[00:00.000 --> 00:10.920] Polls open in Rwanda Monday for the second presidential election since the 1994 genocide. [00:10.920 --> 00:16.160] Amnesty International and other civil rights groups say incumbent Paul Kagame's party has [00:16.160 --> 00:26.120] led a campaign of violence and intimidation against journalists and political opponents. [00:26.120 --> 00:31.560] Before leaving for summer recess, the Senate last week authorized $14 billion in cuts to [00:31.560 --> 00:36.720] the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which currently provides food stamps to one [00:36.720 --> 00:43.720] in eight Americans. [00:43.720 --> 00:49.440] Japan Monday marked the 65th anniversary of the U.S. dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki [00:49.440 --> 00:53.600] just three days after dropping the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. [00:53.600 --> 00:58.960] 222,000 people, the majority of them civilians, were wiped out. [00:58.960 --> 01:07.600] Washington has yet to apologize for the atrocities. [01:07.600 --> 01:13.240] Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu was freed from jail Sunday after serving 11 [01:13.240 --> 01:17.040] weeks for breaking the terms of his release and meeting a foreigner. [01:17.040 --> 01:22.360] Vanunu said it was time Israel allowed him to leave the country and accuse the media [01:22.360 --> 01:25.080] of not fighting for his human rights and freedom. [01:25.080 --> 01:30.140] The former nuclear technician was arrested in December at a Jerusalem hotel while talking [01:30.140 --> 01:35.400] to a Norwegian woman, a violation of the terms laid down when he was freed after serving [01:35.400 --> 01:41.520] 18 years for disclosing the inner workings of Israel's Dimona nuclear plant to Britain's [01:41.520 --> 01:42.800] Sunday Times. [01:42.800 --> 01:48.280] Vanunu was originally jailed in 1986 and spent 10 years in solitary confinement. [01:48.280 --> 01:52.720] Vanunu became an international cause celeb during his time in prison. [01:52.720 --> 01:57.200] In Israel he is widely reviled for converting to Christianity. [01:57.200 --> 02:07.280] Israel is the only nuclear armed power in the Middle East with around 200 warheads. [02:07.280 --> 02:12.240] In Moscow a record heat wave has sent wildfires raging around the city. [02:12.240 --> 02:17.880] Temperatures are 25 degrees higher than average and many residents are wearing masks. [02:17.880 --> 02:22.520] Most Moscow apartments are filled with smoke and few people can afford air conditioning. [02:22.520 --> 02:27.000] Pollutants are three times normal and morgues are filled to capacity. [02:27.000 --> 02:31.560] Authorities have urged residents to leave the city and anti-smog centers have been set [02:31.560 --> 02:34.040] up for those who can't flee. [02:34.040 --> 02:37.520] One Moscow resident said, quote, I think it is the end of the world. [02:37.520 --> 02:41.560] Our planet is warning us what happens if we don't care about nature. [02:41.560 --> 02:50.000] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [02:50.000 --> 03:04.000] For more details on this story, visit INSworldreport.net. [03:04.000 --> 03:10.440] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live free [03:10.440 --> 03:12.440] speech talk radio at its best. [03:40.440 --> 04:03.800] Bad boys, bad boys, and bad girls, what are you going to do when we come for you here [04:03.800 --> 04:10.880] on the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Debra Stephens? [04:10.880 --> 04:18.080] Tonight is Monday, August 9th, so Monday night, that means it's traffic night, Eddie's night, [04:18.080 --> 04:21.720] he's going to be presenting some material and then we'll be taking your calls starting [04:21.720 --> 04:25.680] in about a half an hour from now, 512-646-1984. [04:25.680 --> 04:32.040] Okay, so what you got for us tonight, Eddie? [04:32.040 --> 04:39.920] Well, tonight I want to talk a little bit about what the purpose and actual constructive objective [04:39.920 --> 04:47.480] of Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to have been put into place for. [04:47.480 --> 04:53.680] And really, what the deal is, is this is going to lead us down the road to a very, very large [04:53.680 --> 05:01.320] and looming constitutional question over whether or not Chapter 45 is not only constitutional [05:01.320 --> 05:04.440] but whether it's even legal. [05:04.440 --> 05:11.680] And I want to do that by starting off with Article 45.001 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [05:11.680 --> 05:13.920] and it's entitled Objectives of Chapter. [05:13.920 --> 05:17.840] Now, each of these sections is very short. [05:17.840 --> 05:23.520] In 45.001 it reads, the purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for processing [05:23.520 --> 05:29.040] cases that come within the criminal jurisdiction of the justice courts and municipal courts. [05:29.040 --> 05:34.920] This chapter is intended and shall be construed to achieve the following objectives. [05:34.920 --> 05:40.440] One, to provide fair notice to a person appearing in a criminal proceeding before a justice [05:40.440 --> 05:45.880] or municipal court and a meaningful opportunity for that person to be heard. [05:45.880 --> 05:52.280] Two, to ensure appropriate dignity in court procedure without undue formalism. [05:52.280 --> 05:58.160] Three, to promote adherence to rules with sufficient flexibility to serve the ends of [05:58.160 --> 06:04.200] justice and four, to process cases without unnecessary expense or delay. [06:04.200 --> 06:08.480] Now, I'm going to stop in that section for just a second. [06:08.480 --> 06:14.280] There's a couple of things I want to point out here, such as Section 2 and 3, and bring [06:14.280 --> 06:16.320] up some issues with them. [06:16.320 --> 06:17.840] I'll read two again. [06:17.840 --> 06:24.600] To ensure appropriate dignity in court procedure without undue formalism. [06:24.600 --> 06:26.760] What does undue formalism mean? [06:26.760 --> 06:32.000] Well, let me tell you what Black's Law says undue means. [06:32.000 --> 06:40.000] More than necessary or not proper or illegal. [06:40.000 --> 06:45.160] It denotes something wrong according to the standard of morals which the law enforces [06:45.160 --> 06:54.600] in relations of men and in fact illegal and qualifies the purpose with which influence [06:54.600 --> 07:00.920] is exercised or result which it accomplishes. [07:00.920 --> 07:03.160] Undue formality. [07:03.160 --> 07:09.480] So according to Black's this could also be read more than necessary formality or not [07:09.480 --> 07:17.120] proper formality or illegal formality. [07:17.120 --> 07:26.920] So here's the objective we're going after here in 3, to promote adherence to rules with [07:26.920 --> 07:33.120] sufficient flexibility to serve the ends of justice. [07:33.120 --> 07:36.640] For who would be my first question? [07:36.640 --> 07:44.960] Because this sufficient flexibility, originally I would presume, was intended to make it where [07:44.960 --> 07:50.960] those of us that did not have legal counsel were not and could not be held to the same [07:50.960 --> 07:55.280] standard for putting up a defense under these accusations. [07:55.280 --> 08:00.560] Well, the point is, however, that we couldn't be held to the same level of accountability [08:00.560 --> 08:02.520] in that respect anyway. [08:02.520 --> 08:08.780] The courts have already said long before this chapter existed that that can't be done. [08:08.780 --> 08:11.800] So why the rulemaking here? [08:11.800 --> 08:20.840] Well I set up a judicial function of a court and then say you don't have the same formalities [08:20.840 --> 08:23.400] that the big courts have. [08:23.400 --> 08:29.360] You don't have the same necessity of following certain stringent rules that the big courts [08:29.360 --> 08:36.080] have and we've given you a little more flexibility in how you do your job to see that justice [08:36.080 --> 08:41.780] is done and so you don't have to be as formal. [08:41.780 --> 08:49.080] So my first question would be, okay, so you created a place where the people can go and [08:49.080 --> 08:55.200] if they wish to handle it in an informal manner, they can do so. [08:55.200 --> 08:58.000] What does that really do for me? [08:58.000 --> 09:04.920] Considering the current situation in these courts, I'd say it didn't do a thing for me. [09:04.920 --> 09:12.120] All it did was create a burden upon me that heretofore did not exist and give free rein [09:12.120 --> 09:17.920] to these lower courts to pretty much do whatever they wanted to you. [09:17.920 --> 09:22.960] Whether or not that was the intent, that is the result. [09:22.960 --> 09:29.640] Now let's look at article 45.002, application of chapter. [09:29.640 --> 09:34.000] Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with [09:34.000 --> 09:40.360] this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to [09:40.360 --> 09:43.640] those proceedings by this chapter. [09:43.640 --> 09:49.440] If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, [09:49.440 --> 09:55.400] the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent [09:55.400 --> 09:59.560] necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter. [09:59.560 --> 10:04.440] So they're not bound strictly by chapter 45.002. [10:04.440 --> 10:09.160] When it doesn't deal with things in the proper manner that the other courts deal with them [10:09.160 --> 10:15.840] and it's not addressed in here, then the court is told in the law to apply the rules from [10:15.840 --> 10:23.480] the rest of this code that the big courts do use to ensure that justice is done. [10:23.480 --> 10:29.720] Again, something they completely ignore. [10:29.720 --> 10:37.560] So the question that's posed in my mind of a constitutional issue is this, it would seem [10:37.560 --> 10:44.920] that they've arranged this court for the purpose of creating one of two things, an environment [10:44.920 --> 10:54.960] more user-friendly to the accused or an environment more conducive to the cattle shoot method [10:54.960 --> 11:02.320] of running you through, shooting you or branding you and taking your money and doing it in [11:02.320 --> 11:05.880] the most cost-efficient manner possible. [11:05.880 --> 11:08.560] That's the only two ways I can see this coming out. [11:08.560 --> 11:16.040] Well, let's presume for just a minute that it's the first one, that they did this in [11:16.040 --> 11:23.240] order to give us a more friendly environment for the pro se litigant or the sue-juris litigant [11:23.240 --> 11:28.800] to go in and defend themselves without having to obey all of the necessary rules that they [11:28.800 --> 11:36.040] would have had to in a big court, or to formally write their pleadings and all that other stuff [11:36.040 --> 11:40.320] to match the way that it would more or less have to be in a big court. [11:40.320 --> 11:44.560] Let's presume for a minute they did it for our benefit. [11:44.560 --> 11:52.200] What happens if we decide we don't want the benefit of the simplicity, at least as far [11:52.200 --> 11:56.000] as the procedures are concerned? [11:56.000 --> 12:02.720] Because we know what the benefit is for them, we have yet to see a benefit for us. [12:02.720 --> 12:09.800] All they're doing right now is just running roughshod over us with steel-toed golf shoes. [12:09.800 --> 12:17.400] They're just ignoring anything we do in these lower courts through their simplified procedures. [12:17.400 --> 12:24.440] What if we don't want to be harnessed with these more flexible procedures that allow [12:24.440 --> 12:28.080] these judges to violate the law? [12:28.080 --> 12:35.360] What's our remedy for moving it from a justice or municipal court to a court that has more [12:35.360 --> 12:39.960] formality and is more likely to abide by the rules? [12:39.960 --> 12:48.480] Well, I don't see one in chapter 45 to tell you the truth, but it would appear to me that [12:48.480 --> 12:56.680] based upon what they're doing, that option should be available, because the law specifically [12:56.680 --> 13:02.760] states right here in 002 that if it's not addressed in chapter 45, then you're to use [13:02.760 --> 13:05.160] the rest of the rules. [13:05.160 --> 13:09.480] Now if for some reason the rest of the rules are beyond the scope of your jurisdiction, [13:09.480 --> 13:11.800] what would that tell you? [13:11.800 --> 13:16.400] Then if the rules can be applied to the case at hand, then you have to lose jurisdiction [13:16.400 --> 13:18.760] and hand it up to a higher court. [13:18.760 --> 13:23.480] That would just be common sense. [13:23.480 --> 13:28.640] Now one of the rules that we've looked at before is the requirement for an information [13:28.640 --> 13:35.600] to be signed by the prosecuting attorney in order for the court to get jurisdiction in [13:35.600 --> 13:37.640] the first place. [13:37.640 --> 13:40.800] Well here's the problem with that. [13:40.800 --> 13:46.600] The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that the information can only be signed [13:46.600 --> 13:50.520] by a county attorney or a district attorney. [13:50.520 --> 13:54.320] A city attorney cannot sign one. [13:54.320 --> 14:00.720] That's why there never is one in a municipal court, because the city attorney can't sign [14:00.720 --> 14:01.720] it. [14:01.720 --> 14:09.000] Unfortunately, if the city attorney cannot sign it, the court cannot get jurisdiction. [14:09.000 --> 14:15.320] And if they cannot get jurisdiction, he can't be the prosecutor and they can't be the judge. [14:15.320 --> 14:17.880] Now in the JP court, that's different. [14:17.880 --> 14:23.720] The county attorney can sign the information because they're the one prosecuting there. [14:23.720 --> 14:30.240] But once again, they never do it, at least not in the majority of the counties. [14:30.240 --> 14:33.400] They may do it in the big, big counties, but not in the majority of them. [14:33.400 --> 14:37.680] They never do it here. [14:37.680 --> 14:43.160] So the constitutional issue becomes what if I don't want your simplified benefit because [14:43.160 --> 14:50.040] your simplified benefit is robbing me of my due process rights to discovery, assistance [14:50.040 --> 15:00.800] of counsel, the right to be heard, the introduction of evidence, and cross-examination of witnesses, [15:00.800 --> 15:04.880] and compulsory process for witnesses in my favor. [15:04.880 --> 15:10.600] I am being denied all of these due process rights under your simplified process. [15:10.600 --> 15:14.120] So why, in heaven's name, would I want it? [15:14.120 --> 15:19.320] I need you to tell me what my options are for telling you to go take a hike and send [15:19.320 --> 15:26.120] this case to a court where the record will keep me in line with my due process rights, [15:26.120 --> 15:29.800] which I don't have here. [15:29.800 --> 15:39.440] That, folks, is what would make Chapter 45 both unconstitutional and absolutely illegal. [15:39.440 --> 15:47.040] Because by its very construction, whether originally intended for good purposes or otherwise, [15:47.040 --> 15:54.760] its very construction denies you an inherent basic right to due process at every stage [15:54.760 --> 15:57.760] of the proceedings. [15:57.760 --> 16:03.000] How many of you ever got a ticket, gone to court, saw the judge break every rule in the [16:03.000 --> 16:10.360] book, they did everything short of stand up and lie to the jury, and you objected and [16:10.360 --> 16:14.960] complained and the only response the judge gives you is, if you don't like it, take it [16:14.960 --> 16:17.840] up on appeal. [16:17.840 --> 16:23.240] Did you receive due process at this stage of the proceeding? [16:23.240 --> 16:25.440] Obviously not. [16:25.440 --> 16:30.520] And if you didn't, that's a constitutional violation. [16:30.520 --> 16:36.240] And if that violation is committed, it is in and of itself a crime. [16:36.240 --> 16:37.240] Period. [16:37.240 --> 16:41.320] Okay, we're going to break. [16:41.320 --> 16:45.900] This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, y'all hang in there, folks. [16:45.900 --> 17:03.440] We will be right back on the other side. [17:03.440 --> 17:08.480] Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies [17:08.480 --> 17:10.480] in the Austin metro area. [17:10.480 --> 17:12.520] We also ship worldwide. [17:12.520 --> 17:16.600] We are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin [17:16.600 --> 17:17.600] and metals purchases. [17:17.600 --> 17:23.240] We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious [17:23.240 --> 17:25.160] metals and scrap gold. [17:25.160 --> 17:28.760] We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. [17:28.760 --> 17:31.360] We offer daily specials on coins and bullion. [17:31.360 --> 17:37.400] We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 [17:37.400 --> 17:41.320] AM to 6 PM, Saturdays, 10 AM to 5 PM. [17:41.320 --> 17:48.680] You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 [17:48.680 --> 17:49.680] with any questions. [17:49.680 --> 17:55.200] Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM, that's Capital [17:55.200 --> 18:17.520] Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440. [18:17.520 --> 18:23.240] All right folks, we are back and we're talking about Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [18:23.240 --> 18:27.120] whether or not it's constitutional and legal. [18:27.120 --> 18:38.000] Now let me read you what the title of Chapter 45 is, Justice and Municipal Courts. [18:38.000 --> 18:45.720] Now by definition, a justice and municipal court in Texas has zero jurisdiction over [18:45.720 --> 18:54.680] any offense other than a misdemeanor that is punishable by fine only, okay? [18:54.680 --> 18:58.040] Now remember that, punishable by fine only. [18:58.040 --> 19:01.520] They cannot put you in jail. [19:01.520 --> 19:05.200] They cannot sentence you to jail. [19:05.200 --> 19:12.040] They cannot sentence you to any type of confinement. [19:12.040 --> 19:20.840] Now how then do they convert a fine into community service? [19:20.840 --> 19:26.040] Because community service is a restriction upon your liberty and community service therefore [19:26.040 --> 19:29.720] constitutes a type of confinement. [19:29.720 --> 19:37.640] So how can a justice and municipal court order community service in lieu of a fine? [19:37.640 --> 19:44.200] How can they grant a request for community service in lieu of a fine when they do not [19:44.200 --> 19:50.680] have any authority over a case that involves incarceration, okay? [19:50.680 --> 19:58.200] Now that being said, and the way this is titled, Being Justice and Municipal Courts, why are [19:58.200 --> 20:05.680] there so many sections in Chapter 45 that deal with time in jail? [20:05.680 --> 20:09.760] Let's take for instance Article 45.015. [20:09.760 --> 20:15.040] Now listen carefully, Defendant Placed in Jail. [20:15.040 --> 20:21.720] Whenever by the provisions of this title, now notice not this chapter, this title, which [20:21.720 --> 20:29.120] is Title 1, the peace officer is authorized to retain a defendant in custody. [20:29.120 --> 20:35.600] The peace officer may place the defendant in jail in accordance with this code or other [20:35.600 --> 20:37.720] law. [20:37.720 --> 20:43.440] Now I don't know about you, but that section most assuredly sounds like it cannot be applied [20:43.440 --> 20:47.120] in a justice or municipal court. [20:47.120 --> 20:54.200] So what's it doing in a chapter that is titled Justice and Municipal Courts? [20:54.200 --> 20:57.720] What's it here for? [20:57.720 --> 21:06.240] Same thing with bail, Article 45.016, the justice or judge may require the defendant [21:06.240 --> 21:12.040] to give bail to secure the defendant's appearance in accordance with this code. [21:12.040 --> 21:18.360] If the defendant fails to give bail, the defendant may be held in custody. [21:18.360 --> 21:24.280] Then you have 45.014, Warrant of Arrest. [21:24.280 --> 21:28.520] Now here's some issues I've got. [21:28.520 --> 21:38.000] You cannot punish me for the act by any mode other than a fine, yet you have the authority [21:38.000 --> 21:45.960] to issue a warrant for my arrest based upon the same charge for which you can only charge [21:45.960 --> 21:49.880] me for a fine and not put me in jail. [21:49.880 --> 21:54.500] Why can't this whole thing be done by mail then? [21:54.500 --> 22:00.120] If you're not allowed to put me in jail, then by what stretch of the imagination does the [22:00.120 --> 22:08.680] legislature even begin to facilitate and germinate the idea that it's okay to arrest you even [22:08.680 --> 22:12.080] though I can't put you in jail? [22:12.080 --> 22:17.280] Tell me one police officer out there that thinks there's a difference between being [22:17.280 --> 22:25.720] able to arrest you and then being able to put you in jail after he has arrested you. [22:25.720 --> 22:31.240] I guarantee you they are extremely scarce. [22:31.240 --> 22:33.760] And what is a requisite of bail? [22:33.760 --> 22:36.360] You have to be in custody. [22:36.360 --> 22:45.280] You have to be arrested and you have to be restrained or confined for there to be a necessity [22:45.280 --> 22:48.640] for bail. [22:48.640 --> 22:51.340] So again, how do these two mesh? [22:51.340 --> 22:57.360] You can only punish me with a fine, but you can also arrest me and incarcerate me until [22:57.360 --> 23:03.960] such time as you can bring me before a judge who then may decide to release me from the [23:03.960 --> 23:09.200] custody that you're not allowed to have me in on bail. [23:09.200 --> 23:14.160] That you shouldn't be able to charge me because you were not allowed to arrest me on the charge [23:14.160 --> 23:17.560] in the first place and put me in jail. [23:17.560 --> 23:23.240] Anybody else see a little conundrum here? [23:23.240 --> 23:26.440] It just doesn't make sense, does it? [23:26.440 --> 23:32.360] It's fine only offenses, but you can arrest me and you can hold me in jail, but you just [23:32.360 --> 23:35.400] can't punish me with that at the trial. [23:35.400 --> 23:40.280] But you can hold me in jail before trial for as long as you like. [23:40.280 --> 23:42.080] Go figure. [23:42.080 --> 23:46.920] What's wrong with this picture, folks? [23:46.920 --> 23:51.400] The problem we have is, just like I've said so many times, these people don't read the [23:51.400 --> 23:57.560] law and the legislature does not ever read the law in its entirety before they go back [23:57.560 --> 23:58.880] and make a change to it. [23:58.880 --> 24:00.480] You know why? [24:00.480 --> 24:07.280] Because the changes they make are based upon the recommendation of the Texas Judicial Council. [24:07.280 --> 24:11.760] It's got nothing to do with what the legislature thinks the law says. [24:11.760 --> 24:13.720] The judicial council goes in. [24:13.720 --> 24:17.440] They review whatever section of the law they think ought to be changed. [24:17.440 --> 24:20.280] They write up the law the way they think it ought to read. [24:20.280 --> 24:23.920] They submit it to the legislature who then passes it. [24:23.920 --> 24:30.600] And no one at any point has bothered to consider whether or not that new section of rewrite [24:30.600 --> 24:37.000] complies with all the other portions of the code so that there are no conflicts. [24:37.000 --> 24:39.800] Nobody does that. [24:39.800 --> 24:46.360] And so here we sit with a completely unconstitutional and illegal chapter in the Code of Criminal [24:46.360 --> 24:48.120] Procedure. [24:48.120 --> 24:52.920] And I'll reiterate, the thing that makes it unconstitutional and illegal, if you want [24:52.920 --> 25:00.080] to paint a nice simplified picture of it is, it denies anyone accused of a Class C misdemeanor [25:00.080 --> 25:07.540] punishable by fine only the same rights of due process at every stage and through the [25:07.540 --> 25:15.120] entire course of the proceedings as it does to any other criminal case. [25:15.120 --> 25:18.920] No other criminal defendant is denied counsel. [25:18.920 --> 25:25.560] No other criminal defendant has their pleadings just denied out of hand. [25:25.560 --> 25:33.120] No other defendant is required to post double the amount of the fine before they're allowed [25:33.120 --> 25:38.560] to appeal. [25:38.560 --> 25:49.880] And no other defendant can be incarcerated in order to facilitate the need for a bond [25:49.880 --> 25:53.080] before we release you for an indefinite period of time. [25:53.080 --> 25:57.400] They've got a limit of 48 hours. [25:57.400 --> 25:59.360] What do we have? [25:59.360 --> 26:05.400] Because they've changed 1517 the way they have, the Class C misdemeanors don't have [26:05.400 --> 26:08.040] the 48 hours. [26:08.040 --> 26:11.400] What do they have? [26:11.400 --> 26:12.400] Absolutely nothing. [26:12.400 --> 26:18.760] We have been deprived if we're accused of a Class C misdemeanor of virtually every necessary [26:18.760 --> 26:22.120] right of due process that we're entitled to. [26:22.120 --> 26:32.320] And it's been done by legislative enactment and utter stupidity in my opinion. [26:32.320 --> 26:38.200] Because anybody that reads these sections from beginning to end and has any clue at [26:38.200 --> 26:44.720] all about what is right and wrong in how someone is to be treated when they've been accused [26:44.720 --> 26:50.200] of a crime, you know, innocent until proven guilty, right of due process, you can't take [26:50.200 --> 26:55.440] me or my property without a warrant, if you're going to put me on bail, you better have good [26:55.440 --> 27:01.680] probable cause to have held me in the first place, you know, all those little things. [27:01.680 --> 27:04.040] Anybody that had a clue about that should be able to look at this and say, you know [27:04.040 --> 27:09.520] what, there's something seriously wrong here, folks. [27:09.520 --> 27:10.840] This can't be right. [27:10.840 --> 27:11.840] Not in America. [27:11.840 --> 27:14.080] This can't work this way. [27:14.080 --> 27:20.280] Because here we've created a completely separate and distinct classification of crime that [27:20.280 --> 27:25.560] strips away every vestige of due process. [27:25.560 --> 27:30.920] And the only reason that I can see that it did it was for the purpose of generating revenue. [27:30.920 --> 27:34.720] Oh, big surprise, right? [27:34.720 --> 27:39.960] This streamlined process has nothing to do with the administration of justice in the [27:39.960 --> 27:44.300] second instance, our first instance that we talked about before. [27:44.300 --> 27:47.720] This is, in fact, the cattle chute. [27:47.720 --> 27:49.280] That's what this is. [27:49.280 --> 27:55.080] The Class C misdemeanors are their cash cow, okay? [27:55.080 --> 28:01.000] And we are the bull vines that get run through the chute and have the money extracted from [28:01.000 --> 28:02.720] us. [28:02.720 --> 28:07.160] That's all these courts have been set up to be and all they are set up to do. [28:07.160 --> 28:09.480] They're not there to provide you justice. [28:09.480 --> 28:16.040] This is why you've heard me say so many times, forget winning at the first level in court [28:16.040 --> 28:18.040] if you're in there for a traffic ticket. [28:18.040 --> 28:24.340] It's almost a dead-bang slam dunk guarantee that unless you know exactly what you're doing [28:24.340 --> 28:30.280] and you fight it tooth and nail without backing down, that you're going to even begin to come [28:30.280 --> 28:37.200] close to winning and having it dismissed, thrown out, or whatever. [28:37.200 --> 28:41.400] Every now and then, you'll stumble across somebody that's smart enough to realize, if [28:41.400 --> 28:45.840] I push this, I'm putting my head in a bear trap. [28:45.840 --> 28:49.700] And so they'll back off and drop the case. [28:49.700 --> 28:54.400] But most of the time, they're very, very good judges of character. [28:54.400 --> 28:58.480] They can tell by what you say and how you act when you walk into that courtroom whether [28:58.480 --> 29:01.720] or not you have a clue about what you're doing. [29:01.720 --> 29:06.640] And if you give them the impression that you don't, they're going to steamroll you like [29:06.640 --> 29:11.840] a hot new lay down of asphalt. [29:11.840 --> 29:18.360] And there's just no way you're going to win under that presupposition of guilt that this [29:18.360 --> 29:23.680] system under Chapter 45 automatically imposes. [29:23.680 --> 29:25.080] There's no other way to put it. [29:25.080 --> 29:29.360] You are presumed guilty because none of your due process rights are here. [29:29.360 --> 29:34.200] In their mind, you've already been tried and everything else, so all we've got left now [29:34.200 --> 29:37.120] is our process to get our money out of you. [29:37.120 --> 29:38.920] All right. [29:38.920 --> 29:39.920] That's all I've got. [29:39.920 --> 29:42.200] So on the other side, we'll start taking phone calls. [29:42.200 --> 29:44.920] This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. [29:44.920 --> 29:45.920] We're going to break. [29:45.920 --> 30:01.680] So folks, y'all hang in there, and we will be right back. [30:01.680 --> 30:06.640] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so [30:06.640 --> 30:10.320] easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with. [30:10.320 --> 30:13.280] Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then. [30:13.280 --> 30:14.280] Brave New Books? [30:14.280 --> 30:15.280] Yes. [30:15.280 --> 30:19.640] Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, [30:19.640 --> 30:21.640] Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. [30:21.640 --> 30:25.720] They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps. [30:25.720 --> 30:27.960] There's no way a place like that exists. [30:27.960 --> 30:29.440] Go check it out for yourself. [30:29.440 --> 30:33.360] It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. [30:33.360 --> 30:37.160] Oh, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. [30:37.160 --> 30:42.440] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking [30:42.440 --> 30:45.440] facility, just behind the bookstore. [30:45.440 --> 30:48.440] It does exist, but when are they open? [30:48.440 --> 30:53.200] Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. [30:53.200 --> 30:57.080] So give them a call at 512-480-2503. [30:57.080 --> 31:02.080] Also check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com. [31:02.080 --> 31:05.240] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [31:05.240 --> 31:12.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course [31:12.000 --> 31:15.200] that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [31:15.200 --> 31:19.760] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [31:19.760 --> 31:24.040] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [31:24.040 --> 31:28.880] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [31:28.880 --> 31:34.520] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [31:34.520 --> 31:40.120] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about [31:40.120 --> 31:44.080] the principles and practices that control our American courts. [31:44.080 --> 31:50.680] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [31:50.680 --> 31:57.240] process tactics, and much more, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner [31:57.240 --> 32:00.240] or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [32:00.240 --> 32:26.760] All right, folks, we are back, we're taking your calls, 512-646-1984 is the caller line. [32:26.760 --> 32:31.640] If you want to call in and talk to us on the air, if you want to just listen and you don't [32:31.640 --> 32:36.760] have internet connection or you don't have an AM or FM affiliate in the town where you're [32:36.760 --> 32:45.920] at, you can also listen on the listener line, 512-485-9010 to listen only, to call and speak [32:45.920 --> 32:48.720] with us on the air, 512-646-1984. [32:48.720 --> 32:52.200] We've got some callers on the phone lines here. [32:52.200 --> 32:54.680] We've got James from Colorado is up first. [32:54.680 --> 32:57.600] James, thanks for calling in, what's on your mind tonight? [32:57.600 --> 33:02.720] Oh, well, thank you for taking my call, appreciate that. [33:02.720 --> 33:12.720] I have a court date set up for day after tomorrow, Wednesday, for a traffic ticket that I got. [33:12.720 --> 33:18.360] Basically, it was for expired license plate and I didn't have my wallet with me and my [33:18.360 --> 33:22.160] driver's license and insurance. [33:22.160 --> 33:25.560] So I have to go answer that. [33:25.560 --> 33:34.720] Of course, I have the insurance and their driver's license, but I sent off a notice [33:34.720 --> 33:42.760] to them that I wanted all the information and what laws are going to be used to adjudicate [33:42.760 --> 33:50.400] the case and all that and I haven't received a response and I have no idea what the nature [33:50.400 --> 33:58.040] of the charges are or anything, so I was wondering how I should proceed in that and also at the [33:58.040 --> 34:05.400] time of the incident when I received the ticket, when the officer and his backup went back [34:05.400 --> 34:12.480] to their car to get their information together and I realized that I had an old card from [34:12.480 --> 34:19.160] my insurance company that I had in the truck, I decided I should probably show that to them [34:19.160 --> 34:23.680] and when I got out of the truck, they started hollering and screaming and came over and [34:23.680 --> 34:30.640] threw my hands behind me and up over my head and pushed me down and basically, Randy told [34:30.640 --> 34:35.600] me that I was assault with a deadly weapon and that I should present those charges when [34:35.600 --> 34:44.440] I go to the arraignment because the judge is supposed to be a magistrate at that point. [34:44.440 --> 34:49.280] I'm just wondering if I need to figure out how to get that