[00:00.000 --> 00:04.960]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:04.960 --> 00:10.880]  The U.S. is likely to average 95,000 more jobs each month this year according to a White
[00:10.880 --> 00:12.960]  House report released Thursday.
[00:12.960 --> 00:19.760]  The Council of Economic Advisers also trumpeted the $787 billion economic stimulus package
[00:19.760 --> 00:24.040]  which it said has saved or created 2 million jobs.
[00:24.040 --> 00:28.880]  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says, prepare for the end of record low interest
[00:28.880 --> 00:29.880]  rates.
[00:29.880 --> 00:35.360]  This means higher rates on credit cards, home equity loans, and many mortgages will follow
[00:35.360 --> 00:40.560]  the Fed's eventual recall of the trillions it injected into the economy.
[00:40.560 --> 00:46.080]  An Ohio task force investigating human trafficking in the state says nearly 800 immigrants a
[00:46.080 --> 00:49.960]  year are forced into the sex trade or sweatshops.
[00:49.960 --> 00:55.720]  A report also found more than 1,000 children born in Ohio are forced into the sex trade
[00:55.720 --> 00:56.720]  each year.
[00:56.720 --> 01:02.280]  Hundreds more immigrants and children risk working against their will in fields, restaurants,
[01:02.280 --> 01:06.560]  sweatshops or construction sites.
[01:06.560 --> 01:11.240]  Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, launched an investigation
[01:11.240 --> 01:14.080]  Tuesday into massive rate increases.
[01:14.080 --> 01:20.840]  Anthem Blue Cross intends to impose on 800,000 California customers March 1st.
[01:20.840 --> 01:25.660]  Waxman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Bart Stupak wrote
[01:25.660 --> 01:31.520]  Angela Braley, CEO of Blue Cross parent company Wellpoint, asking her to testify before the
[01:31.520 --> 01:38.120]  subcommittee February 24th and provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the rate increase.
[01:38.120 --> 01:42.800]  Last week the LA Times reported Anthem Blue Cross planned to hike individual insurance
[01:42.800 --> 01:45.920]  premiums by up to 39%.
[01:45.920 --> 01:54.000]  California state officials and the Obama administration noted Wellpoint's 2009 profit was $4.7 billion,
[01:54.000 --> 01:57.520]  nearly double the year before.
[01:57.520 --> 02:02.440]  As Haiti begins digging out from under 60 million cubic meters of earthquake wreckage,
[02:02.440 --> 02:06.920]  U.S. firms have begun jockeying for a bonanza of cleanup work.
[02:06.920 --> 02:13.040]  There's big money to be made in the rubble of some 225,000 collapsed homes and at least
[02:13.040 --> 02:16.360]  25,000 government and office buildings.
[02:16.360 --> 02:21.720]  At least two politically connected U.S. firms have enlisted powerful local allies in Haiti
[02:21.720 --> 02:24.560]  to help compete for the high stakes business.
[02:24.560 --> 02:30.160]  Randall Perkins, head of Ashbritt, has already met with Haitian President René Préval to
[02:30.160 --> 02:32.160]  tout his firm's skills.
[02:32.160 --> 02:38.120]  To press his case, Perkins, a big U.S. political donor employing powerful lobbyists, has lined
[02:38.120 --> 02:43.400]  up an influential Haitian businessman, Gilbert Biggio, as a partner.
[02:43.400 --> 02:49.520]  Another contender is DRC Group, a disaster recovery firm whose resume includes hurricanes,
[02:49.520 --> 02:52.520]  wars, ice storms, and floods.
[02:52.520 --> 03:20.160]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[03:20.160 --> 03:38.360]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:38.360 --> 03:54.640]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.640 --> 03:59.920]  When you were eight and you had bad trees, you'd go to school and learn the golden rule.
[03:59.920 --> 04:02.920]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[04:02.920 --> 04:10.600]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you
[04:10.600 --> 04:14.600]  Bad boys bad boys bad boys what you gonna do what you gonna do when they
[04:14.600 --> 04:15.600]  come for you?
[04:15.600 --> 04:18.600]  You're short of tongue that run you're short of tongue evثرent
[04:18.600 --> 04:21.600]  You're shock it on your mother and you shock it on your father
[04:21.600 --> 04:25.600]  you shock it on you brother and you shock it on you sister
[04:25.600 --> 04:28.600]  you shock it on that one and you shock it on me
[04:28.600 --> 04:31.600]  Bad boys bad boys what you gonna do?
[04:31.600 --> 04:33.600]  what you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:33.600 --> 04:36.600]  Bad boys bad boys what you gonna do?
[04:36.600 --> 04:38.600]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:38.600 --> 04:44.040]  All right, bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do when we come for you?
[04:44.040 --> 04:52.080]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, and you.
[04:52.080 --> 04:55.440]  We're not giving them no break, okay?
[04:55.440 --> 04:56.440]  No break.
[04:56.440 --> 05:01.800]  We're cutting no slack for these rogues because they are the enemy, they want to take us down,
[05:01.800 --> 05:05.960]  they want to destroy liberty and freedom, they want to destroy us, and we're not going
[05:05.960 --> 05:06.960]  to let them do it.
[05:06.960 --> 05:09.920]  We're fighting and we're fighting hard.
[05:09.920 --> 05:14.840]  And speaking of fighting and fighting hard, some thing that I have not addressed for a
[05:14.840 --> 05:18.440]  few weeks, haven't had a chance to make a PSA, haven't had a chance to address it on
[05:18.440 --> 05:24.360]  the air, a lot of stuff going on involving the FCC and the micros.
[05:24.360 --> 05:29.560]  So I want to give an update on this situation, okay?
[05:29.560 --> 05:34.380]  First off, while several issues that are at stake here, we're going to address, Eddie
[05:34.380 --> 05:40.840]  and I are going to address the difference between a fine and a forfeiture, okay?
[05:40.840 --> 05:49.440]  And I know that on the PSA it talks about upwards of $20,000 in fines and that was actually
[05:49.440 --> 05:50.440]  a misnomer.
[05:50.440 --> 05:54.560]  It's actually forfeitures is what they're trying to impose.
[05:54.560 --> 06:02.920]  And now we've got other people involved that we are helping who have run their own micros
[06:02.920 --> 06:08.880]  in the past that are stepping forward that need help, and we're looking at a total of
[06:08.880 --> 06:15.040]  around $40,000 in forfeitures between three people, all right?
[06:15.040 --> 06:19.040]  Actually four people, two individuals and one couple.
[06:19.040 --> 06:25.680]  And we're not going to mention who these individuals are, but people need to understand how serious
[06:25.680 --> 06:28.500]  this issue is, all right?
[06:28.500 --> 06:32.320]  We're not playing games and neither are the bad guys.
[06:32.320 --> 06:38.080]  They're very serious about taking us down, they're very serious about stopping the micros,
[06:38.080 --> 06:45.640]  they're very serious about robbing people of their property and their livelihood and
[06:45.640 --> 06:48.160]  their liberty, okay?
[06:48.160 --> 06:55.000]  And I say livelihood, I just mean existence because there is no livelihood involving these
[06:55.000 --> 06:56.000]  micros.
[06:56.000 --> 06:58.760]  Nobody's making any money off of this, people.
[06:58.760 --> 07:03.520]  Nobody that has ever been involved with the micros has ever made a dime.
[07:03.520 --> 07:09.160]  In fact, they've spent thousands of dollars of their own money on equipment and spent
[07:09.160 --> 07:17.400]  all their time on it as well, so they've already forfeited a lot of their life as it is and
[07:17.400 --> 07:21.760]  their property just to bring the message to you, okay?
[07:21.760 --> 07:27.380]  People have been involved in this for many, many years, going back 12 years here in Austin
[07:27.380 --> 07:34.960]  that have laid everything on the line to bring you this message, okay?
[07:34.960 --> 07:42.440]  People in the last five years have laid everything on the line to bring you this message.
[07:42.440 --> 07:47.080]  They've risked their lives, they've risked losing all their property, they've risked
[07:47.080 --> 07:54.280]  going to federal prison, and so people need to understand how serious this is and just
[07:54.280 --> 08:01.800]  how precious it is, and we need to stand up and support the ones who have come before
[08:01.800 --> 08:02.800]  us.
[08:02.800 --> 08:03.800]  We need to support those.
[08:03.800 --> 08:08.600]  We're standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us and who are in trouble
[08:08.600 --> 08:16.320]  right now along with other people that are in trouble right now, so I've got four cases
[08:16.320 --> 08:24.080]  against the FCC going right now for the two individuals and the one couple that are facing
[08:24.080 --> 08:30.120]  these forfeitures, and there's another case where some of the individuals have filed this
[08:30.120 --> 08:33.320]  co-plaintiffs in the state, in a state case.
[08:33.320 --> 08:38.920]  That's what we were discussing on Friday, how the U.S. attorney came in, stepped in
[08:38.920 --> 08:47.160]  without authority, removed the case to the federal court, the judge agreed that he had
[08:47.160 --> 08:48.160]  no jurisdiction.
[08:48.160 --> 08:50.160]  This is Sam Sparks.
[08:50.160 --> 08:52.440]  Sparks agreed that he had no subject matter jurisdiction.
[08:52.440 --> 08:56.120]  Well, the only thing that he could have done according to law at that point is remand the
[08:56.120 --> 08:58.720]  case back to the state, which he did not do.
[08:58.720 --> 09:05.200]  He illegally made a ruling in the case, so now we have to file for disqualification of
[09:05.200 --> 09:11.560]  the judge and petition for writ of mandamus to a higher court, ordering the lower court
[09:11.560 --> 09:16.080]  to remand the case back to the state, criminal charges against the judge, sanctions against
[09:16.080 --> 09:18.880]  the U.S. attorney, bar grievances, all these things.
[09:18.880 --> 09:25.200]  That's a state case, but then there are three other cases of the individuals actually involved
[09:25.200 --> 09:31.400]  directly with the micros that are suing the FCC and the U.S. government and these agents
[09:31.400 --> 09:36.960]  personally for lack of jurisdiction, for violating their own law, and for the fact that there's
[09:36.960 --> 09:44.880]  nothing in statute nor in the FCC code itself that requires Low Power FM to have a license.
[09:44.880 --> 09:49.680]  We're going to talk about what the difference is between fines and forfeitures because what
[09:49.680 --> 09:56.280]  these people are facing is a forfeiture, which is way more serious than a fine.
[09:56.280 --> 10:05.160]  And I will add that not a single dime has been paid on any of these forfeitures, okay?
[10:05.160 --> 10:06.720]  Not one dime.
[10:06.720 --> 10:13.360]  And I will also dispel a common myth that if these forfeitures are paid, well, then
[10:13.360 --> 10:18.920]  everything is just hunky-dory gravy and people can just keep broadcasting and it's no problem
[10:18.920 --> 10:21.760]  and you get a pat on the head from the FCC.
[10:21.760 --> 10:23.800]  That's not the case, okay?
[10:23.800 --> 10:25.920]  This is a forfeiture.
[10:25.920 --> 10:31.680]  They want to shut down the radio and they want to deprive people of their property without
[10:31.680 --> 10:33.360]  due process, okay?
[10:33.360 --> 10:38.920]  So it's not a situation that, well, if you just pay, then everything's all good to go.
[10:38.920 --> 10:43.720]  No, this isn't a pay-to-play kind of a situation with the FCC.
[10:43.720 --> 10:47.480]  They mean business and we mean business too, all right?
[10:47.480 --> 10:52.120]  And so I have to get that out there that not a dime has been paid.
[10:52.120 --> 10:57.600]  None of the people involved intend on paying a single dime.
[10:57.600 --> 11:01.600]  We're fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to, okay?
[11:01.600 --> 11:04.080]  Because it's totally illegitimate what they're doing.
[11:04.080 --> 11:06.720]  It's totally contrary to law.
[11:06.720 --> 11:11.800]  And we're going to talk about the expansion doctrine and what the difference is between
[11:11.800 --> 11:20.800]  a title, statute, and Code of Federal Regulations because the Code of Federal Regulations is
[11:20.800 --> 11:22.520]  like the 47 CFR.
[11:22.520 --> 11:27.520]  That's just what the FCC, that's their rules and regulations that they try to impose on
[11:27.520 --> 11:28.520]  everyone.
[11:28.520 --> 11:30.120]  That's not law, okay?
[11:30.120 --> 11:35.200]  Title 47 is the law and it restricts the FCC.
[11:35.200 --> 11:40.760]  It restricts and governs them and basically regulates them and they can only make rules
[11:40.760 --> 11:44.360]  and regulations that are in compliance with the statute.
[11:44.360 --> 11:49.220]  The Code of Federal Regulations hangs on the statute, not the other way around.
[11:49.220 --> 11:52.600]  They can't just make whatever rules they want, okay?
[11:52.600 --> 11:58.120]  So we're going to talk about the expansion doctrine tonight and how they cannot, these
[11:58.120 --> 12:05.920]  agencies cannot expand the title in their Code of Regulations that go beyond what the
[12:05.920 --> 12:08.040]  limitations are of the statute.
[12:08.040 --> 12:11.640]  So that's another thing, another issue we're going to address tonight, but we're going
[12:11.640 --> 12:15.920]  to address what the difference is between a fine and a forfeiture because what's happening
[12:15.920 --> 12:20.880]  here with these micros and the people that are running them is not a fine, okay, it is
[12:20.880 --> 12:24.720]  a forfeiture which is much more serious and Eddie is going to discuss this.
[12:24.720 --> 12:27.240]  We looked at the definitions in black.
[12:27.240 --> 12:30.520]  And again, I just want to say not a dime has been paid towards this.
[12:30.520 --> 12:32.320]  No one intends on paying a dime.
[12:32.320 --> 12:33.520]  We're fighting it in court.
[12:33.520 --> 12:35.520]  We're fighting it hard.
[12:35.520 --> 12:38.520]  Like I said, it's not an easy task, people, all right?
[12:38.520 --> 12:45.120]  I'm dealing with four cases right now, three at the federal level in the Court of Appeals,
[12:45.120 --> 12:51.400]  the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which just so happens to be the most corrupt court
[12:51.400 --> 12:59.560]  in the nation, so corrupt that a court clerk committed suicide over the corruption and
[12:59.560 --> 13:05.080]  left a suicide note saying that the reason that he committed suicide was because he was
[13:05.080 --> 13:12.880]  under direct order from the judge to stamp denied on every single pleading and motion
[13:12.880 --> 13:17.400]  that was submitted by a pro se litigants without even the judge reading it.
[13:17.400 --> 13:19.200]  He was understanding orders to do that.
[13:19.200 --> 13:22.400]  He had been doing it for decades and he finally couldn't take it anymore.
[13:22.400 --> 13:28.040]  He committed suicide at the court over this and left the suicide note.
[13:28.040 --> 13:29.920]  The judge hid the note.
[13:29.920 --> 13:35.080]  I don't know why the judge didn't just destroy the note, but the judge took the note and
[13:35.080 --> 13:41.000]  hid it and the FBI had to grill this judge for 12 hours to get him to cough up the suicide
[13:41.000 --> 13:42.000]  note.
[13:42.000 --> 13:46.120]  So this is the level of corruption that we are dealing with, people, and I don't want
[13:46.120 --> 13:49.480]  anybody out there to think it's a bed of roses because it's not.
[13:49.480 --> 13:57.080]  We are taking on the beast head on and we have no intention of advising any of these
[13:57.080 --> 14:00.680]  plaintiffs to pay a single dime towards these forfeitures.
[14:00.680 --> 14:02.660]  We're fighting it all the way.
[14:02.660 --> 14:06.760]  Nothing has been paid, nothing's going to be paid, and even if it was, it doesn't mean
[14:06.760 --> 14:08.920]  that we get to stay on the air.
[14:08.920 --> 14:16.660]  So I have to put that out there, just how serious this fight really is and how we really
[14:16.660 --> 14:21.760]  need to stand up and support the people who are laying it all on the line, laying their
[14:21.760 --> 14:28.200]  very lives on the line, laying all their property on the line, everything to bring you people
[14:28.200 --> 14:30.120]  the message to bring you.
