail to another and then drugged
[02:15.000 --> 02:18.000]  to make them drowsy before boarding the planes.
[02:18.000 --> 02:23.000]  Adolfo Scalingo, an Argentinian Navy captain who took part in the death flights,
[02:23.000 --> 02:29.000]  has stated prisoners were given a second drug to knock them out completely and then stripped.
[02:29.000 --> 02:34.000]  The planes were flown out to the Atlantic Ocean where the doors were opened.
[02:34.000 --> 02:40.000]  Up to a thousand prisoners who passed through the infamous detention center at the Naval Mechanical School
[02:40.000 --> 02:43.000]  are thought to have been murdered this way.
[02:43.000 --> 02:46.000]  It is almost certain pilots knew what was happening.
[02:46.000 --> 02:51.000]  Human rights groups say 30,000 people died or disappeared during the dirty war,
[02:51.000 --> 02:55.000]  a crackdown on opponents of the military junta.
[02:55.000 --> 03:04.000]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[03:04.000 --> 03:10.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at rulelawradio.com.
[03:10.000 --> 03:20.000]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[03:20.000 --> 03:24.000]  We know the official story is impossible so we set about scientifically
[03:24.000 --> 03:27.000]  to cover the hypothesis and then to test that.
[03:27.000 --> 03:33.000]  All right, we've been searching for the truth because so far we've been truthless.
[03:33.000 --> 03:35.000]  You don't mean to be ruthless.
[03:35.000 --> 03:36.000]  I do.
[03:36.000 --> 03:39.000]  It wasn't ten seconds free fall.
[03:39.000 --> 03:44.000]  That's what I saw, that's what you saw, that's what everybody saw.
[03:44.000 --> 03:47.000]  Ten seconds free fall.
[03:47.000 --> 03:50.000]  Official story don't make a little sense at all.
[03:50.000 --> 03:53.000]  It wasn't ten seconds free fall.
[03:53.000 --> 03:56.000]  The buildings are brought down by controlled demolition.
[03:56.000 --> 03:58.000]  It was controlled demolition.
[03:58.000 --> 04:00.000]  Concrete into fundas.
[04:00.000 --> 04:03.000]  That's a hell of a transition.
[04:03.000 --> 04:05.000]  From controlled demolition.
[04:05.000 --> 04:09.000]  They believe in fairytale and the 9-1-1 commission.
[04:09.000 --> 04:12.000]  But not controlled demolition.
[04:12.000 --> 04:15.000]  Well, I would just ignore that idea.
[04:15.000 --> 04:17.000]  As you go ash this country to dust.
[04:17.000 --> 04:19.000]  Twin Towers fall down in front of us.
[04:19.000 --> 04:21.000]  The Indian Yang is in the building.
[04:21.000 --> 04:24.000]  You see, Twin Towers should have stand up and not take it easily.
[04:24.000 --> 04:26.000]  Man with a drillie and no money mean howie.
[04:26.000 --> 04:29.000]  High to be in them, best tried them quickly.
[04:29.000 --> 04:31.000]  Build on the second and them done this for ye.
[04:31.000 --> 04:33.000]  Destroy the paper, them a lot to read.
[04:33.000 --> 04:35.000]  I ain't no rocket scientist.
[04:35.000 --> 04:36.000]  I am.
[04:36.000 --> 04:40.000]  But I got two good eyes and I can see right through your tricks.
[04:40.000 --> 04:42.000]  I ain't no rocket scientist.
[04:42.000 --> 04:45.000]  You can't change the laws of nature.
[04:45.000 --> 04:47.000]  You can't change the laws of physics.
[04:47.000 --> 04:50.000]  But I don't need to be a rocket scientist.
[04:50.000 --> 04:54.000]  Professor Stephen Jones, he has a doctorate in physics.
[04:54.000 --> 04:57.000]  And he has now gotten samples.
[04:57.000 --> 04:58.000]  They've taken the samples.
[04:58.000 --> 05:01.000]  They've done scientific tests on them.
[05:01.000 --> 05:03.000]  Professor Jones just doesn't find evidence of thermite.
[05:03.000 --> 05:08.000]  They find the byproducts of thermate patented for specific use.
[05:08.000 --> 05:10.000]  In cutting skill columns.
[05:10.000 --> 05:12.000]  The hair on the back of my neck standing up.
[05:12.000 --> 05:15.000]  Ten second free fall.
[05:15.000 --> 05:16.000]  That's what every fall.
[05:16.000 --> 05:21.000]  All right, it was a ten second free fall.
[05:21.000 --> 05:26.000]  Feels like my best friend sucker punched me right upside the jaw.
[05:26.000 --> 05:30.000]  Ten second free fall.
[05:30.000 --> 05:34.000]  This is, of course, the Three Shoes Posse you're listening to.
[05:34.000 --> 05:35.000]  My band.
[05:35.000 --> 05:41.000]  We wrote the song Ten Second Free Fall in memorial of the World Trade Center collapse, 9-11.
[05:41.000 --> 05:50.000]  And we are very honored and blessed to have with us on our show tonight Attorney Dennis McMahon out of New York State.
[05:50.000 --> 06:05.000]  He is representing NYC CAN in their vigilant battle to get the issue on the ballot in November.
[06:05.000 --> 06:11.000]  Ballot initiative to create an independent commission to investigate 9-11 with subpoena power.
[06:11.000 --> 06:14.000]  And this one we would be calling shots.
[06:14.000 --> 06:16.000]  Dennis, thank you for joining us tonight.
[06:16.000 --> 06:17.000]  Thank you so much for having me.
[06:17.000 --> 06:19.000]  This is just awesome.
[06:19.000 --> 06:22.000]  This is the reason that I got into radio to begin with.
[06:22.000 --> 06:30.000]  The reason I got into this whole fight to begin with was to get adjudicated the issue of 9-11 truth in the courts.
[06:30.000 --> 06:32.000]  And this is just fantastic.
[06:32.000 --> 06:41.000]  Dennis, if you could just briefly go over with us what the history is since around June when all these filings took place.
[06:41.000 --> 06:43.000]  There was a petition.
[06:43.000 --> 06:44.000]  There's names.
[06:44.000 --> 06:45.000]  Sure.
[06:45.000 --> 06:47.000]  You know, the city clerk rejected.
[06:47.000 --> 06:48.000]  But there was some back and forth.
[06:48.000 --> 06:54.000]  And now apparently they've conceded the number of valid signatures.
[06:54.000 --> 06:56.000]  And now they're challenging some points.
[06:56.000 --> 06:57.000]  There's five main points they're challenging.
[06:57.000 --> 07:02.000]  If you could just give us an overview and then I'd like to get into these five points of interest.
[07:02.000 --> 07:03.000]  Sure.
[07:03.000 --> 07:16.000]  As you said, you know, that issue is a petition to place on the November 3rd ballot a referendum asking New York City voters if they want to have a local commission with subpoena power investigate 9-11.
[07:16.000 --> 07:30.000]  And under New York law you need 30,000 petition signatures and the legally valid petition for the city council to consider the measure and vote on it or they can choose not to vote on it.
[07:30.000 --> 07:38.000]  Here the city, we submitted the signatures and the city clerk said we were 4,000 short out of 52,000.
[07:38.000 --> 07:42.000]  They found us to have only 26,000 signatures.
[07:42.000 --> 07:49.000]  So the petitioners brought what's called an order to show cause which is essentially a speeded up motion.
[07:49.000 --> 08:00.000]  And what we asked for was to have a referee appointed to allow us to do a recount and prove that we had indeed met the 30,000 signature level.
[08:00.000 --> 08:02.000]  So we did that.
[08:02.000 --> 08:04.000]  We had the volunteers do that.
[08:04.000 --> 08:05.000]  And the referee was appointed.
[08:05.000 --> 08:07.000]  We won the order to show cause.
[08:07.000 --> 08:08.000]  The referee was appointed.
[08:08.000 --> 08:09.000]  The line by line was done.
[08:09.000 --> 08:15.000]  We submitted our papers with 7,000 plus signatures that we said were valid.
[08:15.000 --> 08:24.000]  And then the referee has to go in and himself go online on the Board of Elections office and do a line by line review.
[08:24.000 --> 08:28.000]  And on the day he was going to do that the city conceded.
[08:28.000 --> 08:31.000]  We conceded you had the 30,000 valid signatures.
[08:31.000 --> 08:34.000]  It was like whoa, I didn't expect that.
[08:34.000 --> 08:37.000]  They gave up their first line of defense.
[08:37.000 --> 08:45.000]  And I think they were impressed with the work, the great work that Ted and the volunteers did in collecting these signatures.
[08:45.000 --> 08:51.000]  They gave us a reason that they didn't want to waste city resources but what we were doing all along, you know.
[08:51.000 --> 08:53.000]  So anyway, so we had the 30,000 limit.
[08:53.000 --> 09:00.000]  A 671 page bill of particulars that you all compiled to back up the 7,000.
[09:00.000 --> 09:01.000]  That's correct.
[09:01.000 --> 09:02.000]  I'm sorry, go ahead.
[09:02.000 --> 09:04.000]  Yes, the volunteers were indeed awesome.
[09:04.000 --> 09:10.000]  So under New York law now to bypass the city council if you can submit another 15,000 valid signatures,
[09:10.000 --> 09:14.000]  you don't have to wait for the city council to vote on your proposal.
[09:14.000 --> 09:18.000]  But you still need a legally valid petition.
[09:18.000 --> 09:26.000]  So we submitted another 28,000 approximately signatures and the clerk was sitting on it all this time.
[09:26.000 --> 09:33.000]  And today we just learned that they're conceding essentially those 15,000 signatures as well.
[09:33.000 --> 09:39.000]  Again, you know, and this time we didn't even do any work because but they didn't want to do the work themselves.
[09:39.000 --> 09:41.000]  I guess they're too busy or something.
[09:41.000 --> 09:43.000]  But essentially they're conceding that.
[09:43.000 --> 09:48.000]  So it all comes down to do we have a legally valid petition?
[09:48.000 --> 09:57.000]  And what the city did was filed a motion for summary judgment saying the petition is not valid for six reasons.
[09:57.000 --> 10:05.000]  And the six reasons have to do with jurisdiction, the financing plan, public officer issue,
[10:05.000 --> 10:12.000]  and excessive power, not amendment to the city charter, and the whole severability clause issue.
[10:12.000 --> 10:20.000]  In the petition itself we included a severability clause that says if any part of this petition is deemed to be invalid,
[10:20.000 --> 10:22.000]  that doesn't invalidate the rest of them.
[10:22.000 --> 10:24.000]  So you sever it out.
[10:24.000 --> 10:28.000]  So that's what's at issue now in the court.
[10:28.000 --> 10:30.000]  The legal papers have all been submitted.
[10:30.000 --> 10:34.000]  And the referee is scheduled to make a decision this coming Monday.
[10:34.000 --> 10:38.000]  And it's very tight because a military ballot has to go out.
[10:38.000 --> 10:40.000]  They have to be printed up.
[10:40.000 --> 10:43.000]  And that's going to happen I think September 30th or October 1st.
[10:43.000 --> 10:45.000]  It's a little bit unclear.
[10:45.000 --> 10:50.000]  But this is the number one priority case in the New York court system right now.
[10:50.000 --> 10:52.000]  So the referee will decide Monday.
[10:52.000 --> 10:56.000]  I'll probably have to go into court on Tuesday to go to the Supreme Court in New York City.
[10:56.000 --> 10:58.000]  Supreme Court is the trial court level.
[10:58.000 --> 11:00.000]  And then appeals follow to the Appellate Division
[11:00.000 --> 11:04.000]  and possibly the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeal.
[11:04.000 --> 11:06.000]  Amazing.
[11:06.000 --> 11:08.000]  So go ahead.
[11:08.000 --> 11:13.000]  I'm considering that the clerk in the second instance stepped away
[11:13.000 --> 11:18.000]  and didn't raise an issue on the second set of signatures.
[11:18.000 --> 11:22.000]  It may well be that they're counting votes.
[11:22.000 --> 11:28.000]  When someone comes in and hands me 70,000 signatures,
[11:28.000 --> 11:33.000]  and I'm an elected official, you have got my attention,
[11:33.000 --> 11:39.000]  it may well be that this is moving the way we had anticipated it would all along,
[11:39.000 --> 11:43.000]  that if we just stayed the course and kept the pressure up,
[11:43.000 --> 11:50.000]  that eventually those people who were just in cognitive dissonance
[11:50.000 --> 11:55.000]  and unable to accept what was in front of them would begin to make the adjustment.
[11:55.000 --> 12:01.000]  And it seems to be happening that more and more people are beginning to realize that something's terribly wrong.
[12:01.000 --> 12:02.000]  Yes, indeed.
[12:02.000 --> 12:03.000]  I'm encouraged.
[12:03.000 --> 12:04.000]  I'm encouraged, too.
[12:04.000 --> 12:09.000]  And I was reading over this legal memorandum that you submitted to the court,
[12:09.000 --> 12:12.000]  that you all submitted to the court.
[12:12.000 --> 12:22.000]  And I was reading some of the case law citations that the city clerk's office has presented in rebuttal to you guys' petition.
[12:22.000 --> 12:27.000]  And I'm thinking, man, these people didn't do their homework very well
[12:27.000 --> 12:34.000]  because these case laws are absolutely, they are completely non-applicable to the case at hand.
[12:34.000 --> 12:36.000]  And you pointed that out several times.
[12:36.000 --> 12:38.000]  Yeah, we went into the cases.
[12:38.000 --> 12:39.000]  I mean, it took a lot of work.
[12:39.000 --> 12:42.000]  They would just come up with a proposition and cite seven cases
[12:42.000 --> 12:47.000]  but not tell you what the facts of those cases were, what the holdings of those cases were,
[12:47.000 --> 12:52.000]  how those cases applied to the instant case, the case that we're deciding now.
[12:52.000 --> 12:55.000]  So, yeah, I did attack them on that basis.
[12:55.000 --> 13:01.000]  That wasn't true throughout the entire memorandum that they submitted, but it was true in certain sections.
[13:01.000 --> 13:08.000]  And what I'm thinking is certain people did certain sections and certain people did better jobs than others.
[13:08.000 --> 13:09.000]  All right.
[13:09.000 --> 13:14.000]  Well, so now they've conceded that there are enough signatures.
[13:14.000 --> 13:24.000]  Now, you're saying that they've even conceded that the extra 15,000 necessary to basically overturn a vote down by the city council,
[13:24.000 --> 13:27.000]  they've conceded that there are enough signatures there as well?
[13:27.000 --> 13:28.000]  Right.
[13:28.000 --> 13:29.000]  It's not a vote down.
[13:29.000 --> 13:31.000]  It's just that the city council didn't vote at all.
[13:31.000 --> 13:32.000]  We can just bypass them.
[13:32.000 --> 13:34.000]  So, yes, that's correct.
[13:34.000 --> 13:35.000]  And that was today.
[13:35.000 --> 13:37.000]  That was another surprise out of nowhere.
[13:37.000 --> 13:41.000]  You know, they had this, I think it was a week's time to do their review.
[13:41.000 --> 13:43.000]  I don't think they did the review.
[13:43.000 --> 13:45.000]  You know, they may be short-staffed.
[13:45.000 --> 13:46.000]  I don't know.
[13:46.000 --> 13:48.000]  But in any event, I'll take it.
[13:48.000 --> 13:50.000]  You know, you're giving me a victory on that point.
[13:50.000 --> 13:51.000]  I'll take it.
[13:51.000 --> 13:52.000]  You know, no complaints there.
[13:52.000 --> 13:54.000]  Let's get on to arguing about the legality of the petition.
[13:54.000 --> 13:55.000]  Absolutely.
[13:55.000 --> 13:57.000]  Wait a minute.
[13:57.000 --> 14:00.000]  Don't you have a mayor's election coming up?
[14:00.000 --> 14:03.000]  Yeah, Mayor Bloomberg is running for a third term.