together in the next couple [34:49.280 --> 34:54.400] of days or if that's the proper way to proceed in this and how I should proceed when I get [34:54.400 --> 34:59.000] to court as far as not being given the information that I requested. [34:59.000 --> 35:03.480] What was their alleged justification for assaulting you? [35:03.480 --> 35:09.280] Because I stepped out of the truck and when I questioned them about that, they said, well, [35:09.280 --> 35:14.960] there was a guy in Alabama, an officer down there, got out of his vehicle and came back [35:14.960 --> 35:21.600] to the police officer's car and shot the police officer so apparently they're so paranoid [35:21.600 --> 35:28.280] that they're psychologically unfit to be on the street with a weapon that appeared to [35:28.280 --> 35:34.520] me that they're so paranoid that everybody they see they expect to be shooting at them. [35:34.520 --> 35:35.800] Well that's the problem. [35:35.800 --> 35:39.920] That's okay for them to see but you and I aren't allowed to feel that way about them [35:39.920 --> 35:46.600] yet they're the armed guys running around causing the biggest problems. [35:46.600 --> 35:50.720] But yes, in fact, that is the best way to handle it which is to go in with a set of [35:50.720 --> 35:54.920] criminal complaints already written up against the officers. [35:54.920 --> 35:57.240] So what you need to do, you're in Colorado, correct? [35:57.240 --> 36:02.400] Yeah, I need to find out where to get a basic form that I can fill in or whatever and I [36:02.400 --> 36:03.400] don't know how to do that. [36:03.400 --> 36:10.160] Go to any police station, go to any court clerk and tell them you need a blank criminal [36:10.160 --> 36:11.160] complaint. [36:11.160 --> 36:12.160] Okay. [36:12.160 --> 36:17.840] A blank criminal complaint form and they're going to say, well, do you want an officer [36:17.840 --> 36:19.040] to take your statement? [36:19.040 --> 36:24.680] No, I need a blank criminal complaint. [36:24.680 --> 36:30.280] You can also get a you can also look at any criminal complaint by just pulling any criminal [36:30.280 --> 36:36.520] case and looking at public record of what's already been filed and just, you know, modify [36:36.520 --> 36:40.120] the document to suit your particular situation. [36:40.120 --> 36:41.120] Correct. [36:41.120 --> 36:42.120] Okay. [36:42.120 --> 36:43.120] Okay. [36:43.120 --> 36:48.120] Because they may not have necessarily a blank criminal complaint form. [36:48.120 --> 36:52.960] So you can just go to the courthouse and pull any criminal case, just ask the clerk for [36:52.960 --> 36:59.280] the, you know, a few of the most recent criminal complaints that have been filed today or yesterday [36:59.280 --> 37:03.960] or within this last week and make copies and then just take it home. [37:03.960 --> 37:07.920] You'll have to type it in yourself and just make the necessary changes. [37:07.920 --> 37:12.240] Here in Texas, a criminal complaint form is a specific legal document. [37:12.240 --> 37:16.280] It's not a police report form. [37:16.280 --> 37:23.900] It's not what the police fill out when you go and try to report a crime to the police. [37:23.900 --> 37:29.520] We don't do it that way because in general, if you go and report a crime to the police, [37:29.520 --> 37:30.780] you're just complaining. [37:30.780 --> 37:37.720] You're not filing a notarized criminal complaint, which is a specific legal document that's [37:37.720 --> 37:39.200] filed with a magistrate. [37:39.200 --> 37:40.200] Okay. [37:40.200 --> 37:45.180] And so what ends up happening is that the police get to use their discretion as to whether [37:45.180 --> 37:52.560] or not they want to bring it to the DA or turn it into a criminal complaint themselves. [37:52.560 --> 37:59.440] I just have to research and find out where, maybe even online at the Colorado system to [37:59.440 --> 38:03.440] find out if there's a basic form somewhere that I need to get. [38:03.440 --> 38:04.440] There might be. [38:04.440 --> 38:11.280] Now generally, on a criminal complaint, it's usually a very short document and you have [38:11.280 --> 38:17.200] to name the statute that you're accusing the other person of violating and then attached [38:17.200 --> 38:20.080] to that would be the statement of probable cause. [38:20.080 --> 38:21.440] That's your story. [38:21.440 --> 38:30.520] It's what you witnessed or what evidence you have to support the accusation. [38:30.520 --> 38:35.000] But in general, on the criminal complaint, you have to name the specific statute, you [38:35.000 --> 38:41.800] know, the title, the paragraph, the section, the clause that you're accusing the other [38:41.800 --> 38:47.480] person of having violated and it's usually pretty simple and that's all there is to it [38:47.480 --> 38:50.800] and then you sign it and notarize it. [38:50.800 --> 38:56.000] In Texas, it's less than one page but then the statement of probable cause, which is [38:56.000 --> 38:58.240] attached, that's your story. [38:58.240 --> 38:59.960] That could be several pages. [38:59.960 --> 39:06.880] That's the backup, so to speak, for your criminal complaint, all the evidence, the probable [39:06.880 --> 39:07.880] cause statement. [39:07.880 --> 39:09.880] Does that make sense? [39:09.880 --> 39:11.960] Yeah, that makes sense. [39:11.960 --> 39:13.040] Now next question. [39:13.040 --> 39:20.480] How do I go about presenting this to the magistrate himself during the interview or whatever you [39:20.480 --> 39:22.920] want to call it? [39:22.920 --> 39:30.240] Well in Texas, all judges are magistrates and so generally, see the problem is that [39:30.240 --> 39:31.960] the magistrate doesn't want to take it. [39:31.960 --> 39:36.120] The judge isn't going to want to take it and so you have to kind of, the way Randy does [39:36.120 --> 39:38.240] it, there's several different methods. [39:38.240 --> 39:47.560] He'll have it as an attachment or some kind of exhibit or something to another document [39:47.560 --> 39:51.760] in a civil case or in the criminal case against you. [39:51.760 --> 39:56.800] It will be part of the, it'll be attached to your motions or something and when the [39:56.800 --> 40:03.960] judge sees it in his hand, then his duties as a magistrate are automatically invoked [40:03.960 --> 40:07.480] and therefore the criminal complaint is filed. [40:07.480 --> 40:11.880] Sometimes you have to go to a JP to get him filed or the district attorney. [40:11.880 --> 40:13.320] That's the complicated part. [40:13.320 --> 40:16.720] Eddie, do you have any comments on that issue? [40:16.720 --> 40:19.920] No, not really. [40:19.920 --> 40:25.400] All you've got to do is just tell the judge, I have these documents for you and I need [40:25.400 --> 40:30.440] to present them to you and just give them to the bailiff and have them give them to [40:30.440 --> 40:31.440] the judge. [40:31.440 --> 40:35.800] Don't answer the judge when they ask what is it because then they'll refuse to accept [40:35.800 --> 40:36.800] it. [40:36.800 --> 40:43.160] Once it's in their hands, however, that's a whole other matter so just make sure you [40:43.160 --> 40:44.160] let them know. [40:44.160 --> 40:48.760] I have some documents I need to file with the court and you can either say may I approach [40:48.760 --> 40:52.640] and go up there and drop them off at which point they're in the judge's hand or the [40:52.640 --> 40:55.440] judge will send the bailiff to get them to take them to the judge. [40:55.440 --> 41:00.720] And if they ask you or if the bailiff asks you what is it, just say this is business [41:00.720 --> 41:06.280] for the judge because the whole thing is you want to get those criminal complaints in the [41:06.280 --> 41:14.080] hands of the judge without having to tell him what it is because the judges do not want [41:14.080 --> 41:19.280] their duties as a magistrate to be invoked because they don't want to accept criminal [41:19.280 --> 41:23.320] complaints against other public officials. [41:23.320 --> 41:29.720] And likely what could happen is that even once he gets them in his hand or her hand, [41:29.720 --> 41:31.080] they won't take them. [41:31.080 --> 41:36.400] I've been with Randy when we've tried to present criminal complaints to a judge, one [41:36.400 --> 41:43.120] judge to invoke her duty as a magistrate against another high level public official in the [41:43.120 --> 41:48.560] court system and she told us in open court with a court reporter there transcribing the [41:48.560 --> 41:51.480] whole thing, she said I'm not a filing entity. [41:51.480 --> 41:54.280] Well that is not true. [41:54.280 --> 42:01.040] It's very clear all judges are also magistrates in the state of Texas and the magistrate is [42:01.040 --> 42:08.120] the filing entity directed to accept criminal complaints but she wouldn't take them anyway. [42:08.120 --> 42:10.320] So she just committed a crime. [42:10.320 --> 42:17.480] So then we have to, then that invokes a criminal complaint against her if we wanted to pursue [42:17.480 --> 42:18.480] it. [42:18.480 --> 42:22.360] Do you know for certain that there is two also in Colorado that all judges are definitely [42:22.360 --> 42:23.360] magistrates? [42:23.360 --> 42:26.240] I believe that is across the board in every state. [42:26.240 --> 42:27.240] Okay. [42:27.240 --> 42:35.280] They have to be because a judge has both a ministerial and a discretionary duty under [42:35.280 --> 42:36.760] the law. [42:36.760 --> 42:41.800] So the ministerial is always handled in the magistrate capacity. [42:41.800 --> 42:44.760] The discretionary is what's done in the judge capacity. [42:44.760 --> 42:51.320] Now what the judge may tell you to do if he or she refuses to take the criminal complaints, [42:51.320 --> 42:55.960] he or she might tell you to go file it with the JP and that's what we ended up doing was [42:55.960 --> 43:00.280] filing it with the JP and if JP won't take it... [43:00.280 --> 43:01.400] Is that what a magistrate is? [43:01.400 --> 43:02.400] I'm sorry? [43:02.400 --> 43:03.880] Isn't that what a magistrate is? [43:03.880 --> 43:04.880] No? [43:04.880 --> 43:11.240] A JP is a magistrate, yes, but you want to be able to file the criminal complaints with [43:11.240 --> 43:18.160] a higher level judge magistrate if possible, especially in the case that's against you. [43:18.160 --> 43:23.640] It's always advisable to be able to file the criminal complaints against the police officers [43:23.640 --> 43:32.120] with the judge who is the presiding judge in your case. [43:32.120 --> 43:33.600] That's advisable if possible. [43:33.600 --> 43:39.520] As I understand it, just interview it for the judge to gather the information and see [43:39.520 --> 43:43.280] if there's enough information to proceed with the case. [43:43.280 --> 43:44.280] Well, yes. [43:44.280 --> 43:45.280] Hold on one second. [43:45.280 --> 43:46.280] We'll explain on the other side. [43:46.280 --> 43:48.760] It's two totally different situations. [43:48.760 --> 43:53.880] You may be about to go through an arraignment or some kind of a pretrial, but once you present [43:53.880 --> 43:58.400] those criminal complaints, duty as a magistrate is invoked, it's totally different. [43:58.400 --> 44:00.920] We'll be right back. [44:00.920 --> 44:07.160] Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, micro plant powder, will change your life [44:07.160 --> 44:12.840] by removing all types of positive toxins such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses [44:12.840 --> 44:17.600] and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach walls so you can absorb nutrients. [44:17.600 --> 44:22.920] Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive [44:22.920 --> 44:26.200] toxins from the blood, organs, spine and brain. [44:26.200 --> 44:31.000] This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone which allows synovial fluid to return [44:31.000 --> 44:32.520] to the joints. [44:32.520 --> 44:36.840] Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is [44:36.840 --> 44:38.240] great for the heart. [44:38.240 --> 44:43.120] There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage [44:43.120 --> 44:47.440] shelter and with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere. [44:47.440 --> 44:54.840] Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org, it's a great way to change your life. [44:54.840 --> 45:11.240] So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today. [45:11.240 --> 45:14.120] Okay we're back, we're speaking with James in Colorado. [45:14.120 --> 45:21.120] Okay James, right I realize that this may be a pre-trial or some type of an arraignment [45:21.120 --> 45:27.440] but the thing is the reason that you want the presiding judge to be the magistrate to [45:27.440 --> 45:32.360] file, to be the one to receive the filing of the criminal complaints is for a two-fold [45:32.360 --> 45:33.360] purpose. [45:33.360 --> 45:38.960] First of all, if the judge is trying to make a, if it is indeed even an examining trial [45:38.960 --> 45:44.720] where, which is a probable cause hearing, where the judge makes a determination as to [45:44.720 --> 45:50.480] whether there's enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution and then the judge receives [45:50.480 --> 45:52.920] these criminal complaints. [45:52.920 --> 45:56.840] Number one, they've been filed with him or her as a magistrate. [45:56.840 --> 46:03.760] Their duty as a magistrate is immediately, automatically invoked when they get a criminal [46:03.760 --> 46:06.880] complaint in their hand, that's all there is to it. [46:06.880 --> 46:13.760] But then the second reason is that the criminal complaint also functions for a purpose to [46:13.760 --> 46:20.320] show the judge how there's no evidence against you or there's little evidence against you [46:20.320 --> 46:25.720] or that there's so many laws were broken on the part of the police officer that a legitimate [46:25.720 --> 46:32.880] prosecution could not even commence and so it does have the purpose of helping you with [46:32.880 --> 46:34.800] your defense as well. [46:34.800 --> 46:39.720] And then there's another purpose too, if the judge refuses to accept the criminal complaints, [46:39.720 --> 46:44.040] well then now the judge has just committed a crime and so now you can file motions to [46:44.040 --> 46:46.920] have that judge disqualified in your case. [46:46.920 --> 46:47.920] Okay. [46:47.920 --> 46:51.400] Okay, does that make sense? [46:51.400 --> 46:53.920] Yes, that makes sense. [46:53.920 --> 47:03.920] I had intended, once I determined that the information were in the case, I have an affidavit [47:03.920 --> 47:08.720] that I was going to file with court in the case and I'm just going to stand on my affidavit [47:08.720 --> 47:19.520] which basically educates the judge to the fact of this whole process being being against [47:19.520 --> 47:31.480] the Colorado Constitution and that the way it's proceeded without a grand jury or a district [47:31.480 --> 47:32.480] attorney. [47:32.480 --> 47:38.000] Well, that would be, those would be things that you would want to put in a criminal complaint [47:38.000 --> 47:44.360] if those actions had already been taken but I want to explain a little bit about the problems [47:44.360 --> 47:45.360] of filing affidavits. [47:45.360 --> 47:51.600] This is a common practice in the legal reform movement and often it ends up with very little [47:51.600 --> 47:57.760] effect or result and the reason is because when you file an affidavit in your case, nobody [47:57.760 --> 47:59.360] has to do anything about it. [47:59.360 --> 48:04.480] No, you're not moving the court to do anything. [48:04.480 --> 48:09.640] People need to file motions and then you can have affidavits attached to the motions and [48:09.640 --> 48:15.480] the other issue is that if you want to require the court to take notice of something, you [48:15.480 --> 48:19.800] need to file a judicial notice, not an affidavit. [48:19.800 --> 48:29.800] See, affidavits are for the purpose of you declaring witnessing of events or facts. [48:29.800 --> 48:37.240] They're not for telling the court what the law is or anything like that, okay? [48:37.240 --> 48:43.440] An affidavit is for the purpose of a personal witnessing of an event. [48:43.440 --> 48:49.560] It's for declaring that you are telling the truth under penalty of perjury that you saw [48:49.560 --> 48:57.120] this, this or this happen or that you have personal knowledge of this, this or that event. [48:57.120 --> 49:01.920] Anything else should not go into an affidavit. [49:01.920 --> 49:04.700] Interpretation of law should not go into an affidavit. [49:04.700 --> 49:12.520] We should never attempt to interpret law anyway for the court because that's the court's job. [49:12.520 --> 49:19.520] We bring statute and case law to the court to show them what the law is and then the [49:19.520 --> 49:20.520] court makes a ruling. [49:20.520 --> 49:26.320] So personally, I don't think it's a