[14:30.120 --> 14:35.360]  We're doing it for you, okay, and definitely we need to support the ones who came before
[14:35.360 --> 14:40.400]  us that started all of this in this great city of Austin, Texas.
[14:40.400 --> 14:43.440]  We're not leaving anyone behind here, all right?
[14:43.440 --> 14:49.400]  So we're going to have a fundraiser pretty soon and we'll be discussing that because
[14:49.400 --> 14:52.040]  we're going to need travel expenses soon.
[14:52.040 --> 14:56.000]  It's going to get to the point pretty soon where we're going to have to, there's going
[14:56.000 --> 14:57.600]  to be oral arguments.
[14:57.600 --> 15:02.280]  We're petitioning for the judge to rule on some of the pleadings without oral arguments,
[15:02.280 --> 15:03.720]  but it's going to be inevitable.
[15:03.720 --> 15:07.560]  We're going to have to go to New Orleans where the Fifth Circuit is, eventually we may have
[15:07.560 --> 15:09.560]  to go to Washington, D.C.
[15:09.560 --> 15:15.080]  So we're going to be having fundraisers coming up to try to raise more money.
[15:15.080 --> 15:20.880]  Basically we've raised around $3,000 so far and that's just barely covered the court costs
[15:20.880 --> 15:23.560]  in these four cases so far.
[15:23.560 --> 15:28.720]  So we need your support, we need it desperately to stay on the air so that we can continue
[15:28.720 --> 15:32.040]  to fight because that's how we're going to stay on the air, is continuing the fight,
[15:32.040 --> 15:33.160]  all right?
[15:33.160 --> 15:37.200]  Not by paying them off because that's not going to do any good anyway.
[15:37.200 --> 15:40.440]  So that's where we're at right now.
[15:40.440 --> 15:46.440]  We're going to be discussing, coming up in the next segment, what the difference is between
[15:46.440 --> 15:50.800]  fines and forfeitures because we're looking at forfeitures here, not fines.
[15:50.800 --> 15:55.440]  It's a very serious issue and again I just want to put out a big thank you to all the
[15:55.440 --> 16:01.240]  people who have come before those that are dealing with this issue now because if it
[16:01.240 --> 16:07.720]  wasn't for you guys out there, specifically one person in specific, he knows who he is,
[16:07.720 --> 16:11.640]  he knows who I'm talking about, that if he did not start all this here in Austin with
[16:11.640 --> 16:15.080]  the micros, there wouldn't even be any micros right now at all.
[16:15.080 --> 16:19.840]  So we have to support the ones who came before us because we're standing on their shoulders.
[16:19.840 --> 16:25.800]  So Eddie, if you would quickly before we go to break, just read the definition of fine
[16:25.800 --> 16:28.400]  and forfeiture and how they're different.
[16:28.400 --> 16:29.720]  Okay, fine.
[16:29.720 --> 16:36.040]  As a noun, it's a pecuniary punishment or penalty imposed by lawful tribunal upon person
[16:36.040 --> 16:38.760]  convicted of crime or misdemeanor.
[16:38.760 --> 16:44.680]  It may include a forfeiture or penalty recoverable in a civil action and in criminal convictions
[16:44.680 --> 16:47.000]  may be in addition to imprisonment.
[16:47.000 --> 16:51.880]  A fine constitutes a sentence as defined in rules of criminal procedure.
[16:51.880 --> 16:54.920]  The forfeiture is a lot longer so we may want to cover it after break.
[16:54.920 --> 16:56.640]  Okay, we'll go over this on the other side.
[16:56.640 --> 16:57.640]  We'll be right back.
[16:57.640 --> 17:04.960]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[17:04.960 --> 17:05.960]  Sorry.
[17:05.960 --> 17:08.880]  Are you confused by words like the constitution or the federal reserve?
[17:08.880 --> 17:09.880]  What?
[17:09.880 --> 17:13.680]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[17:13.680 --> 17:19.200]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity
[17:19.200 --> 17:20.400]  at an early age.
[17:20.400 --> 17:24.400]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home
[17:24.400 --> 17:26.520]  in America, the television.
[17:26.520 --> 17:31.520]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[17:31.520 --> 17:35.280]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other poxaholics suffering
[17:35.280 --> 17:40.200]  from sports zombieism recover and because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and
[17:40.200 --> 17:44.480]  watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[17:44.480 --> 17:51.840]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[17:51.840 --> 17:55.920]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[17:55.920 --> 17:59.280]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[17:59.280 --> 18:02.920]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[18:02.920 --> 18:28.680]  Okay, tyranny, they may tear you, they may tear me, they may tear up the whole country
[18:28.680 --> 18:33.840]  if we let them, but we're not leaving anyone behind.
[18:33.840 --> 18:39.120]  We're helping out the people who started all of this in Austin many, many years ago if
[18:39.120 --> 18:40.120]  it wasn't for them.
[18:40.120 --> 18:45.120]  We wouldn't even be on the air right now, so we thank them and we are helping them in
[18:45.120 --> 18:46.120]  these cases.
[18:46.120 --> 18:53.960]  So we're talking about fines versus forfeitures here and Eddie, so let's go over the differences
[18:53.960 --> 18:58.840]  between fines and forfeitures because it is a very serious difference.
[18:58.840 --> 18:59.840]  Okay.
[18:59.840 --> 19:05.080]  Well, the definition of forfeiture is a comprehensive term which means a divestiture of specific
[19:05.080 --> 19:06.920]  property without compensation.
[19:06.920 --> 19:13.960]  It imposes a loss by the taking away of some preexisting valid right without compensation,
[19:13.960 --> 19:18.600]  a deprivation or destruction of a right in consequence of the nonperformance of some
[19:18.600 --> 19:24.880]  obligation or condition, loss of some right or property as a penalty for some illegal
[19:24.880 --> 19:31.520]  act, loss of property or money because of breach of a legal obligation.
[19:31.520 --> 19:36.400]  So and the way they're wanting to do it is more the first part of the definition where
[19:36.400 --> 19:39.520]  it's basically a forfeiture of a right.
[19:39.520 --> 19:41.020]  It's a deprivation of a right.
[19:41.020 --> 19:45.400]  It's got nothing to do with a judicial finding a fact or anything else.
[19:45.400 --> 19:50.360]  Basically it is what the founding fathers said was unlawful and illegal which is a bill
[19:50.360 --> 19:51.360]  of attainder.
[19:51.360 --> 19:59.040]  It is an administrative or legislative determination of guilt and loss rather than a judicial.
[19:59.040 --> 20:00.600]  Absolutely.
[20:00.600 --> 20:07.240]  And that's what happens in their little administrative hearings with the FCC.
[20:07.240 --> 20:13.560]  Their little ex parte hearings I might add in some of these cases and in one of the other
[20:13.560 --> 20:19.200]  cases they actually had a hearing but they had it in Washington D.C. which is against
[20:19.200 --> 20:20.200]  the law.
[20:20.200 --> 20:26.080]  They have to have the hearing in the district where you reside and they can't be presenting
[20:26.080 --> 20:30.400]  evidence against you without you being present.
[20:30.400 --> 20:35.280]  So they're breaking the rules, they're breaking the laws even in their own little ex parte
[20:35.280 --> 20:41.080]  administrative hearings and that's why and the fact that it is an administrative hearing
[20:41.080 --> 20:45.280]  is why they're calling it a forfeiture and everything that I've seen under forfeiture
[20:45.280 --> 20:49.880]  falls under maritime law.
[20:49.880 --> 20:55.080]  They're basically functioning under maritime law and there's no judicial review within
[20:55.080 --> 20:56.880]  that proceeding.
[20:56.880 --> 21:04.400]  Now there is judicial review once the forfeiture order has been handed down you can take it
[21:04.400 --> 21:07.600]  into the court system which is what we're doing now.
[21:07.600 --> 21:11.920]  But I still have a problem with this whole forfeiture thing to begin with because it
[21:11.920 --> 21:20.240]  is a deprivation of a right without due process and without compensation just because they
[21:20.240 --> 21:21.240]  say.
[21:21.240 --> 21:25.440]  It's not a fine, it's totally different and it's very heinous.
[21:25.440 --> 21:30.520]  Well now do be aware however that when you go before the judicial portion of this so
[21:30.520 --> 21:37.840]  called fine and forfeiture process you're not there for a judicial finding of fact or
[21:37.840 --> 21:38.840]  determination.
[21:38.840 --> 21:42.600]  The only thing you're allowed to argue is why you shouldn't have to pay the fine.
[21:42.600 --> 21:48.440]  You're no longer allowed to present anything pretty much as the way I understand it.
[21:48.440 --> 21:52.160]  You're basically just there to argue I don't want to pay, I shouldn't have to pay, blah
[21:52.160 --> 21:53.800]  blah blah, that kind of thing.
[21:53.800 --> 21:58.640]  It's not really a judicial proceeding anymore than it was to begin with.
[21:58.640 --> 22:01.240]  So you're talking in the administrative realm, right?
[22:01.240 --> 22:09.000]  No, after you go to have a judicial determination on the forfeiture hearing itself where they've
[22:09.000 --> 22:14.960]  already said okay you're going to pay it and then you go in and you file the motion to
[22:14.960 --> 22:19.680]  have it reviewed by the court, that's exactly what you're doing.
[22:19.680 --> 22:21.080]  You're having it reviewed.
[22:21.080 --> 22:26.200]  You're not re-arguing the case, you're having the decision reviewed.
[22:26.200 --> 22:29.800]  It's no more a judicial process than it was in the beginning.
[22:29.800 --> 22:33.520]  We need to look up case law on that and this is something that's been very difficult to
[22:33.520 --> 22:39.120]  find because this is the Title 28 petition that we've been talking about that we're
[22:39.120 --> 22:45.720]  doing and it is a petition to review an annul and it was my understanding that the court
[22:45.720 --> 22:54.720]  would be reviewing the arguments, the merits of the case, but you're saying no.
[22:54.720 --> 22:57.720]  You would probably be one of the first.
[22:57.720 --> 22:59.400]  Could be one of the first because see what usually happens.
[22:59.400 --> 23:02.600]  I'm not saying it's not what they're supposed to do.
[23:02.600 --> 23:07.740]  I'm saying based upon what I have actually seen them do, it's no different than what
[23:07.740 --> 23:10.320]  you went through to wind up at that point to begin with.
[23:10.320 --> 23:15.840]  Well I haven't even seen a case of an original petition filed under Title 28 where these
[23:15.840 --> 23:17.080]  broadcasters are plaintiffs.
[23:17.080 --> 23:19.200]  I haven't even been able to find one yet.
[23:19.200 --> 23:21.520]  I don't know if Randy's been able to find one yet.
[23:21.520 --> 23:26.880]  Looks like what happens most of the time is that when these forfeiture orders come down,
[23:26.880 --> 23:33.320]  the broadcasters just wait for the Department of Justice to come after them for collection
[23:33.320 --> 23:36.680]  and then you have to fight the situation as a defendant.
[23:36.680 --> 23:43.640]  I've never actually even seen any case yet where broadcasters have turned around and
[23:43.640 --> 23:51.080]  invoked Title 28 to file against them, to petition to review an annul so we may actually
[23:51.080 --> 23:52.080]  be the first.
[23:52.080 --> 23:55.000]  I don't know.
[23:55.000 --> 23:56.680]  Randy what is your take on this?
[23:56.680 --> 24:01.080]  Have you seen any cases like this where the broadcasters were the plaintiffs under Title
[24:01.080 --> 24:02.080]  28?
[24:02.080 --> 24:09.120]  I haven't seen any cases where anyone actually took on the FCC.
[24:09.120 --> 24:12.280]  Every case I could find was just reactionary.
[24:12.280 --> 24:20.720]  They were responding to the FCC coming after them and they simply tried to defend themselves.
[24:20.720 --> 24:30.520]  The main point here about the forfeiture versus fine is that, and I will read this from where
[24:30.520 --> 24:36.960]  Eddie was chatting me earlier, a fine is based on pecuniary punishment, which means there's
[24:36.960 --> 24:37.960]  judicial review.
[24:37.960 --> 24:43.160]  There's a judicial finding of fact and then a fine is handed down.
[24:43.160 --> 24:48.120]  A forfeiture is based on the deprivation of a right without compensation.
[24:48.120 --> 24:54.040]  This is kind of like what we fought a revolution over people and so this is what they're doing
[24:54.040 --> 25:00.360]  and I don't know how this is all going to pan out because what Eddie is saying is that
[25:00.360 --> 25:05.720]  there's not going to, even under these Title 28 petitions, there's not necessarily going
[25:05.720 --> 25:11.680]  to be a judicial finding of fact, but I'm going to push it all the way to Supreme Court
[25:11.680 --> 25:12.680]  if I have to.
[25:12.680 --> 25:17.300]  They're going to find a judicial finding of fact and if they don't, well then I guess
[25:17.300 --> 25:18.680]  we just don't have any law.
[25:18.680 --> 25:26.440]  I mean, it's getting kind of ridiculous here that they can't have bills of attainder.
[25:26.440 --> 25:29.000]  That's against Constitution.
[25:29.000 --> 25:31.160]  It's against federal law.
[25:31.160 --> 25:35.000]  By any chance, Randy, have you come across any cases that deal particularly with the
[25:35.000 --> 25:38.760]  aspect of bill of attainder in these regards?
[25:38.760 --> 25:41.040]  Has anybody even ever raised that issue?
[25:41.040 --> 25:43.120]  No, never.
[25:43.120 --> 25:53.000]  Mostly, they just, it seems all the cases that they allow to be published are ones where
[25:53.000 --> 26:01.800]  they claim First Amendment right and they try to group every claim, every defense under
[26:01.800 --> 26:03.800]  First Amendment right.
[26:03.800 --> 26:07.480]  I haven't found much of anything else.
[26:07.480 --> 26:24.240]  I did find an argument of intrastate and then they come up with the most idiotic rulings.
[26:24.240 --> 26:27.360]  It won't transmit 25 miles directly.
[26:27.360 --> 26:36.480]  However, it's possible that it could transmit up 125 miles, bounce off the ionosphere and
[26:36.480 --> 26:43.640]  transmit back down another 125 miles and land 50 miles away in another state.
[26:43.640 --> 26:49.440]  That's the case, the primary case I could find that authorized them to and if it happened
[26:49.440 --> 26:54.280]  to land in another state, it would necessarily interfere with interstate commerce.
[26:54.280 --> 26:58.040]  It was just kindergarten.
[26:58.040 --> 26:59.880]  It was absolutely absurd.
[26:59.880 --> 27:09.080]  See, I will point out concerning this case that if the FCC really did have authority
[27:09.080 --> 27:16.920]  to regulate intrastate broadcasting, then why would they have the Solicitor General
[27:16.920 --> 27:23.520]  make such outrageously ludicrous, foolish arguments in front of the court that maybe
[27:23.520 --> 27:28.840]  it would bounce off the ionosphere hundreds of miles and all this kind of ridiculousness.
[27:28.840 --> 27:34.800]  If they really had authority to regulate intrastate, they would just say, well, we can regulate
[27:34.800 --> 27:37.480]  intrastate and then the argument would be over.
[27:37.480 --> 27:43.480]  But the fact that they have to go to such great foolish links proves that they know
[27:43.480 --> 27:49.200]  according to law, they don't have the authority to regulate intrastate broadcasting.
[27:49.200 --> 27:54.360]  And Randy, wasn't there some other case where they were talking about how, well, they just
[27:54.360 --> 28:01.040]  can't allow it because if we allow it, then people will be sending up transmitters along
[28:01.040 --> 28:07.320]  the state lines, close to the state lines someday and then maybe it will cross state
[28:07.320 --> 28:12.680]  lines, the broadcast, and it might interfere with something on the other side, so we can't
[28:12.680 --> 28:13.680]  allow it.
[28:13.680 --> 28:18.040]  I mean, that's just another proof that they know they have no authority to regulate intrastate
[28:18.040 --> 28:19.040]  broadcasting.
