[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 airstrikes 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 --> 01:03.000] State Senator Scott Brown says the US should continue to employ waterboarding against terrorist suspects, [01:03.000 --> 01:11.000] a technique considered torture for which the US executed Japanese soldiers during World War II. [01:11.000 --> 01:19.000] The FBI has admitted it used a photo of a bearded Spanish politician as the basis for a mocked-up photo-fit image [01:19.000 --> 01:24.000] showing how Osama bin Laden might look without a turban and long beard. [01:24.000 --> 01:32.000] The State Department was forced to withdraw the mocked-up image after the discovery it was not as technically sophisticated as the FBI claimed. [01:32.000 --> 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 --> 01:57.000] Gaspar Yamasaris, former leader of the United Left Coalition, said his forehead, hair and jawline had been cut and pasted from an old campaign photo. [01:57.000 --> 02:02.000] Yamasaris said the mistakes show the low level of US intelligence services, adding, [02:02.000 --> 02:09.000] 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 --> 02:44.000] Madsen says fingers are being pointed at Blackwater, Zee and Mossad for the motorbike bomb in Tehran that killed Tehran University nuclear physicist Dr. Musad Ali Mohammadi. [02:44.000 --> 03:05.000] The bomb was remotely triggered by a team linked to a US-based group called the Iran Monarchy Association, believed to be a CIA front. [03:15.000 --> 03:27.000] Bad boys, what you want, what you want, what you gonna do, when the mission is done, don't come for you [03:27.000 --> 03:35.000] Tell me, what you wanna do, what you gonna do [03:35.000 --> 03:46.000] Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you [03:46.000 --> 03:52.000] When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'll go to school and learn the golden rule [03:52.000 --> 03:54.000] So why are you acting like a bloody fool [03:54.000 --> 04:00.000] Alright, bad boys, bad boys, what are you gonna do when we come for you? [04:00.000 --> 04:07.000] This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [04:07.000 --> 04:14.000] Tonight is traffic night, Monday nights are Eddie's night, Randy Kelton has the night off tonight, he'll be back on Thursday [04:14.000 --> 04:25.000] and we are going to talk tonight about municipal and justice courts, which are JP courts, can never have the jurisdiction to hear a traffic case [04:25.000 --> 04:35.000] if they're functioning according to law, that is, so Eddie's gonna talk about that and we are taking your calls, 512-646-1984. [04:35.000 --> 04:37.000] Alright, Eddie, what do you got for us? [04:37.000 --> 04:45.000] Okay, basically speaking, we've talked a little bit about this once before here a couple of nights or a couple of Mondays ago [04:45.000 --> 04:50.000] and this is dealing with Chapter 14 and Chapter 15 out of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [04:50.000 --> 04:55.000] Basically, the way the process is set up to work, whether you're arrested with or without a warrant, [04:55.000 --> 05:02.000] the first thing that an officer is supposed to do once they place you under arrest is to take you immediately before a magistrate [05:02.000 --> 05:06.000] but no later than 48 hours before a magistrate. [05:06.000 --> 05:15.000] Now, we all know the police officers just love to say that that 48 hours is an open door to them, they can take you any time within that 48 hours [05:15.000 --> 05:21.000] but in the meantime, they can just throw you in jail, lock the cell and walk away and ignore you for that time frame. [05:21.000 --> 05:28.000] That is incorrect and the moment they do that, you need to start lining out the criminal charges you're gonna make against them [05:28.000 --> 05:35.000] in the lawsuit for paying you back for it because that is not what the law allows them to do. [05:35.000 --> 05:44.000] But be that as it may, the process is once they arrest you, the warrant or lack of warrant requires them to immediately take you [05:44.000 --> 05:47.000] before a magistrate that has jurisdiction of the offense. [05:47.000 --> 05:54.000] Now, if they arrest you on a traffic charge under Section 543, there is no 48-hour limit. [05:54.000 --> 06:02.000] Section 543 of the Transportation Code specifically states that they are to take you immediately before a magistrate. [06:02.000 --> 06:07.000] There is no 48-hour exception in Chapter 543. [06:07.000 --> 06:16.000] So any officer that tells you that he's got 48 hours is operating under the wrong section of statute and under the wrong code. [06:16.000 --> 06:25.000] He's working under Article 14 when he's actually arresting you under Article 543 and 543 has a separate set of rules. [06:25.000 --> 06:33.000] When he violates those rules, 543 says that officer has committed misconduct in office and that can get him fired. [06:33.000 --> 06:37.000] You need to make sure that's exactly what happens. [06:37.000 --> 06:45.000] But if they arrest you without a warrant under 543, they are to take you immediately before a magistrate. [06:45.000 --> 06:50.000] What is supposed to happen at this time is you are supposed to get your examining trial. [06:50.000 --> 06:56.000] This is where the magistrate listens to what the officer's saying, listens to what you have to say, [06:56.000 --> 07:01.000] and then makes the determination as to whether or not there's probable cause to take you to trial. [07:01.000 --> 07:08.000] At that point, the magistrate is required by law to issue a warrant. [07:08.000 --> 07:18.000] Then and only then is that officer allowed to put you in a cell unless the magistrate allows you to post a bond [07:18.000 --> 07:22.000] or releases you on your own recognizance after the warrant's been issued. [07:22.000 --> 07:25.000] It's up to their discretion as to how they do it. [07:25.000 --> 07:33.000] But in either case, that officer cannot put you in a jail cell until that warrant's been issued by that magistrate. [07:33.000 --> 07:36.000] So here's their problem. [07:36.000 --> 07:46.000] Once the magistrate issues the warrant, they immediately become susceptible to Article 1517, which is arrest with a warrant. [07:46.000 --> 07:52.000] Now the officer has already arrested you and brought you before the magistrate. [07:52.000 --> 07:56.000] I'm sorry, he wears the same guy wearing two different hats. [07:56.000 --> 07:59.000] In this phase, he is a magistrate, not a judge. [07:59.000 --> 08:06.000] So if I mistakenly say judge, remember at this point we're simply talking about a magistrate's duties, not a judge. [08:06.000 --> 08:16.000] So what is supposed to happen is once he issues that warrant of arrest, now there exists a warrant to arrest you. [08:16.000 --> 08:20.000] So the Article 15 kicks in for the warrant of arrest. [08:20.000 --> 08:29.000] Article 15, which is what I read on the show a couple weeks ago, under Article 1517, subsection B, [08:29.000 --> 08:40.000] after an accused charged with a misdemeanor punishable by fine only is taken before a magistrate under subsection A of this article, [08:40.000 --> 08:47.000] and the magistrate has identified the accused with certainty, the magistrate may release the accused without bond [08:47.000 --> 08:54.000] and order the accused to appear at a later date for arraignment in the county court or statutory county court. [08:54.000 --> 08:58.000] Now what do these JP courts and municipal courts actually do? [08:58.000 --> 09:07.000] One, they completely skip over the examining trial, which due process says they cannot do, but they do it. [09:07.000 --> 09:14.000] Now I've actually have had the municipal court judge tell me that they never issued a warrant for my arrest. [09:14.000 --> 09:20.000] But guess what? The paperwork they sent me shows a complaint by the officer, [09:20.000 --> 09:28.000] and the second page shows the warrant stamped, signed, and sealed by the court saying for any peace officer in the state to arrest me. [09:28.000 --> 09:33.000] So the judge just blatantly lied through her teeth in open court. [09:33.000 --> 09:38.000] She said there was no warrant issued. I've got the actual warrant that says, yes, it is issued. [09:38.000 --> 09:46.000] So be aware that they do what they're supposed to do on paper some of the time. [09:46.000 --> 09:53.000] But in this particular case, they actually issued the warrant, but she said they never put them out for execution, [09:53.000 --> 10:00.000] when in fact they most likely did, but I showed up on time and they never actually acted upon them. [10:00.000 --> 10:08.000] So now that the judge has supposed to have taken you, issued the warrant, blah, blah, blah, [10:08.000 --> 10:13.000] subsection B specifically says that they have lost jurisdiction. [10:13.000 --> 10:22.000] They have lost jurisdiction because they have now told you that you have to appear in the county court or the statutory county court. [10:22.000 --> 10:27.000] Once they've told you to appear in that court, their jurisdiction is gone. [10:27.000 --> 10:35.000] Okay? So now only the county court or the statutory county court has jurisdiction to hear the offense. [10:35.000 --> 10:39.000] They're the only ones that can have you in for an arraignment. [10:39.000 --> 10:46.000] They're the only one that can accept a plea. That's what your arraignment is. This is your plea. [10:46.000 --> 10:54.000] So when the municipal court or the justice court tells you how do you plead, they have no authority to take a plea from you. [10:54.000 --> 11:02.000] Absolutely none. They have already violated the steps necessary to get jurisdiction to begin with [11:02.000 --> 11:10.000] by denying the examining trial, which the law requires them to have, but they just don't do. [11:10.000 --> 11:17.000] So what we have to do now is to go after them and to actually make them obey the law, [11:17.000 --> 11:21.000] and we're going to have to do this however we can. It's going to have to be through lawsuits. [11:21.000 --> 11:28.000] It's going to have to be through protest. It's going to have to be whatever methods we can conjure up to go after them with. [11:28.000 --> 11:35.000] But the fact is the courts themselves are violating the law day in, day out. [11:35.000 --> 11:43.000] They are doing it in the name of taking money out of people's pockets just to enrich the city fund basically. [11:43.000 --> 11:51.000] Now, we know that this is what we have to do, so we just got to figure out the steps to get it done. [11:51.000 --> 12:01.000] Now, that being said, since the jurisdiction has been handed off to the county court or the statutory county court, [12:01.000 --> 12:08.000] we are now at a point where we have to insist that the municipal court relinquish jurisdiction, [12:08.000 --> 12:13.000] which they don't like to do because if they don't hear the case, they don't get a cut of the money. [12:13.000 --> 12:19.000] And thus, they're out all the expense they've accrued up to this point of having the officer bring you in, [12:19.000 --> 12:23.000] bringing you to court, calling the judge in, having the clerks work. [12:23.000 --> 12:28.000] They want to recoup all that money, so they don't want to give up the jurisdiction. [12:28.000 --> 12:35.000] So they just skip the steps the law requires of them so that they can appear to keep jurisdiction they don't actually have. [12:35.000 --> 12:42.000] This is fraud. It is also a straight-up denial of due process, and here's why. [12:42.000 --> 12:48.000] This ensures, number one, that your trial is heard in a court of non-record, [12:48.000 --> 12:55.000] because most JP courts and municipal courts are not courts of record, and since they are not courts of record, [12:55.000 --> 13:02.000] there is nothing to prevent the judge from doing whatever they want in violation of law, and they know it. [13:02.000 --> 13:10.000] So what we have to do is to make sure that we force them to obey the law and get us into that county court [13:10.000 --> 13:15.000] or that statutory county court, because those are courts of record. [13:15.000 --> 13:18.000] There is a court reporter. There is a transcript. [13:18.000 --> 13:24.000] The judge is much more likely to abide by the law than the lower court judge is. [13:24.000 --> 13:31.000] Now, this is what I've been saying all along about why these courts have no real jurisdiction over the people. [13:31.000 --> 13:35.000] The people are entitled to a court of record. [13:35.000 --> 13:41.000] We're entitled to have a proper ability to defend ourselves in our own courts. [13:41.000 --> 13:46.000] A JP court and municipal court are administrative. [13:46.000 --> 13:50.000] They have to be administrative because they have a very limited jurisdiction, [13:50.000 --> 13:59.000] and it's limited to only things that cannot be criminal that they can issue a warrant for, and this says it right here. [13:59.000 --> 14:07.000] Even though the statutes themselves say that a municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction for criminal cases arising under state law, [14:07.000 --> 14:12.000] this section right here shows full well that they don't keep the jurisdiction, [14:12.000 --> 14:18.000] meaning their jurisdiction is limited strictly to identifying the accused. [14:18.000 --> 14:23.000] Once they've identified you, then the jurisdiction for an arraignment [14:23.000 --> 14:31.000] and having a hearing on the actual case falls to the county court or the county statutory county court. [14:31.000 --> 14:36.000] It does not remain with the justice court or the municipal court. [14:36.000 --> 14:44.000] So with all that going on, these guys are hanging on to a jurisdiction they do not have. [14:44.000 --> 14:46.000] We need to call them on it. [14:46.000 --> 14:53.000] We need to get very familiar with Chapter 14 and Chapter 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [14:53.000 --> 14:59.000] These two chapters specifically deal with this arrest without and with a warrant. [14:59.000 --> 15:05.000] When we know what they're... [15:05.000 --> 15:06.000] Eddie? [15:06.000 --> 15:07.000] Yeah, I'm here. [15:07.000 --> 15:14.000] So what we have to do is make sure that we force these people to obey the law. [15:14.000 --> 15:16.000] So let's work on that. [15:16.000 --> 15:18.000] Study these two chapters. [15:18.000 --> 15:21.000] They're very, very important in making sure the law is obeyed. [15:21.000 --> 15:24.000] Go after that judge when they won't do what they're supposed to do. [15:24.000 --> 15:27.000] I mean go after them hard. [15:27.000 --> 15:29.000] You can file criminal complaints against them. [15:29.000 --> 15:31.000] You can file motions to disqualify. [15:31.000 --> 15:36.000] You can file motions of irritamandamus with a higher court. [15:36.000 --> 15:43.000] I mean you can go over this judge's head, and hopefully you're wearing hobnail boots when you do it. [15:43.000 --> 15:48.000] But this is how we're going to get back the court the way it's supposed to work for us, [15:48.000 --> 15:54.000] is to stop letting them have control of us and make them obey the law, [15:54.000 --> 15:58.000] which is what is supposed to have control of them. [15:58.000 --> 16:04.000] But if we can't learn to wield this stick, we can't use it to control them. [16:04.000 --> 16:10.000] So study up on Chapters 14 and 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because they're very, [16:10.000 --> 16:12.000] very important in this aspect. [16:12.000 --> 16:20.000] They're a long way to arguing your case and getting it thrown out because the judge failed to abide by the law. [16:20.000 --> 16:23.000] Now, we should have a break coming up here in a few minutes. [16:23.000 --> 16:26.000] Yes, we're coming up to break right now. [16:26.000 --> 16:32.000] And also there is a caller on the line, Ramon from Austin, who has a question about traffic issues as well. [16:32.000 --> 16:33.000] Okay. [16:33.000 --> 16:34.000] Okay, great. [16:34.000 --> 16:36.000] We will be right back with Eddie Craig. [16:36.000 --> 16:39.000] This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [16:39.000 --> 16:41.000] We will be back right on the other side. [16:41.000 --> 16:45.000] We're going to take your calls, 512-646-1984. [16:45.000 --> 16:53.000] We'll be right back. [16:53.000 --> 16:57.000] Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics? [16:57.000 --> 16:58.000] Sorry. [16:58.000 --> 17:00.000] Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve? [17:00.000 --> 17:01.000] What? [17:01.000 --> 17:06.000] If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. [17:06.000 --> 17:09.000] Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, [17:09.000 --> 17:12.000] I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. [17:12.000 --> 17:18.000] I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. [17:18.000 --> 17:23.000] Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope. [17:23.000 --> 17:29.000] The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other poxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover. [17:29.000 --> 17:36.000] And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. [17:36.000 --> 17:43.000] So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 [17:43.000 --> 17:48.000] or visit them at 1904guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com. [17:48.000 --> 17:51.000] Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment in enlarged vocabulary [17:51.000 --> 17:54.000] and an overall increase in mental functioning. [17:54.000 --> 18:22.000] Music [18:22.000 --> 18:26.000] All right, look what we get. [18:26.000 --> 18:28.000] We're taking your calls. [18:28.000 --> 18:34.000] Eddie has some more topics to present, but first we're going to go to Ramon in Texas. [18:34.000 --> 18:35.000] Ramon, thanks for calling in. [18:35.000 --> 18:37.000] What is your question for Eddie or myself? [18:37.000 --> 18:39.000] Hi, folks. [18:39.000 --> 18:41.000] I have three questions. [18:41.000 --> 18:47.000] The first question is of most importance to me, so maybe if you answer nothing else, [18:47.000 --> 18:50.000] I would appreciate the response to that one most importantly. [18:50.000 --> 18:56.000] The first question is just where do I find – I'm sorry, this is all new to me. [18:56.000 --> 18:59.000] Where do I find this code of criminal procedure? [18:59.000 --> 19:02.000] Where's a resource for that so I can study chapters 14 and 15? [19:02.000 --> 19:11.000] And also, second question is are students in law school or any kind of higher education systems, [19:11.000 --> 19:15.000] are they being taught or exposed or presented with this kind of information? [19:15.000 --> 19:19.000] If so, do you think they understand what you guys are talking about and are aware of it? [19:19.000 --> 19:25.000] Third, does it matter if you're being arrested by a state trooper or municipal police? [19:25.000 --> 19:27.000] Well, I can answer the first question. [19:27.000 --> 19:31.000] You can go download the code of criminal procedure for yourself. [19:31.000 --> 19:33.000] There's a link to it on our website. [19:33.000 --> 19:39.000] If you go to our website, you'll see there's a link on the navigation bar on the left that says statutes [19:39.000 --> 19:45.000] and it's broken down by state, and you can navigate to the download link from there. [19:45.000 --> 19:49.000] And as far as are these things being taught in law school