[00:00.000 --> 00:11.800]  USA chief Rajiv Shah said Pakistan will have to demonstrate it can spend relief funds transparently
[00:11.800 --> 00:16.480]  and well if it wants more help in rebuilding after its massive floods.
[00:16.480 --> 00:21.800]  The floods began a month ago with the onset of the monsoon and have ravaged a fifth of
[00:21.800 --> 00:24.800]  the country.
[00:24.800 --> 00:29.360]  Viewers following Fox News' coverage of the proposed Islamic Cultural Center two blocks
[00:29.360 --> 00:34.800]  from ground zero were told repeatedly in the last week the center's major financial backer
[00:34.800 --> 00:37.680]  build quote radical mosques all over the world.
[00:37.680 --> 00:41.960]  However the network failed to mention the name of this mysterious financier is none
[00:41.960 --> 00:48.400]  other than Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal one of the biggest shareholders in News Corp
[00:48.400 --> 00:52.160]  owners of Fox News.
[00:52.160 --> 00:57.920]  Baroness Ashton the EU's foreign policy chief Wednesday rebuked Israel over a military court's
[00:57.920 --> 01:03.800]  conviction of a Palestinian activist prominent in unarmed protest against the West Bank separation
[01:03.800 --> 01:04.800]  barrier.
[01:04.800 --> 01:11.000]  Lady Ashton says she was deeply concerned Abdullah Abdul Rama was facing a possible
[01:11.000 --> 01:16.120]  jail sentence.
[01:16.120 --> 01:21.280]  In Iraq Wednesday 92 people were killed in a wave of coordinated attacks as insurgents
[01:21.280 --> 01:26.160]  demonstrated their ability to strike at will tempering US aspirations of bringing the war
[01:26.160 --> 01:28.800]  in Iraq to a responsible end.
[01:28.800 --> 01:34.880]  In attacks in 13 towns and cities insurgents engaged in hit and run shootings, buried roadside
[01:34.880 --> 01:38.400]  mines and detonated more than a dozen car bombs.
[01:38.400 --> 01:41.400]  The symbolism underscored a recurring theme in Iraq.
[01:41.400 --> 01:47.240]  US deadlines including the August 31st date to end combat operations have rarely reflected
[01:47.240 --> 01:52.440]  the tumultuous reality on the ground and have often been accompanied by a wave of insurgent
[01:52.440 --> 01:53.440]  attacks.
[01:53.440 --> 01:59.240]  Y.L. Abdel Latif a Jarjan former lawmaker said the message the insurgents want to deliver
[01:59.240 --> 02:07.280]  to the Iraqi people and politicians is that we exist and we choose the time and place.
[02:07.280 --> 02:12.640]  Afghan and US officials say the aid to Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the center of a
[02:12.640 --> 02:16.840]  corruption investigation is being paid by the CIA.
[02:16.840 --> 02:23.200]  Mohammed Zia Salehi chief of administration for the Afghan National Security Council appears
[02:23.200 --> 02:25.680]  to have been on the payroll for many years.
[02:25.680 --> 02:31.520]  The New York Times says it's not clear whether Salehi provides information to the spy agency,
[02:31.520 --> 02:35.760]  advances US views inside the presidential palace or both.
[02:35.760 --> 02:41.640]  Salehi's relationship with the CIA underscores deep contradictions at the heart of the Obama
[02:41.640 --> 02:47.080]  administration's policy in Afghanistan with US officials simultaneously demanding that
[02:47.080 --> 02:52.200]  Karzai root out the corruption that pervades his government while sometimes subsidizing
[02:52.200 --> 02:55.200]  the very people suspected of penetrating it.
[02:55.200 --> 02:58.960]  Salehi was arrested in July and released after Karzai intervened.
[02:58.960 --> 03:03.160]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[03:03.160 --> 03:11.320]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[03:11.320 --> 03:22.960]  And free speech talk radio at its best.
[03:22.960 --> 03:42.440]  And free speech talk radio at its best.
[03:42.440 --> 03:57.200]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:57.200 --> 04:02.200]  When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rule.
[04:02.200 --> 04:05.200]  So why are you acting like a fluffy fool?
[04:05.200 --> 04:14.460]  If you get high you might get cool.
[04:14.460 --> 04:22.920]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:22.920 --> 04:24.360]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:24.360 --> 04:25.720]  You took it on that one, you took it on this one.
[04:25.720 --> 04:40.680]  Alright, bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do when we come for you?
[04:40.680 --> 04:48.640]  It's Thursday, August 26th here on the Rule of Law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[04:48.640 --> 04:53.800]  I'm Deborah Stevens here with Randy Kelton and Eddie Craig.
[04:53.800 --> 05:01.120]  And tonight we're going to start off by discussing a recent case in the Ninth Circuit Court of
[05:01.120 --> 05:02.120]  Appeals.
[05:02.120 --> 05:04.840]  This is a very disturbing ruling.
[05:04.840 --> 05:12.840]  It has to do with the government being able to slap a GPS tracking device on your car
[05:12.840 --> 05:15.320]  without a warrant.
[05:15.320 --> 05:19.960]  Basically the court ruled that unless you're rich enough, that basically only rich people
[05:19.960 --> 05:27.880]  have the right to privacy and the right of the government not putting tracking devices
[05:27.880 --> 05:30.520]  on your vehicles.
[05:30.520 --> 05:35.480]  Unless you can afford to have fencing to totally close off your property with a gate on your
[05:35.480 --> 05:41.240]  driveway and everything, well then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the
[05:41.240 --> 05:42.240]  court rules.
[05:42.240 --> 05:46.400]  They say that you don't have any reasonable expectation that the government isn't going
[05:46.400 --> 05:51.040]  to just wander onto your property and slap a tracking device on your vehicle.
[05:51.040 --> 05:56.200]  So I guess forget the part about reasonable expectation of no trespassing on your property,
[05:56.200 --> 05:59.160]  but let me read some of this article.
[05:59.160 --> 06:03.080]  This case began in, this is from Time Magazine.
[06:03.080 --> 06:07.220]  I got a link to this article from Infowars.
[06:07.220 --> 06:14.160]  It says this case began in 2007 when DEA agents decided to monitor Juan Panetta Morino, an
[06:14.160 --> 06:20.440]  Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana.
[06:20.440 --> 06:25.920]  They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway
[06:25.920 --> 06:28.520]  a few feet from his trailer home.
[06:28.520 --> 06:33.680]  Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
[06:33.680 --> 06:40.600]  After Panetta Morino challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth
[06:40.600 --> 06:44.760]  Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal.
[06:44.760 --> 06:49.480]  More disturbing, a larger group of judges on the circuit who were subsequently asked
[06:49.480 --> 06:53.360]  to reconsider the ruling decided this month to let it stand.
[06:53.360 --> 06:59.520]  Panetta Morino has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and
[06:59.520 --> 07:06.080]  manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence
[07:06.080 --> 07:08.040]  obtained with the help of GPS.
[07:08.040 --> 07:15.000]  Okay, so obviously people, they're pressuring this poor person into a deal at any rate.
[07:15.000 --> 07:16.720]  Okay, back to the article.
[07:16.720 --> 07:22.200]  In fact, the government violated Panetta Morino's privacy rights in two different ways.
[07:22.200 --> 07:25.660]  For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong.
[07:25.660 --> 07:29.680]  The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their
[07:29.680 --> 07:37.040]  homes and in the curtilage, a fancy legal term for the area around the home.
[07:37.040 --> 07:42.320]  The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of
[07:42.320 --> 07:43.640]  privacy.
[07:43.640 --> 07:49.320]  The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Panetta Morino's driveway
[07:49.320 --> 07:51.280]  was not private.
[07:51.280 --> 07:56.320]  It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children
[07:56.320 --> 07:59.360]  who could wander across it uninvited.
[07:59.360 --> 08:05.080]  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider
[08:05.080 --> 08:12.640]  the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers, rich peoples.
[08:12.640 --> 08:17.240]  The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates,
[08:17.240 --> 08:22.800]  fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes.
[08:22.800 --> 08:26.640]  People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around
[08:26.640 --> 08:30.400]  and putting GPS devices on their cars at night.
[08:30.400 --> 08:36.600]  Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent
[08:36.600 --> 08:39.560]  he came across as a raging liberal.
[08:39.560 --> 08:46.760]  There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity
[08:46.760 --> 08:50.120]  that does not exist, he wrote.
[08:50.120 --> 08:56.680]  No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges or as state judges for that matter.
[08:56.680 --> 09:02.720]  The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of, quote, cultural elitism.
[09:02.720 --> 09:08.000]  The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy, that once a GPS device
[09:08.000 --> 09:13.040]  has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant.
[09:13.040 --> 09:17.520]  There is a major battle underway in the federal and state courts over this issue and the stakes
[09:17.520 --> 09:18.720]  are high.
[09:18.720 --> 09:23.280]  After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually
[09:23.280 --> 09:28.920]  anytime they want without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer
[09:28.920 --> 09:34.560]  to a classic police state with the technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East
[09:34.560 --> 09:36.040]  German Stasi.
[09:36.040 --> 09:41.120]  Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit,
[09:41.120 --> 09:46.080]  including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
[09:46.080 --> 09:52.000]  That court ruled also this month that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is
[09:52.000 --> 09:55.480]  an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant.
[09:55.480 --> 09:58.680]  The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
[09:58.680 --> 10:04.240]  In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and
[10:04.240 --> 10:05.760]  liberals worried.
[10:05.760 --> 10:11.440]  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous, decided
[10:11.440 --> 10:16.040]  by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton.
[10:16.040 --> 10:20.520]  Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief
[10:20.520 --> 10:23.560]  Judge Kaczynski who has done so most passionately.
[10:23.560 --> 10:28.960]  Quote, 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last, he lamented
[10:28.960 --> 10:36.960]  in his dissent, and invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent,
[10:36.960 --> 10:37.960]  he warned.
[10:37.960 --> 10:41.360]  Someday soon we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania.
[10:41.360 --> 10:48.400]  Okay, yes, so especially now that they got Kagan all up on the Supreme Court, this could
[10:48.400 --> 10:50.960]  end up being a real problem.
[10:50.960 --> 10:57.160]  So unless you can afford now to, I mean, fortunately this isn't a Supreme Court case, but things
[10:57.160 --> 11:02.740]  are not looking good here, unless you can afford to completely enclose your property
[11:02.740 --> 11:09.120]  with fences and gates for your vehicles and things like that, well, you're just going
[11:09.120 --> 11:10.120]  to be out of luck.
[11:10.120 --> 11:12.680]  And hey, what if you live in an apartment complex?
[11:12.680 --> 11:19.880]  Well, well, Ben, I guess you're just totally up a river on that one, you know, or what
[11:19.880 --> 11:23.720]  if you have to park your car on the street, oh, forget it.
[11:23.720 --> 11:27.400]  So Randy, what are your comments on this?
[11:27.400 --> 11:30.320]  You said something right before the show I thought was a good idea.
[11:30.320 --> 11:34.080]  What is your suggestion here?
[11:34.080 --> 11:36.080]  Randy?
[11:36.080 --> 11:43.640]  We should put tracking devices on the judge's cars in their parking lots.
[11:43.640 --> 11:44.640]  Exactly.
[11:44.640 --> 11:51.360]  And then track them when they go to the local bars and get drunk and act foolish.
[11:51.360 --> 11:55.240]  Actually I think we'd be better off if we strapped the judge secretly to the bottom
[11:55.240 --> 12:01.000]  of the car and let him drive around and let him scream and then track him that way.
[12:01.000 --> 12:02.280]  Indeed.
[12:02.280 --> 12:06.160]  So those are two pretty decent ideas.
[12:06.160 --> 12:09.040]  I think I'll go with Randy's idea first.
[12:09.040 --> 12:10.040]  I don't know.