good idea to put these kinds of arguments or this [49:26.320 --> 49:31.760] kind of information into an affidavit because it really has nothing to do with anything [49:31.760 --> 49:35.680] that you personally witnessed, okay? [49:35.680 --> 49:43.800] If you want the court to take notice of something, you need to file what's called judicial notice. [49:43.800 --> 49:47.200] And if you have evidence of a crime that's been committed, you need to file criminal [49:47.200 --> 49:48.200] complaint. [49:48.200 --> 49:52.040] If you want the court to do something, you need to file a motion to move the court. [49:52.040 --> 49:57.480] This is why we tell people to get jurisdictionary so that people will understand what all these [49:57.480 --> 50:00.880] kinds of documents are so they don't get railroaded in court. [50:00.880 --> 50:05.000] But just filing affidavits isn't going to help, especially if... [50:05.000 --> 50:06.000] I'm sorry? [50:06.000 --> 50:08.560] I haven't been able to get to the jurisdictionary yet. [50:08.560 --> 50:10.760] I just got it. [50:10.760 --> 50:19.320] But in this document that I have, it actually was...I don't know if you know Frank Kowalik? [50:19.320 --> 50:20.320] Yes. [50:20.320 --> 50:21.320] Iris Humbug? [50:21.320 --> 50:22.320] Yes. [50:22.320 --> 50:23.320] Yes. [50:23.320 --> 50:26.920] We had him as a guest on our show a while back. [50:26.920 --> 50:27.920] Yeah. [50:27.920 --> 50:31.520] He actually performed this document for me. [50:31.520 --> 50:36.360] He put it together for me and told me to put it in as an affidavit and don't say anything [50:36.360 --> 50:37.680] but that you stand on it. [50:37.680 --> 50:44.720] But since I was unable to enter this into the record as I had wanted to for the judge [50:44.720 --> 50:52.480] to have at the hearing and they haven't responded, I was going to see if I could maybe enter [50:52.480 --> 51:00.640] it and use this as a way to hand the judge the criminal complaint. [51:00.640 --> 51:01.640] You know what I mean? [51:01.640 --> 51:04.680] You said I always got to kind of hand it to him or something else or whatever, but that's [51:04.680 --> 51:10.760] what I was thinking might work, whether the affidavit has any relevance in there at all [51:10.760 --> 51:11.760] at least. [51:11.760 --> 51:18.640] Well, like I said, you may want to just break out that document to be two different documents [51:18.640 --> 51:25.240] because really an affidavit is strictly for the purpose of things that you personally [51:25.240 --> 51:29.600] witness with your own eyes or ears. [51:29.600 --> 51:35.760] And so if you're trying to get the court to take notice of something in law, then it needs [51:35.760 --> 51:37.400] to be a judicial notice. [51:37.400 --> 51:42.480] So you may just want to retitle the document judicial notice. [51:42.480 --> 51:45.240] Eddie, do you have comments on this? [51:45.240 --> 51:46.240] No. [51:46.240 --> 51:48.560] What you're saying is correct. [51:48.560 --> 51:49.840] I'd go with that. [51:49.840 --> 51:56.920] You might want to just retitle the document judicial notice instead of affidavit because [51:56.920 --> 52:04.680] really affidavit is only for things, events that you personally witnessed with your eyes, [52:04.680 --> 52:08.960] like something that you would testify as a witness to under penalty of perjury. [52:08.960 --> 52:10.700] That's what an affidavit is for. [52:10.700 --> 52:15.240] But if you want the court to take notice of something in law, like the peonage issues [52:15.240 --> 52:19.640] and these kinds of things, everything that you described, the title of the document should [52:19.640 --> 52:22.160] be judicial notice, not affidavit. [52:22.160 --> 52:23.160] I see. [52:23.160 --> 52:27.280] Okay, well that's easily remedied and then I could hand a judicial notice to him along [52:27.280 --> 52:33.320] with the criminal complaint and that would definitely get it in your hands. [52:33.320 --> 52:34.320] Yes. [52:34.320 --> 52:44.640] You can also file the judicial notice in your case, in the case that they have against you. [52:44.640 --> 52:48.360] How much time prior to the court date would I have to do that? [52:48.360 --> 52:50.520] Normally, well in Texas it's seven days. [52:50.520 --> 52:51.520] When is your court date? [52:51.520 --> 52:53.480] Day after tomorrow. [52:53.480 --> 52:54.480] Okay. [52:54.480 --> 52:56.760] There may not be enough time. [52:56.760 --> 53:02.920] You could try to file it ahead of time or you could give it in court on the day of the [53:02.920 --> 53:03.920] hearing. [53:03.920 --> 53:04.920] Okay. [53:04.920 --> 53:12.240] That's probably what I'll have to do, hopefully I can attempt to get it to the magistrate [53:12.240 --> 53:13.240] that day. [53:13.240 --> 53:14.240] All right. [53:14.240 --> 53:15.240] Very well. [53:15.240 --> 53:16.240] I don't want to take up any more of your time on the show. [53:16.240 --> 53:17.240] I really appreciate you guys. [53:17.240 --> 53:18.240] Okay. [53:18.240 --> 53:19.240] Sure, James. [53:19.240 --> 53:20.240] Okay. [53:20.240 --> 53:21.240] Thank you very much. [53:21.240 --> 53:22.240] Thank you. [53:22.240 --> 53:23.240] Okay. [53:23.240 --> 53:25.080] We're going now to Marvin in Texas. [53:25.080 --> 53:26.880] Marvin, thanks for calling in. [53:26.880 --> 53:27.880] What's on your mind tonight? [53:27.880 --> 53:28.880] How are you guys doing? [53:28.880 --> 53:29.880] Pretty good. [53:29.880 --> 53:30.880] Okay. [53:30.880 --> 53:31.880] The situation with me is, again, I've got to thank you. [53:31.880 --> 53:38.880] I probably called and see you guys like one or two times, but I want to thank you guys [53:38.880 --> 53:41.400] for your service because I'm learning so much. [53:41.400 --> 53:50.980] I got a ticket a while back and I sent a motion to dismiss to the judge based on in [53:50.980 --> 53:51.980] person jurisdiction. [53:51.980 --> 54:02.160] Actually, this is the thing, I sent a motion to him and the clerk sent a document dismissing [54:02.160 --> 54:03.160] my motion. [54:03.160 --> 54:08.680] I want to find out, does the clerk have the right to do that? [54:08.680 --> 54:10.240] What state are you in? [54:10.240 --> 54:11.240] Sir? [54:11.240 --> 54:13.240] What state are you in? [54:13.240 --> 54:14.240] Texas. [54:14.240 --> 54:16.920] No, the clerk does not. [54:16.920 --> 54:19.720] Who signed the order dismissing the motion? [54:19.720 --> 54:21.200] Nobody. [54:21.200 --> 54:22.880] Okay. [54:22.880 --> 54:25.800] But the clerk sent you back a document that reads what? [54:25.800 --> 54:31.560] Yes, that says that the judge dismissed it and something about what the attorney said, [54:31.560 --> 54:34.560] but anyway, that it was dismissed. [54:34.560 --> 54:38.960] I was just wondering, don't I have to get an order from the judge with his signature [54:38.960 --> 54:39.960] saying he dismissed it? [54:39.960 --> 54:40.960] I didn't get that. [54:40.960 --> 54:41.960] Okay. [54:41.960 --> 54:42.960] Well, here's the thing. [54:42.960 --> 54:49.360] In Texas, an unsigned order on a motion is considered a denied motion. [54:49.360 --> 54:54.360] So no, they don't have to sign the order. [54:54.360 --> 55:01.200] If the clerk is actually saying the judge dismissed it, then the judge directed the [55:01.200 --> 55:04.600] clerk to send you what you were sent. [55:04.600 --> 55:09.880] What you need to file now is a demand for findings of fact and conclusions of law based [55:09.880 --> 55:13.080] upon what you stated in that motion. [55:13.080 --> 55:19.320] Can the judge prove up the basis and the law regarding their determination as to why it [55:19.320 --> 55:20.320] was denied? [55:20.320 --> 55:21.320] Gotcha. [55:21.320 --> 55:28.720] Anywhere in your jurisprudence documents, do you have a copy or example of that, defining [55:28.720 --> 55:29.720] the fact? [55:29.720 --> 55:33.960] I've got one that I've written for the traffic seminar material. [55:33.960 --> 55:40.280] If you'll send me an email, I'll send that to you and you can use that as an example. [55:40.280 --> 55:43.280] When I'm ready, I can get it. [55:43.280 --> 55:49.360] Yeah, just send me an email at eddie at ruleoflawradio.com and I will send you a copy of that back so [55:49.360 --> 55:54.400] you can look at it and then just build your finding of facts and conclusions of law based [55:54.400 --> 56:01.040] upon your motion and the facts presented in your motion for dismissal that the judge ignored [56:01.040 --> 56:03.240] and just use the format that's in the document. [56:03.240 --> 56:08.400] So again, I send that to the judge and I send one to the prosecutor just directly to the [56:08.400 --> 56:09.400] judge. [56:09.400 --> 56:16.720] So you serve everybody, every document, all the time, provided, of course, you actually [56:16.720 --> 56:21.000] know who the prosecutor is and what their contact information is at this point. [56:21.000 --> 56:25.520] Normally, you don't get that information until the day of trial, so there's nobody else to [56:25.520 --> 56:32.320] file with except for the court, which in and of itself is a violation of due process. [56:32.320 --> 56:36.000] Well I know when I first was talking to the court clerk about it, she gave me a name and [56:36.000 --> 56:40.040] I went and found this information online, so when I sent it to them, it's me. [56:40.040 --> 56:41.720] Never ask just for their name. [56:41.720 --> 56:48.040] You want name and full contact information, mailing address, phone number, the whole nine [56:48.040 --> 56:56.360] yards and you also want to know, is this prosecutor an actual city employee or are they an attorney [56:56.360 --> 56:58.480] from a private firm? [56:58.480 --> 57:03.720] Wow, and I think he is because I actually asked for all that, at least in the sense [57:03.720 --> 57:06.280] of the address, and she said she couldn't give it to me. [57:06.280 --> 57:07.280] That's baloney. [57:07.280 --> 57:09.280] That's why she couldn't give it to me because she knew that was my law force. [57:09.280 --> 57:14.440] She's required to give it to you because you can't serve opposing counsel without the information. [57:14.440 --> 57:15.440] Wow. [57:15.440 --> 57:21.520] Well, I mean, that's the point I need to hit them up on because when I researched him, he [57:21.520 --> 57:23.520] is a part of a firm. [57:23.520 --> 57:31.000] If he is in a private firm, then you definitely, there's a motion in my traffic material for [57:31.000 --> 57:34.200] petition for a prosecutor to show authority. [57:34.200 --> 57:40.000] If he is a city attorney or a private attorney hired by the city, he has no authority to [57:40.000 --> 57:44.240] prosecute in municipal court for a violation of state law. [57:44.240 --> 57:45.240] Absolutely none. [57:45.240 --> 57:48.920] In that instance, though, would I put that information in the finding of the facts, these [57:48.920 --> 57:49.920] are facts that I need? [57:49.920 --> 57:50.920] No. [57:50.920 --> 57:56.120] Your finding of facts deals strictly with what motions you filed and had denied and [57:56.120 --> 57:57.120] nothing else. [57:57.120 --> 58:06.120] So now, so I should just submit that and then just prepare the issue with the attorney for [58:06.120 --> 58:07.120] a later motion? [58:07.120 --> 58:08.120] A separate, a different motion, yes. [58:08.120 --> 58:09.120] Okay, gotcha. [58:09.120 --> 58:10.120] Thank you, Aidy. [58:10.120 --> 58:11.120] I'll be sending that email tonight. [58:11.120 --> 58:12.120] Okay. [58:12.120 --> 58:13.120] Okay. [58:13.120 --> 58:14.120] Thank you, guys. [58:14.120 --> 58:15.120] You're welcome. [58:15.120 --> 58:16.120] All right. [58:16.120 --> 58:17.120] Thank you. [58:17.120 --> 58:25.440] Okay, folks, we've got some more callers on the board, Michael and Randy. [58:25.440 --> 58:30.480] We've got one more hour here on Rule of Law Radio, Monday evening, tonight's August 9th. [58:30.480 --> 58:56.320] If you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984, we'll be back after INN World News Report. [58:56.320 --> 59:14.560] We'll be back after INN World News Report. [59:44.560 --> 01:00:10.080] CAA physicians provided guidelines to interrogators and documented the effects of enhanced interrogation [01:00:10.080 --> 01:00:16.960] techniques such as isolation, loud music, continuous light or dark, extreme cold, food [01:00:16.960 --> 01:00:22.160] deprivation and waterboarding. Physicians for human rights said doctors conducted enhanced [01:00:22.160 --> 01:00:29.400] interrogation techniques on detainees and used data to refine techniques. Ten members of [01:00:29.400 --> 01:00:34.200] a Christian medical team, six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton, were killed [01:00:34.200 --> 01:00:39.400] Thursday by the Taliban who said the volunteers were spying and trying to convert Muslims [01:00:39.400 --> 01:00:45.520] to Christianity. The gunman spared an Afghan driver who recited verses from the Quran as [01:00:45.520 --> 01:00:53.440] he begged for his life. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Western media hyped [01:00:53.440 --> 01:00:59.880] the 9-11 attacks to pave the way for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ahmadinejad [01:00:59.880 --> 01:01:04.940] added that with the aid of the media, the US swayed public opinion to the point of considering [01:01:04.940 --> 01:01:12.080] an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq permissible. Former Pakistani intelligence chief Lieutenant [01:01:12.080 --> 01:01:18.620] General Hamid Gul says the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause and the US needs to negotiate [01:01:18.620 --> 01:01:24.000] peace with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Gul said Sunday, you have to talk to him and I'm [01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:28.800] sure it will work out very well. Gul, who supported the US-backed Taliban resistance [01:01:28.800 --> 01:01:35.280] against the Soviet occupation during the 1980s, called the US occupation of Afghanistan unjust [01:01:35.280 --> 01:01:41.560] adding, this is a national resistance movement, it should be recognized as such. Gul went on, [01:01:41.560 --> 01:01:46.320] they are mujahideen of Afghanistan as they were during the occupation of Afghanistan [01:01:46.320 --> 01:01:53.080] by the Soviet Union. Gul said 9-11 was a pretext to a war already under consideration and it [01:01:53.080 --> 01:01:58.400] helped to win public support for neocon plans saying there was no legitimate reason for [01:01:58.400 --> 01:02:04.720] the US to attack Afghanistan because the FBI had no solid evidence, Osama bin Laden was [01:02:04.720 --> 01:02:14.920] involved in 9-11. Fires sweeping Russia could unleash deadly nuclear pollution from the [01:02:14.920 --> 01:02:21.560] Chernobyl disaster of 25 years ago. The Kremlin was also taking emergency action to move missiles [01:02:21.560 --> 01:02:26.480] and other munitions at risk from hundreds of blazes that have prompted a mass evacuation [01:02:26.480 --> 01:02:33.360] of Moscow. Most at risk is the Bryansk region 230 miles southwest of the capital, hardest [01:02:33.360 --> 01:02:40.440] hit by the Chernobyl fallout in 1986. Nikolai Smatkov of the World Wildlife Fund said, there [01:02:40.440 --> 01:02:45.540] are radioactive substances in the topsoil, residues from the radioactive cloud which [01:02:45.540 --> 01:02:51.240] came from the nuclear power plant. The Russian nuclear agency says all radioactive and explosive [01:02:51.240 --> 01:02:56.520] materials have been removed. Half a million acres of a blaze in more than 800 locations. [01:03:21.240 --> 01:03:37.040] It's all according to the will of the Almighty. I read his book and it says he cares not for [01:03:37.040 --> 01:03:47.560] the unsightly. These warmongers come by that term rightly. I won't pay for the war with [01:03:47.560 --> 01:03:56.880] my body. Okay folks, we are back. We're taking your calls. We've got Michael from Maryland. [01:03:56.880 --> 01:04:03.600] Michael, thanks for calling in. What is on your mind tonight? Good evening. Can you hear [01:04:03.600 --> 01:04:09.960] me okay? Yes, what's on your mind? The question is pertains to a comment that was made on [01:04:09.960 --> 01:04:16.960] the show about a week or two ago about the applicability of common law in administrative [01:04:16.960 --> 01:04:20.400] courts. I don't know if you remember this comment and I believe it was actually Randy [01:04:20.400 --> 01:04:25.440] that made it, so tonight might not be the best night to call. The impression I got was [01:04:25.440 --> 01:04:33.360] that the sentiment there, and I don't recall either you or Eddie disagreeing with him, [01:04:33.360 --> 01:04:41.400] is that the administrative courts do not need to follow or acknowledge common law. Anyway, [01:04:41.400 --> 01:04:48.480] as I read my state constitution anyway, and I would venture a guess that most state constitutions [01:04:48.480 --> 01:04:52.200] are similar, they're language to the effect