[00:00.000 --> 00:09.960] South Korea's formal accusation that a North Korean torpedo sank one of its warships, killing [00:09.960 --> 00:15.800] 46 sailors in March, will set off a diplomatic drumbeat to punish North Korea that could [00:15.800 --> 00:21.120] end up in the UN Security Council. The South Korean government Thursday presented forensic [00:21.120 --> 00:26.600] evidence including part of a torpedo propeller with what investigators believe is a North [00:26.600 --> 00:34.240] Korean serial number. 100,000 protesters hit the streets in Athens Thursday, essentially [00:34.240 --> 00:39.760] shutting down the country. Trade unions staged another 24-hour general strike against government [00:39.760 --> 00:45.040] austerity measures. Ferries were tied up in port, railway stations shut, and the labor [00:45.040 --> 00:52.280] ministry occupied by communist protesters. The Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday [00:52.280 --> 00:57.560] more than 10% of homeowners with a mortgage missed at least one payment in the period [00:57.560 --> 01:03.640] January to March, a record high. 4.3 million homeowners, or about 8% of all Americans with [01:03.640 --> 01:08.560] a mortgage, are at risk of losing their homes. They have either missed at least three payments [01:08.560 --> 01:13.000] or are in foreclosure. This news brief brought to you by the International [01:13.000 --> 01:17.400] News Net. Video footage of the BP oil spill shows oil [01:17.400 --> 01:23.960] is escaping at the rate of 95,000 barrels, 4 million gallons a day, nearly 20 times the [01:23.960 --> 01:29.280] rate estimated by BP and government scientists. Federal officials testified in hearings Tuesday [01:29.280 --> 01:35.360] that they were putting together a crack team to measure just how big the spill really is. [01:35.360 --> 01:39.520] Experts say knowing that figure is crucial for efforts to cap the broken wellhead and [01:39.520 --> 01:44.800] monitor and clean up the oil. Steve Whirly, an associate professor of mechanical engineering [01:44.800 --> 01:50.160] at Purdue University, told a House Commerce, an energy subcommittee, Wednesday he calculated [01:50.160 --> 01:56.720] 70,000 barrels a day was escaping from one leak and 25,000 barrels from a second. BP [01:56.720 --> 02:01.760] has said that the flow rate was not relevant to the cleanup effort. But Representative [02:01.760 --> 02:07.840] Ed Markey says, quote, this faulty logic BP is using is raising concerns they are hiding [02:07.840 --> 02:15.640] the full extent of the damage of this leak. Efforts to achieve agreement among 189 nations [02:15.640 --> 02:20.800] on reinforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty face collapse because of the fallout [02:20.800 --> 02:26.560] from a new UN sanctions resolution against Iran. Egypt, backed by most of its Arab neighbors, [02:26.560 --> 02:30.920] is threatening to hold a review conference in New York hostage to its demand that firm [02:30.920 --> 02:35.840] steps be taken toward establishing a nuclear-free zone for the Middle East, the zone which would [02:35.840 --> 02:40.960] seek to outlaw all weapons of mass destruction as one U.S. support. However, Israel, which [02:40.960 --> 02:46.760] is not a signatory to the NPT and which has up to 200 nuclear warheads, would be expected [02:46.760 --> 02:52.320] to participate. So would Iran, which following tabling of the new sanctions resolution is [02:52.320 --> 03:10.200] more isolated than ever. [03:22.920 --> 03:49.920] Bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when [03:49.920 --> 03:57.520] they come for you? When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and [03:57.520 --> 04:02.920] learn the golden rules. So why are you acting like a bloody fool? And if you get caught [04:02.920 --> 04:08.720] then you must get crewed. Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they [04:08.720 --> 04:14.520] come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come [04:14.520 --> 04:19.320] for you? You choke it on that one, you choke it on this one, you choke it on your mother [04:19.320 --> 04:23.320] and you choke it on your father, you choke it on your brother and you choke it on your [04:23.320 --> 04:26.120] sirner, you choke it on that one and you choke it on me. [04:26.120 --> 04:31.920] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, [04:31.920 --> 04:38.520] bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, [04:38.520 --> 04:41.720] whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do when [04:41.720 --> 04:49.400] What are you going to do when we come for you on the rule of law? [04:51.000 --> 04:54.040] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [04:55.280 --> 04:59.040] We're all three co-hosts, always have plenty to talk about. [04:59.440 --> 05:07.480] Today is May 20th, Thursday evening, and we are back from a temporary hiatus. [05:07.480 --> 05:16.480] And I wanted to get Randy and Eddie's take on a story here, which should be a story [05:16.480 --> 05:21.960] which is common throughout every country and every city, but it would seem that [05:21.960 --> 05:26.880] Iceland is leading the way. This may be a little bit of old news to some of you [05:26.880 --> 05:33.760] out there because this story broke last Wednesday, May 12th, having to do with the [05:33.760 --> 05:41.760] arrest and suing of some banksters in Iceland. [05:42.560 --> 05:45.320] OK, I'm going to start with the story. [05:45.320 --> 05:50.880] This is in the Breitbart, which is an Icelandic news source. [05:51.880 --> 05:53.320] This was last Wednesday. [05:53.320 --> 05:59.640] It says, since Iceland's three largest banks, Kofsang, Landsbunki and Glutnir, [05:59.640 --> 06:05.920] collapsed in late 08, their former execs and owners have largely been living [06:05.920 --> 06:09.760] troubled lives, living untroubled lives abroad. [06:10.200 --> 06:15.680] That is, until last Wednesday, the administrators of Glutnir's [06:15.680 --> 06:21.480] liquidation announced they had filed a two billion dollar lawsuit in a New York [06:21.480 --> 06:27.720] court against former large shareholders and executives for alleged fraud. [06:27.720 --> 06:34.520] Glutnir said it was suing John Johansson, formerly its principal shareholder, [06:34.520 --> 06:42.120] Loris Welding, previously Glutnir's chief executive, Thorstein Johnson and its [06:42.120 --> 06:46.840] former chairman and other former directors, shareholders and third parties [06:46.840 --> 06:52.440] associated with Johansson for fraudulently and unlawfully draining more [06:52.440 --> 06:55.800] than two billion dollars out of the bank. [06:55.800 --> 07:00.840] The bank also said it was taking action against its former auditors, Price [07:00.840 --> 07:05.200] Waterhouse-Coopers, for facilitating and helping to conceal the fraudulent [07:05.200 --> 07:10.640] transactions engineered by Johansson and his associates, which ultimately led [07:10.640 --> 07:13.640] to the bank's collapse in October 08. [07:14.040 --> 07:19.840] Glutnir's suit filed in the New York State Supreme Court on Tuesday blamed [07:19.840 --> 07:26.320] most of the bank's woes on Johansson and his co-conspirators who had conspired [07:26.320 --> 07:31.400] to systematically loot Glutnir Bank in order to prop up their own failing [07:31.400 --> 07:32.400] companies. [07:32.880 --> 07:38.280] Johansson, the former owner of the now defunct Boggar Investment Group, with [07:38.280 --> 07:42.160] stakes in a number of British high street stores, including Hamley's [07:42.760 --> 07:46.800] Debenhams and House of Frasers, said he was shocked by the lawsuit. [07:46.800 --> 07:50.840] The distortion and nonsense in the lawsuit are incredible, he told the [07:50.840 --> 07:51.840] Press and News website. [07:52.400 --> 07:56.880] Glutnir's administrators can get a 10-year prison sentence for misusing the [07:56.880 --> 07:59.320] U.S. courts in this manner, he insisted. [07:59.680 --> 08:06.720] The bank's chief administrator, Gujjar Saunddottir, took his comments in stride. [08:06.960 --> 08:09.960] I didn't expect him to be happy with the lawsuit, she said. [08:10.320 --> 08:15.520] In addition to its New York suit, Glutnir said it had secured a freezing order [08:15.520 --> 08:20.480] from the High Court in London against John Johansson's worldwide assets, [08:20.800 --> 08:26.080] including two apartments in Manhattan's exclusive Gramercy Park neighborhood [08:26.080 --> 08:30.480] for which he paid approximately $25 million. [08:31.360 --> 08:35.480] Gujjar Saunddottir said Johansson had just 48 hours to come up with a [08:35.480 --> 08:37.480] satisfactory list of his assets. [08:37.840 --> 08:41.840] Quote, if he does not give the right information, he faces a jail sentence, [08:41.840 --> 08:47.400] she said, for former Copseing executives who all live in Luxembourg have [08:47.400 --> 08:52.520] meanwhile been arrested in Iceland in this past week, and Interpol has [08:52.520 --> 08:57.880] issued an international arrest warrant for that bank's ex-chairman, Sigurdur [08:58.040 --> 08:59.040] Einarsson. [08:59.280 --> 09:04.120] Former head of the bank's domestic operations, Engelfer Helgeson and [09:04.120 --> 09:09.960] former chief risk officer Steingrimmer Karasen were arrested late Monday on a [09:09.960 --> 09:16.880] rival from Luxembourg just days after former Copseing boss Haridur Mar Sigurdsson [09:16.880 --> 09:21.040] along with Magnus Gudmundsson, who headed the bank's unit in Luxembourg, [09:21.040 --> 09:23.040] were taken into custody. [09:23.360 --> 09:27.840] The 49-year-old Einarsson, who lives in London, said late Tuesday he had no [09:27.840 --> 09:30.400] plans to travel to Iceland to be arrested. [09:30.680 --> 09:36.760] I'm absolutely flabbergasted about the latest news, he told Fredtablaadid [09:36.760 --> 09:43.680] Daily, quote, there is, in my opinion, no need for the arrests or custody [09:43.680 --> 09:47.520] rulings, and I will not, of my own free will, take part in the play that it [09:47.520 --> 09:52.360] appears is being staged to sue the Icelandic people, end quote he said. [09:52.800 --> 09:56.600] I'll put the human rights I enjoy here in Britain to the test and will not [09:56.600 --> 10:00.360] therefore come home to Iceland to these conditions without being forced, he [10:00.360 --> 10:01.360] added. [10:01.440 --> 10:03.000] Okay, that's the end of the article. [10:03.720 --> 10:05.440] And I think this is great. [10:05.440 --> 10:10.200] Now, I tried to look it up on Pacer, but of course it's not there because [10:10.200 --> 10:12.800] this lawsuit was filed in the state court. [10:13.560 --> 10:17.240] And my question was concerning the jurisdiction. [10:17.240 --> 10:20.520] What jurisdiction does the New York state court have in this situation? [10:20.880 --> 10:27.160] However, if there are branches of this bank in New York or executive offices [10:27.600 --> 10:32.880] of that sort of thing, or if they were based out of New York or traded in the [10:32.880 --> 10:37.200] New York stock exchange or something, there, there should be something that [10:37.200 --> 10:39.560] would lend the state court's jurisdiction. [10:39.800 --> 10:43.120] It said that one of their co-conspirators was Price Waterhouse. [10:43.600 --> 10:44.560] That would be why. [10:44.760 --> 10:45.680] Ah, yes. [10:45.720 --> 10:46.200] Okay. [10:46.560 --> 10:51.240] Well, the thing that I think is so great about all this is that it's look, it [10:51.240 --> 10:54.960] looks to me like this is not a political situation. [10:55.240 --> 10:59.320] This is straight up real life in your face. [10:59.320 --> 11:03.440] The people are tired of the banksters and they're not going to put up with it [11:03.440 --> 11:03.840] anymore. [11:03.840 --> 11:09.800] The people are finally identifying who the real problem, who the real problem [11:09.800 --> 11:13.960] is, who the real problems are, the banksters themselves, and they're going [11:13.960 --> 11:17.720] after them and they're arresting them and they're issuing international arrest [11:17.720 --> 11:23.280] warrants and they're getting lawsuits filed in courts around the world and [11:23.280 --> 11:27.040] they're getting subpoenas that they have to list their assets so their assets [11:27.040 --> 11:29.120] can be frozen and things like this. [11:29.120 --> 11:33.520] And so to me, this is highly encouraging because it is, you know, like this, [11:33.560 --> 11:38.520] this one bankster says that he, he's not going to take part in what appears to [11:38.520 --> 11:43.040] him to be a play, uh, you know, just to appease the Icelandic people. [11:43.280 --> 11:44.280] I don't think so. [11:44.320 --> 11:46.320] This is not, uh, politics here. [11:46.360 --> 11:48.160] This is not a dog and pony show. [11:48.200 --> 11:54.040] This is not some sort of play act to appease the Icelandic people. [11:54.040 --> 11:58.040] They, they've identified the real problems and they're going after them and [11:58.040 --> 11:59.440] they're arresting them and suing them. [11:59.440 --> 12:04.520] So I think that the whole world should take note of this situation and follow [12:04.520 --> 12:05.120] suit. [12:09.960 --> 12:10.560] Comments? [12:11.800 --> 12:17.920] Oh, I got lots of, I would sure hope that, that this is the beginning. [12:17.920 --> 12:23.560] Now, while you were talking about it, I was thinking that I was hoping that other [12:23.560 --> 12:30.360] countries will look at this and get the idea because the, you know, what we hear [12:30.360 --> 12:37.640] about, uh, was it Greece where they're looking at a revolution that the public [12:37.640 --> 12:44.080] around the world is really getting upset and many United States, I would very [12:44.080 --> 12:49.000] much like to see the perpetrators, the ones that's skimming all the money off [12:49.000 --> 12:55.040] the top, be the ones standing before a court of our, a jury of our peers. [12:55.080 --> 12:59.320] Yeah, like Goldman Sachs and, and, and that's going to be a very difficult [12:59.320 --> 13:05.160] situation when, when the entire White House, uh, cabinet is stacked with [13:05.160 --> 13:09.360] gold, former Goldman Sachs members, employees and execs, and now they're [13:09.360 --> 13:16.560] trying to appoint yet another Goldman Sachs entity, Kagan to the Supreme Court. [13:16.560 --> 13:19.640] I mean, pretty much it's just like Goldman Sachs is going to be running the country. [13:19.880 --> 13:23.640] I mean, in an, in your face manner, they always have been apparently behind the [13:23.640 --> 13:28.720] scenes, but, but yeah, we, we have to start filing lawsuits and arresting these [13:28.720 --> 13:31.520] people who are really the culprits here. [13:33.760 --> 13:37.760] It would be nice if we get a shot at this guy and they put him on the Supreme [13:37.760 --> 13:43.000] Court, and then we pull him back into litigation, uh, that would be a good way [13:43.000 --> 13:46.120] to pull him back off the Supreme Court for bad behavior. [13:46.160 --> 13:46.680] Which guy? [13:47.680 --> 13:51.080] The one they're trying to appoint from Goldman Sachs you just referenced. [13:51.080 --> 13:55.040] Well, they're, well, they're trying to appoint a woman from Goldman Sachs right [13:55.040 --> 13:58.920] now, but I don't know if there, if there's yet another appointee from Goldman [13:58.920 --> 14:00.560] Sachs that I haven't heard of. [14:00.560 --> 14:06.000] I was talking about this, this, uh, Alina Kagan, I believe is her, I forgot her [14:06.000 --> 14:08.000] first name, but I'm talking about... [14:08.000 --> 14:11.760] I was referencing the one you were, uh, referencing. [14:11.800 --> 14:12.120] Okay. [14:12.120 --> 14:12.320] Yeah. [14:12.320 --> 14:13.520] I was talking about Kagan. [14:13.600 --> 14:13.920] Yeah. [14:13.920 --> 14:16.480] She's, she's the, she's the big bad one. [14:16.480 --> 14:18.960] She's, she wants to ban books. [14:19.000 --> 14:23.360] She wants to end free speech and, and abolish the second amendment. [14:23.360 --> 14:25.040] I mean, she's very open about it too. [14:25.880 --> 14:27.320] And she's former Goldman Sachs. [14:27.320 --> 14:27.680] So. [14:29.360 --> 14:35.040] Well, I don't know if any of you have ever seen what, uh, a diagram of a [14:35.040 --> 14:42.080] rabbit warren looks like, uh, but it's basically a underground city. [14:42.080 --> 14:47.200] It's got tunnels going every which way, exits all over the place, both open and [14:47.200 --> 14:48.840] hidden and so on and so forth. [14:50.120 --> 14:55.160] And for those that think these bankers by giving a list of any assets whatsoever [14:55.160 --> 15:00.040] have not planned for this contingency so that the exits they need for all of what [15:00.040 --> 15:05.120] they've stolen does not have a way out when we start plugging up the holes to [15:05.160 --> 15:14.840] gas the warren think again, uh, because even though they're being caught, uh, [15:15.400 --> 15:17.120] you've got to have something to prove. [15:17.120 --> 15:18.280] They did what they did. [15:18.280 --> 15:22.200] And usually that involves having to have your hands on some of what they took, at [15:22.200 --> 15:23.440] least to make it stick. [15:23.440 --> 15:30.120] And that's the problem I foresee coming down the pike. [15:32.480 --> 15:32.920] Indeed. [15:32.920 --> 15:36.520] Well, we'll learn more as this lawsuit unfolds and these criminal charges [15:36.560 --> 15:45.120] unfold and, and I agree, they, they likely have set up a many escape routes [15:45.120 --> 15:48.840] for themselves, but it's only going to be a matter of time. [15:48.840 --> 15:55.200] I mean, they can't, they can't, uh, they can't figure out every single way of [15:55.200 --> 15:58.880] escape there, there's just, eventually they're going to have to be brought to [15:58.880 --> 15:59.560] justice. [15:59.960 --> 16:02.920] I mean, because they're just so arrogant, they're just so arrogant. [16:02.920 --> 16:05.440] They think they don't need to go to these great lengths. [16:05.440 --> 16:08.160] They think that they'll, they'll never get caught there. [16:08.160 --> 16:11.840] Their arrogance will be the downfall in the end, right? [16:11.840 --> 16:14.240] There's one guy, he doesn't, what's the big deal? [16:14.240 --> 16:16.040] What, what's all the hubbub? [16:16.040 --> 16:17.360] What's all the brouhaha? [16:17.360 --> 16:22.200] You know, all these arrests and custodies, I mean, it's just not necessary. [16:22.200 --> 16:24.120] Where can't we work this out in a gentlemanly manner? [16:24.120 --> 16:27.920] No, we can't work this out in a gentlemanly manner because you guys [16:28.080 --> 16:30.320] looted Iceland altogether. [16:30.640 --> 16:35.480] They, they, they literally, the owners and the executives of the bank, the [16:35.480 --> 16:40.080] shareholders and the executives of the bank, conspired with the auditors to [16:40.080 --> 16:41.600] basically rob the bank. [16:41.880 --> 16:46.160] It was a total inside job, so to speak, and it crashed the Iceland economy. [16:46.160 --> 16:48.840] So, no, there's not going to be a gentleman way out of this. [16:53.080 --> 16:55.600] I think they're totally arrogant, but they've already been caught. [16:55.760 --> 16:56.800] I hope it sticks. [16:57.360 --> 16:58.480] Anyway, we'll be right back. [17:02.680 --> 17:07.040] Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals [17:07.040 --> 17:09.520] and coin supplies in the Austin metro area. [17:09.960 --> 17:11.680] We also ship worldwide. [17:12.000 --> 17:15.200] We are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive [17:15.200 --> 17:17.240] prices on your coin and metals purchases. [17:17.600 --> 17:22.360] We buy, sell, trade and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, [17:22.560 --> 17:24.360] precious metals and scrap gold. [17:24.640 --> 17:28.040] We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. [17:28.280 --> 17:30.640] We offer daily specials on coins and bullion. [17:30.840 --> 17:36.080] We're located at 5448 Barnett road, suite three, and we're open Monday [17:36.080 --> 17:40.600] through Friday, 10 AM to 6 PM Saturdays, 10 AM to 5 PM. [17:40.840 --> 17:44.600] You're welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call [17:44.600 --> 17:49.120] 512-646-6440 with any questions. [17:49.560 --> 17:54.040] Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on rule of law radio or 90.1 FM. [17:54.040 --> 18:15.040] That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440. [18:25.040 --> 18:30.040] We ask the question, look where we can come. [18:30.040 --> 18:34.560] They don't have an answer, so they sleep inside. [18:34.560 --> 18:37.840] They might talk about issues, but we don't know how the war will end. [18:37.840 --> 18:39.000] Take it easy. [18:39.400 --> 18:43.440] They might talk way too politically and then get in at the number. [18:43.440 --> 18:48.320] We got them not standing up and fight and fight for the freedom and the [18:48.320 --> 18:53.480] freedom and they let them love slavery and get hand out to the government. [18:53.480 --> 18:57.920] We ask the question, look where we can come. [18:57.920 --> 19:04.920] They don't have an answer, so they sleep inside. [19:04.920 --> 19:09.920] We ask the question, look where we can come. [19:09.920 --> 19:14.400] They don't have an answer, so they sleep inside. [19:14.400 --> 19:26.400] They might tear you, they might tear me Lord, they might tear the country. [19:26.400 --> 19:30.680] Well, not if we have something to say about it and we are saying something [19:30.680 --> 19:35.880] about it and we are doing something about it, regardless of the fact that [19:35.880 --> 19:42.320] they're trying to force off this fairness doctrine and make people put [19:42.320 --> 19:47.480] links to CNN on their websites and stuff like that, which I will never do. [19:47.480 --> 19:48.240] Give me a break. [19:50.440 --> 19:52.960] That's Cass Sunstein trying to push that off. [19:52.960 --> 19:58.360] But at any rate, now Randy and Eddie want to discuss this case, [19:58.360 --> 20:02.400] Hibble versus the Sixth Circuit. [20:02.400 --> 20:04.480] Is that what it is, guys? [20:04.960 --> 20:06.480] Sixth Judicial District. [20:06.480 --> 20:08.760] Sixth Judicial District. [20:08.760 --> 20:10.520] So what is this case about? [20:10.520 --> 20:15.200] Let me read the intro in Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion. [20:15.200 --> 20:20.840] The Nevada law at issue in this case imposes a narrow duty to speak [20:20.840 --> 20:23.840] upon a specific class of individuals. [20:23.840 --> 20:29.920] The class includes only those persons detained by a police officer under [20:29.920 --> 20:35.080] circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is [20:35.080 --> 20:41.520] committing, or is about to commit a crime. [20:41.520 --> 20:45.760] Persons who are in, who are in other words, targets of a criminal [20:45.760 --> 20:50.520] investigation, the statute therefore is directed not at the public at large, [20:50.520 --> 20:56.680] but rather at a highly selected group inherently suspect of criminal activities. [20:56.680 --> 21:01.360] So that's the, that's what the case goes to. [21:01.360 --> 21:08.000] And even in Texas law, this is the same thing as in Texas law, they're not [21:08.000 --> 21:12.400] allowed to simply ask you to identify yourself and this case goes to [21:12.400 --> 21:19.160] identification, but they can ask you to identify yourself if they have [21:19.160 --> 21:23.240] reasonable probable cause to believe that you have committed or about to [21:23.240 --> 21:28.840] commit or are committing or about to commit a crime. [21:28.840 --> 21:34.560] Well the Texas statute as far as I could tell is that you have to be detained. [21:34.560 --> 21:38.680] It used to be that you actually had to be arrested in order for them to [21:38.680 --> 21:42.440] demand your ID, but then they changed it, I believe it was last year to [21:42.440 --> 21:46.640] being detained, so it's, it's not just a matter of well they have, they [21:46.640 --> 21:49.600] might have reasonable probable cause to believe that you might have [21:49.600 --> 21:54.240] committed a crime or are about to or some kind of vague nebuloso like that, [21:54.240 --> 21:57.160] but you actually have to be detained. [21:57.160 --> 22:03.800] So is this something new in Texas law or what are you referring to here? [22:03.800 --> 22:07.360] Because that's not what the statute says. [22:07.360 --> 22:10.680] It's not new, that's exactly what the Texas statute says. [22:10.680 --> 22:14.520] Okay well it says, it uses the word detained. [22:14.520 --> 22:20.720] Word detained, I can find no legal definition that differentiates [22:20.720 --> 22:28.120] detention from arrest, and this goes on to say that if you're [22:28.120 --> 22:35.400] substantially restricted at your liberty, then they have to have probable cause. [22:35.400 --> 22:40.640] And it goes to the same thing, if the officer has probable cause to believe [22:40.640 --> 22:44.320] you committed a crime, he can ask you to identify yourself. [22:44.320 --> 22:47.040] But he has to arrest you or detain you first. [22:47.040 --> 22:52.840] Well that's the only way he can, if he's asking you questions you are [22:52.840 --> 23:01.400] essentially under detention unless if you, if you ask him can you leave [23:01.400 --> 23:03.760] and he says no, you're under detention. [23:03.760 --> 23:07.640] Well see that's where the fine line goes because just because a cop is asking you [23:07.640 --> 23:09.960] questions that means you're automatically under arrest. [23:09.960 --> 23:14.400] I don't think so, that's circular reasoning, that's circular logic. [23:14.400 --> 23:19.880] The statute does not go to whether you are under arrest or detained. [23:19.880 --> 23:25.480] It goes to whether or not the officer has reasonable probable cause to believe. [23:25.480 --> 23:28.040] Okay I'm going to pull up the statute because the last time I read it, [23:28.040 --> 23:30.840] it used specifically the word detained. [23:30.840 --> 23:36.680] It didn't just say that an officer has, can ask you for your I.D. if you have [23:36.680 --> 23:41.480] reasonable probable cause to believe because that's just something in the [23:41.480 --> 23:45.600] officer's own heart or in his own mind, in his own thoughts. [23:45.600 --> 23:50.200] I mean just because a cop comes up and asks you questions or wants to talk to you, [23:50.200 --> 23:52.640] I mean does that mean that you're automatically under arrest? [23:52.640 --> 23:58.480] So then I would ask am I under arrest and if I'm not under arrest then bye bye. [23:58.480 --> 24:03.640] Because otherwise it just equals a show your paper society where the police can [24:03.640 --> 24:07.800] just walk up to you and ask you for your I.D. and ask you whatever you want and [24:07.800 --> 24:11.440] well just because the police are asking you questions, well that automatically [24:11.440 --> 24:13.240] means you are detained and arrested. [24:13.240 --> 24:14.000] I don't think so. [24:14.000 --> 24:18.760] That doesn't make any sense. [24:18.760 --> 24:22.680] That was not the issue we were trying to talk about. [24:22.680 --> 24:24.760] Okay well it's an important issue to me. [24:24.760 --> 24:26.720] I wanted to talk about it. [24:26.720 --> 24:28.160] Okay then let's talk about that issue. [24:28.160 --> 24:35.560] Okay well sounds like your phone is ringing. [24:35.560 --> 24:36.800] He's real popular. [24:36.800 --> 24:39.360] I can tell. [24:39.360 --> 24:43.840] Yeah but let's see. [24:43.840 --> 24:50.480] Yeah the current statute now states 38.02 subsection A, a person commits an offense [24:50.480 --> 24:55.160] if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence, address or date of birth [24:55.160 --> 24:59.880] to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. [24:59.880 --> 25:02.680] So it does still say he must be lawfully arrested. [25:02.680 --> 25:06.160] That's what I thought. [25:06.160 --> 25:09.400] It doesn't mean that just because he asks you a question that means you've [25:09.400 --> 25:11.600] automatically been arrested. [25:11.600 --> 25:12.720] That's exactly what I thought. [25:12.720 --> 25:14.120] Thank you Eddie. [25:14.120 --> 25:19.400] Yeah okay so the state statute, Texas statute, it didn't mention detention. [25:19.400 --> 25:26.760] They literally have to arrest you first because that's what the officers always [25:26.760 --> 25:31.440] claim that they can, if they're detaining you then you have a duty to answer. [25:31.440 --> 25:33.920] But that sounded like you had to be arrested. [25:33.920 --> 25:35.680] That's exactly what it says. [25:35.680 --> 25:39.920] Who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. [25:39.920 --> 25:45.720] Now once again just that statute alone and I don't mean to get us off the case here [25:45.720 --> 25:50.720] but just in reference to it, that statute alone right there once again creates a [25:50.720 --> 26:01.360] completely separate level of due process for a Class C misdemeanor case over any [26:01.360 --> 26:09.240] other crime because you are automatically arrested in a traffic stop the moment the [26:09.240 --> 26:11.760] cop pulls up behind you and turns on his lights. [26:11.760 --> 26:15.760] So that means he can come up and demand anything he wants from you. [26:15.760 --> 26:22.600] No the statute only allows him to demand that you identify yourself and that's all [26:22.600 --> 26:23.880] this goes to. [26:23.880 --> 26:28.920] I understand that but the point being that that's information he can use against [26:28.920 --> 26:33.920] you for the purpose of the traffic stop and now they're saying you have to give [26:33.920 --> 26:37.680] it to him just because he turned his lights on. [26:37.680 --> 26:44.480] Okay how is it that your name can be considered to incriminate you? [26:44.480 --> 26:48.040] Your name attaches to all the other records they contain whether or not your [26:48.040 --> 26:52.520] license is suspended, whether or not you're on a DUI, any of those other things [26:52.520 --> 26:55.440] that can prove to be harmful to you. [26:55.440 --> 26:59.560] That's not what the protection goes to. [26:59.560 --> 27:06.760] The protection goes to giving information that can incriminate you. [27:06.760 --> 27:09.080] How can your identity incriminate? [27:09.080 --> 27:13.640] Incriminate or implicate, either way okay. [27:13.640 --> 27:19.800] So your identity, how does it implicate you in a crime? [27:19.800 --> 27:25.200] Okay take for instance Randy, until they get your name they can't run a warrant [27:25.200 --> 27:27.120] check on you can they? [27:27.120 --> 27:28.120] Right. [27:28.120 --> 27:33.840] And once they do get your name and run a warrant check and one pops up what happens? [27:33.840 --> 27:35.000] Different issue. [27:35.000 --> 27:36.000] Not a different issue. [27:36.000 --> 27:39.480] Different, you're answering a different question. [27:39.480 --> 27:42.160] How does that implicate you in the crime? [27:42.160 --> 27:48.600] Well I think that that is, if I could interject here, I disagree with the question itself [27:48.600 --> 27:54.760] because the question shouldn't be well what have you got to hide? [27:54.760 --> 27:58.560] How could telling the cop your name hurt you? [27:58.560 --> 27:59.960] What could be the damage in that? [27:59.960 --> 28:05.040] I mean that goes to the line of thinking of well if you're innocent and you ain't got [28:05.040 --> 28:07.760] nothing to hide, well just bear it all baby. [28:07.760 --> 28:10.280] Well I'm sorry, no that's not the way it is. [28:10.280 --> 28:14.680] That's not what my forefathers fought and died for for this country to set up this kind [28:14.680 --> 28:16.920] of judicial system. [28:16.920 --> 28:18.880] It's called right to privacy. [28:18.880 --> 28:23.160] You don't get to even find out that kind of information about me. [28:23.160 --> 28:29.000] You don't get to ask me one question about my identity or anything else unless you can [28:29.000 --> 28:32.840] show some probable cause here pal. [28:32.840 --> 28:38.800] It's not a matter of I should be on the constant defense and well what have I got to hide and [28:38.800 --> 28:42.320] if I'm innocent well then I should just tell you whatever you want to know. [28:42.320 --> 28:44.440] No that ain't the way it is. [28:44.440 --> 28:48.760] I'm sorry that's not the country that my forefathers died for. [28:48.760 --> 28:55.720] Unless you have to have some specific authority to even ask me that question buddy. [28:55.720 --> 28:57.560] That's the mindset. [28:57.560 --> 29:01.440] That's the way the judicial system and the legal system is set up. [29:01.440 --> 29:08.680] So I think that you asked an incorrect question here if that's the proper terminology. [29:08.680 --> 29:10.640] Understand. [29:10.640 --> 29:16.040] You're speaking to the choir here but all I'm trying to do is focus the question. [29:16.040 --> 29:22.560] I was in Penn Station today in New York and there were two guys in military uniforms with [29:22.560 --> 29:31.880] pistols and I went up and asked them are those pistols loaded and they said yes they are. [29:31.880 --> 29:36.120] I said who the hell are you guys. [29:36.120 --> 29:38.280] We're not allowed to identify ourselves. [29:38.280 --> 29:44.680] Oh is that a fact and then one of them asked me to identify will you identify yourself [29:44.680 --> 29:48.080] and I said no. [29:48.080 --> 29:49.080] He didn't pursue. [29:49.080 --> 29:54.680] I agree with you but just when we come back I want to focus the question so we focus the [29:54.680 --> 29:55.680] issue. [29:55.680 --> 30:01.600] Okay well I don't think that they should be allowed to ask at all. [30:01.600 --> 30:06.560] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM but finding things on the internet isn't so [30:06.560 --> 30:10.200] easy and neither is finding like minded people to share it with. [30:10.200 --> 30:13.200] Oh well I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then. [30:13.200 --> 30:14.200] Brave New Books? [30:14.200 --> 30:15.200] Yes. [30:15.200 --> 30:19.560] Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, [30:19.560 --> 30:21.560] Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin. [30:21.560 --> 30:24.960] They even stock inner food, Berkey products and Calvin Soaps. [30:24.960 --> 30:27.880] There's no way a place like that exists. [30:27.880 --> 30:29.360] Go check it out for yourself. [30:29.360 --> 30:33.720] It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT. [30:33.720 --> 30:37.440] By UT there's never anywhere to park down there. [30:37.440 --> 30:42.320] Actually they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking [30:42.320 --> 30:45.360] facility just behind the bookstore. [30:45.360 --> 30:48.320] It does exist but when are they open? [30:48.320 --> 30:53.120] Monday through Saturday 11 AM to 9 PM and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. [30:53.120 --> 31:02.040] So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com. [31:02.040 --> 31:05.200] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [31:05.200 --> 31:11.960] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4 CD course [31:11.960 --> 31:15.880] that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. [31:15.880 --> 31:19.720] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [31:19.720 --> 31:24.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [31:24.000 --> 31:28.840] Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. [31:28.840 --> 31:35.640] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [31:35.640 --> 31:40.160] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the [31:40.160 --> 31:43.920] principles and practices that control our American courts. [31:43.920 --> 31:50.640] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [31:50.640 --> 31:52.960] pro se tactics and much more. [31:52.960 --> 32:11.960] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ. [32:11.960 --> 32:30.160] As always, thank you. [32:30.160 --> 32:46.160] When you're gonna stop abuse, you have to have power [32:46.160 --> 32:52.160] So please Mr. Mack, let each officer have to abuse the power [32:52.160 --> 32:58.160] Send a request to the leader, the captain of all officers [32:58.160 --> 33:03.160] Tell them to uphold the law, at least don't abuse their power [33:03.160 --> 33:09.160] The beat and the beat and the cheese and the heat and the light every hour [33:09.160 --> 33:14.160] So Mr. Officer, please stop abusing your power [33:14.160 --> 33:20.160] You pulled me over, and tell me to be silent, Mr. [33:20.160 --> 33:25.160] I need to speak to my lawyer, Mr. Officer [33:25.160 --> 33:30.160] I feel like you and the judge, you're finding me guilty sir [33:30.160 --> 33:53.160] So when you're gonna stop abuse, you have power [33:53.160 --> 33:56.160] So Mr. Officer, please stop abusing his power [33:56.160 --> 33:58.160] Please Mr. Mack, let each officer [33:58.160 --> 34:01.160] So they could understand they should uphold the law [34:01.160 --> 34:04.160] Instead of abusing the power [34:04.160 --> 34:07.160] You know they act like they're judging you and me [34:07.160 --> 34:23.160] Okay, we are back, and just to get back to this question of how could it harm you or anything like that just to give up your name, I mean from the perspective that I'm coming from, I'm just not even going to qualify that question [34:23.160 --> 34:37.160] The law enforcement by statute, by principle, by common law, by going all the way back to the Magna Carta, my forefathers fought and died for this country on both sides of my family [34:37.160 --> 34:45.160] My great great grandfather was in the battle, in the war for Texas independence, he was captured by the Mexican army in the battle of San Jacinto [34:45.160 --> 34:53.160] He dug his way out with a spoon with his compadres and married my great great grandmother later [34:53.160 --> 34:56.160] I'm sorry, I'm not even going to qualify that question [34:56.160 --> 35:08.160] You have to show probable cause that I've committed a crime and rest my ass before you are allowed to even ask me one single question, period, end of story, that's just the way it is [35:08.160 --> 35:18.160] I'm not going to get caught up in justifying how giving my name could or could not hurt me, I'm not even going to go there [35:18.160 --> 35:21.160] That is, no, I don't think so [35:21.160 --> 35:27.160] So anyway, guys, what is y'all's take on this? [35:27.160 --> 35:32.160] I was trying to frame the legal position, I don't agree with it [35:32.160 --> 35:39.160] I was just trying to get in a frame what these guys are actually ruling [35:39.160 --> 35:52.160] And they're saying that in this statute that it authorizes a police officer if he has probable cause to request the person identify themselves [35:52.160 --> 35:58.160] Wait a minute, wait a minute, I thought Eddie just read the statute and it says that the person has to be arrested [35:58.160 --> 36:03.160] That's the Texas statute, the one Randy's referring to is the one in Nevada [36:03.160 --> 36:08.160] Okay, okay, okay, Nevada statute, so we need to look up the Nevada statute then [36:08.160 --> 36:20.160] Yes, so it appears as though, he's framed the question, but I haven't had time to read the whole case, but it appears as though they asked for more than identity [36:20.160 --> 36:27.160] Eddie, did this guy simply refuse to identify himself or was there more? [36:27.160 --> 36:34.160] The cop kept asking him to produce, it was a deputy sheriff, and he kept asking him to produce some identification [36:34.160 --> 36:42.160] And the man said no, he never asked him to tell him his name, which is all he had to do under the Nevada statute was tell him his name [36:42.160 --> 36:49.160] But the deputy kept insisting that he was going to give him some sort of physical identification [36:49.160 --> 36:56.160] They have a video posted of it on the website where this guy started this entire suit going all the way to the Supreme Court [36:56.160 --> 37:03.160] There's an actual video from the patrol car on the site that you can see through the whole thing [37:03.160 --> 37:12.160] And 11 times the deputy says, give me some ID, give me some ID, but he never asked the guy to tell him his name [37:12.160 --> 37:19.160] And allegedly the reason the deputy came there was because he said that he had gotten a call about a domestic disturbance [37:19.160 --> 37:27.160] That there were two people driving down the highway in such and such vehicle and that the man that was in it had hit the woman that was in it [37:27.160 --> 37:36.160] And someone had called in and reported it, yet when the deputy comes up, he does not go to the female that's in the driver's seat [37:36.160 --> 37:44.160] The 17-year-old daughter, and ask her if there's a problem or if she's okay or she's been injured or she's even been assaulted in any way [37:44.160 --> 37:52.160] He immediately just jumps out, starts looking at the dad standing on the side of the road and demanding identification from him [37:52.160 --> 38:04.160] So right off the bat, the officer's already in violation of the statute because he never informed this gentleman why he was wanting the information [38:04.160 --> 38:13.160] He just kept demanding it, and when he does finally say something, the guy asks him and says, what did you want me to identify myself for? [38:13.160 --> 38:20.160] And the officer says, because I'm investigating. He says, well, what are you investigating? I'm investigating an investigation [38:20.160 --> 38:25.160] This is the literacy level of the guy with the gun, okay? [38:25.160 --> 38:46.160] Yeah, but that's not the legal issue. What duty does the officer have to inform a suspect of the officer's probable cause? [38:46.160 --> 38:51.160] He may not have to give him, well, actually, I disagree. He does have to tell [38:51.160 --> 38:55.160] No, no, I wasn't making a statement. I was asking a question. What duty does he have? [38:55.160 --> 39:06.160] But I'm saying that, you know, the way that I read the Constitution, as the servant, the servant has the duty to inform the master of everything they're doing and why [39:06.160 --> 39:09.160] To show that there's a reason for it [39:09.160 --> 39:13.160] Where is that duty imposed? [39:13.160 --> 39:23.160] It's imposed by implication in the Constitution. See, the problem is, in my opinion, what the courts have done [39:23.160 --> 39:29.160] Is they have taken law enforcement officers and every other government official in their official capacities [39:29.160 --> 39:37.160] And they have placed them on equal footing or above the people, and that's wrong [39:37.160 --> 39:47.160] As a public servant, their duty is to keep us informed so that we can do what we need to do as citizens and as a society [39:47.160 --> 39:54.160] To be polite to one another and interact with one another in a reasonable manner [39:54.160 --> 40:02.160] I understand and appreciate the position, but if we're going to get this straightened out [40:02.160 --> 40:07.160] We need to really find the place where the problem lies [40:07.160 --> 40:13.160] Because otherwise we're bantering around symptoms and not the cause [40:13.160 --> 40:18.160] And I tend to agree, you know, I don't want to be messed with [40:18.160 --> 40:23.160] I don't want them asking me any questions, I don't want them talking to me [40:23.160 --> 40:27.160] Unless they have reasonable probable cause [40:27.160 --> 40:32.160] And I want to know that they have reasonable probable cause [40:32.160 --> 40:35.160] And this is in accordance with Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill [40:35.160 --> 40:37.160] This would be if you were in Nevada, right, Randy? [40:37.160 --> 40:42.160] Because if you were in Texas, they would have to arrest you first [40:42.160 --> 40:51.160] Yes. Well, anywhere I go, as a rule under Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill [40:51.160 --> 40:58.160] I have a right to determine the authority of the person claiming official capacity [40:58.160 --> 41:05.160] If I fail to do that, I yield to his authority at my peril [41:05.160 --> 41:08.160] And I'm not crazy about doing that [41:08.160 --> 41:17.160] Like today when I was harassing these guys that turned out to be from the National Guard [41:17.160 --> 41:22.160] You know, I told them, you know, the guy said, is there a problem? [41:22.160 --> 41:26.160] I said, well, yeah, Posse Comitatus [41:26.160 --> 41:34.160] You're standing around in amongst the public here with loaded weapons on your hip [41:34.160 --> 41:38.160] And that always terrifies me [41:38.160 --> 41:43.160] Because military looks at me like I'm a civilian [41:43.160 --> 41:47.160] And I assure you, Bubba, I am no civilian [41:47.160 --> 41:51.160] And neither are these other guys, folks out here, they're not civilians either [41:51.160 --> 41:53.160] This is not an occupied country [41:53.160 --> 41:59.160] And I want to know what you're doing out here amongst my peers with loaded pistols on your hips [41:59.160 --> 42:04.160] It turns out later they're National Guard [42:04.160 --> 42:08.160] They're weekend warriors [42:08.160 --> 42:11.160] That should terrify all of us [42:11.160 --> 42:16.160] And he asked me if I'd identify myself and I told him no [42:16.160 --> 42:19.160] And he didn't ask again, he knew [42:19.160 --> 42:21.160] You know, he took this step [42:21.160 --> 42:26.160] Well, he knows because somebody's not standing there telling him, make him show you [42:26.160 --> 42:27.160] Yeah [42:27.160 --> 42:30.160] Would he have become a robot had someone done that? [42:30.160 --> 42:34.160] His problem was there were real policemen there [42:34.160 --> 42:42.160] And I missed my train coming to Albany, the first one, because I was talking to a real policeman [42:42.160 --> 42:44.160] And I didn't get to this question [42:44.160 --> 42:55.160] I wanted him to ask him what he thought of them having weekend warrior National Guard down here with pistols on their hips [42:55.160 --> 42:59.160] You know, I talked to him about it, but he never answered that question [42:59.160 --> 43:02.160] It's just the way the conversation went [43:02.160 --> 43:07.160] So I told him, if I need someone with a pistol, I want a police officer [43:07.160 --> 43:10.160] Because you know who I am [43:10.160 --> 43:14.160] That you're the police officer and I'm the citizen and you understand that [43:14.160 --> 43:22.160] These guys, they think they're the conquering army and we're the civilian population [43:22.160 --> 43:25.160] Besides the weekend warriors, they don't know what the heck they're doing anyway [43:25.160 --> 43:29.160] I'd be afraid they'd shoot me just because they don't know what they're doing [43:29.160 --> 43:37.160] But I talked for quite a while with this guy and I was really hoping he would call into the show [43:37.160 --> 43:39.160] I gave him the number [43:39.160 --> 43:44.160] You will like to talk to this New York police officer [43:44.160 --> 43:48.160] He will give you a confidence in the police you didn't have [43:48.160 --> 43:54.160] When we get back, there's a section out of the United States Constitution I want to discuss with you on this issue [43:54.160 --> 43:57.160] Okay, good [43:57.160 --> 44:00.160] We'll be right