[12:10.040 --> 12:11.040]  Mine would end it much quicker.
[12:11.040 --> 12:18.840]  Well, you know, there is a relatively inexpensive way to fix that.
[12:18.840 --> 12:25.200]  This expectation of privacy goes to no barrier.
[12:25.200 --> 12:30.240]  If you drive stakes in the ground and tie a string on those stakes six inches off the
[12:30.240 --> 12:37.920]  ground, that is a barrier and the police may not pass it unless they have a warrant in
[12:37.920 --> 12:38.920]  their hand.
[12:38.920 --> 12:43.920]  And if you stretch the rubber band across your driveway that you can just run over and
[12:43.920 --> 12:49.240]  push down and come back up, that is a barrier that a reasonable person of ordinary prudence
[12:49.240 --> 12:54.840]  would consider was intended as a barrier to entry, especially if you have no trespassing
[12:54.840 --> 12:55.840]  sign.
[12:55.840 --> 13:00.440]  Well, see, the thing is I'm afraid that that's...
[13:00.440 --> 13:04.600]  I know the courts have ruled that way in the past, but I'm concerned that that's going
[13:04.600 --> 13:10.320]  to fall to the wayside because basically the verbiage of the court's opinion on this particular
[13:10.320 --> 13:17.360]  case had to do with the fact of children being able to wander on the property.
[13:17.360 --> 13:23.600]  And so if you've got stakes with a string, you know, basically tied around your car,
[13:23.600 --> 13:28.160]  you could certainly crawl under the string or something like that.
[13:28.160 --> 13:34.720]  So I mean, it seems to me like the Ninth Circuit is expanding the definition of barrier to
[13:34.720 --> 13:39.480]  really making it almost physically unfeasible to cross that barrier.
[13:39.480 --> 13:43.200]  Like you really have to have a fence that's like tall that you would have to climb and
[13:43.200 --> 13:44.840]  it would be a lot of trouble.
[13:44.840 --> 13:51.360]  It would sound more like the Ninth Circuit is enabling more bureaucracy and police authority
[13:51.360 --> 13:55.560]  where none has existed before.
[13:55.560 --> 13:59.560]  Basically they're not doing away with the barrier, they're just saying it doesn't matter.
[13:59.560 --> 14:03.160]  Let the government do what they want.
[14:03.160 --> 14:05.280]  That's what it all boils down to.
[14:05.280 --> 14:09.040]  Barrier or no barrier, if they're going to say it doesn't matter if he can step over
[14:09.040 --> 14:12.680]  the string, what's to keep him from saying that he can't climb over the wall and plant
[14:12.680 --> 14:14.040]  the GPS that way?
[14:14.040 --> 14:15.040]  Yeah, well...
[14:15.040 --> 14:17.840]  He could always land with a helicopter.
[14:17.840 --> 14:20.480]  Yeah, that's right.
[14:20.480 --> 14:25.920]  He could always zap us with a laser from a satellite.
[14:25.920 --> 14:32.360]  So anyway you look at it, they're just simply attempting to remove any barrier at all for
[14:32.360 --> 14:37.240]  the government to have to abide by anything that people have put in front of them as an
[14:37.240 --> 14:40.680]  obstacle to abuse of power.
[14:40.680 --> 14:44.800]  The courts are taking it all away just so the government can run rampant.
[14:44.800 --> 14:54.160]  Well, as the article says, fortunately there are other courts that have not ruled the same
[14:54.160 --> 15:00.200]  way as the Ninth Circuit, so where do you see this headed, Randy?
[15:00.200 --> 15:09.680]  I see before too awful long a major backlash against all of this.
[15:09.680 --> 15:17.240]  Listen to our callers, we used to hear a lot of people talking about people who were asleep
[15:17.240 --> 15:18.240]  and people who are awake.
[15:18.240 --> 15:21.160]  When was the last time you heard that?
[15:21.160 --> 15:27.240]  I mean, nobody talks about that anymore.
[15:27.240 --> 15:39.320]  Everybody's waking up and everywhere I go, everybody is awake and everybody is unhappy.
[15:39.320 --> 15:42.560]  So I'm looking for this to begin to change relatively quickly.
[15:42.560 --> 15:46.800]  Well, I'll tell you, it's really changing a lot right now because of the naked body
[15:46.800 --> 15:47.800]  scanners in the airports.
[15:47.800 --> 15:49.960]  They've taken that just one step too far.
[15:49.960 --> 15:55.840]  And I read another article yesterday about how the US government has purchased hundreds
[15:55.840 --> 15:59.520]  of roving backscatter machines.
[15:59.520 --> 16:06.240]  I remember a few months ago we played the video, the advertisement, and now the US government
[16:06.240 --> 16:09.960]  has bought these things, and I'll tell you what.
[16:09.960 --> 16:14.760]  If I catch wind of it, I'm going to turn them into the FCC, okay?
[16:14.760 --> 16:20.120]  On issues like this, the FCC can be your best friend because I've studied the regulatory
[16:20.120 --> 16:24.280]  scheme of the FCC for the frequencies that these backscatter machines use and the naked
[16:24.280 --> 16:27.640]  body scanners, all of them, and guess what, folks?
[16:27.640 --> 16:31.920]  All of the radio frequencies used by the backscatter and naked body scanner machines are highly
[16:31.920 --> 16:34.080]  regulated by the FCC.
[16:34.080 --> 16:40.880]  You cannot use equipment that produces that type of frequency outdoors, so that means
[16:40.880 --> 16:46.040]  any of these roving mobile backscatter machines are illegal on their face, and there also
[16:46.040 --> 16:48.040]  can't be any windows in sight.
[16:48.040 --> 16:54.040]  So folks, if you're at the airport and there's a window in view of the backscatter machine,
[16:54.040 --> 16:55.920]  take a photo and let me know.
[16:55.920 --> 16:56.920]  We're going to turn them into the FCC.
[16:56.920 --> 16:57.920]  I've had it.
[16:57.920 --> 17:04.920]  We'll be right back.
[17:27.920 --> 17:34.920]  We're going to turn them into the FCC.
[17:58.920 --> 18:19.920]  We're going to turn them into the FCC.
[18:19.920 --> 18:32.920]  We're going to turn them into the FCC.
[18:32.920 --> 18:47.920]  We're going to turn them into the FCC.
[18:47.920 --> 19:06.920]  We're going to turn them into the FCC.
[19:06.920 --> 19:07.920]  Okay, we're back.
[19:07.920 --> 19:13.920]  So yeah, folks, if you're at any of these airports and you see the naked body scanners
[19:13.920 --> 19:20.920]  and there's a window in view, please take a photograph of the situation and let me know.
[19:20.920 --> 19:25.920]  We're going to FOIA the information on the frequencies they're using, and then we're
[19:25.920 --> 19:27.920]  going to turn them into the FCC.
[19:27.920 --> 19:33.920]  The FCC can be our best friend sometimes because in these situations, the frequencies that
[19:33.920 --> 19:42.920]  are used in that gamma spectrum are highly, highly controlled by the FCC, highly controlled.
[19:42.920 --> 19:47.920]  Folks, and it's just strictly illegal.
[19:47.920 --> 19:51.920]  They can't use it in view of a window, and they cannot use it outdoors.
[19:51.920 --> 19:56.920]  They cannot use it in mobile roving vans, and it doesn't matter if it's in trust state
[19:56.920 --> 20:03.920]  because the way the law is written is that the FCC is allowed, is authorized under Title
[20:03.920 --> 20:10.920]  47 to regulate radio transmissions that are in trust state if the transmission is a point
[20:10.920 --> 20:12.920]  to point transmission.
[20:12.920 --> 20:19.920]  In other words, it has a specific intended point or points of reception like a garage
[20:19.920 --> 20:27.920]  door opener, like a walkie talkie, like a remote control, like a naked body scanner
[20:27.920 --> 20:31.920]  where there's the transmitter and the receiver right there in the same place.
[20:31.920 --> 20:37.920]  Point to point transmissions, the FCC can regulate and license.
[20:37.920 --> 20:44.920]  Broadcasting of communications to the general public that are interest states, they cannot
[20:44.920 --> 20:45.920]  regulate and license.
[20:45.920 --> 20:47.920]  That's the difference.
[20:47.920 --> 20:51.920]  At any rate, that's what the law says concerning the FCC.
[20:51.920 --> 20:57.920]  Folks, speaking of the FCC and the situation, I just want to make a quick announcement here.
[20:57.920 --> 21:00.920]  We are going to be running a PSA pretty soon.
[21:00.920 --> 21:05.920]  Many of you may have noticed the signal is coming in much stronger and clearer here in
[21:05.920 --> 21:07.920]  Austin for 90.1.
[21:07.920 --> 21:13.920]  The folks who are dealing with this have informed me that indeed, the transmitter has been
[21:13.920 --> 21:18.920]  moved to a better location, so there is a better signal.
[21:18.920 --> 21:21.920]  But folks, the fight is not over.
[21:21.920 --> 21:27.920]  I'm just giving paralegal help to the micro.
[21:27.920 --> 21:29.920]  I don't run the micro.
[21:29.920 --> 21:35.920]  Folks, please do not try to call me up while I'm screening calls for other shows and try
[21:35.920 --> 21:38.920]  to get information for me about the micro.
[21:38.920 --> 21:41.920]  We're going to be putting up a PSA, and I will explain everything.
[21:41.920 --> 21:42.920]  There's going to be a website also.
[21:42.920 --> 21:44.920]  Basically, the gist is this.
[21:44.920 --> 21:50.920]  There is a trust set up now, and the trust is set up to protect the micro and other forms
[21:50.920 --> 21:52.920]  of media that are related.
[21:52.920 --> 22:00.920]  The trust is renting tower space from a property owner in West Austin in order to help protect
[22:00.920 --> 22:05.920]  the property owner so that the property owner isn't left holding the bag when the SEC comes.
[22:05.920 --> 22:11.920]  It's industry standard that the broadcasters take responsibility for the broadcast, not
[22:11.920 --> 22:13.920]  the tower owner.
[22:13.920 --> 22:18.920]  We've got that set up, and the beneficiaries of the trust are you, the listeners.
[22:18.920 --> 22:27.920]  Folks, anyone who has sent in a letter serving the public interest letter, you guys and gals
[22:27.920 --> 22:34.920]  are automatically beneficiaries of the trust unless you otherwise do not wish to be.
[22:34.920 --> 22:39.920]  Basically, let me know if you don't want to be a member of the trust, but I'm not going
[22:39.920 --> 22:43.920]  to go and ask everyone who already sent a letter because basically you don't have to
[22:43.920 --> 22:46.920]  ask people's permission to make them a beneficiary of a trust.
[22:46.920 --> 22:49.920]  People set up trust for their babies.
[22:49.920 --> 22:52.920]  People set up trust for their dogs and their cats.
[22:52.920 --> 22:57.920]  You don't have to ask someone's permission if they want to be a beneficiary.
[22:57.920 --> 23:00.920]  I'm automatically setting up everyone to be a beneficiary.
[23:00.920 --> 23:06.920]  What the advantages of being a beneficiary are is that you get to have standing to be
[23:06.920 --> 23:14.920]  a co-plaintiff with the trust in the case, in the situation if the trust decides to file
[23:14.920 --> 23:22.920]  a lawsuit against the FCC or any other government entity or rogue agent for trying to mess with 90.1.
[23:22.920 --> 23:24.920]  The beneficiaries will have standing.
[23:24.920 --> 23:29.920]  The courts have ruled that the general public does not have standing to file lawsuits.
[23:29.920 --> 23:36.920]  However, if you have a specific connection to the situation and can show specific harm,
[23:36.920 --> 23:38.920]  then yes, you have standing.
[23:38.920 --> 23:46.920]  The main benefit is that you get to benefit by receiving all this great information.
[23:46.920 --> 23:47.920]  That's the main benefit.