[14:03.000 --> 14:09.000]  You know, in the history of New York, only one referendum of this has ever succeeded,
[14:09.000 --> 14:14.000]  and that was the term limits where they said you cannot serve more than two terms.
[14:14.000 --> 14:19.000]  At the behest of Mayor Bloomberg, the city council undid that.
[14:19.000 --> 14:22.000]  And so now he can run for a third term.
[14:22.000 --> 14:25.000]  Yeah, it's a mayoral election this time around.
[14:25.000 --> 14:32.000]  Well, it seems I heard something about the selection of a candidate.
[14:32.000 --> 14:33.000]  Oh, I'm sorry.
[14:33.000 --> 14:34.000]  I'm not speaking to mayor.
[14:34.000 --> 14:37.000]  I'm speaking to governor of New York.
[14:37.000 --> 14:38.000]  No, no governor this time.
[14:38.000 --> 14:39.000]  Just the mayor.
[14:39.000 --> 14:40.000]  Just the mayor.
[14:40.000 --> 14:41.000]  Okay.
[14:41.000 --> 14:49.000]  I heard something about a governor's race, and I'm thinking this sounds political.
[14:49.000 --> 14:53.000]  Yeah, the governor's race is all crazy with the president telling this.
[14:53.000 --> 14:57.000]  You know, Spitzer got thrown out, Sextine, he got thrown out,
[14:57.000 --> 14:59.000]  and his lieutenant governor stepped in,
[14:59.000 --> 15:02.000]  and now the lieutenant governor's getting criticized by the president.
[15:02.000 --> 15:03.000]  That's unheard of.
[15:03.000 --> 15:04.000]  You know, they're both black.
[15:04.000 --> 15:05.000]  It's kind of strange.
[15:05.000 --> 15:07.000]  And I don't know what's going on with that,
[15:07.000 --> 15:10.000]  but that's not really at issue this November 3rd.
[15:10.000 --> 15:11.000]  All right.
[15:11.000 --> 15:14.000]  Well, let's get into the legality of the petition itself.
[15:14.000 --> 15:19.000]  The city clerk's office basically offered up six challenges.
[15:19.000 --> 15:22.000]  They're challenging six points here,
[15:22.000 --> 15:31.000]  and this memorandum of law that you submitted on this past Monday, the 21st, was in response to those six challenges,
[15:31.000 --> 15:33.000]  and the challenging of those six points.
[15:33.000 --> 15:35.000]  So can we just go over those six points?
[15:35.000 --> 15:38.000]  And, I mean, we don't have to belabor every point for hours or anything,
[15:38.000 --> 15:44.000]  but I would like to understand and like our listeners to understand what are these six points that they're challenging
[15:44.000 --> 15:48.000]  and what is your response to those so that we can understand here,
[15:48.000 --> 15:54.000]  because our audience studies law and so we want to know the whole scoop.
[15:54.000 --> 15:55.000]  Okay.
[15:55.000 --> 16:02.000]  Well, the first point is that the proposed law is supposedly not within the jurisdiction of the city of New York.
[16:02.000 --> 16:06.000]  They make very broad claims about that, that this is a national issue,
[16:06.000 --> 16:10.000]  that the city's got no business investigating this, but they cite no authority.
[16:10.000 --> 16:16.000]  You know, and I kind of knocked that down in saying they really didn't cite any authority,
[16:16.000 --> 16:20.000]  but I needed to come up with something affirmative for our side,
[16:20.000 --> 16:26.000]  and basically the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly provides that powers
[16:26.000 --> 16:32.000]  that are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to it,
[16:32.000 --> 16:36.000]  nor prohibited by the states are reserved to the states respectively,
[16:36.000 --> 16:45.000]  and this law that we're trying to come in under is the municipal home rule law that is a state delegation to the city.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  So we're saying that's how we get our jurisdiction.
[16:48.000 --> 16:53.000]  They had made a claim about, you know, this is a national matter, and in the past, you know,
[16:53.000 --> 17:00.000]  we had only national investigations, and then one of the things they cited was the JFK assassination,
[17:00.000 --> 17:07.000]  but I pointed out in my memorandum that I don't know if your listeners will remember this,
[17:07.000 --> 17:15.000]  but there was actually in New Orleans an investigation into a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
[17:15.000 --> 17:19.000]  That was Mr. Garrison. Jim Garrison brought that.
[17:19.000 --> 17:25.000]  He ended up being an appellate court judge where he stayed until he passed away,
[17:25.000 --> 17:30.000]  but it was a local action regarding a national matter.
[17:30.000 --> 17:36.000]  Now, True was a district attorney, and I would argue the district attorney in New York City has jurisdiction to investigate this,
[17:36.000 --> 17:38.000]  but he hasn't.
[17:38.000 --> 17:43.000]  There is another very important aspect of the Kennedy assassination.
[17:43.000 --> 17:48.000]  When Kennedy was assassinated, the feds came into Dallas County,
[17:48.000 --> 17:53.000]  and the sheriff of Dallas County told them to get out of my county.
[17:53.000 --> 17:57.000]  They said, well, the president was murdered. Yes, he was.
[17:57.000 --> 18:01.000]  And murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime.
[18:01.000 --> 18:06.000]  If you do not have original jurisdiction, you have none. Get out.
[18:06.000 --> 18:12.000]  And because of that, they later passed a law that made it a federal crime to kill a president,
[18:12.000 --> 18:17.000]  because murder otherwise was not of national interest.
[18:17.000 --> 18:23.000]  That was the initial reaction. As I recall, the Dallas officials backed off. Isn't that correct?
[18:23.000 --> 18:29.000]  Yes, and then the feds were messing everything up, and the sheriff came in and threw out the feds,
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  and the feds had a fit, but they didn't have jurisdiction.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  So this is about murder in New York City. I agree.
[18:39.000 --> 18:44.000]  New York has jurisdiction over murder, not the feds, unless the president happened to have been in that building,
[18:44.000 --> 18:48.000]  but he apparently knew it was going to happen, so there was no way he'd be in the building.
[18:48.000 --> 18:52.000]  Yeah, and Dennis, I liked what you said in your memorandum, too, where you were also talking about,
[18:52.000 --> 19:01.000]  well, even if the feds do have jurisdiction in this matter, there's nothing that prohibits local jurisdiction as well.
[19:01.000 --> 19:06.000]  Right. It's not exclusive jurisdiction in the federal authority. That was my argument.
[19:06.000 --> 19:09.000]  And as Randy pointed out, there's a nexus here.
[19:09.000 --> 19:17.000]  The crime, mass murder of New York City workers, visitors was committed here in this city.
[19:17.000 --> 19:20.000]  I feel that gives us jurisdiction.
[19:20.000 --> 19:27.000]  So in your memorandum, basically, is that your main argument that you do have jurisdiction
[19:27.000 --> 19:31.000]  because the murders were committed in New York City?
[19:31.000 --> 19:35.000]  Well, let me backstep a little bit.
[19:35.000 --> 19:39.000]  We didn't have to claim any jurisdictional grounds to submit the petition.
[19:39.000 --> 19:42.000]  This is the city coming in saying, you have no jurisdiction.
[19:42.000 --> 19:45.000]  So to me, the burden is on them.
[19:45.000 --> 19:48.000]  Show me that I have no jurisdiction.
[19:48.000 --> 19:50.000]  You know, you're alleging that.
[19:50.000 --> 19:56.000]  There's nothing in the home rule law that says I have to have jurisdiction in that sense.
[19:56.000 --> 20:03.000]  So mine was basically a comeback to them, but the Tenth Amendment argument, I needed, I felt, something affirmative.
[20:03.000 --> 20:04.000]  And so I went with that.
[20:04.000 --> 20:13.000]  And then the Kennedy assassination analogy, I felt, was a good one because it shows that localities can investigate a so-called national crime.
[20:13.000 --> 20:17.000]  And you were also shooting down some of the case law that they cited, too.
[20:17.000 --> 20:22.000]  Yeah, that was a section where a lot of the case law really didn't stand up to what they were saying.
[20:22.000 --> 20:23.000]  Excellent.
[20:23.000 --> 20:24.000]  All right.
[20:24.000 --> 20:28.000]  So, Randy, did you have a comment here before we went on to point number two?
[20:28.000 --> 20:30.000]  Well, I was wondering about jurisdiction.
[20:30.000 --> 20:33.000]  You're doing an investigation here.
[20:33.000 --> 20:45.000]  Since you're not initiating any kind of a legal action against anyone, is jurisdiction even a relevant issue?
[20:45.000 --> 20:46.000]  That's a good point.
[20:46.000 --> 20:47.000]  I mean, to me, it was not.
[20:47.000 --> 20:52.000]  But because the city raised it, I have to address it.
[20:52.000 --> 20:53.000]  Yes, very good point.
[20:53.000 --> 20:57.000]  And they raised, it's a non-sequitur.
[20:57.000 --> 20:59.000]  Yeah, well, their brief was still a non-sequitur.
[20:59.000 --> 21:01.000]  It does not follow that because you're investigating something.
[21:01.000 --> 21:03.000]  You need jurisdiction.
[21:03.000 --> 21:07.000]  But if the courts are out to rule against you, they will find something to rule against you for.
[21:07.000 --> 21:09.000]  Well, and then there's another issue.
[21:09.000 --> 21:12.000]  There's another issue about the jurisdiction as well.
[21:12.000 --> 21:17.000]  And this goes to the fact of whether or not the commissioners would be public officials or not.
[21:17.000 --> 21:21.000]  If they're not public officials, then jurisdiction doesn't apply in any case anyway.
[21:21.000 --> 21:22.000]  Yeah, that will come.
[21:22.000 --> 21:25.000]  Yeah, and so we're going to talk about that in a few minutes.
[21:25.000 --> 21:29.000]  Let's move on to point number two now having to do with the funding.
[21:29.000 --> 21:32.000]  So why don't you explain this point, Dennis?
[21:32.000 --> 21:38.000]  Yeah, the city is claiming that the petition does not have an adequate financing plan as required
[21:38.000 --> 21:43.000]  by Section 3711 of the municipal home rule law.
[21:43.000 --> 21:47.000]  And indeed, you must have an adequate financing plan.
[21:47.000 --> 21:55.000]  And what that's designed to address is the situation where we want to know where the tax dollars are going.
[21:55.000 --> 21:57.000]  Where are you going to get this money to carry out this?
[21:57.000 --> 22:04.000]  But this petition is very creative in that it has no tax dollars involved at all.
[22:04.000 --> 22:06.000]  This is going to be by private donations.
[22:06.000 --> 22:11.000]  And the theory is that if we don't get the private donations, we don't get the commission.
[22:11.000 --> 22:16.000]  But we feel that if we can get a New York City-based commission,
[22:16.000 --> 22:19.000]  that the donations will be there and we'll be able to go forward with this.
[22:19.000 --> 22:23.000]  But the city makes a big deal out of the fact that that's not adequate.
[22:23.000 --> 22:25.000]  There is really no precedent on this.
[22:25.000 --> 22:32.000]  I don't think in the history of New York law there has ever been a financing plan proposed like this,
[22:32.000 --> 22:37.000]  not to drain the city tax resources.
[22:37.000 --> 22:39.000]  So that's going to be an open question.
[22:39.000 --> 22:44.000]  You know, we feel that it's adequate and we feel that if we're wrong, what do you lose?
[22:44.000 --> 22:48.000]  We just don't have our commission, you know, so why not let us give it a try?
[22:48.000 --> 22:52.000]  If you're predisposed to not giving us a try under any circumstances,
[22:52.000 --> 22:55.000]  you're going to say you don't have an adequate financing plan.
[22:55.000 --> 23:01.000]  But if you have an open mind and you're thinking bigger than courts have thought in the past,
[23:01.000 --> 23:03.000]  hopefully they will see it our way.
[23:03.000 --> 23:05.000]  And again, on this point as well,
[23:05.000 --> 23:12.000]  a lot of the case law that the city clerk's office responded with did not apply in this case.
[23:12.000 --> 23:14.000]  Right, it was just adhered to tax dollars.
[23:14.000 --> 23:16.000]  Yes, it all had to do with public funding.
[23:16.000 --> 23:22.000]  So I mean, yeah, it's like if there's not enough private funds that are raised,
[23:22.000 --> 23:26.000]  well, whose nose is it skin off anyway?
[23:26.000 --> 23:29.000]  I mean, maybe you all just won't be able to do as thorough a job
[23:29.000 --> 23:31.000]  or hire as many people as you want.
[23:31.000 --> 23:34.000]  But I mean, why should it matter to them?
[23:34.000 --> 23:36.000]  I mean, it shouldn't matter to the taxpayers, that's for sure,
[23:36.000 --> 23:39.000]  because it's not coming out of their pockets.
[23:39.000 --> 23:42.000]  Right, but one of the things you have to remember with their whole mindset,
[23:42.000 --> 23:48.000]  and they say this in the beginning, you know, that these situations rarely succeed in New York.
[23:48.000 --> 23:50.000]  They say almost proudly.
[23:50.000 --> 23:53.000]  It's a whole attitude of disempowerment to the people.
[23:53.000 --> 23:56.000]  How can we disempower the people even further?
[23:56.000 --> 24:00.000]  You know, don't let them have anything that the law might otherwise allow.
[24:00.000 --> 24:03.000]  We just want to keep them down where they were and we'll run things.
[24:03.000 --> 24:04.000]  Just stay out of the way.
[24:04.000 --> 24:06.000]  Especially in this case.
[24:06.000 --> 24:07.000]  Yes.
[24:07.000 --> 24:13.000]  Okay, well, all right, then do you have anything else on this point too?
[24:13.000 --> 24:17.000]  I mean, you guys did show them how you plan to fund this.
[24:17.000 --> 24:22.000]  It's a very clear plan, different types of fundraisers and concerts,
[24:22.000 --> 24:29.000]  and you've got affluent private donors who are willing to match other donors and things like this.
[24:29.000 --> 24:30.000]  I mean, all of these plans are laid out.
[24:30.000 --> 24:37.000]  It's not just willy-nilly, well, we're going to get some people to help us out here, you know.
[24:37.000 --> 24:43.000]  Right, but that's how the city is characterizing it, and so that's what we have to face.
[24:43.000 --> 24:48.000]  You know, and it really is going to be a lot of discretion in the referee's hand and in the judge's hand.
[24:48.000 --> 24:53.000]  They're just going to be able to say which side is correct, you know.
[24:53.000 --> 24:58.000]  It's such a unique situation that they'll be able to do that without really much legal reasoning,
[24:58.000 --> 25:00.000]  and that's what has me worried most.
[25:00.000 --> 25:04.000]  And will you be able to appeal the referee's decision if necessary?
[25:04.000 --> 25:06.000]  The referee actually doesn't make a decision.
[25:06.000 --> 25:08.000]  He makes a report and recommendation.
[25:08.000 --> 25:11.000]  That automatically goes to the Supreme Court judge,
[25:11.000 --> 25:16.000]  and then after that we can appeal to the Appellate Division and then the Court of Appeal.
[25:16.000 --> 25:21.000]  Okay, so the Supreme Court judge would make a decision based on the report of the referee.
[25:21.000 --> 25:27.000]  Right, he can either adopt it in part or adopt it in whole or reject it in whole.
[25:27.000 --> 25:28.000]  You know, he can do anything he wants.
[25:28.000 --> 25:30.000]  And when is that supposed to take place?
[25:30.000 --> 25:33.000]  Well, the referee's decision is Monday.
[25:33.000 --> 25:36.000]  I expect the judge to be on this on Tuesday.
[25:36.000 --> 25:37.000]  Oh, my goodness.
[25:37.000 --> 25:42.000]  Let me make a clarification for those folks not in New York.
[25:42.000 --> 25:48.000]  In most states, the Supreme Court is the highest court, but not so in New York.
[25:48.000 --> 25:50.000]  Will you explain that, Dennis?
[25:50.000 --> 25:52.000]  It's just the name of the court.
[25:52.000 --> 25:54.000]  Historically, I'm not sure why that is,
[25:54.000 --> 25:59.000]  but the Supreme Court of the state of New York is a trial-level court in New York.