or higher education, [19:49.000 --> 19:53.000] somehow I don't think so because I've talked with some law students. [19:53.000 --> 19:57.000] But when we start talking to them about it and show them the statute, [19:57.000 --> 20:02.000] they certainly do understand that this is correct and it is the law. [20:02.000 --> 20:04.000] So I'll turn it over to Eddie now. [20:04.000 --> 20:08.000] Yeah, you can go in virtually any state. [20:08.000 --> 20:16.000] All you need to do is type in www.TheNameOfTheState.gov in any web browser. [20:16.000 --> 20:23.000] And as long as it's got that.gov extension, it will usually take you to the government website for that state. [20:23.000 --> 20:31.000] From there, you just start looking for things that either say government, legislature, laws and statutes, [20:31.000 --> 20:36.000] and click on that link and generally it will lead you to wherever you need to be. [20:36.000 --> 20:43.000] So if you start looking over those here in Texas, it's www.TexasOnline.com. [20:43.000 --> 20:47.000] And then you just click on the blue banner at the top where it says government. [20:47.000 --> 20:51.000] When you click on that, you click on the section that says laws, codes and statutes, [20:51.000 --> 20:56.000] and that will take you to the link page where you can go to the legislative process, bill search, [20:56.000 --> 20:59.000] administrative code and Texas statutes themselves. [20:59.000 --> 21:01.000] Click on Texas statutes. [21:01.000 --> 21:07.000] That will take you up to a list of all the existing Texas statutes except for the administrative code. [21:07.000 --> 21:10.000] You have to browse that one completely separate. [21:10.000 --> 21:14.000] The administrative code is hidden from the public view. [21:14.000 --> 21:18.000] It's not browsable or searchable in the same manner that the other codes are. [21:18.000 --> 21:24.000] And for very good reason, it's where they hide the dirty little secrets that expose the fraud they're committing. [21:24.000 --> 21:25.000] Nice. [21:25.000 --> 21:31.000] So that one's a tad bit harder to come across in research, but it can be done if you're persistent. [21:31.000 --> 21:34.000] I'm persistent. [21:34.000 --> 21:37.000] Where could you view that in that administrative section? [21:37.000 --> 21:43.000] You can view it online, but you have to do it rule by rule. [21:43.000 --> 21:46.000] See, in the rest of them, you can view entire chapters at a time. [21:46.000 --> 21:52.000] You can download the entire code if you want to on all the other codes in Texas. [21:52.000 --> 21:59.000] But the administrative code is only available online, and you can only view it one rule at a time. [21:59.000 --> 22:03.000] That's so that you can't take anything in its proper context. [22:03.000 --> 22:05.000] It's meant to be confusing that way. [22:05.000 --> 22:11.000] So what I did was I just started in Title 37 and printed out every single rule, one rule at a time, [22:11.000 --> 22:16.000] and put it into a book, and now I've got the administrative code for Title 37. [22:16.000 --> 22:25.000] It's 380-some-odd pages, but hey, I've got it, and it didn't cost me $4,000. [22:25.000 --> 22:28.000] Okay. [22:28.000 --> 22:34.000] So does it matter if it's a state trooper or a municipal cop that's arresting the person? [22:34.000 --> 22:36.000] Does it matter at all? [22:36.000 --> 22:38.000] No. [22:38.000 --> 22:41.000] What matters is what court you wind up in. [22:41.000 --> 22:45.000] The court is either going to have jurisdiction or it's not going to have jurisdiction. [22:45.000 --> 22:52.000] And if it doesn't have jurisdiction, nothing under the sun will ever give it jurisdiction. [22:52.000 --> 22:55.000] It either has it or it does not. [22:55.000 --> 23:01.000] And in this case, the law specifically says other than for the purpose of identifying the accused [23:01.000 --> 23:04.000] and informing them of where to go for their arraignment, [23:04.000 --> 23:10.000] that's the end of jurisdiction for a JP court and a municipal court. [23:10.000 --> 23:12.000] Now, here's the kicker. [23:12.000 --> 23:19.000] In Texas, a traffic stop in accordance with Chapter 543 of the Transportation Code [23:19.000 --> 23:26.000] is automatically a custodial arrest, automatically. [23:26.000 --> 23:33.000] The moment that officer flips on his lights and pulls you over, you are under a custodial arrest. [23:33.000 --> 23:38.000] If you don't believe that, read Chapter 543, because it specifically says, [23:38.000 --> 23:43.000] the arresting officer shall do whatever to the person arrested, [23:43.000 --> 23:50.000] and before the arresting officer releases the person arrested, they will sign this notice to appear. [23:50.000 --> 23:53.000] If the person refuses to sign the notice to appear, [23:53.000 --> 23:58.000] the arresting officer shall take the person arrested before a magistrate. [23:58.000 --> 24:02.000] Nowhere in there does it say an unarrested person. [24:02.000 --> 24:07.000] Every time it addresses them, it says the person arrested. [24:07.000 --> 24:11.000] So a traffic stop in Texas is automatically a custodial arrest. [24:11.000 --> 24:13.000] So guess what? [24:13.000 --> 24:16.000] That means they automatically are required to read you your Miranda rights, [24:16.000 --> 24:20.000] something else they also do not do on traffic stops. [24:20.000 --> 24:24.000] That's true. [24:24.000 --> 24:25.000] Okay, great. [24:25.000 --> 24:26.000] Thank you. [24:26.000 --> 24:28.000] That's incredible information. [24:28.000 --> 24:30.000] Okay, thank you so much. [24:30.000 --> 24:31.000] You're welcome. [24:31.000 --> 24:32.000] Thank you, Ramon. [24:32.000 --> 24:33.000] You guys have a great night. [24:33.000 --> 24:35.000] Okay, you too. [24:35.000 --> 24:37.000] All right, we've got Steve from California. [24:37.000 --> 24:39.000] That's all that's on the call board right now. [24:39.000 --> 24:41.000] Eddie, would you like to go to Steve? [24:41.000 --> 24:42.000] Yeah, let's go ahead and take Steve, [24:42.000 --> 24:44.000] and then we'll go into the next segment here on the other stuff. [24:44.000 --> 24:46.000] Okay, Steve, thanks for calling in. [24:46.000 --> 24:48.000] What's on your mind? [24:48.000 --> 24:50.000] Well, I've called in for years now, [24:50.000 --> 24:55.000] and I want to let you know that the stuff you teach does work. [24:55.000 --> 24:59.000] I went to the Montclair Police Department today. [24:59.000 --> 25:06.000] They had impounded a car that was left to me by my father who passed away on the 22nd of December. [25:06.000 --> 25:10.000] The car was under non-op, and my son's car broke down, [25:10.000 --> 25:16.000] so we put him in my dad's car, went to the DMV, tried to get it registered. [25:16.000 --> 25:20.000] They said you cannot register a car once somebody has passed away for 40 days, [25:20.000 --> 25:22.000] which I had never heard of before. [25:22.000 --> 25:24.000] So they would not let me put the car in my name. [25:24.000 --> 25:28.000] It had remained Paul Brooks' name, my father's name. [25:28.000 --> 25:31.000] My son drove it anyway Friday and Saturday. [25:31.000 --> 25:33.000] Saturday night he got impounded. [25:33.000 --> 25:35.000] I'll probably forget his work. [25:35.000 --> 25:41.000] While he was in work, they impounded the car for expired tags. [25:41.000 --> 25:45.000] When I went to the police department this morning, [25:45.000 --> 25:51.000] they said that they could not release the car under expired tags. [25:51.000 --> 25:54.000] They told me to go to the DMV, get a temporary tag for it, bring it back. [25:54.000 --> 25:55.000] They would release the car. [25:55.000 --> 25:56.000] I would pay the impound fees. [25:56.000 --> 25:57.000] We'd be done. [25:57.000 --> 26:00.000] So I went to the DMV, jumped through their hoops, got back. [26:00.000 --> 26:03.000] The DMV would not change the name on the registration, [26:03.000 --> 26:08.000] but they did give me a temporary operating tag. [26:08.000 --> 26:10.000] I returned to the police station. [26:10.000 --> 26:15.000] The police refused to release the car, even though I had the money [26:15.000 --> 26:19.000] and I had the temporary tag because it was in my father's name. [26:19.000 --> 26:21.000] It was not changed over into my name. [26:21.000 --> 26:25.000] They could not release it to a person that it wasn't registered to. [26:25.000 --> 26:30.000] Well, after going around and around with them for an hour or two, [26:30.000 --> 26:36.000] I went to the mayor's office and made an appointment with the mayor of my city [26:36.000 --> 26:42.000] to tell him that I was going to file a tort letter with him for due process violations, [26:42.000 --> 26:47.000] for taking my private property without due process. [26:47.000 --> 26:50.000] Apparently the mayor called the police station. [26:50.000 --> 26:53.000] This afternoon they called me, would you please come talk to us? [26:53.000 --> 26:57.000] They released the vehicle to me. [26:57.000 --> 27:01.000] So now I'm going to be out $500 or $600 for the impound charges, [27:01.000 --> 27:07.000] and I was wondering would a tort letter be in order at this point to the city to recoup my damages? [27:07.000 --> 27:08.000] Yes, it would. [27:08.000 --> 27:09.000] Most certainly. [27:09.000 --> 27:12.000] Don't even hesitate. [27:12.000 --> 27:14.000] That was my question. [27:14.000 --> 27:17.000] And I'm going to file a tort letter with the mayor of Montclair [27:17.000 --> 27:24.000] demanding that I be made whole in the sum of $800 plus a lost day's wages. [27:24.000 --> 27:27.000] Actually, I would go further than that. [27:27.000 --> 27:28.000] In this particular case... [27:28.000 --> 27:29.000] No, that's not enough. [27:29.000 --> 27:32.000] Yeah, we're talking theft of private property. [27:32.000 --> 27:36.000] What is the monetary value of the private property? [27:36.000 --> 27:39.000] The private property is the only thing my father left to me. [27:39.000 --> 27:42.000] True, but I mean what's the monetary value? [27:42.000 --> 27:46.000] The monetary value of the car is less than $2,000. [27:46.000 --> 27:54.000] Now, what's the pain and anguish of it being the only thing left that was given you by your deceased father? [27:54.000 --> 27:55.000] Priceless. [27:55.000 --> 27:58.000] There you go. [27:58.000 --> 27:59.000] Okay. [27:59.000 --> 28:02.000] The fact is is they stole without any authority. [28:02.000 --> 28:11.000] They have no authority to remove a private vehicle from a private parking lot, tags or no tags. [28:11.000 --> 28:19.000] They have no authority to enter private property and tow somebody else's property that hasn't requested a tow for that property. [28:19.000 --> 28:21.000] Without due process of law. [28:21.000 --> 28:23.000] This is what some of them are losing to you. [28:23.000 --> 28:26.000] And it managed to get the car released. [28:26.000 --> 28:31.000] I still have to pay the fees, but I'll get the money back through the tort letter if need be. [28:31.000 --> 28:32.000] But that's my next step. [28:32.000 --> 28:37.000] But I wanted to let you know that you can stand up to these people, and you guys are absolutely brilliant. [28:37.000 --> 28:40.000] And I want to thank you for your time, and I'll listen offline. [28:40.000 --> 28:41.000] Yes, sir. [28:41.000 --> 28:43.000] Thank you, Steve. [28:43.000 --> 28:48.000] You may want to also consider going after the tow company, too. [28:48.000 --> 28:49.000] Yeah, most assuredly. [28:49.000 --> 28:51.000] You can send a letter to the tow company. [28:51.000 --> 28:59.000] If the officer called them out there and had no authority to have that car towed, then you can most certainly go after the tow company the same way. [28:59.000 --> 29:01.000] Yep. [29:01.000 --> 29:03.000] Absolutely. [29:03.000 --> 29:04.000] All right. [29:04.000 --> 29:05.000] Is our call board looking clear? [29:05.000 --> 29:07.000] Our call board is clear right now. [29:07.000 --> 29:10.000] We're actually about to go to break those, so in a few seconds. [29:10.000 --> 29:11.000] Yep, I figured we were. [29:11.000 --> 29:15.000] Yeah, so just give us an overview of what we're going to go over in the next segment. [29:15.000 --> 29:16.000] Okay. [29:16.000 --> 29:24.000] In the next section, I'm going to touch real quickly on some possible revised statutes that was sent to me by one of the listeners, CORE, out there. [29:24.000 --> 29:29.000] We'll be going over what they are proposing to revise in parts of the transportation code, [29:29.000 --> 29:34.000] and I wish to use it to clarify a point that I have been making since I started this show. [29:34.000 --> 29:35.000] All right. [29:35.000 --> 29:36.000] Very good. [29:36.000 --> 29:38.000] We'll be right back on the other side. [29:38.000 --> 29:44.000] And callers, if you'd like to call in and get in the queue, 512-646-1984. [29:44.000 --> 29:53.000] We'll be right back. [29:53.000 --> 29:58.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [29:58.000 --> 30:02.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [30:02.000 --> 30:07.000] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. [30:07.000 --> 30:13.000] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. [30:13.000 --> 30:17.000] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. [30:17.000 --> 30:19.000] How to answer letters and phone calls. [30:19.000 --> 30:22.000] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. [30:22.000 --> 30:26.000] How to turn your financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [30:26.000 --> 30:32.000] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [30:32.000 --> 30:34.000] Personal consultation is available as well. [30:34.000 --> 30:42.000] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [30:42.000 --> 30:56.000] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [30:56.000 --> 31:07.000] Yes, I got a warrant and I'm going to solve them to the end of them and prosecute them. [31:07.000 --> 31:09.000] Okay. [31:09.000 --> 31:11.000] Okay, we are back. [31:11.000 --> 31:14.000] Justin, we see you on the board, but just give us a couple minutes. [31:14.000 --> 31:17.000] Eddie wants to finish this topic here. [31:17.000 --> 31:19.000] Go ahead, Eddie. [31:19.000 --> 31:20.000] All right. [31:20.000 --> 31:26.000] For 2011, April, there is to be a proposed revision of law. [31:26.000 --> 31:38.000] This is Section 111.001 of the Transportation Code, regulation by Texas Department of Transportation general provisions, and it's dealing with railroads. [31:38.000 --> 31:53.000] Now, this specifically says that 111.001, definition of person, for each provision in this chapter added April 1, 2011, as part of the revision of formal Title 112 revised statutes, [31:53.000 --> 32:09.000] sub-item 1, person includes a corporation, as provided by Section 312.011 Government Code, and 2, the definition of person assigned by Section 311.005 Government Code does not apply. [32:09.000 --> 32:20.000] Now, remember I told you that 311 specifically says that unless the code specifically says 311 does not apply, 311 does apply, [32:20.000 --> 32:29.000] because at the very beginning of virtually every code in Texas, it says the rules of Chapter 311 Government Code apply to this code. [32:29.000 --> 32:42.000] So if they're going to use a term that means something exclusive of what's in Chapter 311, this is what it must say, Chapter 311 Government Code does not apply. [32:42.000 --> 32:45.000] Now, this one says that, but now here is the interesting part. [32:45.000 --> 32:56.000] This is the reviser's note. In other words, the legislator that is trying to rewrite this statute, this is the commentary they made on why they're doing this. [32:56.000 --> 33:11.000] To ensure that no substantive change is made by the revision of the term person as used in Title 112 revised statutes, the revised law adds a provision stating that, [33:11.000 --> 33:24.000] for the purposes of the provisions of Title 112 revised statutes revised in this chapter, person includes a corporation as provided by Section 312.011 Government Code, [33:24.000 --> 33:31.000] and the definition of person in Section 311.005 Government Code does not apply. [33:31.000 --> 33:43.000] Section 312.001 Subsection 10 Government Code, which applies to Title 112, provides that person includes a corporation. [33:43.000 --> 33:53.000] Section 311.005 Subsection 2 Government Code, the Code Construction Act, which applies to the Transportation Code, [33:53.000 --> 34:07.000] defines person to include a corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity. [34:07.000 --> 34:20.000] So right here, this code revision specifically states that it fully understands and is aware that the term person as defined in Chapter 311.006 is the controlling term in the Transportation Code. [34:20.000 --> 34:25.000] Just like I said since I started going over this stuff with folks, okay? [34:25.000 --> 34:36.000] That term deals strictly with legal entities and nothing else, has nothing to do with the people whatsoever, absolutely nada. [34:36.000 --> 34:37.000] All right. [34:37.000 --> 34:39.000] I just wanted to get that out there. [34:39.000 --> 34:44.000] Let's go ahead and take our other caller, and then we will continue on with the Administrative Procedures Act. [34:44.000 --> 34:45.000] Okay, wonderful. [34:45.000 --> 34:46.000] All right. [34:46.000 --> 34:47.000] This is Jim from Texas. [34:47.000 --> 34:49.000] Jim, thanks for calling in. [34:49.000 --> 34:50.000] What is on your mind tonight? [34:50.000 --> 34:52.000] Well, I had a couple of little questions real quick. [34:52.000 --> 35:04.000] First one was about registering a pickup truck that was – we bought from my mother. [35:04.000 --> 35:09.000] My stepfather passed away, so we bought it from her for $10.00. [35:09.000 --> 35:15.000] Basically, it was given to my wife for a lot of things that she's done for her. [35:15.000 --> 35:23.000] Well, when we went to register it today, they wouldn't let us register it because of a couple of reasons, [35:23.000 --> 35:27.000] mainly that we had to declare a higher value of it. [35:27.000 --> 35:29.000] They want to set the value. [35:29.000 --> 35:30.000] Exactly. [35:30.000 --> 35:33.000] Well, I told them I'm not going to change the value. [35:33.000 --> 35:37.000] The price was $10.00 and other considerations. [35:37.000 --> 35:41.000] They said, well, the state won't accept that. [35:41.000 --> 35:43.000] I said, well, I don't care whether they accept it or not. [35:43.000 --> 35:49.000] We can change the price, and if you want to change the price on it, that's your right, [35:49.000 --> 35:53.000] but I'm not going to change it. [35:53.000 --> 36:00.000] I said, I don't think you have the authority to change the contract that we paid for. [36:00.000 --> 36:01.000] Yeah. [36:01.000 --> 36:03.000] What are you supposed to lie about how much you paid for it? [36:03.000 --> 36:04.000] Well, that was just it. [36:04.000 --> 36:11.000] I mean, so anyway, I told them if I wind up having to pay the tax on it, [36:11.000 --> 36:13.000] that's all they want, the tax on it. [36:13.000 --> 36:16.000] Yeah, that's the whole reason they want the jack to price up. [36:16.000 --> 36:17.000] It means more tax. [36:17.000 --> 36:24.000] I said, you know, if I have to pay the tax on it, I'll do it, but under duress, [36:24.000 --> 36:28.000] so that I have the right to challenge it. [36:28.000 --> 36:34.000] I said, but