[23:47.920 --> 23:51.920]  If the micro is down, then you don't get the information.
[23:51.920 --> 23:54.920]  Yes, you've been certainly harmed.
[23:54.920 --> 24:01.920]  We do need your donations because I expect it's not going to be long before someone from
[24:01.920 --> 24:08.920]  the Texas Association of Broadcasters is going to try to stir up the FCC again and we'll
[24:08.920 --> 24:13.920]  have to deal with yet another case.
[24:13.920 --> 24:16.920]  We're already dealing with three right now.
[24:16.920 --> 24:21.920]  We've managed to kind of hold them off for now, but I expect that those three cases are
[24:21.920 --> 24:24.920]  going to proceed and we'll have to deal with them again.
[24:24.920 --> 24:29.920]  Of course, there will likely be a fourth because now we've moved the transmitter again.
[24:29.920 --> 24:34.920]  Y'all really don't know how hard Randy and I have been working to keep the micro on the
[24:34.920 --> 24:35.920]  air.
[24:35.920 --> 24:42.920]  I've heard some folks say within the last few days telling me, well, what took y'all
[24:42.920 --> 24:43.920]  so long?
[24:43.920 --> 24:44.920]  What was the big holdup?
[24:44.920 --> 24:49.920]  It's like people, you've got to realize we don't know how blessed we are that the micro
[24:49.920 --> 24:53.920]  was even on the air at all for the last year or that it is even on the air at all right
[24:53.920 --> 24:54.920]  now.
[24:54.920 --> 24:55.920]  This is a tremendous battle.
[24:55.920 --> 24:58.920]  It's a tremendous fight and we need your help.
[24:58.920 --> 25:00.920]  We need your donations now for the micro.
[25:00.920 --> 25:06.920]  We've got to start reimbursing the legal fund because guaranteed the battles are going
[25:06.920 --> 25:12.920]  to continue and potentially even escalate, especially since we've taken things to the
[25:12.920 --> 25:13.920]  next step.
[25:13.920 --> 25:14.920]  We've set up the documents.
[25:14.920 --> 25:16.920]  We've set up the paperwork.
[25:16.920 --> 25:22.920]  We've set up the trust and the rental agreement and everything is very solid and sound as
[25:22.920 --> 25:26.920]  far as we can tell from the experts that we have reviewed the documents.
[25:26.920 --> 25:29.920]  So that's where it's at folks.
[25:29.920 --> 25:32.920]  We are doing everything we can to fight for this micro.
[25:32.920 --> 25:37.920]  It's either that, it's either stand on the law because basically the FCC is the one that's
[25:37.920 --> 25:39.920]  violating Title 47.
[25:39.920 --> 25:41.920]  The broadcasters are not.
[25:41.920 --> 25:48.920]  The FCC's rules and regulations overstep the scope of the authority granted to them by
[25:48.920 --> 25:55.920]  the legislature in Title 47 and so that's where the merits of the argument lie, not
[25:55.920 --> 25:59.920]  to mention the fact that these rogues don't have an oath of office.
[25:59.920 --> 26:00.920]  They violated Title 5.
[26:00.920 --> 26:04.920]  They held ex parte hearings at the administrative level.
[26:04.920 --> 26:05.920]  It goes on and on and on.
[26:05.920 --> 26:10.920]  So we're leaving the court a way out to throw out all these cases based on the fact of all
[26:10.920 --> 26:12.920]  these procedural violations.
[26:12.920 --> 26:16.920]  But if push comes to shove and we have to fight on the merits, we can do that too, but
[26:16.920 --> 26:23.920]  this could be a very long and grueling, expensive court battle and we're doing it all for you,
[26:23.920 --> 26:24.920]  the listeners.
[26:24.920 --> 26:27.920]  And I got asked the question, well, why don't you guys just do it right?
[26:27.920 --> 26:29.920]  Well, we are doing it right, okay?
[26:29.920 --> 26:31.920]  This is the only way to do it.
[26:31.920 --> 26:34.920]  The broadcasters are not breaking any laws.
[26:34.920 --> 26:38.920]  It's the FCC that is in violation, not the broadcasters.
[26:38.920 --> 26:42.920]  And I got asked the question, well, why don't they just apply for a license?
[26:42.920 --> 26:47.920]  They're not applying for a license because the FCC hasn't given any licenses in over
[26:47.920 --> 26:53.920]  seven years, not to mention the fact that low-power FM licenses are only given to
[26:53.920 --> 27:01.920]  registered nonprofit educational entities like a school, okay, like a nonprofit
[27:01.920 --> 27:08.920]  educational school or like, you know, a college or something, a university, the
[27:08.920 --> 27:10.920]  Communications Department of University.
[27:10.920 --> 27:15.920]  You know, the people who are running the micro are pulling Internet streams from
[27:15.920 --> 27:17.920]  GCN and rule of law radio.
[27:17.920 --> 27:20.920]  They're not a nonprofit educational entity, all right?
[27:20.920 --> 27:25.920]  So applying for a license would be worthless even if they could.
[27:25.920 --> 27:28.920]  Those are the only types of low-power FM licenses that are given.
[27:28.920 --> 27:36.920]  So the only other option than to fight for it the way we are is to have anywhere
[27:36.920 --> 27:43.920]  from between $50 and $300 million to buy a radio station.
[27:43.920 --> 27:48.920]  I don't see us raising $50 to $300 million anytime soon.
[27:48.920 --> 27:51.920]  So this is the only way to go, folks.
[27:51.920 --> 27:55.920]  I'm just letting, I just want to let everyone know where it's at, and yes,
[27:55.920 --> 27:56.920]  everyone's really happy.
[27:56.920 --> 28:00.920]  The signal's coming in great, but the fight is far from over.
[28:00.920 --> 28:01.920]  We need your support.
[28:01.920 --> 28:02.920]  We have been making headway.
[28:02.920 --> 28:07.920]  Yes, it looks like we have a strong chance of really making it here, but we do
[28:07.920 --> 28:12.920]  need your help and support, especially financial help right now so that we can
[28:12.920 --> 28:17.920]  start saving up for the filing fees.
[28:17.920 --> 28:22.920]  Every time you file a filing fee in the appellate court, it's $450 a pop.
[28:22.920 --> 28:25.920]  You want to file a lawsuit, $450.
[28:25.920 --> 28:28.920]  You want to file a lawsuit at the state level, $250.
[28:28.920 --> 28:32.920]  Then you have to pay for service, and then you have to pay for all the
[28:32.920 --> 28:34.920]  certified mailings, okay?
[28:34.920 --> 28:43.920]  The cost of fighting for the micros so far has run us a little over $1,500.
[28:43.920 --> 28:49.920]  That's how much it's cost just in filing fees and service fees and certified
[28:49.920 --> 28:53.920]  mailings, et cetera, et cetera, and Randy and I haven't even gotten reimbursed
[28:53.920 --> 28:55.920]  for our time, all right?
[28:55.920 --> 28:59.920]  So, folks, we are doing everything to keep the signal on the air, so I just
[28:59.920 --> 29:01.920]  want to let everyone know where we're at with that.
[29:01.920 --> 29:05.920]  Randy, you have any comments?
[29:05.920 --> 29:15.920]  Yeah, when you get the urge to donate to 90.1, don't forget Randy's beer fund.
[29:15.920 --> 29:20.920]  I thought you were going to say donate to the beer fund instead.
[29:20.920 --> 29:21.920]  Okay, folks.
[29:21.920 --> 29:24.920]  A man has to keep his priorities straight.
[29:24.920 --> 29:28.920]  So if you want to be, folks, if you want to be a beneficiary of the trust, you
[29:28.920 --> 29:33.920]  can download the Serving the Public Interest, which we need those letters.
[29:33.920 --> 29:36.920]  If you've already sent a letter, don't send another one because I don't want
[29:36.920 --> 29:41.920]  to have to sort through and weed out the copies, but if you haven't sent a
[29:41.920 --> 29:45.920]  letter, please send in a letter and please send us some donations so that we
[29:45.920 --> 29:48.920]  can start putting things together for the 90.1 legal fund.
[29:48.920 --> 29:52.920]  It's pretty much been looted up until this point with all the expenses.
[29:52.920 --> 29:54.920]  So we'll be back on the other side.
[29:54.920 --> 30:00.920]  This is the rule of law.
[30:00.920 --> 30:05.920]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet
[30:05.920 --> 30:09.920]  isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[30:09.920 --> 30:12.920]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[30:12.920 --> 30:13.920]  Brave New Books?
[30:13.920 --> 30:17.920]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors
[30:17.920 --> 30:20.920]  like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Angie Edward Griffin.
[30:20.920 --> 30:24.920]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[30:24.920 --> 30:26.920]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[30:26.920 --> 30:28.920]  Go check it out for yourself.
[30:28.920 --> 30:32.920]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT.
[30:32.920 --> 30:36.920]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[30:36.920 --> 30:40.920]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the
[30:40.920 --> 30:44.920]  500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[30:44.920 --> 30:47.920]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[30:47.920 --> 30:52.920]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[30:52.920 --> 30:57.920]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page
[30:57.920 --> 31:01.920]  at bravenewbookstore.com.
[31:01.920 --> 31:04.920]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[31:04.920 --> 31:07.920]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[31:07.920 --> 31:12.920]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how
[31:12.920 --> 31:15.920]  in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[31:15.920 --> 31:19.920]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[31:19.920 --> 31:23.920]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[31:23.920 --> 31:28.920]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[31:28.920 --> 31:32.920]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years
[31:32.920 --> 31:34.920]  of case-winning experience.
[31:34.920 --> 31:38.920]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[31:38.920 --> 31:43.920]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[31:43.920 --> 31:47.920]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[31:47.920 --> 31:52.920]  forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[31:52.920 --> 31:56.920]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner,
[31:56.920 --> 32:01.920]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[32:01.920 --> 32:24.920]  Music playing.
[32:24.920 --> 32:36.920]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[32:36.920 --> 32:40.920]  Okay, Eddie, you have some stuff for us tonight.
[32:40.920 --> 32:41.920]  Actually, yes, I do.
[32:41.920 --> 32:47.920]  I have an update from one of our other listeners that is working on a case,
[32:47.920 --> 32:52.920]  and he used this seminar information and some interaction with me,
[32:52.920 --> 32:55.920]  and he had an appearance in court today.
[32:55.920 --> 33:01.920]  And it seems like he was summoned to court for the sole purpose of entering
[33:01.920 --> 33:05.920]  a plea and holding a meeting with the prosecution to enter that plea.
[33:05.920 --> 33:09.920]  Randy, what is the specific section of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[33:09.920 --> 33:12.920]  that states the list of things for which you can be summoned?
[33:12.920 --> 33:15.920]  28.01.
[33:15.920 --> 33:16.920]  Okay.
[33:16.920 --> 33:18.920]  Gary, that's what you want to look at.
[33:18.920 --> 33:22.920]  Yes, meeting with the prosecutor is not one of them.
[33:22.920 --> 33:23.920]  Okay.
[33:23.920 --> 33:25.920]  Now, when he did have this meeting with the prosecutor,
[33:25.920 --> 33:28.920]  the judge managed to hotfoot it out of the courtroom and disappear
[33:28.920 --> 33:30.920]  for the rest of the day.
[33:30.920 --> 33:38.920]  Now, Gary had a memorandum of law pending a response from the court,
[33:38.920 --> 33:39.920]  which the court has yet to give.
[33:39.920 --> 33:43.920]  In almost a year, the court has yet to give a response to this memorandum
[33:43.920 --> 33:46.920]  of law after specifically asking for it.
[33:46.920 --> 33:53.920]  The memorandum dealt with the subject of the requirement of an examining trial.
[33:53.920 --> 33:57.920]  Gary brought this up to the prosecutor that there was an outstanding memorandum
[33:57.920 --> 33:59.920]  of law that needed to be answered.
