[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.000 --> 00:13.000]  Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega claims the US has taken advantage of the massive quake in Haiti to deploy troops there.
[00:13.000 --> 00:19.000]  The Pentagon says it has deployed more than 10,000 soldiers in Haiti to help earthquake victims.
[00:19.000 --> 00:26.000]  Ortega said, there is no logic that US troops landed in Haiti. Haiti seeks humanitarian aid, not troops.
[00:26.000 --> 00:32.000]  Saudi fighter jet Sunday launched multiple air strikes on Houthi positions in northern Yemen
[00:32.000 --> 00:39.000]  in a conflict between Sana'a and Houthi fighters that began in 2004 and intensified last August.
[00:39.000 --> 00:45.000]  The Houthis accused the Yemeni government of marginalizing them politically, economically and religiously.
[00:45.000 --> 00:52.000]  The Republican State Senator vying to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Senator Ted Kennedy
[00:52.000 --> 00:58.000]  said he doesn't believe waterboarding where a suspect is effectively temporarily drowned is torture.
[00:58.000 --> 01:04.000]  State Senator Scott Brown says the US should continue to employ waterboarding against terrorist suspects,
[01:04.000 --> 01:12.000]  a technique considered torture for which the US executed Japanese soldiers during World War II.
[01:12.000 --> 01:20.000]  The FBI has admitted it used a photo of a bearded Spanish politician as the basis for a mocked-up photo-fit image
[01:20.000 --> 01:25.000]  showing how Osama bin Laden might look without a turban and long beard.
[01:25.000 --> 01:28.000]  The State Department was forced to withdraw the mocked-up image.
[01:28.000 --> 01:33.000]  After the discovery, it was not as technically sophisticated as the FBI claimed.
[01:33.000 --> 01:39.000]  The image was released in a renewed effort to locate bin Laden more than eight years after 9-11.
[01:39.000 --> 01:47.000]  But it created a stir in Madrid when a Spanish MP recognized strong elements of himself in the image and complained to the US.
[01:47.000 --> 01:53.000]  Gaspar Yamasaris, former leader of the United Left Coalition, said his forehead, hair and jawline
[01:53.000 --> 01:57.000]  had been cut and pasted from an old campaign photo.
[01:57.000 --> 02:01.000]  Yamasaris said the mistakes show the low level of US intelligence services,
[02:01.000 --> 02:09.000]  adding that bin Laden's safety is not threatened by this, but mine certainly is.
[02:09.000 --> 02:17.000]  The Wayne Madsen website reports Zee Services, formerly Blackwater, has been carrying out false flag terrorist attacks.
[02:17.000 --> 02:25.000]  Madsen says such attacks in Afghanistan, Somalia, the Xianqing region of China, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq
[02:25.000 --> 02:32.000]  were sometimes carried out with the help of Israel's Mossad spy service and India's research and analysis wing.
[02:32.000 --> 02:39.000]  Madsen says fingers are being pointed at Blackwater, Zee and Mossad for the motorbike bomb in Tehran
[02:39.000 --> 02:44.000]  that killed Tehran University nuclear physicist Dr. Musadd Ali Mohammadi.
[02:44.000 --> 02:50.000]  The bomb was remotely triggered by a team linked to a US-based group called the Iran Monarchy Association,
[02:50.000 --> 03:03.000]  believed to be a CIA front.
[03:20.000 --> 03:37.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:37.000 --> 03:53.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:53.000 --> 03:59.000]  When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rules.
[03:59.000 --> 04:04.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get hot, then you must get cool.
[04:04.000 --> 04:10.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:10.000 --> 04:16.000]  All right, bad boys, bad boys, what are you gonna do when we come for you?
[04:16.000 --> 04:22.000]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, we're coming for you.
[04:22.000 --> 04:29.000]  Randy's going for the judges. Eddie's going for the prosecutors.
[04:29.000 --> 04:36.000]  I'm going for the FCC. John Bush and Katherine Bleich are going for the fusion centers.
[04:36.000 --> 04:42.000]  Folks, if you haven't heard John and Katherine's show, you gotta hear the archives.
[04:42.000 --> 04:48.000]  These two are dynamo. They are unbelievable. This morning's program was fantastic.
[04:48.000 --> 04:53.000]  They had a great debate about some things that Ron Paul's recently been doing,
[04:53.000 --> 05:00.000]  supporting Lamar Smith, the incumbent, entrenched fat cat, because he said,
[05:00.000 --> 05:04.000]  he told John Bush to his face, well, I'm not gonna tell you.
[05:04.000 --> 05:06.000]  You're gonna have to download the archive and listen to it.
[05:06.000 --> 05:09.000]  But anyway, you gotta hear the archive from this morning. It was fantastic.
[05:09.000 --> 05:16.000]  But other than that, we've got Eddie tonight. Monday night is traffic night.
[05:16.000 --> 05:21.000]  Monday night is Eddie's night, and he's gonna talk about going after the prosecutor.
[05:21.000 --> 05:24.000]  All right, Eddie, what do you got for us?
[05:24.000 --> 05:30.000]  Okay, if y'all remember, last Monday we talked about cross-examining the officer on the stand
[05:30.000 --> 05:35.000]  in regards to the driver's license and speeding tickets, okay?
[05:35.000 --> 05:38.000]  Well, tonight I've been studying some information this week,
[05:38.000 --> 05:42.000]  and I've talked to a couple of people today about some things,
[05:42.000 --> 05:45.000]  and it's put a new idea in my head that I would like to share with you folks.
[05:45.000 --> 05:49.000]  And so far I haven't found why it should not work.
[05:49.000 --> 05:52.000]  Now, the things that I've studied and I've told everybody,
[05:52.000 --> 05:59.000]  and the law backs me up on this, is that the state constitution in Article 1,
[05:59.000 --> 06:04.000]  or I'm sorry, Article 5, Section 12, Judicial Branch of Government,
[06:04.000 --> 06:09.000]  specifically states that the presentment of an indictment or information to a court
[06:09.000 --> 06:12.000]  invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause.
[06:12.000 --> 06:20.000]  So the complaint alone on its face is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
[06:20.000 --> 06:27.000]  The prosecutor must file an information with any criminal complaint in a misdemeanor case
[06:27.000 --> 06:31.000]  in order for the court to get jurisdiction.
[06:31.000 --> 06:39.000]  Now, that being said, this goes back to what we've talked about on the steps you take immediately before trial,
[06:39.000 --> 06:44.000]  and that is, at some point before trial, several days before trial,
[06:44.000 --> 06:50.000]  go down and get copies of everything in your court record.
[06:50.000 --> 06:56.000]  At the very minimum, review everything in your court record.
[06:56.000 --> 07:02.000]  The three things that must exist in that court record outside of anything else,
[07:02.000 --> 07:10.000]  a copy of the citation, a signed and verified complaint that must be signed by somebody.
[07:10.000 --> 07:17.000]  Now, the problem with the somebody, if it is not the officer that issued the citation,
[07:17.000 --> 07:20.000]  the complaint itself is hearsay.
[07:20.000 --> 07:22.000]  It is not admissible in court.
[07:22.000 --> 07:27.000]  That complaint cannot invoke jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of going to trial,
[07:27.000 --> 07:33.000]  only for the purpose of the examining trial and the issuing of the warrant based upon that.
[07:33.000 --> 07:39.000]  Otherwise, when they actually go to the merits of the case, that complaint is worthless.
[07:39.000 --> 07:44.000]  The officer who issued the citation at this point has never signed the complaint.
[07:44.000 --> 07:46.000]  The ticket is not the complaint.
[07:46.000 --> 07:47.000]  It cannot be the complaint.
[07:47.000 --> 07:50.000]  It cannot be an affidavit in support of the complaint
[07:50.000 --> 07:55.000]  because it was never signed by the officer in the presence of someone capable of administering an oath.
[07:55.000 --> 07:59.000]  So it will not serve as an affidavit.
[07:59.000 --> 08:04.000]  Now, given that, we lack a valid complaint in the form of the citation.
[08:04.000 --> 08:08.000]  If the officer did not sign the complaint in the file the court clerk did,
[08:08.000 --> 08:12.000]  the complaint is insufficient upon its face to invoke the jurisdiction of the court
[08:12.000 --> 08:15.000]  for the purpose of going to trial.
[08:15.000 --> 08:18.000]  So you're not going to allow the cop to be called.
[08:18.000 --> 08:22.000]  The cop can't be anything more than a witness to the complainant.
[08:22.000 --> 08:24.000]  So the complaint has to be brought up first.
[08:24.000 --> 08:27.000]  So if they try to bring in the cop, object.
[08:27.000 --> 08:29.000]  The cop did not sign the complaint.
[08:29.000 --> 08:31.000]  The clerk signed the complaint.
[08:31.000 --> 08:35.000]  Therefore, the clerk better be the witness on the stand.
[08:35.000 --> 08:41.000]  The problem is that the clerk has no firsthand knowledge of the information contained in the complaint.
[08:41.000 --> 08:46.000]  Therefore, any testimony the clerk could give is hearsay.
[08:46.000 --> 08:51.000]  So there's immediately a problem with this documentation.
[08:51.000 --> 08:57.000]  The third piece has to be the information signed by the prosecuting attorney.
[08:57.000 --> 09:05.000]  2.05 says exactly the same thing with one little hiccup that is in conflict with the state Constitution.
[09:05.000 --> 09:07.000]  And that can be argued on that point.
[09:07.000 --> 09:21.000]  2.05 says that in any county without a criminal or a criminal district attorney or a district attorney that they can proceed on complaint alone to try the case.
[09:21.000 --> 09:25.000]  Unfortunately, that conflicts with what the state Constitution says.
[09:25.000 --> 09:32.000]  The state Constitution says there's only two things that grant jurisdiction to the court, an indictment or an information and nothing else.
[09:32.000 --> 09:36.000]  It does not make an exception.
[09:36.000 --> 09:41.000]  Be that as it may, this is how I'd recommend proceeding at this point.
[09:41.000 --> 09:56.000]  Do not say anything other than when you first get to court, hopefully several days before trial, you have gone and reviewed your court record to verify that there is no valid complaint and or no valid information.
[09:56.000 --> 10:09.000]  When the day of your trial, immediately before you go to court and it's called into session, you go to the prosecuting attorney and say I would like to take a last-minute review of the file, please.
[10:09.000 --> 10:18.000]  You get the file, you go through it one more time and you verify there is still no valid complaint and or information.
[10:18.000 --> 10:27.000]  That's fine. You verified the information's not in there, you verified the complaint's still not signed by the officer, blah, blah, blah, whatever.
[10:27.000 --> 10:32.000]  So, you say all right, thank you very much, take your place and you wait.
[10:32.000 --> 10:46.000]  At the point where the judge does everything the judge is going to do and the judge says is the state ready to proceed to trial, prosecution is going to say yes, Your Honor, the state is ready to proceed.
[10:46.000 --> 10:49.000]  Judge is then going to say is the defense ready?
[10:49.000 --> 10:53.000]  This is where you get to play your cards.
[10:53.000 --> 11:04.000]  Stand up, Judge, I would like to take a moment and clarify that the state is indeed ready to prosecute this case and look at the prosecutor and say is that correct?
[11:04.000 --> 11:06.000]  The prosecutor is going to say it is correct.
[11:06.000 --> 11:09.000]  Yes, we are ready to prosecute this case.
[11:09.000 --> 11:16.000]  At that point you say Judge, I move the court for a dismissal of all charges with prejudice on the following grounds.
[11:16.000 --> 11:26.000]  One, I checked the court record just moments prior to the court being called to order and there is no valid complaint and or information in the court file.
[11:26.000 --> 11:39.000]  Number two, pursuant Texas Constitution Article 5 Section 12 and Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.05, and information is required to be filed in all criminal cases.
[11:39.000 --> 11:45.000]  And only through an indictment or information does this court have jurisdiction to proceed.
[11:45.000 --> 12:01.000]  Point number three, the prosecution is perpetrating fraud upon the court by certifying that they are ready for trial when in fact the court has no jurisdiction to proceed without a valid complaint and accompanying information.
[12:01.000 --> 12:12.000]  Therefore, I restate my objections and I demand a dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute by the state.
[12:12.000 --> 12:15.000]  And sit down.
[12:15.000 --> 12:18.000]  They have a severe problem.
[12:18.000 --> 12:23.000]  The prosecutor has just hung himself from a very high tree.
[12:23.000 --> 12:35.000]  He has lied to the court that he is ready to go to trial and that the court has proper jurisdiction to proceed to trial.
[12:35.000 --> 12:45.000]  And he just cannot do so in this instance, okay, because no information and or no valid complaint exists in the court file.
[12:45.000 --> 12:49.000]  So the prosecution has lied in open court.
[12:49.000 --> 12:56.000]  He has committed aggravated perjury, in my opinion, even though there's nothing signed.
[12:56.000 --> 13:02.000]  He has made a certification in court that he's ready to do something he knows damn well he's not ready to do.
[13:02.000 --> 13:05.000]  And that's a problem.
[13:05.000 --> 13:14.000]  So at this point, this is where your court watchers and witnesses are going to come in really handy, okay?
[13:14.000 --> 13:26.000]  Now, the reason this came to mind to me today was because I was reviewing some documentation taken from this lady's case where this judge has basically railroaded her through court.
[13:26.000 --> 13:40.000]  He has done what they do in every case, which is refuse to read the pleadings, denied the pleadings out of hand, move forward in her case with absolutely no valid complaint
[13:40.000 --> 13:50.000]  because in her case, every single complaint was signed by the clerk of the court, never by the accusing officer, never.
[13:50.000 --> 13:56.000]  In no instance was an information in the file accompanying the complaint.
[13:56.000 --> 14:05.000]  Therefore, at no point past the initial examining trial has the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
[14:05.000 --> 14:08.000]  That got me to thinking about all this.
[14:08.000 --> 14:19.000]  If the court is without jurisdiction because the prosecution has failed to do their job and then the prosecution has lied about it in open court,
[14:19.000 --> 14:24.000]  now you get to press criminal charges against the prosecutor himself.
[14:24.000 --> 14:33.000]  But one of the first ones you should do is I also move the court to hold the prosecution in contempt of court
[14:33.000 --> 14:42.000]  because they attempted knowingly and willingly to perpetrate a fraud upon the court and to deny the defendant their due process rights.
[14:42.000 --> 14:44.000]  Boy, I'd love to see that.
[14:44.000 --> 14:46.000]  The judge hold the prosecutor in contempt.
[14:46.000 --> 14:48.000]  That would be awesome.
[14:48.000 --> 14:50.000]  Yes, it would.