back [44:27.160 --> 44:28.160] You'll ever have [44:57.160 --> 45:12.160] If you did not have any problem [45:12.160 --> 45:14.160] Where you gonna look for one [45:14.160 --> 45:18.160] If you could not wait any bout too long [45:18.160 --> 45:20.160] Would your purpose test be done [45:20.160 --> 45:27.160] Would you stand by the soldier or warrior up low scuffle and keep the peace [45:27.160 --> 45:30.160] All they're doing is misunderstanding [45:30.160 --> 45:32.160] Somebody calls the police [45:32.160 --> 45:35.160] Watching the spots fly [45:35.160 --> 45:44.160] Watching the spots fly [45:44.160 --> 45:46.160] Watching the spots fly [45:46.160 --> 45:50.160] We are back, this is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio [45:50.160 --> 45:57.160] And right now we're discussing this case on failure to identify on this particular thing [45:57.160 --> 46:03.160] And when we went off, there was something I wanted to ask Randy that's straight out of the Constitution [46:03.160 --> 46:06.160] This is Article 4, Section 1 [46:06.160 --> 46:10.160] Now you know when you go in and you file paperwork in courts and all this [46:10.160 --> 46:17.160] They're very insistent that you only use law from that particular state when you're trying to represent your case [46:17.160 --> 46:24.160] Unless there is controlling law from either higher up in the food chain so to speak [46:24.160 --> 46:31.160] Or there's no case law available except what you get from outside the state on the particular subject [46:31.160 --> 46:35.160] The way they've got it organized is pretty stupid [46:35.160 --> 46:37.160] And here's why I say that, okay? [46:37.160 --> 46:43.160] Article 4, Section 1, United States or Constitution of the United States [46:43.160 --> 46:54.160] Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state [46:54.160 --> 47:05.160] And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof [47:05.160 --> 47:20.160] Now that right there says to me that all of the states must abide by the court cases, the laws, and everything else that each state puts into place [47:20.160 --> 47:26.160] It protects the citizens in their travels that are from that individual state [47:26.160 --> 47:34.160] Just as the rules from another state protect their citizen when they come within someone else's state or some other state [47:34.160 --> 47:36.160] Okay? [47:36.160 --> 47:45.160] And if there's case law in one state that proves your point in a case and says exactly what you need it to say to be on point [47:45.160 --> 47:50.160] And show your point of view and help you out, you should be allowed to use it [47:50.160 --> 47:55.160] This section of the Constitution says yes, you can [47:55.160 --> 48:15.160] So who and why was there a hierarchy created that allows them to throw out case law from other cases and declare it of no force and effect in determining the adjudication of your particular issue? [48:15.160 --> 48:23.160] Because it would appear to me that that is directly in conflict with the Federal Constitution [48:23.160 --> 48:27.160] Now what would that mean in a case such as the one we're discussing? [48:27.160 --> 48:32.160] Well, that means Mr. Havel could have relied on the Texas statute to say I don't have to do that [48:32.160 --> 48:38.160] Unless you've actually arrested me, I don't have to tell you squat [48:38.160 --> 48:40.160] They pull you over for a speeding ticket [48:40.160 --> 48:44.160] I'm sorry, I'm going to use the Montana statute that says there are no speed limits [48:44.160 --> 48:51.160] So unless I've actually harmed somebody, get out of my face [48:51.160 --> 48:59.160] This goes back to what I said my original belief on why this exists in the Constitution is there to begin with [48:59.160 --> 49:11.160] And that is the citizens of the several states of the Union were never meant to have to guess about whether or not they were violating a particular law in a particular place [49:11.160 --> 49:17.160] Because they didn't know anything about it when they went from one state to another [49:17.160 --> 49:23.160] It was meant so that the playing field for the people was equal no matter where they went [49:23.160 --> 49:33.160] They always knew what the law required because every state must require the same thing in relation to the people [49:33.160 --> 49:41.160] Now they can write all the individual laws they want about the things they create, corporations and all that other stuff [49:41.160 --> 49:49.160] But when it comes to us, this is where our authority comes in to say you are my public servant [49:49.160 --> 49:58.160] I ask you a question, you are obligated to respond and you are obligated to do so truthfully because I'm the boss [49:58.160 --> 50:04.160] And if you lie to me, I'm going to fire you or hold you accountable in some other manner [50:04.160 --> 50:10.160] I have the right to know because you work for me [50:10.160 --> 50:16.160] I'm looking at Wikipedia, full faith and credit clause [50:16.160 --> 50:18.160] Let me read you what it says here [50:18.160 --> 50:26.160] Full faith and credit clause, the familiar name used to refer to Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution addresses [50:26.160 --> 50:34.160] The duties that states within the United States have to respect the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states [50:34.160 --> 50:46.160] According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws, i.e. legislature measures and common law [50:46.160 --> 50:50.160] As compared to the credit owed to judgments [50:50.160 --> 50:56.160] Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws in other states [50:56.160 --> 51:04.160] At present, it is widely agreed that this clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision [51:04.160 --> 51:09.160] Although this clause of the Constitution was once interpreted differently [51:09.160 --> 51:16.160] 28 U.S.C. 1738, such acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof so authenticated [51:16.160 --> 51:26.160] shall be the same full faith and credit in every court within the U.S. and its territories and possessions as they have by law or usage [51:26.160 --> 51:32.160] in the courts of such state, territory or possession, from which they are taken [51:32.160 --> 51:41.160] Now this indicates, it's 28 U.S.C. 28, that means it's a pretty old case, it doesn't have the date here [51:41.160 --> 51:53.160] But that indicates the original intent was that in fact all of the laws of all of the states were intended to be given equal weight [51:53.160 --> 51:57.160] But that is clearly not the case today [51:57.160 --> 52:01.160] But who was given authority to change that? [52:01.160 --> 52:06.160] The Supreme Court changed that by their starry decisis [52:06.160 --> 52:12.160] Which means they have now judicially created a constitutional alteration [52:12.160 --> 52:14.160] And that's a common problem [52:14.160 --> 52:16.160] And I'd like to know what case that is [52:16.160 --> 52:20.160] It's 28 U.S.C. 1738, this is the one [52:20.160 --> 52:26.160] Wait a minute, wait a minute, you said the Supreme Court changed it by starry decisis and then you quoted a statute [52:26.160 --> 52:28.160] I don't know, 28 [52:28.160 --> 52:34.160] I quoted a case, this is a case that stated how they [52:34.160 --> 52:38.160] It's title 28 [52:38.160 --> 52:44.160] It is 1738, I'm brain dead [52:44.160 --> 52:55.160] So again, who gave the United States Congress the authority to alter the Constitution through legislation? [52:55.160 --> 52:58.160] When did that happen? [52:58.160 --> 53:02.160] Here it is, state and territory statutes and judicial proceedings [53:02.160 --> 53:05.160] I'm brain dead, I'm reading that as a court case [53:05.160 --> 53:11.160] The acts of the legislature of any state, territory or possession of the United States [53:11.160 --> 53:19.160] Or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by fixing the seal of such state, territory or possession thereto [53:19.160 --> 53:24.160] The records, judicial proceedings of any court of any state, territory or possession [53:24.160 --> 53:32.160] Or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its territories and possessions [53:32.160 --> 53:37.160] By the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed [53:37.160 --> 53:45.160] If a seal exists together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form [53:45.160 --> 53:50.160] Such acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated [53:50.160 --> 53:57.160] Shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its territories and possessions [53:57.160 --> 54:04.160] As they have by law or usage in the courts of such state, territory or possession from which they are taken [54:04.160 --> 54:13.160] This is the constitutional mandate codified into statute [54:13.160 --> 54:20.160] So it supports what the constitution says, so how does the judiciary now get away with saying [54:20.160 --> 54:23.160] You can't use that case that's irrelevant from another state [54:23.160 --> 54:30.160] Let me have a look, I'll go into Lexis and pull the annotation on that thing [54:30.160 --> 54:41.160] I mean this is where this oligarchy business of the judges thinking they decide what everything is and it's up to them entirely [54:41.160 --> 54:48.160] That's got to stop [54:48.160 --> 54:53.160] And the thing is, I tell you, these people irritate me [54:53.160 --> 55:04.160] Any one of these public servants, when they measure the worth or the value of a law or an official act by a public servant [55:04.160 --> 55:13.160] When they measure that against anything other than the words of the constitution itself and the other founding documents [55:13.160 --> 55:22.160] Which by the way people, don't forget, the constitution is not the only organic law that is applicable in America [55:22.160 --> 55:31.160] You have the Articles of Confederation, you have the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers [55:31.160 --> 55:37.160] And there is another one that's actually out there and I can't remember what it is right now [55:37.160 --> 55:46.160] But those are the actual organic laws according to the United States Congress and they are still in full force and effect [55:46.160 --> 55:50.160] I'm sorry, Declaration of Independence, that's the other one [55:50.160 --> 55:56.160] So everything that's written in those documents is law [55:56.160 --> 56:00.160] It's not just history, it is law [56:00.160 --> 56:04.160] It is the original organic law [56:04.160 --> 56:10.160] It's the foundation of all the other law that's subsequent to that [56:10.160 --> 56:14.160] And I agree, I agree with you Eddie, these people aggravate me too [56:14.160 --> 56:20.160] It's getting on my nerves because they're not performing their duty [56:20.160 --> 56:26.160] I mean some of these judges need to start getting impeached, they need to start having grand juries investigate them [56:26.160 --> 56:32.160] We've got to educate our jurors, especially grand jurors to kick the prosecutor out of the room [56:32.160 --> 56:34.160] And to start doing their own investigations [56:34.160 --> 56:41.160] We've got to route out all these incumbent Congress Critters and get some people in there that are actually going to do their job [56:41.160 --> 56:43.160] And impeach some of these judges [56:43.160 --> 56:51.160] Sometime in the next week or two at the latest, Randy and I have some things to be talking about with some folks here on the air [56:51.160 --> 56:54.160] We'll be talking to everyone about it [56:54.160 --> 56:59.160] We may have a way of doing exactly that [56:59.160 --> 57:04.160] But we'll get into detail after we've had a couple of more conversations [57:04.160 --> 57:10.160] And we'll let you folks know exactly what we're talking about here [57:10.160 --> 57:15.160] But in any case, with those organic laws being what they are and in place [57:15.160 --> 57:24.160] And the fact that these public servants, especially the Supreme Courts, are refusing to read and abide by these documents [57:24.160 --> 57:28.160] Is just further proof that America is slipping down an ever deeper hole [57:28.160 --> 57:31.160] We're going the way of the dodo people [57:31.160 --> 57:39.160] And if you doubt that, look around, get out of your stupor, wake up [57:39.160 --> 57:47.160] Because we're dissolving as fast as Obama can pull stitches out [57:47.160 --> 57:54.160] And in the meantime, people need to be hammering their senators and hammering the Senate Judiciary Committee [57:54.160 --> 58:01.160] To not confirm this Kagan to the Supreme Court [58:01.160 --> 58:09.160] And my friend Robert Moreau has a good comeback for senators who say, well, why should I bother talking to you? [58:09.160 --> 58:10.160] You're not in my district [58:10.160 --> 58:12.160] Here's what he tells them [58:12.160 --> 58:17.160] Will you take PAC money from out of your district and out of your state now, don't you? [58:17.160 --> 58:22.160] If you take money, especially PAC money from out of your district and out of your state [58:22.160 --> 58:24.160] Then you can talk to me for a while [58:24.160 --> 58:29.160] So that's what you tell these aides and these secretaries that answer the phone [58:29.160 --> 58:32.160] That try to shuffle you off saying that you're not in their district [58:32.160 --> 58:38.160] Because this Kagan, we have to do everything we can to keep her off of the Supreme Court [58:38.160 --> 58:42.160] Because she wants to abolish the First and Second Amendments altogether [58:42.160 --> 58:45.160] And that is unacceptable [58:45.160 --> 58:49.160] And we also have Tony from Illinois on the line [58:49.160 --> 58:53.160] So maybe when we get back, we'll finish up with this and we'll start taking your calls [58:53.160 --> 58:59.160] We'll be right back [59:53.160 --> 01:00:04.160] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net [01:00:04.160 --> 01:00:10.160] A new Angus Reid poll has found three quarters of people in the US would support a bill currently before Congress [01:00:10.160 --> 01:00:15.160] That would strip Americans linked to terrorist organizations of their citizenship [01:00:15.160 --> 01:00:22.160] Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani American, faces charges of terrorism and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction [01:00:22.160 --> 01:00:25.160] In the failed Times Square car bombing [01:00:25.160 --> 01:00:31.160] Arizona is threatening to cut off electricity to Los Angeles if the city doesn't rescind its order [01:00:31.160 --> 01:00:35.160] To boycott the state over Arizona's tough new immigration law [01:00:35.160 --> 01:00:40.160] Cities across California have also vowed to boycott Arizona [01:00:40.160 --> 01:00:46.160] The first oil from the BP spill has entered the loop current that will take it to Florida within six days [01:00:46.160 --> 01:00:51.160] And then up the East Coast, according to satellite images from the European Space Agency [01:00:51.160 --> 01:00:55.160] Scientists warn the turbulent loop current will mix the oil and water [01:00:55.160 --> 01:00:58.160] Making it difficult to track the oil's progress [01:00:58.160 --> 01:01:02.160] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net [01:01:02.160 --> 01:01:08.160] Big columns of smoke hung over Bangkok Thursday while security forces intermittently fired at protesters [01:01:08.160 --> 01:01:11.160] Still hunkered down in pockets of the city [01:01:11.160 --> 01:01:17.160] Stoking fears that Thailand's chronic political divides could degenerate into an even deeper conflict [01:01:17.160 --> 01:01:22.160] Thailand's conservative establishment is pitted against a rural populist movement [01:01:22.160 --> 01:01:26.160] Inspired by ousted Prime Minister Saxton Shinawatra [01:01:26.160 --> 01:01:29.160] Who