I'm not going to accept just what you're saying is the way it is [36:34.000 --> 36:37.000] because you don't have the authority to do it. [36:37.000 --> 36:42.000] They kind of got a little perturbed at me, but I said, that's okay. [36:42.000 --> 36:44.000] It's just the way I am. [36:44.000 --> 36:49.000] I don't agree with somebody telling me that I have to do something a certain way [36:49.000 --> 36:54.000] because they say so, and they can't show me the law that says so. [36:54.000 --> 37:02.000] But after that, I went downstairs because my wife wants to have a DBA [37:02.000 --> 37:06.000] for a business that she's doing, and they give us the paper to fill out. [37:06.000 --> 37:12.000] When I saw the paper, I realized that the paper they're giving us is for a law [37:12.000 --> 37:17.000] that's been repealed, to comply with a law that's been repealed. [37:17.000 --> 37:23.000] Chapter 36, Title 5 of the Business and Commerce Code has been repealed. [37:23.000 --> 37:28.000] And on the top of their paper, it says we're doing this to comply with that law. [37:28.000 --> 37:30.000] Okay, can I ask you another question? [37:30.000 --> 37:34.000] Having been through that as well, I'm going to ask you this straight up. [37:34.000 --> 37:36.000] Do you plan on incorporating this business? [37:36.000 --> 37:38.000] Absolutely not. [37:38.000 --> 37:42.000] Then why in the Sam Hill are you even trying to get a DBA? [37:42.000 --> 37:47.000] Well, it's just operating under an assumed name, which I know there's no requirement. [37:47.000 --> 37:51.000] You can use any assumed name that you want as long as it's for legal purposes. [37:51.000 --> 37:54.000] Okay, here's the problem, and I'm going to tell you this straight up, [37:54.000 --> 37:57.000] having been down this road myself, okay? [37:57.000 --> 38:02.000] First thing is you get a DBA, you open a bank account with that DBA, [38:02.000 --> 38:06.000] you have now given the state direct access to steal your money from that bank account, [38:06.000 --> 38:09.000] and they will use it any time they so desire. [38:09.000 --> 38:12.000] Don't do it. [38:12.000 --> 38:15.000] You think it's best just to do it under your own name? [38:15.000 --> 38:18.000] You can do that, but here's the deal. [38:18.000 --> 38:21.000] How does it give the state to have the right to take the money out of the bank account [38:21.000 --> 38:22.000] each time they want it? [38:22.000 --> 38:25.000] Ask the thieving comptroller's office that question. [38:25.000 --> 38:31.000] Because it has the name of a business on it, they deem that it is a corporation, [38:31.000 --> 38:38.000] which they can control, and they have under the charter for those corporations [38:38.000 --> 38:41.000] that they can seize the funds of that corporation [38:41.000 --> 38:45.000] any time that corporation is suspected of wrongdoing. [38:45.000 --> 38:48.000] So they treat you the same way, whether it's true or not. [38:48.000 --> 38:50.000] That's irrelevant to them. [38:50.000 --> 38:57.000] They will and have seized bank accounts because the business name was attached to it. [38:57.000 --> 39:04.000] If it is a strictly personal account, they cannot touch it without a court order, period. [39:04.000 --> 39:10.000] So just by being a business account gives the state authority? [39:10.000 --> 39:12.000] Okay, do you know what DBA stands for? [39:12.000 --> 39:13.000] Right, doing business as. [39:13.000 --> 39:14.000] Correct. [39:14.000 --> 39:18.000] Now, do you know what the law says doing business as means? [39:18.000 --> 39:22.000] Well, no, I don't, because I haven't really been able to find much on it. [39:22.000 --> 39:25.000] Everything I find is under assumed name. [39:25.000 --> 39:31.000] Doing business as a foreign corporation within the borders of Texas. [39:31.000 --> 39:35.000] It's right in the state constitution. [39:35.000 --> 39:39.000] I haven't seen that part of it, but that very well may be. [39:39.000 --> 39:44.000] It specifically says foreign corporations doing business. [39:44.000 --> 39:49.000] And if you go look in Black's law for doing business and doing business as, [39:49.000 --> 39:55.000] every single time the definition says it applies to foreign corporations operating [39:55.000 --> 39:58.000] within the borders of a state where they are not headquartered. [39:58.000 --> 40:00.000] That's how they became a foreign corporation. [40:00.000 --> 40:09.000] For instance, Walmart in Texas is a foreign corporation because their headquarters is in Ohio. [40:09.000 --> 40:13.000] Well, and I understand, a corporation, I understand. [40:13.000 --> 40:19.000] I didn't know that that would apply under a regular sole proprietorship or type of. [40:19.000 --> 40:20.000] It doesn't. [40:20.000 --> 40:21.000] Individual business. [40:21.000 --> 40:26.000] But that doesn't stop them. [40:26.000 --> 40:31.000] Well, my whole thing came up with this because I'm in the process of following suit on a [40:31.000 --> 40:43.000] company that's doing business as a LLC doing business as a company here in town. [40:43.000 --> 40:48.000] And I've researched most of the laws on it, and it's specific. [40:48.000 --> 40:52.000] And all of those laws have been repealed. [40:52.000 --> 40:58.000] Well, they had written a new law, basically. [40:58.000 --> 41:04.000] But I didn't want to sign anything under oath saying that I was trying to do something [41:04.000 --> 41:07.000] under a law that doesn't exist. [41:07.000 --> 41:08.000] Okay. [41:08.000 --> 41:11.000] What's the purpose of incorporating? [41:11.000 --> 41:15.000] Well, the incorporation, to be incorporated, the only purpose that I. [41:15.000 --> 41:16.000] I don't know. [41:16.000 --> 41:18.000] I'm not asking what that is, to be incorporated. [41:18.000 --> 41:21.000] I'm asking you why do companies do it? [41:21.000 --> 41:23.000] Why do they create a corporation? [41:23.000 --> 41:27.000] For tax purposes and to protect assets. [41:27.000 --> 41:28.000] Whose assets? [41:28.000 --> 41:32.000] Well, supposedly their assets or their investors' assets. [41:32.000 --> 41:33.000] That's right. [41:33.000 --> 41:36.000] The investors, the shareholders, and the officers. [41:36.000 --> 41:37.000] Right. [41:37.000 --> 41:41.000] That corporate veil means that if a lawsuit's filed, it stops at the corporation. [41:41.000 --> 41:48.000] It does not touch the personal assets and property of those that actually own it or run it. [41:48.000 --> 41:51.000] Until somebody does something illegal, then you pierce the veil. [41:51.000 --> 41:52.000] Exactly. [41:52.000 --> 41:53.000] Which I'm doing. [41:53.000 --> 41:57.000] Now, that veil exists because of what? [41:57.000 --> 42:06.000] Well, the only thing that I can see, the veil exists because of the corporation [42:06.000 --> 42:08.000] supposedly can't do anything illegal. [42:08.000 --> 42:13.000] Well, the veil exists because the legislator created it through statute. [42:13.000 --> 42:16.000] Correct? [42:16.000 --> 42:17.000] True. [42:17.000 --> 42:18.000] All right. [42:18.000 --> 42:27.000] So if the legislator created it and granted it to the corporation, what is it? [42:27.000 --> 42:30.000] It's a creature of the state, basically. [42:30.000 --> 42:31.000] It's a privilege. [42:31.000 --> 42:32.000] That's right. [42:32.000 --> 42:38.000] And a privilege can be revoked at any time, can it not, by the one granting the privilege? [42:38.000 --> 42:39.000] Right. [42:39.000 --> 42:40.000] Okay. [42:40.000 --> 42:44.000] So they can change the rules on corporations all day long, [42:44.000 --> 42:48.000] and there is nothing a corporation can do about it except protest. [42:48.000 --> 42:52.000] The people, however, are a completely different animal. [42:52.000 --> 43:00.000] So operating a business or a, well, I don't even know if you'd want to go to that point. [43:00.000 --> 43:07.000] I mean, to do a trade, she has to be licensed by the state to do what she's doing, [43:07.000 --> 43:12.000] the massage therapist. [43:12.000 --> 43:17.000] So it's kind of a touchy situation for us. [43:17.000 --> 43:18.000] Okay. [43:18.000 --> 43:19.000] Let me ask you a question. [43:19.000 --> 43:22.000] Once again, have you read the law on this subject? [43:22.000 --> 43:27.000] On the, yes. [43:27.000 --> 43:29.000] We're going to break. [43:29.000 --> 43:33.000] If you'll hang on just a minute, we'll pick this up on the other side. [43:33.000 --> 43:35.000] Yes, hang on the line. [43:35.000 --> 43:38.000] And, Rick, from California, we see you there as well. [43:38.000 --> 43:43.000] We'll be right back. [44:08.000 --> 44:13.000] Okay. [44:39.000 --> 44:44.000] Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org. [44:44.000 --> 44:46.000] It's a great way to change your life. [44:46.000 --> 44:54.000] So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today. [44:54.000 --> 45:12.000] If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? [45:12.000 --> 45:18.000] If you could not reach anybody too low, would your purpose have to be done? [45:18.000 --> 45:24.000] Would you step down on the soldier or warrior of love scuffling the keys of peace? [45:24.000 --> 45:29.000] All they're taking is a misunderstanding if somebody calls the police. [45:29.000 --> 45:56.000] Okay, we are back. [45:56.000 --> 45:59.000] We're speaking with Jim from Texas. [45:59.000 --> 46:01.000] Okay, go ahead, Eddie. [46:01.000 --> 46:02.000] All right, Jim. [46:02.000 --> 46:04.000] Okay. [46:04.000 --> 46:06.000] Now, go ahead with what you're about to say. [46:06.000 --> 46:15.000] Well, I was saying, yes, I've read through fairly well on the requirements for the massage license. [46:15.000 --> 46:22.000] For the code of ethics and the different requirements for having a massage establishment and stuff like that, [46:22.000 --> 46:28.000] there are no real requirements to have a company name, a DBA, anything like that, [46:28.000 --> 46:35.000] unless it's in some type of establishment where the local rules would apply to it. [46:35.000 --> 46:37.000] It's all under the Texas Administrative Code. [46:37.000 --> 46:42.000] It's not under the health services. [46:42.000 --> 46:43.000] Okay. [46:43.000 --> 46:46.000] Well, the thing about it is, first off, when you read it, [46:46.000 --> 46:50.000] how does it address the person conducting the business? [46:50.000 --> 46:52.000] What does it call them? [46:52.000 --> 46:54.000] A massage therapist. [46:54.000 --> 46:57.000] Okay, did you look up to see what the definition of a massage therapist is? [46:57.000 --> 46:59.000] Right, yes. [46:59.000 --> 47:01.000] And what does it say a massage therapist is? [47:01.000 --> 47:04.000] I don't have that right in front of me right now. [47:04.000 --> 47:06.000] By any chance did it use the term person? [47:06.000 --> 47:09.000] Person, yes, a person licensed to do so. [47:09.000 --> 47:11.000] Okay, did you look up the definition of the term person? [47:11.000 --> 47:13.000] Yes, I did. [47:13.000 --> 47:15.000] And what does it say a person is? [47:15.000 --> 47:18.000] A person can be almost anyone. [47:18.000 --> 47:21.000] No, no, I'm not asking you what you think it can be. [47:21.000 --> 47:25.000] I'm asking you what the statute says it is. [47:25.000 --> 47:28.000] Under the definition I don't have in front of me, [47:28.000 --> 47:32.000] but it listed a corporation, it listed individual, it listed... [47:32.000 --> 47:36.000] Individual, corporation, association, blah, blah, blah, right? [47:36.000 --> 47:37.000] Right. [47:37.000 --> 47:41.000] Go to the very top of the health code and see if it does not specifically state, [47:41.000 --> 47:46.000] Chapter 311 Government Code applies to this code. [47:46.000 --> 47:47.000] I can do that. [47:47.000 --> 47:56.000] Now, once you do that, go to Chapter 311.005 and look at the definition of person there [47:56.000 --> 47:59.000] and see if it doesn't list all legal entities. [47:59.000 --> 48:03.000] The Health and Occupations Code in this case, I guarantee you, [48:03.000 --> 48:07.000] when you read this is going to tell you one thing and one thing only. [48:07.000 --> 48:14.000] A corporation must license its massage therapist. [48:14.000 --> 48:21.000] A private business that is not incorporated is not a person [48:21.000 --> 48:27.000] and will not be required to do any such thing. [48:27.000 --> 48:32.000] And that's a good possibility. [48:32.000 --> 48:33.000] I can look through that. [48:33.000 --> 48:44.000] I was just trying to find out what the actual, I mean, but I've looked through this mainly [48:44.000 --> 48:47.000] because of the lawsuit that we're in the process of. [48:47.000 --> 48:55.000] And then she's no longer there going to open her own business, but... [48:55.000 --> 48:57.000] Well, I'll put it to you this way. [48:57.000 --> 49:01.000] Once you put yourself under the state's thumb by asking a grant of privilege [49:01.000 --> 49:08.000] from the state in any way, shape or form, you're sold out, dude. [49:08.000 --> 49:11.000] Well, she is licensed by the state. [49:11.000 --> 49:14.000] But what I'm saying is, is to have her check and see, [49:14.000 --> 49:19.000] understand that she is probably not required to be licensed by the state [49:19.000 --> 49:24.000] and that by accepting that license, she is accepting all the rules, regulations, [49:24.000 --> 49:28.000] constraints and possible privilege revocations that go with it. [49:28.000 --> 49:30.000] True. [49:30.000 --> 49:32.000] And I understand that. [49:32.000 --> 49:35.000] That was, I think she does too. [49:35.000 --> 49:38.000] And I will look through this very closely. [49:38.000 --> 49:39.000] Yeah. [49:39.000 --> 49:44.000] But see, that license is what's going to let them reach into that bank account. [49:44.000 --> 49:49.000] Not just that DBA, but any privilege that you're taking from them, [49:49.000 --> 49:54.000] as far as they see it, is a grant of authority for everything. [49:54.000 --> 50:00.000] And you will have to fight them every time they do it to prove it's not. [50:00.000 --> 50:01.000] You see what I'm saying? [50:01.000 --> 50:03.000] You give them an inch, they take a mile, [50:03.000 --> 50:08.000] and then you've got to fight tooth and nail to get all that mile back. [50:08.000 --> 50:12.000] That's how they want it because that means money for them. [50:12.000 --> 50:14.000] Sure. [50:14.000 --> 50:15.000] Okay. [50:15.000 --> 50:21.000] Well, that will let me do a little bit more research, so I appreciate it. [50:21.000 --> 50:22.000] Yes, sir. [50:22.000 --> 50:23.000] Not a problem. [50:23.000 --> 50:25.000] That's what I come up with here. [50:25.000 --> 50:26.000] All right. [50:26.000 --> 50:27.000] Good luck. [50:27.000 --> 50:28.000] All right. [50:28.000 --> 50:29.000] Thanks, Jim. [50:29.000 --> 50:30.000] Okay. [50:30.000 --> 50:32.000] We're going to Rick in California now. [50:32.000 --> 50:33.000] Go ahead, Rick. [50:33.000 --> 50:35.000] Thanks for calling in. [50:35.000 --> 50:36.000] How's it going? [50:36.000 --> 50:37.000] Thanks for having me. [50:37.000 --> 50:39.000] Rick, what's up, buddy? [50:39.000 --> 50:41.000] How's it going? [50:41.000 --> 50:43.000] I called because, of course, I'm just hitting in, [50:43.000 --> 50:45.000] and your show is awesome as always. [50:45.000 --> 50:51.000] And I wanted to just touch the same thing as far as traffic goes on in California, [50:51.000 --> 50:56.000] because when it says for a corporation it says natural person, [50:56.000 --> 51:00.000] I look for natural person, it does not have that definition. [51:00.000 --> 51:05.000] And I know it goes to the federal definition as well because there's a provision [51:05.000 --> 51:10.000] somewhere in the California Code where states, I believe, [51:10.000 --> 51:13.000] something to the effect that in absent of federal definition, [51:13.000 --> 51:16.000] then the state definition shall apply. [51:16.000 --> 51:21.000] So since the Motor Vehicle Code is defined in the federal code, [51:21.000 --> 51:24.000] it applies for the state of California. [51:24.000 --> 51:30.000] And as far as that piercing the veil, the corporate veil you're talking about, [51:30.000 --> 51:35.000] I've been doing research and I've had close friends also explain certain things to me. [51:35.000 --> 51:38.000] One of them actually showed me now in the state of California, [51:38.000 --> 51:42.000] all officers' oaths are invalid because it was repealed [51:42.000 --> 51:46.000] and there was no savings clause in the thing, [51:46.000 --> 51:50.000] and it's not the whole complete oath of office like a state's supposed to be. [51:50.000 --> 51:53.000] It's really interesting. [51:53.000 --> 51:54.000] I don't doubt it. [51:54.000 --> 51:57.000] California's got a lot of things in their state constitution that obviously [51:57.000 --> 52:00.000] the people running for public office never bothered to read. [52:00.000 --> 52:04.000] For instance, you're aware in California it's absolutely illegal under the state constitution [52:04.000 --> 52:07.000] for a bank to operate and function. [52:07.000 --> 52:10.000] Oh, man, I was not aware of that. [52:10.000 --> 52:14.000] Yes, no banks, no credit card companies of any kind, [52:14.000 --> 52:17.000] according to y'all's state constitution out there. [52:17.000 --> 52:20.000] Yes, and also just like in the state constitution, [52:20.000 --> 52:24.000] any controversy $20 and over shall be by a grand jury, [52:24.000 --> 52:29.000] but they've converted that traffic in fractions are not a crime, [52:29.000 --> 52:34.000] but that's exactly what they say when you go to traffic court out here, it's a crime. [52:34.000 --> 52:40.000] I have a case right now in the appellate court. [52:40.000 --> 52:44.000] At the time, it's taken me a whole year to get there, [52:44.000 --> 52:48.000] but unfortunately from what I'm seeing and I'm reading now, [52:48.000 --> 52:51.000] I filed for some reason, I don't know what I was thinking back then, [52:51.000 --> 52:56.000] but I filed it one day too late, so of course they did a motion to dismiss, [52:56.000 --> 53:00.000] but now I want to actually learn how to do a motion to vacate void judgment [53:00.000 --> 53:05.000] void regardless from what I'm understanding when they give you a citation. [53:05.000 --> 53:09.000] Any officer in the state of California can't even give you a citation [53:09.000 --> 53:13.000] or a notice to appear unless you've been in a traffic accident. [53:13.000 --> 53:16.000] Well, if their oath of office is invalid though, [53:16.000 --> 53:18.000] how can they even enforce the law legally? [53:18.000 --> 53:25.000] That's right, and one of the questions I raised in my appeal is if an officer [53:25.000 --> 53:28.000] is allowed to do something or if an officer does something [53:28.000 --> 53:31.000] he is not authorized to do, is he still an officer? [53:31.000 --> 53:34.000] So they can respond and say yes, thank you, now I can go after the city, [53:34.000 --> 53:38.000] but if they say no, then my second question would be if he's not authorized, [53:38.000 --> 53:42.000] is he not a citizen impersonating a peace officer? [53:42.000 --> 53:44.000] They kicked it out. [53:44.000 --> 53:48.000] I've got five cases left in Glendale. [53:48.000 --> 53:51.000] You do know when you're going to have to file one beyond a deadline, [53:51.000 --> 53:54.000] the first thing you can file is a motion for extension, right? [53:54.000 --> 