[14:50.000 --> 14:56.000]  But I have thought about this all day long, gone over it ten different ways.
[14:56.000 --> 15:01.000]  And so what I'm looking at is I don't see a hole in this argument.
[15:01.000 --> 15:05.000]  Now, this is not some of the stuff that Randy and I addressed directly today.
[15:05.000 --> 15:09.000]  We did discuss a couple of other things which I'll get to in the next segment.
[15:09.000 --> 15:16.000]  But Randy, if you've got any comments on this approach, I would love to hear them.
[15:16.000 --> 15:19.000]  Not yet.
[15:19.000 --> 15:31.000]  I like the approach, and it follows my philosophy that the best defense is a good effective offense.
[15:31.000 --> 15:34.000]  That's pretty dang defensive, you've got to admit.
[15:34.000 --> 15:43.000]  Well, going after the prosecutor immediately, we need to do something to get their attention.
[15:43.000 --> 15:47.000]  And that's one way of doing it.
[15:47.000 --> 15:52.000]  But after we get done with the next segment, Randy and I have a couple things to discuss then.
[15:52.000 --> 15:55.000]  But after that, we'll be taking calls.
[15:55.000 --> 16:02.000]  So if you do have any questions or comments over what we're talking about here, please feel free to start calling in then,
[16:02.000 --> 16:05.000]  and we'll get to you just as quick as possible.
[16:05.000 --> 16:11.000]  But after everything I've gone through in looking at this information today and researching the other things that I've done,
[16:11.000 --> 16:19.000]  this is starting to look like an extremely good way of showing the prosecutor up for the liar that they are,
[16:19.000 --> 16:22.000]  and the lack of jurisdiction by the court.
[16:22.000 --> 16:24.000]  Because guess what?
[16:24.000 --> 16:30.000]  At this point, a jury is already sitting in the jury box.
[16:30.000 --> 16:34.000]  Because by the time you get to this point, unless you've requested a bench trial,
[16:34.000 --> 16:43.000]  you've already gone through jury voir dire in selection, and then they're in the box. They're listening to this.
[16:43.000 --> 16:47.000]  All right, we'll be right back.
[16:47.000 --> 16:51.000]  Callers calling in, 512-646-1984.
[16:51.000 --> 17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[17:04.000 --> 17:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[17:08.000 --> 17:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[17:13.000 --> 17:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[17:19.000 --> 17:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[17:25.000 --> 17:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[17:30.000 --> 17:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports-zombieism recover.
[17:36.000 --> 17:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[17:43.000 --> 17:50.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[17:50.000 --> 17:54.000]  or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[17:54.000 --> 18:00.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[18:25.000 --> 18:29.000]  Oh, he asked the questions and they don't have the answers.
[18:29.000 --> 18:35.000]  Again, again, their oaths are not abiding.
[18:35.000 --> 18:41.000]  All right, we are back with Eddie Craig here on Monday night, traffic night here on Rule of Law Radio.
[18:41.000 --> 18:44.000]  And I have a question, Eddie.
[18:44.000 --> 18:52.000]  Not so much quite on a point of law, but something just to consider maybe an overall strategy.
[18:52.000 --> 18:59.000]  I'm wondering, you know, when this is all presented to a jury over a traffic ticket,
[18:59.000 --> 19:06.000]  like is the jury really going to have that much sympathy for us and like that we've put them through all this trouble
[19:06.000 --> 19:13.000]  and they're missing work and everything else and all the trouble and commotion to go sit on a jury for a traffic ticket?
[19:13.000 --> 19:21.000]  Are these arguments, do you think it's just going to go in one ear and out the other of a jury, you know,
[19:21.000 --> 19:28.000]  and that they may not even listen to these arguments and even though you're showing them up so clearly that the prosecutor's being a liar?
[19:28.000 --> 19:35.000]  I mean, I'm just saying, do you think that there will be a hard time getting through to them psychologically
[19:35.000 --> 19:38.000]  because it's just all of this is just over a traffic ticket?
[19:38.000 --> 19:43.000]  I mean, I'm hoping the answer will end up being no, but it's just something to consider.
[19:43.000 --> 19:46.000]  So what do you guys think about that?
[19:46.000 --> 19:51.000]  Well, in this particular instance, what we've just discussed is not a matter for the jury.
[19:51.000 --> 19:54.000]  It just happens to be within the earshot of the jury.
[19:54.000 --> 19:58.000]  See, these are questions of law that the court must handle.
[19:58.000 --> 20:00.000]  This has nothing to do with the jury.
[20:00.000 --> 20:02.000]  Ah, okay. Very good.
[20:02.000 --> 20:08.000]  This is a matter of procedure that has been violated by the court and the prosecution.
[20:08.000 --> 20:10.000]  The result being what?
[20:10.000 --> 20:12.000]  A violation of due process rights.
[20:12.000 --> 20:14.000]  No question of that.
[20:14.000 --> 20:16.000]  Okay.
[20:16.000 --> 20:19.000]  And you are showing in front of the jury the jig is up, guys.
[20:19.000 --> 20:25.000]  You violated law and you know it.
[20:25.000 --> 20:27.000]  So will the jury have sympathy?
[20:27.000 --> 20:32.000]  Yeah, as far as that goes, they may snicker over it if they see you going after the prosecutor.
[20:32.000 --> 20:34.000]  I don't know.
[20:34.000 --> 20:38.000]  But fortunately, that in particular is not a question they have to address.
[20:38.000 --> 20:41.000]  It's just good in my opinion that they're witnessing it.
[20:41.000 --> 20:46.000]  Good. That's kind of what I wanted to know is that would the jury really have to address that?
[20:46.000 --> 20:49.000]  Randy, what do you think about that?
[20:49.000 --> 20:52.000]  I like the idea of bringing them before the jury.
[20:52.000 --> 21:03.000]  But in the end, I believe that all this is about creating cannon fodder to use in a civil action against them.
[21:03.000 --> 21:08.000]  The only way we're really going to get them to change their behavior
[21:08.000 --> 21:12.000]  is once they're done doing their little song and dance,
[21:12.000 --> 21:21.000]  then we come after them big time and threaten their livelihood, their position.
[21:21.000 --> 21:27.000]  And so we use all of this to create more stuff to use against them elsewhere.
[21:27.000 --> 21:30.000]  That's exactly what I'm hoping to do.
[21:30.000 --> 21:33.000]  By having this brought out in front of the panel of jurors,
[21:33.000 --> 21:39.000]  you now have a minimum of six built-in witnesses that the court was made aware of their discrepancy
[21:39.000 --> 21:46.000]  and refused to correct it and proceeded to trial anyway.
[21:46.000 --> 21:54.000]  So you've got six built-in witnesses of exactly what occurred.
[21:54.000 --> 22:00.000]  And so that's the way I'm looking at it from that point.
[22:00.000 --> 22:08.000]  Well, I suspect once we've sued a couple of judges and really run them through the wringer,
[22:08.000 --> 22:15.000]  that the city's going to get together and say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[22:15.000 --> 22:19.000]  What can we do to keep from getting in this position again?
[22:19.000 --> 22:23.000]  Because up until now, it's just been free money for them.
[22:23.000 --> 22:27.000]  So we need to make it hot for them.
[22:27.000 --> 22:31.000]  Now, the other thing that Randy and I discussed today,
[22:31.000 --> 22:37.000]  I was looking over the Code of Criminal Procedure 2.04, 2.05, and 2.06,
[22:37.000 --> 22:43.000]  and I was attempting to make the argument that 2.06 was making it pretty clear, in my opinion,
[22:43.000 --> 22:49.000]  that the only people allowed to accept a criminal complaint
[22:49.000 --> 22:56.000]  and administer the oaths verifying that complaint was to be the county or district attorney.
[22:56.000 --> 22:59.000]  Well, Randy made the argument that no, it's not limiting to that
[22:59.000 --> 23:05.000]  and that it's possible that the police officers are able to do this.
[23:05.000 --> 23:08.000]  So with the argument not quite completely settled,
[23:08.000 --> 23:12.000]  we decided to check and find the duties and powers of officers in regards to doing this.
[23:12.000 --> 23:17.000]  So Randy referred us to Article 2.13, Code of Criminal Procedure.
[23:17.000 --> 23:19.000]  And I want to read that to you.
[23:19.000 --> 23:24.000]  Article 2.13, Code of Criminal Procedure, Duties and Powers.
[23:24.000 --> 23:31.000]  Subsection A, it is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction.
[23:31.000 --> 23:35.000]  To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.
[23:35.000 --> 23:43.000]  Subsection B, the officer shall, number one, in every case authorized by the provisions of this code,
[23:43.000 --> 23:47.000]  interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime.
[23:47.000 --> 23:54.000]  Number two, execute all lawful process issued to the officer by any magistrate or court.
[23:54.000 --> 24:02.000]  Number three, give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer's jurisdiction
[24:02.000 --> 24:08.000]  where the officer has good reason to believe that there has been a violation of the penal law.
[24:08.000 --> 24:15.000]  And number four, arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law
[24:15.000 --> 24:21.000]  in order that they may be taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried.
[24:21.000 --> 24:30.000]  Subsection C, it is the duty of every officer to take possession of a child under Article 63.009, Subsection G.
[24:30.000 --> 24:37.000]  Now, let's refer you back to Sub-Item B, item number three.
[24:37.000 --> 24:44.000]  Give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer's jurisdiction.
[24:44.000 --> 24:46.000]  Okay?
[24:46.000 --> 24:57.000]  And where the officer has good reason to believe that there has been a violation of the penal law.
[24:57.000 --> 25:08.000]  Transportation code is not the penal law, nor are any offenses committed under the transportation code other than DUI.
[25:08.000 --> 25:19.000]  So, where is the authority for the officer to file a complaint with a magistrate regarding a traffic offense
[25:19.000 --> 25:28.000]  since it is not in violation of the penal law, which is all the authors authorized to do here in 2.13.
[25:28.000 --> 25:30.000]  So, where is the authority coming from?
[25:30.000 --> 25:33.000]  Randy's argument is the same argument that I had.
[25:33.000 --> 25:43.000]  Because it's an administrative proceeding, the officer has no discretion or authority to do anything in an administrative proceeding,
[25:43.000 --> 25:50.000]  which is where the traffic court actually resides, is an administrative proceeding,
[25:50.000 --> 25:54.000]  because the transportation code offenses are not in the penal code.
[25:54.000 --> 26:02.000]  They're in an administrative regulatory code, not the penal code.
[26:02.000 --> 26:10.000]  Now, this leaves us with a whole slew of questions about how are they getting away with this.
[26:10.000 --> 26:14.000]  Well, they're getting away with it, one, because we don't read what the rules are that govern them,
[26:14.000 --> 26:18.000]  and two, they don't read the rules that govern them.
[26:18.000 --> 26:23.000]  They just tell us what the process is, and like good little sheep, all right, no problem.
[26:23.000 --> 26:25.000]  Shear me, and I'll get it over with.
[26:25.000 --> 26:28.000]  It's time to start waking up, people.
[26:28.000 --> 26:33.000]  We need to be aware of the rules, or we cannot make everybody else play by them.
[26:33.000 --> 26:35.000]  It's really that simple.
[26:35.000 --> 26:39.000]  You remember how when you used to play the board games with your brother or your sister,
[26:39.000 --> 26:43.000]  and you caught them cheating because they weren't going by the rules,
[26:43.000 --> 26:47.000]  and then you recalled that, oh, yeah, wait, I've never actually read the rules.
[26:47.000 --> 26:51.000]  I'm just saying they're cheating because I think that's the way it ought to be.
[26:51.000 --> 26:58.000]  Until everybody sits down and reads the rules, nobody's cheating because nobody's playing by the rules.
[26:58.000 --> 27:00.000]  Nobody knows what they are.
[27:00.000 --> 27:09.000]  So we've got to make sure that we know, because when we know, we can force them to know.
[27:09.000 --> 27:16.000]  So that's got to be our job first, learn their rules better than they know their rules.
[27:16.000 --> 27:22.000]  Tie them down with those rules and don't give them any wiggle room whatsoever.
[27:22.000 --> 27:23.000]  I agree.
[27:23.000 --> 27:28.000]  That's what I'm doing to the FCC right now.
[27:28.000 --> 27:33.000]  Because it is one of those things where it's just like, you know what?
[27:33.000 --> 27:37.000]  I can see where you're acting in complete and total violation of the law.
[27:37.000 --> 27:40.000]  You think I don't see it, but I do see it.
[27:40.000 --> 27:43.000]  And now I'm going to make it my duty to call you on it.
[27:43.000 --> 27:45.000]  And here it is.
[27:45.000 --> 27:48.000]  This is the argument I'm making against the prosecutor right here.
[27:48.000 --> 27:52.000]  The prosecutor has blatantly lied in open court.
[27:52.000 --> 27:56.000]  They are perpetrating a fraud upon the court.
[27:56.000 --> 28:02.000]  That is, hands down, a losing situation no matter what.
[28:02.000 --> 28:07.000]  And the more people that see it happen, the more people are going to understand it.
[28:07.000 --> 28:12.000]  And the more you've got backing you up that, yeah, that's exactly what happened.
[28:12.000 --> 28:17.000]  Now, as you know in these courts of no record, they will lie through their teeth all day long.
[28:17.000 --> 28:23.000]  We can probably go through the majority of cases in the municipal courts in Texas.
[28:23.000 --> 28:26.000]  You go pull every traffic case file.
[28:26.000 --> 28:30.000]  If you can find one that's got everything in it it's supposed to have,
[28:30.000 --> 28:35.000]  then that's probably the only valid conviction out there.
[28:35.000 --> 28:39.000]  But I guarantee you that if you look at it hard enough in accordance to the rules,
[28:39.000 --> 28:41.000]  something's missing.
[28:41.000 --> 28:45.000]  It's either missing because the procedure and the paperwork is incomplete
[28:45.000 --> 28:51.000]  or because the law was applied illegally to someone it didn't apply to to begin with.
[28:51.000 --> 28:58.000]  But I guarantee you, you will have the hardest time ever finding one that is absolutely dead-bang correct.
[28:58.000 --> 29:04.000]  There's probably not even one.
[29:04.000 --> 29:08.000]  So that's my argument, at least in that regard.
[29:08.000 --> 29:10.000]  I like it.
[29:10.000 --> 29:11.000]  Practice it.
[29:11.000 --> 29:12.000]  Get it down, Pat.
[29:12.000 --> 29:13.000]  I've even written it down.
[29:13.000 --> 29:16.000]  So if you want one, email me.
[29:16.000 --> 29:19.000]  But it's a very simple flow.