[33:59.920 --> 34:02.920]  The prosecutor looked at it and said, well, it's not in the folder.
[34:02.920 --> 34:06.920]  And Gary's like, yeah, I know, so where is it?
[34:06.920 --> 34:09.920]  But on top of that, he also said there's something else that's missing
[34:09.920 --> 34:10.920]  from the folder.
[34:10.920 --> 34:13.920]  And the prosecutor's like, well, what is that?
[34:13.920 --> 34:15.920]  It's the criminal complaint.
[34:15.920 --> 34:19.920]  So the prosecutor looks in there and goes, you know what, you're absolutely right.
[34:19.920 --> 34:22.920]  Now, I bring that up for this purpose.
[34:22.920 --> 34:28.920]  The prosecutor told Gary that what they basically led Gary down the path,
[34:28.920 --> 34:33.920]  they wanted him to go by saying, so I'm betting that you want the judge
[34:33.920 --> 34:35.920]  to answer your memorandum of law.
[34:35.920 --> 34:39.920]  See, they planted a seed of what course of action they wanted Gary to believe
[34:39.920 --> 34:42.920]  he should be taking in his mind.
[34:42.920 --> 34:46.920]  And of course, the normal response would be, yes, I want an answer to my motion
[34:46.920 --> 34:48.920]  or my memorandum or my petition.
[34:48.920 --> 34:53.920]  However, one of the things I caution him about, and folks, for you listening out
[34:53.920 --> 35:00.920]  there, don't ever miss an opportunity to chop the entire thing to a dead stop
[35:00.920 --> 35:03.920]  right then and there when you have it.
[35:03.920 --> 35:08.920]  When he was summoned to court to enter a plea and there was no complaint
[35:08.920 --> 35:14.920]  in the folder, the very first thing that should have happened when the prosecutor
[35:14.920 --> 35:20.920]  agreed that there was no complaint, immediately leave the room, demand to see
[35:20.920 --> 35:25.920]  the judge, and demand an immediate dismissal for failure to prosecute and for
[35:25.920 --> 35:31.920]  lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there is no controversy before the court.
[35:31.920 --> 35:34.920]  No complaint, no controversy.
[35:34.920 --> 35:38.920]  Now, there's a little addendum to this here in Texas.
[35:38.920 --> 35:43.920]  In addition to that complaint, there also must be an information, and there
[35:43.920 --> 35:46.920]  isn't one of those either.
[35:46.920 --> 35:53.920]  So in two ways, there is no jurisdiction for this court to proceed on anything.
[35:53.920 --> 35:57.920]  They can't even really answer Gary's memorandum of law because there's no issue
[35:57.920 --> 36:00.920]  before the court.
[36:00.920 --> 36:05.920]  The citation is not, cannot be a complaint.
[36:05.920 --> 36:10.920]  I don't care what 27.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tries to make it,
[36:10.920 --> 36:14.920]  it can't be one.
[36:14.920 --> 36:19.920]  The law is very specific about what constitutes a valid complaint, and a
[36:19.920 --> 36:25.920]  citation that is unsigned or signed without oath and affirmation is not a
[36:25.920 --> 36:29.920]  valid complaint.
[36:29.920 --> 36:30.920]  So keep that in mind.
[36:30.920 --> 36:32.920]  Pay attention to what they're doing.
[36:32.920 --> 36:39.920]  Pay attention to what they're not doing because it's procedure that will save
[36:39.920 --> 36:43.920]  you every step of the way if you're paying attention to it.
[36:43.920 --> 36:48.920]  When they don't do what they're supposed to do, call them on it.
[36:48.920 --> 36:50.920]  And that's not in any way to admonish Gary.
[36:50.920 --> 36:53.920]  He did an excellent job based upon the information he gave to me.
[36:53.920 --> 36:56.920]  That's just one of those things you need to pay attention to.
[36:56.920 --> 37:02.920]  The prosecution planted the seed of what they wanted you to say you wanted so
[37:02.920 --> 37:06.920]  that they did not have to dismiss the case.
[37:06.920 --> 37:10.920]  Had the action been brought forward that, hey, there's no complaint.
[37:10.920 --> 37:12.920]  There is no controversy.
[37:12.920 --> 37:17.920]  I want this dismissed right here, right now.
[37:17.920 --> 37:19.920]  Wait a minute.
[37:19.920 --> 37:23.920]  The prosecutor was made known that there was no subject matter jurisdiction.
[37:23.920 --> 37:30.920]  He should get a bar grievance, criminal complaint, and if the guy's up to it,
[37:30.920 --> 37:32.920]  sue the son of a gun.
[37:32.920 --> 37:33.920]  Yep, and the judge.
[37:33.920 --> 37:34.920]  And the judge.
[37:34.920 --> 37:40.920]  And malicious prosecution against them both and the officer.
[37:40.920 --> 37:42.920]  That's a cause of action, folks.
[37:42.920 --> 37:49.920]  The court doesn't not have subject matter jurisdiction only because you raise the
[37:49.920 --> 37:50.920]  issue.
[37:50.920 --> 37:58.920]  He doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction whether you raise the issue or not.
[37:58.920 --> 37:59.920]  Right.
[37:59.920 --> 38:01.920]  He doesn't have it as a matter of law.
[38:01.920 --> 38:02.920]  Exactly.
[38:02.920 --> 38:08.920]  So you don't have to raise it for it to be an issue, at least criminally.
[38:08.920 --> 38:12.920]  If he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, he's impersonating a public
[38:12.920 --> 38:13.920]  official.
[38:13.920 --> 38:14.920]  Both of them are.
[38:14.920 --> 38:17.920]  And in this case, the prosecuting attorney certainly knew it.
[38:17.920 --> 38:21.920]  And he was bound by Article 2.01 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[38:21.920 --> 38:24.920]  Now, there's another possible issue here, too, Randy.
[38:24.920 --> 38:29.920]  And that is that this prosecutor in this case is someone that Gary has also
[38:29.920 --> 38:33.920]  filed criminal complaints against on a prior occasion, which brings forth a
[38:33.920 --> 38:40.920]  conflict of interest in the prosecution.
[38:40.920 --> 38:47.920]  That's interesting whether it actually does or not.
[38:47.920 --> 38:50.920]  I mean, you might not like him, but I'm trying to think of how that would
[38:50.920 --> 38:52.920]  disqualify him.
[38:52.920 --> 38:59.920]  Well, if you've accused him of a criminal act, now, Gary said that he gave it
[38:59.920 --> 39:04.920]  to the district attorney or, I'm sorry, the county attorney at the time.
[39:04.920 --> 39:11.920]  And suddenly the entire case disappeared, but that was for other reasons he
[39:11.920 --> 39:12.920]  may have mentioned.
[39:12.920 --> 39:17.920]  But in any case, when you file that criminal complaint against that prosecuting
[39:17.920 --> 39:23.920]  attorney, the reason I say it's a conflict of interest is because they're
[39:23.920 --> 39:27.920]  compromised in their ability to prosecute at that point.
[39:27.920 --> 39:32.920]  Anything they do at that point can be construed as above and beyond the call
[39:32.920 --> 39:37.920]  of duty when it can be shown they haven't ever done that in other prosecutions.
[39:37.920 --> 39:41.920]  It can be turned into a directed prosecution.
[39:41.920 --> 39:45.920]  Give the appearance of bias, yeah, but then the prosecutor can have the
[39:45.920 --> 39:46.920]  appearance of bias.
[39:46.920 --> 39:51.920]  I'm trying to think of how to get him.
[39:51.920 --> 39:58.920]  The fact that a complaint has been filed actually does nothing.
[39:58.920 --> 40:03.920]  Well, would it not stand to reason that if the accusation is that they've
[40:03.920 --> 40:07.920]  committed a criminal act in the process of their job, they've vacated the
[40:07.920 --> 40:11.920]  office to begin with, and they're still acting as a public servant?
[40:11.920 --> 40:14.920]  Here's the problem with that.
[40:14.920 --> 40:21.920]  If you could disqualify a prosecutor or a judge just by making a criminal
[40:21.920 --> 40:28.920]  accusation against them, then essentially no judge could sit because you could
[40:28.920 --> 40:33.920]  just make accusations against them willy-nilly, and because it's a criminal
[40:33.920 --> 40:41.920]  accusation, nothing can happen to you.
[40:41.920 --> 40:43.920]  See the problem?
[40:43.920 --> 40:48.920]  Well, yeah, I see the problem if it's taken that the criminal complaint is
[40:48.920 --> 40:50.920]  unsubstantiated in any way.
[40:50.920 --> 40:57.920]  That appears to be what they've done by refusing to pursue prosecution.
[40:57.920 --> 41:01.920]  That's what I've been arguing, that you can file a criminal complaint and it
[41:01.920 --> 41:06.920]  doesn't do anything until a magistrate holds an examining trial.
[41:06.920 --> 41:08.920]  That's when something actually happens.
[41:08.920 --> 41:15.920]  On the other side of that, just the filing of the criminal complaint
[41:15.920 --> 41:17.920]  actually does nothing.
[41:17.920 --> 41:25.920]  Unless we can show, even if we can show criminal actions on part of the
[41:25.920 --> 41:31.920]  prosecuting attorney for failing to act in accordance with Article 2.03 where
[41:31.920 --> 41:35.920]  he's required to present a complaint to the grand jury along with the
[41:35.920 --> 41:40.920]  information, that still doesn't go back to the accused.
[41:40.920 --> 41:45.920]  Even if you can show that the criminal action occurred during the attempted
[41:45.920 --> 41:47.920]  prosecution in this given case.
[41:47.920 --> 41:53.920]  Well, the problem is without a prosecution being commenced, there is no
[41:53.920 --> 41:58.920]  prosecution, so there's only somebody complaining, one person complaining
[41:58.920 --> 42:04.920]  about another.
[42:04.920 --> 42:08.920]  You've got to know I'm on the side that I won't even disqualify it.
[42:08.920 --> 42:14.920]  I'm just trying to figure out how to do it.
[42:14.920 --> 42:18.920]  Certainly claim is disqualified.
[42:18.920 --> 42:23.920]  Well, in a particular case, I would think that where we're dealing with an
[42:23.920 --> 42:27.920]  attorney or prosecuting attorney that has committed a criminal act to
[42:27.920 --> 42:32.920]  facilitate a prosecution, such as in this case where they have moved for
[42:32.920 --> 42:38.920]  prosecution without a valid complaint, that merits the bar grievance, that
[42:38.920 --> 42:42.920]  merits the judicial conduct complaint against the judge, that merits criminal
[42:42.920 --> 42:47.920]  charges for impersonating a public servant, abuse of official capacity,
[42:47.920 --> 42:51.920]  official oppression, official misconduct, and in the case of the police
[42:51.920 --> 42:59.920]  officer, aggravated perjury and a couple other things.
[42:59.920 --> 43:06.920]  Yeah, I agree, but I'm trying to get to that prosecuting attorney.
[43:06.920 --> 43:09.920]  Well, but I mean how can he be a prosecuting attorney if he is
[43:09.920 --> 43:12.920]  impersonating a public official?
[43:12.920 --> 43:15.920]  That by definition means you can't be acting as a prosecuting attorney.
[43:15.920 --> 43:17.920]  He's acting outside of his authority.
[43:17.920 --> 43:19.920]  But it hasn't been adjudicated yet.
[43:19.920 --> 43:23.920]  It's just up to this point it's still an accusation.
[43:23.920 --> 43:32.920]  How do we give it teeth so it'll stand up in court enough to disqualify it?
[43:32.920 --> 43:39.920]  I'll think about that over the break and see if I can come up with something interesting.
[43:39.920 --> 43:41.920]  Well, all right.
[43:41.920 --> 43:44.920]  Hey, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens,
[43:44.920 --> 43:46.920]  Eddie Craig.