[25:59.000 --> 26:06.000]  So it's kind of like in Texas we have a county court for misdemeanor,
[26:06.000 --> 26:11.000]  a district court for felony, then appeals court, then Supreme Court.
[26:11.000 --> 26:14.000]  So it's kind of almost like the reverse.
[26:14.000 --> 26:16.000]  You're starting a Supreme Court.
[26:16.000 --> 26:18.000]  Yeah, I don't have any insight into that.
[26:18.000 --> 26:21.000]  Those were the names when I got here, you know?
[26:21.000 --> 26:22.000]  Right.
[26:22.000 --> 26:25.000]  I just want the listener to understand that we're not going,
[26:25.000 --> 26:27.000]  they're not going directly to the highest court.
[26:27.000 --> 26:31.000]  They're going to a standard trial-level court.
[26:31.000 --> 26:33.000]  Okay, it's like a district court.
[26:33.000 --> 26:36.000]  Okay, let's go to point three.
[26:36.000 --> 26:40.000]  This is what the city clerk's point of stance is.
[26:40.000 --> 26:45.000]  Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the commissioners must be classified as public officers,
[26:45.000 --> 26:50.000]  and thus his allegation that the petition violates the public officer's law is unfounded.
[26:50.000 --> 26:52.000]  Okay, that's you responding to the city clerk.
[26:52.000 --> 26:53.000]  That's me, right.
[26:53.000 --> 26:57.000]  They're saying that even though we don't claim the commissioners to be public officers,
[26:57.000 --> 27:01.000]  by the nature of the investigatory duties that they will undertake,
[27:01.000 --> 27:06.000]  they will in fact be public officers.
[27:06.000 --> 27:12.000]  And so they have to satisfy public officer's law, which the most basic one is you have to live in the city.
[27:12.000 --> 27:17.000]  And in this petition, it's not required that these named commissioners live in the city.
[27:17.000 --> 27:23.000]  So, you know, if they are public officers, there's something wrong with the petition.
[27:23.000 --> 27:27.000]  So that would then come down to a whole severability clause.
[27:27.000 --> 27:30.000]  Can we excise out the offensive language?
[27:30.000 --> 27:32.000]  And that's a whole other question.
[27:32.000 --> 27:37.000]  But my arguments here were first we don't claim to be public officers.
[27:37.000 --> 27:38.000]  You're saying I'm a public officer.
[27:38.000 --> 27:41.000]  Now prove it to me you haven't proven it.
[27:41.000 --> 27:45.000]  Again, they go through the cases and they say this indicates this and this indicates that.
[27:45.000 --> 27:52.000]  And, you know, it's a bit dry, but I try to knock down each one of those cases for the proposition
[27:52.000 --> 27:55.000]  that these commissioners would be public officers.
[27:55.000 --> 28:01.000]  And then if they are considered public officers, okay, let's say these are the commissioners that will serve
[28:01.000 --> 28:04.000]  if they satisfy the public officer law.
[28:04.000 --> 28:10.000]  You know, I'm asking the judge basically in his discretion that if he finds that they are public officers,
[28:10.000 --> 28:18.000]  to allow us a chance to have these same commissioners if they are willing to comply with the public officer law.
[28:18.000 --> 28:22.000]  And, you know, again, it's a lot of judicial discretion you're asking here.
[28:22.000 --> 28:25.000]  We hope first that he doesn't find them to be public officers,
[28:25.000 --> 28:31.000]  but that if he does he allows us to adapt the petition to public officer law.
[28:31.000 --> 28:39.000]  Well, it's going to be hard to show the public officers when their salaries are not being publicly funded.
[28:39.000 --> 28:41.000]  Well, that's the whole thing.
[28:41.000 --> 28:43.000]  Again, it's a brand new creation.
[28:43.000 --> 28:50.000]  You know, the city has not faced a petition like this ever before.
[28:50.000 --> 28:51.000]  It's wholly creative.
[28:51.000 --> 28:57.000]  You know, this is an outgrowth of the people of the city of New York feeling something has to be done.
[28:57.000 --> 28:58.000]  Let's do something.
[28:58.000 --> 29:02.000]  So they created this petition, and they did the best job that they can.
[29:02.000 --> 29:07.000]  And maybe they didn't dot every I or cross every T, but we're saying look at the big picture.
[29:07.000 --> 29:09.000]  Let us have this.
[29:09.000 --> 29:10.000]  We can investigate this.
[29:10.000 --> 29:11.000]  We can do this.
[29:11.000 --> 29:13.000]  And we'll see what the court says.
[29:13.000 --> 29:20.000]  Yeah, yeah, the public funding thing and the public officer seems to be like that is highly likely to be directly related
[29:20.000 --> 29:25.000]  because how could it be a public office if it's not being publicly funded?
[29:25.000 --> 29:31.000]  So, you know, and vice versa, if they're going to declare these as public offices, how could they be privately funded?
[29:31.000 --> 29:34.000]  That doesn't make sense either, so it can't be.
[29:34.000 --> 29:35.000]  Good point.
[29:35.000 --> 29:37.000]  Listen, Sir Dennis, we're coming to the bottom of the hour break.
[29:37.000 --> 29:40.000]  Can you hang on with us for just a few more minutes?
[29:40.000 --> 29:41.000]  Yeah, sure.
[29:41.000 --> 29:42.000]  Okay, excellent.
[29:42.000 --> 29:43.000]  All right.
[29:43.000 --> 29:46.000]  This is the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[29:46.000 --> 29:48.000]  We're taking it to the man.
[29:48.000 --> 29:52.000]  We're bringing back the rule of law here on the airwaves.
[29:52.000 --> 30:02.000]  We're with Attorney Dennis McMahon from representing NYC CAN, and we'll be right back.
[30:02.000 --> 30:05.000]  This is Lisa Marie Coppoletta, and I'm a Liberty Defender.
[30:05.000 --> 30:08.000]  I'm running for City Council Place 5 in San Marcos, Texas.
[30:08.000 --> 30:15.000]  The key issues guiding my campaign this year are smart growth, environmental stewardship, and balanced budgets.
[30:15.000 --> 30:22.000]  The patterns of growth that we choose to select here in San Marcos will not only affect the integrity of the perception of our city,
[30:22.000 --> 30:31.000]  but also tangible results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing, job opportunities, transportation, and currency circulation.
[30:31.000 --> 30:37.000]  Please join us this Saturday, September 26th at 730 at Wake the Dead Coffee House in San Marcos, Texas.
[30:37.000 --> 30:42.000]  We'll have our campaign celebration kick off, and we'll rock on through midnight.
[30:42.000 --> 30:57.000]  For further details on this and other events, please visit the website at www.lmc4sanmarcos.com.
[31:12.000 --> 31:15.000]  I don't understand.
[31:15.000 --> 31:18.000]  The job is to protect our service.
[31:18.000 --> 31:21.000]  Not be abused.
[31:21.000 --> 31:24.000]  You got me, sir?
[31:24.000 --> 31:29.000]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you have power.
[31:29.000 --> 31:46.000]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you have power.
[31:46.000 --> 32:13.000]  Okay, Mr. Officer, stop abusing your power.
[32:13.000 --> 32:16.000]  Okay, Mr. Officer, stop abusing your power.
[32:16.000 --> 32:20.000]  That's what we're all about here on Rule of Law Radio.
[32:20.000 --> 32:22.000]  We're here with Attorney Dennis McMahon.
[32:22.000 --> 32:25.000]  Dennis, thank you so much for granting us this interview.
[32:25.000 --> 32:31.000]  From what I understand, this is your first media appearance for NYC Can.
[32:31.000 --> 32:35.000]  We really, really appreciate it because we want to get to the bottom of what these legal issues are.
[32:35.000 --> 32:41.000]  This is what I've been working on for years while we started this radio network, as a matter of fact,
[32:41.000 --> 32:45.000]  to get the word out about 9-11 Truth and do something about it.
[32:45.000 --> 32:47.000]  Okay, so we're gonna move on now to point number four.
[32:47.000 --> 32:49.000]  Randy has some issues he's gonna bring up in a few minutes.
[32:49.000 --> 32:55.000]  But point number four, this is your rebuttal to the city clerk's office.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  The petition does not report to grant the commission powers that exceed the authority of local government
[33:00.000 --> 33:02.000]  and does not conflict with state law.
[33:02.000 --> 33:06.000]  So apparently they're trying to say that the petition would grant authority
[33:06.000 --> 33:09.000]  that would exceed the local government and conflicts with state law.
[33:09.000 --> 33:11.000]  So can you address this?
[33:11.000 --> 33:12.000]  Right.
[33:12.000 --> 33:16.000]  This has to do with their own reading of the petition language.
[33:16.000 --> 33:22.000]  And again, they have a mindset to read it in a way that would invalidate it.
[33:22.000 --> 33:24.000]  So that's their gloss.
[33:24.000 --> 33:29.000]  So for instance, they would take language like that the commissioner has authority to seek indictments
[33:29.000 --> 33:37.000]  and work with existing prosecutorial agencies to mean that the commission is claiming for itself
[33:37.000 --> 33:39.000]  the grand jury right to indict.
[33:39.000 --> 33:42.000]  And we're saying it shouldn't be read that way.
[33:42.000 --> 33:44.000]  You know, if it's read that way, obviously it's wrong.
[33:44.000 --> 33:47.000]  But I think they're reading it that way so they can make it wrong.
[33:47.000 --> 33:54.000]  So I have to go through a whole analysis of why it does not conflict with the various provisions
[33:54.000 --> 33:58.000]  of the Freedom of Information Act law or the Open Meetings law.
[33:58.000 --> 34:06.000]  And I basically get down to trying to argue how the language should be read.
[34:06.000 --> 34:11.000]  And they brought up a case, the Niagara case, and they were saying that, you know,
[34:11.000 --> 34:18.000]  when a statute is reviewed by a court, you try to read it to make it valid.
[34:18.000 --> 34:22.000]  You know, you don't read into it things that are going to make it invalid.
[34:22.000 --> 34:26.000]  So my argument here is that we're going to comply with the laws.
[34:26.000 --> 34:28.000]  We want to comply with the laws.
[34:28.000 --> 34:32.000]  If there's anything in here that seems to imply, for instance,
[34:32.000 --> 34:38.000]  that this commission would itself be a grand jury, it shouldn't be interpreted that way.
[34:38.000 --> 34:40.000]  The language doesn't really say that.
[34:40.000 --> 34:42.000]  They're just interpreting that way.
[34:42.000 --> 34:48.000]  And we're trying to give them, in each instance, a different reading of the language.
[34:48.000 --> 34:53.000]  And, you know, again, it's all a matter of inference and implication
[34:53.000 --> 34:56.000]  and how you want to read it and how you're predisposed to read it.
[34:56.000 --> 34:58.000]  We never made these claims.
[34:58.000 --> 35:00.000]  They're saying the language does this.
[35:00.000 --> 35:02.000]  They're saying it doesn't.
[35:02.000 --> 35:05.000]  Under the law of New York, you interpret a statute here,
[35:05.000 --> 35:08.000]  a petition, in a way for it to comply with the law.
[35:08.000 --> 35:12.000]  And we ask the court to please read it that way.
[35:12.000 --> 35:17.000]  Well, I would, primarily what we do is to process
[35:17.000 --> 35:22.000]  and a primary issue we deal with are grand juries.
[35:22.000 --> 35:25.000]  In my looking at it, when I was in New York,
[35:25.000 --> 35:29.000]  I looked at the grand juries in New York, and you have a great grand jury system.
[35:29.000 --> 35:34.000]  The commissioner doesn't need any authority to seek an indictment.
[35:34.000 --> 35:36.000]  I can seek an indictment.
[35:36.000 --> 35:37.000]  That's correct.
[35:37.000 --> 35:38.000]  Anyone can seek an indictment.
[35:38.000 --> 35:39.000]  Right.
[35:39.000 --> 35:40.000]  Yeah, that's right.
[35:40.000 --> 35:44.000]  And you're not trying to create an alternate grand jury here.
[35:44.000 --> 35:45.000]  Right.
[35:45.000 --> 35:50.000]  But they're saying the word to seek means that the commission is trying to do exactly that,
[35:50.000 --> 35:52.000]  that we're trying to create our own grand jury system,
[35:52.000 --> 35:55.000]  which is, to me, in a word, preposterous.
[35:55.000 --> 35:57.000]  But that's the argument they made.
[35:57.000 --> 36:02.000]  Yeah, like Randy says, we all are trying to seek some justice here.
[36:02.000 --> 36:07.000]  I mean, and which brings up the question regarding what the functions
[36:07.000 --> 36:11.000]  and the roles are of the commissioners according to the petition.
[36:11.000 --> 36:14.000]  What exactly are they asking for here?
[36:14.000 --> 36:18.000]  Okay, that would be in part five, essentially.
[36:18.000 --> 36:19.000]  There are some other things.
[36:19.000 --> 36:24.000]  But essentially, the commission shall have the power to place witnesses on the road,
[36:24.000 --> 36:30.000]  issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, take and record testimony, and to apply,
[36:30.000 --> 36:35.000]  and to apply to the appropriate federal, state, out-of-state, and foreign courts
[36:35.000 --> 36:38.000]  for the issuance of subpoenas, letters of rogatory,
[36:38.000 --> 36:42.000]  or applications for mutual assistance for service upon persons, corporations,
[36:42.000 --> 36:46.000]  agencies, or other entities beyond the subpoena power granted to the commission.
[36:46.000 --> 36:47.000]  So you're not asking that.
[36:47.000 --> 36:51.000]  You're just trying to bring people in to testify, essentially, and put them under oath.
[36:51.000 --> 36:55.000]  You're not asking that the commission be given subpoena power,
[36:55.000 --> 36:59.000]  but that they be able to apply for subpoena power?
[36:59.000 --> 37:03.000]  No, he's asking that the commissioners have subpoena power.
[37:03.000 --> 37:09.000]  Yeah, the commissioners that have power to issue subpoenas, the documents and testimony.
[37:09.000 --> 37:10.000]  Okay.
[37:10.000 --> 37:12.000]  What do you mean only in the state?
[37:12.000 --> 37:17.000]  Well, I mean, the last part was you can petition for subpoenas from...
[37:17.000 --> 37:18.000]  Outside the state, right.
[37:18.000 --> 37:21.000]  We're not asking for anything outside the state. That's correct.
[37:21.000 --> 37:24.000]  Yeah, they wouldn't be able to ask for anything outside the state.
[37:24.000 --> 37:27.000]  This is an amendment to the city charter.
[37:27.000 --> 37:33.000]  Well, that was the part where I sort of had a hiccup when I read the section on
[37:33.000 --> 37:38.000]  what are public officials as opposed to public employees,
[37:38.000 --> 37:44.000]  where the duties of a public official involve some exercise of sovereign power
[37:44.000 --> 37:47.000]  while those of a public employee do not.
[37:47.000 --> 37:52.000]  The statutory designation of a position as an officer is some indication
[37:52.000 --> 37:58.000]  that the legislative body intended to treat its occupant as a public officer.
[37:58.000 --> 38:05.000]  This whole section here seems to indicate that if someone has discretion
[38:05.000 --> 38:15.000]  to exert official authority rather than acts in accordance with direction,
[38:15.000 --> 38:23.000]  that's where they seem to straddle that line between public official and public employee.
[38:23.000 --> 38:34.000]  But if they were public officials, I didn't understand how that would be a problem.
[38:34.000 --> 38:36.000]  Are you not allowed...
[38:36.000 --> 38:42.000]  Is this not within the scope of a charter amendment to create...
[38:42.000 --> 38:44.000]  That's another point.
[38:44.000 --> 38:49.000]  That's their fifth point, actually, that it's not within the charter to allow this.
[38:49.000 --> 38:52.000]  And it does get technical and complicated.
[38:52.000 --> 38:58.000]  But my basic point is here, we're not trying to make them be public officers.
[38:58.000 --> 39:03.000]  But if you want us to comply with the public officer law, we will do that.