[29:19.000 --> 29:22.000]  That's Eddie's story and he's sticking to it.
[29:22.000 --> 29:23.000]  Yes.
[29:23.000 --> 29:25.000]  At least until it gets me shot.
[29:25.000 --> 29:30.000]  Well, it worked for him the last time and didn't even get him beat into unconsciousness.
[29:30.000 --> 29:31.000]  All right.
[29:31.000 --> 29:33.000]  Well, listen, we're going to break.
[29:33.000 --> 29:35.000]  And we do have a couple of callers on the line.
[29:35.000 --> 29:41.000]  We've got Marisa from Texas, and I believe Guy in Arkansas is calling in right now.
[29:41.000 --> 29:44.000]  So, guys, do you all want to go to the callers when we get back?
[29:44.000 --> 29:45.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[29:45.000 --> 29:46.000]  We'll go there when we get back.
[29:46.000 --> 29:49.000]  We'll go to Marisa as soon as we get back from this short break.
[29:49.000 --> 29:53.000]  This is the rule of law on Rule of Law Radio Network.
[29:53.000 --> 29:57.000]  Callers, please call in 512-646-1984.
[29:57.000 --> 30:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[30:05.000 --> 30:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[30:09.000 --> 30:15.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[30:15.000 --> 30:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[30:21.000 --> 30:26.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[30:26.000 --> 30:29.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[30:29.000 --> 30:34.000]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[30:34.000 --> 30:39.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[30:39.000 --> 30:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[30:41.000 --> 30:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner.
[30:47.000 --> 30:50.000]  Or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[30:50.000 --> 30:52.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com.
[30:52.000 --> 30:57.000]  Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[30:57.000 --> 31:00.000]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[31:28.000 --> 31:30.000]  For the 10th.
[31:30.000 --> 31:35.000]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me, prosecute them wicked leaders, you see.
[31:35.000 --> 31:38.000]  The mama heard a raw liar, them tell me.
[31:38.000 --> 31:40.000]  Them have liar not tell 6 stories.
[31:40.000 --> 31:42.000]  Me not believe me, say what them tell me.
[31:42.000 --> 31:45.000]  3% of American vote for Bush.
[31:45.000 --> 31:48.000]  So how the hell he get the presidency?
[31:48.000 --> 31:50.000]  That's why me have a warrant for him.
[31:50.000 --> 31:54.000]  Everybody listen carefully, listen to the words on the tissues,
[31:54.000 --> 31:59.000]  The citizens arrest for Mr. Bush.
[31:59.000 --> 32:04.000]  A warrant for Dick Cheney.
[32:04.000 --> 32:09.000]  The citizens arrest for Mr. Bush.
[32:09.000 --> 32:13.000]  A warrant for Dick Cheney.
[32:13.000 --> 32:16.000]  Well, we not forget mom's field, warrant for him.
[32:16.000 --> 32:19.000]  All Dick Cheney, warrant for him.
[32:19.000 --> 32:21.000]  Fight about the citizens in the country.
[32:21.000 --> 32:23.000]  Them getting so mad and them getting angry.
[32:23.000 --> 32:26.000]  We have some warrant we need to solve.
[32:26.000 --> 32:28.000]  Need a prosecutor to come and help me.
[32:28.000 --> 32:31.000]  Prosecutor from any state will do.
[32:31.000 --> 32:33.000]  Come over and let me show them too.
[32:33.000 --> 32:35.000]  Hear them tell yahoo.com.
[32:35.000 --> 32:36.000]  Me tell you 3 shoes.
[32:36.000 --> 32:37.000]  That's specifically true.
[32:37.000 --> 32:38.000]  That is true.
[32:38.000 --> 32:40.000]  They Silverstein.
[32:40.000 --> 32:43.000]  You get the citizens arrest too.
[32:43.000 --> 32:45.000]  Silverstein and Hamilton King.
[32:45.000 --> 32:48.000]  They know them and they name them clean.
[32:48.000 --> 32:50.000]  Everybody bring them in.
[32:50.000 --> 32:53.000]  So we could job them with warranting.
[32:53.000 --> 32:55.000]  They don't need to quarantine.
[32:55.000 --> 32:57.000]  You know them like me say with them.
[32:57.000 --> 33:02.000]  Citizens arrest for Mr. Bush.
[33:02.000 --> 33:03.000]  Citizens arrest.
[33:03.000 --> 33:04.000]  Okay.
[33:04.000 --> 33:05.000]  We are back.
[33:05.000 --> 33:06.000]  We're going to your calls.
[33:06.000 --> 33:08.000]  Maritha from Texas.
[33:08.000 --> 33:10.000]  Maritha, thanks for calling in.
[33:10.000 --> 33:12.000]  What is your question tonight?
[33:12.000 --> 33:16.000]  Well, first of all, the suggestions are great.
[33:16.000 --> 33:22.000]  I just wish I was as erudite as he was and I could come off with that speech as well
[33:22.000 --> 33:24.000]  as he just did.
[33:24.000 --> 33:32.000]  My son was arrested for public intoxication right before New Year's and he asked for a
[33:32.000 --> 33:37.000]  breathalyzer and didn't get it because it was a class D misdemeanor.
[33:37.000 --> 33:42.000]  We went to the pleading and he pleaded not guilty.
[33:42.000 --> 33:44.000]  He didn't sign any paperwork.
[33:44.000 --> 33:49.000]  And he wanted to have a jury trial.
[33:49.000 --> 33:55.000]  The judge insisted that we go to a pretrial hearing and I don't know how much stuff we're
[33:55.000 --> 33:59.000]  supposed to be ready for during that and he said that we were supposed to present our
[33:59.000 --> 34:01.000]  motions and so forth.
[34:01.000 --> 34:04.000]  And I'm a complete newbie to this.
[34:04.000 --> 34:09.000]  I spent all day long on my day off today trying to read up on motions and what I should even
[34:09.000 --> 34:15.000]  be prepared for if we should just play it really cool and try to get in front of that
[34:15.000 --> 34:18.000]  jury or how we even get past the judge.
[34:18.000 --> 34:24.000]  He harangued us for 45 minutes trying to get my son to sign paperwork and I did send an
[34:24.000 --> 34:30.000]  email to Eddie Craig and asked him to read it about the particular details.
[34:30.000 --> 34:31.000]  So I'm just curious about it.
[34:31.000 --> 34:32.000]  Oh, you did?
[34:32.000 --> 34:33.000]  I'm sorry.
[34:33.000 --> 34:34.000]  I apologize.
[34:34.000 --> 34:35.000]  I have not seen that.
[34:35.000 --> 34:36.000]  It's all right, sir.
[34:36.000 --> 34:38.000]  It was late in the day and it's all right.
[34:38.000 --> 34:42.000]  But it is there somewhere you might be able to rummage through and find it.
[34:42.000 --> 34:47.000]  But my main question is, pretrial, what are we to expect when I can already tell they're
[34:47.000 --> 34:49.000]  going to slam him?
[34:49.000 --> 34:50.000]  Lying, cheating, and stealing.
[34:50.000 --> 34:53.000]  That's what you should expect.
[34:53.000 --> 35:01.000]  Well, he did that already, but I guess we're just going to have more of this.
[35:01.000 --> 35:02.000]  And I don't know.
[35:02.000 --> 35:07.000]  My son said at 21 he's willing to, you know, sit it out for five days to try to fight the
[35:07.000 --> 35:08.000]  best way we can.
[35:08.000 --> 35:14.000]  But our knowledge is not as great as yours and it's very daunting to have to try to learn
[35:14.000 --> 35:16.000]  all this in a week and a half.
[35:16.000 --> 35:17.000]  Okay.
[35:17.000 --> 35:18.000]  He is 21?
[35:18.000 --> 35:19.000]  He is 21.
[35:19.000 --> 35:20.000]  He's a full adult, yes.
[35:20.000 --> 35:21.000]  Was he arrested?
[35:21.000 --> 35:25.000]  Yes, he was handcuffed.
[35:25.000 --> 35:29.000]  They pulled his license out of his pocket.
[35:29.000 --> 35:30.000]  He was working on a car.
[35:30.000 --> 35:33.000]  He was the designated driver trying to drive home.
[35:33.000 --> 35:36.000]  He was with two very, very drunk people.
[35:36.000 --> 35:40.000]  The officer assumed that he was, but he was not, and even said to the officer, please,
[35:40.000 --> 35:41.000]  I am not drunk.
[35:41.000 --> 35:43.000]  I want a breathalyzer.
[35:43.000 --> 35:49.000]  And the officer just, you know, it was late at night, very late, and he just handcuffed
[35:49.000 --> 35:50.000]  him.
[35:50.000 --> 35:57.000]  He did, he passed one of the two, one of those tests.
[35:57.000 --> 35:58.000]  He was in a hoodie.
[35:58.000 --> 35:59.000]  He was working on a car.
[35:59.000 --> 36:00.000]  It was very cold.
[36:00.000 --> 36:02.000]  It was the night that it was snowing.
[36:02.000 --> 36:07.000]  And he lost his balance when he looked back, right when he looked back.
[36:07.000 --> 36:09.000]  And he said, let me try it again.
[36:09.000 --> 36:12.000]  And he wouldn't allow him to do that.
[36:12.000 --> 36:13.000]  He failed the test.
[36:13.000 --> 36:14.000]  So he failed the first one.
[36:14.000 --> 36:15.000]  I mean, he passed the first one.
[36:15.000 --> 36:17.000]  I don't remember what that was.
[36:17.000 --> 36:18.000]  Anyway.
[36:18.000 --> 36:19.000]  Okay.
[36:19.000 --> 36:22.000]  First off, where was he when he was working on the car?
[36:22.000 --> 36:23.000]  Was he in a parking lot?
[36:23.000 --> 36:26.000]  He was in a Taco Bell parking lot.
[36:26.000 --> 36:27.000]  Okay.
[36:27.000 --> 36:32.000]  Let me read you Section 49.02.
[36:32.000 --> 36:36.000]  49.02, public intoxication, sub-item or subsection A.
[36:36.000 --> 36:40.000]  A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated
[36:40.000 --> 36:44.000]  to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.
[36:44.000 --> 36:48.000]  That is the first prerequisite to public intoxication.
[36:48.000 --> 36:52.000]  He must be a danger to himself or another.
[36:52.000 --> 36:58.000]  What was the articulable cause made by the officer to assume that he was a danger to
[36:58.000 --> 37:00.000]  himself or another?
[37:00.000 --> 37:08.000]  He stated in the complaint or on the ticket, I don't know, the information that he had
[37:08.000 --> 37:10.000]  smelled alcohol on Marty's breath.
[37:10.000 --> 37:17.000]  But Marty said he was standing near his friend who was puking, and his friend had also puked
[37:17.000 --> 37:18.000]  in the car.
[37:18.000 --> 37:25.000]  So I don't know, you know, that's what, that was his reasoning is that he smelled alcohol
[37:25.000 --> 37:27.000]  on Marty's breath.
[37:27.000 --> 37:30.000]  But he did not, it doesn't matter that he's got alcohol on his breath.
[37:30.000 --> 37:36.000]  Drinking is not an element of public intoxication unless they are a danger to themselves or
[37:36.000 --> 37:37.000]  another.
[37:37.000 --> 37:41.000]  What was the officer saying was the reasonable cause to presume he was a danger to himself
[37:41.000 --> 37:43.000]  or another?
[37:43.000 --> 37:47.000]  He didn't say anything in the complaint about the danger to himself.
[37:47.000 --> 37:48.000]  Exactly.
[37:48.000 --> 37:50.000]  The complaint must specify.
[37:50.000 --> 37:52.000]  That's one of the required elements.
[37:52.000 --> 37:58.000]  The complaint has to say that he was a danger to himself or another based upon.
[37:58.000 --> 38:03.000]  It's got to because that's one of the required elements of this charge.
[38:03.000 --> 38:06.000]  That's what the statute says.
[38:06.000 --> 38:11.000]  And that would be 4902A, subsection A.
[38:11.000 --> 38:12.000]  Yes.
[38:12.000 --> 38:13.000]  Okay.
[38:13.000 --> 38:14.000]  Of the penal code.
[38:14.000 --> 38:20.000]  Yeah, if they're going to accuse him of breaking the law, they have to be very specific about
[38:20.000 --> 38:26.000]  which law he's breaking and they have to show that he actually satisfied the requirements
[38:26.000 --> 38:28.000]  to violate the law.
[38:28.000 --> 38:32.000]  And the law says that he has to be a danger to himself and others.
[38:32.000 --> 38:35.000]  It doesn't say having alcohol on his breath.
[38:35.000 --> 38:37.000]  Yeah, well, it also says one other thing.
[38:37.000 --> 38:40.000]  This is the second requirement of this.
[38:40.000 --> 38:47.000]  Subitem A-1, for the purposes of this section, a premises licensed or permitted under the
[38:47.000 --> 38:52.000]  alcoholic beverage code is a public place.
[38:52.000 --> 38:53.000]  Guess what?
[38:53.000 --> 38:59.000]  Taco Bell is not under the alcoholic beverage code and it's not licensed as such.
[38:59.000 --> 39:01.000]  It was closed too.
[39:01.000 --> 39:04.000]  But irregardless, they don't sell liquor.
[39:04.000 --> 39:07.000]  They're not licensed to sell liquor.
[39:07.000 --> 39:13.000]  According to this, they do not meet the requirements of a public place.
[39:13.000 --> 39:14.000]  That's awesome.
[39:14.000 --> 39:15.000]  Okay.
[39:15.000 --> 39:18.000]  Randy, do you disagree?
[39:18.000 --> 39:21.000]  I agree 100%.
[39:21.000 --> 39:23.000]  And that's the first thing you need.
[39:23.000 --> 39:29.000]  If he goes to court, you want the officer on the stand.
[39:29.000 --> 39:35.000]  And the first thing you do is have him read the statute.
[39:35.000 --> 39:36.000]  Okay.
[39:36.000 --> 39:43.000]  And then have him articulate the probable cause he has to meet each of the elements
[39:43.000 --> 39:47.000]  of the statute.
[39:47.000 --> 39:52.000]  But you need a bunch of motions in before that, a motion to dismiss.
[39:52.000 --> 39:57.000]  Well, I worked on the Internet forever on motions to dismiss that had reasons that
[39:57.000 --> 39:59.000]  were pertinent.
[39:59.000 --> 40:04.000]  The better part of four and a half hours a day, I'm beat and I can't find anything.
[40:04.000 --> 40:12.000]  So I'm at a roadblock on what to do in this pretrial.
[40:12.000 --> 40:16.000]  Well, in this pretrial, I mean, there are several things you can do.