supports the movement financially from abroad [01:01:29.160 --> 01:01:33.160] The Thailand government has withdrawn an offer to hold elections in November [01:01:33.160 --> 01:01:38.160] Protest leaders had demanded immediate polls to reset Thailand's political system [01:01:38.160 --> 01:01:42.160] Which they say is manipulated by powerful bureaucrats and army leaders [01:01:42.160 --> 01:01:46.160] Their failure to secure their goal is adding to their anger [01:01:46.160 --> 01:01:52.160] At the same time, the Redshirts may be capable of outflanking the armed forces with hidden run attacks [01:01:52.160 --> 01:01:57.160] Political science professor Dittinam Pongsitarak says [01:01:57.160 --> 01:02:03.160] The Reds feel they've been disenfranchised and now they don't respect the system anymore [01:02:03.160 --> 01:02:10.160] Barack Obama has promised that by August of this year there will be only 50,000 non-combat troops left in Iraq [01:02:10.160 --> 01:02:14.160] However, 94,000 US troops are still there [01:02:14.160 --> 01:02:16.160] Some engaged in combat missions [01:02:16.160 --> 01:02:21.160] Privately, officials have conceded the drawdown is being quote reconsidered [01:02:21.160 --> 01:02:23.160] Even though publicly they say otherwise [01:02:23.160 --> 01:02:27.160] US Commander General Ray Odierno says the drawdown is on track [01:02:27.160 --> 01:02:30.160] And that he is fully committed to meeting the deadline [01:02:30.160 --> 01:02:38.160] However, critics say the idea the Obama administration can remove 44,000 troops in the next 15 weeks is patently absurd [01:02:38.160 --> 01:02:42.160] Sectarian tensions are on the rise in the wake of the bitterly disputed election [01:02:42.160 --> 01:02:46.160] And massive attacks are occurring with alarming regularity [01:02:46.160 --> 01:02:51.160] Privately, officials say ferrying large numbers of US troops in convoys to the airport [01:02:51.160 --> 01:02:55.160] Would provide inviting targets for the rejuvenated insurgency [01:02:55.160 --> 01:03:00.160] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net [01:03:00.160 --> 01:03:06.160] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at rulelawradio.com [01:03:06.160 --> 01:03:14.160] Live free speech talk radio at its best [01:03:36.160 --> 01:03:44.160] Live free speech talk radio at its best [01:04:06.160 --> 01:04:14.160] Live free speech talk radio at its best [01:04:36.160 --> 01:04:46.160] Live free speech talk radio at its best [01:05:06.160 --> 01:05:09.160] When question arises in process of pending suit [01:05:09.160 --> 01:05:13.160] As to faith and credit to be given by a court to public acts [01:05:13.160 --> 01:05:15.160] Records and judicial proceedings of the state [01:05:15.160 --> 01:05:20.160] Other than that in which the court is sitting [01:05:20.160 --> 01:05:24.160] Does that make sense to any of you guys? It didn't to me [01:05:24.160 --> 01:05:29.160] Full faith and credit clause of 28 U.S.C. 1738 which implements it [01:05:29.160 --> 01:05:35.160] Is to avoid relitigation of same issue in courts of another state [01:05:35.160 --> 01:05:44.160] The clause does not require official of one state to obey law of another state [01:05:44.160 --> 01:05:50.160] That would take some study to see how that actually implements the clause [01:05:50.160 --> 01:05:56.160] Because the clause seems to completely disagree with that outcome [01:05:56.160 --> 01:05:58.160] Yeah [01:05:58.160 --> 01:06:03.160] Purpose of federal full faith and credit statute is to promote comity [01:06:03.160 --> 01:06:11.160] And federalism by allowing states to determine preclusive effect of their courts judgments [01:06:11.160 --> 01:06:14.160] That didn't make sense to me either [01:06:14.160 --> 01:06:20.160] Judgments are to have no lesser preclusive effects in any court within United States [01:06:20.160 --> 01:06:24.160] Than they have in court from which they are taken [01:06:24.160 --> 01:06:33.160] And I take that to mean that the fed has to give credit to state law when [01:06:33.160 --> 01:06:38.160] They are addressing a federal issue that includes a state issue [01:06:38.160 --> 01:06:40.160] And that's pretty well established [01:06:40.160 --> 01:06:42.160] Okay well let's look at what they are arguing here [01:06:42.160 --> 01:06:45.160] I'm going to read this article again [01:06:45.160 --> 01:06:47.160] Pay close attention to this [01:06:47.160 --> 01:06:55.160] Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts [01:06:55.160 --> 01:06:58.160] That means the laws [01:06:58.160 --> 01:06:59.160] Okay [01:06:59.160 --> 01:07:09.160] The records, every record in any given state shall be given its full faith and credit in any other state [01:07:09.160 --> 01:07:15.160] And judicial proceedings of every other state [01:07:15.160 --> 01:07:19.160] They're only talking about one thing in this decision you're reading Randy [01:07:19.160 --> 01:07:21.160] And acting like it affects it all [01:07:21.160 --> 01:07:23.160] And it doesn't [01:07:23.160 --> 01:07:31.160] There are three things here this specifically says every state will have in common [01:07:31.160 --> 01:07:36.160] And will act upon accordingly [01:07:36.160 --> 01:07:41.160] And the only thing it says about anybody being able to alter that [01:07:41.160 --> 01:07:51.160] Is and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings [01:07:51.160 --> 01:07:55.160] Shall be proved and the effect thereof [01:07:55.160 --> 01:07:59.160] Meaning what effect the proof will have [01:07:59.160 --> 01:08:03.160] And only Congress is given the authority to make that determination [01:08:03.160 --> 01:08:11.160] Not the courts [01:08:11.160 --> 01:08:14.160] That's all I got to say about that there [01:08:14.160 --> 01:08:19.160] Okay I agree I'm trying to go through this but [01:08:19.160 --> 01:08:24.160] This is one of the, generally I get some pretty good case law in this [01:08:24.160 --> 01:08:28.160] The case law seems rather esoteric [01:08:28.160 --> 01:08:36.160] Okay it's statutes of states, territories, and possessions effective state law or policy [01:08:36.160 --> 01:08:45.160] The full faith and credit law did not require a state to give effect to territorial statute in contravention of its own [01:08:45.160 --> 01:08:53.160] So this seems that they, it's clear that [01:08:53.160 --> 01:08:57.160] If a state law addresses, one state law addresses an issue [01:08:57.160 --> 01:09:02.160] I'm sorry if you, the home state addresses an issue [01:09:02.160 --> 01:09:06.160] And another state law addresses the same issue differently [01:09:06.160 --> 01:09:11.160] The home state law is going to govern [01:09:11.160 --> 01:09:17.160] The forum state need not give application [01:09:17.160 --> 01:09:23.160] Conflict with laws or policy of the forum state [01:09:23.160 --> 01:09:27.160] And see that's where I think they've just screwed up [01:09:27.160 --> 01:09:37.160] Penal statutes, state court is not required to accord full faith and credit to penal, long for death statute of another state [01:09:37.160 --> 01:09:39.160] Where did they come up with that? [01:09:39.160 --> 01:09:43.160] I don't know but let me interject a little something on that [01:09:43.160 --> 01:09:50.160] It seems to me like these courts have concluded that the purpose of the founding documents [01:09:50.160 --> 01:10:01.160] Is not to establish limited government and ensure the freedom of the people from any act whatsoever of government that was not in compliance with these documents [01:10:01.160 --> 01:10:09.160] They have concluded that the sole purpose of these documents is to set out what the government can do [01:10:09.160 --> 01:10:18.160] And how the government is allowed to ignore it when it doesn't do what the government wants to do [01:10:18.160 --> 01:10:23.160] They've completely taken a document that is to bind them down [01:10:23.160 --> 01:10:31.160] And tried to find ways to bind us down with it and set themselves free at the same time [01:10:31.160 --> 01:10:36.160] They've completely turned our country upside down [01:10:36.160 --> 01:10:40.160] These Halloween dress wearing morons [01:10:40.160 --> 01:10:43.160] That's going pretty far [01:10:43.160 --> 01:10:46.160] The law is really complex [01:10:46.160 --> 01:10:49.160] According to who? [01:10:49.160 --> 01:10:55.160] I know there's all kinds of philosophy and all this other kind of stuff attached to it [01:10:55.160 --> 01:10:59.160] And I know you and I can sit here and theorize things all day [01:10:59.160 --> 01:11:04.160] But when it really boils down to what law is or isn't, okay? [01:11:04.160 --> 01:11:10.160] As far as the people are concerned, law is very simple [01:11:10.160 --> 01:11:12.160] It's very simple [01:11:12.160 --> 01:11:15.160] We have an obligation or we don't [01:11:15.160 --> 01:11:20.160] We can't be bound by an obligation that doesn't apply to us [01:11:20.160 --> 01:11:25.160] We can't be guilty of a criminal act that does not have a harmed party [01:11:25.160 --> 01:11:29.160] It's very simple [01:11:29.160 --> 01:11:32.160] No it isn't [01:11:32.160 --> 01:11:34.160] Okay, how is it not simple? [01:11:34.160 --> 01:11:38.160] It's extremely complex [01:11:38.160 --> 01:11:40.160] Tell me why [01:11:40.160 --> 01:11:44.160] Because we have all sorts of different issues [01:11:44.160 --> 01:11:49.160] And we have people coming such as, such as you step on my toe [01:11:49.160 --> 01:11:51.160] You should go to prison for stepping on my toe [01:11:51.160 --> 01:11:54.160] You'll say no I shouldn't go to prison for stepping on your toe because I didn't mean to [01:11:54.160 --> 01:11:57.160] Obviously it doesn't make any difference, you stepped on my toe, you go to prison [01:11:57.160 --> 01:12:01.160] In every issue there are two sides [01:12:01.160 --> 01:12:04.160] And the law, to make it simple [01:12:04.160 --> 01:12:09.160] If you steal something or if someone accuses you of stealing something [01:12:09.160 --> 01:12:11.160] We'll cut your hand off [01:12:11.160 --> 01:12:14.160] That's really nice and simple [01:12:14.160 --> 01:12:17.160] But it's not simple [01:12:17.160 --> 01:12:20.160] And even people sitting in a jury [01:12:20.160 --> 01:12:25.160] That have to make a decision they never actually know [01:12:25.160 --> 01:12:27.160] Or most of the time [01:12:27.160 --> 01:12:30.160] Because there's two competing sides [01:12:30.160 --> 01:12:34.160] They take their best guess [01:12:34.160 --> 01:12:38.160] As to who should be rewarded and who should be punished [01:12:38.160 --> 01:12:40.160] Because it's never simple [01:12:40.160 --> 01:12:42.160] That's why we have juries in place [01:12:42.160 --> 01:12:46.160] We try to write the law as best we can [01:12:46.160 --> 01:12:49.160] But life is so complex [01:12:49.160 --> 01:12:53.160] And the interactions of human beings are extremely complex [01:12:53.160 --> 01:12:56.160] And the interactions of the law is complex [01:12:56.160 --> 01:13:02.160] Do we agree that human beings have been interacting for an extremely long time? [01:13:02.160 --> 01:13:04.160] Yes they have [01:13:04.160 --> 01:13:09.160] And they've managed to do it without a library of congress full of law books? [01:13:09.160 --> 01:13:11.160] No [01:13:11.160 --> 01:13:14.160] We haven't done it very well [01:13:14.160 --> 01:13:19.160] Because we've been slaughtering one another for a very long time [01:13:19.160 --> 01:13:21.160] Well now wait a minute [01:13:21.160 --> 01:13:26.160] Governments have killed more people than all the wars in the history of mankind [01:13:26.160 --> 01:13:28.160] That is a fact [01:13:28.160 --> 01:13:34.160] Tyrannical government and the genocide of government upon its people [01:13:34.160 --> 01:13:38.160] The slaughter of we the people by governments [01:13:38.160 --> 01:13:41.160] Far exceeds by many many times [01:13:41.160 --> 01:13:46.160] The number of people who have ever died in any war in the entire history of mankind [01:13:46.160 --> 01:13:48.160] So what's the real problem here? [01:13:48.160 --> 01:13:51.160] The government has never killed anyone [01:13:51.160 --> 01:13:53.160] Okay you can believe that [01:13:53.160 --> 01:13:55.160] People kill each other [01:13:55.160 --> 01:13:56.160] You can believe that [01:13:56.160 --> 01:14:00.160] The point being that you say the law is complex [01:14:00.160 --> 01:14:03.160] Yet the bible sums up the law in two chapters [01:14:03.160 --> 01:14:05.160] Exodus and Leviticus [01:14:05.160 --> 01:14:07.160] You live by those rules [01:14:07.160 --> 01:14:11.160] There's peaceable resolution and there's polite society [01:14:11.160 --> 01:14:14.160] I mean the deal is [01:14:14.160 --> 01:14:18.160] Is that every person's got their own way of doing things [01:14:18.160 --> 01:14:20.160] Granted okay [01:14:20.160 --> 01:14:24.160] And everybody thinks that everything about them is more important than the guy next to them [01:14:24.160 --> 01:14:28.160] We have that as a failing as human beings in common [01:14:28.160 --> 01:14:31.160] It's the rare person you're going to find [01:14:31.160 --> 01:14:36.160] That will look to someone else's needs and well being before their own [01:14:36.160 --> 01:14:40.160] Every instance those are hard people to find [01:14:40.160 --> 01:14:47.160] And they're more so today because of what they've been conditioned to [01:14:47.160 --> 01:14:54.160] It's okay to do this and do that because you know we set it aside where that's not really a problem [01:14:54.160 --> 01:14:58.160] And then go and say that because you do this however you can go to jail [01:14:58.160 --> 01:15:02.160] Even though the first one that they're allowing to go on [01:15:02.160 --> 01:15:05.160] Is more harmful than the one they're punishing you for [01:15:05.160 --> 01:15:10.160] I mean it's ludicrous it took man to make that mess Randy [01:15:10.160 --> 01:15:12.160] It really did [01:15:12.160 --> 01:15:18.160] We made law difficult because we want to add nuances to the law that don't belong [01:15:18.160 --> 01:15:23.160] We want to add criteria such as you stepped on my toe just as an example [01:15:23.160 --> 01:15:27.160] Show me the injury resulting from me stepping on your toe [01:15:27.160 --> 01:15:32.160] Can you walk? Is it broken? Did it turn purple? [01:15:32.160 --> 01:15:35.160] Did you not miss work for a month or something? [01:15:35.160 --> 01:15:45.160] Show me a reason why you're claiming that my stepping on your toe caused an actual injury rather than just an aggravation [01:15:45.160 --> 01:15:59.160] So I can just walk up to you and push you and push you and push you and push you as long as I want to [01:15:59.160 --> 01:16:07.160] So long as you can't show a bruise or a physical injury [01:16:07.160 --> 01:16:10.160] The question is framed incorrectly in my opinion [01:16:10.160 --> 01:16:13.160] Yes you can do it [01:16:13.160 --> 01:16:16.160] Can I take offense to it and prevent you from doing it? [01:16:16.160 --> 01:16:19.160] Yes I can [01:16:19.160 --> 01:16:20.160] What if Leon did it? [01:16:20.160 --> 01:16:22.160] And if it's well? [01:16:22.160 --> 01:16:26.160] Six foot seven five hundred pounds [01:16:26.160 --> 01:16:37.160] Is it okay for him to do whatever he can do because he can do so long as he doesn't leave a mark? [01:16:37.160 --> 01:16:44.160] I think we're going off on a rabbit hole here [01:16:44.160 --> 01:16:49.160] I get the impression you're saying that we need to trash the law [01:16:49.160 --> 01:16:55.160] No just the majority of it and some of those sitting in judgment of it [01:16:55.160 --> 01:16:57.160] Let's go get rocks and clubs [01:16:57.160 --> 01:17:26.160] Works for me [01:17:27.160 --> 01:17:29.160] Gold and jewelry items as well [01:17:29.160 --> 01:17:32.160] We offer daily specials on coins and bullions [01:17:32.160 --> 01:17:36.160] We're located at 5448 Barnett Road Suite 3 [01:17:36.160 --> 01:17:39.160] And we're open Monday through Friday 10am to 6pm [01:17:39.160 --> 01:17:42.160] Saturdays 10am to 5pm [01:17:42.160 --> 01:17:45.160] You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours [01:17:45.160 --> 01:17:50.160] Or call 512-646-6440 with any questions [01:17:50.160 --> 01:17:55.160] Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM [01:17:55.160 --> 01:18:02.160] That's Capital Coin and Bullion 512-646-6440 [01:18:02.160 --> 01:18:25.160] Okay, this is the Rule of Law [01:18:25.160 --> 01:18:32.160] Just to answer your question, Randy, and then we need to move on because we've got some callers [01:18:32.160 --> 01:18:40.160] For me, I own my own body and at least a three foot space around it in a spherical dimension [01:18:40.160 --> 01:18:49.160] And anybody that enters that sphere or touches me whatsoever is at risk if it's not with my permission [01:18:49.160 --> 01:18:50.160] And that's just all there is to it [01:18:50.160 --> 01:18:53.160] I have the right to defend myself, I have the right to defend my own life [01:18:53.160 --> 01:18:58.160] And my own body against unwarranted touching, assault, whatever you want to call it [01:18:58.160 --> 01:19:02.160] And if I'm in a position where I am incapable of defending myself [01:19:02.160 --> 01:19:06.160] Because I either don't happen to have a firearm with me at the time [01:19:06.160 --> 01:19:11.160] Because unfortunately in Texas we don't have open carry, all right [01:19:11.160 --> 01:19:13.160] So there could be a situation like that [01:19:13.160 --> 01:19:16.160] If I'm not able to escape or whatever [01:19:16.160 --> 01:19:22.160] Well, then I will be pursuing with all the force of the law possible with prosecution [01:19:22.160 --> 01:19:25.160] So that's just where it's at for me [01:19:25.160 --> 01:19:28.160] So with me, no, it's not okay [01:19:28.160 --> 01:19:35.160] All right, we're going to go to Tony now in Illinois [01:19:35.160 --> 01:19:36.160] Tony, thanks for calling in [01:19:36.160 --> 01:19:38.160] What's on your mind tonight? [01:19:38.160 --> 01:19:48.160] Yeah, a couple weeks ago you had a caller recommend a video by Carl Miller called Know Your Constitution on Google Video [01:19:48.160 --> 01:19:51.160] I have to agree with that recommendation [01:19:51.160 --> 01:19:56.160] For you and your listeners to check that out [01:19:56.160 --> 01:20:00.160] It's actually part two of a three-part series [01:20:00.160 --> 01:20:05.160] The first part is on YouTube and that's broken up into 11 parts [01:20:05.160 --> 01:20:07.160] I haven't watched that one yet [01:20:07.160 --> 01:20:13.160] But going back to part of your earlier conversation [01:20:13.160 --> 01:20:21.160] He has a website that he was affiliated with called justiceprose.8m.com [01:20:21.160 --> 01:20:30.160] And on there there's a page that has multiple case citations [01:20:30.160 --> 01:20:33.160] Related to what you guys discuss on the show frequently [01:20:33.160 --> 01:20:38.160] But as to what we were talking about earlier [01:20:38.160 --> 01:20:43.160] You may refuse to provide police with ID or information that U.S. versus Brown, [01:20:43.160 --> 01:20:49.160] Moya versus U.S., Brown versus Texas [01:20:49.160 --> 01:20:58.160] The right to privacy includes individual interests and avoiding disclosure of personal matters, Walden versus Roe [01:20:58.160 --> 01:21:07.160] I may not be arrested solely to ascertain my identity, Errington versus McDonald [01:21:07.160 --> 01:21:12.160] And there are others on there, but you guys might want to check that out [01:21:12.160 --> 01:21:21.160] The issue here wasn't that you could be arrested solely for not identifying yourself [01:21:21.160 --> 01:21:31.160] Because the premise was that the officer had to have reasonable probable cause before he could make the request [01:21:31.160 --> 01:21:40.160] And in the case indicated, if in fact he had received the call that he claimed he received [01:21:40.160 --> 01:21:47.160] And there didn't seem to be any refutation of that assertion [01:21:47.160 --> 01:21:50.160] Then he had cause [01:21:50.160 --> 01:21:58.160] But if you're arrested, I don't believe you have to identify yourself even after arrest [01:21:58.160 --> 01:22:00.160] Well that's clear in law [01:22:00.160 --> 01:22:05.160] Why would you have to identify yourself even after arrest? I mean you're under arrest [01:22:05.160 --> 01:22:10.160] So it's not up to you to identify yourself [01:22:10.160 --> 01:22:18.160] What are they going to hold against you? What are they going to charge you with for not identifying yourself after you're arrested for something else? [01:22:18.160 --> 01:22:24.160] Okay, that's a separate issue [01:22:24.160 --> 01:22:34.160] Whether or not we believe that law is appropriate, we were discussing the propriety of the law as it was [01:22:34.160 --> 01:22:48.160] And yeah, I don't really know where I stand on the issue of whether or not after someone's arrested they should be required to identify themselves [01:22:48.160 --> 01:22:58.160] I'm all for I'm not going to contribute in any manner to your ability to gather any information that can be used against me [01:22:58.160 --> 01:23:00.160] No matter what it is [01:23:00.160 --> 01:23:03.160] Exactly, that bears the fifth of the Fifth Amendment [01:23:03.160 --> 01:23:07.160] Well, it goes back to my question [01:23:07.160 --> 01:23:12.160] How can your name incriminate you? [01:23:12.160 --> 01:23:20.160] The question, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that my right to remain silent is wrapped around whether or not it incriminates me [01:23:20.160 --> 01:23:21.160] Nowhere [01:23:21.160 --> 01:23:25.160] The fact that I have the right to remain silent is all that matters [01:23:25.160 --> 01:23:35.160] For someone judged to say, well you have the right to remain silent up until you get arrested, then you've got to tell them something [01:23:35.160 --> 01:23:43.160] No, I don't have to tell them anything [01:23:43.160 --> 01:23:55.160] The answer is we have no idea how it could possibly potentially in whatever ways harm us or implicate us or incriminate us [01:23:55.160 --> 01:24:02.160] or they could use fraudulently against us to try to set us up for something that we never even did or said [01:24:02.160 --> 01:24:09.160] We have no idea and so that's why we have the right to remain silent and so the best answer is I need to talk to an attorney [01:24:09.160 --> 01:24:10.160] That's a good point [01:24:10.160 --> 01:24:13.160] I'm not saying anything until I talk to my attorney [01:24:13.160 --> 01:24:18.160] That takes me back to that video by the law professor of when to talk to the police [01:24:18.160 --> 01:24:19.160] Exactly [01:24:19.160 --> 01:24:20.160] Never [01:24:20.160 --> 01:24:22.160] Even if you're innocent [01:24:22.160 --> 01:24:24.160] Yeah, I was just going to say that [01:24:24.160 --> 01:24:29.160] So it's a good argument, I like the argument [01:24:29.160 --> 01:24:37.160] Randy, didn't you have a court date earlier this month? Are you going to talk about that? [01:24:37.160 --> 01:24:39.160] Yeah, I missed one [01:24:39.160 --> 01:24:45.160] I missed one Thursday, I was supposed to be, today, I missed one today because I'm still in New York [01:24:45.160 --> 01:24:49.160] I was supposed to be in court so they'll probably arrest me when I come back [01:24:49.160 --> 01:24:53.160] It's just traffic ticket, I'll get it fixed [01:24:53.160 --> 01:24:56.160] So I haven't actually had the court date and that would have just been a hearing [01:24:56.160 --> 01:25:02.160] So I don't have one yet other than me going down with someone else and kind of hammering a judge [01:25:02.160 --> 01:25:07.160] Trying to get him to take criminal complaints against a officer that arrested me [01:25:07.160 --> 01:25:11.160] Stole my key [01:25:11.160 --> 01:25:16.160] You guys talk a lot about what to do when you're in court [01:25:16.160 --> 01:25:20.160] I'd like to hear you guys talk more about what to do before you go to court [01:25:20.160 --> 01:25:30.160] Like what to say in motions, free trial motions, or even during the traffic stops [01:25:30.160 --> 01:25:34.160] Eddie, do you want to walk see that? [01:25:34.160 --> 01:25:38.160] Eddie, what would you do if you're pulled over? [01:25:38.160 --> 01:25:41.160] You don't have ID, you're not required to give ID [01:25:41.160 --> 01:25:44.160] So what do you say or what do you recommend? [01:25:44.160 --> 01:25:50.160] Or do you have some other documents that you showed the officer to support your position [01:25:50.160 --> 01:25:54.160] in case he's completely ignorant, which is probably the case? [01:25:54.160 --> 01:25:57.160] Three questions, one document [01:25:57.160 --> 01:26:02.160] Which is I'm actually in the process of converting straight up into a tort letter [01:26:02.160 --> 01:26:07.160] So you just tell the cop, no matter what he asks you for, hi, here you are [01:26:07.160 --> 01:26:11.160] Take it to your boss, you're all getting sued [01:26:11.160 --> 01:26:17.160] But the three questions are, what is the emergency and how can I help? [01:26:17.160 --> 01:26:22.160] And you ask this one, why? [01:26:22.160 --> 01:26:28.160] Why is that an important question to ask? [01:26:28.160 --> 01:26:31.160] Okay, why is that an important question to ask? [01:26:31.160 --> 01:26:33.160] Was I supposed to ask that? [01:26:33.160 --> 01:26:38.160] Yes, it's an important question to ask because it sets the stage for the fact [01:26:38.160 --> 01:26:44.160] the officer declared an emergency the moment he turned on those lights on that car [01:26:44.160 --> 01:26:52.160] Since you're not guilty of committing any crime, you have no reason to believe that he's after you [01:26:52.160 --> 01:26:57.160] So you're innocently asking, you've declared an emergency [01:26:57.160 --> 01:27:01.160] and you signaled me to pull over so you need my help with something [01:27:01.160 --> 01:27:05.160] So what is the emergency and how can I help you? [01:27:05.160 --> 01:27:11.160] I'm trying to be a good citizen and assist you in whatever it is you need [01:27:11.160 --> 01:27:19.160] Well, second question, no matter what he says or does, am I under arrest? [01:27:19.160 --> 01:27:26.160] And then, no matter what he says or does, am I free to go? [01:27:26.160 --> 01:27:32.160] And then after that, the next three rules are very easy to remember if you're paying attention [01:27:32.160 --> 01:27:37.160] Shut up, shut up, and shut up [01:27:37.160 --> 01:27:43.160] I think number two and three maybe should be combined because I've seen videos [01:27:43.160 --> 01:27:48.160] No, no, no, no, no, do not combine them [01:27:48.160 --> 01:27:51.160] Okay, the reason I say that is I've seen videos of people doing that [01:27:51.160 --> 01:27:59.160] They'll say, am I under arrest? No. Am I being detained? No. Am I free to go? No. [01:27:59.160 --> 01:28:02.160] Okay, here's the important thing to remember [01:28:02.160 --> 01:28:08.160] I would think you would ask, am I under arrest or am I free to go? [01:28:08.160 --> 01:28:10.160] Am I being detained or am I free to go? [01:28:10.160 --> 01:28:14.160] What you're doing is you're allowing the cop to give you one pat answer [01:28:14.160 --> 01:28:17.160] that may or may not answer both sides of your question [01:28:17.160 --> 01:28:20.160] Don't do that, okay? [01:28:20.160 --> 01:28:25.160] It's just like when you write a legal brief, you use one verb [01:28:25.160 --> 01:28:28.160] Can I go or do I have to stay? [01:28:28.160 --> 01:28:31.160] Am I free or am I under arrest? [01:28:31.160 --> 01:28:33.160] Don't ask them in the same question [01:28:33.160 --> 01:28:36.160] Texas law is the reason I say that, okay? [01:28:36.160 --> 01:28:45.160] Number one, when you ask am I under arrest, the cop is usually going to lie and say no in Texas [01:28:45.160 --> 01:28:49.160] The thing is, you were under arrest the moment he turned on the lights [01:28:49.160 --> 01:28:51.160] I forgot about that, Texas [01:28:51.160 --> 01:28:56.160] And you're in a custodial arrest the moment he turned on the lights [01:28:56.160 --> 01:29:04.160] So you want to get the officer on his own petard, so to speak, and hoist him high as a liar [01:29:04.160 --> 01:29:11.160] Because when that video gets used in court, you're going to be seen to ask, am I under arrest? [01:29:11.160 --> 01:29:16.160] And you're going to plainly display the officer to the jury saying, no, you're not under arrest [01:29:16.160 --> 01:29:21.160] Being, I would like this witness excused for incompetency, Judge [01:29:21.160 --> 01:29:27.160] Because they just testified I wasn't under arrest when the law says exactly the opposite [01:29:27.160 --> 01:29:35.160] Therefore, the witness does not understand the law, nor the duties of his office, and he's incompetent [01:29:35.160 --> 01:29:39.160] See how it works? [01:29:39.160 --> 01:29:42.160] Would that work in every state though? [01:29:42.160 --> 01:29:46.160] Well, it depends on what it says about arrest, but hang on, we're going to break [01:29:46.160 --> 01:29:50.160] Yeah, just hang on, we'll cover that on the other side as we get back from break [01:29:50.160 --> 01:29:55.160] Alright, Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, we will be right back [01:30:01.160 --> 01:30:07.160] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so easy [01:30:07.160 --> 01:30:10.160] And neither is finding like-minded people to share it with [01:30:10.160 --> 01:30:13.160] Oh, well I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then [01:30:13.160 --> 01:30:14.160] Brave New Books? [01:30:14.160 --> 01:30:21.160] Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin [01:30:21.160 --> 01:30:25.160] They even stock Interfood, Berkey Products, and Calvin Soaps [01:30:25.160 --> 01:30:27.160] There's no way a place like that exists [01:30:27.160 --> 01:30:33.160] Go check it out for yourself, it's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT [01:30:33.160 --> 01:30:36.160] By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there [01:30:36.160 --> 01:30:44.160] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility, just behind the bookstore [01:30:44.160 --> 01:30:47.160] It does exist, but when are they open? [01:30:47.160 --> 01:30:52.160] Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays [01:30:52.160 --> 01:30:59.160] So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com [01:30:59.160 --> 01:31:05.160] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:31:05.160 --> 01:31:09.160] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method [01:31:09.160 --> 01:31:15.160] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two [01:31:15.160 --> 01:31:21.160] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes [01:31:21.160 --> 01:31:25.160] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons [01:31:25.160 --> 01:31:27.160] How to answer letters and phone calls [01:31:27.160 --> 01:31:30.160] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report [01:31:30.160 --> 01:31:34.160] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away [01:31:34.160 --> 01:31:39.160] The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors [01:31:39.160 --> 01:31:42.160] Personal consultation is available as well [01:31:42.160 --> 01:31:47.160] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner [01:31:47.160 --> 01:31:50.160] Or email michaelmears at yahoo.com [01:31:50.160 --> 01:31:58.160] That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com [01:31:58.160 --> 01:32:01.160] To learn how to stop debt collectors now [01:32:01.160 --> 01:32:22.160] All right, we are back. [01:32:22.160 --> 01:32:24.160] Okay, let's