[28:19.040 --> 28:22.280]  Yeah, the cases were absolutely ludicrous.
[28:22.280 --> 28:28.080]  We need to send those cases to Charles Key because Charles Key right now, oh, and I'll
[28:28.080 --> 28:38.880]  give an update regarding the House Bill 2812 bill that I helped write for Charles Key to
[28:38.880 --> 28:46.640]  introduce basically, it's called the Communications Freedom Act, and I took the language pretty
[28:46.640 --> 28:54.120]  much right out of Title 47, I just had to mirror it to be an enumerative type of bill
[28:54.120 --> 29:00.560]  instead of a restrictive type of bill, but I took it right out of Title 47, the language,
[29:00.560 --> 29:09.440]  and basically it's saying that if it's not intrastate, then if the FCC comes in and tries
[29:09.440 --> 29:15.160]  to do something about it, they're going to get spanked with a felony in Oklahoma, and
[29:15.160 --> 29:25.320]  the bill sailed through committee yesterday, unanimously 11 to 0, it was approved.
[29:25.320 --> 29:34.960]  However, now he's running into friction from, guess who, the Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters,
[29:34.960 --> 29:43.440]  you know, big surprise, because if this bill passes and the truth gets out, then the Oklahoma
[29:43.440 --> 29:47.280]  Broadcasters that are in that association won't be able to use the FCC to protect their
[29:47.280 --> 29:53.960]  little monopoly anymore, so folks up there need to contact their legislators and tell
[29:53.960 --> 30:00.640]  them to support House Bill 2812, we'll be right back.
[30:00.640 --> 30:03.800]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[30:03.800 --> 30:10.560]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[30:10.560 --> 30:17.240]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step, if you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer
[30:17.240 --> 30:23.040]  should be doing, if you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself, thousands
[30:23.040 --> 30:29.000]  have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too, Jurisdictionary was created
[30:29.000 --> 30:36.040]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience, even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[30:36.040 --> 30:41.240]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[30:41.240 --> 30:47.680]  our American courts, you'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[30:47.680 --> 30:54.720]  for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and
[30:54.720 --> 31:23.480]  click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[31:23.480 --> 31:27.360]  Okay, we are back, when are they going to stop abusing their power?
[31:27.360 --> 31:33.680]  Only when we make them stop, okay, it comes down to you and me people, we have to be the
[31:33.680 --> 31:39.640]  ones to make them stop, we have to stand up to the tyranny, we have to make a firm stand
[31:39.640 --> 31:45.520]  against the tide, and it ain't going to be with money necessarily, we cannot pay them
[31:45.520 --> 31:51.920]  off contrary to what some people may think, there ain't no paying these guys off, they
[31:51.920 --> 31:56.440]  want to shut it down, and they want to take our property, and they want to take our money,
[31:56.440 --> 32:02.080]  and they want to put us in prison, the whole nine yards, all right, everything, so there
[32:02.080 --> 32:06.520]  ain't no playing games with these people, we're fighting and we're fighting hard, and
[32:06.520 --> 32:10.480]  so we're pointing out the differences between fines and forfeitures, and we're asking for
[32:10.480 --> 32:16.920]  your help, we're asking for donations to support this battle that is very hot and heavy now
[32:16.920 --> 32:23.720]  in the Court of Appeals, and we may have to travel, and there's a lot involved with this,
[32:23.720 --> 32:27.520]  okay, we're spending all our time on it, I know I'm spending all my time on it, Randy
[32:27.520 --> 32:31.320]  can't spend all his time on it anymore or else he won't be able to survive, you know,
[32:31.320 --> 32:37.200]  I have a husband that supports me and helps support this network, we hardly have any sponsors,
[32:37.200 --> 32:42.040]  you know, people, we are funding this whole enterprise out of our own pocket, period,
[32:42.040 --> 32:46.440]  and we're fighting the fights out of our own pockets, so we really do desperately need
[32:46.440 --> 32:51.960]  your donations to support this cause, because we're looking at forfeitures here, not fines,
[32:51.960 --> 32:57.280]  they're much more serious, they'll just come and take your stuff, they'll just file a lien
[32:57.280 --> 33:02.720]  against your house and take it, all right, they'll just come take you, I mean, it's serious
[33:02.720 --> 33:07.360]  business here when you're dealing with these administrative agencies, I mean, it's almost
[33:07.360 --> 33:15.440]  worse than the IRS, really, it is worse than the IRS, so, Randy, you wanted to address
[33:15.440 --> 33:20.040]  the expansion doctrine, which we've been talking about, the difference, what is the difference
[33:20.040 --> 33:28.640]  between Title 47 and 47 CFR, and just to back up a little bit to illustrate some of the
[33:28.640 --> 33:35.200]  friction that is coming down the pike here up in Oklahoma from the Association of Broadcasters
[33:35.200 --> 33:40.120]  and some of their attorneys, they're like, well, but it says under Part 15 that you can't
[33:40.120 --> 33:45.040]  use that, well, no, number one, it does not say under Part 15 that you can't do that,
[33:45.040 --> 33:53.080]  that is not true, they are twisting Part 15 to try to act like it applies to FM, but it
[33:53.080 --> 33:58.240]  does not, all right, for one thing, but the other thing is, I don't see why everybody
[33:58.240 --> 34:03.320]  is so dang concerned about the Code of Federal Regulations anyway, because that's just the
[34:03.320 --> 34:09.280]  little rules and regulations that the FCC has made up, and the whole point is they're
[34:09.280 --> 34:18.120]  over-expensive, a lot of these rules and regulations in 47 CFR are not in compliance with the restrictions
[34:18.120 --> 34:24.560]  of Title 47, and so, Randy, I'd like you to address this issue of the expansion doctrine,
[34:24.560 --> 34:29.840]  and if the states are really going to stand up to the feds, they got to stop kissing their
[34:29.840 --> 34:35.640]  butts and stop licking the boots regarding this Code of Federal Regulations, okay, we
[34:35.640 --> 34:42.720]  need to go over the FCC's head altogether, I really don't care what 47 CFR says, I'm
[34:42.720 --> 34:48.320]  concerned about law, I'm concerned about the statute, I'm concerned about the title, and
[34:48.320 --> 34:55.720]  that's why I took language directly out of Title 47 when I was helping Honorable Representative
[34:55.720 --> 35:03.360]  Key structure this bill, not taking language out of the boot-licking 47 CFR Code of Regulations,
[35:03.360 --> 35:07.560]  so Randy, if you would address this, please.
[35:07.560 --> 35:13.640]  This is a very serious problem between the feds and the states, and it has been from
[35:13.640 --> 35:27.760]  the beginning, when John Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson beat him for presidency,
[35:27.760 --> 35:39.560]  the primary issue was federal expansion, they had passed statutes in the north, the feds
[35:39.560 --> 35:50.440]  had passed statute that allowed the federal government to arrest anyone who helped slaves
[35:50.440 --> 36:02.680]  who had escaped from the south, and I think it was North Carolina, they had a couple of
[36:02.680 --> 36:08.560]  guys who the feds were trying to arrest for this, and the governor of North Carolina wouldn't
[36:08.560 --> 36:15.520]  give them up, he just refused, and it got down to a direct confrontation between the
[36:15.520 --> 36:21.880]  federal government and the state, and the Supreme Court ruled that there was no power
[36:21.880 --> 36:28.600]  to compel the governor to give the guy up, so they lost that one, and Jefferson was on
[36:28.600 --> 36:37.440]  that side and won the election over that issue, the same issue keeps coming up all through
[36:37.440 --> 36:44.320]  the history of the United States, it's been a very contentious issue always, and always
[36:44.320 --> 36:50.400]  there's been a fluctuation where the federal government gains power, gains control over
[36:50.400 --> 36:55.280]  the state, and then the states object and push them back, and the feds move back in
[36:55.280 --> 37:02.240]  and they push them back, we appear to be at a spot right now where the feds have expanded
[37:02.240 --> 37:09.720]  to the point that the states are getting extremely upset and there's a large push on to push
[37:09.720 --> 37:16.000]  the feds back out of the states, and this goes to expansion, the federal government
[37:16.000 --> 37:21.480]  keeps trying to expand its power, it's the nature of power, and they're trying to expand
[37:21.480 --> 37:27.760]  the power to take over as much of the state, control of the state as they can, we got to
[37:27.760 --> 37:28.760]  stop them.
[37:28.760 --> 37:35.600]  Yeah, and they keep trying to expand, these agencies keep trying to expand their power
[37:35.600 --> 37:43.240]  with their codes of federal regulations, pretty much every title has a CFR associated with
[37:43.240 --> 37:52.320]  it, Title 47, you have 47 CFR, Title 47 is 47 USC, that's what it is, and I'm sorry
[37:52.320 --> 37:58.280]  people but they cannot just make up whatever rules and regulations they want, they have
[37:58.280 --> 38:03.800]  to be in compliance with the overriding statute, and this is where the rubber hits the road,
[38:03.800 --> 38:10.600]  this is where the friction starts because the attorneys and the naysayers and the people
[38:10.600 --> 38:17.640]  that are pushing back against this bill of Charles Keyes are saying, well but the code
[38:17.640 --> 38:24.240]  of federal regulation says this and this and this and this, well you know what, if you're
[38:24.240 --> 38:31.320]  going to kiss the federal government's boots and lick their boots and do what you think
[38:31.320 --> 38:37.360]  you need to do to be in compliance with their rules, then why are we doing any of this okay?
[38:37.360 --> 38:45.440]  If it was very clear in 47 CFR, the enumeration of our rights, well then we wouldn't be having
[38:45.440 --> 38:51.920]  this problem right now, that's why I keep saying, forget 47 CFR, forget these codes
[38:51.920 --> 38:56.720]  of regulations, we have to look at the law, we have to look at the statute, and that's
[38:56.720 --> 39:05.440]  where the friction comes in because now you're coming in and saying that the agency is overly
[39:05.440 --> 39:15.840]  expanding its power past the restrictions and the limitations of the law and gotta make
[39:15.840 --> 39:20.760]  a stand people, gotta make a stand at some point, and Charles Keyes has a lot of people
[39:20.760 --> 39:25.640]  on his side, he's even won people over on his side that at first were against this but
[39:25.640 --> 39:30.280]  when they read the law and they read what I wrote, they're like well, you're right,
[39:30.280 --> 39:36.040]  she's right, so but there still is going to be the 800 pound gorilla in the room which
[39:36.040 --> 39:40.880]  is the Association of Broadcasters and that's going to be the case in any state.
[39:40.880 --> 39:47.040]  I know for a fact the Texas Association of Broadcasters is the one, are the ones that
[39:47.040 --> 39:52.800]  complained to the FCC at least in one of these original cases from way back in the day because
[39:52.800 --> 39:59.560]  the FCC even admitted it in the documents that it was the Texas Association of Broadcasters
[39:59.560 --> 40:05.680]  that caused all this strife and ruckus to begin with, it wasn't a radio station where
[40:05.680 --> 40:13.440]  complaining of interference or anything like that, nobody was stealing any sponsors, nobody
[40:13.440 --> 40:20.320]  was violating any copyright laws or intellectual property laws by not paying royalties on broadcasting
[40:20.320 --> 40:26.800]  music, nothing like that, it was just the wah wah wah, needy and cry baby, Texas Association
[40:26.800 --> 40:32.200]  of Broadcasters complained that they don't have a license, well so what, we don't need
[40:32.200 --> 40:38.600]  a license, that's the whole point and then they crowbar the FCC to come in and make all
[40:38.600 --> 40:45.360]  these maneuvers and the only reason is because they want to maintain their monopoly and so
[40:45.360 --> 40:52.520]  that's what we're dealing with people, political pressure, they have money, they have lawyers
[40:52.520 --> 40:58.160]  and so they're going to pressure at the legislative level, they're going to pressure in the courts
[40:58.160 --> 41:03.960]  and everything else so it's a fight and we need prayer and we need your support, we need
[41:03.960 --> 41:08.760]  donations and everything else and especially if you're in Oklahoma, call up your house
[41:08.760 --> 41:16.240]  reps and tell them to support HB 2812 and tell them that the Oklahoma Association of
[41:16.240 --> 41:25.520]  Broadcasters can take a hike, so that's the way I feel about it, guys, well my point's
[41:25.520 --> 41:30.680]  always been the same, where does the federal government have jurisdiction, where is it
[41:30.680 --> 41:35.360]  granted to them and where does it reach and nowhere is it allowed to reach within the
[41:35.360 --> 41:43.320]  borders of the states? And that's very clear in Title 47, okay, Title 47 is actually a
[41:43.320 --> 41:50.480]  pretty dang good statute, it's very clear in Section 301 that the feds hand cannot reach
[41:50.480 --> 41:57.120]  into the state to regulate broadcasting, that is strictly intrastate and that's why I keep
[41:57.120 --> 42:01.200]  going back to the law, the law, the law, I don't care what their code says. Yeah but
[42:01.200 --> 42:07.200]  even if it's intrastate, it has to be something involving commerce and they have to prove
[42:07.200 --> 42:13.840]  that it involved commerce, it can't just be the fact that it crossed state lines, we crossed
[42:13.840 --> 42:18.200]  state lines and that doesn't put us within their jurisdiction on a radio signal. That's
[42:18.200 --> 42:33.600]  right, that's exactly right, that's exactly right. Randy, comments? Yeah, we just have
[42:33.600 --> 42:38.160]  to keep fighting them, we've got to hold them back if we can't stop them here, they're
[42:38.160 --> 42:43.720]  going to do anything they want to and look what they did in California over the medical
[42:43.720 --> 42:52.280]  marijuana, that was so incredibly in your face, that was a demonstration, we are the
[42:52.280 --> 42:59.560]  feds, we can do anything we want, we don't care how outrageous it is and there's nothing
[42:59.560 --> 43:07.280]  you can do about it and now the states are passing 10th Amendment issue, 10th Amendment,
[43:07.280 --> 43:16.280]  what do they call them? Well some of them are laws, some of them are resolutions. Resolutions,
[43:16.280 --> 43:22.040]  that's what I was looking for. Some of them are laws with penalties. Oklahoma stopped
[43:22.040 --> 43:30.640]  NAFTA from going through their state, I thought that was a major, major step in stopping the
[43:30.640 --> 43:36.480]  federal expansion. Indeed. So the pressure is on and we need to help. The pressure is
[43:36.480 --> 43:41.680]  on and we just have to ratchet it up and we have to support our legislators that are putting
[43:41.680 --> 43:46.120]  it on the line just like the broadcasters or the micros are because they're taking a
[43:46.120 --> 43:50.320]  lot of political heat over this so we have to support the people that are fighting the
[43:50.320 --> 44:00.360]  good fight. We're taking your calls now, 512-646-1984, we've got Guy from Arkansas, you're up next.
[44:00.360 --> 44:05.120]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[44:05.120 --> 44:10.120]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[44:10.120 --> 44:15.720]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step
[44:15.720 --> 44:21.040]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[44:21.040 --> 44:26.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons. How to answer letters and phone
[44:26.000 --> 44:30.680]  calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial tables
[44:30.680 --> 44:36.720]  on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution
[44:36.720 --> 44:41.440]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[44:41.440 --> 44:46.720]  information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[44:46.720 --> 44:56.200]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[44:56.200 --> 45:03.200]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[45:26.200 --> 45:44.520]  All right. Watching the sparks fly. They are flying in court. They're flying in the legislature.
[45:44.520 --> 45:52.480]  Judge Sparks, maybe we can get him flown off of this case. All right. We are going to be
[45:52.480 --> 45:58.440]  taking your calls now. We're going to go to Guy from Arkansas. Callers, if you'd like
[45:58.440 --> 46:03.960]  to call in and comment on this issue or other issues, you can bring up other issues if you
[46:03.960 --> 46:10.960]  like. 512-646-1984. All right, Guy. Thanks for calling in. What's on your mind?
[46:10.960 --> 46:17.400]  Yes. Good evening, you all. That's three of my most beautiful people in the United States,
[46:17.400 --> 46:18.400]  of course.
[46:18.400 --> 46:19.400]  Oh.