[39:03.000 --> 39:05.000]  Just tell us what we have to do.
[39:05.000 --> 39:07.000]  But we don't think we are going to be public officers.
[39:07.000 --> 39:12.000]  You haven't demonstrated to us that this commission acting with these powers is a public officer.
[39:12.000 --> 39:14.000]  I admit it's a gray area.
[39:14.000 --> 39:16.000]  It's going to be a tough area for both sides, I think.
[39:16.000 --> 39:18.000]  But we'll see what the judge says.
[39:18.000 --> 39:23.000]  And I think it was the fifth point where you addressed that,
[39:23.000 --> 39:31.000]  that pretty well seemed to cover it in that you addressed that there is precedent for this,
[39:31.000 --> 39:33.000]  that you're not creating something new.
[39:33.000 --> 39:39.000]  You're just adding to what's already in the law or in the charter.
[39:39.000 --> 39:44.000]  That's when we're talking about adding to the city charter itself.
[39:44.000 --> 39:45.000]  Yes, that's correct.
[39:45.000 --> 39:50.000]  Now, one thing that I'm concerned about is that they're going to say, well, now, wait a minute.
[39:50.000 --> 40:00.000]  You're wanting us to grant subpoena power to individuals who are not going to be public officers or public servants.
[40:00.000 --> 40:08.000]  And some people may take a little bit of exception to that because it's a lot of power to grant to individuals who are not public servants.
[40:08.000 --> 40:14.000]  Well, you know, I'm not really fond of the way the military operates nowadays,
[40:14.000 --> 40:22.000]  but you have essentially people delegated to act as soldiers on behalf of the United States,
[40:22.000 --> 40:25.000]  even though they technically are not soldiers.
[40:25.000 --> 40:28.000]  And you're talking about armed violence there.
[40:28.000 --> 40:29.000]  You know what I mean?
[40:29.000 --> 40:32.000]  So, you know, it's a bit of a stretch.
[40:32.000 --> 40:39.000]  But I think that in this day and age, we should have the ability to be able to delegate this type of authority,
[40:39.000 --> 40:42.000]  especially if the city itself doesn't want to undertake it.
[40:42.000 --> 40:44.000]  See, the city wants to have it both ways.
[40:44.000 --> 40:50.000]  On the one hand, what you're doing constitutes a public officer, but you can't be a public officer.
[40:50.000 --> 40:54.000]  So, you know, let us not be public officers and carry it out,
[40:54.000 --> 40:58.000]  or we'll become public officers and carry it out the way public officers would.
[40:58.000 --> 41:00.000]  That's my take on that.
[41:00.000 --> 41:05.000]  When I read that, I was wondering, what difference does it make if they're public officers,
[41:05.000 --> 41:12.000]  there's precedent for public officers, there's precedent for public employees?
[41:12.000 --> 41:16.000]  What was the point even of them raising that issue?
[41:16.000 --> 41:21.000]  Well, I think the point of raising each of these issues is to knock this out, you know,
[41:21.000 --> 41:23.000]  and it's basically a shotgun approach.
[41:23.000 --> 41:28.000]  Just pull the trigger, send everything out that you can, and hopefully something will hit, you know.
[41:28.000 --> 41:35.000]  So I'm trying to defend against each one of those pellets, and hopefully we're able to do that.
[41:35.000 --> 41:39.000]  I have to admit, I kind of use that approach myself for most occasions.
[41:39.000 --> 41:41.000]  That's the nature of lawyers, I know.
[41:41.000 --> 41:43.000]  Okay, let's go to point five here.
[41:43.000 --> 41:47.000]  The petition subject matter is a proper amendment of the city charter.
[41:47.000 --> 41:50.000]  Basically, that's what we're talking about right now.
[41:50.000 --> 41:55.000]  Yeah, we touched on that a little bit before, and it's a highly technical matter.
[41:55.000 --> 42:02.000]  You know, the charter is kind of this, it's almost like the city way to operate,
[42:02.000 --> 42:06.000]  akin to a state constitution or a federal constitution.
[42:06.000 --> 42:12.000]  And we're saying that, you know, they wanted us to line it up exactly
[42:12.000 --> 42:18.000]  and point out exactly where this would fit in within the city charter.
[42:18.000 --> 42:23.000]  We're just saying that it belongs here or there, wherever you want to put it, you know.
[42:23.000 --> 42:28.000]  So don't force us to say something in this petition.
[42:28.000 --> 42:32.000]  I mean, people who are signing this petition aren't going to be able to understand that anyway.
[42:32.000 --> 42:35.000]  That's another one of those examples, in my opinion.
[42:35.000 --> 42:39.000]  You know, dotting your I's and crossing your T's, it's really not that crucial.
[42:39.000 --> 42:43.000]  Let's get the commission going, and wherever you want to put it into the charter,
[42:43.000 --> 42:47.000]  and we pointed out a few places where we thought it could fit, it could go right there.
[42:47.000 --> 42:52.000]  Well, it seems to me like the burden of proof is on them to show that it does not fit into the charter.
[42:52.000 --> 42:53.000]  Right.
[42:53.000 --> 42:56.000]  I think that's true because they have raised that issue.
[42:56.000 --> 42:59.000]  There is no requirement for me to come along and say.
[42:59.000 --> 43:06.000]  But in the law, however, you do have to amend a part of the city charter.
[43:06.000 --> 43:13.000]  So we gave them a few points where we thought it would be effectively amending the city charter.
[43:13.000 --> 43:17.000]  It will be up to the judge to say if that's sufficient or not.
[43:17.000 --> 43:19.000]  Indeed.
[43:19.000 --> 43:20.000]  All right.
[43:20.000 --> 43:23.000]  Well, we're about to come up to another break here.
[43:23.000 --> 43:26.000]  I wanted to finish up with these points, and then Randy had a couple of questions.
[43:26.000 --> 43:29.000]  Can you hang with us for a few more minutes, Dennis?
[43:29.000 --> 43:30.000]  Sure, I'll do that.
[43:30.000 --> 43:31.000]  Okay, excellent.
[43:31.000 --> 43:32.000]  Wonderful.
[43:32.000 --> 43:33.000]  All right.
[43:33.000 --> 43:35.000]  Folks, this is a very rare interview here.
[43:35.000 --> 43:40.000]  We've got an interview with Attorney Dennis McMahon, attorney for NYCCAN.
[43:40.000 --> 43:44.000]  Please visit nyccan.org and learn more about it.
[43:44.000 --> 43:46.000]  There's a big march this Sunday.
[43:46.000 --> 43:48.000]  You can learn more about that at that website as well.
[43:48.000 --> 43:52.000]  We'll be right back with Attorney Dennis McMahon, and then at the top of the hour,
[43:52.000 --> 43:54.000]  we'll be bringing on Richard Reeves.
[43:54.000 --> 44:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:01.000 --> 44:05.000]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, microplant powder,
[44:05.000 --> 44:09.000]  will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins,
[44:09.000 --> 44:12.000]  such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses,
[44:12.000 --> 44:17.000]  and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:17.000 --> 44:20.000]  Microplant powder is 89% silica,
[44:20.000 --> 44:23.000]  and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive toxins
[44:23.000 --> 44:26.000]  from the blood, organs, spine, and brain.
[44:26.000 --> 44:29.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone,
[44:29.000 --> 44:32.000]  which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:32.000 --> 44:36.000]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium
[44:36.000 --> 44:38.000]  and is great for the heart.
[44:38.000 --> 44:42.000]  There is no better time than now to have microplant powder on your shelf
[44:42.000 --> 44:44.000]  or in your storage shelter.
[44:44.000 --> 44:47.000]  With that unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:47.000 --> 44:52.000]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org.
[44:52.000 --> 44:54.000]  It's a great way to change your life.
[44:54.000 --> 45:15.000]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:55.000 --> 46:02.000]  Why do the sparks fly?
[46:02.000 --> 46:04.000]  The friction is an addiction.
[46:04.000 --> 46:07.000]  The hard work can leave you hopeless, may it?
[46:07.000 --> 46:10.000]  There's been a possibility to try and quit being
[46:10.000 --> 46:13.000]  a heavy load that can't be unscathed.
[46:13.000 --> 46:16.000]  The time is colliding with the conflict.
[46:16.000 --> 46:19.000]  You find out after a while.
[46:19.000 --> 46:21.000]  It's not your moral standard.
[46:21.000 --> 46:24.000]  It's your patience that's on trial.
[46:24.000 --> 46:30.000]  Why do the sparks fly?
[46:30.000 --> 46:36.000]  Why do the sparks fly?
[46:36.000 --> 46:41.000]  Why do the sparks fly?
[46:41.000 --> 46:43.000]  All right, watching the sparks fly.
[46:43.000 --> 46:47.000]  Here on the rule of law, rule of law radio.
[46:47.000 --> 46:51.000]  We're here with Attorney Dennis McMahon, and he is discussing
[46:51.000 --> 46:56.000]  this memorandum of law that has been submitted by NYC-CAN,
[46:56.000 --> 46:59.000]  and he's the attorney representing NYC-CAN,
[46:59.000 --> 47:02.000]  and we appreciate so very much your work, Dennis, by the way.
[47:02.000 --> 47:03.000]  We really do.
[47:03.000 --> 47:04.000]  Thank you.
[47:04.000 --> 47:05.000]  We really do.
[47:05.000 --> 47:08.000]  Okay, we're going to go on now to point 6.
[47:08.000 --> 47:11.000]  We've got the Petition Severability Clause is sufficient
[47:11.000 --> 47:14.000]  to save the proposed law from any infirmities
[47:14.000 --> 47:18.000]  if the court finds that infirmities actually do exist.
[47:18.000 --> 47:21.000]  Okay, please address this and tell us what it means.
[47:21.000 --> 47:24.000]  Okay, in the petition itself, at item 20,
[47:24.000 --> 47:28.000]  there is a severability clause which provides that,
[47:28.000 --> 47:29.000]  and I'll quote it this time,
[47:29.000 --> 47:32.000]  if any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional
[47:32.000 --> 47:34.000]  or invalid for any reason,
[47:34.000 --> 47:39.000]  the remaining provision shall in no manner be effected thereby,
[47:39.000 --> 47:42.000]  but shall remain in full force and effect.
[47:42.000 --> 47:46.000]  So in other words, if you find point 1 to be offensive
[47:46.000 --> 47:47.000]  for some reason, if the court does,
[47:47.000 --> 47:51.000]  we say take out point 1 and let the rest of the petition stand.
[47:51.000 --> 47:57.000]  So what the city is claiming, and you mentioned you had someone
[47:57.000 --> 47:59.000]  who called before was a whiner.
[47:59.000 --> 48:01.000]  You know, the city was really, I think, whining about this.
[48:01.000 --> 48:02.000]  No, we can't fix it.
[48:02.000 --> 48:04.000]  We can't do anything about it.
[48:04.000 --> 48:08.000]  You know, this part is wrong, so the whole thing must fail.
[48:08.000 --> 48:10.000]  They basically say it's not possible to implement
[48:10.000 --> 48:12.000]  the Petition Severability Clause.
[48:12.000 --> 48:17.000]  So I went through point by point and addressed each issue
[48:17.000 --> 48:21.000]  that if it's turned against us, how the Severability Clause would work.
[48:21.000 --> 48:25.000]  Now, there are certain provisions where the Severability Clause won't work.
[48:25.000 --> 48:26.000]  It won't work on jurisdiction.
[48:26.000 --> 48:30.000]  You're going to have to decide that jurisdiction issue outside of the petition.
[48:30.000 --> 48:31.000]  So it's not for that.
[48:31.000 --> 48:37.000]  But for certain points, for instance, on the point of whether or not the,
[48:37.000 --> 48:40.000]  as we were talking about before the break,
[48:40.000 --> 48:43.000]  whether or not the commissioners would be public officers.
[48:43.000 --> 48:47.000]  My point is this, that if the petition language is inconsistent
[48:47.000 --> 48:50.000]  with the public officer law, for instance, the language regarding
[48:50.000 --> 48:54.000]  you don't have to live in New York City, take that out.
[48:54.000 --> 48:57.000]  Or at the discretion of the court, you could even insert,
[48:57.000 --> 48:59.000]  they must be public officers.
[48:59.000 --> 49:00.000]  Put that in.
[49:00.000 --> 49:05.000]  So that's a discretion we're asking the judge to please try and do.
[49:05.000 --> 49:10.000]  Again, when there is some conflict with the Freedom of Information Act law
[49:10.000 --> 49:16.000]  and the Open Meetings law, as discussed at point four, I believe it was,
[49:16.000 --> 49:21.000]  if the court agrees with the city, the offending language could be excised.
[49:21.000 --> 49:24.000]  And you could take out the language about secret meetings
[49:24.000 --> 49:27.000]  and just say this does not exist.
[49:27.000 --> 49:31.000]  Alternatively, you can say something like,
[49:31.000 --> 49:35.000]  add must be applied subject to existing law, for example,
[49:35.000 --> 49:39.000]  the Freedom of Information Act law and the Open Meetings law, that kind of thing.
[49:39.000 --> 49:42.000]  That's what we're saying with the severability clause.
[49:42.000 --> 49:47.000]  We feel that in this case the people who signed this petition
[49:47.000 --> 49:53.000]  most urgently want a local investigation into 9-11,
[49:53.000 --> 49:56.000]  an investigation with subpoena power so we could get at the truth.
[49:56.000 --> 49:58.000]  That's the crux of this.
[49:58.000 --> 50:01.000]  You know, we intend to comply with every law that exists.
[50:01.000 --> 50:04.000]  We're not going to create ourselves as a grand jury.
[50:04.000 --> 50:09.000]  We're going to go to the grand jury and say, hey, we think these people should be indicted.
[50:09.000 --> 50:13.000]  We're going to comply with the open information laws.
[50:13.000 --> 50:16.000]  We're not going to be closing doors when it's illegal to do that.
[50:16.000 --> 50:20.000]  But the city, again, at every instance, tries to make the language read
[50:20.000 --> 50:24.000]  that we're going to be above the law and therefore we should be disqualified.
[50:24.000 --> 50:28.000]  We hope the judge will be able to see that we're trying to comply with the law.
[50:28.000 --> 50:33.000]  And there's a bigger law here, the murder, the mass murder of New York people.
[50:33.000 --> 50:35.000]  We've got to do something about that.
[50:35.000 --> 50:36.000]  Exactly.
[50:36.000 --> 50:44.000]  In reading that section on open meetings, if I were a judge reading that,
[50:44.000 --> 50:49.000]  I would really be concerned about what the city is proposing
[50:49.000 --> 50:56.000]  because in every investigatory situation of this type,
[50:56.000 --> 51:01.000]  you have situations where information absolutely must be disclosed.
[51:01.000 --> 51:06.000]  You would hate to have a police officer brought into this situation
[51:06.000 --> 51:11.000]  and have his private address revealed on the stand.
[51:11.000 --> 51:13.000]  That's forbidden by statute.
[51:13.000 --> 51:14.000]  Right.
[51:14.000 --> 51:17.000]  And they're saying, why, these guys are being secretive.
[51:17.000 --> 51:22.000]  If I was a court reading that, I would think these guys are out of their minds.
[51:22.000 --> 51:24.000]  At times they seem to be.
[51:24.000 --> 51:32.000]  They're asking for something that if overall there's this whole idea of jurisdiction,
[51:32.000 --> 51:39.000]  if the courts ruled that New York City doesn't have the jurisdiction
[51:39.000 --> 51:44.000]  to investigate crimes in New York City,
[51:44.000 --> 51:46.000]  this guy's brain dead?
[51:46.000 --> 51:48.000]  It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?
[51:48.000 --> 51:55.000]  Don't we have the right authority to investigate crimes that have occurred on our own turf?
[51:55.000 --> 51:56.000]  Come on.
[51:56.000 --> 52:02.000]  I know that the land that the World Trade Center is owned by the New York Port Authority,
[52:02.000 --> 52:04.000]  which is like a tri-state entity,
[52:04.000 --> 52:09.000]  but still there was so much damage and crime and murder and mayhem
[52:09.000 --> 52:13.000]  that went down in the city of New York itself.