[43:46.920 --> 44:00.920]  We will be right back after this break, so y'all please hang in there.
[44:00.920 --> 44:03.920]  Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org.
[44:03.920 --> 44:07.920]  Our coffee grows in the dense volcanic rich soil, herbicide and pesticide free,
[44:07.920 --> 44:11.920]  and in the high altitudes of Guatemala in conditions that are ideal for natural
[44:11.920 --> 44:13.920]  growth of this high quality coffee.
[44:13.920 --> 44:17.920]  Try our mellow cup of coffee that is ground and roasted with 25 percent
[44:17.920 --> 44:21.920]  hemp seed from Canada with a wonderful nutty flavor that contains 18 percent
[44:21.920 --> 44:22.920]  protein.
[44:22.920 --> 44:26.920]  Our roasters bring a unique flavor that makes this the best cup of coffee
[44:26.920 --> 44:27.920]  you'll ever have.
[44:27.920 --> 44:32.920]  Try our new Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org and wake up your brain
[44:32.920 --> 44:33.920]  without the jitters.
[44:33.920 --> 44:36.920]  Our customers look forward to their next cup of hemp coffee.
[44:36.920 --> 44:43.920]  Visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608.
[44:43.920 --> 44:49.920]  That's 908-691-2608 and see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee
[44:49.920 --> 44:50.920]  again.
[44:50.920 --> 44:55.920]  Taste the difference, feel the difference at HempUSA.org today.
[44:55.920 --> 45:08.920]  Music
[45:08.920 --> 45:14.920]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one?
[45:14.920 --> 45:20.920]  If you could not reach any battle too long, what's your purpose as you die?
[45:20.920 --> 45:26.920]  Such a gentleman, a soldier, a warrior of love, scouple and they keep the peace.
[45:26.920 --> 45:29.920]  All they're taking is a misunderstanding.
[45:29.920 --> 45:31.920]  Somebody calls the police.
[45:31.920 --> 45:55.920]  What's in a spot's black?
[45:55.920 --> 46:08.920]  Music
[46:08.920 --> 46:11.920]  All right, folks, we are back, Rule of Law Radio.
[46:11.920 --> 46:18.920]  The listeners out there, if you want to call in, 512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[46:18.920 --> 46:20.920]  Anthony, we do see you on the caller board.
[46:20.920 --> 46:23.920]  If you'll hang on for just a few minutes, we'll be with you.
[46:23.920 --> 46:29.920]  There is another issue that I would like to bring up as well, dealing with some of the cases that were run through down there today
[46:29.920 --> 46:35.920]  and one that I was asked about specifically, dealing with public intoxication charges.
[46:35.920 --> 46:42.920]  Now, for those of you who don't know, Texas Penal Code, Section 49.02 deals with public intoxication.
[46:42.920 --> 46:44.920]  The charge here is very specific.
[46:44.920 --> 46:47.920]  It's a very short section, so I'm going to read it to you.
[46:47.920 --> 46:55.920]  Subsection A, a person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree
[46:55.920 --> 46:59.920]  that the person may endanger the person or another.
[46:59.920 --> 47:06.920]  So right there, that's a criteria that they have the burden of proof to meet that you were so intoxicated
[47:06.920 --> 47:13.920]  that you presented a danger to yourself or others, not just that you were intoxicated,
[47:13.920 --> 47:19.920]  but that the fact that you were so intoxicated that you were dangerous to yourself or somebody else.
[47:19.920 --> 47:30.920]  A-1, for the purposes of this section, a premises licensed or permitted under the Alcoholic Beverage Code is a public place.
[47:30.920 --> 47:34.920]  Now, there's a couple of possible ways to interpret that specific section.
[47:34.920 --> 47:43.920]  Since the law is limited to what the law says, I interpret that to mean that this public intoxication statute
[47:43.920 --> 47:48.920]  applies to those places licensed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code.
[47:48.920 --> 47:51.920]  It doesn't talk about anything else.
[47:51.920 --> 47:54.920]  That's what it specifically says is a public place.
[47:54.920 --> 48:02.920]  Subsection B, it is a defense to prosecution under this section that the alcohol or other substance
[48:02.920 --> 48:05.920]  was administered for therapeutic purposes.
[48:05.920 --> 48:09.920]  Well, I'm pretty sure anyone can argue that.
[48:09.920 --> 48:14.920]  And as a part of the person's professional medical treatment by a licensed physician.
[48:14.920 --> 48:18.920]  So go get a note from your doctor to go drink it every Friday night.
[48:18.920 --> 48:25.920]  Subsection C, except as provided by Subsection E, an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
[48:25.920 --> 48:32.920]  D, an offense under this section is not a lesser included offense under Section 49.04.
[48:32.920 --> 48:36.920]  And E, an offense under this section committed by a person younger than 21 years of age,
[48:36.920 --> 48:42.920]  it is punishable in the same manner as if the minor committed an offense to which Section 106.071
[48:42.920 --> 48:45.920]  Alcoholic Beverage Code applies.
[48:45.920 --> 48:55.920]  Now basically speaking, the only way they can legally lawfully charge you with public intoxication is to prove two things.
[48:55.920 --> 48:57.920]  You were intoxicated, or three things.
[48:57.920 --> 49:03.920]  You were intoxicated, you were in a public place as defined by this statute,
[49:03.920 --> 49:08.920]  and that you were an immediate danger to yourself or others.
[49:08.920 --> 49:14.920]  If they can't prove those three things or all of those three things,
[49:14.920 --> 49:17.920]  they don't have a valid charge.
[49:17.920 --> 49:19.920]  Now here's the thing.
[49:19.920 --> 49:27.920]  The police officer will 99% of the time arrest you when he charges you with public intoxication.
[49:27.920 --> 49:33.920]  He has made no offer of proof, and they never ever introduce proof in the court cases.
[49:33.920 --> 49:42.920]  I guarantee you 99.9% of them, they never make an offer of proof that the individual accused was a danger to anybody.
[49:42.920 --> 49:47.920]  They just simply say, he was drinking, he was stumbling, he was in a public place over here on this parking lot,
[49:47.920 --> 49:53.920]  we arrested him, charged him with public intoxication.
[49:53.920 --> 49:59.920]  Stumbling does not mean that you're a danger to yourself or someone else.
[49:59.920 --> 50:04.920]  If it did, every football player in the NFL that tripped over his own feet and fell down instead of getting tackled
[50:04.920 --> 50:10.920]  would be arrested for public intoxication and reckless endangerment.
[50:10.920 --> 50:13.920]  Don't let them get away with this, folks.
[50:13.920 --> 50:21.920]  This is just another way to get you under their thumb, to get money out of your pocket, and to illegally throw you in jail.
[50:21.920 --> 50:29.920]  Sue the cop, sue the department, sue the city they work for.
[50:29.920 --> 50:35.920]  Malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, aggravated perjury,
[50:35.920 --> 50:42.920]  because the moment that police officer signed that ticket, submitted that to the court,
[50:42.920 --> 50:51.920]  and then signed a complaint under oath that you did these things, knowing full well he's got no proof you did these things,
[50:51.920 --> 50:54.920]  he's done it with the intent of causing you harm.
[50:54.920 --> 51:00.920]  That harm is financial, not necessarily physical, but he's done it with the intention of causing you harm.
[51:00.920 --> 51:03.920]  That makes it aggravated perjury.
[51:03.920 --> 51:08.920]  Now, Randy, I've got something else to throw at you here, and tell me what you think about it.
[51:08.920 --> 51:14.920]  Notice that every single criminal complaint in Texas ends, other than the signature block,
[51:14.920 --> 51:19.920]  ends with the following statement, against the peace and dignity of the state.
[51:19.920 --> 51:21.920]  Am I correct?
[51:21.920 --> 51:22.920]  Yes, you are correct.
[51:22.920 --> 51:24.920]  Okay.
[51:24.920 --> 51:28.920]  Nowhere in this offense are you charged with a breach of the peace.
[51:28.920 --> 51:35.920]  So, exactly what act did you commit that was against the peace of the state?
[51:35.920 --> 51:44.920]  Well, that doesn't necessarily require that every accusation claim a breach of the peace.
[51:44.920 --> 51:48.920]  Breach of the peace is a term of art.
[51:48.920 --> 51:50.920]  I know it's not according to law.
[51:50.920 --> 51:54.920]  According to the courts, a breach of the peace is something very specific.
[51:54.920 --> 51:58.920]  That's what I mean.
[51:58.920 --> 51:59.920]  That's what I mean.
[51:59.920 --> 52:01.920]  Breach of the peace is a term of art.
[52:01.920 --> 52:09.920]  It has a special meaning defined by the statute as these certain acts.
[52:09.920 --> 52:17.920]  When they're using the term in the criminal complaint against the peace and dignity,
[52:17.920 --> 52:28.920]  you can't take peace out of that sentence and put it into the prepositional phrase that's defined in the statute.
[52:28.920 --> 52:37.920]  The thing is, there is nothing in the statute that connotes it as a breach of the peace.
[52:37.920 --> 52:40.920]  It doesn't have to.
[52:40.920 --> 52:41.920]  Sure it does.
[52:41.920 --> 52:42.920]  That's the point.
[52:42.920 --> 52:47.920]  Every crime in Texas doesn't have to be a breach of the peace.
[52:47.920 --> 52:52.920]  For it to be arrestable without a warrant, it does.
[52:52.920 --> 52:54.920]  No, it doesn't.
[52:54.920 --> 52:55.920]  Yes, it does.
[52:55.920 --> 53:02.920]  You're taking one word out of a phrase and using that word to represent the whole phrase.
[53:02.920 --> 53:08.920]  How do you go against the peace in any other way, shape, or form?
[53:08.920 --> 53:12.920]  You violated a criminal statute.
[53:12.920 --> 53:18.920]  How is that breaching the peace?
[53:18.920 --> 53:22.920]  You're not necessarily breaching the peace just because you violated a criminal statute.
[53:22.920 --> 53:23.920]  That's the problem.
[53:23.920 --> 53:25.920]  It doesn't say breaching the peace.
[53:25.920 --> 53:27.920]  What does it say, Eddie?
[53:27.920 --> 53:30.920]  Against the peace and dignity of the state.
[53:30.920 --> 53:36.920]  How can you go against the peace and dignity in any way other than the commission of a felony or a breach of the peace?
[53:36.920 --> 53:38.920]  That's my question.
[53:38.920 --> 53:40.920]  How can you go against the peace?
[53:40.920 --> 53:44.920]  You can do it by the commission of a Class A misdemeanor or a Class B misdemeanor.
[53:44.920 --> 53:48.920]  Yes, but we're not talking to Class A or B. We're talking to Class C.
[53:48.920 --> 53:54.920]  You ask a general question and you're mixing up things.
[53:54.920 --> 54:00.920]  You can't ask me a general question and then say I didn't answer a very specifically finely honed,
[54:00.920 --> 54:04.920]  directed question toward one particular statute.
[54:04.920 --> 54:11.920]  Even a Class A or B, Randy, that's not judged as a breach of the peace is not arrestable without a warrant.
[54:11.920 --> 54:12.920]  Yes, it is.
[54:12.920 --> 54:14.920]  Not according to the case law.
[54:14.920 --> 54:15.920]  It's not.
[54:15.920 --> 54:21.920]  Now, they've tried to write 1401B so that they can arrest for anything,
[54:21.920 --> 54:30.920]  but the argument I've made against that in the legal documents that I've got is 1401B is absolutely unconstitutional on its face
[54:30.920 --> 54:36.920]  because 1401A specifically says that the officer can arrest for an offense committed in his view
[54:36.920 --> 54:39.920]  if it was for a felony or a breach of the peace.
[54:39.920 --> 54:43.920]  No, that's not what it's, you need to go back and reread the statute.
[54:43.920 --> 54:44.920]  I have read the statute.