[40:16.000 --> 40:19.000]  I can tell you most likely what's going to be done.
[40:19.000 --> 40:22.000]  And the judge is going to do his best to ignore you.
[40:22.000 --> 40:29.000]  Having set through many of these things, watching them, okay, there comes a point
[40:29.000 --> 40:30.000]  where you come to understand.
[40:30.000 --> 40:36.000]  The judge could care less about the truth of the law in 90% of these courts these
[40:36.000 --> 40:37.000]  days.
[40:37.000 --> 40:39.000]  He absolutely could care less.
[40:39.000 --> 40:41.000]  He is an assembly line judge.
[40:41.000 --> 40:43.000]  That's all.
[40:43.000 --> 40:45.000]  Yes, I agree.
[40:45.000 --> 40:46.000]  Okay.
[40:46.000 --> 40:53.000]  But that being said, the first thing is, one, I have not been informed of the
[40:53.000 --> 40:55.000]  nature of the charges against me.
[40:55.000 --> 40:57.000]  That's what your son needs to be saying.
[40:57.000 --> 41:02.000]  One, am I being charged civilly or criminally?
[41:02.000 --> 41:08.000]  Two, if I am being charged under whatever method, if it's criminal, under what
[41:08.000 --> 41:12.000]  specific statute, as I have not been made aware of exactly what statute I have
[41:12.000 --> 41:17.000]  allegedly violated, they're going to have to tell you 4902.
[41:17.000 --> 41:22.000]  If they tell you any other statute and say that that's a public intoxication
[41:22.000 --> 41:26.000]  charge, then they have failed to specify a chargeable offense because there's
[41:26.000 --> 41:28.000]  not going to be anywhere else in the code.
[41:28.000 --> 41:30.000]  It exists.
[41:30.000 --> 41:37.000]  They can't tell you 49.05, public intoxication, and 4905, not B, public
[41:37.000 --> 41:41.000]  intoxication.
[41:41.000 --> 41:42.000]  You see what I'm saying?
[41:42.000 --> 41:43.000]  Yes, sir.
[41:43.000 --> 41:45.000]  Okay.
[41:45.000 --> 41:52.000]  Then you want to ask the officer, what are the specific statutory elements to
[41:52.000 --> 41:59.000]  commit the crime of public intoxication under 49.02?
[41:59.000 --> 42:02.000]  Should you get to the point of getting to question the officer, okay?
[42:02.000 --> 42:05.000]  Will he be there at the pretrial?
[42:05.000 --> 42:07.000]  He's supposed to be.
[42:07.000 --> 42:08.000]  Okay.
[42:08.000 --> 42:12.000]  But he most likely won't be.
[42:12.000 --> 42:15.000]  You need to subpoena him.
[42:15.000 --> 42:18.000]  That will get him there.
[42:18.000 --> 42:25.000]  But in any case, you ask him, what are the required elements of the charge of
[42:25.000 --> 42:33.000]  public intoxication according to 49.02 penal code?
[42:33.000 --> 42:38.000]  There are two, and they are very specific.
[42:38.000 --> 42:44.000]  The person must be so intoxicated that they present a danger to themselves or
[42:44.000 --> 42:54.000]  another, and it has to be on a place that's licensed to sell alcohol.
[42:54.000 --> 42:56.000]  This is great.
[42:56.000 --> 42:58.000]  Okay.
[42:58.000 --> 43:04.000]  And if that officer sitting in that chair cannot accurately describe those two
[43:04.000 --> 43:10.000]  elements, the officer, you want him declared incompetent because he does not
[43:10.000 --> 43:12.000]  know the law.
[43:12.000 --> 43:15.000]  He is incapable of testifying as to the proper elements that exist in the
[43:15.000 --> 43:16.000]  charge.
[43:16.000 --> 43:21.000]  So how can he make any legal determination that the law was broken?
[43:21.000 --> 43:27.000]  He doesn't even know what the law is made up of and what the requirements are.
[43:27.000 --> 43:32.000]  He's a brick with a badge and a gun.
[43:32.000 --> 43:37.000]  Nicely put, Eddie.
[43:37.000 --> 43:39.000]  Oh, that's great.
[43:39.000 --> 43:41.000]  Okay, Marisa, we're going on break.
[43:41.000 --> 43:42.000]  Do you have any more questions?
[43:42.000 --> 43:43.000]  Do you need to stay on the line?
[43:43.000 --> 43:45.000]  No, I think this is plenty.
[43:45.000 --> 43:46.000]  Okay, thank you, Marisa.
[43:46.000 --> 43:48.000]  You're welcome to call back any time.
[43:48.000 --> 43:49.000]  Okay, thank you.
[43:49.000 --> 43:50.000]  Okay.
[43:50.000 --> 43:54.000]  All right, when we get back on the other side, we're going to Guy from
[43:54.000 --> 43:57.000]  Arkansas, a brick with a badge.
[43:57.000 --> 44:00.000]  This is great.
[44:00.000 --> 44:05.000]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, micro plant powder, will
[44:05.000 --> 44:09.000]  change your life by removing all types of positive toxins, such as heavy
[44:09.000 --> 44:14.000]  metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus from the digestive tract and
[44:14.000 --> 44:16.000]  stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:16.000 --> 44:21.000]  Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that
[44:21.000 --> 44:25.000]  attracts positive toxins from the blood, organs, spine, and brain.
[44:25.000 --> 44:28.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows
[44:28.000 --> 44:31.000]  synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:31.000 --> 44:35.000]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into
[44:35.000 --> 44:37.000]  calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:37.000 --> 44:41.000]  There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or
[44:41.000 --> 44:43.000]  in your storage shelter.
[44:43.000 --> 44:46.000]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:46.000 --> 44:51.000]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org.
[44:51.000 --> 44:53.000]  It's a great way to change your life.
[44:53.000 --> 45:13.000]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:13.000 --> 45:31.000]  Okay, we're back.
[45:31.000 --> 45:35.000]  We've got Guy from Arkansas and Jesse from Texas on the line.
[45:35.000 --> 45:38.000]  But before we go back to the calls, Randy, you wanted to discuss some
[45:38.000 --> 45:40.000]  strategy here of this issue.
[45:40.000 --> 45:46.000]  Yes, I would suggest the one thing you do is subpoena that officer to the
[45:46.000 --> 45:53.000]  pre-trial hearing for a show cause or a evidentiary hearing.
[45:53.000 --> 46:00.000]  And you want to get the officer on the stand and ask him if you'd have your
[46:00.000 --> 46:07.000]  son, ask him what gave him reason to believe that he was about, or ask him
[46:07.000 --> 46:10.000]  was he about to hurt himself?
[46:10.000 --> 46:16.000]  You know, ask him if he has any reason to believe that I was about to harm
[46:16.000 --> 46:19.000]  myself some way.
[46:19.000 --> 46:24.000]  And the officer is obviously not going to understand, not going to know what
[46:24.000 --> 46:27.000]  the elements are, and he's going to say no.
[46:27.000 --> 46:29.000]  Well, was I about to hurt somebody else?
[46:29.000 --> 46:34.000]  He's going to say no, move to dismiss.
[46:34.000 --> 46:35.000]  Now you've got him to admit.
[46:35.000 --> 46:40.000]  I did this once when I was charged with disorderly conduct.
[46:40.000 --> 46:45.000]  Well, I pulled out disorderly conduct and I printed out what the elements
[46:45.000 --> 46:54.000]  were, and I asked him if I had, did I fire a weapon across the railroad
[46:54.000 --> 46:56.000]  track?
[46:56.000 --> 46:57.000]  Well, no.
[46:57.000 --> 47:02.000]  Did I display my anus or genitals in public?
[47:02.000 --> 47:03.000]  Well, no.
[47:03.000 --> 47:05.000]  And I just walked right down the list.
[47:05.000 --> 47:08.000]  There were about eight or nine of them.
[47:08.000 --> 47:12.000]  And when he said no to the last one, the judge was already on to it.
[47:12.000 --> 47:15.000]  The judge is sitting back there grinning at him.
[47:15.000 --> 47:17.000]  Your Honor, I move to dismiss.
[47:17.000 --> 47:20.000]  Judge, boom, case dismissed.
[47:20.000 --> 47:21.000]  Those were the elements.
[47:21.000 --> 47:22.000]  He denied all the elements.
[47:22.000 --> 47:25.000]  If you can get the officer to deny the element, move to dismiss.
[47:25.000 --> 47:26.000]  It's over.
[47:26.000 --> 47:27.000]  Yeah.
[47:27.000 --> 47:30.000]  And remember now, always check the law to see if the elements are
[47:30.000 --> 47:35.000]  interdependent, meaning if there's several different ways of violating the
[47:35.000 --> 47:39.000]  statute, how many of those individual elements are dependent upon the other
[47:39.000 --> 47:43.000]  elements, one or more of the other elements?
[47:43.000 --> 47:49.000]  Because when they're interdependent, every single element must be true.
[47:49.000 --> 47:56.000]  If any one of them are false, the charge falls on its face.
[47:56.000 --> 48:00.000]  It cannot stand unless all its legs are intact.
[48:00.000 --> 48:06.000]  So once you kick even one element out from under it, it's all falling down.
[48:06.000 --> 48:08.000]  And they know this, okay?
[48:08.000 --> 48:09.000]  They're well aware of this.
[48:09.000 --> 48:13.000]  Now, that being said on Randy's side, the only thing that I told Randy on the
[48:13.000 --> 48:17.000]  break about that argument is, is that I would much prefer myself now, not
[48:17.000 --> 48:21.000]  saying anything wrong with Randy's argument, I would much prefer as for
[48:21.000 --> 48:26.000]  myself that I catch the officer admitting that he has no clue what the
[48:26.000 --> 48:27.000]  elements are.
[48:27.000 --> 48:33.000]  And once he goes and gives whatever flubbing explanation he's going to give
[48:33.000 --> 48:37.000]  for what they are, then I would take the approach.
[48:37.000 --> 48:43.000]  So then would it be correct that he was not in danger of harming himself or
[48:43.000 --> 48:47.000]  you could not see that he was in danger of harming himself?
[48:47.000 --> 48:51.000]  I would prefer that approach simply because that's a double whammy.
[48:51.000 --> 48:55.000]  And by saying it the other way, you may trigger the officer's memory to the
[48:55.000 --> 48:58.000]  point where he might go, oh, yeah, wait, wait, that's one of the necessary
[48:58.000 --> 48:59.000]  elements.
[48:59.000 --> 49:00.000]  Yeah, yeah, yeah, he was.
[49:00.000 --> 49:04.000]  And he could just make stuff up, which they will do, especially when you're
[49:04.000 --> 49:09.000]  about to catch them in a ball face lie on the stand.
[49:09.000 --> 49:11.000]  Grudgingly, I concede.
[49:11.000 --> 49:17.000]  Sure, sure, because they don't want to get accused of perjury, you know, so
[49:17.000 --> 49:21.000]  they're going to fly by to see their pants on the witness stand if they can
[49:21.000 --> 49:23.000]  to bail themselves out.
[49:23.000 --> 49:25.000]  Yeah, if it's going to keep an aggravated perjury charge off their head,
[49:25.000 --> 49:26.000]  you better bet they are.
[49:26.000 --> 49:30.000]  Of course.
[49:30.000 --> 49:34.000]  But that's the way that I would approach it just for that particular reason
[49:34.000 --> 49:37.000]  alone.
[49:37.000 --> 49:39.000]  All right, who's our next one?
[49:39.000 --> 49:41.000]  Okay, sorry for the phone ringing in the background.
[49:41.000 --> 49:43.000]  I'm screening my own calls tonight.
[49:43.000 --> 49:48.000]  Mr. Skidmore has other things he must do tonight, so.
[49:48.000 --> 49:50.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[49:50.000 --> 49:51.000]  I have permission to do this.
[49:51.000 --> 49:52.000]  What?
[49:52.000 --> 49:53.000]  Skidmore is a chump.
[49:53.000 --> 49:55.000]  Oh, he is not.
[49:55.000 --> 49:56.000]  Yeah, I get to chump him on the air.
[49:56.000 --> 49:58.000]  That's part of our agreement.
[49:58.000 --> 50:01.000]  Well, I don't think he's a chump because he helps me and volunteers a lot of
[50:01.000 --> 50:05.000]  his time to help me screen calls and stuff, so.
[50:05.000 --> 50:08.000]  I don't think he's a chump either, but I still get to chump him on the air.
[50:08.000 --> 50:11.000]  Okay, well, at any rate, we're going to go to the callers now.
[50:11.000 --> 50:13.000]  We've got Guy from Arkansas.
[50:13.000 --> 50:15.000]  Guy, thanks for calling in.
[50:15.000 --> 50:16.000]  What is your question?
[50:16.000 --> 50:19.000]  Good afternoon, good evening, all of you.
[50:19.000 --> 50:22.000]  Thanks for taking the call.
[50:22.000 --> 50:30.000]  Just like to compliment Eddie on his beautiful exemplification of process and
[50:30.000 --> 50:35.000]  explaining his research, very clean and articulate.
[50:35.000 --> 50:36.000]  Really appreciate that.
[50:36.000 --> 50:43.000]  Question for Eddie real quick here is, getting into the very beginnings of your
[50:43.000 --> 50:49.000]  little fantasy play out there in court, do you think a person that followed
[50:49.000 --> 50:54.000]  those exact steps would be armed with a criminal, a ready-made criminal
[50:54.000 --> 50:56.000]  complaint for the prosecutor?
[50:56.000 --> 50:58.000]  Oh, yes, they would.
[50:58.000 --> 51:07.000]  At the point, yes, and at a certain point, you turn the judge into a, oh,
[51:07.000 --> 51:09.000]  damn, just missed it.
[51:09.000 --> 51:11.000]  What am I thinking of?
[51:11.000 --> 51:15.000]  You're wanting to say when would I give these criminal complaints to the judge
[51:15.000 --> 51:16.000]  to be verified?
[51:16.000 --> 51:22.000]  Yeah, right, and then have the judge go to the bailiff and have him arrest the
[51:22.000 --> 51:28.000]  prosecutor for committing fraud on the court and probably some other charges
[51:28.000 --> 51:29.000]  too.
[51:29.000 --> 51:30.000]  What do you think of that?
[51:30.000 --> 51:31.000]  Do you think that would be a real...
[51:31.000 --> 51:33.000]  Well, I think that would be great.
[51:33.000 --> 51:37.000]  I, for one, would have an unsigned but fully prepared criminal complaint in my
[51:37.000 --> 51:39.000]  hand personally.