that the inhabitants of our state are entitled [01:04:52.200 --> 01:04:56.000] to the common law of England and the trial by jury according to the course of the law [01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:04.640] and so on and so on. I was curious to know where that's coming from. Well, I would hazard [01:05:04.640 --> 01:05:08.920] a guess as to where that's coming from to tell you the truth. I was the one that put [01:05:08.920 --> 01:05:15.480] forth the opinion that the courts are required when they're dealing with the people to put [01:05:15.480 --> 01:05:23.380] faith and actions directly into the format as the common law has it. In other words, [01:05:23.380 --> 01:05:29.560] you can't charge the people with a crime if it was not a crime under the common law. [01:05:29.560 --> 01:05:34.520] You can charge your employees with one because they're bound by your rules. You can charge [01:05:34.520 --> 01:05:39.480] your contractors with one because they're bound by your rules. They agreed to them when [01:05:39.480 --> 01:05:48.080] they took the job, but the people did not. The people are entitled at every turn to the [01:05:48.080 --> 01:05:55.960] protections of the common law as it was understood to exist long before the constitution and [01:05:55.960 --> 01:06:05.240] your statutory law existed. I think the major disparity there is Randy's concept of law [01:06:05.240 --> 01:06:11.160] is only applicable when it is written down. If it's not written in black and white, then [01:06:11.160 --> 01:06:17.000] it shouldn't be considered law. Personally, I disagree with that because there is many [01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:22.560] forms of unwritten law, morality being one of those. Yes, while it is true, every person [01:06:22.560 --> 01:06:27.260] on the planet can have a different set of morals. That doesn't necessarily make their [01:06:27.260 --> 01:06:34.200] morals any more objectionable or any more favorable than mine. It's how they employ [01:06:34.200 --> 01:06:41.800] them. Also, it was determined from that conversation that night about common law, we did some research [01:06:41.800 --> 01:06:47.160] on the Internet while we were engaged in the debate and other callers called in that the [01:06:47.160 --> 01:06:51.760] common law is written down. It's the Magna Carta. That's what the common law is. When [01:06:51.760 --> 01:06:58.520] people say common law, it's not just some vague ivory tower pie-in-the-sky ethereal [01:06:58.520 --> 01:07:03.960] altruistic notion. It is very specific. The common law is the Magna Carta. [01:07:03.960 --> 01:07:09.560] Sure. Well, in that same article, Article 5 of our constitution, unfortunately, there's [01:07:09.560 --> 01:07:15.480] a second part to it that actually says, and I don't know if this is a due process violation [01:07:15.480 --> 01:07:21.000] in and of itself, but it is in the Article 5 of our constitution. It says the legislation [01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:26.960] may be enacted that limits the right to trial by jury in civil proceedings to those proceedings [01:07:26.960 --> 01:07:31.480] in which the amount of controversy exceeds 10,000. Now, I would venture against other [01:07:31.480 --> 01:07:37.280] states that have similar language, but I don't know. I find that horrible, frankly. Anyway, [01:07:37.280 --> 01:07:43.160] unless you had a comment about that, the only other thing I was curious to ask you about [01:07:43.160 --> 01:07:47.560] was some time ago, about a week or two ago, I guess, I sent an email to you all with respect [01:07:47.560 --> 01:07:57.440] to the disaster in Texas City that involved heavy-duty releases of very, very toxic elements [01:07:57.440 --> 01:08:01.560] and damages. Did you all happen to see that or hear about that incident? [01:08:01.560 --> 01:08:07.600] Yes, that was published in a publication called The Sea Breeze down in Texas City, and it [01:08:07.600 --> 01:08:14.880] has not been picked up by the mainstream media. I did report on it on my show, and I've been [01:08:14.880 --> 01:08:21.560] spreading the link around of that article regarding that incident. Yeah, apparently, [01:08:21.560 --> 01:08:28.120] what happened was that some of their equipment had failed that keeps these toxic gases from [01:08:28.120 --> 01:08:36.280] going out into the air, and instead of shutting down the refinery until they fixed it, they [01:08:36.280 --> 01:08:43.840] just decided somebody made a conscious decision to just route those gases to be torched, to [01:08:43.840 --> 01:08:49.880] be burned out into the air, which means that they were going directly out into the air, [01:08:49.880 --> 01:08:54.080] and then they tried to say, oops, we didn't realize that was happening, and then they [01:08:54.080 --> 01:09:03.680] notified the state after the fact, after they got equipment to repair the situation. And [01:09:03.680 --> 01:09:10.280] then the report to the state regulatory agency was that, oh, we didn't realize it was happening, [01:09:10.280 --> 01:09:18.480] I'm sorry, but anonymous insiders that worked at the refinery reported to The Sea Breeze [01:09:18.480 --> 01:09:23.720] that there is no way that that could have happened because there are gauges everywhere, [01:09:23.720 --> 01:09:29.280] and everybody monitors everything all the time, and that in order for those gases to [01:09:29.280 --> 01:09:36.800] actually be rerouted and burned off, somebody at top levels had to have made a conscious [01:09:36.800 --> 01:09:44.320] decision to do that and actually ordered other people to do the work. And so it came out [01:09:44.320 --> 01:09:51.120] that it was a lie that BP told the state of Texas that, oh, jeez, how could this have [01:09:51.120 --> 01:09:57.320] happened? We're so sorry, and it ends up that literally hundreds of thousands of pounds [01:09:57.320 --> 01:10:03.120] of benzene and methylene chloride and all these other toxic gases were released into [01:10:03.120 --> 01:10:10.640] the air in Texas City to such an extent that everyone in Texas City could die over it. [01:10:10.640 --> 01:10:15.080] They may not die right away, but basically they all got a death sentence. [01:10:15.080 --> 01:10:19.520] Right, pretty bad stuff. Well, before I let you go, if you could comment on this one, [01:10:19.520 --> 01:10:23.640] which is to say, on that same show that I alluded to earlier, there was a question of [01:10:23.640 --> 01:10:28.760] bringing up the nature and cause of the action against you, you know, and I would be curious [01:10:28.760 --> 01:10:34.440] to know both of your takes on how you would respond, depending upon whether their response, [01:10:34.440 --> 01:10:38.280] you know, in a traffic situation, for example, depending upon whether their response was, [01:10:38.280 --> 01:10:43.400] well, this is a civil proceeding or whether this is criminal and so on, you know, how [01:10:43.400 --> 01:10:46.320] you all would approach that. Thank you so much. [01:10:46.320 --> 01:10:51.280] Okay, thank you, Michael. Eddie, you want to respond to that one? [01:10:51.280 --> 01:10:54.040] I'm not quite sure I understood what the question was. [01:10:54.040 --> 01:10:58.400] Michael, can you... He just dropped off the line. [01:10:58.400 --> 01:11:02.640] I apologize, Michael. I'm not quite sure I followed what you were asking on that. If [01:11:02.640 --> 01:11:06.120] you wouldn't mind, call back in and explain the question a little bit better and I'll [01:11:06.120 --> 01:11:08.560] see what I can do. Yeah, I wasn't quite clear on the question [01:11:08.560 --> 01:11:15.320] either. That's why I referred it to you, Eddie. Okay. Oh, also, before we go back to the calls, [01:11:15.320 --> 01:11:18.480] I was going to make the announcement at the top of the hour and the top of the show, but [01:11:18.480 --> 01:11:22.680] I forgot. Folks who are listening in Austin, who may not be listening on the micro right [01:11:22.680 --> 01:11:27.240] now but are listening online or on the listener line, et cetera, Randy is giving a mortgage [01:11:27.240 --> 01:11:34.360] fraud seminar this coming Saturday in Austin at the Wyndham Conference Center, Wyndham [01:11:34.360 --> 01:11:41.040] Hotel and Conference Center at Woodward at I-35. The seminar starts at 1 p.m. and goes [01:11:41.040 --> 01:11:46.640] until 8. This seminar is strictly on the mortgage fraud industry. It's not going to be on due [01:11:46.640 --> 01:11:51.720] process and traffic code and all that kind of stuff. The reason that this seminar is [01:11:51.720 --> 01:12:00.680] free is because he is giving the initial information for people who may be victims of mortgage [01:12:00.680 --> 01:12:08.400] fraud. It's mainly for his business, Remedies in Real Estate. He's not going to be discussing [01:12:08.400 --> 01:12:13.440] due process and these sorts of things. Apparently, he and I discussed the fact that a lot of [01:12:13.440 --> 01:12:22.240] people are wanting him to give an additional several hours of due process seminar at these [01:12:22.240 --> 01:12:26.880] seminars and we agreed that's not going to happen because this seminar is strictly for [01:12:26.880 --> 01:12:31.040] his business. If people want a seminar on due process and traffic code, they have to [01:12:31.040 --> 01:12:34.520] pay for it. We have to have a way to fund this network. [01:12:34.520 --> 01:12:39.360] By the way, I'm going to take this opportunity to plug Eddie's traffic seminar. You can purchase [01:12:39.360 --> 01:12:44.320] the traffic seminar at ruleoflawradio.com. Just scroll down right underneath the three [01:12:44.320 --> 01:12:49.480] videos where you can purchase it either through PayPal or with a credit card or you can mail [01:12:49.480 --> 01:12:56.440] a check. If you want to purchase a seminar with barter like metals, precious metals, [01:12:56.440 --> 01:13:01.120] we will accept that too, but please contact me by email first so that we can look at the [01:13:01.120 --> 01:13:06.040] current spot price of the day, et cetera, et cetera, to determine how much metals would [01:13:06.040 --> 01:13:12.120] be appropriate to purchase a traffic seminar. I do have to say, folks, we have had very [01:13:12.120 --> 01:13:18.360] little donations and very little traffic seminar purchases in the last several months. I know [01:13:18.360 --> 01:13:24.240] it's summer and a lot of people are on vacation or they only work nine months out of the year. [01:13:24.240 --> 01:13:28.400] They have summers off and these sorts of things. I know it's bad economic times, but folks, [01:13:28.400 --> 01:13:34.040] your donations and your purchases of the traffic seminar materials are what keeps us on the [01:13:34.040 --> 01:13:40.040] air. We need donations for the network. We need your purchases of the traffic seminar [01:13:40.040 --> 01:13:48.120] and we need donations for 9.1 as well. Please support our mission. Suggestions have come [01:13:48.120 --> 01:13:54.920] in several times that if we help you on the air with your case, whether it be civil or [01:13:54.920 --> 01:14:00.920] criminal or whatever, and you feel that you've gotten a valuable service from us, just consider [01:14:00.920 --> 01:14:09.120] how much you may have had to pay a lawyer for that and give us 25% of what you feel [01:14:09.120 --> 01:14:17.100] an attorney would have charged you or 10% or half or something. We are very willing [01:14:17.100 --> 01:14:22.040] to provide these services for you on the air for free as much as possible. We even help [01:14:22.040 --> 01:14:27.840] people off the air as much as we possibly can, but we do need your support to keep this [01:14:27.840 --> 01:14:33.240] message on the air and to continue to make a difference in the court system, to reclaim [01:14:33.240 --> 01:14:38.920] our country and our liberty. Show us a little love, folks, and order a traffic seminar. [01:14:38.920 --> 01:14:42.960] Order a jurisdictionary. We get a kickback when you order a jurisdictionary on the Web [01:14:42.960 --> 01:14:49.000] site. Especially order the traffic seminar and send some donations, please. [01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:55.480] Don't expect a lecture on due process at the seminar. Randy is doing this Saturday. It's [01:14:55.480 --> 01:15:00.440] strictly for the mortgage fraud industry so that you can determine if you want to use [01:15:00.440 --> 01:15:07.760] his services to help you sue these banks and reclaim your home straight up, no more payments, [01:15:07.760 --> 01:15:14.160] no more debt, and get your house back and get out from the grip of these evil banksters. [01:15:14.160 --> 01:15:19.560] We are going to go back to the call board now. It looks like Michael and Marilyn called [01:15:19.560 --> 01:15:23.400] back in. Michael, please clarify your question. [01:15:23.400 --> 01:15:27.720] Thank you. Before I forget, I did make a purchase of jurisdictionary on your Web site, but the [01:15:27.720 --> 01:15:31.920] way it processed, I'm not completely sure you got credit. It may bounce back out to [01:15:31.920 --> 01:15:36.920] the main jurisdictionary site. No. If you clicked on the link on my Web site, [01:15:36.920 --> 01:15:43.520] I got credit for it. Don't worry about that. Very good. My question was, and I sent you [01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:47.720] all links to some YouTube videos to get into this, but you may or may not have had time [01:15:47.720 --> 01:15:53.040] to watch them. The point is, when you're asked, how do you plead, if you say, I don't understand [01:15:53.040 --> 01:15:59.080] the nature and cause of the action against me, I need to understand it first. If you [01:15:59.080 --> 01:16:06.360] say, how am I being charged, and they say, this is being charged in criminal law versus [01:16:06.360 --> 01:16:14.880] you're being charged civilly, how you would respond as to, well, I'd like to see the complaint, [01:16:14.880 --> 01:16:18.360] the complaining party. I'd like to see that there's a complaining party, which actually [01:16:18.360 --> 01:16:24.320] does go back to the discussion from a week or two ago, where Randy was saying, you must [01:16:24.320 --> 01:16:30.360] be confused into thinking that you deserve to have a complaining party in an administrative [01:16:30.360 --> 01:16:35.880] court, and that's not the case. That's the essence of what I heard Randy just say. [01:16:35.880 --> 01:16:41.320] Right. Well, there is no necessity of a complaining party in an administrative court in any way, [01:16:41.320 --> 01:16:47.920] shape, or form. That's the purpose of an administrative court. It's a rules court. It's not a contention [01:16:47.920 --> 01:16:52.320] court between parties court. But anyway, we're going to take a break. Hang on, Michael, we'll [01:16:52.320 --> 01:16:54.600] be right back on the other side. [01:16:54.600 --> 01:17:00.520] We'll be right back, folks. [01:17:00.520 --> 01:17:05.480] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so [01:17:05.480 --> 01:17:09.200] easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with. [01:17:09.200 --> 01:17:12.160] Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then. [01:17:12.160 --> 01:17:13.160] Brave New Books? [01:17:13.160 --> 01:17:18.000] Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex [01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:22.920] Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and [01:17:22.920 --> 01:17:23.920] Calvin Soaps. [01:17:23.920 --> 01:17:26.800] There's no way a place like that exists. [01:17:26.800 --> 01:17:32.640] Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. [01:17:32.640 --> 01:17:35.880] By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. [01:17:35.880 --> 01:17:41.280] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking [01:17:41.280 --> 01:17:43.280] facility, just behind the bookstore. [01:17:43.280 --> 01:17:47.080] It does exist, but when are they open? [01:17:47.080 --> 01:17:52.600] Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. So give them a call [01:17:52.600 --> 01:18:12.440] at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com. [01:18:12.440 --> 01:18:31.480] Okay, folks, we are back. We're on the wall radio. Okay, Michael, now on your question, [01:18:31.480 --> 01:18:35.360] how we would respond to that when they're doing this? As I was saying, in an administrative [01:18:35.360 --> 01:18:40.640] court, there is no adverse party. The rules in an administrative court are different because [01:18:40.640 --> 01:18:44.120] the only purpose that exists is to determine whether or not there's been a violation of [01:18:44.120 --> 01:18:47.800] a rule by the other and only party. [01:18:47.800 --> 01:18:48.800] Okay. [01:18:48.800 --> 01:18:53.440] Could I interject, though, because there's nothing in the Constitution, either the federal [01:18:53.440 --> 01:18:58.160] or the state, about administrative jurisdiction. There's civil and there's criminal, right? [01:18:58.160 --> 01:19:02.800] You're absolutely right, and