[54:44.920 --> 54:52.920]  He can only arrest for a misdemeanor if it occurs in his sight or in his presence.
[54:52.920 --> 55:02.920]  He can arrest for a felony that doesn't occur in his sight or presence if there is the danger of the accused escaping custody.
[55:02.920 --> 55:09.920]  This is what it reads verbatim, subsection A, a peace officer or any other person may,
[55:09.920 --> 55:16.920]  without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view
[55:16.920 --> 55:22.920]  if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.
[55:22.920 --> 55:26.920]  Now, B was added later.
[55:26.920 --> 55:34.920]  B says a peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.
[55:34.920 --> 55:38.920]  So they now have two conflicting sections of statute.
[55:38.920 --> 55:42.920]  One sets a limit and the other tries to make it unlimited.
[55:42.920 --> 55:50.920]  Okay, I understand that but we're having a different argument and you're arguing that this statute is not constitutional
[55:50.920 --> 55:55.920]  but it is still a statute and it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.
[55:55.920 --> 56:03.920]  So we can't treat it as if it doesn't have force and effect just because we disagree with it.
[56:03.920 --> 56:08.920]  And I certainly don't want to tell people that this is the case.
[56:08.920 --> 56:11.920]  Yeah, I'm not trying to argue treating it without force and effect.
[56:11.920 --> 56:13.920]  I'm arguing challenging it on those grounds.
[56:13.920 --> 56:16.920]  I understand that but that was a different argument.
[56:16.920 --> 56:26.920]  We're talking about against the peace and dignity as opposed to breach of the peace where the term peace is used.
[56:26.920 --> 56:32.920]  You still haven't told me how you can go against the peace without breaching the peace.
[56:32.920 --> 56:37.920]  How do you go against it and it not be a breach?
[56:37.920 --> 56:41.920]  Now wait, you're the one that goes to definitions.
[56:41.920 --> 56:54.920]  You're trying to juxtapose the common Webster definition of peace with the definition used in the statute.
[56:54.920 --> 56:57.920]  There is no definition in the statute for breach of the peace.
[56:57.920 --> 56:58.920]  That's part of the problem.
[56:58.920 --> 57:02.920]  A breach of the peace is defined by the statute.
[57:02.920 --> 57:03.920]  No, it's not.
[57:03.920 --> 57:06.920]  A breach of the peace is.
[57:06.920 --> 57:08.920]  How do you get there?
[57:08.920 --> 57:09.920]  Read the statute.
[57:09.920 --> 57:11.920]  It says if you do this thing.
[57:11.920 --> 57:13.920]  The statute says breach of the peace.
[57:13.920 --> 57:16.920]  It does not say breach of the peace and the courts have said over and over again.
[57:16.920 --> 57:19.920]  What is the name of the offense?
[57:19.920 --> 57:21.920]  The name of the offense is breach of the peace.
[57:21.920 --> 57:23.920]  Public intoxication.
[57:23.920 --> 57:24.920]  No, it isn't.
[57:24.920 --> 57:30.920]  The courts have said time and time again that not every misdemeanor is a breach of the peace.
[57:30.920 --> 57:32.920]  Now wait, now you're shifting again.
[57:32.920 --> 57:34.920]  No, I'm not.
[57:34.920 --> 57:39.920]  You're saying the statute itself just by its creation.
[57:39.920 --> 57:42.920]  Jim, we're talking different statutes here.
[57:42.920 --> 57:43.920]  I'm not talking.
[57:43.920 --> 57:45.920]  What do you mean we're talking different statutes?
[57:45.920 --> 57:53.920]  You're claiming that everything has to be a breach of the peace in order to be arrestable.
[57:53.920 --> 57:56.920]  Without a warrant.
[57:56.920 --> 57:58.920]  That's what the case law says.
[57:58.920 --> 58:03.920]  It's not what the statute says and it's not what the case law says.
[58:03.920 --> 58:05.920]  It's what you're arguing it should be.
[58:05.920 --> 58:08.920]  No, I've got tons of case law that says exactly that.
[58:08.920 --> 58:11.920]  But anyway, we'll cover that in just a minute.
[58:11.920 --> 58:15.920]  All right, and we do have three callers on the line who have been waiting for a very long time.
[58:15.920 --> 58:18.920]  Anthony, Brian, and Gary.
[58:18.920 --> 58:20.920]  Okay.
[58:20.920 --> 58:23.920]  Okay, folks, we're at the top of the hour.
[58:23.920 --> 58:26.920]  We've got INN World Report, top of the hour news coming right up.
[58:26.920 --> 58:29.920]  Anthony, Brian, and Gary, y'all just hold on.
[58:29.920 --> 58:31.920]  We will be right back.
[58:31.920 --> 58:33.920]  We'll be right back.
[59:01.920 --> 59:03.920]  We'll be right back.
[59:31.920 --> 59:58.920]  Thank you.
[59:58.920 --> 01:00:03.920]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:03.920 --> 01:00:07.920]  U.S. Overseas Aid Chief Rajiv Shah raised eyebrows Wednesday
[01:00:07.920 --> 01:00:12.920]  by visiting a relief camp in Pakistan run by Fallah-e-Insanyat,
[01:00:12.920 --> 01:00:17.920]  the humanitarian arm of the banned terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah.
[01:00:17.920 --> 01:00:21.920]  JUD described Shah's visit as an endorsement of its relief efforts.
[01:00:21.920 --> 01:00:26.920]  U.S. Embassy said the camp was being served by the World Food Program and Save the Children,
[01:00:26.920 --> 01:00:28.920]  a large banner reading,
[01:00:28.920 --> 01:00:34.920]  Relief Camp Fallah-e-Insanyat Foundation hung over the camp's entrance.
[01:00:34.920 --> 01:00:38.920]  Human Rights Watch said Wednesday undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
[01:00:38.920 --> 01:00:42.920]  run the risk of suffering sexual abuse when they are in detention centers.
[01:00:42.920 --> 01:00:44.920]  The document refers to, quote,
[01:00:44.920 --> 01:00:48.920]  a series of assaults, abuses, and episodes of harassment
[01:00:48.920 --> 01:00:52.920]  that have emerged across the national immigration detention system.
[01:00:52.920 --> 01:01:00.920]  For one example, a woman was raped in her cell by a guard as her infant slept beside her.
[01:01:00.920 --> 01:01:05.920]  One million South African civil servants marched across the country Thursday over wages.
[01:01:05.920 --> 01:01:08.920]  The unions have set a deadline of September 2nd
[01:01:08.920 --> 01:01:12.920]  for the government to provide an 8.6 percent rise in salaries
[01:01:12.920 --> 01:01:15.920]  and a $138 monthly housing allowance.
[01:01:15.920 --> 01:01:19.920]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:01:19.920 --> 01:01:24.920]  In one of the most serious war crime cases to emerge from the Afghanistan War,
[01:01:24.920 --> 01:01:28.920]  five U.S. soldiers are charged with murder for their alleged roles
[01:01:28.920 --> 01:01:31.920]  in the random killings of three Afghan civilians.
[01:01:31.920 --> 01:01:34.920]  According to statements made by fellow platoon members,
[01:01:34.920 --> 01:01:39.920]  Army Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs began joking last December
[01:01:39.920 --> 01:01:44.920]  about how easy it would be to toss a grenade at Afghan civilians and kill them.
[01:01:44.920 --> 01:01:48.920]  In two of the incidents, grenades were thrown at the victims and they were shot.
[01:01:48.920 --> 01:01:50.920]  The third victim was also shot.
[01:01:50.920 --> 01:01:54.920]  The soldiers allegedly killed the three Afghans while on patrol,
[01:01:54.920 --> 01:01:58.920]  and anyone who dared to report the events was threatened with violence.
[01:01:58.920 --> 01:02:01.920]  All five soldiers are awaiting court martial.
[01:02:01.920 --> 01:02:04.920]  If convicted, they face life imprisonment or death.
[01:02:04.920 --> 01:02:09.920]  Gibbs and Specialist Jeremy Moorlach are charged in all three of the killings.
[01:02:09.920 --> 01:02:16.920]  Moorlach has given numerous details about his involvement and has implicated others.
[01:02:16.920 --> 01:02:21.920]  Wednesday's decision by the Norwegian Oil Foundation to sell its stake in two Israeli companies
[01:02:21.920 --> 01:02:26.920]  claiming they are involved in illegal construction in the occupied Palestinian territories
[01:02:26.920 --> 01:02:30.920]  is the latest in a long line of European governments and corporations
[01:02:30.920 --> 01:02:32.920]  that have boycotted Israeli companies.
[01:02:32.920 --> 01:02:37.920]  In most cases it is because products were manufactured in the occupied territories.
[01:02:37.920 --> 01:02:41.920]  Sometimes it has been to protest Israel's policy against Palestinians
[01:02:41.920 --> 01:02:46.920]  as in its violent response to last May's Gaza flotilla.
[01:02:46.920 --> 01:02:50.920]  In the past few months, boycotts of Israeli brands have markedly increased,
[01:02:50.920 --> 01:02:53.920]  Avi Ben Zvi, owner of the Plasko company said.
[01:02:53.920 --> 01:02:57.920]  Since the Palestinians declared a boycott on territories' products,
[01:02:57.920 --> 01:03:11.920]  they have had a 40% drop in production.
[01:04:27.920 --> 01:04:32.920]  In the past few months, boycotts of Israeli brands have markedly increased,
[01:04:32.920 --> 01:04:36.920]  Avi Ben Zvi, owner of the Plasko company said.
[01:04:36.920 --> 01:04:41.920]  Since the Palestinians declared a boycott on territories' products,
[01:04:41.920 --> 01:04:45.920]  they have had a 40% drop in production.
[01:04:45.920 --> 01:04:50.920]  Since the Palestinians declared a boycott on territories' products,
[01:04:50.920 --> 01:04:54.920]  they have had a 40% drop in production.
[01:04:54.920 --> 01:05:13.920]  Okay folks, we are back.
[01:05:13.920 --> 01:05:16.920]  And before we go back to Eddie and the callers,
[01:05:16.920 --> 01:05:21.920]  just another breaking piece of information on the FCC.
[01:05:21.920 --> 01:05:26.920]  I got an email from one of our affiliates in St. Louis saying,
[01:05:26.920 --> 01:05:31.920]  with a link to brand new code rules and regulations in the FCC
[01:05:31.920 --> 01:05:34.920]  under good old Part 15, as we are familiar with,
[01:05:34.920 --> 01:05:37.920]  and it was added as of August 24th,
[01:05:37.920 --> 01:05:42.920]  where they are making special provisions for these naked body scanners,
[01:05:42.920 --> 01:05:47.920]  i.e. they call them through-D-wall imaging systems.
[01:05:47.920 --> 01:05:53.920]  However, it looks like the FCC has just handed us even more ammunition
[01:05:53.920 --> 01:05:58.920]  against these evil machines because it says right here at the beginning,
[01:05:58.920 --> 01:06:02.920]  operation under the provisions of this section is limited
[01:06:02.920 --> 01:06:07.920]  to through-wall imaging systems operated by law enforcement,
[01:06:07.920 --> 01:06:11.920]  emergency rescue, or firefighting organizations
[01:06:11.920 --> 01:06:16.920]  that are under the authority of a local or state government.
[01:06:16.920 --> 01:06:18.920]  Slam dunk.
[01:06:18.920 --> 01:06:21.920]  TSA is a federal agency.
[01:06:21.920 --> 01:06:24.920]  It's not under the authority of a local or state government.
[01:06:24.920 --> 01:06:30.920]  And besides, TSA is not law enforcement anyway.
[01:06:30.920 --> 01:06:36.920]  So automatically, right off the bat, as of August 24th, 2010,
[01:06:36.920 --> 01:06:42.920]  any TSA agent that operates these naked body scanners
[01:06:42.920 --> 01:06:46.920]  are automatically in violation of FCC regulations.