53:58.000] Yeah, well, unfortunately I found out just recently, which is too late now [53:58.000 --> 54:01.000] for this one that's in the Los Angeles Appellate Court, [54:01.000 --> 54:05.000] but yeah, it's really interesting as far as the traffic goes [54:05.000 --> 54:08.000] because a lot of people, they keep saying it's not commercial, [54:08.000 --> 54:12.000] but if you look at the law, it says nothing but commercial. [54:12.000 --> 54:14.000] In California, as a matter of fact, if you're driving under the influence, [54:14.000 --> 54:16.000] it doesn't say if you're driving under the influence, [54:16.000 --> 54:21.000] it says if you're driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence [54:21.000 --> 54:26.000] or if any kind of alcohol in your system, 0.08 or over, it shall be legal, [54:26.000 --> 54:31.000] but it doesn't say if you're driving a motor vehicle with alcohol in your system. [54:31.000 --> 54:34.000] So there's a lot of things out here that I'm also looking, [54:34.000 --> 54:38.000] but what would you say as far as what advice could you give me [54:38.000 --> 54:44.000] as far as looking for other, I guess, laws? [54:44.000 --> 54:47.000] Well, now, as I've told lots of people on the show, [54:47.000 --> 54:53.000] Kevin Michaels has uncovered a ton of information on traffic law in California. [54:53.000 --> 54:56.000] He's done in California what I've done here in Texas, [54:56.000 --> 55:01.000] and basically I've read the California statutes he's pointed me to, [55:01.000 --> 55:06.000] and they make it very clear everything to do with the DMV and licensing in California [55:06.000 --> 55:09.000] is just as commercial as it is here in Texas, [55:09.000 --> 55:14.000] except it's even more specific and clear in the California law. [55:14.000 --> 55:20.000] There is absolutely no way a person that can read English could insist [55:20.000 --> 55:24.000] that these statutes have anything to do with private automobiles. [55:24.000 --> 55:25.000] Yes. [55:25.000 --> 55:28.000] Yes, I believe that also there's something with the Department of Tribal [55:28.000 --> 55:34.000] where you can actually fill some paperwork out and you get a DOT plate and number. [55:34.000 --> 55:37.000] But, yeah, Kevin Michaels is one of the main ones [55:37.000 --> 55:39.000] that's been showing me a lot of stuff out here as well. [55:39.000 --> 55:43.000] Yeah, he is, and definitely take a look at what he's got out there, [55:43.000 --> 55:48.000] because the stuff that I've seen even before I met him led me in that direction. [55:48.000 --> 55:51.000] But since he and I have started working on a lot of these different things together [55:51.000 --> 55:53.000] and reviewing each other's stuff, [55:53.000 --> 55:57.000] it's even more apparent in your statutes that it's exactly the same way as it is here. [55:57.000 --> 56:01.000] It's just more plainly written to that effect. [56:01.000 --> 56:03.000] All right, I see. [56:03.000 --> 56:06.000] Well, I want to thank you guys once again for having this show and having me on here. [56:06.000 --> 56:08.000] You guys are doing an awesome job. [56:08.000 --> 56:09.000] Thanks, Rick. [56:09.000 --> 56:10.000] Thanks for calling in. [56:10.000 --> 56:12.000] All right, thanks, Rick. [56:12.000 --> 56:14.000] Okay, we've got one more caller. [56:14.000 --> 56:15.000] You want to go to Jerry in Oregon? [56:15.000 --> 56:16.000] Sure. [56:16.000 --> 56:17.000] Okay. [56:17.000 --> 56:20.000] All right, Jerry, what's on your mind? [56:20.000 --> 56:21.000] Hey, guys. [56:21.000 --> 56:23.000] Eddie, I just wanted to point out something. [56:23.000 --> 56:25.000] Hey, Jerry, we're having a really hard time hearing you. [56:25.000 --> 56:27.000] Are you on a speakerphone right now? [56:27.000 --> 56:30.000] No, my cell phone's not that great. [56:30.000 --> 56:31.000] I've been having problems with it. [56:31.000 --> 56:32.000] Okay, okay. [56:32.000 --> 56:35.000] All right, go ahead with your question. [56:35.000 --> 56:41.000] Eddie, do you remember when you left that commentary on that Ellis County site? [56:41.000 --> 56:43.000] Yeah, I believe I do. [56:43.000 --> 56:44.000] Okay. [56:44.000 --> 56:51.000] Well, you also pointed out that the legislative drafting guideline? [56:51.000 --> 56:52.000] Uh-huh. [56:52.000 --> 56:53.000] Well, that gave me the idea. [56:53.000 --> 56:56.000] So I went and looked for my states and I found them. [56:56.000 --> 57:03.000] But another thing that I ran across was, and I downloaded it, was the Oregon Administrative, [57:03.000 --> 57:07.000] the Attorney General's Administrative Law Manual. [57:07.000 --> 57:13.000] And I was wondering, you might probably, I'm sure you have the same thing in your state. [57:13.000 --> 57:18.000] And one of the things I found when I went through it is it's all annotated with, [57:18.000 --> 57:26.000] it's just sections on how to handle certain elements and it has the corresponding case law. [57:26.000 --> 57:27.000] Right. [57:27.000 --> 57:34.000] Yeah, that's the same thing as the state administrative code here, except online they don't have them annotated. [57:34.000 --> 57:40.000] Yeah, if you find the Attorney General's edition, you'll find that it's annotated. [57:40.000 --> 57:41.000] Yeah. [57:41.000 --> 57:43.000] So I just thought I'd share that with you. [57:43.000 --> 57:49.000] You do know that Oregon laws are based on the 1921 statutes, right? [57:49.000 --> 57:52.000] No, I didn't know that. [57:52.000 --> 57:58.000] Yes, all of your statutes are based on the original 1921 laws in Oregon. [57:58.000 --> 58:01.000] Okay, well I'll keep that in mind. [58:01.000 --> 58:04.000] The only other thing I wanted to share with you is that, [58:04.000 --> 58:10.000] you know when you're downloading different sections and chapters of law tech? [58:10.000 --> 58:11.000] Yeah, we're finishing to go to break. [58:11.000 --> 58:14.000] Can I get you to hold that thought and let us pick you up on the other side? [58:14.000 --> 58:15.000] Sure, sure. [58:15.000 --> 58:16.000] Okay. [58:16.000 --> 58:17.000] All right, Jerry, hold on the line. [58:17.000 --> 58:18.000] We'll be right back. [58:18.000 --> 58:22.000] This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [58:22.000 --> 58:24.000] We'll be right back on the other side of this break. [58:24.000 --> 58:53.000] We've got top of the hour news and then we'll be coming right back at you. [58:53.000 --> 58:56.000] In a time where telling the truth is a revolutionary act, [58:56.000 --> 59:01.000] radicals across the globe are rising up and uniting behind one simple yet profound message. [59:01.000 --> 59:02.000] Choose freedom. [59:02.000 --> 59:07.000] Join the revolution and tune in to the Rise Up Radio Show with Kathryn Bleich and John Bush [59:07.000 --> 59:11.000] every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 7 to 10 a.m. on 90.1 FM in Austin [59:11.000 --> 59:14.000] or ruleoflawradio.com on the Internet. [59:14.000 --> 59:17.000] That's right folks, John Bush and I will be bringing you the latest news from the front lines [59:17.000 --> 59:21.000] and examining successful activist strategies from states across the Union. [59:21.000 --> 59:24.000] Come along for the rise this January as we speak truth to power [59:24.000 --> 59:29.000] and embark on Operation D-Fuse, a multi-state tour and expose on the mechanics [59:29.000 --> 59:30.000] of the modern glee state. [59:30.000 --> 59:33.000] Check out operationsdfuse.com for more information [59:33.000 --> 59:36.000] and be sure to tune in all this week to hear from these great guests. [59:36.000 --> 59:40.000] Monday, January 4th, renowned author and liberty defender T. Edward Griffin. [59:40.000 --> 59:43.000] Wednesday, January 6th, Mark Lerner of the Stop Real ID Coalition. [59:43.000 --> 59:47.000] And Friday, January 8th, Michael Bolden of the Tenth Amendment Center. [59:47.000 --> 59:51.000] So tune in folks every Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning from 7 to 10 a.m. [59:51.000 --> 59:53.000] and don't just wake up, rise up. [59:53.000 --> 59:58.000] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [59:58.000 --> 01:00:01.000] International search and rescue teams have pulled more than 70 people [01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:06.000] from the rubble of Haiti's earthquake, a record for urban search and rescue missions [01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:08.000] following such a disaster. [01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:12.000] Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Belrive told ABC News [01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:15.000] at least 70,000 dead bodies had been collected. [01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:19.000] At least 15 people are dead and 71 wounded Monday [01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:22.000] after a major attack in Kabul sparked a gun battle [01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:27.000] and suicide bombers hit Afghanistan's justice, education and finance ministries. [01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:31.000] According to a Taliban statement, 20 of their fighters launched their attack [01:00:31.000 --> 01:00:33.000] after infiltrating the city. [01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:38.000] At least 20 people were killed Sunday after U.S. drones fired several missiles [01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:42.000] at a house straddling north and south Waziristan. [01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:44.000] Fifteen of them were suspected Taliban. [01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:48.000] It is the third drone attack in the region in less than a week. [01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:54.000] Lieutenant General Ken Keene, the leading U.S. general in Haiti, [01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:58.000] warned 200,000 people could have died in the earthquake [01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:03.000] but said it was too early to predict a figure that might never accurately be known. [01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:07.000] The Red Cross says 50,000 people perished, but this figure is conservative [01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:12.000] as tens of thousands of bodies have already been buried, many in mass graves. [01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:17.000] One rioter was killed by police armed with shotguns and assault rifles [01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:20.000] after hundreds of rioters ransacked a market. [01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:26.000] The U.N. has estimated 3 million people have been affected and 300,000 left homeless. [01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:30.000] Some 40 tent cities have sprung up in Port-au-Prince. [01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:35.000] U.N. spokeswoman Elizabeth Brees said 12 people were pulled out alive from the debris Saturday, [01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:40.000] bringing the total to more than 70 since rescue teams started working. [01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:44.000] But Rami Peltz, a rescuer with an Israeli team said, [01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:50.000] today is the last day we will be able to find survivors, mainly because of dehydration. [01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:56.000] The U.K. Independent reports mourners arrived every few minutes [01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:01.000] at Haiti's most prominent burial ground seeking to give loved ones a dignified burial. [01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:06.000] But the paper said dignity was a scarce commodity when half opened caskets [01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:10.000] and corpses wrapped in rags and bloody clothes littered the paths. [01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:15.000] Armed guards made sure new arrivals were entitled to use one of the family tombs [01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:18.000] and had paid the $5 burial fee. [01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:21.000] A gatekeeper checked off names against the list, [01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:25.000] which showed 210 corpses have been deposited in the past three days. [01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:30.000] The paper says the real figure was far higher since scores of dead have been illegally dumped, [01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:33.000] their relatives too poor to pay the fee. [01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:37.000] Several tombs appeared to have been smashed open with sledgehammers [01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:39.000] so new bodies could be laid inside. [01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:44.000] At the morgue, corruptible staff were charging release fees of several hundred dollars [01:02:44.000 --> 01:03:09.000] for the bodies of loved ones. [01:03:14.000 --> 01:03:26.000] Okay, we are back. [01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:29.000] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:31.000] Randy has the night off tonight. [01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:33.000] We're here with Eddie for traffic night. [01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:35.000] We're speaking with Jerry from Oregon. [01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:36.000] Okay, go ahead, Jerry. [01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:40.000] You had one more point you wanted to make, one more question. [01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:45.000] Yeah, the only other thing I wanted to add was that just a research tip, [01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:53.000] one of the things that I found while downloading a lot of those text files was to convert it to a PDF [01:03:53.000 --> 01:03:58.000] so you could do a word search for a particular item that you were looking for. [01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:01.000] Otherwise, you've got to go through 600 pages of text. [01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:05.000] So it might be redundant for people that already know that, [01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:09.000] but there's probably a lot of people that probably that might be able to help. [01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:15.000] Yeah, here on the Texas website, you have the option of downloading it in a PDF or a text file directly. [01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:19.000] Yeah, I noticed in my search that I didn't always have that option, [01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:24.000] but just in case for those that might have stumbled across that one. [01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:28.000] But other than that, I'll just go back to listening and thanks for taking my call. [01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:29.000] Yes, sir. [01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:30.000] Thanks for calling in. [01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:31.000] All right. [01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:33.000] Thank you, Jerry. [01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:34.000] Okay, go ahead, Eddie. [01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:37.000] You wanted to talk about the Administrative Procedures Act, huh? [01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:38.000] Yes, I do. [01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:39.000] Okay. [01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:42.000] Now, we were talking before about the court not having jurisdiction, [01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:50.000] but how they like to sneak it by you, avoid due process, and try to maintain jurisdiction anyway. [01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:54.000] Well, even if they do that, they still have a problem. [01:04:54.000 --> 01:04:58.000] And here in Texas, that problem is called the Administrative Procedures Act. [01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:03.000] Now, this act is codified in Government Code, Chapter 2001. [01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:11.000] This act makes it very clear that anytime there is a contested case involving something under the jurisdiction of a state agency, [01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:21.000] that is the State Administrative Review Board that has jurisdiction, it is not a judicial court. [01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:24.000] The court has zero jurisdiction. [01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:30.000] The court is not considered a state agency for the purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act, [01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:33.000] and it is specifically spelled out that way. [01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:40.000] Where it goes, the following are not considered state agencies, the courts. [01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:46.000] That should be pretty plain, even to these guys in black, okay? [01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:50.000] So let's see how all this stuff will tie in. [01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:53.000] When you look at the Administrative Procedures Act under 2001, [01:05:53.000 --> 01:06:02.000] it basically lines out how everything is supposed to work as far as what the procedure is when you have a contested case. [01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:05.000] But how do we get to the Administrative Procedures Act? [01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:07.000] That's always question number one, okay? [01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:12.000] How do I say that the Administrative Procedures Act applies? [01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:17.000] Well, first thing is, is we can go through the transportation code itself. [01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:20.000] Now, what is a state agency? [01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:26.000] Well, the Administrative Procedures Act in 2001 tells you that a state agency is anybody having rulemaking [01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:34.000] or administrative authority over a particular code or statute or set of rules within a statute, okay? [01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:39.000] So how do we tie the Department of Public Safety into that? [01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:47.000] Well, first thing is, let's take registration of vehicles, for instance, Chapter 502 Texas Transportation Code. [01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:50.000] I'll read you an excerpt out of the brief I have on this. [01:06:50.000 --> 01:06:56.000] Texas Transportation Code Chapter 502 is administered by the Texas Department of Transportation, [01:06:56.000 --> 01:06:59.000] whose