that's the point I was about to get to. The problem with these [01:19:02.800 --> 01:19:12.000] folks is that the people are not under any administrative jurisdiction unless the people [01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:19.520] have knowingly and willingly entered into a contractual obligation to be bound by such. [01:19:19.520 --> 01:19:25.000] That's the reason I said why city ordinances and these rules can be used against contractors [01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:30.520] who contract with governmental agencies, because when they make that contract, they're required [01:19:30.520 --> 01:19:36.680] to abide by whatever rules of that contract there are, including if that contract states [01:19:36.680 --> 01:19:43.680] that you're bound by any other rules as applicable within this state under these circumstances. [01:19:43.680 --> 01:19:46.040] But the people don't fall into that category. [01:19:46.040 --> 01:19:50.960] Would it be safe to say in a court of law that if they try to say they don't respond [01:19:50.960 --> 01:19:54.360] this is a criminal proceeding or this is a civil proceeding, they would say you're being [01:19:54.360 --> 01:20:01.400] charged with administrative infraction, whatever, that you would say. [01:20:01.400 --> 01:20:05.840] You could just object and say I didn't contract into administrative law. How did I get into [01:20:05.840 --> 01:20:09.240] administrative law? That doesn't have jurisdiction over me. [01:20:09.240 --> 01:20:16.640] Exactly. Can the complaining party please show where I am bound by the administrative [01:20:16.640 --> 01:20:24.840] rules and the administrative process? What evidence exists to show that I have allowed [01:20:24.840 --> 01:20:28.840] myself to be inducted or introduced into that system? [01:20:28.840 --> 01:20:34.880] I see. In the case of civil, it's pretty much the [01:20:34.880 --> 01:20:39.840] same thing. Well, who's the moving party? Who is the party moving against me in this [01:20:39.840 --> 01:20:46.840] civil matter? What is their stated cause? What's their claim? What are they saying I [01:20:46.840 --> 01:20:51.960] did that I had an obligation to do under contract or some other form of agreement? [01:20:51.960 --> 01:20:57.920] Produce the agreement. Say again? [01:20:57.920 --> 01:21:02.880] Civil law does require a contract, excuse me for interrupting you. [01:21:02.880 --> 01:21:08.120] It requires some form of agreement, whether written or oral, for there to be two parties [01:21:08.120 --> 01:21:13.260] in contention. There has to be an obligation and there has to be a breach of duty and there [01:21:13.260 --> 01:21:18.360] has to be an enforceable agreement between two parties, two or more parties. [01:21:18.360 --> 01:21:24.120] Excellent. It's just simple straight up civil suit at [01:21:24.120 --> 01:21:28.320] that point. Those are the three minimum things you've got to have for a claim in any type [01:21:28.320 --> 01:21:36.520] of civil action, an enforceable contract or agreement, at least two parties, and a breach [01:21:36.520 --> 01:21:40.800] of that contract as the duties set up on each of those parties within it. [01:21:40.800 --> 01:21:43.760] Okay. Well, before I let you go, thanks to Deborah [01:21:43.760 --> 01:21:53.040] mentioned it about the use of Randy's services to deal with mortgage issues. I did put in [01:21:53.040 --> 01:21:57.120] a request and I submitted my forms. I just haven't been able to hear back from Randy. [01:21:57.120 --> 01:22:03.120] I had mentioned by way of email that I'm delighted to contribute a substantial sum of, like Deborah [01:22:03.120 --> 01:22:09.280] was saying, of whatever we save to distribute that back. I just feel myself blocked in because [01:22:09.280 --> 01:22:18.160] I don't want to leave the opportunity of being served by Randy and Louisville Radio and providing [01:22:18.160 --> 01:22:24.120] some money back to Louisville Radio, but at the same time, since I haven't heard back [01:22:24.120 --> 01:22:26.840] after having submitted my paperwork, I just don't know what to do. [01:22:26.840 --> 01:22:30.800] If you're able to put in a good word with Randy to have him check on that, I left him [01:22:30.800 --> 01:22:35.480] a voicemail earlier about a week ago. I know he's so busy. He really is. [01:22:35.480 --> 01:22:43.960] The thing is that all of us have been struggling for so long, giving up everything we have, [01:22:43.960 --> 01:22:50.280] literally all our material possessions. Randy has lost property. I have spent all the money [01:22:50.280 --> 01:22:55.560] in my savings for this network and for the micro. Finally, Randy had to do something [01:22:55.560 --> 01:22:59.840] to make some money for himself or he was literally going to lose everything he had and we wouldn't [01:22:59.840 --> 01:23:05.320] even be able to continue. Right now, he's been spending all of his time building his [01:23:05.320 --> 01:23:11.480] business and now he's got this business that really has an excellent product that works. [01:23:11.480 --> 01:23:16.160] He's had 11 no answer defaults so far in the favor of his clients and he's got so many [01:23:16.160 --> 01:23:21.880] people depending on him now. He can't even hardly talk on the phone to me anymore because [01:23:21.880 --> 01:23:25.160] he's constantly, every time I talk to him, he's like, I've got to get these documents [01:23:25.160 --> 01:23:30.360] out because somebody's about to get thrown out of their house tomorrow. Literally, it's [01:23:30.360 --> 01:23:35.200] like he's running to the courthouse to save someone from getting kicked out of their house [01:23:35.200 --> 01:23:39.280] or locked out of their house by the sheriff in 10 minutes. That's the story I hear every [01:23:39.280 --> 01:23:46.040] time I talk to him and so that's why he hasn't... He basically can't respond to anybody [01:23:46.040 --> 01:23:51.200] anymore about these kinds of things. Unless you're a client, he's had to hire employees [01:23:51.200 --> 01:23:57.000] even to deal with the mortgage industry. He will be on the show again on Thursday. He's [01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:04.240] likely not going to do Monday nights anymore but really, as far as free assistance and [01:24:04.240 --> 01:24:10.000] answering questions, basically, you're only going to get that on the air on the show on [01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:12.000] Thursday and Friday nights from now on. [01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:15.000] Disease as far as mortgages go. [01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:16.000] Right. [01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:22.680] Well, yeah, that's fine and I understand that perfectly. I'd agree to pay him for his services [01:24:22.680 --> 01:24:26.280] but there might have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line so I don't know. [01:24:26.280 --> 01:24:28.080] All right, well thank you. [01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:35.160] Okay, thank you very much. Okay, you have a good night. Okay, we are going now to Randy [01:24:35.160 --> 01:24:41.160] in Texas, not Randy Kelton. Our call board is really stacking up here so we can't give [01:24:41.160 --> 01:24:46.160] everybody a full segment for the remainder of the show so let's try to be succinct and [01:24:46.160 --> 01:24:47.160] efficient with our time. [01:24:47.160 --> 01:24:48.160] Randy, what's on your mind tonight? [01:24:48.160 --> 01:24:49.160] Hello, guys. How are you all doing? [01:24:49.160 --> 01:24:50.160] Pretty good. [01:24:50.160 --> 01:24:57.920] I called about three weeks ago about a speeding ticket and, Eddie, I sent the court a certified [01:24:57.920 --> 01:25:04.640] return receipt notification of all the information that I want in my case against me and I got [01:25:04.640 --> 01:25:08.600] the response back from the court that they received it, haven't received anything yet. [01:25:08.600 --> 01:25:16.320] In the process, I looked at the ticket, the speeding ticket here in Texas and, you know, [01:25:16.320 --> 01:25:24.840] my wife pointed out that the date that this happened on July 2nd, the notice to appear [01:25:24.840 --> 01:25:33.120] date is the 19th, July 19th, but the date of the actual offense, the alleged offense, [01:25:33.120 --> 01:25:43.800] he writes down and it's clear the clear the bill 4 to 10. So the date of the alleged offense [01:25:43.800 --> 01:25:49.560] is wrong and there's so much on the web about usually answered by police officers or former [01:25:49.560 --> 01:25:54.080] police officers with these questions. If the date of the offense is wrong, can I get out [01:25:54.080 --> 01:25:59.960] of it? And they say, well, no, they will just fix it or the clerk will fix it before you [01:25:59.960 --> 01:26:05.640] appear. But I would think if like in a murder case, if they say, where were you in the night [01:26:05.640 --> 01:26:14.920] of such and such and you have an alibi, then they can't proceed. And here they've got the [01:26:14.920 --> 01:26:20.360] wrong date. They've got the wrong month. The officer put on the wrong month. Can this be [01:26:20.360 --> 01:26:24.840] thrown out just on that ground alone? [01:26:24.840 --> 01:26:32.760] Well, can it be beat on that ground alone? Yes. Will it get thrown out? Most likely not. [01:26:32.760 --> 01:26:38.760] See the judge likes to consider their options on what they want to define as a fatal defect [01:26:38.760 --> 01:26:45.440] and they will not consider the improper date a fatal defect. I actually had a state trooper [01:26:45.440 --> 01:26:50.880] completely misidentify my automobile as a two door model car instead of a four door [01:26:50.880 --> 01:26:59.960] sedan. Okay. And he even got the color wrong. The car was jet black and he called it brown. [01:26:59.960 --> 01:27:06.040] And in neither of those instances on the same ticket did the judge think that was a fatal [01:27:06.040 --> 01:27:11.000] flaw, that the officer was not observing enough to notice there was four doors instead of [01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:14.320] two and that the car was in fact black. Okay. [01:27:14.320 --> 01:27:21.160] Now they've got me pegged really well, including my social security number, which I didn't [01:27:21.160 --> 01:27:28.880] want to give in the first place, but I figured if it happened in July and he put on there [01:27:28.880 --> 01:27:35.160] April 2nd, I would think that would be pretty difficult for them to proceed. [01:27:35.160 --> 01:27:41.520] Well, as they said, they will just change it. Now what you can do is not bring the issue [01:27:41.520 --> 01:27:46.960] up until you're actually going to trial and having the cop testify. Okay. And then you [01:27:46.960 --> 01:27:52.880] can actually stipulate, can you please read the date on the ticket? And would I just say, [01:27:52.880 --> 01:27:59.400] Hey, officer, so I was a liar. No, no, don't do that. Then you say, well, [01:27:59.400 --> 01:28:05.680] the complaint is dated such and such date that I did such and such on this date. The [01:28:05.680 --> 01:28:11.760] two dates don't agree. So that would mean this citation is invalid upon its face as [01:28:11.760 --> 01:28:16.640] the basis for the complaint. Wouldn't it officer? Because this obviously can't be the correct [01:28:16.640 --> 01:28:21.200] citation. It's got the wrong date on it. Okay. [01:28:21.200 --> 01:28:26.160] That's one message. Now, once again, the judge just may poo poo that and say it doesn't matter. [01:28:26.160 --> 01:28:32.360] That means the judge is practicing law from the bench. Okay. And what they're doing is [01:28:32.360 --> 01:28:37.600] trying to assure your conviction, but you're much better off attacking whatever process [01:28:37.600 --> 01:28:41.240] they have or have not followed up to this point. Okay. [01:28:41.240 --> 01:28:46.200] All right. And plus, you know what the statutes are regarding the speeding, right? And that [01:28:46.200 --> 01:28:50.040] it's impossible to speed in a private automobile in Texas, right? [01:28:50.040 --> 01:28:54.000] Right. Okay. But I would definitely go through the code [01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:58.760] of criminal procedure in dealing with what they're required to do paperwork wise. Who [01:28:58.760 --> 01:29:02.760] gave you the ticket? City, state, or county? City. [01:29:02.760 --> 01:29:06.520] Okay. Then it's a municipal court, right? Yes. [01:29:06.520 --> 01:29:09.920] Okay. No city attorney can prosecute. Right. [01:29:09.920 --> 01:29:13.960] Did they charge you with a city ordinance for speeding or under state law for speeding? [01:29:13.960 --> 01:29:17.680] Of course they don't put that on here. It's on the state highway, so it's... [01:29:17.680 --> 01:29:21.520] They haven't told you what the nature and cause are against you. They haven't provided [01:29:21.520 --> 01:29:25.000] you with a copy of it in writing and no information has been filed in your case. [01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:27.880] Right. Because the city attorney can't sign an information. [01:29:27.880 --> 01:29:34.880] Now, what I had to do, I called the clerk and she was real nice. And I said... [01:29:34.880 --> 01:29:39.320] Okay. Well, hang on just a second. We're going to break again. We'll wrap this up really [01:29:39.320 --> 01:29:44.160] quick on the other side. This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. We will [01:29:44.160 --> 01:30:04.680] be right back. It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, [01:30:04.680 --> 01:30:09.240] but finding things on the internet isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people [01:30:09.240 --> 01:30:11.920] to share it with. Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave [01:30:11.920 --> 01:30:14.320] New Books then. Brave New Books? [01:30:14.320 --> 01:30:18.920] Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex [01:30:18.920 --> 01:30:23.920] Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and [01:30:23.920 --> 01:30:27.800] Calvin Soaps. There's no way a place like that exists. [01:30:27.800 --> 01:30:33.640] Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. [01:30:33.640 --> 01:30:36.920] By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. [01:30:36.920 --> 01:30:42.280] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking [01:30:42.280 --> 01:30:48.280] facility just behind the bookstore. It does exist, but when are they open? [01:30:48.280 --> 01:30:53.640] Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. So give them a call [01:30:53.640 --> 01:31:01.680] at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com. [01:31:01.680 --> 01:31:07.