[51:39.000 --> 51:43.000]  Now, I've already told Ranji what my strategy is going to be from now on.
[51:43.000 --> 51:47.000]  I'll look at the bailiff, or actually I'll look at the prosecutor.
[51:47.000 --> 51:50.000]  Aggravated perjury in Texas is a felony.
[51:50.000 --> 51:55.000]  Therefore, a citizen is allowed to make an arrest for a felony or breach of the
[51:55.000 --> 51:58.000]  peace committed in their presence.
[51:58.000 --> 52:00.000]  Therefore, I'll look at the prosecutor.
[52:00.000 --> 52:05.000]  For the commission of aggravated perjury, a felony offense, I hereby place you
[52:05.000 --> 52:07.000]  under citizen's arrest.
[52:07.000 --> 52:12.000]  Bailiff, I hereby remand the prisoner to your custody.
[52:12.000 --> 52:17.000]  Well, I tell you what, I would like to be in presence of an action of that
[52:17.000 --> 52:18.000]  nature.
[52:18.000 --> 52:23.000]  And I thank you all for your time and your show, your wealth to this nation,
[52:23.000 --> 52:24.000]  and I appreciate you all.
[52:24.000 --> 52:25.000]  Thank you so much.
[52:25.000 --> 52:26.000]  Thanks, guys.
[52:26.000 --> 52:27.000]  Thank you, sir.
[52:27.000 --> 52:29.000]  Yep, that's one of my favorite songs that we wrote, citizen's arrest.
[52:29.000 --> 52:31.000]  I just played it a little while ago.
[52:31.000 --> 52:36.000]  All right, we are going now to Jessie in Austin.
[52:36.000 --> 52:37.000]  Jessie, thanks for calling in.
[52:37.000 --> 52:39.000]  What's your question?
[52:39.000 --> 52:45.000]  For Marisa, did she establish if her son had an information or indictment
[52:45.000 --> 52:46.000]  against him?
[52:46.000 --> 52:53.000]  Is that, would that be applicable towards this?
[52:53.000 --> 52:58.000]  As far as an indictment, not unless it was a jailable offense.
[52:58.000 --> 53:02.000]  And since it's a Class C misdemeanor and there's nothing in here that says it's
[53:02.000 --> 53:09.000]  punishable by time, then it would be an information-only requirement.
[53:09.000 --> 53:11.000]  So, but she is correct.
[53:11.000 --> 53:14.000]  You do want to go down and look at the court file.
[53:14.000 --> 53:17.000]  There needs to be three things in that court file.
[53:17.000 --> 53:20.000]  If the officer issued a ticket, there has to be a copy of the ticket.
[53:20.000 --> 53:24.000]  If there is a ticket, there has to be a signed and verified complaint,
[53:24.000 --> 53:28.000]  and it better have been signed by the officer because the officer is the only
[53:28.000 --> 53:29.000]  one with first-hand knowledge.
[53:29.000 --> 53:33.000]  Number three thing before the court has jurisdiction to proceed.
[53:33.000 --> 53:37.000]  Now, in this initial trial, if it's the first one, this is what's supposed to
[53:37.000 --> 53:39.000]  serve as your examining trial.
[53:39.000 --> 53:43.000]  Am I correct on that, Randy?
[53:43.000 --> 53:44.000]  Yes.
[53:44.000 --> 53:52.000]  First time you see a judge, when you get a Class C misdemeanor, they will
[53:52.000 --> 53:56.000]  generally allow you to sign the citation.
[53:56.000 --> 54:00.000]  Well, the citation is a promise to appear.
[54:00.000 --> 54:03.000]  It's not a promise to appear at court.
[54:03.000 --> 54:10.000]  It's a promise to appear before some magistrate.
[54:10.000 --> 54:16.000]  And the only thing the magistrate can do in that circumstance, hold an
[54:16.000 --> 54:17.000]  examining trial.
[54:17.000 --> 54:21.000]  He has no other authority or duty.
[54:21.000 --> 54:26.000]  So in that examining trial, there must be a determination of probable cause.
[54:26.000 --> 54:27.000]  They never do it.
[54:27.000 --> 54:29.000]  No, they never do it.
[54:29.000 --> 54:35.000]  And then, but before they actually take you into an actual trial.
[54:35.000 --> 54:38.000]  Now, the way they love to do it in the traffic cases and these types of cases
[54:38.000 --> 54:42.000]  here with the public intoxication, they have you in at 9 a.m.
[54:42.000 --> 54:46.000]  for the examining slash no actual examining trial.
[54:46.000 --> 54:51.000]  And at 3 o'clock, you come back to have your actual trial.
[54:51.000 --> 54:53.000]  That's the way they like to do it.
[54:53.000 --> 54:55.000]  They don't give you any preparation time.
[54:55.000 --> 54:58.000]  They haven't notified you yet of the nature of the charges against you.
[54:58.000 --> 55:02.000]  They have denied you due process by not denying you any ability to build a
[55:02.000 --> 55:03.000]  defense.
[55:03.000 --> 55:05.000]  But that's how they do it.
[55:05.000 --> 55:08.000]  So you need to be prepared for that.
[55:08.000 --> 55:12.000]  And what I've started discussing this evening is going to be how I intend to
[55:12.000 --> 55:15.000]  short circuit that from now on.
[55:15.000 --> 55:18.000]  Whether it works or not is irrelevant.
[55:18.000 --> 55:19.000]  Okay?
[55:19.000 --> 55:23.000]  What you have done is you have made the record in front of witnesses that the
[55:23.000 --> 55:26.000]  court is proceeding in a criminal fashion.
[55:26.000 --> 55:31.000]  You have built grounds to go after them later in a lawsuit.
[55:31.000 --> 55:35.000]  And at the same time you're going after them with that lawsuit, you can seek
[55:35.000 --> 55:39.000]  and avoid judgment on the order of the court.
[55:39.000 --> 55:42.000]  Now, that's something else Randy and I talked about today as well.
[55:42.000 --> 55:44.000]  Ma'am, I'm sorry.
[55:44.000 --> 55:47.000]  Did you still have anything to go with your question on that?
[55:47.000 --> 55:54.000]  Well, did she also establish, have the court establish jurisdiction on this?
[55:54.000 --> 56:01.000]  Well, unless the court, she hasn't got the chance to go to court to challenge
[56:01.000 --> 56:02.000]  jurisdiction.
[56:02.000 --> 56:06.000]  So there is no point in trying to establish what we don't know even exists yet.
[56:06.000 --> 56:11.000]  But as far as that goes, the court cannot have jurisdiction if there's not an
[56:11.000 --> 56:15.000]  information or a signed valid complaint in the file anyway.
[56:15.000 --> 56:17.000]  Not even for this case.
[56:17.000 --> 56:21.000]  The examining trial cannot occur without the valid complaint.
[56:21.000 --> 56:28.000]  But once the examining trial has been held, the judge is issued his warrant,
[56:28.000 --> 56:33.000]  whatever, to proceed to actual trial, there better be an information filed by
[56:33.000 --> 56:35.000]  the prosecuting attorney.
[56:35.000 --> 56:38.000]  Because at that point, that's the only way the court can get jurisdiction.
[56:38.000 --> 56:43.000]  Now, above and beyond that, subject matter jurisdiction is a separate argument
[56:43.000 --> 56:44.000]  in this case.
[56:44.000 --> 56:47.000]  The subject matter jurisdiction may not exist.
[56:47.000 --> 56:52.000]  If he was actually guilty of the crime in this case, it would exist with one
[56:52.000 --> 56:53.000]  possible problem.
[56:53.000 --> 56:58.000]  And that is that if he's actually been called to a municipal court, that's a
[56:58.000 --> 57:01.000]  whole other can of worms they've got a problem with.
[57:01.000 --> 57:06.000]  One, the municipal court, they're going to try to use the city attorney to
[57:06.000 --> 57:07.000]  prosecute this case.
[57:07.000 --> 57:10.000]  City attorney cannot prosecute in the name of the state municipal court.
[57:10.000 --> 57:12.000]  I have a brief to that effect.
[57:12.000 --> 57:15.000]  If you want it, send me an email.
[57:15.000 --> 57:20.000]  But if they attempt to take you to trial and use the city prosecutor, you want
[57:20.000 --> 57:21.000]  to file this motion.
[57:21.000 --> 57:27.000]  Because it outlines in very clear detail exactly why the city prosecutor
[57:27.000 --> 57:30.000]  cannot prosecute in the name of the state.
[57:30.000 --> 57:36.000]  So there's many different ways to short circuit this at this point because
[57:36.000 --> 57:40.000]  they are completely avoiding what the law requires of them to facilitate
[57:40.000 --> 57:41.000]  their process.
[57:41.000 --> 57:49.000]  Is there anything else you want to add to that, ma'am?
[57:49.000 --> 57:50.000]  No, thank you.
[57:50.000 --> 57:52.000]  All right.
[57:52.000 --> 57:54.000]  Thank you, Jessie.
[57:54.000 --> 57:55.000]  Thank you.
[57:55.000 --> 57:56.000]  All right.
[57:56.000 --> 58:00.000]  We've got Carl from Texas, but we are just about to go to the break.
[58:00.000 --> 58:05.000]  So Carl, just hang on, and we will take you right on the other side of
[58:05.000 --> 58:11.000]  INN World Report Newsbreak, and speaking of INN World Report, tune in
[58:11.000 --> 58:12.000]  tomorrow night.
[58:12.000 --> 58:18.000]  Webster Tarpley is going to be Tom Kiley's guest, so that ought to be a
[58:18.000 --> 58:20.000]  really interesting show.
[58:20.000 --> 58:23.000]  He's been a big Webster Tarpley fan from way back.
[58:23.000 --> 58:28.000]  Even though he is somewhat of a collectivist, he's got some good ideas,
[58:28.000 --> 58:33.000]  got some good points of view, good analysis, good breakdown of political
[58:33.000 --> 58:35.000]  situations in history.
[58:35.000 --> 58:37.000]  At any rate, we will be right back on the other side.
[58:37.000 --> 58:42.000]  This is the Rule of Law with Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens,
[58:42.000 --> 59:00.000]  and we'll be speaking with Carl from Texas on the other side.
[59:00.000 --> 59:03.000]  In a time where telling the truth is a revolutionary act, radicals across
[59:03.000 --> 59:07.000]  the globe are rising up and uniting behind one simple yet profound message.
[59:07.000 --> 59:09.000]  Choose freedom.
[59:09.000 --> 59:12.000]  Join the revolution and tune in to the Rise Up Radio Show with Katherine
[59:12.000 --> 59:16.000]  Bleich and John Bush every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 7 to 10 a.m.
[59:16.000 --> 59:20.000]  on 90.1 FM in Austin or ruleoflawradio.com on the Internet.
[59:20.000 --> 59:21.000]  That's right, folks.
[59:21.000 --> 59:24.000]  John Bush and I will be bringing you the latest news from the front lines
[59:24.000 --> 59:28.000]  and examining successful activist strategies from states across the Union.
[59:28.000 --> 59:32.000]  Come along for the rise this January as we speak truth to power and embark
[59:32.000 --> 59:36.000]  on Operation D-Fuse, a multi-state tour and expose on the mechanics
[59:36.000 --> 59:37.000]  of the modern police state.
[59:37.000 --> 59:41.000]  Check out operationsdfuse.com for more information and be sure to tune in
[59:41.000 --> 59:43.000]  all this week to hear from these great guests.
[59:43.000 --> 59:47.000]  Monday, January 4th, renowned author and Liberty Defender T. Edward Griffin.
[59:47.000 --> 59:51.000]  Wednesday, January 6th, Mark Lerner of the Stop Real ID Coalition.
[59:51.000 --> 59:54.000]  And Friday, January 8th, Michael Bolden of the 10th Amendment Center.
[59:54.000 --> 59:58.000]  So tune in, folks, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning from 7 to 10 a.m.
[59:58.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  And don't just wake up, rise up.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:09.000]  International search and rescue teams have pulled more than 70 people from the
[01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:13.000]  rubble of Haiti's earthquake, a record for urban search and rescue missions
[01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:15.000]  following such a disaster.
[01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:20.000]  Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Belrive told ABC News at least 70,000 dead
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:22.000]  bodies had been collected.
[01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:27.000]  At least 15 people are dead and 71 wounded Monday after a major attack in
[01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:32.000]  Kabul sparked a gun battle and suicide bombers hit Afghanistan's justice,
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:34.000]  education, and finance ministries.
[01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:38.000]  According to a Taliban statement, 20 of their fighters launched their attack
[01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  after infiltrating the city.
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  At least 20 people were killed Sunday after U.S. drones fired several missiles
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:49.000]  at a house straddling north and south Waziristan.
[01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  Fifteen of them were suspected Taliban.
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:58.000]  It is the third drone attack in the region in less than a week.
[01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  Lieutenant General Ken Keene, the leading U.S. general in Haiti, warned 200,000
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  people could have died in the earthquake but said it was too early to predict a
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:10.000]  figure that might never accurately be known.
[01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:15.000]  The Red Cross says 50,000 people perished, but this figure is conservative as
[01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:20.000]  tens of thousands of bodies have already been buried, many in mass graves.
[01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  One rioter was killed by police armed with shotguns and assault rifles after
[01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  hundreds of rioters ransacked a market.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  The U.N. has estimated 3 million people have been affected and 300,000 left
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:34.000]  homeless.
[01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  Some 40 tent cities have sprung up in Port-au-Prince.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  U.N. spokeswoman Elizabeth Brees said 12 people were pulled out alive from
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:46.000]  the debris Saturday bringing the total to more than 70 since rescue teams
[01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:48.000]  started working.
[01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  Rami Peltz, a rescuer with an Israeli team, said, today is the last day we
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  will be able to find survivors, mainly because of dehydration.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  The U.K. Independent reports mourners arrived every few minutes at Haiti's
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  most prominent burial ground seeking to give loved ones a dignified burial.
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:14.000]  But the paper said dignity was a scarce commodity when half-open caskets and
[01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  corpses wrapped in rags and bloody clothes littered the paths.
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:22.000]  Armed guards made sure new arrivals were entitled to use one of the family
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  tombs and had paid the $5 burial fee.
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  A gatekeeper checked off names against the list which showed 210 corpses have
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  been deposited in the past three days.
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  The paper says the real figure was far higher since scores of dead have been
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  illegally dumped, their relatives too poor to pay the fee.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  Several tombs appeared to have been smashed open with sledgehammers so new
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:47.000]  bodies could be laid inside.
[01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:51.000]  At the morgue, corruptible staff were charging release fees of several
[01:02:51.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  hundred dollars for the bodies of loved ones.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:01.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:03:01.000 --> 01:03:07.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:11.000]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:40.000]  People!