sole authority is related to the maintenance of the roads and highways [01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:04.000] and the regulation of certain aspects of the commercial traffic making use of SANE. [01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:14.000] Pursuant, Texas Transportation Code Section 502.001, Subsection 3, 502.002, and 502.0021, [01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:22.000] and all rules and regulations therein are under the direct rulemaking authority of the Texas Department of Transportation. [01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:27.000] Then we read 502.001 definitions in this chapter. [01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:33.000] Department means the Texas Department of Transportation, so we've got the who. [01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:38.000] 502.002, registration required, general rule, okay? [01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:42.000] And it goes down through there and tells you who is supposed to register. [01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:46.000] Then you see Section 502.0021 rules and forms. [01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:54.000] Subsection A, the Department, meaning the Department of Transportation, may adopt rules to administer this chapter. [01:07:54.000 --> 01:07:56.000] There's the two criteria. [01:07:56.000 --> 01:07:59.000] They make rules and they administer this chapter. [01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:06.000] They are, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, a state agency, a state administrative agency, okay? [01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:16.000] Now, and it's considered a state agency pursuant, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Administrative Procedures Act, [01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:26.000] Section 2001.0037, which specifically states, purpose, it is the public policy of the state through this Chapter 2, 3, [01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:30.000] restate the law of judicial review of state agency action. [01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:42.000] And then you get down to the part where it says state agency means a state officer, board, commission, or department [01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:47.000] with statewide jurisdiction that makes rules or determines contested cases. [01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:53.000] The term includes the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the purposes of determining contested cases. [01:08:53.000 --> 01:09:04.000] The term does not include A, a state agency wholly financed by federal money, B, the legislature, C, the courts, okay? [01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:08.000] Or D, the Department of Insurance, and E, an institution of higher education. [01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:11.000] Those are the exceptions that are not state agencies. [01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:14.000] Now, you go down a little further. [01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:20.000] Texas Administrative Code Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter E, Rule 1.21. [01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:26.000] All contested cases arising under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Transportation shall be governed by the [01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:29.000] procedural rules of the State Office of Administrative Hearings. [01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:37.000] And it specifically says in Rule 1.21, the sections in this subchapter describe the procedures to be followed in [01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:42.000] contested cases arising under Government Code, Chapter 2001. [01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:51.000] Except as provided in this subchapter, all contested cases shall be governed by the procedural rules of the State Office of Administrative Hearings. [01:09:51.000 --> 01:09:59.000] Now, since the registration of vehicles falls under the Texas Department of Transportation, [01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:09.000] they cannot take you into municipal, JP, or county court or any other court that is judicial in nature regarding a charge on registration. [01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:12.000] It says so right here. [01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:21.000] It tells us that all contested cases shall be governed by the procedural rules of the State Office of Administrative Hearings. [01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:25.000] I don't see the courts in there anywhere. [01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:30.000] In fact, they were specifically exempted, were they not? [01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:33.000] So how does the local court get jurisdiction? [01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:36.000] It doesn't. [01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:42.000] It keeps jurisdiction by committing fraud and ignoring the rule of law. [01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:50.000] By ignoring the rule of law, it now allows itself to get money to which it's not entitled, the result being fraud, [01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:58.000] the result being extortion, the result being a denial of due process in every sense of the word. [01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:10.000] So once again, we start holding their feet to the fire and going after these judges and prosecutors that insist on trying to trap you in a jurisdiction that has no authority over you, [01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:12.000] and we'll start getting our courts back. [01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:14.000] Now, let's go a little further down. [01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:15.000] This is not the only case. [01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:17.000] It's just one of many. [01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:24.000] Now, because the judicial courts have no authority to hear such a case [01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:35.000] and the rules say that all administrative procedures must be exhausted before a judicial remedy can be applied, [01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:37.000] guess what? [01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:44.000] This motion specifically says that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies available. [01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:55.000] And pursuant Texas Government Code Section 2001.051, the accused is entitled to an administrative review of the contested issues involving any statutory enactments [01:11:55.000 --> 01:12:05.000] or rules administered by a state agency and that any judicial review of plaintiff's charges may occur only after these administrative remedies have been exhausted. [01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:20.000] Pursuant Texas Government Code Section 2001.171, which specifically states under 2001.051, opportunity for hearing and participation, notice of hearing. [01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:29.000] In a contested case, each party is entitled to an opportunity to, one, for hearing after reasonable notice of not less than 10 days, [01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:35.000] and two, to respond and to present evidence and argument on each issue involved in the case. [01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:39.000] Then you go down to point 171, judicial review. [01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:44.000] A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within a state agency [01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:52.000] and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. [01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:59.000] Then and only then does a judicial court get jurisdiction over this case. [01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:08.000] And then it is only to have the points put out by the administrative hearing procedures brought before the court. [01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:11.000] It is never ever for the act itself. [01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:17.000] It is only for the final determination handed down by the administrative procedure review. [01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:19.000] That's all. [01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:30.000] There is no arguing the merits of the traffic offense in the judicial court, only the determination found by the administrative court. [01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:33.000] So where do they get away with this stuff? [01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:37.000] They get away with it by doing things incorrectly. [01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:43.000] They play under the administrative rules, but they treat you like they're playing under the criminal rules. [01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:51.000] Basically, they have you arguing one thing while they're subverting your arguments with another thing. [01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:55.000] You can't use criminal arguments in a civil case. [01:13:55.000 --> 01:13:59.000] You can't use civil arguments in a criminal case. [01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:03.000] So this is how they make it where nothing you say matters. [01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:09.000] They keep jurisdiction because you're arguing the wrong thing all the time. [01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:15.000] And as long as you're not arguing to their jurisdiction to begin with, they win. [01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:20.000] They absolutely win because you're never arguing the right thing. [01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:22.000] And you can't. [01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:32.000] This is exactly why it is imperative, imperative, the very first thing out of your mouth in any court situation. [01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:37.000] What is the nature of the charges against me? [01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:41.000] Are they civil or are they criminal? [01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:44.000] Make the court respond. [01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:52.000] The state constitution and the federal constitution both say you have the right to know the nature of the charges against you. [01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:58.000] The state constitution says you have a right to have a copy of the charges against you. [01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:02.000] In other words, when they're written down in that complaint, you're entitled to have a copy of it. [01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:09.000] You're entitled to know what the complaint against you is and whether or not that complaint is civil or criminal in nature. [01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:11.000] Now, here's the thing. [01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:15.000] Since you're entitled to have a copy of that under the state constitution, [01:15:15.000 --> 01:15:21.000] where do these courts get the idea they can charge you a fee for copies of this stuff out of your court file? [01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:23.000] This is all stuff that can be used against you. [01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:27.000] You're entitled to a copy of that according to the state constitution. [01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:30.000] So they cannot charge you a fee to get it. [01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:36.000] That's a violation of the constitutional mandate that you have a right to a copy. [01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:44.000] But yet, in the name of money, even though we paid taxes to get those people employed by the equipment and by the paper and the ink, [01:15:44.000 --> 01:15:49.000] we still got to pay additional fees on top of that to make them profit. [01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:53.000] Where did we allow that? [01:15:53.000 --> 01:15:56.000] I just don't see it working that way. [01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:01.000] Yet, we allow it to go on, and we allow it to go on by remaining in the dark and being ignorant. [01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:05.000] We need to solve that first and foremost. [01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:11.000] If you've ever watched these old karate movies where they teach the guy to fight blindfolded and win, [01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:15.000] try that and see how well it actually works these days. [01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:20.000] It's just not going to work. [01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:27.000] All right. Now, when we get back off of our break here in just a moment, I will be going over a little bit more [01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:34.000] on the Administrative Procedures Act in regards to how it works with the Department of Public Safety, okay? [01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:36.000] All right, very good. [01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:44.000] And we do have some callers on the line, so we'll finish up with that subject on the other side, and then we'll go to the calls. [01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:54.000] We'll be right back. [01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:59.000] Hello, Austin. My name is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here in town. [01:16:59.000 --> 01:17:03.000] Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events. [01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:08.000] We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Catherine Albert, Webster Carpley, [01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:12.000] G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the Patriot Movement. [01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:14.000] But now Brave New Books needs your help. [01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:19.000] In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet for hard-to-find materials, [01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:23.000] we're going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word about the bookstore. [01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:27.000] Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer. [01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:31.000] We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists. [01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:35.000] Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support. [01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:40.000] It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message. [01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:43.000] And remember, you vote with your dollars. We're counting on you, Austin. [01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:50.000] If you need any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street. [01:17:50.000 --> 01:18:14.000] Thank you, everyone. [01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:45.000] Thank you. [01:18:45.000 --> 01:19:03.000] Okay, callers, just hang on the line. We've got Brian, Kevin, and Mitchell. [01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:08.000] Eddie is going to finish up on the Transportation Code side of the Administrative Procedures Act here, [01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:12.000] and then we'll be going to your calls. Okay, go ahead, Eddie. [01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:16.000] Okay, Administrative Procedures Act as it deals further down [01:19:16.000 --> 01:19:20.000] with things dealing with the Department of Public Safety, okay? [01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:23.000] We find that it says pretty much the same thing. [01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:27.000] Texas Transportation Code, let's talk about inspection. [01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:31.000] Inspection is under the Department of Public Safety, not under the Department of Transportation. [01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:33.000] It's under Public Safety. [01:19:33.000 --> 01:19:37.000] Now, that's Chapter 548 of the Transportation Code, [01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:40.000] and it's administered by the Texas Department of Public Safety [01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:51.000] Pursuant Texas Transportation Code, Section 548.001, Subsection 4, 548.002, and 548.051. [01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:56.000] And all rules and regulations therein are under the direct rulemaking authority of the DPS. [01:19:56.000 --> 01:20:03.000] So we go to 548.001 Transportation Code, and we see Department means the Department of Public Safety. [01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:05.000] So again, we have the who. [01:20:05.000 --> 01:20:14.000] 548.002, Department rules. The Department may adopt rules to administer and enforce this Chapter. [01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:16.000] So they have rulemaking authority, [01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:21.000] and they are responsible for the administration and enforcement of this Chapter, okay? [01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:25.000] So if you'll remember in the Administrative Code, [01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:31.000] the authority to enforce by the Department of Public Safety is strictly limited to what? [01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:35.000] Commercial and for-hire traffic. [01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:39.000] So that's what they can enforce here, is it gets commercial and for-hire traffic. [01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:41.000] But let's go a little further down. [01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:46.000] 548.051, vehicles and equipment subject to inspection. [01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:51.000] A motor vehicle registered in this state, and blah, blah, blah, and it goes on down. [01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:54.000] Now, you go down to a little further. [01:20:54.000 --> 01:20:57.000] We jump back over to the Texas Administrative Code, [01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:04.000] Rule 1.11 under Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter B. [01:21:04.000 --> 01:21:10.000] Department of Public Safety accepts its responsibility as a public trust with maximum benefit to the public. [01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:16.000] And then we go all the way down through this as to what their responsibilities are, okay? [01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:23.000] Then when you go to Rule 1.2, it spells it out very plainly what they can do and what they cannot do. [01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:31.000] And that is where it tells us that their enforcement authority is limited strictly to commercial and for-hire traffic. [01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:35.000] And since it is, we have to look at how they delegate that authority. [01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:38.000] That's where we go to Rule 4.13. [01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:44.000] And that tells us all about how that authority gets delegated down to local law enforcement. [01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:46.000] So we go through this. [01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:48.000] We go a little further down. [01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:54.000] 541.002, Governmental Authorities, we're back in the Transportation Code now. [01:21:54.000 --> 01:22:02.000] Department means the Department of Public Safety acting directly or through its authorized officers and agents. [01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:07.000] Then you go a little further down and it says that Subsection 3, [01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:15.000] Local Authority means a county, municipality, or other local entity authorized to enact traffic laws under the laws of this state. [01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:18.000] Now that's going to be ordinances dealing with traffic laws. [01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:22.000] Then you go down to the Sub-Item 4, Police Officer. [01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:27.000] Now this is the definition of police officer under Subtitle C, Transportation Code. [01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:35.000] An officer authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations. [01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:37.000] Well, how do they get authorized? [01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:45.000] Well, we've already seen that they get authorized when the Department of Public Safety authorizes them to do so. [01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:52.000] They do that under Rule 4.13, Texas Administrative Code. [01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:58.000] That's the only place where authorization is ever granted to local law enforcement for traffic law. [01:22:58.000 --> 01:22:59.000] It's the only place. [01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:02.000] It doesn't exist anywhere else. [01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:10.000] Now, the Department of Public Safety ties back into the Administrative Procedures Act in this way. [01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:19.000] Under Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 29, Rule 29.1 definitions, it says very clearly, [01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:27.000] a contested case under Sub-Item 2 refers to a contested case as defined by APT, meaning the Administrative Procedures Act. [01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:33.000] Sub-Section 3, Department, refers to the Department of Public Safety. [01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:40.000] Sub-Item 12, SOAH refers to State Office of Administrative Hearings. [01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:47.000] Rule 29.2, Scope, these rules shall govern the procedure for the institution, conduct, [01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:52.000] and determination of all contested cases arising under the Department's jurisdiction, [01:23:52.000 --> 01:24:03.000] with the exception of the cases arising under Texas Transportation Code, Chapters 521, 522, 524, and 724. [01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:06.000] 521 is the standard driver's license. [01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:10.000] 522 is the commercial driver's license. [01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:14.000] All of these deal strictly with the driver's license. [01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:20.000] And the other one is, let's see, I forget what 524 and 724 are, but they're interrelated. [01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:23.000] But they're nothing that you normally get stopped for. [01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:25.000] It has nothing to do with insurance. [01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:27.000] It has nothing to do with tail lights. [01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:29.000] It has nothing to do with registration. [01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:32.000] It has nothing to do with any of that. [01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:36.000] Now, we've already gone through how to voir dire the officer and proved that a driver's license [01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:40.000] is absolutely nonexistent for a noncommercial driver. [01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:41.000] It's nonexistent. [01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:45.000] Go back to the January 11th rule of law show. [01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:47.000] Listen to the archive on that. [01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:54.000] It makes it very, very clear how you voir dire the officer to lead him right down the path to testify on your behalf, [01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:59.000] to show very clearly it's impossible for you to be required to have a driver's license, [01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:04.000] because the only kind of license that exists is a commercial driver's license. [01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:09.000] And it either has a hazardous materials placard endorsement or it does not. [01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:11.000] Otherwise, they are exactly the same thing. [01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:16.000] You can operate the same capacity vehicles, same weight class, same passenger capacity, [01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:18.000] makes no difference. [01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:25.000] The only thing is is that the one that's actually classified as commercial can have the hazardous materials placard endorsement. [01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:28.000] It's the only difference in the two. [01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:34.000] Now, rule 29.3 under the administrative code, an institution of a contested case. [01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:43.000] A contested case shall be instituted by the department after a person has requested a hearing or declined a penalty. [01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:45.000] Decline a penalty. [01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:47.000] Well, you can pay this fine. [01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:48.000] No, I'm sorry. [01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:50.000] I've declined to pay the fine. [01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:51.000] You're saying that's a penalty? [01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:53.000] I've declined. [01:25:53.000 --> 01:26:00.000] So either set me up for an administrative hearing or drop the case because you don't have jurisdiction. [01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:01.000] It's that easy. [01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:09.000] We just have to make them obey the law, and when they won't obey the law, beat them into unconsciousness with it. [01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:14.000] And that's what we're trying to do is teach you folks how to do that and how to put it into practice [01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:16.000] and make it work. [01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:21.000] Freedom is not free, and it will not stay that way if we don't fight for it. [01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:22.000] All right. [01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:24.000] That will cover that brief synopsis on that. [01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:34.000] For those of you that attended the seminar, once I get a review from Randy on this, this will be hopefully the finalization of this particular motion. [01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:42.000] And those that attended the seminar or bought the package, this will be downloadable for you very soon. [01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:43.000] All right, Debra. [01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:45.000] We can start taking a remainder of the callers. [01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:46.000] Okay, great. [01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:48.000] We've got Brian from Pennsylvania. [01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:50.000] And Kevin, I'm sorry, Kevin dropped off. [01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:51.000] Kevin, if you call in, you're next. [01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:52.000] Go ahead, Brian. [01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:53.000] Thank you. [01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:54.000] What's on your mind? [01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:56.000] Good evening. [01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:06.000] Well, earlier you were speaking about Oregon law being based on 1921 statutes. [01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:15.000] And a night or so ago, I had heard somebody mention that, you know, Louisiana law is based on some Spanish law. [01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:18.000] And I don't really know what that means. [01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:22.000] I don't really know how to interpret that or comprehend what you're really saying there. [01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:32.000] I was hoping you could better clarify and, you know, inform me as to what I can find out or give me a tidbit like that as far as Pennsylvania is concerned. [01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:37.000] Because I know a lot of times people will talk about their states and then I say, oh, but I'm from Pennsylvania. [01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:40.000] And then they go, oh, well, that's different because you're in Pennsylvania. [01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:41.000] It's a commonwealth and blah, blah, blah. [01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:43.000] But I don't really know why. [01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:48.000] And I'm hoping you can clarify that. [01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:49.000] Okay. [01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:52.000] Now, what is it you want me to clarify on that again? [01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:55.000] I'm not sure I followed all that. [01:27:55.000 --> 01:28:00.000] Well, you know, when you said that Oregon law is based on 1921 statutes. [01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:01.000] Right. [01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:03.000] I don't know what you mean by saying that. [01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:09.000] I've heard people mention that, you know, other states, for example, Louisiana is based on Spanish law. [01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:11.000] Well, now, we're talking different things here. [01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:13.000] We're talking the mode of law. [01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:16.000] For instance, Louisiana is under Napoleonic law. [01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:17.000] Right. [01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:27.000] In other words, their scheme of laws is based upon the French version of the Napoleonic laws the way they were set up under France. [01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:29.000] Okay. [01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:34.000] Mostly French-speaking culture there, at least in the back parts of it. [01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:35.000] All right. [01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:40.000] So their law in Louisiana is based upon the Napoleonic structure of law. [01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:43.000] Texas was originally under Spanish rule. [01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:51.000] So our basis of law began in the Spanish method of law, and that's the way it's remained and so on and so forth. [01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:56.000] The northern states, a lot of those were under British-type law. [01:28:56.000 --> 01:28:57.000] Okay. [01:28:57.000 --> 01:28:58.000] That's what they're talking about. [01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:05.000] What was the original basis for the law in that particular area at the time it became part of the United States Union? [01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:07.000] Okay. [01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:11.000] Now, does that connotate a certain structure or a certain type of mentality? [01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:15.000] I don't really know what to make of that when I'm told it, you know? [01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:18.000] It's actually both. [01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:25.000] It's a way that the law is set up to be written and the way it's meant to be understood by those to whom it's made to apply. [01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:27.000] Okay. [01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:32.000] We've got our music coming up for a break, so hang on, and we'll finish going over that on the other side, okay? [01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:33.000] Okay. [01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:36.000] All right, Brian, just hang on the line. [01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:40.000] We've got Mitchell from Texas after that and then Gary from Georgia. [01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:41.000] We'll be right back. [01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:42.000] This is the rule of law. [01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:53.000] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, we'll be right back. [01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:56.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:07.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:11.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:15.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:20.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:26.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:35.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:44.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:54.000] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:17.000] Okay, we are back. [01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:20.000] All right, Brian, you had another point. [01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:21.000] You were finishing up. [01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:22.000] Go ahead. [01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:27.000] Well, maybe I should try to just be a little bit more specific because what I asked was very general and broad. [01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:36.000] But I guess what maybe I should be more specific about is what I'm referencing as far as Pennsylvania goes. [01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:37.000] Okay. [01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:43.000] You know, when people say that there's discrepancies that are different in Pennsylvania versus other states, why? [01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:52.000] You know, what should I have known differently to study that would help me better comprehend that instead of being lost, you know, looking at states versus my commonwealth? [01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000] Okay. [01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000] Well, here's the thing. [01:31:54.000 --> 01:32:03.000] Each method or mode of law that you're talking about has a different way that it sets things up and a different way they're adjudicated, unfortunately. [01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:04.000] Okay. [01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:09.000] But that's also why every state is an independent state in and of itself. [01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:14.000] The federal government has no authority to dictate what type of law they have to operate under. [01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:17.000] So everybody's stuck with what was most familiar to them. [01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:29.000] So as far as, you know, what you have to study, the only way you're going to know that without a frame of reference is by studying. [01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:35.000] There's no way for somebody that's unfamiliar with a commonwealth way that's under Spanish law that's never studied it to tell you that directly. [01:32:35.000 --> 01:32:42.000] They can tell you the basic common sense of how it ought to work in order to comply with the constitutions. [01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:48.000] But first and foremost, what you need to know is what does your constitution say your laws have to operate like? [01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:52.000] Because in your bill of rights, it's going to say your rights are this. [01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:59.000] So you can learn a lot about your law just by knowing what your law is prevented from doing. [01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:06.000] If it says you have the right to this and somebody wrote a law saying you don't have a right to that anymore, something's wrong. [01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:13.000] Because the legislatures cannot write laws to get rid of constitutional provisions. [01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:15.000] There