[46:19.400 --> 46:20.400]  Yeah. I'm splattering, I know. Can't help it.
[46:20.400 --> 46:21.400]  Well, thank you.
[46:21.400 --> 46:28.160]  Thank you, too. Hey, listen. Back in the 90s, the mid-90s, long before I got my computer
[46:28.160 --> 46:33.360]  and got webbed up, I used to listen to a lot of shortwave. I don't know if you're familiar
[46:33.360 --> 46:39.960]  with Mark Corkney up there in Michigan, better known as Mark from Michigan. He's on the internet
[46:39.960 --> 46:47.840]  as well. They were having the same problem up in Michigan, the FCC coming down on the
[46:47.840 --> 46:56.960]  micro broadcasters up there. They found a law up there. It's on top of my head, and
[46:56.960 --> 47:03.000]  I do apologize for not being able to quote, verse, and page and all, but they were fighting
[47:03.000 --> 47:11.880]  their problem up there with a law. Actually, the law, how did it go? That as long as you
[47:11.880 --> 47:18.480]  were under five watts of power or couldn't travel more than five miles, I forget exactly
[47:18.480 --> 47:23.840]  how it goes, but you were legal. The main thing was that, number one, was your wattage
[47:23.840 --> 47:30.600]  was within the limits. Not only that, but as long as the country was not in a state
[47:30.600 --> 47:36.600]  of war, you did not need a license or you didn't have to apply for a license in order
[47:36.600 --> 47:45.240]  to operate a system that was under five watts. Now, if you want to get in contact with him,
[47:45.240 --> 47:48.920]  he might know more about it and know exactly where to go.
[47:48.920 --> 47:56.280]  Well, no. I've already looked through all of that, Guy. Number one, that whole thing
[47:56.280 --> 48:03.360]  about being in a state of war and all of that, we looked at that today. Again, we have to
[48:03.360 --> 48:10.480]  be careful not to enmesh and mix up the statute with the Code of Federal Regulations. What
[48:10.480 --> 48:15.240]  that reference is regarding being in time of war, that is actually in the statute. That's
[48:15.240 --> 48:23.200]  Title 47, Section 308, but it says that if we're in a state of national emergency declared
[48:23.200 --> 48:31.080]  by Congress or the President and such action, referring to the actions of not requiring
[48:31.080 --> 48:38.200]  licenses for anybody, and such action is in the interest and for the benefit of national
[48:38.200 --> 48:49.880]  defense or the war effort. There has to be a declaration of a national emergency, but
[48:49.880 --> 48:54.960]  there also has to be the President or the Congress has to say something about it that
[48:54.960 --> 49:01.880]  oh, and by the way, the FCC can't require licenses anymore because we need everyone
[49:01.880 --> 49:08.720]  to be unlicensed to do whatever for national defense or the war effort. That excuse isn't
[49:08.720 --> 49:13.280]  going to fly. The other thing you're bringing up about the wattage issue and on and on and
[49:13.280 --> 49:23.000]  on, that goes down to that Part 15 stuff. It depends. AM, FM, shortwave, they have different
[49:23.000 --> 49:30.480]  little restrictions based on what it is, but none of it applies to broadcasting. That Part
[49:30.480 --> 49:36.040]  15 stuff does not apply to broadcasting. It has to do with point-to-point transmissions
[49:36.040 --> 49:41.840]  like a garage door opener or something like that. There's very specific definitions in
[49:41.840 --> 49:50.160]  the title, and broadcasting communications is totally different from transmitting energy.
[49:50.160 --> 49:56.680]  They're misapplying the code, but the point is it doesn't really matter what the code
[49:56.680 --> 50:02.760]  says, because going back to the overriding law, going back to the overriding statute,
[50:02.760 --> 50:09.960]  there's nothing in there that prohibits it. You're way on top of it. I just thought, you
[50:09.960 --> 50:14.280]  know, it just jogged a memory in me, and I thought it might be something worth contributing
[50:14.280 --> 50:25.400]  tonight. Thanks a lot. Sure, Guy. What they're saying about the FM stuff in Part 15, basically,
[50:25.400 --> 50:33.300]  they measure it according to the volts per meter output, basically the reading at a distance
[50:33.300 --> 50:43.640]  from the antenna. With AM, they just measure the output wattage, and they analyze the infrastructure
[50:43.640 --> 50:49.200]  of the antenna array and stuff like that. But with the FM, it's like... I give the
[50:49.200 --> 50:55.440]  analogy of, say, when the cops are down on 6th Street here in Austin taking a DB reading
[50:55.440 --> 51:03.200]  on the sidewalk. They don't care how powerful your amplifier is of your guitar amp. They
[51:03.200 --> 51:12.120]  don't care if it's 10,000-watt PA system on stage. It's not about the wattage. It's about
[51:12.120 --> 51:21.520]  how loud is it on the street. That's the way the Part 15 regulations go. With FM, as far
[51:21.520 --> 51:25.760]  as the point-to-point transmission... Part 15 only regulates point-to-point transmissions.
[51:25.760 --> 51:30.640]  It doesn't regulate broadcasting, and that's why it doesn't even apply in this situation.
[51:30.640 --> 51:35.600]  But at any rate, that's what they're trying to say. That's the big beef, that when they
[51:35.600 --> 51:41.480]  take a reading at a certain distance, it's over the limit, just like the cops with their
[51:41.480 --> 51:47.000]  DB meters. Now, with AM and shortwave, it's a different deal, but it's not about the strength
[51:47.000 --> 51:52.880]  of the signal at a certain distance. It's about the infrastructure of the antenna array
[51:52.880 --> 51:58.080]  and the output wattage. I think that some of these things have changed over time in
[51:58.080 --> 52:03.440]  their code of federal regulations. But again, going back to the expansion doctrine, I don't
[52:03.440 --> 52:10.200]  even care about any of that. That is one of the last resort arguments if they want to
[52:10.200 --> 52:14.840]  even try to go to the merits of the case. Not to mention the fact that they are bound
[52:14.840 --> 52:20.800]  by their charter. The FCC is bound by their charter to make the airwaves open to the public.
[52:20.800 --> 52:24.520]  That's part of their charter. That's part of their mission, and they haven't given any
[52:24.520 --> 52:31.040]  licenses for six years, so they're not abiding by their own charter. And not to mention the
[52:31.040 --> 52:41.720]  fact that they are required to license stations which serve the public interest. Well, I've
[52:41.720 --> 52:47.160]  got a stack of about 500 letters sitting on my desk of testimonials of people here in
[52:47.160 --> 52:56.160]  Austin saying that 9.1 and 100.1 serves the public interest. So if they want to go there,
[52:56.160 --> 53:02.960]  then let's go there, okay? Because I guarantee you, we have more letters, testimonials, that
[53:02.960 --> 53:07.800]  these stations serve the public interest than any other radio station in Texas put together.
[53:07.800 --> 53:12.520]  I guarantee it. And so they, I mean, we're just going to fight. We're going to fight.
[53:12.520 --> 53:17.800]  We're going to fight. We're going to fight for years if we have to, to stay on the air.
[53:17.800 --> 53:22.880]  And that's just the way it is. So that's why we need your letters. I want thousands of
[53:22.880 --> 53:27.640]  letters, not just a few hundred. And like I said, we need the donations because we may
[53:27.640 --> 53:33.440]  need travel expenses coming up. Okay. We've got a caller. I don't have a call screener
[53:33.440 --> 53:40.320]  right now, so we're just going to punch you live. Caller, from the area code 786, what
[53:40.320 --> 53:44.040]  is on your mind tonight? And what is your name and what state are you from?
[53:44.040 --> 53:45.040]  Hello?
[53:45.040 --> 53:48.960]  Yes. What is your name and what state are you from, caller?
[53:48.960 --> 53:52.040]  My name is Scott. I'm from Miami, Florida.
[53:52.040 --> 53:56.200]  Hey, Scott from Florida. What's on your mind tonight?
[53:56.200 --> 54:02.320]  I was a whistleblower. I am a whistleblower in the state of Florida on a hospital. And
[54:02.320 --> 54:07.760]  I went to, they fired me four days after I was a whistleblower. And I let them know I
[54:07.760 --> 54:13.840]  was doing it because OCA, Agency for Healthcare Administration, says you're protected. And
[54:13.840 --> 54:20.880]  then I went back to see them and everything went really good initially. But the University
[54:20.880 --> 54:27.000]  of Miami has, the second the judge had retired and went to a new judge, the judge said, hey,
[54:27.000 --> 54:31.120]  you're out of here. We're going to take those motions that weren't granted before. I'm
[54:31.120 --> 54:36.320]  going to go ahead and grant them to U of M. And then I looked it up. He was a U of M graduate.
[54:36.320 --> 54:44.920]  He didn't move courts for them. And he's also a donor. They give you 30 days to appeal it,
[54:44.920 --> 54:50.520]  but obviously you're not walking around with $50,000 in your pocket. So what do you do?
[54:50.520 --> 54:55.120]  You file a motion to disqualify the judge.
[54:55.120 --> 55:01.640]  And you file a motion to disqualify the judge. Is that going to be within that 30 day limit?
[55:01.640 --> 55:06.240]  You disqualify him for, if he's disqualified, there is no limit.
[55:06.240 --> 55:13.080]  Disqualify the judge. Okay. I'm just writing this down. And who do you file that with?
[55:13.080 --> 55:20.000]  You file it in the court in the same action. It's just a motion you file in the action.
[55:20.000 --> 55:27.320]  Motion to file on that. So this, Tom passed the 30 days. It's probably about 45 days after
[55:27.320 --> 55:32.080]  it. I tried to call earlier, but wasn't able to get through. So I go to the same judge
[55:32.080 --> 55:38.160]  and I dismissed it. And I give him my motion to disqualify the judge. I'm actually handing
[55:38.160 --> 55:39.160]  him.
[55:39.160 --> 55:45.760]  Yes. Yes. You don't hand it to the judge. You file it with the clerk.
[55:45.760 --> 55:48.240]  Oh, with the clerk.
[55:48.240 --> 55:53.520]  You never give it, it's always a bad strategy to give a filing to the judge. It needs to
[55:53.520 --> 55:56.240]  be filed with the clerk before you ever get to court.
[55:56.240 --> 56:01.440]  How do you get out of Dade County? U of M is the biggest employer in South Florida.
[56:01.440 --> 56:06.400]  Biggest. By far the biggest. It's been noted. It's been through the records and everything
[56:06.400 --> 56:12.560]  else. And 85% of the graduates stay inside of Dade County. How do you get them to move
[56:12.560 --> 56:18.360]  it out of the county, get it out up to Northern Florida? Because I'm telling you, not one
[56:18.360 --> 56:22.560]  lawyer will even attempt to go against any of them. I've gone to almost 500 on a legal
[56:22.560 --> 56:26.400]  list through the Ball Association and none of them will go against them.
[56:26.400 --> 56:32.880]  Well, you move to have counsel appointing them either. Well, no, you don't have a specific
[56:32.880 --> 56:40.800]  right in civil. That's a problem. Of all the places I've been, I think Dade County, that's
[56:40.800 --> 56:43.840]  one place I never want to go back to. It was so corrupt.
[56:43.840 --> 56:49.480]  It is a actually U of M. Like I said, after I've done this for a while and I would watch
[56:49.480 --> 56:54.840]  C-SPAN and saw U of M was, they get tax money to upgrade their computers through Jackson
[56:54.840 --> 57:00.040]  Hospital. When I went to go to an ethics board, the guy hung up on me. So we're not taking
[57:00.040 --> 57:05.680]  any complaints on U of M. And that was it. And there's no one to go to. There's absolutely
[57:05.680 --> 57:12.400]  no one to go to. I'm going to go ahead and put this into the court, at the civil court,
[57:12.400 --> 57:18.280]  and just see what happens. I've got a feeling it puts you between a rock and a hard place.
[57:18.280 --> 57:23.120]  And like I said, after a whistleblower, you're blacklisted forever. As a biomed, you're
[57:23.120 --> 57:31.880]  blacklisted forever. And after they were turned in and after things were done, even the Agency
[57:31.880 --> 57:36.040]  for Healthcare Administration and Department of Labor, they don't want to talk to you afterwards.
[57:36.040 --> 57:40.600]  And I just can't seem to get past that barrier. Even the newspaper reporters down there don't
[57:40.600 --> 57:42.000]  want to talk about it.
[57:42.000 --> 57:48.240]  Well, it appears that the media is bought and paid for. That's why we're struggling
[57:48.240 --> 57:50.040]  so hard to stay on the air.
[57:50.040 --> 57:55.520]  Now you get that right. Well, thank you very much. I'm going to put this in. I'll give
[57:55.520 --> 57:58.200]  you a call back in a few weeks and let you know what happens.
[57:58.200 --> 58:02.880]  Okay, good. And I'm sorry, I don't have an easy answer for you.
[58:02.880 --> 58:06.440]  There ain't no easy answer. That's right. There ain't no easy answer.
[58:06.440 --> 58:09.440]  The system has gotten so corrupt. There's just no easy answers.
[58:09.440 --> 58:13.880]  They aren't bought and paid for. You have a bloodstain. Thank you very much.
[58:13.880 --> 58:20.840]  All right. Thank you. All right. Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984. If
[58:20.840 --> 58:30.360]  you're a broadcaster who's had trouble with the FCC, call in, 512-646-1984. We'll be back.
[58:30.360 --> 58:37.480]  We're at the top of the hour. We're going to hear the Tom Kiley, INN World Report News,
[58:37.480 --> 58:55.880]  top of the hour news break, and we'll be back for another hour of the rule of law.
[58:55.880 --> 59:11.320]  All right. Thank you very much.
[59:11.320 --> 59:26.760]  All right. Thank you.
[59:26.760 --> 59:42.200]  All right.
[59:42.200 --> 01:00:07.560]  This news brief wrote to you by the International News Net. The U.S. is likely to average 95,000
[01:00:07.560 --> 01:00:12.840]  more jobs each month this year, according to a White House report released Thursday.
[01:00:12.840 --> 01:00:19.880]  The Council of Economic Advisers also trumpeted the $787 billion economic stimulus package,
[01:00:19.880 --> 01:00:25.720]  which it said has saved or created 2 million jobs. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
[01:00:25.720 --> 01:00:32.360]  says, prepare for the end of record low interest rates. This means higher rates on credit cards,
[01:00:32.360 --> 01:00:37.800]  home equity loans, and many mortgages will follow the Fed's eventual recall of the trillions
[01:00:37.800 --> 01:00:43.880]  it injected into the economy. An Ohio task force investigating human trafficking in the
[01:00:43.880 --> 01:00:49.960]  state says nearly 800 immigrants a year are forced into the sex trade or sweatshops. A
[01:00:49.960 --> 01:00:55.600]  report also found more than 1,000 children born in Ohio are forced into the sex trade
[01:00:55.600 --> 01:01:01.400]  each year. Hundreds more immigrants and children risk working against their will in fields,
[01:01:01.400 --> 01:01:08.600]  restaurants, sweatshops, or construction sites. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee
[01:01:08.600 --> 01:01:14.160]  on Energy and Commerce, launched an investigation Tuesday into massive rate increases Anthem
[01:01:14.160 --> 01:01:21.900]  Blue Cross intends to impose on 800,000 California customers March 1st. Waxman and the Subcommittee
[01:01:21.900 --> 01:01:27.320]  on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Bart Stupak wrote, Angela Braley, CEO of Blue
[01:01:27.320 --> 01:01:32.480]  Cross parent company Wellpoint, asking her to testify before the subcommittee February
[01:01:32.480 --> 01:01:38.200]  24th and provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the rate increase. Last week
[01:01:38.200 --> 01:01:43.760]  the LA Times reported Anthem Blue Cross planned to hike individual insurance premiums by up
[01:01:43.760 --> 01:01:49.840]  to 39 percent. California state officials and the Obama administration noted Wellpoint's
[01:01:49.840 --> 01:01:58.840]  2009 profit was $4.7 billion, nearly double the year before. As Haiti begins digging out
[01:01:58.840 --> 01:02:04.480]  from under 60 million cubic meters of earthquake wreckage, U.S. firms have begun jockeying
[01:02:04.480 --> 01:02:11.120]  for a bonanza of cleanup work. There's big money to be made in the rubble of some 225,000
[01:02:11.120 --> 01:02:17.200]  collapsed homes and at least 25,000 government and office buildings. At least two politically
[01:02:17.200 --> 01:02:22.640]  connected U.S. firms have enlisted powerful local allies in Haiti to help compete for
[01:02:22.640 --> 01:02:28.240]  the high-stakes business. Randall Perkins, head of Ashbritt, has already met with Haitian
[01:02:28.240 --> 01:02:33.960]  President René Préval to tout his firm's skills. To press his case, Perkins, a big
[01:02:33.960 --> 01:02:40.400]  U.S. political donor employing powerful lobbyists, has lined up an influential Haitian businessman
[01:02:40.400 --> 01:02:47.360]  Gilbert Biggio as a partner. Another contender is DRC Group, a disaster recovery firm whose
[01:02:47.360 --> 01:02:51.760]  resume includes hurricanes, wars, ice storms and floods.