pick up where we left off. [01:32:24.160 --> 01:32:28.160] You're making a comment about that question? [01:32:28.160 --> 01:32:32.160] Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off on the break like that. [01:32:32.160 --> 01:32:35.160] I can't see the clock now with the time I've got. [01:32:35.160 --> 01:32:37.160] But anyway, what was your comment? [01:32:37.160 --> 01:32:41.160] I was saying, would that apply to any state? [01:32:41.160 --> 01:32:44.160] It really depends on what particular... [01:32:44.160 --> 01:32:53.160] Is a traffic stop considered any kind of arrest, typically or whatever, or otherwise, in every state? [01:32:53.160 --> 01:32:57.160] It would depend upon what the particular statute says on the subject. [01:32:57.160 --> 01:33:03.160] So I don't know that it would actually be an arrest in every state, [01:33:03.160 --> 01:33:09.160] but it would still be a very good idea to set the stage for that, irregardless. [01:33:09.160 --> 01:33:17.160] In California, they have a specific distinction between a detention and an arrest. [01:33:17.160 --> 01:33:21.160] They call a detention, they don't call that an arrest, [01:33:21.160 --> 01:33:29.160] so they make a legal separation between the two, and in Texas, they don't. [01:33:29.160 --> 01:33:36.160] If you're restricted at your movement, you're under arrest, but California, not necessarily so. [01:33:36.160 --> 01:33:41.160] So each state's going to have differences. [01:33:41.160 --> 01:33:44.160] The court usually says that when you're restricted, you're under arrest, [01:33:44.160 --> 01:33:54.160] but then they allow the individual states to make distinctions that once again cause issues for the citizens when they travel between them. [01:33:54.160 --> 01:34:08.160] Another thing I'd like to ask is, does the government have any power over you if you are traveling under the influence? [01:34:08.160 --> 01:34:11.160] It depends on how the statute's written, [01:34:11.160 --> 01:34:18.160] but in Texas, if you go by the strict letter of the law the way it's written in the statute, the answer is no, [01:34:18.160 --> 01:34:26.160] because you must be operating a motor vehicle under the influence for the statute to apply. [01:34:26.160 --> 01:34:30.160] Do you know anyone that's gotten out of one, based on that argument? [01:34:30.160 --> 01:34:37.160] I don't know anyone personally, normally because if you were on the same street with me, [01:34:37.160 --> 01:34:44.160] and I caught you drinking and driving and was able to get you pulled over, that would be the least of your worries. [01:34:44.160 --> 01:34:51.160] But that being said, I don't know anyone personally that's argued that in one no. [01:34:51.160 --> 01:34:57.160] I'm just curious what you guys thought about that. [01:34:57.160 --> 01:35:00.160] If they go strictly by the letter of the law, then that's what it is. [01:35:00.160 --> 01:35:07.160] And if you consider the fact that I'm of the mind based upon what I've learned in all this over time, [01:35:07.160 --> 01:35:16.160] is that there is no authority for the individual legislatures to write laws regulating the people. [01:35:16.160 --> 01:35:19.160] There just isn't, not in any state. [01:35:19.160 --> 01:35:28.160] And because of that, that's why we're liable and responsible for what we do and whoever we do it to. [01:35:28.160 --> 01:35:34.160] We're responsible for that. We don't get any leeway in that. [01:35:34.160 --> 01:35:40.160] So once again, statutory law would not apply anyway. [01:35:40.160 --> 01:35:47.160] But again, like I said, they've distorted the purpose of government and turned everything into a nanny state. [01:35:47.160 --> 01:35:50.160] And it was never meant to be that way. [01:35:50.160 --> 01:35:56.160] Do you shield your VIN number in the lower left-hand corner of your dash? [01:35:56.160 --> 01:35:58.160] Nope. [01:35:58.160 --> 01:36:02.160] So it can't be inspected for privacy reasons or for whatever reason? [01:36:02.160 --> 01:36:05.160] Why do I care if they know what the VIN number is? [01:36:05.160 --> 01:36:09.160] It's not directly associated with me and any governmental record. [01:36:09.160 --> 01:36:12.160] I own the car on a bill of sale, notarized as such. [01:36:12.160 --> 01:36:16.160] It's not registered anywhere. [01:36:16.160 --> 01:36:20.160] It's not required to be. It's not a motor vehicle. [01:36:20.160 --> 01:36:23.160] But the previous owner would have probably had title, right? [01:36:23.160 --> 01:36:27.160] Yeah. Previous owner had a certificate of title which was given to me and attached [01:36:27.160 --> 01:36:32.160] and notarized with the bill of sale as having been transferred to me. [01:36:32.160 --> 01:36:36.160] But it's not registered under my name in any way, shape or form. [01:36:36.160 --> 01:36:39.160] It's private property. [01:36:39.160 --> 01:36:42.160] Do you just carry a copy of that? [01:36:42.160 --> 01:36:44.160] No. I keep it in a file. [01:36:44.160 --> 01:36:50.160] And if they ever question ownership, then I'll produce it long enough to establish ownership and nothing else. [01:36:50.160 --> 01:36:55.160] So you don't worry about producing it during a traffic stop or anything like that? [01:36:55.160 --> 01:36:56.160] Why would I do that? [01:36:56.160 --> 01:36:58.160] They can't prove they've got to report the car stolen. [01:36:58.160 --> 01:37:04.160] So what probable cause do they have to believe it doesn't belong to me just because they can't find a registration for it? [01:37:04.160 --> 01:37:11.160] That's like saying I don't own my tennis shoes because the court doesn't have a record of it. [01:37:11.160 --> 01:37:15.160] Do you guys have any experience with drug possession cases? [01:37:15.160 --> 01:37:19.160] As a matter of fact, I'm working on a couple right now. [01:37:19.160 --> 01:37:23.160] That goes to the victimless crime argument. [01:37:23.160 --> 01:37:28.160] Well, first off, what's the charge and what state is it in? [01:37:28.160 --> 01:37:31.160] I'm just asking in general. [01:37:31.160 --> 01:37:39.160] Well, I'm working on a couple here in Texas with a couple of people that they were accused of possession [01:37:39.160 --> 01:37:42.160] when in fact nothing was found in their possession. [01:37:42.160 --> 01:37:47.160] It just happened to be found in the same vehicle they were riding in with a bunch of other people. [01:37:47.160 --> 01:37:50.160] But instead of trying to figure out who it actually belonged to, [01:37:50.160 --> 01:37:57.160] they just charged everybody with possession just to cover their bases. [01:37:57.160 --> 01:38:03.160] What I was actually wondering is if you're actually caught on your person, [01:38:03.160 --> 01:38:09.160] do you have arguments that they don't want to have any jurisdiction over that? [01:38:09.160 --> 01:38:12.160] Well, there's lots of arguments. [01:38:12.160 --> 01:38:21.160] Usually they don't, but they get around that despite every other issue anyway. [01:38:21.160 --> 01:38:29.160] Well, what was their probable cause to perform a search and discovery? [01:38:29.160 --> 01:38:33.160] Again, I'm just asking in general. [01:38:33.160 --> 01:38:35.160] These are the kinds of questions we would ask. [01:38:35.160 --> 01:38:37.160] We would ask what is their probable cause. [01:38:37.160 --> 01:38:42.160] We would find out was the person taken directly to a magistrate when they were arrested. [01:38:42.160 --> 01:38:45.160] We would look at the laws that they broke. [01:38:45.160 --> 01:38:47.160] We would look at the things that they did wrong. [01:38:47.160 --> 01:38:50.160] We never go to the merits of the case. [01:38:50.160 --> 01:38:57.160] To address your question just purely in its context, [01:38:57.160 --> 01:39:07.160] if there is a statute that declares that it is a criminal act to have these drugs in your possession [01:39:07.160 --> 01:39:14.160] and a police officer legally discovers that you have these drugs in your possession, [01:39:14.160 --> 01:39:17.160] you're subject to the jurisdiction. [01:39:17.160 --> 01:39:25.160] Now, you may object to the law and maintain that the law is unjust and it should not exist at all. [01:39:25.160 --> 01:39:33.160] But as long as it does, you're subject to the jurisdiction. [01:39:33.160 --> 01:39:36.160] Is it written to apply to you in general? [01:39:36.160 --> 01:39:37.160] Yes. [01:39:37.160 --> 01:39:43.160] In that case, you can't always just blow out subject matter jurisdiction. [01:39:43.160 --> 01:39:45.160] Sometimes they have it. [01:39:45.160 --> 01:39:49.160] In that pure case, they would have jurisdiction. [01:39:49.160 --> 01:39:55.160] Now, also be aware of one thing, though, for instance, if this is cannabis. [01:39:55.160 --> 01:40:04.160] There are five varieties of cannabis, and only one of them is illegal. [01:40:04.160 --> 01:40:10.160] So just FYI, and that's the way it's actually here in Texas, [01:40:10.160 --> 01:40:20.160] they charge you for any of them even though only one of them is illegal. [01:40:20.160 --> 01:40:24.160] Now, you've spoken before about city ordinances. [01:40:24.160 --> 01:40:34.160] Would it be your guys' position that municipal sales taxes are invalid? [01:40:34.160 --> 01:40:36.160] What state are you in? [01:40:36.160 --> 01:40:38.160] I'm in Illinois. [01:40:38.160 --> 01:40:46.160] It depends on how your Constitution sets up the ability of the state to tax the people of the state. [01:40:46.160 --> 01:40:54.160] Basically speaking, they can only tax the people of the state in accordance with the Constitution [01:40:54.160 --> 01:41:00.160] because that's the only authority the people of the state gave them to tax with. [01:41:00.160 --> 01:41:07.160] So only if the state of the Constitution delegates that to the municipalities? [01:41:07.160 --> 01:41:10.160] Well, I can guarantee you it doesn't delegate it to a municipality. [01:41:10.160 --> 01:41:12.160] That's established under a state law. [01:41:12.160 --> 01:41:17.160] But I'm still willing to bet you that I know if it's not in the Constitution, [01:41:17.160 --> 01:41:22.160] it's not a power delegated to them, period. [01:41:22.160 --> 01:41:23.160] Okay. [01:41:23.160 --> 01:41:24.160] We really need to move on. [01:41:24.160 --> 01:41:27.160] We've got a couple more callers, and we're going to run out of time here. [01:41:27.160 --> 01:41:28.160] All right. [01:41:28.160 --> 01:41:29.160] All right, guys. [01:41:29.160 --> 01:41:30.160] Thank you. [01:41:30.160 --> 01:41:31.160] All right. [01:41:31.160 --> 01:41:32.160] Thanks, Tony. [01:41:32.160 --> 01:41:33.160] Okay. [01:41:33.160 --> 01:41:34.160] We're going to Michael in Maryland. [01:41:34.160 --> 01:41:37.160] Michael, thanks for calling in. [01:41:37.160 --> 01:41:39.160] What's on your mind tonight? [01:41:39.160 --> 01:41:45.160] Is Michael from Maryland there? [01:41:45.160 --> 01:41:46.160] Okay. [01:41:46.160 --> 01:41:47.160] I guess not. [01:41:47.160 --> 01:41:48.160] I guess not. [01:41:48.160 --> 01:41:50.160] Eddie, you put him to sleep. [01:41:50.160 --> 01:41:51.160] Okay. [01:41:51.160 --> 01:41:54.160] And we had an Eddie from Georgia that called in and dropped off. [01:41:54.160 --> 01:41:57.160] So, Eddie, if you'd like to call back in, we'll take you next. [01:41:57.160 --> 01:42:02.160] We've got Ken in Texas. [01:42:02.160 --> 01:42:04.160] Thanks for calling in. [01:42:04.160 --> 01:42:05.160] What's on your mind tonight? [01:42:05.160 --> 01:42:06.160] Well, hi there. [01:42:06.160 --> 01:42:12.160] This is a question about files the court keeps. [01:42:12.160 --> 01:42:15.160] I'm working on a case I've called in a few times about, [01:42:15.160 --> 01:42:21.160] and this thing is ripening up because I've been filing bar grievances on the prosecutor. [01:42:21.160 --> 01:42:29.160] Anyway, I went, among other things, I filed a public information request to get my file. [01:42:29.160 --> 01:42:35.160] I got the file today, and by the way, they have told me that there's a warrant, [01:42:35.160 --> 01:42:41.160] actually warrants out for me for these traffic cases because I haven't disposed of them. [01:42:41.160 --> 01:42:47.160] Anyway, I get my file, which I've gotten from my public information request, [01:42:47.160 --> 01:42:52.160] and lo and behold, there's no warrants in my file. [01:42:52.160 --> 01:42:55.160] And there won't be until they're executed. [01:42:55.160 --> 01:42:56.160] Until they're executed. [01:42:56.160 --> 01:42:59.160] So even though they allegedly exist, I can't get a copy of them, [01:42:59.160 --> 01:43:02.160] even though they're public information according to the code. [01:43:02.160 --> 01:43:04.160] Have you been arrested under them? [01:43:04.160 --> 01:43:05.160] No. [01:43:05.160 --> 01:43:06.160] Then they haven't been executed. [01:43:06.160 --> 01:43:11.160] Well, that's an iffy question in the law. [01:43:11.160 --> 01:43:16.160] It would seem it is, but nothing stipulates that it is. [01:43:16.160 --> 01:43:23.160] And the case law says that they can withhold the warrant until it's executed [01:43:23.160 --> 01:43:31.160] because if they reveal the warrant, the perpetrator has opportunity to abscout. [01:43:31.160 --> 01:43:38.160] So while it's not something I've specifically briefed out, it's an iffy question. [01:43:38.160 --> 01:43:40.160] How do you know there is a warrant? [01:43:40.160 --> 01:43:43.160] Well, they've given me documents that say there is, [01:43:43.160 --> 01:43:47.160] and those documents exist as a copy in the file as well. [01:43:47.160 --> 01:43:52.160] Okay, well then I don't see how they could claim secrecy or anything like that [01:43:52.160 --> 01:43:54.160] to seal the warrant if they've already told them it exists. [01:43:54.160 --> 01:43:56.160] Well, we'll be right back. [01:43:56.160 --> 01:44:07.160] Okay, thank you. [01:44:07.160 --> 01:44:12.160] Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, [01:44:12.160 --> 01:44:19.160] heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. [01:44:19.160 --> 01:44:22.160] You have a choice to keep your body clean. [01:44:22.160 --> 01:44:32.160] Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. [01:44:32.160 --> 01:44:36.160] It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food. [01:44:36.160 --> 01:44:40.160] Protect your family now with micro plant powder. [01:44:40.160 --> 01:44:44.160] Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins. [01:44:44.160 --> 01:44:49.160] Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage. [01:44:49.160 --> 01:45:08.160] Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today. [01:45:08.160 --> 01:45:17.160] Okay, we are back. [01:45:17.160 --> 01:45:20.160] We're talking with Ken in Texas. [01:45:20.160 --> 01:45:25.160] And guys, Randy, Eddie, I'd like you all to comment on this. [01:45:25.160 --> 01:45:29.160] Since Ken is saying that there's documents in his file [01:45:29.160 --> 01:45:33.160] and apparently they've notified him that there's a warrant for his arrest, [01:45:33.160 --> 01:45:38.160] I mean, how could they turn around and then claim some sort of secrecy [01:45:38.160 --> 01:45:41.160] or sealed warrant business if they've already told him it exists? [01:45:41.160 --> 01:45:43.160] I mean, it seems like they can't have it both ways. [01:45:43.160 --> 01:45:47.160] I mean, so what's up with that? [01:45:47.160 --> 01:45:50.160] Just the way they do business usually is the problem. [01:45:50.160 --> 01:45:54.160] Personally, I think it should be and they're executed or not. [01:45:54.160 --> 01:46:00.160] Well, so if they're going to tell him it exists and there's even documents in the file, [01:46:00.160 --> 01:46:03.160] in the court record, in the public record, [01:46:03.160 --> 01:46:08.160] can Ken then have the right to demand to see it? [01:46:08.160 --> 