has to be a constitutional amendment. [01:33:15.000 --> 01:33:17.000] It can't be a legislative act. [01:33:17.000 --> 01:33:23.000] Now, you were talking a while ago about what I was saying about Oregon being on the 1921 version of the laws. [01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:31.000] The easiest way to find out on what basis of law your state is operating is to send a letter to the state attorney general. [01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:45.000] Ask them directly, what year are the laws of this state that all current statutes are based on, what year were they implemented in the legislature? [01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:47.000] And they should tell you. [01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:52.000] For instance, the ones here in Texas are from 1925. [01:33:52.000 --> 01:34:00.000] All of our current statutory law is built on top of the original 1925 statutes. [01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:07.000] And the reason for it is is because those laws when they were originally written were pretty comprehensive. [01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:11.000] They dealt with virtually any instance of something. [01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:17.000] And that's fine because they laid out what the groundwork was supposed to be to maintain the order. [01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:18.000] That's great. [01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:23.000] A statute itself is not law. [01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:31.000] The statute is simply proof that a law exists or it's testimony that a law exists. [01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:40.000] Because the statute can never say or do something that the underlying law does not allow. [01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:42.000] They can alter the words. [01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:44.000] They can change the way it's written. [01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:46.000] They can change definitions. [01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:55.000] They can change it nine million different ways to make it look like it means anything but what it originally did. [01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:02.000] And yet they still cannot enforce it in a manner other than the way that original law set it up. [01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:04.000] And they know it. [01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:09.000] They just hope and pray that you don't. [01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:16.000] Well, at least many know it but not all because I do honestly believe that some are just ignorant and deceived because of it. [01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:17.000] Well, true. [01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:19.000] I'm not saying all of them are in the know either. [01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:24.000] In fact, I'd pretty much say that I'm surprised most of them can walk and chew gum at the same time. [01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:27.000] But that's neither here nor there in most cases. [01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:38.000] What you were just speaking to reminded me of another question I have regarding Pennsylvania's Constitution doesn't specifically require an enacting clause on its law. [01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:41.000] But I know it's a general construction principle. [01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:56.000] I'm just wondering if you've got any take on that and whether or not you've seen other laws in Pennsylvania specifically be upheld or denied because of the lack of an enacting clause. [01:35:56.000 --> 01:36:00.000] Well, I know that here in Texas they're required to have one. [01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:05.000] And I know that we've had our idiotic courts say that it's not necessary. [01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:14.000] Well, personally, I find it unacceptable that the courts have attempted to alter a constitutional mandate through judicial fiat. [01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:25.000] What's more depressing is that the people that are responsible for seeing that their government obeys their Constitution lets them get away with it. [01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:29.000] They do what they do because we as the people let them. [01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:31.000] We need to stop doing that. [01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:39.000] You know what they say about spare the rod and spoil the child, that's a million times more truthful when it comes to a government servant. [01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:41.000] I second that. [01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:42.000] All right. [01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:43.000] I'll let other callers get on. [01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:44.000] Thank you very much. [01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:44.000] All right. [01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:45.000] Thanks, Brian. [01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:46.000] Good evening. [01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:47.000] Okay. [01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:51.000] We're going now to Mitchell in Texas. [01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:52.000] Mitchell, thanks for calling in. [01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:53.000] What's on your mind tonight? [01:36:53.000 --> 01:37:02.000] Hi, guys. [01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:26.000] And it arose from an incident that a friend of mine had in which she rode through a traffic light or a slow road through it and ended up getting a ticket for something like $200. [01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:32.000] And the thing is she was on a bicycle and still got this ticket for running a red light. [01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:39.000] And so I looked in the transportation code for, you know, when it's applicable and that kind of thing. [01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:56.000] And in Chapter 551 it says, except it is provided by subchapter C, this chapter applies only to a person operating a bicycle on a highway or a path, et cetera, but essentially it says a highway. [01:37:56.000 --> 01:38:06.000] So my question is, and I've plugged through the code and tried to find the definition of just highway without any other term associated with it. [01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:10.000] And I could not find the definition of highway by itself. [01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:24.000] And so I'm trying to tap into Eddie's knowledge here or maybe Deborah, yours too on whether that's written somewhere or where I could pull the definition of a highway. [01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:27.000] Well, and you're in what state? [01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:28.000] Texas. [01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:29.000] Oh, you're in Texas. [01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:30.000] Yes. [01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:31.000] And what chapter? [01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:35.000] Yeah, there's a definition for highway all over the transportation code. [01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:36.000] Can you give me an example? [01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:37.000] Where? [01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:38.000] I mean, I looked in definitions. [01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:39.000] It's not there. [01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:45.000] It's got highway or street, but in quotes, but it doesn't have highway by itself. [01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:46.000] Okay. [01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:49.000] What section are you under for the offense with the bicycle? [01:38:49.000 --> 01:38:50.000] I don't know. [01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:51.000] I don't have that here. [01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:58.000] But presumably under this Chapter 551 there's a section that says rights and duties, a person operate. [01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:05.000] And I know that person, but I sort of don't want to go there, so let's step aside to person aspect for a minute. [01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:14.000] But it says a person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle. [01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:17.000] Okay. [01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:22.000] Presumably, I guess that is, well, I know I shouldn't presume, but presumably. [01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:23.000] Okay. [01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:25.000] And you said that's what section? [01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:28.000] 551.101. [01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:29.000] Okay. [01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:31.000] Well, here's the deal. [01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:37.000] First off, we're in the transportation code, right? [01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:38.000] So far, yeah. [01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:39.000] Okay. [01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:49.000] And what is the legal definition of transportation? [01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:50.000] You tell me. [01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:57.000] The movement of property or persons from one place to another by common carrier? [01:39:57.000 --> 01:39:58.000] Yes. [01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:07.000] So you'd have to be like transporting someone on your bicycle or goods, you know, like maybe a newspaper carrier, you know, newspaper delivery man. [01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:11.000] Was she hauling a lumber or something, you know? [01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:23.000] Now, I appreciate those approaches and, you know, I regularly listen and I know that's an avenue to go down and I know the legal basis and the definition basis for all of that. [01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:31.000] But I sort of want to keep my arguments compartmentalized and look at each one of them sort of vertically by itself. [01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:44.000] So I'm really just trying to see if this definition of highway factors in at all here because, you know, to the layman, highway means something more than just our local streets here. [01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:59.000] But so what I'm trying to find out is in the transportation code whether highway means every single road, whether it's a 25 mile an hour street or a 60 mile an hour MOPAC. [01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:00.000] Okay. [01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:04.000] Well, let's see what we got here. [01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:17.000] If we go and search the transportation code and we can get the web browser to do what I want it to do anyway. [01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:32.000] We have exactly nine hits on highway means and in this case you'd be looking under 541, 541s, let's see, limited access or controlled access highway. [01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:34.000] That one stands by itself. [01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:35.000] Okay. [01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:37.000] Highway or street means. [01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:39.000] Now, wait a minute. [01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:43.000] Highway or street you're reading now is in quotes altogether, right? [01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:44.000] Yes. [01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:51.000] Okay. And that's the distinction I want to make because when you put something in quotes it means it's always got to be in quotes. [01:41:51.000 --> 01:42:00.000] I mean if you're reading strict English, if it just says highway somewhere then that definition in my mind does not apply. [01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:02.000] Okay. [01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:06.000] Well, the way they've got this written is to be a distinction between a highway or a street. [01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:09.000] They're using the same definition to apply to either. [01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:18.000] Remember, statutory construction does not apply if there is a rule of construction superseding the common English rule. [01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:20.000] Okay. [01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:29.000] So don't assume to read a law like you would read it in common English because you're specifically told in statute construction don't ever do that. [01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:31.000] Do not make assumptions. [01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:32.000] Okay. [01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:34.000] Let me catch up with you. [01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:38.000] Are you reading from 541.3025? [01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:39.000] Yes, I am. [01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:40.000] Okay. [01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:45.000] That there it says quote highway or street unquote. [01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:51.000] Now, in English when you write something and you put it in quotes it's always got to be in quotes. [01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:52.000] Okay. [01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:53.000] Listen to what I'm telling you. [01:42:53.000 --> 01:42:55.000] This is not an English lesson. [01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:57.000] This is statutory construction lesson. [01:42:57.000 --> 01:42:58.000] Okay. [01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:00.000] They are different. [01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:01.000] I know what you're saying. [01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:03.000] It doesn't work. [01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:04.000] It does not apply. [01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:08.000] This is the argument that's to be made. [01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:10.000] Okay. [01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:17.000] They are distinguishing between a highway or a street, but they are defining it to mean the same thing. [01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:27.000] A highway or a street means the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way, any part of which is open to the public for vehicular travel. [01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:30.000] And we'll pick up the rest of this on the other side. [01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:32.000] All right, Mitchell, just hang on the line. [01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:34.000] Just stay there. [01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:37.000] We've also got Gary, Meta, and Rob. [01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:40.000] We're going to try to squeeze in all your calls before the end of the show. [01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:41.000] We'll be right back. [01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000] Excuse me. [01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:53.000] We'll be right back. [01:43:53.000 --> 01:44:01.000] In a time where telling the truth is a revolutionary act, radicals across the globe are rising up and uniting behind one simple yet profound message. [01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:02.000] Choose freedom. [01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:14.000] Join the revolution and tune in to the Rise Up Radio Show with Kathryn Bleich and John Bush every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 7 to 10 a.m. on 90.1 FM in Austin or ruleoflawradio.com on the Internet. [01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:15.000] That's right, folks. [01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:21.000] John Bush and I will be bringing you the latest news from the front lines and examining successful activist strategies from states across the Union. [01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:30.000] Come along for the ride this January as we speak truth to power and embark on Operation D-Fuse, a multi-state tour and expose on the mechanics of the modern police state. [01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:33.000] Check out OperationsD-Fuse.com for more information. [01:44:33.000 --> 01:44:36.000] And be sure to tune in all this week to hear from these great guests. [01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:40.000] Monday, January 4th, renowned author and liberty defender G. Edward Griffin. [01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:43.000] Wednesday, January 6th, Mark Lerner of the Stop Real I.D. Coalition. [01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:47.000] And Friday, January 8th, Michael Bolden of the 10th Amendment Center. [01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:50.000] So tune in, folks, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning from 7 to 10 a.m. [01:44:50.000 --> 01:45:07.000] And don't just wake up, rise up. [01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:08.000] Okay, we are back. [01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:11.000] We're speaking with Mitchell in Texas. [01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:15.000] Okay, we're talking about statutory construction of language in law. [01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:16.000] Go ahead, Eddie. [01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:21.000] Okay, now, Mitchell, your key here, however, is not going to be highway or street. [01:45:21.000 --> 01:45:22.000] That's irrelevant. [01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:26.000] Your key here is person, as always. [01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:27.000] Okay? [01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:31.000] Only a person can be guilty of this