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:11.400] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won [01:31:11.400 --> 01:31:17.000] six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step [01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:22.280] instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, [01:31:22.280 --> 01:31:27.080] what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and [01:31:27.080 --> 01:31:31.480] phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn your financial [01:31:31.480 --> 01:31:35.240] tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [01:31:35.240 --> 01:31:40.340] The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal [01:31:40.340 --> 01:31:45.760] consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com [01:31:45.760 --> 01:31:51.080] and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's [01:31:51.080 --> 01:32:00.560] ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors [01:32:00.560 --> 01:32:01.560] now. [01:32:01.560 --> 01:32:17.840] All right, folks, we are back. Rule of Law Radio. Okay, Randy, let's finish up with [01:32:17.840 --> 01:32:23.840] you real quick. But basically speaking, you've got all these issues of process and procedure [01:32:23.840 --> 01:32:28.960] that they have failed in right off the bat. They haven't done them. And because they have [01:32:28.960 --> 01:32:33.240] not done them, they don't have jurisdiction of your case, period. It doesn't matter if [01:32:33.240 --> 01:32:40.560] you're going 1,000 miles an hour on a motorcycle down the middle of Main Street. Without jurisdiction, [01:32:40.560 --> 01:32:46.080] the court can't hear the case. And without following the law, the court cannot obtain [01:32:46.080 --> 01:32:47.080] jurisdiction. [01:32:47.080 --> 01:32:48.080] Okay. [01:32:48.080 --> 01:32:51.960] So that's where I'd go first. But if you'll send me an email offline, then I'll help you [01:32:51.960 --> 01:32:55.360] a little more with the details. Right now, we've got a board full of callers, and we [01:32:55.360 --> 01:32:56.360] need to move on. [01:32:56.360 --> 01:32:57.360] All right. Thank you all. Good night. [01:32:57.360 --> 01:33:03.680] Okay. Thank you, Carl. Okay. We are going now to Rebecca in California. Rebecca, thanks [01:33:03.680 --> 01:33:06.640] for calling in. What's your question for us tonight? [01:33:06.640 --> 01:33:13.480] Hi. This is regarding... This is an Idaho case, actually. A very good friend of mine, [01:33:13.480 --> 01:33:22.320] well, a family member, was arrested for a totally bogus DUI. The policeman essentially [01:33:22.320 --> 01:33:28.280] followed him from the pharmacy where he was picking up his medicine, and they lied. So [01:33:28.280 --> 01:33:34.680] they ended up holding him for 18 days in jail before he was brought before magistrate. He's [01:33:34.680 --> 01:33:44.120] also disabled. My question is, though, now he's living in California, and the hearing [01:33:44.120 --> 01:33:51.240] is coming up, but they insist he makes a personal appearance rather than an appearance by phone. [01:33:51.240 --> 01:33:59.760] They denied all his motions. They just ignore him, really. So that was very apropos to what [01:33:59.760 --> 01:34:05.240] you were talking about today. So what would you suggest our path would be to try to get [01:34:05.240 --> 01:34:11.240] them to at least read the... Or make a judgment on the motions, or at least allow an appearance [01:34:11.240 --> 01:34:12.240] by phone? [01:34:12.240 --> 01:34:16.240] Well, I don't know about the appearance by phone part. You'd have to see what the law [01:34:16.240 --> 01:34:20.240] requires and what the requisites of allowing that by the court would be, and you would [01:34:20.240 --> 01:34:25.240] have had to file a motion requesting it on those grounds. If you haven't done that, most [01:34:25.240 --> 01:34:27.440] likely you're not going to get around that. [01:34:27.440 --> 01:34:31.920] On the part where all the motions were denied, however, I would definitely recommend filing [01:34:31.920 --> 01:34:38.120] a Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law petition demanding the judge show due cause [01:34:38.120 --> 01:34:44.200] and the lawful basis for the denial of the motion. And what you want to do is you want [01:34:44.200 --> 01:34:50.080] to stipulate that defendant filed motion such and such on this date and this time and supplied [01:34:50.080 --> 01:34:55.640] a written order to the judge for the purpose of granting said motion on the following grounds. [01:34:55.640 --> 01:35:00.400] By what mandate of law and procedure did the judge deny the motion in accordance with this, [01:35:00.400 --> 01:35:05.200] this, this, this, and this? Please provide the information necessary to show the foundation [01:35:05.200 --> 01:35:12.380] and law on which the judge relied, or something to that effect. And basically for each and [01:35:12.380 --> 01:35:18.720] every issue you brought up in the motion that the motion was meant to deal with, bring that [01:35:18.720 --> 01:35:23.760] up in the Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the question of, on this, by what [01:35:23.760 --> 01:35:30.680] conclusion of law or finding of fact was this element of my petition denied? [01:35:30.680 --> 01:35:42.880] Okay. And they also are threatening to put on a warrant if he does not appear in person. [01:35:42.880 --> 01:35:46.600] They're going to do that anyway if he doesn't appear. That's a failure to appear. But has [01:35:46.600 --> 01:35:54.400] he been properly served a summons to appear? I'm not sure, you know. Has he received anything [01:35:54.400 --> 01:36:00.000] by process server or by mail? Something by mail with the date of the hearing [01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:06.360] of the court. Yes, they sent me mail, but it was by then [01:36:06.360 --> 01:36:11.480] it had been too late. Too late? What do you mean by too late? [01:36:11.480 --> 01:36:17.840] Well, by the time I had actually received it, it had been time enough to where they [01:36:17.840 --> 01:36:25.480] had done the court case, the speeding ticket was over, and what not. But... [01:36:25.480 --> 01:36:30.800] Okay. And the speeding ticket was issued in what state? [01:36:30.800 --> 01:36:37.200] It was issued in Washington. Okay. If they could find you guilty without [01:36:37.200 --> 01:36:42.360] an appearance, then that means that it's an administrative procedure, which goes back [01:36:42.360 --> 01:36:46.560] to the issue we were discussing earlier. How are you bound by administrative process and [01:36:46.560 --> 01:36:52.240] procedure? Because they cannot convict you in absentia of a criminal case. They've got [01:36:52.240 --> 01:36:58.240] to have you there in some form or fashion. Do they have to have you there? [01:36:58.240 --> 01:37:04.320] If they did not have you there and they convicted you in absentia and they sent the... When [01:37:04.320 --> 01:37:09.520] was the postmark on the summons you got? Oh, I don't know. [01:37:09.520 --> 01:37:15.480] You want to look at that. See how far in advance of the actual date the postmark was. You need [01:37:15.480 --> 01:37:19.600] to look at the Washington rules and see what the law says they were required to do and [01:37:19.600 --> 01:37:24.480] how far in advance they were required to do it. You're going to need to attack them on [01:37:24.480 --> 01:37:29.720] their procedure, and you need to know what the rules are governing that, okay? So it's [01:37:29.720 --> 01:37:34.520] going to take some reading and research on your part in the Washington statutes. [01:37:34.520 --> 01:37:36.480] Okay. Okay. [01:37:36.480 --> 01:37:40.520] Thank you. You're very welcome. Thank you for calling. [01:37:40.520 --> 01:37:46.560] Okay. Thank you, Rebecca. Okay. We've got a full call board here. We've got Floyd from [01:37:46.560 --> 01:37:50.960] Texas, a first-time caller. Floyd, thank you for calling in. What is your question for [01:37:50.960 --> 01:37:56.080] us tonight? Hi. I have a ticket that I received in Austin [01:37:56.080 --> 01:38:00.760] for pedestrian and roadway, but I was clearly on my bicycle and my feet never touched the [01:38:00.760 --> 01:38:07.640] ground. And what it was is I had crossed halfway across the street on my bicycle and was going [01:38:07.640 --> 01:38:13.760] against the grain, if you will, near the turn lane, which was a designated turn lane for [01:38:13.760 --> 01:38:19.200] one direction. So when the officer stopped me, I was going down the sidewalk because [01:38:19.200 --> 01:38:24.560] I had completed my crossing the street. So what I'm trying to find out is since he wrote [01:38:24.560 --> 01:38:29.640] me a ticket as a pedestrian and since I was clearly on a vehicle, which is a bicycle, [01:38:29.640 --> 01:38:33.920] is this something that I would probably be able to contest and get dismissed? [01:38:33.920 --> 01:38:38.320] No, because in Texas law, a bicycle is not a vehicle. [01:38:38.320 --> 01:38:45.080] Oh, is that right? That is correct. You are considered traffic under [01:38:45.080 --> 01:38:49.320] their definition, but again, that involves a connotation, you've got to be doing something [01:38:49.320 --> 01:38:52.120] commercial before, which still apply to you by that definition. [01:38:52.120 --> 01:38:59.560] Yeah, but how can you be considered a pedestrian? Well, I haven't gone into the bicycle research [01:38:59.560 --> 01:39:03.760] that far. I've just gone into the research on the necessities of a motor vehicle and [01:39:03.760 --> 01:39:08.400] a bicycle does not qualify unless the bicycle has one of those little gas-powered engines [01:39:08.400 --> 01:39:12.120] on it. Right, but my understanding was that a person [01:39:12.120 --> 01:39:16.680] on a bicycle has as much right to the road as a vehicle, would therefore use the other [01:39:16.680 --> 01:39:18.800] way. Well, you're correct, but the person on the [01:39:18.800 --> 01:39:23.880] bicycle was bound by the same rules as those and by your own admission, the officer saw [01:39:23.880 --> 01:39:27.560] you going in the wrong direction in the turn lane. [01:39:27.560 --> 01:39:31.640] That's correct, so he should have cited me for going the wrong way or is this a legitimate [01:39:31.640 --> 01:39:37.160] ticket to write in this instance? Well, the question you really need to be asking [01:39:37.160 --> 01:39:42.280] is the offense that's written on the ticket, does it exist in Texas law? [01:39:42.280 --> 01:39:46.760] Okay. If he charged you with picking your nose in [01:39:46.760 --> 01:39:51.600] the middle of the day at an intersection, is there such a law in Texas to be charged [01:39:51.600 --> 01:39:54.760] with? Yeah, and look up the definitions of the terms [01:39:54.760 --> 01:40:00.760] used on the ticket. Look up the definition of the word pedestrian and see if it includes [01:40:00.760 --> 01:40:05.800] somebody on a bicycle or not. Yeah, and you'd also want to look up roadway [01:40:05.800 --> 01:40:12.120] and see if that qualifies for the criteria that's involved and so on and so forth. But [01:40:12.120 --> 01:40:17.200] basically, if he charged you, I guarantee you he charged you under a city ordinance. [01:40:17.200 --> 01:40:22.080] Okay. Now, if he did that, you have a viable defense. [01:40:22.080 --> 01:40:26.480] Okay. Article 3, Section 29, Texas Constitution, [01:40:26.480 --> 01:40:31.000] all laws shall have the following enacting clause. Therefore, by definition, an ordinance [01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:36.760] cannot be law. If it cannot be law, it cannot be binding upon the public in a mandatory [01:40:36.760 --> 01:40:47.600] fashion. It can only be suggestive. It cannot be mandatory and therefore, it cannot be punitive. [01:40:47.600 --> 01:40:52.360] The officer did state that I could dispute this and it sounded like he wouldn't show [01:40:52.360 --> 01:40:57.520] up, but I have one other quick question for you if you have time. My son just graduated [01:40:57.520 --> 01:41:02.960] high school and is trying to get an apartment and he was denied because somebody has apparently [01:41:02.960 --> 01:41:08.000] stolen his identity and he's never had any credit. Do you know anything about the credit [01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:13.480] identity theft laws or how we should go about getting this straightened up? [01:41:13.480 --> 01:41:22.880] I know that our government code Title 51 or 59, I forget which, deals with misuse of personal [01:41:22.880 --> 01:41:28.440] information in some parts, but for the most part, what you need to do is take that down [01:41:28.440 --> 01:41:33.560] to the district attorney or the county attorney if you're not in the city but you're in Austin [01:41:33.560 --> 01:41:40.360] so you are, go directly to the district attorney and report that that has happened and immediately [01:41:40.360 --> 01:41:47.640] go run a credit report and get a copy of the credit report and see what is being done with [01:41:47.640 --> 01:41:51.800] that social security number and perhaps when you take that to the district attorney they [01:41:51.800 --> 01:41:56.440] can track down who did it. You're going to have to get on a service [01:41:56.440 --> 01:42:01.040] like privacy guard and get copies of your son's credit report and you're going to have [01:42:01.040 --> 01:42:07.800] to file disputes with the credit agencies of this regard. [01:42:07.800 --> 01:42:12.560] Right, yeah, it's just too bad he's just fresh out of high school and can't get, you know, [01:42:12.560 --> 01:42:18.520] he's having a pretty rough start, you know. Well, this is just another reason why inducting [01:42:18.520 --> 01:42:22.200] yourself into the social security program is a bad idea to begin with. [01:42:22.200 --> 01:42:27.480] It shouldn't take that long to clear up this issue, but you definitely do have to dispute [01:42:27.480 --> 01:42:30.480] with the credit agencies, the three major credit bureaus. [01:42:30.480 --> 01:42:31.480] Okay. Okay. [01:42:31.480 --> 01:42:36.080] I appreciate your time. You guys have a great evening. Keep up the good work, guys. There [01:42:36.080 --> 01:42:38.800] are a lot more people out here that appreciate you than you know. [01:42:38.800 --> 01:42:42.840] Oh, thank you. We appreciate that, Floyd. Okay, so you have a good night. [01:42:42.840 --> 01:42:48.080] Okay, good night. Okay, boy, the call board is just really stacking up tonight. We're [01:42:48.080 --> 01:42:53.520] about to go to break, but we'll go, we'll take the call. Samuel from Georgia, what's [01:42:53.520 --> 01:42:54.520] on your mind tonight? [01:42:54.520 --> 01:42:56.520] Yes, how are you doing this evening? [01:42:56.520 --> 01:42:57.520] Good. [01:42:57.520 --> 01:43:03.600] I'm calling in reference, just trying to find out how to get the, you know, when you want [01:43:03.600 --> 01:43:08.840] to file a case against a judge, police, also an attorney, as far as obtaining their bonds [01:43:08.840 --> 01:43:11.480] or, you know, their insurance carriers. [01:43:11.480 --> 01:43:17.760] Okay, that's going to depend upon what your state law says is the record maintenance agency [01:43:17.760 --> 01:43:23.320] for those particular offices. For instance, here in Texas, city officials' records are [01:43:23.320 --> 01:43:28.800] kept with the city secretary. County officials are kept with the county clerk. Any state [01:43:28.800 --> 01:43:36.240] employee or district judge is kept with the actual secretary of state. So you need to [01:43:36.240 --> 01:43:40.960] see within your Texas, your constitution or your state statute where those records are [01:43:40.960 --> 01:43:41.960] required to be kept. [01:43:41.960 --> 01:43:48.200] And I can tell you that in Texas, individual police officers do not have individual bonds. [01:43:48.200 --> 01:43:50.760] There's a bond for the entire police department. [01:43:50.760 --> 01:43:52.200] Give your action. [01:43:52.200 --> 01:43:56.760] Only, only elected officials have individual bonds for the most part here in Texas. We'll [01:43:56.760 --> 01:43:57.760] be right back. [01:43:57.760 --> 01:43:58.760] Thanks a lot. [01:43:58.760 --> 01:44:15.360] Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens [01:44:15.360 --> 01:44:22.240] and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. You have a choice to keep your body clean, [01:44:22.240 --> 01:44:34.200] detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. It's odorless and tasteless [01:44:34.200 --> 01:44:40.800] and used in any liquid or food. Protect your family now with micro plant powder. Cleaning [01:44:40.800 --> 01:44:47.920] out heavy metals, parasites and toxins, order it now for daily intake and stock it now for [01:44:47.920 --> 01:44:54.920] long-term storage. Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today. [01:45:18.920 --> 01:45:24.920] Okay, folks, we are going to try to rampage through your calls as quickly as possible. [01:45:24.920 --> 01:45:30.920] We only have one segment left and we have one, two, three, four other callers other [01:45:30.920 --> 01:45:34.920] than Samuel. Samuel, do you have anything else for us? [01:45:34.920 --> 01:45:36.920] No, I'm through. [01:45:36.920 --> 01:45:38.920] Okay, great. All right. Thanks. [01:45:38.920 --> 01:45:39.920] Thank you. [01:45:39.920 --> 01:45:43.920] Okay. All right. We are going, and folks, I will remind you that when you call in as [01:45:43.920 --> 01:45:49.920] a caller, please hang up and if you don't have internet, then use the listener line, [01:45:49.920 --> 01:45:56.920] 512-485-9010. Don't just stay on the caller board because it confuses us. All right. We [01:45:56.920 --> 01:46:01.920] are going to go now to Gerald in Texas. Gerald, what's on your mind tonight? [01:46:01.920 --> 01:46:08.920] Eddie, thanks for taking my call. Friday, my son Anthony called you about his deal with [01:46:08.920 --> 01:46:14.920] the City of Portland Police and San Patricio County. [01:46:14.920 --> 01:46:15.920] Yes. [01:46:15.920 --> 01:46:16.920] Lockup. [01:46:16.920 --> 01:46:18.920] This is about the iPod or the iPad or something? [01:46:18.920 --> 01:46:21.920] No, no. He was in that... [01:46:21.920 --> 01:46:24.920] The one with the weapon in his car? [01:46:24.920 --> 01:46:29.920] No. No, that's the guy in Corpus, but I do want to talk to you about that offline. [01:46:29.920 --> 01:46:30.920] Okay. [01:46:30.920 --> 01:46:34.920] No, he was with some friends of his in a garage. [01:46:34.920 --> 01:46:35.920] Oh, okay. All right. [01:46:35.920 --> 01:46:38.920] Okay, yes. We remember the call now. Okay, go ahead. [01:46:38.920 --> 01:46:48.920] Okay. I went over there to get him out and I asked them in no uncertain terms what provisions [01:46:48.920 --> 01:46:56.920] they had in place for the public to witness the court proceedings there and they said, [01:46:56.920 --> 01:47:03.920] we have no provisions for that. And I said, okay, so by policy, you deny public access [01:47:03.920 --> 01:47:09.920] to the courts here? And a couple of them actually said, yes, we do. [01:47:09.920 --> 01:47:11.920] Did you record this? [01:47:11.920 --> 01:47:14.920] I actually, yeah. [01:47:14.920 --> 01:47:22.920] Okay. All right. And who was with you when you asked this? Do you have a confirmation [01:47:22.920 --> 01:47:24.920] witness with you? [01:47:24.920 --> 01:47:26.920] I had two witnesses. [01:47:26.920 --> 01:47:27.920] Okay. [01:47:27.920 --> 01:47:28.920] My oldest one... [01:47:28.920 --> 01:47:33.920] What needs to be done is you need to file criminal and judicial conduct complaints against [01:47:33.920 --> 01:47:39.920] the judge that's in charge of those individuals and that particular court because that is [01:47:39.920 --> 01:47:43.920] a direct violation of state constitution and state law. [01:47:43.920 --> 01:47:55.920] Right. And this is in the county jail, okay, and so the secretary that sits at the front [01:47:55.920 --> 01:48:06.920] desk there, Ms. Sanchez, she says, no, you can't go in there. And so she calls Deputy [01:48:06.920 --> 01:48:16.920] Coates out there and he's like 6'5", pushing 400 pounds and the first thing he does is [01:48:16.920 --> 01:48:27.920] grab his pistol. Yeah, like he's really paranoid or something. And he said, no, you can't go [01:48:27.920 --> 01:48:35.920] back in there. And then he goes and gets his sergeant. And his sergeant didn't want to [01:48:35.920 --> 01:48:42.920] touch it. When I asked the question, he skirted all around it and took me down to the secretary [01:48:42.920 --> 01:48:47.920] of the judge who was supposed to be doing the hearings that day but apparently wasn't [01:48:47.920 --> 01:48:55.920] even there that day. And the secretary got real nervous when I asked her her name and [01:48:55.920 --> 01:49:03.920] I start writing stuff down. But on a tort letter, would that be filed with the county [01:49:03.920 --> 01:49:05.920] commissioner? [01:49:05.920 --> 01:49:14.920] Yes, you can file them with the county commissioner's court as a tort letter because they are responsible [01:49:14.920 --> 01:49:18.920] for the oversight of these county employees and that would have been a county judge at [01:49:18.920 --> 01:49:19.920] the jail. [01:49:19.920 --> 01:49:23.920] Make sure that you send it certified mail return receipt. [01:49:23.920 --> 01:49:24.920] Okay. [01:49:24.920 --> 01:49:29.920] Yeah. Now, the other thing, folks, for all of you that are listening, including this [01:49:29.920 --> 01:49:35.920] gentleman, when you encounter an issue like this in Texas, please, please, please sit [01:49:35.920 --> 01:49:43.920] down, write it up in an affidavit, get the affidavit notarized immediately. Everything [01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:47.920] you did, who you talked to, the whole nine yards, get it all down and get it notarized. [01:49:47.920 --> 01:49:52.920] If you've got witnesses, do the same thing with them. Have them get theirs notarized [01:49:52.920 --> 01:50:00.920] and, by all means, immediately send us a copy at Rule of Law Radio. Those are the documents [01:50:00.920 --> 01:50:05.920] we want to take to Austin with us so that we can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, [01:50:05.920 --> 01:50:14.920] that courts in Texas are completely ignoring the Constitution and the law. [01:50:14.920 --> 01:50:19.920] We need you to help us with that. This is a perfect example of exactly why we want that [01:50:19.920 --> 01:50:24.920] information and how you can provide it to help us get that accomplished, because you, [01:50:24.920 --> 01:50:28.920] folks, are what's going to make this turn around, not me, not Randy, not Deborah, not [01:50:28.920 --> 01:50:32.920] even all three of us together. It's going to take the people of Texas doing this, and [01:50:32.920 --> 01:50:38.920] this is how we've got to do it. So, please, if you would, get you an affidavit of that, [01:50:38.920 --> 01:50:43.920] get your witnesses to do the same, and please send us a copy of it. [01:50:43.920 --> 01:50:45.920] Okay. [01:50:45.920 --> 01:50:47.920] All right. Anything else, Gerald? [01:50:47.920 --> 01:50:50.920] Can I talk to you offline? [01:50:50.920 --> 01:50:57.920] Not right now. We're on the air. Just send Randy or Eddie or myself an email. [01:50:57.920 --> 01:50:58.920] Okay. [01:50:58.920 --> 01:50:59.920] Okay. Thank you. [01:50:59.920 --> 01:51:00.920] All right. Bye. [01:51:00.920 --> 01:51:04.920] Okay. I'm going to try to take as many of your calls as possible, so I'm going to go [01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:09.920] to the first-time callers first. Damon from California, thanks for calling in. [01:51:09.920 --> 01:51:12.920] What do you have for us tonight? What's on your mind? What's your question? [01:51:12.920 --> 01:51:18.920] Hi. I'm actually calling my brother as an arraignment tomorrow for basically what he [01:51:18.920 --> 01:51:23.920] was done. He was on the freeway. He was pulled over by CHP. He stated clearly that unless [01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:28.920] he has a court order, the document from a judge, that he was not going to be exiting [01:51:28.920 --> 01:51:34.920] his vehicle, and sure enough, his superior and their superior, and about four cop cars [01:51:34.920 --> 01:51:39.920] later, he basically threatened them with ripping them out of the vehicle, breaking into his [01:51:39.920 --> 01:51:45.920] car to rip them out. Basically, they ended up taking him to jail and put him in there [01:51:45.920 --> 01:51:50.920] for a little over or just under 48 hours before I went down there and actually bailed him [01:51:50.920 --> 01:51:55.920] out. He's got an arraignment for tomorrow. What I noted was that you guys made pretty [01:51:55.920 --> 01:52:00.920] clear that the second the cop takes a person to jail without taking him just before a magistrate, [01:52:00.920 --> 01:52:07.920] that he's essentially messed up with due process. That's so much so far what I've learned from [01:52:07.920 --> 01:52:11.920] listening to you guys' recordings and YouTube videos. [01:52:11.920 --> 01:52:16.920] Well, pretty much that's true when you're basing everything on what the common law requirements [01:52:16.920 --> 01:52:21.920] are. Be aware, though, that the judges ignore the common law requirements, and they go instead [01:52:21.920 --> 01:52:26.920] with the legislative enactments in place of the common law requirements. You need to be [01:52:26.920 --> 01:52:31.920] looking to see what the law there in California says that these officers were required to [01:52:31.920 --> 01:52:34.920] do the moment they put someone under arrest. [01:52:34.920 --> 01:52:38.920] In Texas, the statutory requirements are that they take them directly to a magistrate as [01:52:38.920 --> 01:52:40.920] well. It's not just common law here. [01:52:40.920 --> 01:52:41.920] Right. [01:52:41.920 --> 01:52:43.920] Really. So, it may be the case at this point. [01:52:43.920 --> 01:52:47.920] Yeah. They are required to actually take you before a magistrate, but both the officers [01:52:47.920 --> 01:52:53.920] and the magistrates are in collusion to make it where the magistrate's time is more important [01:52:53.920 --> 01:52:58.920] than the person arrested. So, the officers actually just take you to jail until it's [01:52:58.920 --> 01:53:04.920] convenient for the magistrate to see you, instead of taking you to the magistrate directly [01:53:04.920 --> 01:53:08.920] so that your inconvenience is minimized. [01:53:08.920 --> 01:53:14.920] Right. And what if you clarify that those are the laws that you wish to go by, and basically [01:53:14.920 --> 01:53:19.920] essentially they'll do anything they can by wording and showing you documents. [01:53:19.920 --> 01:53:24.920] Well, listen, tomorrow is the arraignment, so we don't have to worry about all that yet. [01:53:24.920 --> 01:53:31.920] The arraignment is just for the purpose of getting the accused's name and generally taking [01:53:31.920 --> 01:53:33.920] a plea. [01:53:33.920 --> 01:53:34.920] Okay. [01:53:34.920 --> 01:53:37.920] But the problem is, is how is he going to enter a plea when he doesn't understand the [01:53:37.920 --> 01:53:39.920] nature of the charges against him? [01:53:39.920 --> 01:53:41.920] Well, then he can say that. [01:53:41.920 --> 01:53:45.920] Okay. So, when the judge asks for a plea, that would be the first thing I'd state. [01:53:45.920 --> 01:53:49.920] Judge, I have not been informed of the nature and cause against me or provided with a copy [01:53:49.920 --> 01:53:53.920] of it. As far as I know, you're charging me with murder on the written document because [01:53:53.920 --> 01:53:54.920] I haven't seen it. [01:53:54.920 --> 01:53:59.920] Irregardless of what you're trying to tell me to my face, I have a right to know the [01:53:59.920 --> 01:54:00.920] nature and charge. [01:54:00.920 --> 01:54:01.920] What are they? [01:54:01.920 --> 01:54:04.920] And I would like it in writing. [01:54:04.920 --> 01:54:09.920] Okay. And from that point, you're essentially asking for time to understand those charges [01:54:09.920 --> 01:54:11.920] and base the defense. [01:54:11.920 --> 01:54:14.920] Exactly. I can't enter a plea because I don't understand what's going on here. [01:54:14.920 --> 01:54:17.920] You could ask for a continuance for the arraignment. [01:54:17.920 --> 01:54:20.920] Yeah. What did they actually attempt to charge him with? [01:54:20.920 --> 01:54:25.920] Basically, I believe it was they tried to charge him with. [01:54:25.920 --> 01:54:26.920] It's funny, there's two different things. [01:54:26.920 --> 01:54:28.920] Essentially, they started with on the ticket. [01:54:28.920 --> 01:54:33.920] Initially, they tried to charge him with the charges. [01:54:33.920 --> 01:54:38.920] Essentially, it says that you're disrupting or getting in the way of a cop's duty. [01:54:38.920 --> 01:54:40.920] I forget what the actual charge is. [01:54:40.920 --> 01:54:42.920] So essentially, you're obstructing an officer. [01:54:42.920 --> 01:54:46.920] But basically, they were supposed to come back with charges. [01:54:46.920 --> 01:54:52.920] Weeks went by because essentially, I don't know if you're familiar with UCC 308, [01:54:52.920 --> 01:54:59.920] previously 207, he basically stated for the record that basically he's out of your jurisdiction. [01:54:59.920 --> 01:55:00.920] Okay. Well, hang on. [01:55:00.920 --> 01:55:01.920] Wait a minute. [01:55:01.920 --> 01:55:02.920] We just wanted to know what the charges are. [01:55:02.920 --> 01:55:03.920] Yeah. [01:55:03.920 --> 01:55:04.920] Drop all the basiclies and tell me. [01:55:04.920 --> 01:55:06.920] What did they charge him with? [01:55:06.920 --> 01:55:07.920] Yeah. [01:55:07.920 --> 01:55:14.920] And they essentially have since charged him with basically drunk driving, not drunk driving, [01:55:14.920 --> 01:55:18.920] but driving while intoxicated as well as- [01:55:18.920 --> 01:55:19.920] Well, that's the same thing. [01:55:19.920 --> 01:55:23.920] Did they get him on a breathalyzer or something? [01:55:23.920 --> 01:55:25.920] No, no evidence whatsoever. [01:55:25.920 --> 01:55:26.920] He wouldn't submit to anything. [01:55:26.920 --> 01:55:27.920] Okay. [01:55:27.920 --> 01:55:30.920] So those are the two charges against him that he's being arraigned for tomorrow? [01:55:30.920 --> 01:55:31.920] Exactly. [01:55:31.920 --> 01:55:32.920] Okay. [01:55:32.920 --> 01:55:34.920] So do what Eddie just said. [01:55:34.920 --> 01:55:40.920] He should say that he does not understand the nature or the cause of the charges against him, [01:55:40.920 --> 01:55:44.920] and he needs to see it in writing and he wants a continuance for the arraignment. [01:55:44.920 --> 01:55:46.920] In other words, reschedule. [01:55:46.920 --> 01:55:47.920] Right. [01:55:47.920 --> 01:55:49.920] Now, they may or may not do it. [01:55:49.920 --> 01:55:51.920] The judge may enter a plea for him. [01:55:51.920 --> 01:55:53.920] If the judge decides to enter a plea for him, [01:55:53.920 --> 01:55:56.920] there's nothing he can do to stop it, but you could challenge it later. [01:55:56.920 --> 01:56:02.920] Well, essentially, couldn't he clarify that the judge is entering a plea for him, [01:56:02.920 --> 01:56:04.920] that that right there is unconstitutional? [01:56:04.920 --> 01:56:07.920] Well, yeah, but the point is, and it doesn't matter what he says, [01:56:07.920 --> 01:56:11.920] if they're going to do it, they're going to do it anyway, and you have to challenge it later. [01:56:11.920 --> 01:56:12.920] Gotcha. [01:56:12.920 --> 01:56:13.920] Okay. [01:56:13.920 --> 01:56:16.920] I think that'll do you for now. [01:56:16.920 --> 01:56:19.920] I want to try to get to at least one of the calls before the show ends. [01:56:19.920 --> 01:56:20.920] Very good, and we'll be back. [01:56:20.920 --> 01:56:21.920] Okay, thanks. [01:56:21.920 --> 01:56:22.920] Thank you. [01:56:22.920 --> 01:56:23.920] Okay. [01:56:23.920 --> 01:56:25.920] We're getting down the wire here, folks. [01:56:25.920 --> 01:56:27.920] I want to go to Carl in Texas. [01:56:27.920 --> 01:56:28.920] He's been waiting for a long time. [01:56:28.920 --> 01:56:29.920] Carl, thanks for calling in. [01:56:29.920 --> 01:56:30.920] What's on your mind tonight? [01:56:30.920 --> 01:56:32.920] We only have a couple minutes left. [01:56:32.920 --> 01:56:38.920] Yes, I have a docket of parents here in Austin to where they're basically going to try to get people to plea. [01:56:38.920 --> 01:56:41.920] I didn't get my field file soon enough to avoid going to it. [01:56:41.920 --> 01:56:46.920] So I asked the judge, I said, so judge, tell me the nature of this court. [01:56:46.920 --> 01:56:50.920] I said, is it administrative or is it criminal? [01:56:50.920 --> 01:56:51.920] He said, it's criminal. [01:56:51.920 --> 01:56:54.920] I said, well, then I should be able to have counsel. [01:56:54.920 --> 01:57:00.920] No, you can't have counsel because the penalty doesn't carry jail time. [01:57:00.920 --> 01:57:07.920] And then he went on to say that, you know, we can have you back in here four times without giving you a court date. [01:57:07.920 --> 01:57:14.920] We'll have you for a court date, but you may not necessarily get a jury trial, and we can reschedule you up to four times. [01:57:14.920 --> 01:57:16.920] Okay, that's all a lie. [01:57:16.920 --> 01:57:18.920] Right. [01:57:18.920 --> 01:57:23.920] Especially the part about the jury trial. [01:57:23.920 --> 01:57:25.920] You're entitled to a jury trial. [01:57:25.920 --> 01:57:30.920] No matter what they want to do one way or the other, you have the right to a jury trial in a criminal case, period. [01:57:30.920 --> 01:57:31.920] Is this for traffic tickets? [01:57:31.920 --> 01:57:32.920] Excuse me, it is? [01:57:32.920 --> 01:57:33.920] It's for traffic tickets? [01:57:33.920 --> 01:57:34.920] Yes, you absolutely. [01:57:34.920 --> 01:57:37.920] It is very common in Texas people have jury trials for traffic tickets. [01:57:37.920 --> 01:57:38.920] No, no. [01:57:38.920 --> 01:57:42.920] I didn't sign off, I didn't waive my jury trial. [01:57:42.920 --> 01:57:47.920] I'm having a jury trial, but what they said is, we can bring you back in here four times. [01:57:47.920 --> 01:57:54.920] In other words, the first time you come in here, you may not get a trial that day because there's other people that will be here for trial too. [01:57:54.920 --> 01:57:57.920] And you may not get picked for trial. [01:57:57.920 --> 01:58:10.920] Well, then you would file a motion to dismiss because if they're going to schedule you for a trial and then you show up on the trial day and the other side isn't ready, that's when you file a motion to dismiss. [01:58:10.920 --> 01:58:12.920] Make sure it's to dismiss with prejudice. [01:58:12.920 --> 01:58:14.920] Dismiss with prejudice, that is. [01:58:14.920 --> 01:58:21.920] Okay, listen, Carl, we'll need to have you call back in on Thursday because we're at the end of the show. [01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:24.920] Jason, Deloitte, I'm sorry we didn't get to you. [01:58:24.920 --> 01:58:26.920] Please call back in on Thursday night. [01:58:26.920 --> 01:58:28.920] This is the rule of law. [01:58:28.920 --> 01:58:31.920] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [01:58:31.920 --> 01:58:39.920] We've got Karen Renick from Vote Rescue that's going to be on for a little while at the beginning of the show with us on Thursday to talk about voter fraud issues. [01:58:39.920 --> 01:58:52.920] We'll see y'all on Thursday. [01:59:09.920 --> 01:59:13.920] I'm dangerous, dangerous. [01:59:13.920 --> 01:59:20.920] If you are a Chucky, somebody Chucky from me. [01:59:20.920 --> 01:59:28.920] If you are a Chucky, Chucky, somebody Chucky from me. [01:59:28.920 --> 01:59:32.920] I'm like a stepping razor, wash my sighs. [01:59:32.920 --> 01:59:36.920] I'm dangerous, dangerous. [01:59:36.920 --> 01:59:42.920] Raise the door, watch my side, I'm dangerous, dangerous [01:59:42.920 --> 01:59:44.920] If you eat, I'll eat more [01:59:45.920 --> 01:59:48.920] If it's a dream, let's move [01:59:49.920 --> 01:59:52.920] If it's a dream, let's move [01:59:52.920 --> 02:00:09.920] If it's a dream, let's move