[01:06:46.920 --> 01:06:47.920]  Period.
[01:06:47.920 --> 01:06:48.920]  Straight up.
[01:06:48.920 --> 01:06:50.920]  End of story.
[01:06:50.920 --> 01:06:51.920]  It's a goldmine.
[01:06:51.920 --> 01:06:54.920]  Thank you, Carl, from KDX Radio for sending that.
[01:06:54.920 --> 01:06:57.920]  So now we have even more ammo against them.
[01:06:57.920 --> 01:06:58.920]  All right.
[01:06:58.920 --> 01:07:01.920]  And also, I do not see any...
[01:07:01.920 --> 01:07:03.920]  I briefly read over this new code.
[01:07:03.920 --> 01:07:09.920]  It's FCC Part 15.510, so y'all can go look that up.
[01:07:09.920 --> 01:07:16.920]  I don't see any exceptions or exemptions for the windows rule.
[01:07:16.920 --> 01:07:19.920]  According to the existing FCC regulations,
[01:07:19.920 --> 01:07:23.920]  those frequencies cannot be operated within view of any window,
[01:07:23.920 --> 01:07:26.920]  and also they cannot be operated outdoors.
[01:07:26.920 --> 01:07:31.920]  I do not see any exemption in this new section of regulations
[01:07:31.920 --> 01:07:36.920]  that exempts the use of these frequencies from strictly being indoors.
[01:07:36.920 --> 01:07:39.920]  So as far as I can tell, they still can't use them inside of a window.
[01:07:39.920 --> 01:07:41.920]  They still can't use it outside.
[01:07:41.920 --> 01:07:46.920]  And now even further, slam dunk can only be operated by law enforcement,
[01:07:46.920 --> 01:07:51.920]  emergency or rescue organizations under the authority of a local or state government.
[01:07:51.920 --> 01:07:56.920]  TSA does not fall within those definitions.
[01:07:56.920 --> 01:08:01.920]  So, okay, we're on the scene to take down the naked body scanners.
[01:08:01.920 --> 01:08:03.920]  Okay, we've got callers stacking up,
[01:08:03.920 --> 01:08:07.920]  and Eddie, you wanted to make a point first before we start taking calls?
[01:08:07.920 --> 01:08:09.920]  Yeah, just one real quick thing.
[01:08:09.920 --> 01:08:12.920]  And just folks, so you don't think I was just trying to bait Randy into an argument.
[01:08:12.920 --> 01:08:15.920]  This is the reason I brought up the issue.
[01:08:15.920 --> 01:08:19.920]  If you look in Black's Law 6 edition on page 62, it tells you,
[01:08:19.920 --> 01:08:26.920]  against the peace, a technical phrase used in alleging a breach of the peace.
[01:08:26.920 --> 01:08:29.920]  So the reason I brought it up was that on these criminal complaints
[01:08:29.920 --> 01:08:32.920]  where they are alleging a breach of the peace,
[01:08:32.920 --> 01:08:36.920]  where the statute itself does in no way, shape or form
[01:08:36.920 --> 01:08:40.920]  give any of the elements constituting a breach of the peace,
[01:08:40.920 --> 01:08:44.920]  that in and of itself would appear to be an aggravated perjury statement
[01:08:44.920 --> 01:08:47.920]  on the criminal complaint, which, Randy,
[01:08:47.920 --> 01:08:50.920]  the reason for my argument being, which we can discuss later,
[01:08:50.920 --> 01:08:57.920]  was that that would seem to remove it from the availability of being a crime in the first place.
[01:08:57.920 --> 01:09:03.920]  If it can't be against a breach of the peace or some other felonious act,
[01:09:03.920 --> 01:09:07.920]  then a criminal complaint would not suffice if it includes that statement,
[01:09:07.920 --> 01:09:13.920]  because it's insinuating or stating a breach of the peace occurred in this instance,
[01:09:13.920 --> 01:09:18.920]  when in fact the elements of it do not exist in the statute.
[01:09:18.920 --> 01:09:24.920]  That's really going to create a big problem because it will implicate every criminal complaint
[01:09:24.920 --> 01:09:31.920]  because the state requires that the wording of the complaint be against the peace and dignity of the state.
[01:09:31.920 --> 01:09:32.920]  That's right.
[01:09:32.920 --> 01:09:37.920]  So that means everything has to be trashed.
[01:09:37.920 --> 01:09:39.920]  Well, not everything.
[01:09:39.920 --> 01:09:43.920]  Malom Insay crimes would still fall within the proper range of that,
[01:09:43.920 --> 01:09:47.920]  because they're an offense against the person or property that would constitute a breach of the peace
[01:09:47.920 --> 01:09:54.920]  because they involve an overt act of violence or to incite violence or destruction of property.
[01:09:54.920 --> 01:10:02.920]  But a Malom prohibitum would have to be trashed because there is no overt act.
[01:10:02.920 --> 01:10:05.920]  That's exactly the point.
[01:10:05.920 --> 01:10:08.920]  Now, that is an interesting argument.
[01:10:08.920 --> 01:10:10.920]  I love it.
[01:10:10.920 --> 01:10:14.920]  Okay, folks, did you guys kiss and make up or whatever?
[01:10:14.920 --> 01:10:18.920]  Can we go into the callers now?
[01:10:18.920 --> 01:10:21.920]  No, it wasn't that.
[01:10:21.920 --> 01:10:24.920]  I couldn't keep track of where we were at.
[01:10:24.920 --> 01:10:25.920]  Okay.
[01:10:25.920 --> 01:10:30.920]  It's like we were jumping from one place to another, and I was trying to get back to one place,
[01:10:30.920 --> 01:10:33.920]  and I didn't understand where he was going.
[01:10:33.920 --> 01:10:35.920]  I needed more preparation, I guess.
[01:10:35.920 --> 01:10:36.920]  Okay.
[01:10:36.920 --> 01:10:38.920]  So we can go to the calls now, right?
[01:10:38.920 --> 01:10:39.920]  Yes.
[01:10:38.920 --> 01:10:39.920]  Okay.
[01:10:39.920 --> 01:10:42.920]  And very good points, Eddie, by the way.
[01:10:42.920 --> 01:10:44.920]  And it certainly seems like this is the way it should be.
[01:10:44.920 --> 01:10:45.920]  Okay.
[01:10:45.920 --> 01:10:46.920]  We're going to Anthony in Texas.
[01:10:46.920 --> 01:10:48.920]  Anthony, thanks for calling in.
[01:10:48.920 --> 01:10:49.920]  Thanks for holding.
[01:10:49.920 --> 01:10:50.920]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:10:50.920 --> 01:10:51.920]  Yes.
[01:10:51.920 --> 01:10:55.920]  You know how it's on the court on the 20th?
[01:10:55.920 --> 01:10:56.920]  Okay.
[01:10:56.920 --> 01:10:57.920]  Now, wait.
[01:10:57.920 --> 01:11:00.920]  Remind us of your situation again, just briefly.
[01:11:00.920 --> 01:11:01.920]  Okay.
[01:11:01.920 --> 01:11:03.920]  Does this have to do with the garage?
[01:11:03.920 --> 01:11:04.920]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:11:04.920 --> 01:11:05.920]  Okay.
[01:11:05.920 --> 01:11:06.920]  Okay.
[01:11:06.920 --> 01:11:08.920]  Just a quick review or what?
[01:11:08.920 --> 01:11:13.920]  Yeah, just give us a very quick review of what happened that night, and then tell us about the court date.
[01:11:13.920 --> 01:11:14.920]  Tell us what you found.
[01:11:14.920 --> 01:11:19.920]  You said there was no file, and I think the last time you called in, we told you to go get the file,
[01:11:19.920 --> 01:11:22.920]  and you went, and there was no file in the court record,
[01:11:22.920 --> 01:11:26.920]  and they told you to go to the prosecutor's office or something for the file.
[01:11:26.920 --> 01:11:28.920]  That was the last we'd heard.
[01:11:28.920 --> 01:11:29.920]  Yes.
[01:11:29.920 --> 01:11:34.920]  Well, they still haven't had my file, and I think they rescheduled my court date,
[01:11:34.920 --> 01:11:40.920]  and I think it's because they still don't have my file or anything in my file.
[01:11:40.920 --> 01:11:41.920]  Okay.
[01:11:41.920 --> 01:11:44.920]  Did you go to the office that they sent you to last time?
[01:11:44.920 --> 01:11:46.920]  Was it the prosecutor's office?
[01:11:46.920 --> 01:11:53.920]  It was the court attorney.
[01:11:53.920 --> 01:11:55.920]  That's what it was.
[01:11:55.920 --> 01:11:56.920]  Okay.
[01:11:56.920 --> 01:11:59.920]  Let me walk you through a little bit of due process.
[01:11:59.920 --> 01:12:01.920]  Okay.
[01:12:01.920 --> 01:12:05.920]  First, Randy, before you do that, who is the court attorney?
[01:12:05.920 --> 01:12:07.920]  I've never heard of such a thing.
[01:12:07.920 --> 01:12:09.920]  Is this the prosecutor?
[01:12:09.920 --> 01:12:10.920]  Well, no.
[01:12:10.920 --> 01:12:13.920]  Well, her title is the executive legal secretary.
[01:12:13.920 --> 01:12:19.920]  So the executive legal secretary of the court is who holds your file right now?
[01:12:19.920 --> 01:12:20.920]  Well, no.
[01:12:20.920 --> 01:12:23.920]  She said the investigator still has it.
[01:12:23.920 --> 01:12:25.920]  That who still has it, the prosecutor?
[01:12:25.920 --> 01:12:26.920]  No, the investigator.
[01:12:26.920 --> 01:12:27.920]  The investigator.
[01:12:27.920 --> 01:12:28.920]  Okay.
[01:12:28.920 --> 01:12:29.920]  That's what I wanted to make clear.
[01:12:29.920 --> 01:12:30.920]  Okay.
[01:12:30.920 --> 01:12:33.920]  I just wanted to clarify where his file was.
[01:12:33.920 --> 01:12:36.920]  Here's a little romp through due process.
[01:12:36.920 --> 01:12:47.920]  If you were arrested and brought before a judicial officer and released on bail,
[01:12:47.920 --> 01:12:50.920]  there had to be an examining trial.
[01:12:50.920 --> 01:12:52.920]  No, I did not have an examining trial.
[01:12:52.920 --> 01:12:53.920]  Okay, wait, wait.
[01:12:53.920 --> 01:12:54.920]  Let me finish.
[01:12:54.920 --> 01:12:55.920]  Okay.
[01:12:55.920 --> 01:12:57.920]  There had to be.
[01:12:57.920 --> 01:13:00.920]  So there was one.
[01:13:00.920 --> 01:13:04.920]  Otherwise, the magistrate couldn't set bail because 17.05 Code of Criminal
[01:13:04.920 --> 01:13:14.920]  Procedure says bail is taken by a magistrate after an examining trial.
[01:13:14.920 --> 01:13:17.920]  That's the only time he can take bail.
[01:13:17.920 --> 01:13:23.920]  Since bail was taken, you must presume there was an examining trial.
[01:13:23.920 --> 01:13:29.920]  The question becomes who held that examining trial and why weren't you present?
[01:13:29.920 --> 01:13:36.920]  Because when you saw the judge, he already had a file entered into evidence,
[01:13:36.920 --> 01:13:41.920]  and all evidence must be entered in in accordance with the rules of evidence,
[01:13:41.920 --> 01:13:46.920]  and the rules of evidence require that evidence be entered in open court,
[01:13:46.920 --> 01:13:50.920]  and the accused have opportunity to raise objection to the evidence.
[01:13:50.920 --> 01:13:56.920]  You weren't there, but somehow that judge got evidence entered into the court
[01:13:56.920 --> 01:14:00.920]  and set bail before you ever showed up.