offense. [01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:34.000] What is a person under statute? [01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000] You see what I'm saying? [01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:48.000] There is no definition of person under 541, which means what? [01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:49.000] Just continue, Eddie. [01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:53.000] I'm fully on board with this argument and this approach. [01:45:53.000 --> 01:45:54.000] Okay. [01:45:54.000 --> 01:45:59.000] All right, the term person is applicable to the term under 311 government code. [01:45:59.000 --> 01:46:02.000] It tells you right at the very beginning of the transportation code. [01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:08.000] Unless specifically stated otherwise, the definitions and terms under Chapter 311 apply. [01:46:08.000 --> 01:46:16.000] So unless Chapter 311 is specifically excluded, then the term person, as defined there, [01:46:16.000 --> 01:46:21.000] limits what the term person can be down here. [01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:25.000] And in 311, it's always a corporate fiction. [01:46:25.000 --> 01:46:34.000] So in order for this to apply, she would have to be using the bicycle as something associated with a job [01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:38.000] that she's working for as representing a corporation of some type. [01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:41.000] She is the person that's acting on the behalf of. [01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:43.000] See what I'm saying? [01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:47.000] That's exactly what the term individual is going to wind up being in these cases. [01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:50.000] It's either going to be one of, and when it says a natural person, [01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:54.000] like the gentleman called in before and asked about, natural person. [01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:58.000] It's talked about that here in the legislative construction manual. [01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:00.000] It talks about that in the penal code. [01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:07.000] The natural person is the living, breathing man that is still acting on the behalf of the legal entity, [01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:12.000] such as the corporate officer, the CEO, those kind of guys. [01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:17.000] If they're acting on behalf of the corporation, they are a flesh and blood living person. [01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:19.000] They're a natural man. [01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:24.000] But for the purposes of what they're being charged with as being in violation of this code, [01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:28.000] they're a natural person acting on the behalf of a legal entity. [01:47:28.000 --> 01:47:31.000] Eddie, can we go back? [01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:33.000] Sure. [01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:35.000] What do we need to go through? [01:47:35.000 --> 01:47:37.000] Talk about that definition aspect. [01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:45.000] What you were talking about, the code construction of how highway or street is written [01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:50.000] and how sort of misinterpreting the way it's presented there. [01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:55.000] Can you give me a bit more background on why you're making that assertion? [01:47:55.000 --> 01:48:01.000] I'm making that assertion because the courts have written over and over again [01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:05.000] that the words in law are to be taken in their common meaning, [01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:11.000] but the writing of laws is not to be taken as common English. [01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:13.000] It just can't work that way. [01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:21.000] I can follow that, but that still doesn't equate to what you said before about highway or street. [01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:27.000] I mean, essentially what I took you to say before is that highway is defined by the phrasing [01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:30.000] it gives after that term, highway or street, [01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:37.000] and street is defined by the phrasing they give after the term in quotes, highway or street. [01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:39.000] And I just don't get that. [01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:44.000] I see no basis for making that conclusion. [01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:48.000] Deborah, can you help me out here? [01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:54.000] I understand what you're asking, and I'm not saying I disagree with the way you want to read it. [01:48:54.000 --> 01:48:58.000] I'm just simply telling you from the stuff that I've read and researched in case law, [01:48:58.000 --> 01:49:00.000] that's not the way they do it. [01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:03.000] When they do it this way, they're setting it up. [01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:10.000] Now, normally that entire phrase within quotes is what must be there before that definition applies. [01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:14.000] Now, it won't be in quotes in the way it's used in the actual statement, [01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:22.000] but normally if it creates a phrase, that entire phrase has to be used, not just a fraction of it, okay? [01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:28.000] But what I have seen in the case law I've read over these particular methods here on this type of definition, [01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:30.000] that's what they've always done. [01:49:30.000 --> 01:49:31.000] I'm not saying it's right. [01:49:31.000 --> 01:49:33.000] I'm not saying I agree with it. [01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:39.000] I'm simply telling you that if you try to argue it that way, you're going to get stomped on. [01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:44.000] See, to me, when I guess when I, and maybe this is just from the way I want to interpret it, [01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:50.000] but when it says highway or street together and then it gives that definition, it's essentially saying, [01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:57.000] okay, when we say highway or street, we really mean all public roadways as opposed to when it just says highway [01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:04.000] where it may just have a different meaning versus street when it may have a completely third meaning. [01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:11.000] Okay, what I'm getting at is normally the way this would work is when it says a person commits an offense if, [01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:18.000] the offense section would have to specifically state a person commits an offense if they operate a bicycle [01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:22.000] on a highway or street, okay? [01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:24.000] They couldn't just say on a highway. [01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:30.000] They couldn't just say on a street if they intend for that definition to be what's used. [01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:38.000] It has to be on a highway or street in order for that offense to apply to this definition. [01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:44.000] That's how it's supposed to work. [01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:46.000] And that I absolutely agree with. [01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:48.000] That's how it's supposed to work. [01:50:48.000 --> 01:50:53.000] In every other place just about, that's how it's forced to work. [01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:59.000] Because they're using a term that's been defined, that term has to be complete when it is used. [01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:03.000] And I wanted to ask if maybe we could continue this conversation on Thursday [01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:07.000] because we have three other callers I wanted to squeeze in before the end of the segment. [01:51:07.000 --> 01:51:11.000] But I would go after person, Mitchell. [01:51:11.000 --> 01:51:15.000] Okay, I've got a follow-up and I can pick this up Thursday. [01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:24.000] But on Section 311.05 where person comes from, have you included in your sort of structuring of all this, [01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:29.000] the subsection 13 where it defines includes or including? [01:51:29.000 --> 01:51:32.000] Yes, I have. [01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:38.000] And still you're sort of interpreting person as being limiting to the things that are just listed? [01:51:38.000 --> 01:51:40.000] No, I'm not doing it at all. [01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:42.000] The Supreme Court has. [01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:48.000] So irregardless of what the Texas legislature wants to say they can do, what the Supreme Court says otherwise. [01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:49.000] Supreme Court of Texas? [01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:53.000] Texas and the United States. [01:51:53.000 --> 01:51:57.000] There's case law from every State of the Union on that term. [01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:03.000] Includes, unless it is specifically defined in a certain way, is always limiting. [01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:11.000] It cannot be expansive beyond what's listed unless there are specific criteria formatted in that definition that allows it. [01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:13.000] But it does give that in subsection 13. [01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:15.000] No, it does not. [01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:17.000] That is not what it means. [01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:18.000] It can be used. [01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:20.000] It's a word of art. [01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:23.000] As a word of art, it can be either or. [01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:31.000] But unless it is specifically formatted where it is used to allow expansion, it is limiting in nature. [01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:33.000] Always has been. [01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:37.000] And there's case law after case law after case law on that subject. [01:52:37.000 --> 01:52:39.000] That's been argued for decades. [01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:43.000] That is true. [01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:44.000] All right, thanks, guys. [01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:45.000] Okay, thanks, Mitchell. [01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:48.000] We'll pick up this more on Thursday if you like. [01:52:48.000 --> 01:52:50.000] All right, we only have six minutes left. [01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:51.000] We've got three callers. [01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:54.000] So I want to squeeze everybody in as much as possible. [01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:56.000] All right, we're going to go to Gary from Georgia. [01:52:56.000 --> 01:52:59.000] Okay, Gary, do you have a quick question or comment? [01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:01.000] Yes, ma'am. [01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:04.000] I would like to speak about administrative law. [01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:11.000] I have spoken to people in Georgia for many years. [01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:15.000] Why are you going to so-called traffic court? [01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:21.000] And the administrative law governs of all people with licenses. [01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:24.000] That's exactly what it means, permission. [01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:32.000] And so when we have rights, when rights are concerned, there shall be no rulemaking, legislation rulemaking that would abrogate them. [01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:34.000] So the Supreme Court, it is so. [01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:36.000] We have a right to travel. [01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:38.000] We have a right to privacy and be left alone. [01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:56.000] So therefore, if someone says that I have to do something, then they have to prove that my conduct can be regulated under the Administrative Procedures Act of the State of Georgia as well as to have judicial review. [01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:58.000] That's when the courts come in. [01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:09.000] Same thing as 5 U.S.C. Section 706 or 701 and 706 for agency action under the fence. [01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:31.000] What I would like to recommend to people to get a crunch time on the Administrative Procedures Law, and it's put out by Aspen Publishers, and it's a very, very short, precise publication on what the fourth branch of government is about. [01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:44.000] So that said, I'd like to recommend that anyone in Georgia or in their state contact the Lexus Nexus I have in front of me, Georgia Criminal and Traffic Law Manual. [01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:56.000] So as the last caller was disputing about statutes, well, they're codified, and therefore that's what the legislature says they are. [01:54:56.000 --> 01:55:01.000] Like as Addison Wonderland and Matt Hatter said, it means what it means. [01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:12.000] So we could say that for the purpose of this chapter, the term Cadillac, Chevrolet, and Oldsmobile means dogs, rats, and cats. [01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:16.000] So if I say the Cadillac jumped over a fence and bit their leg, it's totally true. [01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:36.000] So that said, I think you're doing a good job, and since the time is limited, I'd like to just have – I'd like to ask Eddie if his code sections could be applied, both in the Georgia statute. [01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:37.000] Can it be applied? [01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:56.000] Well, yes. I know you have a Texas code and also a Title 49 of a United States code. So my take is to anybody go to their state and put in – do a search, computer search for Title 49 of the traffic code. [01:55:56.000 --> 01:56:02.000] Yeah, and we have two minutes left, people, and I did want to bring Pat on the line before we go because he's hanging off the water tower right now. [01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:11.000] Okay. Yeah, Gary, it can, the way I understand it, but if we can, let's pick that question up on Thursday because that will take just a few more minutes than we got. [01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:14.000] I certainly agree. Thank you very much. Good night. [01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:15.000] Yes, sir. [01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:20.000] Okay. All right. Going to Pat. Pat, sorry it's taken us so long to get to you. What's your question, comment? [01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:47.000] That's fine. About the administrative hearing, for somebody who's not licensed, who makes a traffic stop, on somebody who's not normally required to be stopped under a traffic stop, how do we get that individual in front of an administrative hearing and where are these administrative hearings at, especially for West Texas? [01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:55.000] In Texas, there is one place and one place only where the state administrative hearings are held, and that is in Austin. [01:56:55.000 --> 01:57:01.000] Beautiful. I'll email you some stuff, Eddie. You and I need to talk, son. [01:57:01.000 --> 01:57:02.000] All right. [01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:04.000] Good night. Thank you very much. [01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:06.000] Yes, sir. [01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:08.000] Did you say we had one other? [01:57:08.000 --> 01:57:17.000] No. Well, we did. We had Rob, but he dropped off the line. Rob from Texas, please call back in on Thursday night so we can pick this up. [01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:18.000] Okay. All right. [01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:24.000] We got about a minute and 30 seconds left. So, Eddie, any closing words? [01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:45.000] Well, I can say I thank you folks for listening tonight, and I hope I was not too confusing or too fast for everything. And the case law on includes and including, that is one of the most sophisticated ways they have of making the law expandable beyond reach. [01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:57.000] Common sense will tell you up front that if the word includes can include anything they want at any time, then they can make that law apply to everything, which we know cannot be done. [01:57:57.000 --> 01:57:58.000] Right. [01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:15.000] To say that includes leaves it open-ended means the law has no real application beyond whatever they want at a given moment. Law cannot operate that way. That makes it ambiguous. That makes it over broad. That makes it unconstitutional. [01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:18.000] Can't be that way. [01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:28.000] All right. Very good. We will be back on Thursday night, 8 p.m. Central. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Deborah Stevens. [01:58:48.000 --> 01:59:06.000] We will be back on Thursday night, 8 p.m. Central. This is the rule of law. [01:59:06.000 --> 01:59:19.000] We will be back on Thursday night, 8 p.m. Central. This is the rule of law. [01:59:19.000 --> 01:59:37.000] This is the rule of law. [01:59:37.000 --> 01:59:52.000] This is the rule of law.