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  People!
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  Okay, we're back discussing on the break how to construct legal documents,
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  motions to dismiss and stuff like that, and how to structure writing so it's
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  concise but yet complete.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:06.000]  This is an art form.
[01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  So we'll be talking about that more later.
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  Right now we're going to go to Carl in Texas.
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:13.000]  Carl, thanks for calling in.
[01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:15.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  Yes, I was going to report to you all.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:22.000]  I've had two successful dismissals with Article 12, Section 5, both of them
[01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  there in Austin, and maybe a little bit different twist.
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:29.000]  I haven't used a jury trial.
[01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:32.000]  Both of them were bench trials.
[01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:38.000]  And what I did was two days before trial, I went down to the county, or not to
[01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  the county, but the city clerk, down to the clerk, and filed a, basically asked
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  them for an information.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:50.000]  And I figured with two days, there's no way that they're going to be able to
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  get a state or district attorney to issue one.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  So in both cases, the little city clerk took it on herself to write up a
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:03.000]  complaint, which was just great.
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  And so at the same time, I had her court stamp her complaint that she wrote up,
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  and then I went ahead and filed dismissals, both on Article 12, Section 5,
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:18.000]  for lack of having information.
[01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  Are you saying, do you actually mean Article 5, Section 12?
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:25.000]  Article 5, Section, I'm sorry, I'm not sitting in front of my notes here.
[01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  I just wanted to make sure.
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  No, no, you're right, you're right.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:37.000]  And so I went ahead and filed a motion for dismissal and had it court stamped
[01:06:37.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  based on the fact that they did not have any information for my case.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:46.000]  And then there's, you know, not to complicate issues, but I always play more
[01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  than one or two things.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  I pulled in, and Eddie, you'll have to help me on the code, but the Texas
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:59.000]  Constitution, 542, where you have to have, the officer has to give you a date
[01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  and a time to appear before magistrate.
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  Yeah, 543-006.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  Right.
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  And I always file a motion to dismiss on that because they never have that.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:16.000]  And so I had all that stuff court stamped two days before the trial.
[01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:19.000]  That doesn't give anybody time to react.
[01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  And I think by doing a bench trial, they don't lose as much face if you just
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  want to get off, and you still may be able to go after the judges.
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  But with doing a bench trial versus a jury trial, they don't have near as much
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  face to lose and probably not going to do something illegal rather than just
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  let you off.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  That's possible, but dangerous.
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:51.000]  Unless you've got people to go to court with you and watch, that's dangerous.
[01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:56.000]  Having been through those also, once that judge gets you alone in that courtroom
[01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:00.000]  with nobody but him as clerk and the guy with the gun that does his very bidding,
[01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  that's a dangerous place to be because I have literally had a judge threaten me
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:12.000]  that I was going to be held prisoner in his courtroom at gunpoint if necessary
[01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:17.000]  if I couldn't cough up $850 right there on the spot, which is exactly the same
[01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:22.000]  thing he did to this lady that I was talking to today.
[01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:24.000]  So believe me, I agree.
[01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  They are less likely in some cases, depending upon the judge, by no means take
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  that to mean that it cannot be much worse.
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:38.000]  Probably in a big municipal court.
[01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:42.000]  I've never been in a by myself situation in big municipal courts because they
[01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  have such an active audience.
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  But I guess probably in a smaller county or one-horse town, you probably for
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:50.000]  sure wanted to do a jury deal.
[01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  Well, in those cases, when they're having those kind of trials, most of the
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  time if they think that you're a troublemaker as far as being able to know
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  what you're talking about and properly defend yourself in any way, they will
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:09.000]  hold you over until you're the last person around for exactly that reason.
[01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  That's what they've done to me every time.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:15.000]  I see.
[01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:17.000]  But yes, it does work good.
[01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:23.000]  And like you say, if you go before the little city community clerk two days
[01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:29.000]  before trial, they never failed not to try to write up a complaint, and then
[01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:32.000]  sign it, not a magistrate but her.
[01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  She's really telling herself in a lot of trouble there, too.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:38.000]  Yes.
[01:09:38.000 --> 01:09:40.000]  I would actually make sure that she gets it.
[01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  Oh, and I do.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  And I have them court stamp it right there.
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  As soon as she signs it and gives it to me, I'll go ahead and have her court
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  stamp it and put it in the record.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:49.000]  Yeah.
[01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  And how many aggravated perjury charges have you filed against her?
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  I didn't go back after.
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  They just meant they should have.
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  Yeah, that's what needs to be done.
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  The clerk's committing aggravated perjury.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  She is swearing out a complaint of her own volition with absolutely no
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  knowledge or complaining party dictating anything to her.
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  She's making it up as she goes and then signs it under penalty of perjury.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  That's aggravated perjury, dude.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  I think, and maybe I'm giving the judges too much credit, but I think these
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  judges, when they see that, when they see that complaint sworn to by a clerk,
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:32.000]  I think they know that they've already got a problem.
[01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:38.000]  Yes, they do, but they're banking on the fact that you won't.
[01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:44.000]  But it seems like if they knew that, if I knew that about Article 5,
[01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:48.000]  Section 12, they would probably for sure figure that I knew that she
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  couldn't sign the complaint.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  Yeah, but until they get familiar with you, they're not going to always
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  relate that argument to you.
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  See what I'm saying?
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:10:58.000]  I think.
[01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  They're going to take it on a case-by-case basis.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:03.000]  Well, here's one guy that might actually know what he's talking about,
[01:11:03.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  so we'll avoid him.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  But the next three people aren't going to be so lucky.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  Randy, you got something to kick in?
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  Yeah, minor point on clerks signing the complaint.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  The clerk can sign the complaint as a rule because anyone can sign a
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  complaint.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  What she can't do is sign the complaint if she has no verified affidavit or
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  has not personally spoken to the police officer and received evidence
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  directly from the police officer.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  Yeah, and what I believe he's saying is that she writes it up right there on
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  the spot.
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  There is no police officer.
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:48.000]  She's just basing it on the information out of the computer, right?
[01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  Yeah.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  Right.
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Yeah, and in that instance, then she doesn't have cause.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:55.000]  Then you can go after her.
[01:11:55.000 --> 01:11:57.000]  But if she's talked to the policeman, then she can.
[01:11:57.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  Or if she has a verified affidavit, then she can.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  She actually swore out a complaint that, like on one of them,
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  I wasn't wearing a seat belt.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:07.000]  How could she know?
[01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  There's no way that she wasn't there and good enough.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  And like I say, she didn't have an affidavit or testimony,
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:18.000]  and she can't act as a judge as testimony on behalf of the police
[01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:20.000]  officer anyway.
[01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  No, you're right, but you're talking about two different things here.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  Anybody in Texas can make out a complaint,
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  whether they saw the event or not.
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  If they have reason to believe a crime was committed,
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  they can file a complaint.
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  The problem comes when it's time to testify to that complaint in court.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  Now you've got the officer who wrote the ticket but never filed a complaint.
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  You've got the clerk who filed the complaint but never saw the event.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  There is a disparity here that cannot be reconciled.
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  Right.
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  And then on top of that, you have the issue of no information.
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  And not to convolute the matter, but I think it always works good to use
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  that 543 about the failure to give a place and a time,
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  because you've got one more, you've got another thing that's easy to play
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  to back you up.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  Another ace in the hole.
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  Yeah.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:23.000]  Very good.
[01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  But now, technically speaking, okay, it says on or before,
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  as long as the date that's actually written on the ticket is more than
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  10 days out, then they've met that obligation.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:40.000]  The only argument that I can make against it the way it's written,
[01:13:40.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  and Randy and I have talked about this also, is the fact that it makes the
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:50.000]  presumption that the magistrate is not going to be available,
[01:13:50.000 --> 01:13:55.000]  that you're just required to show up whether the magistrate's there or not,
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  and it's got to be sometime prior to this date, on or before this date.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  You have the option of waiting until that date to show up,
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:06.000]  and as long as it's after the 10, no big deal.
[01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  But the problem is, is the magistrate's not going to be there,
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:15.000]  not unless the date they gave you is one when he's actually holding court.
[01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  But they don't give you a date and a time.
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:21.000]  All they do is say on or before.
[01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:25.000]  They never give you a time, and it says in the law, in the code,
[01:14:25.000 --> 01:14:29.000]  it says time, like an appointment.
[01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  Is that correct or not?
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:35.000]  No, it doesn't say time.
[01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:41.000]  It says it must give a date to appear before a magistrate,
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  and that's where the problem is.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:46.000]  And the dates shall be no less than 10 days.
[01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  Right.
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  You have to have 2711 Code of Criminal Procedure says you must have at least
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  10 days after arrest to prepare a defense, at least 10 full days,
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  and that's why that caveat is in there.
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  Well, is a muni judge, is he a magistrate?
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  Yes, every judge is a magistrate.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  Okay.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  But it's two different hats for two different sets of duties.
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  They're the same guy with two different hats.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:20.000]  When he's sitting on that bench presiding over a trial, he's a judge.
[01:15:20.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  But when he's doing anything that is administrative, then he's a magistrate.
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  No, no, I'm sorry. Let me, just a slide.
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:35.000]  He can be a, the only time he's a magistrate is when someone steps before him
[01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:39.000]  with a criminal accusation for which there has not been a finding of probable cause
[01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  in the matter.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  Then he must hold an examining trial in order to give the court subject matter
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:48.000]  jurisdiction.
[01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  Well, now the case law I read said he is, anything he's doing outside of sitting
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  on the bench is ministerial in nature.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  Yes, ministerial, but that's not a magistrate.
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  That's a judge acting in his, he's ministering the court's affairs.
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  Okay.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:10.000]  The only time he's a magistrate is when he's holding a probable cause hearing,
[01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  setting bail, marrying someone.
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:18.000]  That's all they can do.
[01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  Okay, anything else you got?
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  That's it for me.
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  All right, Carl, thanks.
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  Thank you, Carl.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:31.000]  Okay, we've got Dan from Connecticut, but we're about to go to break,
[01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  so Dan, hang on to the other side and we'll take your call as soon as we get back.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  Ask your questions about traffic issues or if you have other issues.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  All right, we'll be right back.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:02.000]  Hello, Austin.
[01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:04.000]  My name is Harland Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books,
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:06.000]  a local independent bookstore here in town.
[01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:10.000]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars,
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:19.000]  Richard Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the Patriot Movement.
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:21.000]  But now Brave New Books needs your help.
[01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  In order to continue to provide a space for these events
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:26.000]  and be an outlet for hard-to-find materials,
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:30.000]  we're going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word about the bookstore.
[01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists.
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:42.000]  Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support.
[01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message.
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  Remember, you vote with your dollars.
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:50.000]  We're counting on you, Austin.
[01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  If you need any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Thank you, everyone.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  I was blindsided, but now I can see your light.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  You put the fear in my pocket, took the money from my hand.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:36.000]  Ain't going to fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:37.000]  All right.
[01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  Ain't going to fool us with the same old tricks again.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  All right.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  We were discussing on the break the fact that the municipal attorney cannot prosecute state crimes,
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  and Eddie has further evidence of that.
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  So go ahead, Eddie.
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  And then we'll take your call, Dan.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  Yeah, there's another great thing in Article 5, Section 12.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:03.000]  Subsection B tells us exactly what an indictment and an information is.
[01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:08.000]  Now, an information, this is exactly how it's written in the state constitution.
[01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:13.000]  An information is a written instrument presented to a court by an attorney for the state
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:20.000]  charging a person with the commission of an offense.
[01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:26.000]  Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.07 specifies who is an attorney for the state.
[01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:29.000]  Guess who is not in that list?
[01:19:29.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  You guessed it, the city attorney.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:41.000]  The city attorney has zero authority, and the state constitution validates that right here in Article 5, Section 12.
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  An attorney for the state may enter the information in a criminal case,
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  and a city attorney is not defined anywhere either in the constitution or in statute
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:00.000]  as being able to be an attorney for the state.
[01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  So that's the other reason to get the thing kicked out of court.
[01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:08.000]  The prosecutor is impersonating a public official.
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  They are unlawfully impersonating an attorney for the state without any authority to do so,
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  which is the entire argument of my motion.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  So everybody out there, be aware.
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  If you're in Texas, state constitution is additional proof.
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  It can't happen.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  All right, who's our next caller?
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  Okay, our next caller is Dan from Connecticut, and then we've got Tim from Texas.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  Hey, Dan, thanks for calling in tonight. What's on your mind?
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  Oh, nothing much, just the special election going on in Massachusetts tomorrow.
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  Tell us about it.
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  Well, there may be a need for poll watchers and other sorts of things like that
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  because there have been a lot of rumblings about that.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  I don't know how familiar you are with this,
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  but basically you have the Democrat Martha Coakley and the Republican Scott Brown,
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  and you also have the Independent who is a Libertarian running.
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  His name is Joe Kennedy.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  But basically there's been a lot of national focus on that,
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  and there are growing concerns that there may be vote tampering going on tomorrow.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:22.000]  No, not here, right?
[01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  And, of course, they have an infamous Diebold and LHS Associates site.
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  Vote tampering?
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  I know, you're figuring like, Dan, you're kidding, right?
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:31.000]  No.
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  How could it be?
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  Yeah, it's getting hairy to say the least.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  I guess Joe Kennedy has received a total of five threats on his life so far.
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  It's getting pretty weird,
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  so I figured I should put the word out if you are in Massachusetts or a surrounding area.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  Go up there, keep your eyes peeled.
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  And what about exit polls?
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  Are you running any exit polls to try to compare with the so-called official results?
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Fortunately and unfortunately, and I say that for two reasons.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  You've got Scott Brown who's running as a Republican,
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  the guy who authored Romneycare who pledges to bring it around the country.
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  He's effectively gotten the Republican machine in the Tea Party movement
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  just pulling rank behind him because he'll be that 41st vote in the Senate.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  And basically what they're doing is they're getting behind him.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  They're very concerned about this,
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  but I think in the end it could be an opportunity if he is this strong showing
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  to kind of get people familiar with this issue.
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  So I've been putting out the feelers, asking around.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  I sent a model grand jury complaint out if anybody needs to use it
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  because I've been talking with the Tea Party folks, obviously.
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  So hopefully if they do go ahead and make the mistake of voting for Scott Brown,
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  at least they'll be interested in the process and they'll start learning about all of this stuff.
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:12.000]  All right, good deal.
[01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  And Dan, I guess you heard the good news about Deborah Medina down here, right?