[52:13.000 --> 52:22.000]  I mean, it's still in New York City even if the towers were owned by the land,
[52:22.000 --> 52:25.000]  sorry, were owned by the New York Port Authority.
[52:25.000 --> 52:26.000]  It doesn't matter who owned it.
[52:26.000 --> 52:30.000]  That doesn't give them diversity of jurisdiction.
[52:30.000 --> 52:33.000]  Well, even if it gives them diversity of jurisdiction,
[52:33.000 --> 52:38.000]  it doesn't take away the jurisdiction of the city of New York in the first place.
[52:38.000 --> 52:40.000]  And these are common law crimes.
[52:40.000 --> 52:42.000]  They absolutely go to the police.
[52:42.000 --> 52:44.000]  These guys are dead meat.
[52:44.000 --> 52:46.000]  I think I've seen these guys a thank you letter
[52:46.000 --> 52:52.000]  because they might have actually come up with some really good arguments.
[52:52.000 --> 52:54.000]  And they've conceded twice already.
[52:54.000 --> 52:57.000]  They've conceded twice already.
[52:57.000 --> 52:58.000]  Right, Dennis?
[52:58.000 --> 52:59.000]  On the number of votes, yes.
[52:59.000 --> 53:04.000]  They conceded on the 30,000 signatures initially, and just today they conceded on the 15,000.
[53:04.000 --> 53:08.000]  It sounds like you may be getting some political purchase
[53:08.000 --> 53:10.000]  because in the end everything is political.
[53:10.000 --> 53:14.000]  Well, Dennis, where do you – okay, so what's the next step?
[53:14.000 --> 53:16.000]  Okay, you've submitted on the 21st.
[53:16.000 --> 53:20.000]  Okay, so you've presented the summary judgment, which is ridiculous,
[53:20.000 --> 53:24.000]  that they should have summary judgment in a situation like this.
[53:24.000 --> 53:27.000]  So you stop that, and the referee –
[53:27.000 --> 53:29.000]  No, no, that is actually what is pending.
[53:29.000 --> 53:30.000]  That's what's coming up.
[53:30.000 --> 53:31.000]  Oh, that's what's coming up.
[53:31.000 --> 53:32.000]  That's what's coming up, yes.
[53:32.000 --> 53:33.000]  That's what's coming up.
[53:33.000 --> 53:37.000]  All the paperwork is in, so the referee will make his decision on Monday.
[53:37.000 --> 53:40.000]  Then it will go to the judge maybe that same day.
[53:40.000 --> 53:42.000]  Maybe he'll call us in for oral argument on Tuesday.
[53:42.000 --> 53:43.000]  We don't really know.
[53:43.000 --> 53:47.000]  The judge can decide to just decide this on the papers, adopt the referees,
[53:47.000 --> 53:52.000]  report recommendations or reject it or adopt it in part, and issue part of it himself.
[53:52.000 --> 53:54.000]  We just don't know what's going to happen there.
[53:54.000 --> 53:56.000]  It's a wild card situation.
[53:56.000 --> 53:57.000]  What are the possibilities?
[53:57.000 --> 54:02.000]  Okay, they can decide not to award summary judgment to the city clerk's office,
[54:02.000 --> 54:04.000]  and what would happen then?
[54:04.000 --> 54:07.000]  What would be the possible options at that point?
[54:07.000 --> 54:09.000]  Well, there would be appeals.
[54:09.000 --> 54:13.000]  Most certainly, no matter who wins on Monday and or Tuesday,
[54:13.000 --> 54:18.000]  there will be appeals to the appellate division and likely the court of appeals as well.
[54:18.000 --> 54:24.000]  So whatever is decided won't be final until the appeals process has run.
[54:24.000 --> 54:29.000]  So if they don't get awarded summary judgment, does that mean that your petition is valid?
[54:29.000 --> 54:34.000]  That would be the decision at that point. That would be the decision of the city appeals.
[54:34.000 --> 54:35.000]  Okay.
[54:35.000 --> 54:39.000]  But nothing would go into effect until it's run through the court.
[54:39.000 --> 54:44.000]  Do you have time to walk this through those appeals?
[54:44.000 --> 54:45.000]  That's what I was going to ask.
[54:45.000 --> 54:46.000]  Time to make that.
[54:46.000 --> 54:51.000]  You know, I mean, the city has represented this all has to be done by the 30th,
[54:51.000 --> 54:57.000]  and the referee set a schedule for his opinion to be issued on Monday, which is, what, the 28th?
[54:57.000 --> 54:58.000]  Yes.
[54:58.000 --> 55:05.000]  So I mean, you're going to have four sets of judiciary look at this in three days.
[55:05.000 --> 55:07.000]  I hope that can be done.
[55:07.000 --> 55:16.000]  If it's not done, then the, I would assume, and I have to look into this, that the highest decision will span.
[55:16.000 --> 55:24.000]  Can you ask for, can you demand for more time from the city and say, look, the 30th is too soon?
[55:24.000 --> 55:29.000]  It's key to the military ballots that have to go out.
[55:29.000 --> 55:33.000]  So to me, it's key to the printer's schedule.
[55:33.000 --> 55:37.000]  I think the printer's schedule should be amended to wait until this runs through before.
[55:37.000 --> 55:42.000]  That's what I was asking, if you guys could ask for the printer's schedule to wait, because this is too important.
[55:42.000 --> 55:43.000]  Right.
[55:43.000 --> 55:47.000]  If you get a positive decision tomorrow.
[55:47.000 --> 55:48.000]  Maybe Monday.
[55:48.000 --> 55:49.000]  Monday.
[55:49.000 --> 55:51.000]  I'm sorry, Monday.
[55:51.000 --> 55:55.000]  Does the printer's schedule, do they start printing the ballots?
[55:55.000 --> 55:58.000]  No, it would have to run through the court system.
[55:58.000 --> 56:12.000]  I think I will have to present this issue to the referee and make sure that the whole entire judicial process can be run before these ballots are printed.
[56:12.000 --> 56:17.000]  Yeah, you guys should ask for more time for, you know, and say, look, the printers are just going to have to wait.
[56:17.000 --> 56:19.000]  I mean, they're just going to have to wait.
[56:19.000 --> 56:23.000]  I do have a draft of that email, but I didn't want to submit it just yet.
[56:23.000 --> 56:26.000]  The city had a chance to reply to my memorandum.
[56:26.000 --> 56:27.000]  They did.
[56:27.000 --> 56:29.000]  They had a summer reply in nine pages.
[56:29.000 --> 56:34.000]  So now that all of that work is in, I can ask the referee about the scheduling.
[56:34.000 --> 56:40.000]  I know it's going to come perhaps as a surprise to him because he is programmed in all this time until Monday.
[56:40.000 --> 56:42.000]  But you are absolutely correct.
[56:42.000 --> 56:44.000]  This has to be raised, and I will raise it tomorrow.
[56:44.000 --> 56:45.000]  I'm so glad to hear that.
[56:45.000 --> 56:46.000]  Thank you, Dennis.
[56:46.000 --> 56:47.000]  Thank you.
[56:47.000 --> 56:58.000]  So I take it that the referee has, does he have any authority to delay the printing schedule?
[56:58.000 --> 57:06.000]  I don't know if he himself has that, but he can certainly request that the city do that, and we'll see what comes back.
[57:06.000 --> 57:10.000]  You could file a temporary injunction, a petition for a temporary injunction.
[57:10.000 --> 57:11.000]  That's true.
[57:11.000 --> 57:15.000]  To stop, to say, look, we need more time here.
[57:15.000 --> 57:20.000]  I would think it would be just an administrative matter that somebody just says, hold the presses, you know?
[57:20.000 --> 57:21.000]  Yeah.
[57:21.000 --> 57:23.000]  Stop the presses for two days.
[57:23.000 --> 57:28.000]  Yeah, and if the administrative route didn't work, then you could always ask for an injunction.
[57:28.000 --> 57:29.000]  Yes.
[57:29.000 --> 57:31.000]  Because we've got to get the job done here, man.
[57:31.000 --> 57:33.000]  No time for playing games with these guys.
[57:33.000 --> 57:34.000]  Okay.
[57:34.000 --> 57:44.000]  And looking over this document, it appears that at least the objection by the clerk to the number of signatures was frivolous.
[57:44.000 --> 57:47.000]  And for the purpose of delay.
[57:47.000 --> 57:54.000]  And because the clerk, by tacit admission, delayed you for frivolous purposes.
[57:54.000 --> 57:55.000]  No kidding.
[57:55.000 --> 57:56.000]  No kidding.
[57:56.000 --> 57:58.000]  They obviously delayed you guys.
[57:58.000 --> 58:00.000]  Good point, Randy, to bring it up.
[58:00.000 --> 58:02.000]  I'll just be devil's advocate for him.
[58:02.000 --> 58:10.000]  I appreciate you sticking up for me that way, but that really wasn't the case because all of this was proceeding while the votes were being counted.
[58:10.000 --> 58:12.000]  It was simultaneous.
[58:12.000 --> 58:14.000]  It wasn't like we had to wait for that.
[58:14.000 --> 58:15.000]  All right.
[58:15.000 --> 58:16.000]  Everything went forward all at once.
[58:16.000 --> 58:17.000]  All right.
[58:17.000 --> 58:18.000]  Well, we tried, Dennis.
[58:18.000 --> 58:19.000]  You know we're in this country.
[58:19.000 --> 58:20.000]  Thank you.
[58:20.000 --> 58:21.000]  I appreciate it.
[58:21.000 --> 58:22.000]  No, the good ideas you've given me tonight.
[58:22.000 --> 58:23.000]  Thank you so much.
[58:23.000 --> 58:24.000]  All right.
[58:24.000 --> 58:26.000]  Well, listen, Dennis, we really appreciate having you on so much.
[58:26.000 --> 58:27.000]  I appreciate you having me.
[58:27.000 --> 58:28.000]  Thank you.
[58:28.000 --> 58:30.000]  And I would like for you to come back again sometime when you have time.
[58:30.000 --> 58:31.000]  I know you're a very busy man.
[58:31.000 --> 58:33.000]  You gave us a lot more time than was scheduled.
[58:33.000 --> 58:35.000]  We really do appreciate it.
[58:35.000 --> 58:36.000]  My pleasure.
[58:36.000 --> 58:37.000]  Thank you for having me.
[58:37.000 --> 58:38.000]  And all the work you're doing.
[58:38.000 --> 58:39.000]  We'll keep our door open for you.
[58:39.000 --> 58:40.000]  Absolutely.
[58:40.000 --> 58:41.000]  Thank you so much.
[58:41.000 --> 58:42.000]  You're welcome.
[58:42.000 --> 58:43.000]  Cup of hot tea.
[58:43.000 --> 58:44.000]  All right.
[58:44.000 --> 58:47.000]  We are going into our number two now of the rule of law.
[58:47.000 --> 58:50.000]  We're bringing up a good friend, Richard Reeves.
[58:50.000 --> 58:52.000]  He's been doing some good work as well.
[58:52.000 --> 58:53.000]  So stick around.
[58:53.000 --> 59:01.000]  We'll be right back here on the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[59:01.000 --> 59:02.000]  Hello, Austin.
[59:02.000 --> 59:06.000]  My name is Harlan D. Jordan, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here
[59:06.000 --> 59:07.000]  in town.
[59:07.000 --> 59:10.000]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[59:10.000 --> 59:14.000]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Catherine Albert,
[59:14.000 --> 59:19.000]  Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement.
[59:19.000 --> 59:21.000]  But now Brave New Books needs your help.
[59:21.000 --> 59:26.000]  In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet for hard-to-find
[59:26.000 --> 59:30.000]  materials, we're going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word about the bookstore.
[59:30.000 --> 59:34.000]  Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer.
[59:34.000 --> 59:38.000]  We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists.
[59:38.000 --> 59:42.000]  Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support.
[59:42.000 --> 59:46.000]  It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our
[59:46.000 --> 59:47.000]  message.
[59:47.000 --> 59:49.000]  Remember, you vote with your dollars.
[59:49.000 --> 59:50.000]  We're counting on you, Austin.
[59:50.000 --> 59:58.000]  If you need any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[59:58.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  Thank you, everyone.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:10.000]  The Prisoners' Center for Studies says 400 Palestinian children held in Israeli occupation
[01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:17.000]  jails are beaten by Israeli jailers who cram them into crowded cells, isolate and terrorize
[01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:20.000]  them, and deprive them of education.
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:25.000]  Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the UN General Assembly Wednesday the unfair
[01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:30.000]  capitalism system has reached the end of the road, adding it is no longer possible to inject
[01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:36.000]  thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth to the world economy simply by printing
[01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:38.000]  worthless paper assets.
[01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  President Ahmadinejad has ordered the replacement of the US dollar by the euro in the country's
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  foreign exchange accounts.
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  There are now more euros in circulation than dollars.
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:57.000]  After years of procedural wrangling, the lawyer for a defunct Islamic charity argued Wednesday
[01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  that George Bush's secret wiretapping program was illegal, an argument an Obama administration
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:05.000]  attorney refused to discuss.
[01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:11.000]  John Eisenberg, lawyer for the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, argued neither the President's
[01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:16.000]  constitutional powers as commander-in-chief nor Congress's authorization to use military
[01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  force against terrorists after 9-11 entitled Bush to override a 1978 law requiring court
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  approval for electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:34.000]  Al Haramain, an Oregon group the government declared a terrorist organization in 2004,
[01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:37.000]  sued the Bush administration in 2006.
[01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  It claimed federal authorities had illegally listened in on its lawyers' phone calls and
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  is seeking damages.
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  District Judge Vaughan Walker, who has rebuffed Bush and Obama administration requests to
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  dismiss the suit, told a government lawyer that Al Haramain had presented strong evidence
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  that it had been wiretapped and had the right to sue.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  Dreams of establishing a manned moon base could become reality within two decades after
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:11.000]  India's first lunar mission found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface.
[01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  Data from Chandrayaan-1 suggests water is still being formed on the moon.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  Scientists said the breakthrough would change the face of lunar exploration.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:26.000]  Scientists said the search for water was one of the mission's main objectives, but even
[01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  so was a surprise.
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  The unmanned craft was equipped with NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper designed to search
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:38.000]  for water by picking up electromagnetic radiation emitted by minerals.
[01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:43.000]  Scientists had long hoped astronauts could be based on the moon and use water found there
[01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  to drink, extract oxygen to breathe, and use hydrogen as fuel.
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  Several studies had suggested there could be ice in the craters around the moon's poles,
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:57.000]  but scientists had been unable to confirm these suspicions.
[01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:16.000]  Music
[01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:23.000]  Music
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:33.000]  Music
[01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:43.000]  Music
[01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:53.000]  Music
[01:03:53.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  Music
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  Music
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:19.000]  Music
[01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  Okay, we are back, chant down Babylon.
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:26.000]  That's what we are doing here on The Rule of Law.
[01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  Okay, so we're going to switch gears here now a little bit.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  We're going to our next guest, a good friend of ours, Richard Reeves.
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  He's been working on a whole lot of stuff in the legislature.
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:41.000]  He's got a whole lot of projects going on, and we just always love to get him on the radio
[01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  whenever we can.
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:44.000]  Richard, thanks for joining us tonight.
[01:04:44.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  Hey, Deborah Randi.
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  Thanks for having me.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  And I'll tell you what, Godspeed, Dennis McMahon and NYC-CAN.
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  And Manny Padillo.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  Exactly, Manny Padillo and all the guys in New York City and all those people.
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  Ted Walter.
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  I'll tell you, if this was a sporting event up there, it would be Patriots versus the Weasels up there.
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  Yeah, yeah, big, big support to all those guys up there.
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  Ted Walter, Manny, yeah, our hearts go out to you.
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  We're behind you all the way.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  But it looks to me like, you know, they got a really good lawyer on their side
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:19.000]  that's doing all this work pro bono.
[01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  They've got all these volunteers.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:24.000]  I mean, just like us, none of us are making a dime off of this.