[01:02:51.760 --> 01:02:56.760]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[01:02:56.760 --> 01:03:09.760]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com. Live free speech
[01:03:09.760 --> 01:03:16.760]  on the radio at its best.
[01:03:39.760 --> 01:04:08.760]  OK, chant down Babylon. OK, we're taking your calls. Five, one, two, three, four, five,
[01:04:08.760 --> 01:04:16.600]  one, two, six, four, six, 1984. And again, I can't stress how much we need your support
[01:04:16.600 --> 01:04:23.720]  right now. Haven't had a chance to make any more PSAs on this issue, but I will say this
[01:04:23.720 --> 01:04:29.320]  that basically I could register Rule of Law Radio as a non-profit organization at this
[01:04:29.320 --> 01:04:33.960]  point because we're not making a dime off of those people. None of us are. Eddie spent
[01:04:33.960 --> 01:04:39.400]  money. I've spent all my money just about my entire savings. Randy spent all his money
[01:04:39.400 --> 01:04:46.040]  and sold property even. Randy has sold land to support this operation. OK, we don't hardly
[01:04:46.040 --> 01:04:49.560]  have any sponsors because we don't have an advertising department. I don't have anybody
[01:04:49.560 --> 01:04:54.640]  on the phone looking for sponsors on a daily basis for me. We are funding this thing entirely
[01:04:54.640 --> 01:04:58.400]  out of our own pocket. And of course, the operators of 90.1 and the operators of the
[01:04:58.400 --> 01:05:04.120]  micros ever since, ever since starting 12 years ago from the very beginning, the very
[01:05:04.120 --> 01:05:10.720]  first micro in Austin, these people, all of these people, all of these individuals who
[01:05:10.720 --> 01:05:16.680]  are doing this and who have done this have done it out of their own pocket all the way
[01:05:16.680 --> 01:05:24.500]  completely. So we do need your help because we're looking at having to possibly face travel
[01:05:24.500 --> 01:05:29.880]  expenses now to go to the very corrupt Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, not
[01:05:29.880 --> 01:05:33.980]  something I'm looking forward to. I can tell you that. So at any rate, just want to make
[01:05:33.980 --> 01:05:37.840]  that clear again. We do need your help and we'll be doing a fundraiser soon, but we need
[01:05:37.840 --> 01:05:44.160]  your help now. So at any rate, we're going to your calls. Russell from Texas. Hey, Russell,
[01:05:44.160 --> 01:05:49.600]  thanks for calling in. What's on your mind? Hey, what's up? I wanted to read a small little
[01:05:49.600 --> 01:05:54.760]  article here that hit the internet earlier that was from Monday. It says Arizona court
[01:05:54.760 --> 01:06:00.360]  suppresses evidence from the search of the Texas polygamous ranch. They basically, the
[01:06:00.360 --> 01:06:06.680]  prosecutors out in Arizona agreed that the search of the, of the polygamous ranch in
[01:06:06.680 --> 01:06:15.560]  Texas was done illegally and they suppressed all evidence against Warren Jeff in his court
[01:06:15.560 --> 01:06:23.600]  trial out there in Arizona. And it says right here, now that an Arizona judge has concluded
[01:06:23.600 --> 01:06:29.800]  the same thing after prosecutors tried, they agreed not to introduce the evidence against
[01:06:29.800 --> 01:06:35.760]  the polygamous prophet Warren Jeff, Jeff discovered as a result of information seized during the
[01:06:35.760 --> 01:06:43.680]  raid in Arizona, at least such evidence will be discarded as fruit of a poisonous tree.
[01:06:43.680 --> 01:06:50.800]  You may not use the information directly or indirectly in his case in, during cross-examination
[01:06:50.800 --> 01:06:57.360]  or anything called defense witness as rebuttal evidence or any purpose whatsoever. San Angelo
[01:06:57.360 --> 01:07:03.120]  district judge, Barbara Walther, who approved the original warrant has continued to stand
[01:07:03.120 --> 01:07:08.400]  by it, but I suspect the third court of appeals, which already bench slapped her once over
[01:07:08.400 --> 01:07:14.560]  the raid may agree with this interpretation from the Arizona court. As Jeffrey's attorneys
[01:07:14.560 --> 01:07:21.080]  argued to the Arizona court, an investigator of the level of Barney Fives would have recognized
[01:07:21.080 --> 01:07:28.720]  the call as a hoax if he had spent an hour or two of a proper investigation. Barney Fives.
[01:07:28.720 --> 01:07:33.840]  Barney Fives, now ain't that something? Oh my goodness. Now look at, look at how many
[01:07:33.840 --> 01:07:39.200]  millions of dollars the Texas spend doing that raid and doing all that stuff. And how
[01:07:39.200 --> 01:07:44.880]  many probably million of dollars they're going to do it now on trying to convict these people.
[01:07:44.880 --> 01:07:50.680]  You know, it would seem like we could do a quietam suit against them to recover the money.
[01:07:50.680 --> 01:07:58.600]  I'm not sure. Well, yeah, they just want to take all the kids to put them into the child
[01:07:58.600 --> 01:08:02.760]  trafficking ring and they want the land for the trans Texas corridor. That's what that
[01:08:02.760 --> 01:08:06.840]  whole thing was all about. That's true. They want, they, you know, they think they can
[01:08:06.840 --> 01:08:12.360]  control the children and especially those children, since they weren't, you know, birth
[01:08:12.360 --> 01:08:15.400]  certificates, social security numbers and everything else. I bet you they got all that
[01:08:15.400 --> 01:08:20.560]  stuff now, but they also wanted that land for the trans Texas corridor because it's
[01:08:20.560 --> 01:08:24.360]  going to go right through the middle of it. And that would have been a biggest fight that
[01:08:24.360 --> 01:08:30.440]  Texas ever had when it comes to that property. So what better way to do it than to, to claim
[01:08:30.440 --> 01:08:35.120]  all this abuse and, you know, totally disband the whole group. Then they can just easily
[01:08:35.120 --> 01:08:38.520]  take the property. Yeah. And then they got a whole bunch more kids for their, for their
[01:08:38.520 --> 01:08:42.840]  child trafficking as well. That's right. That was one of the first things I thought of when
[01:08:42.840 --> 01:08:47.360]  I heard that story about them doing that. And then I went and looked at the map and
[01:08:47.360 --> 01:08:51.200]  saw where that place was located and say, I can tell you already exactly why this was
[01:08:51.200 --> 01:08:57.440]  done. And it's got nothing to do with child abuse of anything. I mean, just, I think the
[01:08:57.440 --> 01:09:03.120]  first guy just got convicted like a month ago of all these charges and stuff. So, you
[01:09:03.120 --> 01:09:06.680]  know, of course they got high confluent attorneys, so they'll probably end up getting off of
[01:09:06.680 --> 01:09:13.160]  these things eventually, but, uh, as people that don't have attorneys, we have to fend
[01:09:13.160 --> 01:09:20.440]  for ourselves basically. So I just wanted to read that to the people and tell them that
[01:09:20.440 --> 01:09:26.040]  there is, there is hope when it comes to something, especially when you, uh, throw that kind of
[01:09:26.040 --> 01:09:30.360]  money away. I mean, what was that the biggest raid and the most expensive case Texas ever
[01:09:30.360 --> 01:09:39.400]  had? Yeah. And it was all incredibly bogus. I have to give the district attorney credit
[01:09:39.400 --> 01:09:46.520]  here in Austin, Claire Brown. I had been beating on her for quite a while. She was, she heads
[01:09:46.520 --> 01:09:52.960]  up to grand jury and she's a, she's a big woman. She looks like somebody's grandma.
[01:09:52.960 --> 01:10:02.040]  And I brought this up to her and she was livid. She was, now she's a prosecutor, but she was
[01:10:02.040 --> 01:10:09.560]  absolutely livid at these people, what they did to those children. So there is humanity
[01:10:09.560 --> 01:10:15.240]  floating around here. We just got to make it a little bit easier for them to bring it
[01:10:15.240 --> 01:10:26.840]  out. I just, uh, almost finished my Williamson County lawsuit today. Yeah. We're going to
[01:10:26.840 --> 01:10:35.400]  the humanity. I, I, I, I, one of the things I ask in there is, uh, if you, how would you
[01:10:35.400 --> 01:10:45.440]  recognize a police state if you were in one? And then I say, well, if the, everybody who
[01:10:45.440 --> 01:10:51.960]  got arrested or accused of a crime of any kind pled guilty or wound up being found guilty,
[01:10:51.960 --> 01:10:59.560]  would that be a police state? It's in Texas. Would that be a tip off for you? Yeah. Get
[01:10:59.560 --> 01:11:05.320]  that gets you there. Cause you know, you think you, you, you move around for the most part,
[01:11:05.320 --> 01:11:11.240]  the police are not that many compared to the population. So most of the population never
[01:11:11.240 --> 01:11:16.720]  interact with them. Even in the worst police states, they never interact with them. I just
[01:11:16.720 --> 01:11:19.720]  never see them. Everybody goes about their business. The police don't have time to harass
[01:11:19.720 --> 01:11:25.600]  everybody. There's too many people. So how would you tell if you're in a police state?
[01:11:25.600 --> 01:11:32.000]  Well, if everybody gets convicted, man, that's probably a pretty good indication in Texas.
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:41.520]  The average conviction rate, 99.6 across the board for all accusations rounds up to a hundred.
[01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:45.680]  Yeah. That's because they don't require any evidence to convict you in Texas and most
[01:11:45.680 --> 01:11:52.800]  things. It's just the accusations good enough. Every step from arrest to trial has been very
[01:11:52.800 --> 01:12:01.720]  carefully crafted to place any reasonable person in a position such that there is no
[01:12:01.720 --> 01:12:08.040]  other reasonable decision to come to other than to take a deal. What was that Russell?
[01:12:08.040 --> 01:12:11.440]  Russell was saying something just now. I give something to Randy the other day. It's called
[01:12:11.440 --> 01:12:17.400]  the stripping doctrine. Go into Google and type it in. It's where you strip state officials
[01:12:17.400 --> 01:12:24.840]  of their position because they violated something, especially the constitution or their oath
[01:12:24.840 --> 01:12:29.840]  or something like that. And you can sue them individually and they lose their immunity.
[01:12:29.840 --> 01:12:35.000]  And I'm going to use it on Judge Sparks, the federal judge here. But you cannot bring the
[01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:40.160]  state into the action. You have to go after them individually. Well, there's other ways
[01:12:40.160 --> 01:12:51.120]  of getting the state into the action. In order to facilitate the tort, a public official
[01:12:51.120 --> 01:12:57.080]  used a piece of motorized equipment belonging to the state. The state has waived its immunity
[01:12:57.080 --> 01:13:07.520]  for that. Or if the individual violated a law, that's not within scope. Or if they followed
[01:13:07.520 --> 01:13:14.600]  an established, I'm sorry, scope goes to the individual, not the state. If they followed
[01:13:14.600 --> 01:13:25.720]  an established policy that worked a violation of law or created a tort, for that the sovereign
[01:13:25.720 --> 01:13:33.920]  entity waives its immunity. That's Monell. That's a violation. If it's policy in the
[01:13:33.920 --> 01:13:41.120]  Monell sense, and all these attorneys will know exactly what that is. And this is precisely
[01:13:41.120 --> 01:13:50.040]  what's going on. Everything is illegal. All of the judges are incredibly corrupt. They
[01:13:50.040 --> 01:13:57.760]  do exactly what they want to without regard for the law or anything else because they
[01:13:57.760 --> 01:14:08.720]  can and the federal judges are absolutely the worst. This Judge Sparks bought his position
[01:14:08.720 --> 01:14:18.320]  and now he has purchased royalty for himself. He is absolutely immune. Federal officials
[01:14:18.320 --> 01:14:24.760]  are immune from everything. They can do anything they want to. Did you know he's the richest
[01:14:24.760 --> 01:14:30.560]  federal judge? Yeah, I know. He could afford to buy it. He owns stock in every school district
[01:14:30.560 --> 01:14:40.560]  in the state of Texas. Maybe I can get him to have to lose a little of that cash he's
[01:14:40.560 --> 01:14:47.760]  got. But in this case, he ruled he hadn't, this was a removal from a state court. We
[01:14:47.760 --> 01:14:53.560]  filed an objection to the removal. First thing he has to do is determine if he has subject
[01:14:53.560 --> 01:15:02.200]  matter jurisdiction. Well, he does and determines that he doesn't and dismisses with prejudice.
[01:15:02.200 --> 01:15:09.240]  This is what is a standard procedure. I was looking at some paperwork from a case in North
[01:15:09.240 --> 01:15:22.200]  Carolina and got the exact order Judge Sparks filed in my case, exact order to the letter.
[01:15:22.200 --> 01:15:30.600]  We dismiss with prejudice. We have no subject matter jurisdiction under 12B6. We dismiss
[01:15:30.600 --> 01:15:36.040]  with prejudice. You're talking about the one he just dismissed, Randy? Yes. Right. But
[01:15:36.040 --> 01:15:46.120]  the thing is, he can't. It's not something they did. This is a standard document. Right.
[01:15:46.120 --> 01:15:52.600]  You see, the thing is, he slipped up big time because if we had filed the case in federal
[01:15:52.600 --> 01:15:57.520]  court, he would have been able to dismiss it with prejudice for lack of subject matter
[01:15:57.520 --> 01:16:02.320]  jurisdiction. No, he wouldn't. He'd be able to dismiss it. But not with prejudice. Not
[01:16:02.320 --> 01:16:07.560]  with prejudice. Well, the point is, he would have been able to dismiss it if we had filed
[01:16:07.560 --> 01:16:12.600]  it in federal court, but we did not file it in federal court. We filed it in the state
[01:16:12.600 --> 01:16:18.080]  court. And the US attorney came in and without authority removed it to the federal court.
[01:16:18.080 --> 01:16:24.000]  And that's why in this particular instance, the judge, the only thing he could do is remand
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:27.440]  it back to the state court. That's where we're going to nail him. The point I was making
[01:16:27.440 --> 01:16:35.260]  here is, Debra, when you were talking earlier about the Fifth Circuit denying every case
[01:16:35.260 --> 01:16:43.080]  out of hand, when a public official, when a federal official is accused, is sued, they
[01:16:43.080 --> 01:16:46.160]  do the same thing every time. Remove it to the federal court. The federal court says
[01:16:46.160 --> 01:16:50.640]  we lack subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissed with prejudice. They use a standard form.
[01:16:50.640 --> 01:16:56.280]  Well, yeah, but I... A case in North Carolina, a case in Texas, exactly
[01:16:56.280 --> 01:16:57.760]  the same... Hold on, hold on. We're going to break. We're
[01:16:57.760 --> 01:17:03.000]  going to break. We'll be right back. Do you feel tired when talking about important
[01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:07.960]  topics like money and politics? Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal
[01:17:07.960 --> 01:17:08.960]  Reserve? What?