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  She's going to be in the debates.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  She was already in the first debate because everyone pressured the media into letting her in,
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  and she did a totally kick butt job,
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  and Trans-Texas Corridor Perry and Kay Bailout Hutchinson spent the whole debate sniping at each other,
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  and even the Rhino Republicans in the party were dumbfounded and confused,
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:46.000]  and she just took the floor.
[01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:47.000]  She just took the limelight.
[01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  She took the spotlight.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  She took it away.
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:51.000]  It was like there was no competition.
[01:23:51.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  Bailout and Trans-Texas Corridor Perry, they didn't even hardly participate in the debate,
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  and she wasn't going to get in.
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  I mean, she got flurried by the media.
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  Perry and Hutchinson left right after the debates were over,
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:17.000]  and Deborah Medina basically got to have the media all to herself after the debate,
[01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  and even the second debates, which are, I believe, on the 25th of this month or 29th.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  I'm not sure.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:25.000]  I've got to look that up again.
[01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  They weren't going to invite her,
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:33.000]  but because she had such a great showing at the first debate,
[01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  the official, quote, unquote, polls, let me back up,
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  all the online polls show that she won the debates by like 90%.
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  I mean, it's just hands down.
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  I mean, it's not even a question.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  It's kind of like what happened with Ron Paul, all right?
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  But the so-called official polls, which are the rigged polls, you know, of course, the telephone polls,
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  she ended up coming out with 12%, which is pretty astonishingly high, all things considered,
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  and so because she got 12% in the, quote, unquote, real polls, she's now invited to the second debate.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  We actually may have a chance of getting Deborah Medina in as governor.
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:21.000]  We may actually bump Perry out of office in the primaries,
[01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  and check out Richard Reeves' show on Wednesday night, 6 to 8, not tomorrow night.
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:32.000]  Wednesday night from 6 to 8, he does a thorough analysis of the breakdowns of all the numbers
[01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:36.000]  and all these kinds of things, so he'll have a lot of good comments on that.
[01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  Yeah, I did watch the first debate she was in.
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:44.000]  I didn't know how that would go over and how it went, but I think she did a stellar job.
[01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:47.000]  Oh, yeah, absolutely.
[01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  So anyway, that's what she does.
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  Be aware, though, that Deborah's also hopefully taking into consideration.
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  We might be victims of some of that vote tampering.
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  Well, see, that's why we're trying to not Perry out in the primaries.
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  I mean, they, at some point, you know, they're not going to be able to control everything all the time.
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  I mean, that's evident because we have gotten some of our candidates in at local and county levels
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:17.000]  and even state levels.
[01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:25.000]  So there is the black box issue, but the further up on the line you can try to get candidates in,
[01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  the less likely you're going to be affected by the black box.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  So all right, Dan, you got anything else for us?
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  Yeah, aside from that news, I just wanted to put out that Joe Kennedy is really the guy that I'm endorsing in this one.
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  I hope hopefully he kicks butt and he has a strong showing tomorrow
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:51.000]  because he actually would not only vote for the health care bill,
[01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:55.000]  he actually promised not to substitute Romneycare for it,
[01:26:55.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  and he is actually going the whole way toward actual health care reform.
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  And I actually recently did have a good development.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  I got someone from the Rand Paul campaign working for me now.
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:08.000]  Excellent.
[01:27:08.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  We actually got someone to leave the Rand Paul campaign,
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  and we're actually on target in the next two months to out-raise both the Republicans in my district.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  Excellent. Good deal.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:24.000]  So that should be interesting to see a libertarian candidate out-raise the Republicans,
[01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  which I don't believe has happened in a congressional race before.
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:30.000]  Well, if anybody can do it, you can, Dan.
[01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:33.000]  Well, I hope so, but I'm not just going to hope.
[01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  I'm just going to keep working at it.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  So, yeah, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  But, you know, if you're up there and you're in the area of Massachusetts, keep your eyes peeled.
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  You never know what you're going to see.
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  And hopefully we can get enough people trained on what to look for, and we'll go from there.
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  Wonderful.
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:56.000]  And also I want to put the word out while we're endorsing candidates here on Rule of Law Radio.
[01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  Stephen Schoppe, S-C-H-O-P-P-E, here running against the entrenched fat cat incumbent Lamar Smith that Ron Paul has endorsed.
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:14.000]  I had to ask, what's the deal with that?
[01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  Listen to the archive from John and Catherine's show this morning, and you'll get the full rundown.
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:24.000]  John Bush confronted Ron Paul face-to-face, in person, about that,
[01:28:24.000 --> 01:28:31.000]  and it was videotaped and recorded, and they played his answer on the air, and I don't want to give away the punch line.
[01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  So folks are just going to have to listen to the archive for that one.
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:42.000]  But for sure, for sure, for sure, everyone out there, if you don't live in District 21 here in the state of Texas,
[01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  at least send some money so that we can get Stephen Schoppe, S-C-H-O-P-P-E dot U-S, I believe.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  I've got the link posted on the website.
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  It's posted on the archive blog page.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:01.000]  Stephen Schoppe in the Republican Party, running against Lamar Smith.
[01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  We've got to bump this entrenched fat cat incumbent out during the primaries.
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:13.000]  The guy's a two-time bailout voter, and he supported the Patriot Act and voted for the war in Iraq,
[01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:16.000]  and everything else you can possibly imagine.
[01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  He kisses the bankster's butt the whole nine yards,
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:24.000]  and if you listen to the archive, you'll find out why Ron Paul gave him the endorsement.
[01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  On that note, I hate to say this, but I just got an email today that Ron Paul endorsed Nancy Pelosi's challenger,
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  and he basically goes out and says, I'm for the 10th Amendment, but if you read the rest of his issue statements,
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  I mean, don't take my word for it, go read it.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  Basically, the list of questions was, well, if you're for that, answer me this, answer me that.
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  But on that note, I'll...
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:51.000]  Check out the archive, Dan.
[01:29:51.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  They talked about that as well this morning.
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:58.000]  Yeah, I've got to check that out, but for the meantime, keep your eyes peeled.
[01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  All right, thanks, Dan.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:33.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:38.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:48.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:27.000]  Got another half an hour left tonight.
[01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:33.000]  512-646-1984.
[01:31:33.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  We're going to your calls right now.
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  We've got Tim from Texas.
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  Tim, thanks for calling in.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  Good evening.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:40.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  Oh, just enjoying the show once again and everything's going on.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  I wanted to kind of comment a little bit on the topic that he was talking about earlier,
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  about going after the complaint and the information.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  And I think it's a really good idea to go after that Article 5, Section 12 challenge.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:03.000]  But I also wanted to make sure we're not missing overturning a rock earlier in the process
[01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:05.000]  regarding the complaint.
[01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  Now, if the officers in the courts are using the citation as a complaint,
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:13.000]  and Eddie, you may already be aware of this,
[01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:19.000]  but it doesn't meet the requisites of a complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedures.
[01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:24.000]  Section 45.019.
[01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  But subsection F is really the important one.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  And that one there basically says that if the defendant does not object to the defect,
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  error, or irregularity of form or substance in the charging instrument
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  before the date on which trial on the merits commences,
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:45.000]  the defendant waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect.
[01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  So I'm not sure how critical that is in the process,
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:54.000]  but if we're looking at the kitchen sink approach where we throw everything we can at them,
[01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  I just thought it might be interesting to try to throw that in there as well.
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, Tim, and you're right.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:08.000]  But hopefully by this time you've already filed your motions of no valid complaint.
[01:33:08.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  I'm not saying don't do anything about this before trial.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:18.000]  All you're doing is at the point of trial you are re-inspecting the folder to verify the information
[01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:22.000]  you've already put forth in your motions saying there is no information,
[01:33:22.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  there is no valid complaint, and now here it is the day of trial,
[01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  and there's still no valid motion or complaint.
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:34.000]  So at this point you've got them between a rock and a hard place.
[01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  Yeah, okay.
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  All right, that sounds good.
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  You did raise a really good important issue is that it does have to be addressed
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  at least in a motion before you get to court or get to trial.
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:48.000]  Right.
[01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:49.000]  Good call.
[01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:51.000]  But when you go to file motions,
[01:33:51.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  don't you also have to set up a hearing in order for it to be heard?
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  Yes, you do.
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:34:01.000]  And I also talked to someone about that today, and I told them very simply,
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:04.000]  any time that you file a motion with the court,
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  there's two things about traffic court that you're never told, okay?
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  One is that you have to set your motions for hearing.
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  The second thing is who the prosecutor is going to be, okay?
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  So let's take a second and talk about that.
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  When you file a motion, the motion needs to be argued, does it not?
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:26.000]  It's not going to stand up by itself if nobody reads it.
[01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  So you're going to force it to be read by bringing it before the court for a motions hearing.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  So when you file the motions, you tell the court clerk,
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  I want, I need three open dates on the court's calendar,
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  and they're going to look at you like you have three heads.
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:42.000]  They don't get to do this.
[01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  They never do this.
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  In the off chance they actually do schedule one,
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  here's where the second part kicks in.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  You've never been told who the prosecutor is.
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  You've never been given information about how to get in touch with the prosecutor.
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  Mailing address, contact information, nothing of any kind.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  So how are you supposed to serve any type of motion hearing on the opposing counsel
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  when you've never been given any information as to who that is?
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  Because in most municipal courts, they don't tell you until the day of trial.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  So here's what I recommend doing.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  You get you a motion to dismiss or whatever the motion is you're writing.
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  You go down to the clerk of the court, say I need an open date on the court's calendar.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  Pick any open date.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:34.000]  You don't have to worry about the convenience of the opposing counsel
[01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  because you have no clue who they are.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  So you're going to get the date most convenient to you.
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  Get the date and time.
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Set it for a hearing.
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  Show up at that date and time.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:52.000]  There's two things I can guarantee you almost with the certainty is not going to happen.
[01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  The court's not going to be open.
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  The prosecution is not going to be there.
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:01.000]  And they're not going to argue your motion.
[01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  At that point, have a dismissal order in your hand.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Take it to the court clerk.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  Demand that the court clerk, as her authority is allowed in Texas law,
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:19.000]  sign off on the dismissal with prejudice because the state did not show.
[01:36:19.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  They defaulted.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:29.000]  So that's the approach I would take in that regard because they don't ever tell you who the prosecution's going to be
[01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  unless you belligerently demand to know.
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  And then what's going to happen the day of trial?
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:39.000]  You'll have somebody completely different than who you're told.
[01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  Yeah.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  Well, I mean, that's one thing we tried in a couple of cases with folks here that, you know,
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  which we called down to the court and tried to ask them who was going to be the prosecutor
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:54.000]  so we could, you know, serve them with papers on the case and they just flat out wouldn't tell us.
[01:36:54.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  So how can we hold them?
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  I mean, are we never going to get that information or is there some way we can put a little pressure on them?
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  Personally, Randy, what's your take?
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  Is that not a requirement for dismissal?
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:14.000]  That's an interesting question.
[01:37:14.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  I was just standing here trying to run that through all the possibilities.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  If you can't, if they refuse to notify you of who the prosecution is,
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:33.000]  then you don't have to worry about serving the prosecution.
[01:37:33.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  But then again, the prosecutor is a prosecutor for the department.
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  Like if it's a municipal court, it's the city.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  So notice to the agents, notice to the principal.
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:57.000]  If you send your notice to the city secretary, the city is noticed.
[01:37:57.000 --> 01:37:58.000]  Yep.
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  So you don't care who he is.
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  And generally in a traffic.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  Here's the problem with that, Randy.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  The only problem I can see is the city is not the complainant.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  The state is.
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  No, but the city is the prosecutor.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:12.000]  They're the ones that employ the prosecutor.
[01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Ah, no, they're not.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  Yeah, they are.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  No, they're assuming they are.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  But remember, city attorney can't prosecute.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:21.000]  I understand that.
[01:38:21.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  They're just fixing to say that.
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  They can't prosecute state crimes.
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:29.000]  But unless they have a county attorney come down,
[01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  and you don't really care as long as you notice someone.
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:35.000]  If they don't tell you who the prosecutor is, then you notice the city,
[01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  and they don't have a claim for failure of notice.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  But in traffic, you're going to have two kinds of hearings that the courts hold.
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  Pre-trial hearing, which is your motion hearing, and the trial on the cause.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:39:03.000]  So just ask the court when the court holds motion hearings.
[01:39:03.000 --> 01:39:06.000]  And they're probably going to have a day of the week they do that every time on.
[01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  And just show up that day.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  Yeah.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  I'm here to hear the motions, or settle them for one of those days.
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:18.000]  Now, the alternative to that that I was discussing earlier today is
[01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  I actually filed two copies with the clerk.
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  One is the original copy filed with the court.
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  The second one is one that the notice of delivery to the opposing counsel
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  simply states on that notice, due to the refusal or lack of information
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:40.000]  regarding opposing counsel, service could not be provided to opposing counsel
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:45.000]  as their identity and delivery information is heretofore unknown,
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  and the court refuses to disclose same.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  Therefore, I hereby remand this copy to the court for the purpose of delivery
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  to whatever prosecution they deem fit.
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  And I leave it in the care of the clerk.
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:00.000]  If it gets delivered, great.
[01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  If it doesn't, great.
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  That leaves the ball in the court's court to get it to who it belongs to
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  if they're not going to tell me who it is.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:12.000]  That certainly works for me.
[01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  The court sure can't raise an issue.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:18.000]  It leaves the ball in the court's court.
[01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:23.000]  Yep.
[01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  One other little nugget I was stumbling into last night,
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  and Deborah, I think you'll like this one when it comes to the sobriety
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  checkpoints that they are looking to do in taking specimens.
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:43.000]  Yeah, well, fortunately, because of John Bush, that's not going to happen in Texas.
[01:40:43.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  We already struck that bill down last legislative session.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  Now, of course, I'm sure they're going to try to introduce the same bill again,
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  but this time we're on top of it,
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  and we're going to actually introduce legislation to prohibit and forbid it.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  But at any rate, go ahead.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  Well, this applies also to just them demanding a breathalyzer
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  without probable cause.
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:09.000]  Once again, as Eddie and Randy have always said,
[01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  we don't ever condone anyone drinking and driving.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  But in the cases where we know we haven't done anything wrong,
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  and under the transportation code, Section 724.013,
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:28.000]  it basically says that unless acceptance provided by Section 724.012B,
[01:41:28.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  which is the part about being intoxicated and involved in an accident
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  and causing harm or death,
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  except for that, a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  to subject to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:47.000]  So I wasn't sure if you had to be aware of that.
[01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:48.000]  That's right.
[01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  Oh, yeah, yeah, we've talked about that quite a bit.