[01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  In fact, it's costing us a lot of money to do this.
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  We've got all kinds of people chipping in with their skills set from all over the place, all different skills,
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:39.000]  lawyers, doctors, you know, computer techs, sound engineers.
[01:05:39.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  I mean, all of us are doing everything we can to make this thing work,
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  and we really appreciate everyone's effort.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  I didn't get a chance to mention while Dennis was on,
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  but he was actually one of those lawyers that didn't have his hand in anybody's pocket.
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:57.000]  Really?
[01:05:57.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  So actually doing all of this pro bono, that was pretty incredible.
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:03.000]  Yes, indeed, because he believes in the cause just like the rest of us.
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  So speaking of causes...
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  Not all lawyers are pond-sucking scum.
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:11.000]  No, apparently not.
[01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  All right, well, speaking of causes, Richard,
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:18.000]  why don't you give us an update on some of the causes and projects you've been working on?
[01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  You were telling me on the break that you guys had a big victory in the special session here in Texas
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:28.000]  when Congress went into special session, the state legislature.
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  Tell us about that.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  That's right.
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:33.000]  Back, I guess it was during June, Rick Perry called a special session
[01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  to try to move forward on the Trans-Texas corridor, NAFTA corridor issue,
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  and also to get the ball rolling further along on trying to take existing roads
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  and converting those into toll roads.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  Ultimately, he made quite a few enemies in the state legislature by calling that special session
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  because when they realized that all the main purpose of that special session
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  was just for those purposes of going ahead with the Trans-Texas corridor
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  and trying to hijack more of these existing roads and convert to toll roads,
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  then a lot of legislators got angry and converted to our side on the issue.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:17.000]  Ultimately, what happened was I can thank some great activists here in Texas,
[01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  Robert Morrow, Terry Hall, and a lot of other great folks that were very active
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  at the state legislature during that special session.
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:30.000]  We went out to every office of the House of Representatives of the state of Texas.
[01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  We went to every state senator's office and handed out information about the CDAs,
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  which are the Comprehensive Development Agreements.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  Those are the agreements that allow the Trans-Texas corridor and also allow
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  existing roads to be converted to tolls.
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  We gained a lot of friends up there.
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  What ended up happening is I really thought that the House Transportation Committee
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:00.000]  would move forward and okay Rick Perry's agenda for the Trans-Texas corridor and CDAs
[01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:02.000]  and move that to the House body.
[01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  I thought really where the battle would be won or lost would be on the House floor
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  with all those members either voting yes or no.
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:16.000]  What ended up happening is we were so victorious that the agenda could not come out
[01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  of the House Transportation Committee.
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:22.000]  It was a victory beyond expectations.
[01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  I think for people in the political know here in the state of Texas,
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  all those state legislators, the House members, Senate members,
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:34.000]  they now know that Rick Perry is kind of a toothless tiger.
[01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:38.000]  Remember two years ago, I think he tried to get the Gardasil issue propped up.
[01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  You all remember that.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:40.000]  I'm sure about Gardasil.
[01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  He just said that everyone has to do it now like some kind of gubernatorial
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  executive order.
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  There's no law.
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  They didn't pass any law that said that all young women had to get these shots.
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:57.000]  Rick Perry is just trying to tell everybody we have to do it now.
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  This is ridiculous.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  That's right.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  I think that part of the New World Order agenda right now is that that's why I
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  think they're kind of trying to see about Kay Bailey coming in.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  I know for sure that they're going to end up proffering up on the Democrat side
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  of the gubernatorial ballot next year.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  They're going to prop up a New World Order candidate of some type because
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:23.000]  they've got a problem here with Rick Perry not being able to move the agenda forward.
[01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  That's why we're seeing Kay Bailout Hutchison coming up to bat.
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  Who knows what's going to happen there, but I tell you what, I have battled and
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  many of us here, all these great activists around Austin, which I want to thank
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  out there that have been working so hard for so long, that Rick Perry as
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  governor now since 2000, get that, he's been governor since 2000, since Bush
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  relinquished the governorship and turned it over to Rick Perry as an appointee
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  back then in 2000 and then he won the 02 election and he won the 06 election.
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:04.000]  And so now here he's, I don't know, I guess this guy wants a coronation.
[01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:05.000]  He just doesn't want to leave.
[01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  It's unbelievable.
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  I'm sick of it, man.
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  I'm sick of it.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:09.000]  But I can tell you this.
[01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  When I was a delegate representing my precinct, I was the only delegate by the way
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  because we live in such a heavy Democrat area here in South Austin here.
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:26.000]  But when I was at the SD14, the Senate, senatorial convention of the Republican
[01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  party, we were, the Ron Pollard, we were trying to get to state, to the state
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:38.000]  convention, when Rick Perry came on to speak, he was the keynote speaker at the
[01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  beginning of the convention.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  You were there, Richard.
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  You remember.
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:44.000]  Man, the booze and the hisses.
[01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  This guy, I mean, he got heckled, he practically got heckled off the stage.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:53.000]  I mean, I had never heard so much booing and hissing and people heckling and
[01:10:53.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  yelling at him during the speech.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  I mean, can you imagine?
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:02.000]  I mean, the governor, he goes to be the keynote speaker at the senatorial
[01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:06.000]  district convention of the Republican party here in Travis County where the
[01:11:06.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  seat of government of the state where he's governor and he gets booed off the
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:12.000]  stage, man.
[01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:13.000]  We've got to get rid of this guy.
[01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  We've got to run him out of town.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:16.000]  I'm sick of him.
[01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  Well, I'll tell you, one joke that I like to tell is that, you know, they had
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  the governor's mansion fire a while back and I'll say that I guess some people
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  are so fed up with him, they just tried to burn him out of the state, you know.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  But it's just, I'll tell you, I really, really relish the opportunity that we
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  can send this guy back to the private sector, hopefully, and even if it means
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  that we end up getting another neocon or a New World Order globalist elite
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:48.000]  type candidate, at least we can move forward and say that we can fire somebody
[01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  because that's really what it's all about is the road to victory.
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  Ultimately, we're going to be able to elect our own patriot candidates.
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  That's already starting to happen.
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  You see the effect that one guy has had in the U.S.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:07.000]  House, Ron Paul, one patriot in the U.S. House, and he's causing all this ruckus.
[01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  As a matter of fact, I just got an email from Campaign for Liberty during this
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  program that people need to call the House Finance Committee, the House
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  Financial Services Committee.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:20.000]  There are over 70 members in that committee.
[01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  They need to be called because they're going to be looking at that audit, the
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:29.000]  Fed legislation that Ron Paul has proffered up, and they need to get that out
[01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  of that committee to move it down to the House floor to vote on it, so people
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:35.000]  need to call them tomorrow.
[01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:39.000]  There's over 70 members in that, and I know you've got a lot of listeners in
[01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  Oklahoma and Texas, and so Frank D. Lucas, Representative Lucas in Oklahoma
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:49.000]  needs a call, and they all need a call, but especially Oklahoma and Texas that
[01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  we're out getting the word out.
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  We've got Jeb Hensarling, Al Green, Ron Paul, Ruben Josa, and Randy Newbarger,
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  and Kenny Marchant, and those are the ones from Texas and Oklahoma, and then
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  there's 60-plus more that need phone calls, but the audit to Fed bill I think
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  is going to get probably ultimately through the House, and of course those
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  phone calls to this House Financial Services Committee are crucial, but then
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  we've got to fight in the Senate, and the Senate is way more controlled at the
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  U.S. Senate level.
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  The New World Order globalists have way more control over a body of 100 than
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:30.000]  they do over a body of 435, so we've got our work cut out, but I tell you, see,
[01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  it's just like, Deb, you and I were talking on the phone the other night, and
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:35.000]  you were talking about your experience.
[01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  You just mentioned how you were in your precinct as a delegate, and then you
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:45.000]  went to the SD14 convention, and you also ran through the gauntlet of that
[01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  selection committee to go on to the state convention.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  I wasn't very successful.
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:55.000]  And you had a negative experience, but let me tell you, there were plenty of
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  other great patriots that got through, and I was fortunate enough and blessed
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:02.000]  enough to get through as an alternate with a low number, and we ended up
[01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  having a huge effect at the state convention, so don't, you know, basically
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  the analogy would be this, Deb, that was the first time you rode your bike
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:15.000]  without training wheels, and for many of us that was the case, and so what
[01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  happened?
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  I mean, what happened the first time you ride your bike with no training wheels?
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  Well, I think Deborah may have been the only one who threatened to write Ron
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  Paul's name on the ballot screen.
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  I didn't say that in the committee hearing, but they did ask me, well, the
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  old geezer guy asked me who I intended to vote for in the primary, and if I
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  would support, no, I'm sorry, who I intended to vote for in the
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  presidential election, if I would vote for whoever the Republican nominee
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  was, and number one, I thought that was an inappropriate question because this
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  is about what's going on now inside the party, so it really shouldn't matter.
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  I didn't think that he, it just didn't, it was an inappropriate question, but
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  instead of telling him that it was really none of his business, I just
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  decided to tell him the truth.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  I'm going to vote for Ron Paul no matter what, you know, and that was a
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  shocker.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  You could hear the gasps in the room because, you know, normally everyone is
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  going to kiss their behinds and say, well, of course I will vote for whoever
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:35.000]  the Republican nominee is, and I didn't say that.
[01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:39.000]  I was like, I'm voting for Ron Paul no matter what because he's the only one
[01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:45.000]  who holds to true conservative ideals, and I said, and each one of you in this
[01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  room knows it, and there's like, everyone is just silent.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  I mean, some people even had tears, you know, and then five or ten seconds
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  passed, and they're like, and then the committee chair was like, okay, thank
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  you, Deborah.
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  I think they heard enough from me at that point.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  And I know that at that moment that might have been frustrating or whatever,
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  but what you were doing there was decompartmentalizing that committee, and
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:18.000]  that work that you did that night, and you all apply that times the hundreds
[01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  and thousands of other Ron Paulers.
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  I mean, when we went to the Texas State Convention, we handed out I don't know
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  how many thousands of DVDs, and so they're coming along.
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:33.000]  It's starting to get to where the difference between the Patriots that we
[01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  know and the Republican Party is starting to get the thickness of the cigarette
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  paper.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  I know that sounds crazy, but it's true.
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Well, it sounds good to me.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  Okay, listen, Richard, we're going to break.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  Can you stay with us for a few more minutes?
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:48.000]  Absolutely.
[01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  Okay, all right.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  This is the Rule of Law on ruleoflawradio.com with our special guest,
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:55.000]  Richard Reeves.
[01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:02.000]  We'll be right back after this break.
[01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  This is Lisa Marie Coppelletta, and I'm a Liberty Defender.
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  I'm running for City Council Place Five in San Marcos, Texas.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  The key issues guiding my campaign this year are smart growth, environmental
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:15.000]  stewardship, and balanced budgets.
[01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:19.000]  The patterns of growth that we choose to select here in San Marcos will not
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:23.000]  only affect the integrity of the perception of our city, but also tangible
[01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing, job opportunities,
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:31.000]  transportation, and currency circulation.
[01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  Please join us this Saturday, September 26th, at 730 at Wake the Dead Coffee
[01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  House in San Marcos, Texas.
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:41.000]  We'll have our campaign celebration kick off, and we'll rock on through
[01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:42.000]  midnight.
[01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  For further details on this and other events, please visit the website at
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:56.000]  www.lmc4sanmarcos.com.
[01:17:56.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  I ain't going to blame me.
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:12.000]  Don't blame me.
[01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  Well, I ain't going to fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  I was blindsided, but now I can see your plan.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:36.000]  You put the fear in my pocket, took the money from my hand.
[01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  Ain't going to fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  All right, ain't going to fool us with the same old tricks again.
[01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  Okay, we are here with our very special guest, Richard Reeves, a good friend of
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  ours, and he's got his own ways of taking down these bad guys.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  And I know some people don't agree with getting involved in political parties,
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  that we're reinforcing the two-party system.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:03.000]  I really don't intend that we should reinforce any party system, or
[01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:05.000]  especially a two-party system.
[01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:13.000]  And, you know, I realize that ultimately it's best to not be involved in those
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:16.000]  sort of things just so that the establishment will crumble as a result of
[01:19:16.000 --> 01:19:22.000]  our work on super low grassroots level.
[01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:24.000]  And I really want it to be that way, you know.
[01:19:24.000 --> 01:19:27.000]  But it's like, on the other hand, I feel like we've got to just hit these
[01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:33.000]  people with every kind of battle we can come up with, really.
[01:19:33.000 --> 01:19:37.000]  And we're running out of time, you know.
[01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:40.000]  We're coming up on an election right now in November.
[01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  There's going to be another election next year.
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  And, you know, why not take over the political parties and then let them
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  crumble after the fact?
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  I don't know.
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  Well, Debra, think about this.
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  Had our movement ever grown any faster than the period from early 2007
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:02.000]  through around spring of 2008 during the big Ron Paul phenomenon?
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  Has our movement ever grown faster?
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  Well, even Ron Paul himself, you know, has gone through this process as a
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:17.000]  Republican, and many, you know, had similar criticism of him for not being
[01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:19.000]  independent or libertarian partying.
[01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  And he's like, look, you know, I'm sorry, but we live in a very, you know,
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  corrupt world.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  It's very fallen.
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:30.000]  And it's like we have to do what we have to do.
[01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  And if you're an independent or if you are a member of a third party as it
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  is trying to run as a candidate, you spend all the party's time and
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  resources and money and all your money just getting on the ballot.
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  And so, you know, I'm not advocating compromising our morals or anything,
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  but sometimes we just got to get some jobs done.
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  The only reason the New World Order has been able to take over the Democrat
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  and Republican parties is because we let it happen.
[01:20:54.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  That's the only reason they did it.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  Now, here's the thing, is that I worked in 1992 with the Ross Perot campaign.
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:06.000]  I worked in 2006 on the Strayhorn campaign, both third party independent
[01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  efforts, and I've worked on others as well besides that.
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:14.000]  But let me tell you, when it comes to politics, third party and libertarians,
[01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  I love you, but, you know, third party and independent efforts are like top
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  fuel dragsters that get eight gallons to the mile.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  You just put all that time and energy, just like you said, Debra,
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  they get eight gallons to the mile.
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  They're easily marginalized and demonized, whereas the two-party system is
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  rigged.
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  They're going to have a Democrat or a Republican.
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  I think in 2010, we're going to, if people out there get involved in their
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  precincts at the precinct level, in 2010, see, here's another thing people
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  don't understand is if we take over at the precinct level, if we go and get in
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  a party, then we can start proffering up, at least on the Republican side of
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  the ballot initially, we can start putting good candidates on the ballot.
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  This is a way to defeat black box voting.
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:06.000]  People ask me all the time, how do we beat black box voting?
[01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  How do we beat black box voting?
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  We can't get good people elected to pass the law for paper ballots.
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  Well, the way we beat black box voting is this, folks, is we get involved first
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  in the Republican Party.
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  We've got a lot of Ron Paul Democrats already.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  Those people are waking up the Democrat Party.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  Ultimately, what we can do is get upstream of the entire political process,
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  get good Ron Paul-type candidates on the ballots, then guess what?
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:37.000]  Black box is irrelevant.
[01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  If we have a Democrat Ron Paul and a Republican Ron Paul, guess what?
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:43.000]  We win.
[01:22:43.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  And we can do that by getting involved in the party process.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:49.000]  And then if we want to go to some other political system above and beyond that,
[01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  I don't know what it is.
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:52.000]  Nobody's laid it out to me how we can do it.
[01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  But in the meantime, we can take back our government.
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:59.000]  And that's how we can do it is by getting upstream
[01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  and keep these bad globalist politicians from even getting on the ballot
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  by being involved in the party process.
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  And so you're talking about we're opting the parties ahead of time
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  before the primaries even take place, which is what their Achilles heel is.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  So why don't you talk a little bit about that, Richard?
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:18.000]  Right.
[01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  The primaries are the Achilles heel.