01:46:10.160] Most certainly. [01:46:10.160 --> 01:46:14.160] But now a quick way to do it... [01:46:14.160 --> 01:46:16.160] Hey, Randy, it's that button up there. [01:46:16.160 --> 01:46:19.160] Go ahead, go ahead, Eddie. [01:46:19.160 --> 01:46:20.160] What were you saying? [01:46:20.160 --> 01:46:23.160] Yeah, I was saying a quick way to do it, as Randy puts it, [01:46:23.160 --> 01:46:30.160] is if you appear in court and demand to see the judge, that negates the warrant. [01:46:30.160 --> 01:46:31.160] Okay. [01:46:31.160 --> 01:46:33.160] And since that negates the warrant, [01:46:33.160 --> 01:46:40.160] they can now or should now be required to submit it or withdraw it. [01:46:40.160 --> 01:46:43.160] Either way, since it was originally issued, [01:46:43.160 --> 01:46:48.160] it should be in the folder and marked withdrawn. [01:46:48.160 --> 01:46:53.160] I would wonder if there's an ethical questionnaire under the public information request [01:46:53.160 --> 01:46:59.160] that they have not complied with my request by giving me part of the file. [01:46:59.160 --> 01:47:02.160] Well, the thing about it is there are exceptions. [01:47:02.160 --> 01:47:03.160] Sure. [01:47:03.160 --> 01:47:04.160] Wait, wait, wait. [01:47:04.160 --> 01:47:07.160] There is an exception, especially here. [01:47:07.160 --> 01:47:10.160] This does not fall under open records. [01:47:10.160 --> 01:47:16.160] This falls under Code of Criminal Procedure 1.24. [01:47:16.160 --> 01:47:17.160] These are court records. [01:47:17.160 --> 01:47:20.160] Yeah, but what he's saying is that it's not in the court record. [01:47:20.160 --> 01:47:21.160] Yeah, I understand that. [01:47:21.160 --> 01:47:25.160] There are documents in the court record referring to the warrant, [01:47:25.160 --> 01:47:31.160] but who would he go to ask for to obtain a copy of the warrant or to look at it? [01:47:31.160 --> 01:47:36.160] Because, I mean, obviously, he can't claim open, you know, [01:47:36.160 --> 01:47:39.160] he can't use open records in the court system. [01:47:39.160 --> 01:47:41.160] Courts already have open records. [01:47:41.160 --> 01:47:43.160] So, I mean, he already has the file. [01:47:43.160 --> 01:47:44.160] He's already seen the file. [01:47:44.160 --> 01:47:51.160] So where would he go and would he use open records laws to demand to see the warrant at that point? [01:47:51.160 --> 01:47:52.160] Okay. [01:47:52.160 --> 01:47:59.160] He would go to one of two places, the magistrate who would have issued the warrant [01:47:59.160 --> 01:48:04.160] or the judge who would have original jurisdiction in the cause. [01:48:04.160 --> 01:48:08.160] In this case, they're going to be the same one. [01:48:08.160 --> 01:48:11.160] And as to open records, no. [01:48:11.160 --> 01:48:18.160] He would request them under 1.24 and Texas Constitution, [01:48:18.160 --> 01:48:27.160] which says all courts shall be public, Article 10, Article 1, Paragraph 10, [01:48:27.160 --> 01:48:31.160] says you have a right to a public court. [01:48:31.160 --> 01:48:34.160] And 124 codifies that into statute. [01:48:34.160 --> 01:48:36.160] It goes to a public court. [01:48:36.160 --> 01:48:43.160] 27004 government code, when it goes to a justice or municipal court, [01:48:43.160 --> 01:48:50.160] says that the justice shall keep all records of the court open for public inspection [01:48:50.160 --> 01:48:53.160] by all interested parties at all reasonable times. [01:48:53.160 --> 01:48:56.160] Attorney general opinion, I think it's J.R. 124, [01:48:56.160 --> 01:49:03.160] defines interested parties as any member of the public, reasonable times, normal business hours. [01:49:03.160 --> 01:49:09.160] While a county court or a district court or a clerk can request, [01:49:09.160 --> 01:49:14.160] can ask for a written request and take up to 10 days to respond to it, [01:49:14.160 --> 01:49:17.160] a municipal or justice court cannot. [01:49:17.160 --> 01:49:20.160] They must produce the records immediately. [01:49:20.160 --> 01:49:28.160] So if the record exists and there is not a specific exclusion to disclosure [01:49:28.160 --> 01:49:32.160] and you request it and it's not immediately produced, [01:49:32.160 --> 01:49:36.160] go get security and ask them to arrest a clerk. [01:49:36.160 --> 01:49:39.160] I did that in Waco and it was a hoot. [01:49:39.160 --> 01:49:40.160] Does that make sense, Ken? [01:49:40.160 --> 01:49:41.160] Yeah, it does. [01:49:41.160 --> 01:49:44.160] I think you just mentioned what's now in the Code of Criminal Procedure, [01:49:44.160 --> 01:49:50.160] 15.26, authority to arrest must be made known. [01:49:50.160 --> 01:49:53.160] .26. Oh, yeah, that's right. [01:49:53.160 --> 01:49:58.160] Okay, wait, no, that's 15.26. [01:49:58.160 --> 01:50:02.160] I know that one for another reason. [01:50:02.160 --> 01:50:07.160] It must be made known, then the only authority is the warrant. [01:50:07.160 --> 01:50:09.160] But what does made known mean? [01:50:09.160 --> 01:50:13.160] Does it tell you it exists or do they have to put it in your hands? [01:50:13.160 --> 01:50:15.160] Well, it says the authority must be made known. [01:50:15.160 --> 01:50:22.160] It doesn't say existence or documentation of the warrant must be made known. [01:50:22.160 --> 01:50:24.160] What constitutes being made known? [01:50:24.160 --> 01:50:29.160] If I tell you that a warrant exists, does that constitute being made known [01:50:29.160 --> 01:50:31.160] or do I have to put a copy in your hands? [01:50:31.160 --> 01:50:34.160] Well, again, it says the authority must be made known. [01:50:34.160 --> 01:50:39.160] It doesn't say that the documentation or the warrant itself must be made known. [01:50:39.160 --> 01:50:40.160] No, it does say that. [01:50:40.160 --> 01:50:41.160] The warrant is the authority. [01:50:41.160 --> 01:50:42.160] That's the only authority. [01:50:42.160 --> 01:50:48.160] Yeah, the actual text in there says that the clerk shall make a copy available [01:50:48.160 --> 01:50:53.160] for public inspection in the clerk's office and a person may request copy. [01:50:53.160 --> 01:50:56.160] Okay, but that's immediately after arrest. [01:50:56.160 --> 01:50:57.160] After arrest. [01:50:57.160 --> 01:50:58.160] Randy? [01:50:58.160 --> 01:50:59.160] After execution. [01:50:59.160 --> 01:51:02.160] That's what 26 goes to. [01:51:02.160 --> 01:51:09.160] We agree that a warrant can only be issued upon a finding of probable cause, correct? [01:51:09.160 --> 01:51:10.160] Correct. [01:51:10.160 --> 01:51:16.160] And we agree that Texas law makes it very clear that there shall be no ex parte hearings, [01:51:16.160 --> 01:51:20.160] including the one that establishes probable cause. [01:51:20.160 --> 01:51:25.160] No, this is an exclusion or an exception. [01:51:25.160 --> 01:51:26.160] How so? [01:51:26.160 --> 01:51:28.160] And who accepted it? [01:51:28.160 --> 01:51:36.160] When the officer seeks a warrant, they need the warrant because they don't have the other party. [01:51:36.160 --> 01:51:45.160] They can't get the other party here and they need a way to bring the other party to the hearing. [01:51:45.160 --> 01:51:47.160] They're not doing it the way they're supposed to. [01:51:47.160 --> 01:51:50.160] They can hold an ex parte hearing for the purpose of issuing the warrant, [01:51:50.160 --> 01:51:56.160] then they go arrest the person they are to bring them back before the magistrate who issued the warrant. [01:51:56.160 --> 01:51:57.160] That's what the warrant says. [01:51:57.160 --> 01:52:05.160] Arrest this person and bring him before me because now we can have a hearing where we have both sides present. [01:52:05.160 --> 01:52:09.160] Yeah, but the problem is, the way I'm looking at it is, [01:52:09.160 --> 01:52:15.160] how does that alleviate the need for them to tell them that a warrant's been issued? [01:52:15.160 --> 01:52:19.160] It doesn't. I don't see where it does. I can't find it anywhere. [01:52:19.160 --> 01:52:25.160] They're doing it because they're saying it's reasonable and rational and expedient, [01:52:25.160 --> 01:52:28.160] but I'm saying not good enough. [01:52:28.160 --> 01:52:34.160] You don't get to ignore law because it's reasonable, rational, and expedient. [01:52:34.160 --> 01:52:37.160] If it's a government record, it's a government record. [01:52:37.160 --> 01:52:42.160] And if there is no specific exclusion from disclosure, disclose it. [01:52:42.160 --> 01:52:51.160] So what I'm doing here is trying to focus this down so we have the right argument. [01:52:51.160 --> 01:52:58.160] And if you're in a municipal or JP court and most warrants are issued by JP, [01:52:58.160 --> 01:53:06.160] if he has an ex parte hearing where he issues a warrant, that's an examining trial. [01:53:06.160 --> 01:53:12.160] And 1730 is very clear about what he's to do after an examining trial. [01:53:12.160 --> 01:53:15.160] He's to certify all proceedings had in the hearing [01:53:15.160 --> 01:53:18.160] and then seal all documents had in the hearing in an envelope, [01:53:18.160 --> 01:53:21.160] cause his name to be written across the seal of the envelope [01:53:21.160 --> 01:53:24.160] and forward it to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction. [01:53:24.160 --> 01:53:26.160] Right, which would include his warrant. [01:53:26.160 --> 01:53:28.160] Which would include the warrant. [01:53:28.160 --> 01:53:32.160] And there's nothing in the law that says that the clerk of the court [01:53:32.160 --> 01:53:36.160] can exclude that warrant from public disclosure. [01:53:36.160 --> 01:53:38.160] Not that I could find. [01:53:38.160 --> 01:53:42.160] Well, it seems like this may have turned into a cooperative agreement [01:53:42.160 --> 01:53:47.160] between the courts and the police then to facilitate the arrest of the suspect [01:53:47.160 --> 01:53:53.160] by the police by hiding the warrant from the public eye so they couldn't be forewarned. [01:53:53.160 --> 01:53:55.160] Yeah, and they've gave me this argument before. [01:53:55.160 --> 01:54:01.160] Well, if we release the warrant, the guy's going to know and he can hit the road. [01:54:01.160 --> 01:54:03.160] Yeah, but in Ken's case he already knows. [01:54:03.160 --> 01:54:05.160] They notified him. [01:54:05.160 --> 01:54:06.160] I know. [01:54:06.160 --> 01:54:09.160] They told him already. [01:54:09.160 --> 01:54:16.160] What I said when they told me that, I said, well, you know, that may be a problem for you. [01:54:16.160 --> 01:54:20.160] But a bigger problem for you is the law that commands you to do this. [01:54:20.160 --> 01:54:25.160] You don't get to ignore the law just cause it's inconvenient. [01:54:25.160 --> 01:54:28.160] I don't see where that warrant is excluded. [01:54:28.160 --> 01:54:31.160] Well, and besides, in Ken's case that's an irrelevant argument [01:54:31.160 --> 01:54:33.160] because they've already notified him. [01:54:33.160 --> 01:54:35.160] Exactly, exactly. [01:54:35.160 --> 01:54:36.160] Okay. [01:54:36.160 --> 01:54:40.160] All right, listen, we've got about three and a half minutes left. [01:54:40.160 --> 01:54:43.160] So Ken, does that answer your question because we've got one more caller. [01:54:43.160 --> 01:54:44.160] Excellent, thank you. [01:54:44.160 --> 01:54:45.160] Okay, great, thank you. [01:54:45.160 --> 01:54:48.160] Okay, we're going now to Gary in Georgia. [01:54:48.160 --> 01:54:49.160] Gary, thank you for calling in. [01:54:49.160 --> 01:54:51.160] What's on your mind? [01:54:51.160 --> 01:54:52.160] Thank you, Deborah. [01:54:52.160 --> 01:54:58.160] What's on my mind is Case, Pennsylvania versus Quicksilver Company, [01:54:58.160 --> 01:55:00.160] and I'll give you a citation. [01:55:00.160 --> 01:55:05.160] It's 77 U.S. 553, 1870. [01:55:05.160 --> 01:55:17.160] The subject is when the state is a party, remember, I agree with Andy's dissertation about victimless crimes. [01:55:17.160 --> 01:55:19.160] It has to be a victim. [01:55:19.160 --> 01:55:24.160] That's where the word of standing comes in, civil or criminal. [01:55:24.160 --> 01:55:32.160] So this particular case, you notice that the state becomes some kind of a prosecutor and injured party. [01:55:32.160 --> 01:55:40.160] But what I have in this particular case is, as I said, 77 U.S. 553, [01:55:40.160 --> 01:55:46.160] and by the way, Randy, I will be sending it to you, plus Shepard site cases. [01:55:46.160 --> 01:55:54.160] But what it says is that the Supreme Court should have an exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature [01:55:54.160 --> 01:55:59.160] where the state is a party, except between a state and its citizens, [01:55:59.160 --> 01:56:05.160] and except also between a state and citizens of another state or aliens, [01:56:05.160 --> 01:56:11.160] in which the latter case is to have original, not exclusive jurisdiction. [01:56:11.160 --> 01:56:19.160] So, you know, often the prosecutor, he says the state's a party. [01:56:19.160 --> 01:56:21.160] However, state hasn't been injured. [01:56:21.160 --> 01:56:27.160] So I'll leave that up to you for comments, and if you have any moments left, sir. [01:56:27.160 --> 01:56:31.160] Thank you very much. Bye-bye. [01:56:31.160 --> 01:56:43.160] Texas has a statute that says that when a penal law of the state of Texas has been violated, the state is the injured party. [01:56:43.160 --> 01:56:46.160] Yeah, but you see there's, I see a conflict with that. [01:56:46.160 --> 01:56:52.160] Not only is the state the injured party, the state is also the prosecuting party. [01:56:52.160 --> 01:56:58.160] Now, if you or I get injured, we don't get to prosecute our cases. [01:56:58.160 --> 01:57:01.160] Well, that goes back, that goes to the Constitution. [01:57:01.160 --> 01:57:08.160] It's in the Constitution that the state is the, has exclusive right to prosecute. [01:57:08.160 --> 01:57:14.160] Yes, but there's nothing in the Constitution that allows for victimless crimes. [01:57:14.160 --> 01:57:24.160] Well, the statute says the state is injured by a violation of the penal code, so they become the injured party. [01:57:24.160 --> 01:57:29.160] But a traffic citation is a crime that doesn't involve anything in the penal code. [01:57:29.160 --> 01:57:35.160] So how do they become an injured party? [01:57:35.160 --> 01:57:39.160] Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. [01:57:39.160 --> 01:57:43.160] I didn't say the penal code, I said the penal laws. [01:57:43.160 --> 01:57:45.160] Uh, not a, no, you said penal code. [01:57:45.160 --> 01:57:46.160] And that's what it says. [01:57:46.160 --> 01:57:48.160] But I said, no, no, no. [01:57:48.160 --> 01:57:54.160] I meant penal laws. [01:57:54.160 --> 01:57:58.160] That's what the code says. [01:57:58.160 --> 01:58:04.160] Now, I don't necessarily like that idea or agree, no, I don't know if I agree with it or not. [01:58:04.160 --> 01:58:09.160] It's not something I've really thought out real careful. [01:58:09.160 --> 01:58:13.160] But that's what it says. [01:58:13.160 --> 01:58:18.160] Then that's my story and I'm sticking to it. [01:58:18.160 --> 01:58:20.160] But of course. [01:58:20.160 --> 01:58:22.160] All right, folks. [01:58:22.160 --> 01:58:23.160] We're at the end of the show. [01:58:23.160 --> 01:58:24.160] Thanks for listening. [01:58:24.160 --> 01:58:26.160] Thanks for calling in. [01:58:26.160 --> 01:58:32.160] We'll be back tomorrow night for a four-hour info marathon here on the rule of law. [01:58:32.160 --> 01:58:47.160] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig and Deborah Stevens will talk to you all tomorrow night. [01:58:47.160 --> 01:59:02.160] Thank you very much. [01:59:02.160 --> 01:59:17.160] Thank you very much. [01:59:17.160 --> 01:59:32.160] Thank you very much. [01:59:32.160 --> 01:59:47.160] Thank you. [01:59:47.160 --> 02:00:02.160] Thank you.