[01:17:08.960 --> 01:17:14.640]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name
[01:17:14.640 --> 01:17:18.840]  is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity
[01:17:18.840 --> 01:17:23.560]  at an early age. I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost
[01:17:23.560 --> 01:17:28.960]  every home in America, the television. Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching
[01:17:28.960 --> 01:17:33.480]  stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands
[01:17:33.480 --> 01:17:37.960]  of other Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover. And because of Brave New
[01:17:37.960 --> 01:17:43.600]  Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:17:43.600 --> 01:17:51.480]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:17:51.480 --> 01:17:55.560]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:17:55.560 --> 01:17:58.960]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:17:58.960 --> 01:18:25.760]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:18:25.760 --> 01:18:35.560]  I was blindsided, but now I can see your plans. You put the fear in my pocket, took the money
[01:18:35.560 --> 01:18:45.760]  from my hands. Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:18:45.760 --> 01:19:15.080]  Okay, we are not going to be fooled by the same old tricks again. Okay, so it's just
[01:19:15.080 --> 01:19:23.520]  the same old same old file against some federal agent in the state and then the U.S. attorney
[01:19:23.520 --> 01:19:29.400]  illegally without authority removes it to the federal court. Then they dismiss it for
[01:19:29.400 --> 01:19:34.120]  lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which they cannot do. They can only remand it back
[01:19:34.120 --> 01:19:39.320]  to the state. Now, if we filed the suit in the federal court, that would be a different
[01:19:39.320 --> 01:19:43.440]  story. They could dismiss the case, but they can't do it. And so it's just a standard
[01:19:43.440 --> 01:19:49.400]  procedure that is totally illegal, totally it's not founded in anywhere in law. And I
[01:19:49.400 --> 01:19:54.760]  guess nobody's challenged them on it. Nobody's taking them to task. Well, I'm taking them
[01:19:54.760 --> 01:20:01.120]  to task. I'm a plaintiff in this case and I have every intention of taking it as far
[01:20:01.120 --> 01:20:06.760]  as I need to take it to get this case remanded back to the state court so it can be adjudicated
[01:20:06.760 --> 01:20:10.800]  in the state where it belongs from the beginning, which is what should have happened from the
[01:20:10.800 --> 01:20:11.800]  beginning.
[01:20:11.800 --> 01:20:20.800]  So that was exactly my point. We have when you have judges that are absolutely corrupt,
[01:20:20.800 --> 01:20:28.600]  then you can file all these really well crafted motions you want to. But if you're pro se
[01:20:28.600 --> 01:20:33.000]  and they stamp them denied without reading them, it makes no difference. So what's the
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:44.520]  solution? We go after the judge. We entangle the judge and broil him in litigation. And
[01:20:44.520 --> 01:20:50.880]  the judge's problem is that politicians are afraid of them because they know that they
[01:20:50.880 --> 01:20:58.640]  can pretty well do anything they want to. But their problem is when they get too powerful,
[01:20:58.640 --> 01:21:04.640]  he's too afraid of them. And then at some point, everybody realizes you're going to
[01:21:04.640 --> 01:21:12.320]  have to make this guy go away. So we start making problems for the judge himself. We
[01:21:12.320 --> 01:21:17.920]  go after him personally. Now, I may not get him when I go after him criminally, but I'm
[01:21:17.920 --> 01:21:24.560]  setting him up to engage everybody. I'm going to take criminal charges against that judge
[01:21:24.560 --> 01:21:31.520]  and give them to the U.S. attorney and mail them to the U.S. attorney's office addressed
[01:21:31.520 --> 01:21:37.520]  to the grand jury. And he's going to open them up and he's not going to give them to
[01:21:37.520 --> 01:21:41.520]  the grand jury. And then I'm going to file criminal charges and the second set will be
[01:21:41.520 --> 01:21:46.800]  against him. Mail to his office addressed to the grand jury.
[01:21:46.800 --> 01:21:55.920]  No, you can actually file postal charges against him too. File what? File charges with the
[01:21:55.920 --> 01:22:00.160]  postmaster general. Oh yeah, okay. That's what I was getting to. The third one will
[01:22:00.160 --> 01:22:08.400]  be to the postal service against him and to the district judge. I'm going to file one
[01:22:08.400 --> 01:22:15.800]  with the federal district judge accusing the U.S. attorney of secreting criminal complaints
[01:22:15.800 --> 01:22:21.080]  against the federal district judge from the grand jury. And the federal district judge
[01:22:21.080 --> 01:22:26.400]  is going to trash them. And then I'm going to file against the federal district judge
[01:22:26.400 --> 01:22:31.040]  for trashing criminal complaints against the prosecutor for trashing criminal complaints
[01:22:31.040 --> 01:22:34.920]  against himself. You see, we start getting them all tied together.
[01:22:34.920 --> 01:22:38.680]  And Randy, aren't we also going to file for sanctions against this U.S. attorney for removing
[01:22:38.680 --> 01:22:44.240]  the case from the federal court to begin with? We're going to, sanctions, bar grievances,
[01:22:44.240 --> 01:22:50.760]  criminal complaints. And then once we've got the local jurisdiction tied up, then we move
[01:22:50.760 --> 01:22:55.520]  out of here to the next jurisdiction, which would be the Fifth Circuit. And we file with
[01:22:55.520 --> 01:23:00.200]  the justices on the Fifth Circuit and they'll refuse.
[01:23:00.200 --> 01:23:06.900]  What I'm trying to build is a demonstration to our legislature. This is what you're dealing
[01:23:06.900 --> 01:23:16.360]  with. You're dealing with a federal court system that is absolutely corrupt to its core.
[01:23:16.360 --> 01:23:21.600]  And if you don't want to be swallowed by it, you better do something.
[01:23:21.600 --> 01:23:22.600]  Indeed. Because I...
[01:23:22.600 --> 01:23:26.640]  Well, yeah, but like that's a lot different than the state courts doing the same thing.
[01:23:26.640 --> 01:23:33.120]  Well, we can only fight one at a time. If we try to fight everybody all at once, they'll
[01:23:33.120 --> 01:23:35.160]  all gang up on us and swallow us.
[01:23:35.160 --> 01:23:42.560]  But this is a demonstration to the state legislatures to show them that, hey, you guys, you better
[01:23:42.560 --> 01:23:47.000]  stand up to the feds because this is what's going on. And this is what's going on the
[01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:52.520]  court systems do. And that's why I have every intention of getting this case remanded back
[01:23:52.520 --> 01:24:01.360]  to the state court so I can pursue my lawsuit against these FCC agents personally, which
[01:24:01.360 --> 01:24:07.360]  is how this whole thing started off to... I'm suing them personally. I want their bass
[01:24:07.360 --> 01:24:13.240]  boat, as Randy says. And once this thing gets back to the state, that's where it's headed
[01:24:13.240 --> 01:24:20.480]  because they have no more right to have the US attorney represent them than I do. Give
[01:24:20.480 --> 01:24:24.760]  me a break. They had no jurisdiction. They didn't even have an oath of office. They're
[01:24:24.760 --> 01:24:27.520]  not even legitimate agents of the federal government.
[01:24:27.520 --> 01:24:36.760]  Yes. And the problem the feds have is that the accusations we made against these agents
[01:24:36.760 --> 01:24:46.480]  were very carefully crafted in that we made no civil allegation against the agent personally.
[01:24:46.480 --> 01:24:53.760]  We simply claimed that the agent had no subject matter jurisdiction to do what he did. And
[01:24:53.760 --> 01:25:01.600]  the judge dismissed that with prejudice, standard procedure. Well, they didn't dismiss our civil
[01:25:01.600 --> 01:25:08.760]  action against the agent personally with prejudice or anything else. So now we go for the judge's
[01:25:08.760 --> 01:25:13.800]  throat for dismissing with prejudice when he didn't have the authority. And then we
[01:25:13.800 --> 01:25:20.640]  come back and file the civil action against... Also, we go after the US attorney for misappropriation
[01:25:20.640 --> 01:25:29.560]  of funds for acting as attorney for these guys when the allegation was no subject matter
[01:25:29.560 --> 01:25:32.120]  jurisdiction.
[01:25:32.120 --> 01:25:40.480]  No subject matter jurisdiction means no standing to be represented by the state. This US attorney
[01:25:40.480 --> 01:25:49.240]  used tax dollars to defend these guys when we don't know yet if they're really public
[01:25:49.240 --> 01:25:54.360]  officials or not. That's like me going out and went renting a uniform. They may have
[01:25:54.360 --> 01:26:00.920]  just rented a uniform. Once they established that, in fact, they are public officials.
[01:26:00.920 --> 01:26:12.040]  And in my objection to removal, I raised that issue that the US attorney's actions were...
[01:26:12.040 --> 01:26:20.160]  The document he filed with the court was not on point, that we raised no issue about whether
[01:26:20.160 --> 01:26:29.440]  or not the FCC could do what it did. In this pleading, we only claimed that the agents
[01:26:29.440 --> 01:26:37.340]  themselves were not authorized to represent the FCC. And until they prove up that they
[01:26:37.340 --> 01:26:46.360]  are authorized, the US attorney has no business using taxpayer funds for their defense.
[01:26:46.360 --> 01:26:50.800]  And Randy, even if they did prove that they were, which they can't because I have their
[01:26:50.800 --> 01:26:56.680]  oath of office, which are not notarized or dated, they still acted outside their jurisdiction.
[01:26:56.680 --> 01:27:03.000]  Okay. Well, that issue wasn't before the court in our pleading. The issue was these guys
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:09.320]  got no oath of office. We don't know who they are. And I stipulated in the response that
[01:27:09.320 --> 01:27:16.040]  if they proved up that in fact they were legitimately representing the FCC, we'll stipulate that
[01:27:16.040 --> 01:27:20.280]  this should be in the federal court. We don't have any problem with that. They hadn't proved
[01:27:20.280 --> 01:27:27.840]  it up yet. Once they prove it up, then this is what the US attorney was arguing, that
[01:27:27.840 --> 01:27:36.520]  they're acting in their official capacity and the federal court had jurisdiction. Absolutely.
[01:27:36.520 --> 01:27:43.800]  If in fact they were acting in an official capacity, we will stipulate. We didn't get
[01:27:43.800 --> 01:27:44.800]  there yet.
[01:27:44.800 --> 01:27:47.880]  No, and they're never going to get there.
[01:27:47.880 --> 01:27:55.640]  I agree. But so the problem is, is they blew their wad. The judge took his shot. Now we're
[01:27:55.640 --> 01:28:02.640]  going to take a shot at the judge. And then we're going to come back with another one.
[01:28:02.640 --> 01:28:10.760]  And it'll be even in these corrupt courts, at some point they have to give a at least
[01:28:10.760 --> 01:28:17.760]  a semblance of some kind of justice because they're having to look back at the legislators
[01:28:17.760 --> 01:28:23.240]  who have to look back at the voters. We're not going to get into the electronic voting
[01:28:23.240 --> 01:28:28.560]  machines yet, but they still have the perception of having to pay attention to the voters.
[01:28:28.560 --> 01:28:37.400]  And I think with this next election, electronic voting machines or not, these guys can already
[01:28:37.400 --> 01:28:43.800]  hear the toilet flushing. So this is a political time.
[01:28:43.800 --> 01:28:48.760]  Let me address something else that I received today. It's about foreclosures and foreclosure
[01:28:48.760 --> 01:28:56.800]  fraud. If you go and look on YouTube and type in stop foreclosure fraud, you'll come up
[01:28:56.800 --> 01:29:03.640]  with a five part deal about fraud and foreclosures. And I wanted to read this one little paragraph.
[01:29:03.640 --> 01:29:09.320]  It says why these clips demonstrate is how law firms filing foreclosure cases on the
[01:29:09.320 --> 01:29:14.400]  behalf of lenders, but then don't bother to have the proper paperwork they need to file
[01:29:14.400 --> 01:29:20.920]  the case created after the case was filed. I have previously posted information about
[01:29:20.920 --> 01:29:31.520]  a woman named Erica A. Johnson S.E.C.K. According to the deposition transcript taken of Ms.
[01:29:31.520 --> 01:29:38.240]  S.E.C.K. and posted on this blog elsewhere, one of her primary functions is to sign assignments
[01:29:38.240 --> 01:29:44.160]  of mortgage that the bank uses to throw out the bar of the home. What these videos demonstrate
[01:29:44.160 --> 01:29:48.720]  is that there are a handful of people like Ms. S.E.C.K. whose job it is to sit in offices
[01:29:48.720 --> 01:29:54.560]  around the country signing documents allegedly on behalf of lenders and mirrors, which Documents
[01:29:54.560 --> 01:29:57.440]  Center used the basis for the lenders to throw the bar on.
[01:29:57.440 --> 01:30:03.400]  Okay, hold on. We'll be right back. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:03.400 --> 01:30:10.120]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[01:30:10.120 --> 01:30:16.840]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer
[01:30:16.840 --> 01:30:22.640]  should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands
[01:30:22.640 --> 01:30:28.600]  have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[01:30:28.600 --> 01:30:35.640]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[01:30:35.640 --> 01:30:40.840]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[01:30:40.840 --> 01:30:47.320]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[01:30:47.320 --> 01:30:54.320]  for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and
[01:30:54.320 --> 01:30:59.320]  click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:30:59.320 --> 01:31:28.200]  Okay, song about RFID chips for you there from Little Three Shoes Posse. All right,
[01:31:28.200 --> 01:31:32.920]  we're talking with Russell from Texas. Okay, sorry Russell, we cut to break there. We also
[01:31:32.920 --> 01:31:37.960]  have Jim from Texas waiting in the wings and Brian from Pennsylvania. You guys sit tight.
[01:31:37.960 --> 01:31:40.720]  Okay, go ahead Russell, continue.
[01:31:40.720 --> 01:31:44.520]  What this is basically saying is there are certain people that are sitting in these great
[01:31:44.520 --> 01:31:51.520]  big law firms that do all these thousands and thousands of foreclosures across the country,
[01:31:51.520 --> 01:31:56.960]  and they got one person that sits in there and basically falsifies evidence, and then
[01:31:56.960 --> 01:32:04.440]  they use that evidence into court to go ahead and foreclose. There's a five-part series
[01:32:04.440 --> 01:32:13.640]  on YouTube about that. This lady was deposed, and she basically admitted to it. That's pretty
[01:32:13.640 --> 01:32:15.960]  powerful in itself.
[01:32:15.960 --> 01:32:18.960]  Any idea what that series is called, Russell?
[01:32:18.960 --> 01:32:27.080]  It said, for the links to the five-part YouTube video bank foreclosure fraud or stop foreclosure
[01:32:27.080 --> 01:32:35.080]  fraud on YouTube. When I found it, I just typed in, how'd they do it? Erica Johnson
[01:32:35.080 --> 01:32:42.880]  Sec, S-E-C-K. When I typed that into Google, I went right to the site. There's five different
[01:32:42.880 --> 01:32:50.760]  videos on that site that show this video one, video two, video three, like that. It shows
[01:32:50.760 --> 01:32:56.200]  the actual documentation they filed in court, and then it talks about this transcript taken
[01:32:56.200 --> 01:33:00.080]  by this woman.
[01:33:00.080 --> 01:33:07.320]  It's a thing that the prosecutors use. They cut every damn corner in the world to push
[01:33:07.320 --> 01:33:12.520]  as many cases through and get as many guilty pleas as possible. These people turn around
[01:33:12.520 --> 01:33:17.480]  and cut every corner possible to get all these civil foreclosures through.
[01:33:17.480 --> 01:33:24.960]  We need to start going back after the courts, big time. I've just looked at two foreclosures
[01:33:24.960 --> 01:33:32.400]  where the courts just ignored everything. We need to go back in and go after the court
[01:33:32.400 --> 01:33:36.680]  itself. We need to start hammering judges.
[01:33:36.680 --> 01:33:42.120]  Up in Maryland, where Jeff Sedgwick is, they had a judge that has been removed from hearing
[01:33:42.120 --> 01:33:48.360]  these foreclosure cases because they have shown that he has been committing fraud and
[01:33:48.360 --> 01:33:52.600]  he has been doing it in collusion. Someone filed a lawsuit against him and they got him
[01:33:52.600 --> 01:33:57.040]  removed from him. I don't know what his current disposition is, but he's not allowed to sit
[01:33:57.040 --> 01:33:59.240]  over those cases anymore.