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  Traditionally, there's a very low turnout right there in those primaries
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  by getting there and voting.
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  We can fire a lot of incumbents very easily.
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  The numbers for us are out there.
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  And the way I can prove that is if people remember the 2006 gubernatorial election here in Texas,
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  we had two independent candidates, which, like I said, took a lot of time, energy, and money,
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:47.000]  eight gallons to the mile, whereas the Democrat Party and Republican Party,
[01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  they're running a more modern sedan that's getting 30 miles to the gallon on the highway
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  as far as energy is concerned.
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  But bottom line is this.
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  You had Strayhorn get around 18 percent of the general vote in the general election.
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  You had Kinky Friedman around 11 or 12 percent for a total of about 30 percent
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  of the voting general election public voted to dump the establishment candidates.
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:19.000]  They voted against Perry, and they voted against the Democrat that was running at the time.
[01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:26.000]  So you've got, in 2006, here in the state of Texas, you had a big 30 percent minority
[01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  that if we can swing them into these primaries, which that group, that is us,
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  the Kinky Friedman voters and Carol Strayhorn voters, those are the patriots.
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  Those are the independents.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  Those are a lot of libertarians included and involved in that.
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  And if those people get involved in these primaries, then we can start unelecting a ton
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  of incumbents on both sides of the ballot.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  Now, Richard, do you think, I mean, a lot of this is going to depend on the votes actually being
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  legitimately counted for us to even get our candidates on the ballot for the primaries
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  or that our candidates would potentially win the primaries?
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  I mean, do you think it's so far gone that we can't even make that happen?
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  Or is the vote legitimate enough?
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  Is there enough legitimate vote counting yet that we could actually win some primaries?
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  I wish you could see the grin on my face, Debra, because that's the thing is that, you know,
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  we can make that irrelevant.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:29.000]  And that's what this is about is if we have enough patriots flood into the Republican Party,
[01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:34.000]  we can block these bad candidates before they get on the ballot.
[01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  Oh, I see.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:40.000]  We can stop bad candidates from even getting on the ballot.
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  Even on the primary ballot.
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:43.000]  Even on the primary ballot, that's right.
[01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  So we can work on that.
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:47.000]  They won't have any grassroots support.
[01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:50.000]  They won't have any Republicans out there supporting them.
[01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  So they'll be dead in the water.
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  You know, they might be able to go file, but if they have no support,
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:25:59.000]  then even the black box voting may not help them.
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  But we can still, like I say, block them.
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  Ultimately, that's just like at the presidential level.
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  One of the possible scenarios that could have happened in 08, and it didn't happen,
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:13.000]  but I see as a big possibility in 2012, is we know the New World Order,
[01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  they're going to do what they can.
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  They've got the trillions of dollars out of thin air that they can proffer at any moment.
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:24.000]  And we know that they're going to try to push two more globalist candidates again.
[01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  And the thing of it is, is those delegates on the Republican convention are the ones that actually determine
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:34.000]  who the presidential nominee is.
[01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:38.000]  They do not have to acquiesce to the popular vote.
[01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  Right.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  Now, they're supposed to be kind of tied to that.
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  Some states let their delegates do anything.
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  And if we are active in these Republican Party precincts,
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:51.000]  senatorial district conventions, state conventions,
[01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:54.000]  we can, through our rules committee, change the rules
[01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  and allow our delegates for the state of Texas to vote any way they want to vote
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  when they go to the national convention 2012.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:04.000]  We can change those rules.
[01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  So that's what we can do in all these states.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  And I'm pretty sure that the Democratic convention process works the same way.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:15.000]  So if there were enough patriots flooding in to not just the Republican Party,
[01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  but also the Democrat, I think we take both parties back.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:21.000]  And I think the numbers are out there.
[01:27:21.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  Our numbers grow exponentially every year,
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  which, by the way, that reminds me of y'all's conversation earlier
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:32.000]  about the petition for a 9-11 investigation up there.
[01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:38.000]  And that just reminds me that I need to book a room for New York for 2011,
[01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  the 10-year anniversary.
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  I'm going to do that probably this fall because I plan on being there.
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  But that's how much our movement is growing.
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  And I think I heard you, didn't you go to New York City this year?
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  No, we went two years ago.
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  Okay, so you were there in 2007 as well.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:55.000]  Yeah.
[01:27:55.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  And the police are really getting on board with us.
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  The 9-11 truth movement, I think in 2012 it's going to be mainstream.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  And the press is going to be having the reputation of a used car salesman,
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  which they're close to that now, because I just want to say this.
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:16.000]  Mainstream media, thank you for what you're doing.
[01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  Continue not reporting the truth.
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  I want you to continue.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  Don't talk about WTC 7.
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  Don't talk about the truth of 9-11 because this way,
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:30.000]  when the majority of people in the United States find out about that
[01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:34.000]  and figure out that you've been lying to them for all these years,
[01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  it may take 100 years for the so-called mainstream press to have credibility once again.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  Oh, yeah, when you look at what's going on with Sebel Edmonds
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  and the opposition that she was in last month,
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  the only major media that's talking about it is the American conservative.
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  She's on the cover, just released a couple of days ago,
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  and on Brad blog and, you know, alternative media like this.
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  Well, the mainstream media, we've got you in a near checkmate situation on this
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  because one of the things that I talk with folks about when I start talking about 9-11 truth,
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  the only way that I use to prove the inside job aspect of 9-11 is I ask them,
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:20.000]  do you remember WTC 7?
[01:29:20.000 --> 01:29:23.000]  And a lot of folks, more and more folks say yes,
[01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  and they can tell you all the ins and outs, and they say, yeah, I know 9-11 truth.
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:31.000]  But the ones that don't, they'll try to buffalo you and try to make up a story
[01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  in which you can nail them right away when they try to do that.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Or they will just say, no, they don't, and I will tell them,
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  I can thank the mainstream press for you not knowing about WTC 7.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  Okay, well, listen, we're going to break.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Richard, you want to hang for a few more minutes
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  and talk about what happened this past week, Monday night?
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  You bet.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  Okay, all right, we'll be right back.
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:52.000]  And callers, we're going to open the phone lines now.
[01:29:52.000 --> 01:29:56.000]  If you want to call in and talk to us or Richard or about anything else,
[01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  bring up new topics, 512-646-1994.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  And now you can too.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:48.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  Thank you.
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  Okay, they're not going to chip us.
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:41.000]  They want to chip everything and everybody, but it's not going to happen.
[01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:42.000]  Not around here.
[01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  So callers, again, I'm throwing open the phone lines, 512-646-1984.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  If you'd like to call in and discuss any issues that may be on your mind,
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  we've got another half hour left of the show.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  In the meantime, we're here with our very good friend Richard Rees.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:03.000]  So Richard's talking about opting the ballot before the bad candidates
[01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:05.000]  even get on the ballot.
[01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  So if the ballot has two or three positions open for Republicans,
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:13.000]  well, we just get all of them on.
[01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:16.000]  And so when it comes time for the primaries,
[01:32:16.000 --> 01:32:21.000]  the choices you have to choose from on the ballot are all people that are all us,
[01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:23.000]  so it's not going to matter.
[01:32:23.000 --> 01:32:25.000]  So I kind of like that idea.
[01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:29.000]  I hope that we can opt the party before the party opts us.
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  But it's looking like it's a pretty good deal going here, Richard,
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:35.000]  from what you were telling me about what happened
[01:32:35.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  at the Travis County Republican Party meeting this past Monday night.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  So why don't you go over that?
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  That's right.
[01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:45.000]  The party can't opt us unless we opt ourselves,
[01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:47.000]  because they just do not have enough people.
[01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:55.000]  You do not go from a 9-11 denier, I mean, you do not go from a 9-11 truther
[01:32:55.000 --> 01:32:56.000]  to a 9-11 denier.
[01:32:56.000 --> 01:32:58.000]  It's kind of a one-way street.
[01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:01.000]  Most people in general start off as 9-11 deniers
[01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:04.000]  because they were fed the mainstream pablum.
[01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:07.000]  But once you get up to be a 9-11 truther, you don't go back.
[01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:09.000]  It's a one-way street.
[01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:15.000]  So we're in there actively decompartmentalizing the Republican Party
[01:33:15.000 --> 01:33:19.000]  just this past Monday, which you referenced just a moment ago, Deborah,
[01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:21.000]  which is one of the reasons you asked me on,
[01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:24.000]  was that we had a meeting here in Travis County,
[01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:28.000]  which I believe is a microcosm, a leading edge microcosm
[01:33:28.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  of what's going on statewide and ultimately nationwide,
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  and that's that the Republican Party now is basically on board
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:39.000]  with almost every patriot issue.
[01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:42.000]  In the meeting that we had this past Monday,
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  we had a committee member come up and speak a little bit about the vaccine issue
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  and how none of us should be taking these vaccines
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  and we should be knowing what's in them,
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  and it was near unanimous support for that gentleman.
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  We had a resolution passed to audit the Fed,
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:02.000]  which included a little bit of debate, which was very interesting,
[01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:10.000]  but ultimately that amendment passed with about 96 percent
[01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  of the precinct chairs that attended that meeting,
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  so there's very little dissent on auditing the Fed.
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  So, I mean, we are just almost there to where these people are going to be
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:27.000]  wall-to-wall Ron Paul, and it's just exciting to see that happening.
[01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  I know that you talked about your experience earlier in the committee
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  that occurred in 2008, but I'm telling you,
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  we're bringing these people along,
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  and the more and more patriots that we have join in,
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  the more the merrier, and that helps.
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  And I tell you, the way we can take this country back
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:47.000]  is if we have patriot precinct chairs,
[01:34:47.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  both on the Democrat side and the Republican side,
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  and I'm going to do this in my own precinct,
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  is you can get lists of primary voters.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  Just get involved with either party, whether it's Democrat or Republican.
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  It doesn't matter.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  As long as you're a patriot, get involved.
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  Get the list of all the primary voters in your precinct,
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  and for instance, in my precinct, there were only,
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  I think there were less than 100 primary voters
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  on the Republican side in my precinct.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  I'm going to knock on each and every door,
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  and I'm going to have a DVD in my hand,
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  Aaron Russo's America, Freedom to Fascism,
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  which is a good primer for what's going on,
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  and I'm going to hand it to each and every Republican primary 2008 voter
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  in my precinct.
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:38.000]  If we had precinct patriots, both Democrat and Republican,
[01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  in every precinct in the United States,
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  then what would that do for us to have that type of info-warrioring going on
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  at the grassroots level like that?
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  And I think that the time is right for this to happen.
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  Absolutely.
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  This is the patriot infantry needs to be engaged
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  with their informational DVD audio weapons, CD weapons, the DVD weapons.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Get out there, and I'll tell you what, folks,
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  I'm not going to stop in my precinct with just the Republican primary voters.
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:16.000]  I'm going to get that list of Democrat voters in my precinct,
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  and I'm going to knock on those doors and hand those folks DVDs,
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:24.000]  and I think that if the patriot infantry got involved at that level
[01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:27.000]  and then followed up, don't just leave it there,
[01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:31.000]  but then follow up and get to know the people in your precinct.
[01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  And we already basically took over the precinct here in my area
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  with the precinct convention last year,
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  but if we do that all throughout the United States,
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  basically we change the face of politics at the nuclear level,
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  which is the precinct level.
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  Well, I'll tell you, as far as the Republican Party in my precinct,
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  there was like six people that showed up to the precinct convention,
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  and we only got to have one delegate because, you know,
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  it was just such a heavy Democrat area,
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:07.000]  but it was in this elementary school, the nine of the primaries,
[01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  the precinct conventions, and so we were in the library,
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  but the Democrats were in the cafeteria.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  And boy, I'll tell you, there was about 400 people in there.
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  It was like, whoa, man, we're really outnumbered.
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  But it was cool because our convention went real easy and smooth,
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  and we already had the whole thing planned out anyway.
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  I mean, we already had all kinds of plans laid out and backup plans
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:31.000]  in case a whole bunch of neocon Republicans showed up
[01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:35.000]  of how we were going to get our person in as the delegate,
[01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:37.000]  as the one delegate that we were allowed.
[01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  And you know what?
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  None of them showed up.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  It was all us, so it was real easy.
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:45.000]  The meeting went like five minutes, and we were gone.
[01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  Well, and see, that's my point, is those neocon people are already rare birds,
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  and they're on the endangered species list, frankly.
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:37:58.000]  I mean, they were very rare in your precinct,
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  and they're going to be even more rare in other precincts in 2010
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  because many of them, some of them are walking away,
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  throwing in the towel and saying, hey, I quit,
[01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  but others are coming along to our way of thinking.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  They're decompartmentalizing, and they're joining our cause
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  with a brand new passion for liberty, brand new passion for the truth.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  And don't get discouraged at all about your precinct with the 400 Democrats
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  because guess what?
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  Those are patriots in waiting.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  Out of that 400, probably 300 are patriots in waiting.
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:33.000]  They know things are wrong.
[01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  They still bought into the New World Order pablum of Obama's the Savior and all that.
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:42.000]  But when they learn different, which I think they're learning very rapidly,
[01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  then those are prime, fertile people to decompartmentalize and join in
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  with the truthers and the patriots, and we could flood the patriots,
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  the Democrat Party probably faster than we could the Republican.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  And the only reason, see, people still want to hold their nose.
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  The Republican Party has been stunk up very badly,
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  which really kind of works out to our advantage
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  because it's going to make it just that much easier for us to take over quicker.
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  The Democrat Party is a bit more challenging because it's bigger
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  and it has more grassroots, but nonetheless, we have got,
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  I know in my precinct that we've got some Patriot Democrats.
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  And the reason for that here in Travis County that we have Patriot Democrats
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  is because of the heavy Democrat leaning in our county,
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  and that's forced them to be more involved in the Democrat Party.
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:33.000]  But let me tell you, we're going to have Patriots on both sides,
[01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:37.000]  and it's going to be in 2012.
[01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  I think, Lord willing, that we're going to be able to proffer
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  our own presidential candidate, totally decompartmentalized on every issue.
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:50.000]  9-11 truth is going to spill out, you name it.
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  That would be the best.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  All of it is going to spill out, and can you imagine the mainstream media blackout
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  and or slash conniption fit they will throw when that RNC convention in 2012
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  produces a Ron Paul or Alex Jones type candidate?
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:11.000]  It sure would be nice.
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:12.000]  Well, let's see.
[01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:13.000]  Go ahead.
[01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:16.000]  We can achieve that, and I know that we can do it.
[01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  The question is, is can we just get the numbers of people to show up in those primaries,
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  go to your primaries and vote, get involved in your precinct conventions,
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  and we can dominate precinct conventions.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  We've shown that already, and the bigger we get, the easier it is to do.
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  And then ultimately, when we go to the next RNC, wherever that happens to occur in 2012,
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:41.000]  we can be all patriots and 9-11 truthers up there,
[01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  and via the rules that we will control, we can vote for our own presidential candidate at that time.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:50.000]  Sounds like a dream come true.
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  Let's see what Dan from Connecticut has to say about it, Dan Real.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  He ran for Congress last year.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  Dan, thanks for calling in.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  Hey, I'm actually running again this year, too.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:01.000]  Awesome.
[01:41:01.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  This is Dan Real.
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  Are you running as a, representing the Libertarian Party this year?
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  That I am again.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  Connecticut, I know there are a lot of states you actually can take over the Republican Party,
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  but Connecticut is a different situation,
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  and I'm going to throw in a Peter Schiff plug because he's going to need help in this regard.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  The primaries in a lot of states really are rigged to game,
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:27.000]  Connecticut especially, and I will explain as follows.
[01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:34.000]  The delegates, we can't get rid of any of them until like 2010, like end of the year earlier.
[01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  That's too bad.
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  Yeah, well, anyway, in order to get on the ballot as a Republican in Connecticut,
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  you need 15 percent of the delegates at the convention to okay you,
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:46.000]  and they can't okay anybody else, any other candidate.