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  Yeah, they can't take, they cannot.
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  That's right.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  So every time they arrest people for not giving them a breathalyzer, that's illegal.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  But now, Tim, also take a look at Chapter 411 Government Code,
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  Department of Public Safety.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  That is where that blood withdrawal authority comes from.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  411 makes it very clear that the real purpose of that blood withdrawal
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:15.000]  is the DNA database.
[01:42:15.000 --> 01:42:20.000]  Well, in here also, the specimen could be a breathalyzer as well.
[01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:24.000]  But, yes, blood is included as well.
[01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:29.000]  So anyway, that's really all I had about that tonight, but I appreciate it.
[01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  Thanks, Tim.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  And we'll look forward to working with you again on some of the stuff.
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  Thanks, Tim.
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  Thank you.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  Just say no to giving biometric data samples.
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:41.000]  That's right.
[01:42:41.000 --> 01:42:45.000]  Including the naked body scanners.
[01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  Don't get me started.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  Okay, we have more callers on the line.
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  Gary from Texas.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  Gary, thanks for calling in.
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  What's on your mind?
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  I just wanted to ask a question to Randy and you.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  In fact, you don't know who the prosecutor is.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  How and who do you know to go and do discovery on?
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  In other words, how do you do interrogatories or send requests for discovery,
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:18.000]  for videotapes, all that, if you don't know who's prosecuting you?
[01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:20.000]  Well, here's the problem.
[01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:25.000]  They normally won't allow you to have discovery, even though it's your right.
[01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  But the first thing I would do is go directly to the officer in question.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  I would send everything to the officer and his department demanding discovery.
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  Yeah, and not only that, I know a case, a traffic case right now,
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  somebody that's a friend of mine,
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  and the judge just denied him his right to call witnesses in his own case.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  So it's pretty bad.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  But we're going to discuss the remedies to that on the other side.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Hang on the line, Gary.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  This is the rule of law.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  Callers, we have one more segment if you'd like to call in.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  512-646-1984.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:03.000]  In a time where telling the truth is a revolutionary act,
[01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  radicals across the globe are rising up
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  and uniting behind one simple yet profound message.
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  Choose freedom.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:12.000]  Join the revolution and tune in to the Rise Up Radio Show
[01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  with Kathryn Bleich and John Bush every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:21.000]  from 7 to 10 a.m. on 90.1 FM in Austin or ruleoflawradio.com on the Internet.
[01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:22.000]  That's right, folks.
[01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  John Bush and I will be bringing you the latest news from the front lines
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:28.000]  and examining successful activist strategies from states across the Union.
[01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:31.000]  Come along for the rise this January as we speak truth to power
[01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  and embark on Operation D-Fuse, a multi-state tour and expose
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  on the mechanics of the modern police state.
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:40.000]  Check out operationsdfuse.com for more information
[01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  and be sure to tune in all this week to hear from these great guests.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  Monday, January 4th, renowned author and Liberty Defender G. Edward Griffin.
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:50.000]  Wednesday, January 6th, Mark Lerner of the Stop Real ID Coalition.
[01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  And Friday, January 8th, Michael Bolden of the 10th Amendment Center.
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  So tune in, folks, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning from 7 to 10 a.m.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  And don't just wake up, rise up.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  All right.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:45.000]  We know John will.
[01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  We are taking calls right now.
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:49.000]  We're speaking with Gary in Texas.
[01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:53.000]  And where we left off at the break was the fact that, yeah,
[01:45:53.000 --> 01:45:58.000]  they're going to try to deny you your right of discovery.
[01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  In some cases, they're going to deny you the right to even call your own witnesses.
[01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:04.000]  So, Eddie, go ahead.
[01:46:04.000 --> 01:46:06.000]  Please continue.
[01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:08.000]  Okay.
[01:46:08.000 --> 01:46:09.000]  I'm sorry, Gary.
[01:46:09.000 --> 01:46:12.000]  What point of answering your question were we at here?
[01:46:12.000 --> 01:46:15.000]  Well, I think you pretty well answered it is that they just,
[01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:18.000]  as government normally does, just disobey the law
[01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:21.000]  and do not allow you to have your right to discovery.
[01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:25.000]  In other words, if you don't know who to direct interrogatories to,
[01:46:25.000 --> 01:46:27.000]  if you don't know who's prosecuting you,
[01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:29.000]  and you're trying to get, say, a videotape or that kind of thing,
[01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  I'd want it from the prosecutor.
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:36.000]  If I don't know who the prosecutor is, then it would be hard to do.
[01:46:36.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  So I'd probably have to ask the judge for dismissal.
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:40.000]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:46:40.000 --> 01:46:44.000]  If you're trying to get a videotape, like, from a cop's car or something,
[01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  wouldn't that discovery be directed at the police department, not at the prosecutor?
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:51.000]  Yes, it would.
[01:46:51.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  That's what I thought.
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:55.000]  That wouldn't exactly be discovery.
[01:46:55.000 --> 01:46:59.000]  That would go more under, you would want to subpoena that.
[01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  Okay.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:04.000]  Yeah, that's a rule of evidence subpoena, but it works either way,
[01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:06.000]  because if you get it under either one,
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  you can still use it in a civil case against them later.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:11.000]  Well, if it was in the possession of the,
[01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:15.000]  well, I think it would have to go first for a grand jury to look at,
[01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:20.000]  would it not be in the possession of the prosecutor?
[01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  Not necessarily.
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  Well, especially if you're trying to get a videotape that's exculpatory evidence.
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:28.000]  Good luck even finding it.
[01:47:28.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  They're certainly not going to give it to a grand jury.
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  I understood, but they would be,
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  because I would think that maybe the prosecutor, whoever was prosecuting,
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:38.000]  would probably be the one in possession of that
[01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  if they were using that as evidence against somebody in the court.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:44.000]  So I would say...
[01:47:44.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  Well, if they had it as evidence that they were going to use against you,
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  well, then you would be able to get it ahead of time, certainly.
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:57.000]  Not if you didn't know who was prosecuting you.
[01:47:57.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  If you didn't know who the prosecutor was,
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:06.000]  how do you direct a motion for discovery to somebody you don't know who it is?
[01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:11.000]  Well, there will always be a prosecutor's office.
[01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  You may not know who the specific attorney is, but you really don't care.
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  And they're not going to be able to submit evidence against you by ambush anyway,
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:21.000]  no matter who the prosecutor is.
[01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  I understand.
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:24.000]  Yes, so you can just send it to the...
[01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  That's not true.
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:29.000]  In traffic court, they do exactly do that.
[01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  They ambush you.
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:35.000]  They do not provide you with copies of the video from the cop's car,
[01:48:35.000 --> 01:48:39.000]  but that's exactly the very first thing they put on the stand right behind the cop,
[01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  is the video.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  The prosecution asks questions of the cop regarding the video.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:45.000]  You've never seen it.
[01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  You've never been given a copy of it.
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:49.000]  You've never even informed it existed.
[01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  They do ambush you, and they do allow it.
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:55.000]  So they don't follow the proper rules of evidence than in traffic court, apparently.
[01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  Exactly, which is why I went to the information I did in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  regarding when statements may be used.
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  It very clearly states that any written statements or recordings made of a defendant
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  who has not been given the proper Miranda reading of his rights
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:20.000]  and provided with a copy thereof no later or no less than 20 days prior to trial,
[01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  that evidence cannot be used against them in court.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  I guess they just use it if they get away with it.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  They use it because you're not informed of that and no one objects.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  They assume it's okay.
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  They will do anything and everything that they can possibly get away with
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  that is completely and totally illegal if we don't go after them like gangbusters.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Yeah, it's just totally corrupt system.
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  Well, I'll let you guys get on to other callers, then.
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  Okay.
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  Well, we don't have any other callers right now, but thanks, Gary.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:54.000]  Okay, then.
[01:49:54.000 --> 01:49:57.000]  Thank you, ma'am.
[01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Okay, so this brings up an interesting question, maybe, perhaps, Randy and Eddie.
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  Explain the strategy when you would want to subpoena something
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  and when you would want to obtain that information through discovery.
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  Well, discovery, I would think, is when you're trying to get your hands on something
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  you may not yet know exists, but you're sure it should exist or possibly exist.
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  Subpoena, however, is the fact that you know for certain this information has to exist,
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:37.000]  it does exist, and you are entitled to have it for your own defense.
[01:50:37.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  Yeah, the subpoena power are for those things that you absolutely must have
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  and those things that you have a right to as a matter of law.
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  Under discovery, you can request things that you don't necessarily have a right to
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  statutorily as a matter of law, but that can be shown to be of evidentiary nature.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  And when you request discovery, they get to object to discovery, you've got to have a hearing,
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  and then the judge will order them to produce it, and then they won't produce it,
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:20.000]  and then you'll have to move for a motion to compel, it takes forever.
[01:51:20.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  A subpoena is for something you don't want to go through all the nonsense with.
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  Right. All right, very good. Okay, we've got callers on the board, we've got Marvin.
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:34.000]  Oops, well, he just dropped off.
[01:51:34.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  Marvin, come back.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  We did have Marvin from Colorado.
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:48.000]  All right, we've got one more caller here.
[01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:50.000]  All right, I'm going to have to bring him live without screening him
[01:51:50.000 --> 01:51:52.000]  because I don't have a call screener.
[01:51:52.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  All right.
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  Okay, caller from Austin, you're on the air.
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:51:58.000]  Well, thank you, Deborah.
[01:51:58.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  What is your name?
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  Roy from Austin.
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  What is your name?
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  I have a question, I guess, really towards Ray and...
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  Wait, what is your name, caller?
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  Roy.
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:11.000]  Oh, thanks, Roy. Okay, what is your question?
[01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:20.000]  A couple of months ago, Randy was talking about violent civil suits against police officers,
[01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  and I believe I understood him saying to also include their wives,
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  and I was wondering if he could, you know, talk about that just a couple of minutes.
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:37.000]  Well, there have been a number of guys who do that.
[01:52:37.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  What they maintain, if the officer has acted in violation of his oath of office,
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  the oath of office establishes a contract between the officer and the state,
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:53:00.000]  and you as a sovereign citizen are the intended third-party beneficiary of that contract.
[01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  So you have authority to enforce the contract.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  Well, in the process of the contract, the officer commits fraud,
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:19.000]  but he still collects consideration based on the contract.
[01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  So you maintain that that consideration based on the contract was received as fraud
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  and that his wife, in spending the money, helped to launder the money secured by fraudulent means,
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:36.000]  so you sue the wife.
[01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  And that goes to the court of angry wife.
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  You haven't lived until you've been in the court of angry wife.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  You think there's no justice in these courts?
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:59.000]  Now, almost without fail, the wife will get dismissed from the case, but we don't care.
[01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  The officer will still be crucified.
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  So you can do that.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:13.000]  Judges and prosecutors that, you know, do us wrong?
[01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  Their wives, too. Until we start going after them, they're going to keep doing that crapola.
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:28.000]  But when we start suing the wife, he's going to have a problem.
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:31.000]  Oh, I like that.
[01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  All righty.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  All right, we're going to go now to Gary in Georgia.
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  Thanks, Gary.
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  What's on your mind?
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  No, I don't have much time, but it's always tight to get in your program and enjoy it as always.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  One question is, what is the federal rule or Texas rule of civil procedure for pretrial discovery?
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  Is that rule 23 or 24?
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  I want to see somebody. It might be John Doe's. I don't know who they are.
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  If you hadn't asked me, I'd have had it out of my tongue. It's 201 or 221?
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  Texas, 221.
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  I think it's 221.
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:26.000]  I do know the federal rules fairly well.
[01:55:26.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  Anyway, I'm just looking for the rule for pretrial discovery.
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:38.000]  I don't know that. That's fine. I'll move on to another issue, and that is the Kansas rule.
[01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:40.000]  Oh, I'm just curious. 202.
[01:55:40.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  202?
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:45.000]  Depositions before suit or to investigate claims.
[01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  All right, and that is Texas civil procedure, right?
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  Yes.
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  Yeah, because it doesn't sound like it fits. All righty.
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  Another thing, Randy, I've heard you quote Scrooge Mississippi case.
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  Yes.
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  Bullock, Georgia, sir, 1945. Just so I know. I mean, I love it like you do. Love your program.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  What did you say about him?
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  I'll send it to you again if you like.
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  Yeah, what was the citation?
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  Bullock Alley, Georgia. And Sheriff Scrooge, he arrested a man, a black man, for stealing tires.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:25.000]  They drug him into the jailhouse.
[01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  Yeah, that's Scrooge versus U.S.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:30.000]  Yeah, I thought that was Mississippi versus Georgia.
[01:56:30.000 --> 01:56:33.000]  That's what I just want to correct, sir. I'll send it to you.
[01:56:33.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  Okay, and I owe you one.
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  You sent me a copy of legislation.
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  Because I'm going to send you an APA case that's cited over 100 times, Federal Communications Commission, petitioner versus next wave.
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  Anyway, it tells you an agency must follow their own law, all laws, and that means not just the agency rules. And also...
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  Send me that case, Gary.
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  Oh, absolutely. It's 537, real quick, 537, U.S. 293. And it's 2003.
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  Okay, wait, wait. Quickly, I owe you one.
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:27.000]  Yeah, definitely send it to me on an email so I can have it so I can look it up.
[01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  It means it's going to come. So anyway, enjoy your program. God bless.
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:36.000]  Okay, thank you. All right, we're going to go to try to take another caller right before we go off the air here.
[01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  Doug from Texas. Doug, quickly, what's on your mind? You've got about 20 seconds.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  Yeah, I was just wondering, what's that website that he talked to me about on the police officers that, you know, that guy that hit and run me and they don't want to prosecute him?
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  And he said to put, get a, oh, you go to his website and get a document.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  That's your website he's talking about, Randy. Jurisimprudence.com.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  Jurisimprudence.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:16.000]  Jurisimprudence, I believe.
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  Jurisimprudence.com.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  J-U-R-I-S-I-M-P-R-U-D-E-N-C-E dot com.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  Dot com. And I'll pull up that. I sure like to get these police officers. I mean, this is a...
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  Absolutely. Okay, well listen, Doug, call back in on Thursday night, okay?
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  Okay, will do.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  All right, thank you. Will, sorry we didn't get to you. We'll be back on Thursday night. And folks, don't forget to check out Bush and Bleich in the morning.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Rise Up Radio, check out the archives, check out the show live Monday, Wednesday, Friday. They're going to be going five days a week soon, every morning.
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  We'll be back on Thursday night.
[01:59:25.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  We'll be back on Thursday night.
[01:59:55.000 --> 01:59:59.000]  Thank you.