[01:33:59.240 --> 01:34:07.680]  This is how we get it done. As a judge, if he's forbidden to sit on a certain kind of
[01:34:07.680 --> 01:34:16.840]  case, his career is just about over. This is a big deal for him. When he comes up for
[01:34:16.840 --> 01:34:23.720]  election next time, adios amigo. We need to start making it political.
[01:34:23.720 --> 01:34:31.200]  I have a friend who's an arrogant SOB and he told me several years ago, you're full
[01:34:31.200 --> 01:34:35.240]  of crapola. You'll never get this done just with criminal. You're going to have to make
[01:34:35.240 --> 01:34:43.640]  it political. I told him he was full of crapola. Well, about a month ago I talked to him and
[01:34:43.640 --> 01:34:50.240]  I had to eat crow. I have to say this, but you were right.
[01:34:50.240 --> 01:34:55.680]  I don't know. I think you all are both right. I think you all are both wrong in a way because
[01:34:55.680 --> 01:35:00.720]  I think that we have to hit them with everything we've got. We have to hit them with criminal
[01:35:00.720 --> 01:35:03.560]  charges. We have to hit them with lawsuits. We have to file them to state courts. We have
[01:35:03.560 --> 01:35:06.840]  to file them to federal courts. We have to hit up our legislators. We have to take it
[01:35:06.840 --> 01:35:13.680]  to the media. We have to hit them every which way we can. We can't just take one approach.
[01:35:13.680 --> 01:35:19.160]  To his credit, that's exactly what he said. We can't just make it political. We can't
[01:35:19.160 --> 01:35:24.840]  just make it criminal. We have to do everything in our power to stop this.
[01:35:24.840 --> 01:35:34.040]  This is what I'm suggesting, that we stop being defendants and we start being the aggressor.
[01:35:34.040 --> 01:35:39.080]  I'm done, thanks. Thanks, Russell. We have a whole full board
[01:35:39.080 --> 01:35:44.980]  of callers right now. We've got Jim from Texas, Brian, Steve, and Jeff. We're going to go
[01:35:44.980 --> 01:35:50.000]  to Jim from Texas. Jim, thanks for calling in. What's on your minds?
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:36:00.520]  I had a question. I'm in the middle of filing a civil action. I've got one thing I'm trying
[01:36:00.520 --> 01:36:10.040]  to figure out. On damages, is there a form for calculating the amounts as far as I know
[01:36:10.040 --> 01:36:16.800]  actual damages, what they are, and then punitive damages, different things like that?
[01:36:16.800 --> 01:36:20.920]  Yeah. Okay, here's the deal on punitive. You calculate
[01:36:20.920 --> 01:36:32.400]  your actual damages and then triple the actual damages and that's the punitive. However,
[01:36:32.400 --> 01:36:39.480]  you either get the actual or the punitive. You don't get both. You only get three times,
[01:36:39.480 --> 01:36:42.560]  not four times. If you got both, it'd be four times.
[01:36:42.560 --> 01:36:46.640]  Right. Effectively, you get your actual damages plus
[01:36:46.640 --> 01:36:56.240]  two times more. Okay. How about this is a discharge for refusing
[01:36:56.240 --> 01:37:07.560]  to commit an illegal act, which has quite a few different areas of damages, intentional
[01:37:07.560 --> 01:37:12.760]  infliction of emotional distress, different things like that. Those are very different.
[01:37:12.760 --> 01:37:15.920]  Okay. Do you have... You're in Texas?
[01:37:15.920 --> 01:37:19.520]  Right. Do you have O'Connor's causes of action?
[01:37:19.520 --> 01:37:24.600]  Right. Okay. On the intentional infliction of emotional
[01:37:24.600 --> 01:37:33.400]  distress, you have to make sure you state that there is no other source of remedy. I
[01:37:33.400 --> 01:37:40.000]  forget exactly the term, but you can't get remedy anywhere else except by emotional distress.
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:44.600]  Well, in this, this is a... I don't know if you're familiar with this.
[01:37:44.600 --> 01:37:52.280]  That's just one of the elements. Yeah. The action here is a Sabine pilot. I don't
[01:37:52.280 --> 01:37:55.880]  know if you're familiar with that. Sabine pilot?
[01:37:55.880 --> 01:38:04.160]  Right. It's what it's called. It was one of the few things that falls under the... As
[01:38:04.160 --> 01:38:13.360]  far as... Since the state of Texas is a right to work state or employment at will, it's
[01:38:13.360 --> 01:38:18.760]  one of the very few exceptions. It's when you refuse to do an illegal act that's requested
[01:38:18.760 --> 01:38:26.320]  of you or demanded of you and they either fire you or you feel no other option but to
[01:38:26.320 --> 01:38:30.840]  quit. Yes. Well, you're effectively fired.
[01:38:30.840 --> 01:38:36.360]  Right. Well, because it would make it unable for you to work there.
[01:38:36.360 --> 01:38:41.800]  That's perfect because I tell policemen all the time that life is filled with little decisions.
[01:38:41.800 --> 01:38:49.760]  We all get to make some. You can follow policy and keep your job or you can follow law and
[01:38:49.760 --> 01:38:54.840]  I won't sue you and file criminal charges against you. It's your call. It sounds like
[01:38:54.840 --> 01:39:00.800]  you made the right call. See, I mean, so on that one, how could you...
[01:39:00.800 --> 01:39:09.600]  I mean, the actual damages are almost impossible to figure. Future and past wages.
[01:39:09.600 --> 01:39:16.960]  What you need is to go to the legal library and what did you call this particular action?
[01:39:16.960 --> 01:39:19.000]  It's a Sabine Pilot. Sabine Pilot.
[01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:23.480]  I read the case. I read everything about it in the...
[01:39:23.480 --> 01:39:31.400]  Okay. Google... Not Google. Go on. They probably got Westlaw at the library and do a search
[01:39:31.400 --> 01:39:40.120]  for Sabine Pilot and read some of the cases and look at the damages that were awarded
[01:39:40.120 --> 01:39:50.320]  in the cases and then look at the case and compare your case to that case, but you probably
[01:39:50.320 --> 01:39:59.600]  shouldn't do it. Get someone who's not directly involved who can do it without passion and
[01:39:59.600 --> 01:40:09.800]  look and say, well, this one that they got X amount of dollars was this much more grievous
[01:40:09.800 --> 01:40:19.040]  or this much less. The thing you need to be able to do when you get to court is show them
[01:40:19.040 --> 01:40:29.400]  how you got the numbers. Now, the way you got the numbers can be debatable
[01:40:29.400 --> 01:40:37.600]  but as long as you have what appears to be a rationale and a way of bringing you to the
[01:40:37.600 --> 01:40:45.360]  number you get and what I'm doing with mortgages, I've kind of worked up this routine where
[01:40:45.360 --> 01:40:51.600]  I take all of the fees they charge you because there's legal limits on what they can charge
[01:40:51.600 --> 01:40:59.000]  you, legal restrictions. I just assume they're all bogus. Prove them up, Bubba. You failed
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:03.600]  to prove one up. We take it off the head of the note, calculate how much it cost you across
[01:41:03.600 --> 01:41:13.160]  the full 30 years of the note and then triple that. So it comes out this outrageous figure
[01:41:13.160 --> 01:41:16.480]  but then the other guy's going to come and say, well, this is outrageous. How did you
[01:41:16.480 --> 01:41:23.160]  get that number? And I said, come here, Bubba. I take you to this thing to the penny and
[01:41:23.160 --> 01:41:27.200]  they're going to say, well, the way you did it is just not right. You can't do it that
[01:41:27.200 --> 01:41:31.040]  way. And I'm going to say, yes, I can. You see the problem?
[01:41:31.040 --> 01:41:37.880]  What I've found mostly in the reading that I've done on this is that I basically have
[01:41:37.880 --> 01:41:44.240]  to claim the damage, a damage. The court determines the amount of damage.
[01:41:44.240 --> 01:41:51.840]  Well you can, no, no, no, no, no. You claim, you say how much you've been harmed and they're
[01:41:51.840 --> 01:41:57.840]  going to say, well, how did you get that? And you're going to say, well, the court in this case
[01:41:57.840 --> 01:42:04.080]  gave this much and that was nothing compared to mine. I look at that and mine is at least
[01:42:04.080 --> 01:42:09.760]  three times what that one was. So I tripled it. All you have to be able to do is tell
[01:42:09.760 --> 01:42:14.360]  them how you got the number. Now they have a number they have to deal with and in the
[01:42:14.360 --> 01:42:19.840]  end the judge is going to make the decision or a jury but you have a number to argue with
[01:42:19.840 --> 01:42:26.000]  that you can show them how you got there. A lot of guys in legal reform, they just pull
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  $10 million out of the air. Let's throw that right out. So if you show them exactly how
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:38.800]  you reached up and grabbed hold of that $10 million and exactly how you drug it out of
[01:42:38.800 --> 01:42:44.760]  the air, the other side may say that's a bunch of horse hockey but they're still going to
[01:42:44.760 --> 01:42:47.840]  have to prove it up in court.
[01:42:47.840 --> 01:42:52.960]  Your legal theory on how you arrived on it as far as the damages that have been awarded
[01:42:52.960 --> 01:42:54.480]  other cases similar.
[01:42:54.480 --> 01:43:00.180]  Yeah, it's your theory. They may not like your theory but they have to argue your theory.
[01:43:00.180 --> 01:43:06.680]  If you can't give them a theory then the jury has nothing to work with. That's why we're
[01:43:06.680 --> 01:43:14.560]  so pleased with Previzant. He's held for like 20 minutes and he gets $36,000. So that gives
[01:43:14.560 --> 01:43:15.560]  us a number.
[01:43:15.560 --> 01:43:23.960]  Well, I believe it was either the Walmart case or the other one that they awarded $1.000,000
[01:43:23.960 --> 01:43:25.720]  for basically the same thing.
[01:43:25.720 --> 01:43:31.360]  Yeah, okay. That gives you a base to work from. This is what a jury felt was appropriate
[01:43:31.360 --> 01:43:37.760]  for this. So I get to use this and I think mine was worse so you can jack it up. That's
[01:43:37.760 --> 01:43:39.840]  what you have to do with damages.
[01:43:39.840 --> 01:43:46.400]  Okay, well I couldn't find it. I've got Prosser and Keaton on torts. I've got all different
[01:43:46.400 --> 01:43:47.400]  types.
[01:43:47.400 --> 01:43:52.360]  Okay, listen Jim, we're going to break. We're going to break. So we need to go catch it
[01:43:52.360 --> 01:43:54.080]  on the other side but we have three other callers.
[01:43:54.080 --> 01:43:56.200]  Okay, well you go ahead and catch them. I appreciate your time.
[01:43:56.200 --> 01:44:06.240]  Okay, thank you. All right, we'll be right back.
[01:44:06.240 --> 01:44:14.280]  Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens
[01:44:14.280 --> 01:44:21.200]  and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. You have a choice to keep your body clean.
[01:44:21.200 --> 01:44:33.120]  Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. It's odorless and tasteless
[01:44:33.120 --> 01:44:39.760]  and used in any liquid or food. Protect your family now with micro plant powder. Cleaning
[01:44:39.760 --> 01:44:46.840]  out heavy metals, parasites and toxins. Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for
[01:44:46.840 --> 01:45:04.080]  long-term storage. Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:04.080 --> 01:45:31.280]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully. Somebody's on
[01:45:31.280 --> 01:45:41.320]  a police, a policeman. Somebody's on a police, a police. There's always a room at the top
[01:45:41.320 --> 01:45:46.480]  of the hill. I hear things are great, fine and it's lonely.
[01:45:46.480 --> 01:45:55.080]  Okay, we know Jawell. He will take the scales back. He's not going to just tip the scales
[01:45:55.080 --> 01:46:01.480]  back. He's going to take the scales back, okay? We are going to your calls. We're going
[01:46:01.480 --> 01:46:06.360]  to Jeff in Maryland. Jeff, is this Jeff Sedgwick?
[01:46:06.360 --> 01:46:07.360]  It is indeed.
[01:46:07.360 --> 01:46:11.040]  Indeed. Thank you for calling in. What do you have for us tonight, my friend?
[01:46:11.040 --> 01:46:14.960]  If you have a pencil and paper, I'd like for you to write down the site.
[01:46:14.960 --> 01:46:17.800]  I got a pencil and paper. Give me an address.
[01:46:17.800 --> 01:46:26.440]  Wait, I'm sorry. When I speak, your voice goes down. Hold on, Jeff. Just say the name
[01:46:26.440 --> 01:46:28.800]  and then also if you would just email it to me.
[01:46:28.800 --> 01:46:32.240]  I've already done that. It's in an article I sent to both you and Randy.
[01:46:32.240 --> 01:46:34.920]  Okay, so tell us the case.
[01:46:34.920 --> 01:46:43.040]  It's Ashcroft versus Ickbill, 2009. It's where the Supreme Court has basically disallowed
[01:46:43.040 --> 01:46:45.280]  notice pleadings.
[01:46:45.280 --> 01:46:49.840]  Okay, please explain for the listeners notice pleadings.
[01:46:49.840 --> 01:46:58.040]  Well, how about if I do it this way? According to the Supreme Court decision, pleadings must
[01:46:58.040 --> 01:47:06.800]  be more than naked assertions devoid of facts and more than threadbare recitals or mere
[01:47:06.800 --> 01:47:08.760]  conclusory statements.
[01:47:08.760 --> 01:47:11.480]  Sounds reasonable.
[01:47:11.480 --> 01:47:16.920]  Laura, which statute did the radio station break?
[01:47:16.920 --> 01:47:20.880]  Well, they haven't accused us of breaking a statute yet.
[01:47:20.880 --> 01:47:23.640]  Didn't they say some sort of a code?
[01:47:23.640 --> 01:47:24.640]  Well, what they said...
[01:47:24.640 --> 01:47:25.640]  They said move on.
[01:47:25.640 --> 01:47:35.360]  Hold on. No. What they did was it's just a blanket assertion that the operator violated
[01:47:35.360 --> 01:47:44.440]  47 U.S.C. Section 301, but 47 U.S.C. Section 301 has paragraphs A through E, and so they
[01:47:44.440 --> 01:47:54.120]  failed to say which paragraph was violated, i.e. was the radio station on a ship in international
[01:47:54.120 --> 01:47:59.880]  waters interfering with a broadcast in Washington, D.C.? That's one of the paragraphs. They never
[01:47:59.880 --> 01:48:05.760]  said... What they did was basically like saying the operator violated the Texas Penal
[01:48:05.760 --> 01:48:08.360]  Code. Well, they have to be more specific than that.
[01:48:08.360 --> 01:48:13.440]  Wouldn't that fall into the category of threadbare recitals or a mere conclusory statement?
[01:48:13.440 --> 01:48:19.440]  I don't know because it wasn't a motion. This is an administrative action. It's in an administrative
[01:48:19.440 --> 01:48:26.120]  realm. If the Supreme Court ruling applies to administrative hearings...
[01:48:26.120 --> 01:48:33.400]  Yeah. It still goes to notice. You have to have... You have to be advised of the nature
[01:48:33.400 --> 01:48:34.400]  and cause.
[01:48:34.400 --> 01:48:35.400]  Right.
[01:48:35.400 --> 01:48:36.400]  Sounds good to me.
[01:48:36.400 --> 01:48:40.680]  The old notice pleadings are no longer allowed. They have to be detailed and specific just
[01:48:40.680 --> 01:48:46.000]  like when you claim fraud, you have to do so with specificity.
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:50.000]  Well, I thought that they had to be specific when they accused people of breaking a law
[01:48:50.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  anyway. They can't just say...
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:58.720]  It would fall under the Connolly decision of 1957 and they could just say, you did it
[01:48:58.720 --> 01:49:01.560]  and then you have to figure out what the it was.