[01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:52.000]  Unfortunately, all the delegates in the Republican GOP are, you know, Rob Simmons, rah-rah,
[01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  Rob the Waterboard Simmons.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  So the only way to get Peter on the ballot is to petition to get him on the ballot.
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  That requires the signatures of 2 percent of all registered Republicans in Connecticut.
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  Here's the catch.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  There are, oh, that comes out to some 8,500 and change,
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:18.000]  but you're going to need to actually get 4 or 5 percent of all Republican registered voters to sign
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:21.000]  because signatures do get tossed arbitrarily.
[01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  Now it gets even worse.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:29.000]  You can't start petitioning until 105 days before the primary, but it gets even worse than that.
[01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  The deadline is 63 days before the primary, so you have 42 days to get 20,000 signatures in Connecticut,
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  which is notorious for, you know, low validation rates.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  I'm actually trying to put something together to, against all odds, really throw this over,
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  but in either case, the unaffiliated block of voters is really growing in a lot of places,
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:43:00.000]  especially the Northeast and, you know, the West Coast,
[01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  but essentially what's going to happen if they, you know, do push for Rob Simmons and people like that
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  is there's no longer going to be a Republican party.
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:13.000]  Basically, they'll be busted down to petitioning status.
[01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:18.000]  So essentially, in places like Connecticut, now again, Texas is different, you know,
[01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  that is different, but in places like Connecticut, there is such a loss of credibility
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  that they're going to lose their ballot access.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  And on top of that, let's just say we take it over in places like Connecticut,
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  you basically have bad brand recognition and not hear the music.
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  Yeah, yeah, just hang on the line, Dan, and we'll let you finish on the other side.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  Okay.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  All right, we've got one segment left.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, a very special guest, Richard Reeves,
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  and we've got Dan Reel from Connecticut on the line.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:14.000]  Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:18.000]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[01:44:18.000 --> 01:44:22.000]  You have a choice to keep your body clean.
[01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:31.000]  Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:40.000]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:44.000]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins.
[01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:49.000]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:49.000 --> 01:45:08.000]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:22.000]  Hello. Oh man, she in jail. She got busted. Oh man, I'm broke.
[01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:26.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand.
[01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:30.000]  Some things I realize fully.
[01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:41.000]  Okay, we are back. We're speaking with Dan Reel in Connecticut and also our special guest, Richard Reeves.
[01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  Okay, so the parties lost, Dan, the parties lost so much credibility up there.
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  They almost broke down the petition status. They almost are about to lose their ballot access.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  So please continue where you were headed before we went to the break.
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:03.000]  Well, essentially to take over the Republican Party in Connecticut, it would take you a total of four years.
[01:46:03.000 --> 01:46:06.000]  That is assuming they rolled the red carpet out for you.
[01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:11.000]  Now, I mean, don't get me wrong, I really like the intent behind doing this,
[01:46:11.000 --> 01:46:18.000]  but unfortunately people are going into this and they're not realizing that this is a private organization.
[01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:19.000]  This is not, you know.
[01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Well, now you're just talking about Connecticut. Let's keep that in mind. Connecticut is one state out of 50.
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:26.000]  You're just talking about Connecticut.
[01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:28.000]  Yes, we are talking about Connecticut.
[01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:29.000]  One state.
[01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  But even that said, we're dealing with a private organization.
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  I mean, it's a lot harder to use grand jury complaints if push comes to shove, you know, since it's essentially a private clubhouse.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  But I'm hoping, you know, and what I'm trying to do by bringing this up is I'm hoping to just raise different issues
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:55.000]  and hopefully people can go ahead and, you know, take that and factor that into what they want to do.
[01:46:55.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  You know, because the bottom line is we've got a job to do.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  However we do it is however we do it.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:04.000]  And ideally I'm hoping we get there sooner rather than later.
[01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  But the bottom line is, you know, Peter Schiff is a good candidate.
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  I think he's the only opportunity that Connecticut GOP has left.
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:15.000]  But the delegates are an issue.
[01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:23.000]  So the only way we're going to get this done is by brute force and the mother of all ballot drives, to put it bluntly.
[01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  Well, I'm sure that the Ron Pollard's already exists in Connecticut to get the job done.
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:28.000]  Let me ask you this.
[01:47:28.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  Who, if the Republican Party of Connecticut, which is just one state out of 50, loses ballot access, who gets ballot access?
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:39.000]  They just basically lose ballot access.
[01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:43.000]  That's going to open it up, believe it or not, for the libertarians.
[01:47:43.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  You know, so there's going to be a vacuum created.
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:48.000]  That's great.
[01:47:48.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  Then all that needs to happen then is the patriots go into the Libertarian Party.
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:53.000]  And that's great.
[01:47:53.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  And then you would rule that one side of the ballot, and then all that would be left to overcome would be the Democrat side of the ballot, which we can do both as well.
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  And the Democrats are only 30 percent of all registered voters.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  But conversely, 42 percent of all voters have no party in Connecticut.
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:13.000]  And the Democrats are losing people too.
[01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  So if you're going to be a state where it really becomes open, it's going to be Connecticut in a matter of four or six years.
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  Well, you know, that's really kind of encouraging.
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  And the thing of it is that we still have folks getting hung up on the label issue.
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:33.000]  I know there's libertarians that if you ask them to be in the Republican Party that hold their nose and thumb their nose up,
[01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  and you have the same thing about Democrats switching to Republican or Republicans switching to Democrats, frankly, the only reason I say right now the Republican Party is because it's the most vulnerable.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:54.000]  And you just echo basically what I'm saying is it's so weak, it makes it the easiest party for us to come in and take over and start proffering candidates.
[01:48:54.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  And even in Connecticut, I would still be very surprised to see it go away because they would have to come up with some other establishment party
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  to try to divert, and you just got through saying that 42 percent up there are basically kind of unaffiliated, and that is us.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  That 42 percent, those are the patriots right there.
[01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:16.000]  So they're big enough right there to run both parties.
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  If they divided evenly and jumped into two parties right now, then they would run those parties.
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  Yes, and I'm really astounded to hear that in any state, 42 percent of the voters are so conscious of what they are that they refuse to align themselves with any rah-rah group.
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  I think that level of independence is incredibly encouraging.
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  Yes, the thing about Connecticut is we've just been taxed so far beyond the hill, and we've been losing jobs and populations since 1989.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:57.000]  But I just want to give two concluding thoughts here on this.
[01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  One, let's just say, and this is a problem I'm posing because I hope someone comes up with a solution to it, let's just say we take over either establishment party.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  We have to understand that these parties exist because there are special interest groups funding them all the way to the moon.
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  But once we take them over, there is no longer a purpose for these special interests to fund them all the way to the moon.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:24.000]  A lot of the funding will dry up.
[01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  Yes, so the funding is gone, the ballot access will probably be gone, and with it will go the media coverage.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  So effectively, that's why I decided to work within the Libertarian Party.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  I mean, I personally, you know, party labels aren't my thing, but I'm just kind of recognizing if I do go do that, I have to anticipate that eventuality.
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:52.000]  Well, I don't recall Bob Barr getting a whole lot of media coverage, so I don't know about that.
[01:50:52.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  But the thing is we do know the mainstream press, and that's why I talked about the mainstream press earlier, is their credibility is going down, down, down.
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:09.000]  They're getting damaged, and ultimately, the way we win is we win with candidates with little or no money and with alternative media coverage.
[01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:10.000]  That's how we beat them.
[01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  Yeah, but the thing about Barr is he truly ran an awful campaign.
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  I'll be the first to say it, as a Libertarian candidate, and Connecticut was so disgusted with him that, you know, they basically didn't participate in his ballot drive.
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  You know, they just said, no way.
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:28.000]  This guy is, you know, ruining the party.
[01:51:28.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  You know, he's slamming Ron Paul.
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  He's doing a whole bunch of awful things.
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  Well, he was a globalist minion.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:42.000]  Yeah, I mean, I guess that's the good thing about my party is when push comes to shove, we actually will police our own.
[01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  Well, that's good, and see, that's what's happening.
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:58.000]  That's just like we were talking about the Travis County Republican Party earlier, and one of the amendments they tried to push through the party recently was a personal behavior type,
[01:51:58.000 --> 01:52:14.000]  code of conduct type amendment where basically we were all supposed to fall in lockstep and support any candidate, the Republican Party of Travis County and or the state of Texas proffered up, which we just sat there and howled at that saying, no way.
[01:52:14.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  And so ultimately that amendment failed.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  There was a lot of consternation over it, but we were big enough and bad enough to get it moved off and put off the agenda, and it's not coming up again because we're already putting them on notice
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  that we're not going to sit here and lockstep with anybody they proffer if they're not a good, conservative, constitutional-loving candidate.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  Yeah, that's why I didn't make it to state because they wanted me to tell them that I would vote for whoever the Republican nominee was no matter what, and I wouldn't tell them that because I wouldn't do that.
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:53:05.000]  And the whole way that the rules are designed in the state of Texas for the Republican Party, the Texas Republican Party, is that your precinct is punished if you don't get a lot of support for the incumbent gubernatorial candidates.
[01:53:05.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  All right, if you don't support the incumbent governor, then what happens is if your precinct doesn't have a lot of votes for the incumbent governor, then the next year when it's time to choose delegates
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:31.000]  and how many delegates are going to represent each precinct, you get punished, and that's why there was only one delegate allowed to represent my precinct because everyone voted Democrat.
[01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:39.000]  Everyone voted against Rick Perry because there was no choice. Rick Perry is a schmuck, and I wasn't going to support him, and neither was anyone else in my precinct.
[01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  And so the Republican Party punished us and only let us have one delegate, and that's just got to go.
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  And so, Richard, I'm glad that you guys were able to shoot down some of that nonsense.
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  The future of the Republican Party right now in Travis County is, hey, we're only going to support good candidates.
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:54:00.000]  If they just slap an R beside their name, that's not enough vetting.
[01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:07.000]  Yes, and I have one objection to what you just said. You called Rick Perry a schmuck.
[01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  Whatever.
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:10.000]  That's degrading to schmucks.
[01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  No, he's a schmickle.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  A schmickle?
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:13.000]  A schmickle is a little schmuck.
[01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  Well, sorry, I didn't mean to degrade any schmucks out there, but, man, that guy, he's on my blacklist, that's for sure.
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  He doesn't rise to the level of schmuck. He's just a schmickle.
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:30.000]  Okay. Well, so, Dan, do you have any other points you'd like to make?
[01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  Yes. One thing that I did find at the Tea Parties when I did start getting involved with that is a lot of Republicans really do identify themselves as libertarians.
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  And a lot of them were saying, you know, I'm disgusted with my party and I'm out. I'm either Democrat or, you know, unaffiliated or, you know, something else.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:55:08.000]  So the problem that they're having in states like Connecticut is, you know, we have half their voter base and basically it's just a matter of time before, you know, we just push in the right way and half their voters are gone, which is scary.
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:17.000]  Well, like I said, if that 42% just jumped in and let's say in theory they evenly distributed amongst the parties, then Connecticut would be a done deal.
[01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  It would be a patriot state.
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  Oh, but it's even better than that.
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  I'm talking about the 20% that are Republicans.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:24.000]  Oh, wow.
[01:55:24.000 --> 01:55:34.000]  Yeah. So, I mean, that's, believe it or not, why they've been trying. I mean, I was asked to drop out, you know, by the Republicans. They flat out asked me to not run.
[01:55:34.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  Why?
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:40.000]  Because they take away too many votes.
[01:55:40.000 --> 01:55:42.000]  Well, too bad.
[01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  Yeah, that's like, you know, and I know the same thing. Can you please not join the race because you'll probably win?
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  You'll beat me, so don't run. Give me a break. That's pretty pathetic.
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:56:01.000]  It wasn't even that. It was like, you know, you'll take away too many votes, so I won't win. It's like, wah.
[01:56:01.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  I know, wah.
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Do you want a wah burger and cries with that?
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  A wah burger and cries. Yeah, really.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it.
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  Oh, boy.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:16.000]  Fun stuff.
[01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:19.000]  Well, thank you, Dan. We appreciate you calling in.
[01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  Oh, not a problem. Pleasure's all mine.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  I'm surprised they would have the chutzpah to even bring such an issue to you.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  That's kind of like hanging a kick-me sign on my back.
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous, really.
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:37.000]  I basically, you know, the guy that would be running against me, he said all the right things. I'm like, well, leave the party.
[01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  You could win as an independent if you're saying all this.
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  Well, isn't that the state that Lieberman came out of as an independent?
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  Yeah, Lieberskump, Connecticut.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  Okay, so, you know, it makes me wonder, though.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:53.000]  I mean, the black box voting was obviously an issue because independents hardly ever win.
[01:56:53.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  Yeah.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  And Lieberman came out of there with a victory after he dropped out of the Democrat party.
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  So that was pretty interesting what's going on. And Connecticut, you know, who knows?
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  It's a different state than Texas. I think it's just one of 50 and a small state at that.
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  I think in 2012, you're still going to see the Democrats proper up their presidential candidate.
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  You're still going to see the Republican Party proper up their presidential candidate.
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  And the press is just going to have to go into blackout mode or howl and demonize
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  because I think in the Republican Party, we're going to have a patriot candidate.
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:27.000]  We're certainly going to try.
[01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  I almost forgot.
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:32.000]  Lieberman doesn't even belong to the Connecticut for Lieberman party,
[01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  and the Connecticut for Lieberman party chair is running against him for Senate.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:39.000]  I figured I'd throw that in.
[01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  That's pretty crazy.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  All right, well, listen.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  Lieberman is definitely a minion of the New World Order,
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  so he'll probably end up winning unless somehow his challenger is a bigger globalist than he is.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  Wow, that's a tall order.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  I know.
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  All right, well, listen, we're coming up to the end of the show.
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  We only have about 60 seconds left.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  Thank you so much for calling in, Dan.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:00.000]  We really appreciate it.
[01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  All right.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  Take it easy, guys.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  Okay.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  All right.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  Richard, any closing thoughts for us?
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:07.000]  Absolutely.
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  Deborah and Randy, thank you so much for having me on.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  And folks, get in your precinct.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  It doesn't matter what label you put on.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:17.000]  Wake up all your neighbors in your precinct, especially primary voters
[01:58:17.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  and Democrat and Republican races.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  Let's get them all become patriots.
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  All right.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  Take over the political parties.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  That's what Richard Reeves says.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  Get around black box voting.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  Let's put our candidates on the ballot.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Let's knock these other candidates out before they even get on the ballot.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  It's a very interesting idea.
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  All right, Richard, thank you so much for joining us.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  Thank you, guys.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:40.000]  All right.
[01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  Tomorrow night, we've got Jeff Sedgwick to come on from Your Remedy is in the Law.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  So stay tuned for that, and we'll be taking your calls tomorrow night.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:53.000]  Right now, stay tuned for Endless Fraud Detection, Steve Skidmore and Neil Switkowski,
[01:58:53.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  and Learn How to Combat Financial Fraud, Banking Fraud, Credit Card Fraud, Mortgage Fraud.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:58:59.000]  These guys are great.
[01:58:59.000 --> 01:59:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  Hello, Austin.
[01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  My name is Harlan Deidre, owner of Brave New Books,
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:05.000]  a local independent bookstore here in town.
[01:59:05.000 --> 01:59:09.000]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[01:59:09.000 --> 01:59:13.000]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars,
[01:59:13.000 --> 01:59:18.000]  Justin Albert, Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement.
[01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:21.000]  But now, Brave New Books needs your help.
[01:59:21.000 --> 01:59:26.000]  In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet for hard-to-find materials,
[01:59:26.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  we're going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word about the bookstore.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:34.000]  Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer.
[01:59:34.000 --> 01:59:38.000]  We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists.
[01:59:38.000 --> 01:59:42.000]  Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support.
[01:59:42.000 --> 01:59:46.000]  It's so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message.
[01:59:46.000 --> 01:59:48.000]  Remember, you vote with your dollars.
[01:59:48.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  We're counting on you, Austin.
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:57.000]  If you need any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:59:57.000 --> 02:00:12.000]  Thank you, everyone.