[01:49:01.560 --> 01:49:06.360]  Jeff, was it you that sent me a list of the notice states?
[01:49:06.360 --> 01:49:08.960]  I'm sorry. Say it again.
[01:49:08.960 --> 01:49:12.480]  There are a number of states that are notice pleading states.
[01:49:12.480 --> 01:49:13.480]  Uh-huh.
[01:49:13.480 --> 01:49:18.360]  If it wasn't you, someone did. I'll have to look that email up. They listed out the states
[01:49:18.360 --> 01:49:24.360]  that were notice pleading states and I'm trying to think of the term for the other one that
[01:49:24.360 --> 01:49:25.960]  was more specific.
[01:49:25.960 --> 01:49:27.960]  This is federal. This is federal.
[01:49:27.960 --> 01:49:29.960]  I was hoping it was you that had told me that.
[01:49:29.960 --> 01:49:30.960]  It goes to the federal courts.
[01:49:30.960 --> 01:49:33.400]  Yeah. That's what we're dealing in right now is federal.
[01:49:33.400 --> 01:49:37.320]  They're trying to remove it using notice pleading.
[01:49:37.320 --> 01:49:43.080]  Well, actually not exactly because we're the plaintiff in these cases.
[01:49:43.080 --> 01:49:45.080]  It doesn't matter.
[01:49:45.080 --> 01:49:53.080]  They removed it from the states of the federal using a notice pleading.
[01:49:53.080 --> 01:49:54.080]  That's right.
[01:49:54.080 --> 01:49:59.680]  Okay. But the thing is, that has nothing to do with the original allegation. That was
[01:49:59.680 --> 01:50:01.680]  not in the state court.
[01:50:01.680 --> 01:50:08.840]  What we're saying to Deborah is they're using notice pleading to take it out of your jurisdiction
[01:50:08.840 --> 01:50:11.600]  and put it into theirs where they're king.
[01:50:11.600 --> 01:50:17.520]  Okay. You're talking about when the U.S. attorney removed the case from the state to the federal.
[01:50:17.520 --> 01:50:21.160]  Right. But that has nothing to do with their administrative hearing. That was already in
[01:50:21.160 --> 01:50:22.160]  the federal venue.
[01:50:22.160 --> 01:50:23.160]  I understand.
[01:50:23.160 --> 01:50:29.200]  All right. So Randy, when we go to file these motions to get the case remanded back to state
[01:50:29.200 --> 01:50:31.000]  court, then we can cite this case.
[01:50:31.000 --> 01:50:33.320]  Exactly. That's great. That's exactly the only point.
[01:50:33.320 --> 01:50:36.040]  It's something for you guys to look at and consider.
[01:50:36.040 --> 01:50:41.760]  Now, Jeff, when you were talking about this Connolly case, are you saying that yes or
[01:50:41.760 --> 01:50:47.280]  no, they can just accuse you of you did it and then the defendant has to figure out what
[01:50:47.280 --> 01:50:48.280]  the it is?
[01:50:48.280 --> 01:50:52.800]  The Connolly case basically gave the federal court's permission to accept those sorts of
[01:50:52.800 --> 01:50:53.800]  pleadings.
[01:50:53.800 --> 01:50:56.040]  Oh, really? Wow. We'll see about that.
[01:50:56.040 --> 01:50:57.040]  Pardon?
[01:50:57.040 --> 01:51:00.720]  Okay. I take it this case essentially overturned Connolly.
[01:51:00.720 --> 01:51:01.720]  Yes.
[01:51:01.720 --> 01:51:02.720]  Yes. Good.
[01:51:02.720 --> 01:51:03.720]  Wonderful.
[01:51:03.720 --> 01:51:11.720]  You can resolve that, I would imagine, by shepherding Connolly.
[01:51:11.720 --> 01:51:23.920]  Okay. Some chump sent me an email that gave me the case. I like to pick on Steve Skidmore.
[01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:27.080]  He's my favorite chump. I like to chump him on the air. I owe him a chump.
[01:51:27.080 --> 01:51:29.480]  Don't call him a chump. He's my call screener.
[01:51:29.480 --> 01:51:35.200]  No. He sent me that link, so I will look that up. That is excellent.
[01:51:35.200 --> 01:51:39.760]  All right. But the information that I sent to you on this, Randy and Deborah, is an article
[01:51:39.760 --> 01:51:50.000]  that came out of Mankiew, I can't even pronounce it, Mondak. It's an article about what had
[01:51:50.000 --> 01:51:56.160]  happened with the Supreme Court decision and it was decided in 2009. I am sort of shooting
[01:51:56.160 --> 01:52:01.800]  from the hip here, but they're reasonably accurate in what they're saying is the Supreme
[01:52:01.800 --> 01:52:07.800]  Court has overturned or is no longer allowing it into the federal courts. From what I've
[01:52:07.800 --> 01:52:12.800]  understood Deborah to say, they're using notice-type pleadings in order to remove your case from
[01:52:12.800 --> 01:52:13.800]  state court.
[01:52:13.800 --> 01:52:19.160]  Oh, this is going to be so valuable when I go after Sparks.
[01:52:19.160 --> 01:52:24.240]  Well, if it is what we think that it is and what they say that it is, I think it is going
[01:52:24.240 --> 01:52:25.240]  to be extremely valuable.
[01:52:25.240 --> 01:52:30.920]  And Jeff, even if they allow the notice-type pleadings as far as the accusation of the
[01:52:30.920 --> 01:52:35.760]  breaking of the law, it doesn't matter anyway, even if they want to let that fly because
[01:52:35.760 --> 01:52:42.520]  I've already proven, I mean step by step, line by line, that they neither accused nor
[01:52:42.520 --> 01:52:49.480]  proved that the operator violated any of the subparagraphs of Section 301 of that statute
[01:52:49.480 --> 01:52:55.000]  and also proved that the operator could not possibly have been violating any of those
[01:52:55.000 --> 01:52:59.640]  subparagraphs either. So not only did I prove that the operator was not violating any of
[01:52:59.640 --> 01:53:05.040]  the subparagraphs, but I also proved that they neither accused nor proved that the operator
[01:53:05.040 --> 01:53:06.720]  was violating any of the subparagraphs.
[01:53:06.720 --> 01:53:08.840]  Don't forget your golden rule Deborah.
[01:53:08.840 --> 01:53:13.400]  And you have the gold makes the rules?
[01:53:13.400 --> 01:53:17.680]  So very much. Don't get to the merits of the case.
[01:53:17.680 --> 01:53:21.720]  Well, that's not part of the merits of the case. That's actually not part of the merits
[01:53:21.720 --> 01:53:22.720]  of the case.
[01:53:22.720 --> 01:53:27.280]  But I wanted to get this in front of you right away. I think it's significant.
[01:53:27.280 --> 01:53:30.120]  Thank you, Jeff. All right. We need to move on. So we've got five minutes left and two
[01:53:30.120 --> 01:53:31.120]  more callers.
[01:53:31.120 --> 01:53:32.120]  Good night.
[01:53:32.120 --> 01:53:35.680]  All right. Thanks. Yeah. Believe me, we're not going to the merits of the case. Not yet.
[01:53:35.680 --> 01:53:41.120]  We got plenty, plenty to go after them just with the challenge to the jurisdiction. And
[01:53:41.120 --> 01:53:46.160]  that is part of it. What I was just saying. Okay. We're going to Brian in Pennsylvania.
[01:53:46.160 --> 01:53:50.400]  Okay, Brian, I'll give you about two and a half minutes. We got five minutes left. What's
[01:53:50.400 --> 01:53:57.600]  on your mind? Brian? Hey, go ahead. We're going to give you two minutes because we got
[01:53:57.600 --> 01:53:58.600]  five minutes left.
[01:53:58.600 --> 01:54:01.840]  I ran for a hot minute because I got pulled over and I'm salty about it. I don't think
[01:54:01.840 --> 01:54:09.040]  he liked my stickers. Wanted to let you know about that. It's a nice listening to you guys.
[01:54:09.040 --> 01:54:12.080]  Did he say something about he didn't like your stickers?
[01:54:12.080 --> 01:54:15.760]  He said something about the constitution. He said, is that a constitutional code? Because
[01:54:15.760 --> 01:54:22.400]  he saw my UCC1S308 above my signature on the registration card and there's no commercial
[01:54:22.400 --> 01:54:27.440]  code. He walked back to his car. But I think between one of the two stickers, I've got
[01:54:27.440 --> 01:54:30.880]  the really fun back of my car. He didn't like one or both.
[01:54:30.880 --> 01:54:33.680]  And was that the reason that he stated that he pulled you over?
[01:54:33.680 --> 01:54:41.240]  No, he says that he pulled me over because I have a license plate bulb out. Very valid
[01:54:41.240 --> 01:54:42.240]  reason.
[01:54:42.240 --> 01:54:48.480]  Wait a minute, wait a minute. Where is the statute that makes it a crime to have a license
[01:54:48.480 --> 01:54:49.840]  plate bolt out?
[01:54:49.840 --> 01:54:54.880]  Probably because it's not up to inspection or there's some type of danger.
[01:54:54.880 --> 01:55:00.480]  Well, no. There has to be something specific that requires both license plate bulbs or
[01:55:00.480 --> 01:55:01.480]  whatever.
[01:55:01.480 --> 01:55:05.320]  I didn't even have a chance to read the ticket yet.
[01:55:05.320 --> 01:55:06.320]  This just happened tonight?
[01:55:06.320 --> 01:55:08.880]  Yeah, it just happened a few minutes ago.
[01:55:08.880 --> 01:55:09.880]  Oh, wow. I'm sorry, Brian.
[01:55:09.880 --> 01:55:13.160]  Can you give a shout out to Liberty Stickers? They gave me one of the bumper stickers.
[01:55:13.160 --> 01:55:14.160]  All right.
[01:55:14.160 --> 01:55:15.160]  Yeah.
[01:55:15.160 --> 01:55:20.000]  All right. Well, Brian, call back in tomorrow night.
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:24.480]  Go back and find that cop and tell him that he needs to talk to us. We're on the radio.
[01:55:24.480 --> 01:55:25.480]  We'll make it.
[01:55:25.480 --> 01:55:26.480]  Okay.
[01:55:26.480 --> 01:55:29.720]  Let me tell you the stickers. One of them is a nice black one with white letters that
[01:55:29.720 --> 01:55:34.320]  says the police state will affect everyone but you. Quite proud of that one. The other
[01:55:34.320 --> 01:55:39.920]  one is that nice little Obama caricature where it usually says change. We'll take that out
[01:55:39.920 --> 01:55:40.920]  and put fraud underneath.
[01:55:40.920 --> 01:55:41.920]  Nice.
[01:55:41.920 --> 01:55:46.000]  A little divisive, maybe, but I like it.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:49.320]  All right. Good deal, Brian. Call back in tomorrow night. We'll talk about it after
[01:55:49.320 --> 01:55:52.240]  you read over the traffic ticket and look up some of these statutes.
[01:55:52.240 --> 01:55:56.360]  Yeah. Obama's change is going to leave all of us digging for our spare change.
[01:55:56.360 --> 01:55:57.360]  Yeah, really.
[01:55:57.360 --> 01:55:58.360]  Good evening.
[01:55:58.360 --> 01:56:01.360]  Okay. Very good.
[01:56:01.360 --> 01:56:09.480]  Okay. Randy, can you punch in Shirley because my page just froze up. Oh, here she is. Okay,
[01:56:09.480 --> 01:56:12.400]  Shirley, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:56:12.400 --> 01:56:16.800]  Thank you very much for taking my call and I know we're short on time. If we run out
[01:56:16.800 --> 01:56:21.320]  of time, will I be able to have an email address that I can send something to you?
[01:56:21.320 --> 01:56:25.800]  You can call in tomorrow. I personally, I can't deal very much with you.
[01:56:25.800 --> 01:56:26.800]  I have one. I have one.
[01:56:26.800 --> 01:56:32.840]  Yeah, and we do have email. Our email addresses are on the website, too. So, yeah.
[01:56:32.840 --> 01:56:35.720]  Okay. Well, I'll try. I'll look for those better. Today's...
[01:56:35.720 --> 01:56:38.280]  Okay, then put your subject line in all text.
[01:56:38.280 --> 01:56:41.880]  Okay, let her talk because we only have two minutes left. Go ahead, Shirley.
[01:56:41.880 --> 01:56:46.840]  You were talking earlier about going after the judge personally. Are you aware of the
[01:56:46.840 --> 01:56:55.040]  case in California that has to do with Richard I. Fine? He is a prominent international anti-trust
[01:56:55.040 --> 01:57:01.440]  lawyer that has spent almost a year in jail because he has been exposing the corruption
[01:57:01.440 --> 01:57:08.400]  in the LA county judicial system. Yes, I think I'm familiar with Fines.
[01:57:08.400 --> 01:57:12.040]  Pardon? Fines, is he an attorney?
[01:57:12.040 --> 01:57:19.080]  Richard I. Fine is a prominent anti-trust attorney. He's also the counsel general of Norway. He
[01:57:19.080 --> 01:57:25.160]  is a prestigious white hat attorney, and he has been fighting the county of Los Angeles.
[01:57:25.160 --> 01:57:32.360]  He's in coercive confinement with no bail, no bond, no trial date, and no release date.
[01:57:32.360 --> 01:57:39.920]  It is an absolute travesty of the American system, but the judges have, and he went after
[01:57:39.920 --> 01:57:47.160]  them personally to recuse themselves. You need to find other people and get them,
[01:57:47.160 --> 01:57:53.840]  people who seemingly have no direct connection to go in and start filing against the judge.
[01:57:53.840 --> 01:58:01.560]  Okay. Well, I can give you some websites to go to that tells this story much better than
[01:58:01.560 --> 01:58:05.200]  what I can. Okay, we're out of time, but we can...
[01:58:05.200 --> 01:58:09.640]  Why don't you call in tomorrow night, Shirley? We'll be on the air for four hours from eight
[01:58:09.640 --> 01:58:12.040]  to midnight Central Time. We can discuss this at greater length.
[01:58:12.040 --> 01:58:17.520]  From eight to midnight. Okay. I will call in tomorrow from eight to midnight, and in
[01:58:17.520 --> 01:58:20.400]  the meantime, I will attempt to send something to you, email.
[01:58:20.400 --> 01:58:23.400]  Okay, great. Maybe you'll have a chance to have some background
[01:58:23.400 --> 01:58:27.000]  on this. Okay, great. Thanks, Shirley. Henry from California,
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  we see you there. Sorry, we're out of time. Call back in tomorrow night. We'll be on the
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:36.280]  air for four hours. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[01:58:36.280 --> 01:59:00.000]  Stay tuned for endless fraud detection coming up next. We'll see you guys tomorrow night.
[01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:04.760]  This is Randall Kelton from Rule of Law Radio. Many of you have been helped by the informative
[01:59:04.760 --> 01:59:11.160]  programming on 90.1. Now, 90.1 needs your help. The operators of 90.1 are in a legal
[01:59:11.160 --> 01:59:16.600]  battle with the FCC to stay on the air, and they need letters from your listeners testifying
[01:59:16.600 --> 01:59:22.080]  that 90.1 serves the public interest by bringing truthful news and information that no other
[01:59:22.080 --> 01:59:27.320]  station does. Brave New Books is not associated with the Austin Micro, but they have agreed
[01:59:27.320 --> 01:59:32.720]  to help by collecting your letters. Please drop off or mail your letters, too. Brave
[01:59:32.720 --> 01:59:42.360]  New Books, attention, Austin Micro's 90.1, 1904 Guadalupe, Suite B, Austin, Texas, 78705.
[01:59:42.360 --> 01:59:46.600]  There are also form letters at the bookstore that folks can just sign. Please help keep
[01:59:46.600 --> 01:59:51.600]  90.1 on the air by getting your letters to Brave New Books as soon as possible. Let the
[01:59:51.600 --> 01:59:57.600]  FCC know that 90.1 serves the public interest by bringing truthful news and information
[01:59:57.600 --> 02:00:04.600]  that can't be found anywhere else.