[01:14:00.920 --> 01:14:04.920]  So there is a presumption there had to be an examining trial,
[01:14:04.920 --> 01:14:09.920]  and after an examining trial, the magistrate must certify all proceedings
[01:14:09.920 --> 01:14:14.920]  had in the hearing, seal all documents had in the hearing in an envelope
[01:14:14.920 --> 01:14:17.920]  causing the name to be written across the seal of the envelope,
[01:14:17.920 --> 01:14:23.920]  and forward it to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction.
[01:14:23.920 --> 01:14:26.920]  The clerk of the court of jurisdiction doesn't have it.
[01:14:26.920 --> 01:14:27.920]  No.
[01:14:27.920 --> 01:14:34.920]  So the reasonable presumption is that the magistrate you talked to
[01:14:34.920 --> 01:14:38.920]  failed to certify the proceedings and seal all the documents in an envelope
[01:14:38.920 --> 01:14:42.920]  because the name could be written across the seal and forwarded to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction,
[01:14:42.920 --> 01:14:49.920]  and that's tampering with the government document, 3710 Penal Code,
[01:14:49.920 --> 01:14:53.920]  and it's a felony in the state of Texas.
[01:14:53.920 --> 01:14:59.920]  So you have reason to believe that the judge, the magistrate, committed a felony
[01:14:59.920 --> 01:15:07.920]  by forwarding the complaint and all the information had in the hearing to an investigator,
[01:15:07.920 --> 01:15:15.920]  and whoever that investigator is holds these records to the exclusion of the clerk of the court,
[01:15:15.920 --> 01:15:17.920]  and that's called tampering with the government document.
[01:15:17.920 --> 01:15:20.920]  They're both guilty.
[01:15:20.920 --> 01:15:24.920]  But wouldn't that have to be there for the examining trial?
[01:15:24.920 --> 01:15:27.920]  Well, that's another issue.
[01:15:27.920 --> 01:15:31.920]  They held an examining trial ex parte.
[01:15:31.920 --> 01:15:39.920]  Now, they can do that if an officer goes to a magistrate and asks for an arrest warrant.
[01:15:39.920 --> 01:15:41.920]  I was arrested without a warrant.
[01:15:41.920 --> 01:15:43.920]  I know that.
[01:15:43.920 --> 01:15:44.920]  Okay.
[01:15:44.920 --> 01:15:52.920]  So if the person's not in custody, an officer can go to a magistrate,
[01:15:52.920 --> 01:15:58.920]  and the magistrate can hold an examining trial and issue a warrant.
[01:15:58.920 --> 01:16:07.920]  However, the warrant must say you are to arrest this person and bring him before me,
[01:16:07.920 --> 01:16:18.920]  and the reason it says bring him before me is because me held an examining trial ex parte without you there.
[01:16:18.920 --> 01:16:24.920]  Now that he has you, he's to hold another one while you're there
[01:16:24.920 --> 01:16:28.920]  and have the opportunity to rebut the evidence against you.
[01:16:28.920 --> 01:16:31.920]  That's what was supposed to have been done.
[01:16:31.920 --> 01:16:38.920]  But instead of doing that, they arrested you first and then held the ex parte.
[01:16:38.920 --> 01:16:42.920]  That's called official oppression, third 903 penal code.
[01:16:42.920 --> 01:16:44.920]  Okay.
[01:16:44.920 --> 01:16:50.920]  This is Grant DeKalb, native Craig Davis Stevens, Rue La Radio.
[01:16:50.920 --> 01:16:52.920]  We'll be right back on the other side.
[01:16:52.920 --> 01:16:54.920]  Anthony, hang on the line.
[01:17:22.920 --> 01:17:25.920]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:53.920 --> 01:17:59.920]  That's capital coin and bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:18:19.920 --> 01:18:21.920]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:24.920]  Okay, Anthony, I wanted to ask you something.
[01:18:24.920 --> 01:18:31.920]  When they rescheduled the trial or the hearing, did they do it by mail before the 20th
[01:18:31.920 --> 01:18:35.920]  or did you show up in court and then they rescheduled it?
[01:18:35.920 --> 01:18:42.920]  Well, no, because they were telling me to call on the Wednesday of that week of the court date
[01:18:42.920 --> 01:18:47.920]  to see if they had my file or a copy of the offense report or whatever,
[01:18:47.920 --> 01:18:53.920]  and I called and then I think Linda, the executive legal secretary,
[01:18:53.920 --> 01:18:57.920]  told me that my court date was going to be rescheduled and that they would mail it
[01:18:57.920 --> 01:19:05.920]  or I could come in on the 20th and get the notice of my court date being rescheduled.
[01:19:05.920 --> 01:19:08.920]  Yeah, that's the big hoodwink.
[01:19:08.920 --> 01:19:12.920]  They want you to call and give them a heads up so that they can reschedule it.
[01:19:12.920 --> 01:19:16.920]  Here's what I think.
[01:19:16.920 --> 01:19:22.920]  If they reschedule your court date, you don't call and give them a heads up
[01:19:22.920 --> 01:19:25.920]  to make sure they have the file next time.
[01:19:25.920 --> 01:19:29.920]  You show up in court and if the prosecutor ain't there and if there's no file,
[01:19:29.920 --> 01:19:35.920]  you file a motion to dismiss and you may even be able to do that already right now.
[01:19:35.920 --> 01:19:40.920]  Randy, what do you say about the situation?
[01:19:40.920 --> 01:19:46.920]  Well, if the court orders you to show up, they don't call you
[01:19:46.920 --> 01:19:52.920]  and politely request that you show up or ask you is this a good time?
[01:19:52.920 --> 01:19:57.920]  They say you either show up on this day at this time or we'll arrest you.
[01:19:57.920 --> 01:20:00.920]  Well, when they invoke that kind of authority,
[01:20:00.920 --> 01:20:04.920]  they invoke a duty upon themselves to be ready for court.
[01:20:04.920 --> 01:20:09.920]  If not, you have a right to dismissal and you should move forward.
[01:20:09.920 --> 01:20:12.920]  Well, he's saying that the Wednesday before the trial,
[01:20:12.920 --> 01:20:18.920]  they told him on the phone that they were going to reschedule.
[01:20:18.920 --> 01:20:19.920]  Well, that's different.
[01:20:19.920 --> 01:20:21.920]  I know, that's what I'm saying.
[01:20:21.920 --> 01:20:22.920]  Is that what happened, Anthony?
[01:20:22.920 --> 01:20:26.920]  You talked to them on the phone the Wednesday before the trial and they said they're...
[01:20:26.920 --> 01:20:28.920]  Yes, Wednesday and Thursday.
[01:20:28.920 --> 01:20:34.920]  Okay, so that's why I'm saying they're trying to put themselves in a position
[01:20:34.920 --> 01:20:37.920]  so that you can't file a motion to dismiss
[01:20:37.920 --> 01:20:42.920]  based on the fact that you showed up for a court summons and the other side wasn't ready.
[01:20:42.920 --> 01:20:47.920]  And so next time when they send you a summons, don't call them.
[01:20:47.920 --> 01:20:53.920]  Just show up with a motion to dismiss prepared in hand.
[01:20:53.920 --> 01:20:59.920]  And if there's no file, if there's no case, if there's no cause number,
[01:20:59.920 --> 01:21:02.920]  then you move to dismiss.
[01:21:02.920 --> 01:21:05.920]  Say I move to dismiss based on the fact that there's no case, there's no cause number,
[01:21:05.920 --> 01:21:07.920]  there's no prosecutor, there's no nothing, there's no case.
[01:21:07.920 --> 01:21:08.920]  Why am I here?
[01:21:08.920 --> 01:21:09.920]  Dismiss.
[01:21:09.920 --> 01:21:12.920]  I know, like whenever I went up there and she gave me that paper,
[01:21:12.920 --> 01:21:17.920]  this paper for me being rescheduled, they have at the top of the page,
[01:21:17.920 --> 01:21:19.920]  it says case number and it says no number.
[01:21:19.920 --> 01:21:28.920]  The defendant's name just says Anthony and then my charge, it just says POM, just POM.
[01:21:28.920 --> 01:21:30.920]  Right, so right now they still don't have a case.
[01:21:30.920 --> 01:21:33.920]  Did they reschedule the hearing?
[01:21:33.920 --> 01:21:34.920]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:21:34.920 --> 01:21:37.920]  My arraignment, I guess, yeah, it's an arraignment.
[01:21:37.920 --> 01:21:39.920]  It's going to be on September 10th now.
[01:21:39.920 --> 01:21:47.920]  Okay, so next thing you do is you show up on December 10th with a motion to dismiss in your hand.
[01:21:47.920 --> 01:21:48.920]  I'm sorry?
[01:21:48.920 --> 01:21:49.920]  September.
[01:21:49.920 --> 01:21:53.920]  September, so you show up on September 10th with a motion to dismiss in your hand,
[01:21:53.920 --> 01:21:57.920]  and if there's no case and there's no prosecutor, then you ask the judge,
[01:21:57.920 --> 01:22:03.920]  may I approach and submit your motion to dismiss?
[01:22:03.920 --> 01:22:09.920]  Is this the only motion I'd be filing at my arraignment or would there be any more that I could file?
[01:22:09.920 --> 01:22:12.920]  Randy?
[01:22:12.920 --> 01:22:15.920]  Well, there's a lot more you can file.
[01:22:15.920 --> 01:22:19.920]  There's a whole stack of motions you can file based on the arrest
[01:22:19.920 --> 01:22:26.920]  and improper procedures subject to, contingent to the arrest.
[01:22:26.920 --> 01:22:28.920]  Like what?
[01:22:28.920 --> 01:22:34.920]  Most criminal charges against the magistrate motion to dismiss,
[01:22:34.920 --> 01:22:38.920]  criminal charges against the jailers,
[01:22:38.920 --> 01:22:44.920]  criminal charges against the officers for kidnapping, aggravated assault.
[01:22:44.920 --> 01:22:45.920]  You name all of them for it.
[01:22:45.920 --> 01:22:47.920]  We'd need to do a show on that.
[01:22:47.920 --> 01:22:49.920]  Yeah, we don't have enough time right now.
[01:22:49.920 --> 01:22:53.920]  Why don't we do a due process show tomorrow?
[01:22:53.920 --> 01:22:55.920]  We have Michael Maris as our guest tomorrow.
[01:22:55.920 --> 01:22:56.920]  We had to reschedule him.
[01:22:56.920 --> 01:22:59.920]  He was supposed to be a guest last Friday,
[01:22:59.920 --> 01:23:06.920]  and unfortunately because both Randy and Eddie had to cancel at the last minute,
[01:23:06.920 --> 01:23:07.920]  we didn't have a show.
[01:23:07.920 --> 01:23:09.920]  So I've already rescheduled Michael Maris once,
[01:23:09.920 --> 01:23:13.920]  so maybe we could do the due process show the following Friday.
[01:23:13.920 --> 01:23:14.920]  Okay, that'll work.
[01:23:14.920 --> 01:23:17.920]  Okay, Anthony, we need to go on to other callers,
[01:23:17.920 --> 01:23:22.920]  but go to jurisimprudence.com and you can look up some of these motions,
[01:23:22.920 --> 01:23:24.920]  like the motion to dismiss.
[01:23:24.920 --> 01:23:26.920]  Okay, thanks.
[01:23:26.920 --> 01:23:29.920]  Okay, we've got a lot of callers on the line,
[01:23:29.920 --> 01:23:33.920]  and all of them have a high priority, so I'm going to do the best I can here.
[01:23:33.920 --> 01:23:37.920]  We've got Pat from West Texas that's probably up on the tower.
[01:23:37.920 --> 01:23:39.920]  Pat, what is on your mind tonight?
[01:23:39.920 --> 01:23:41.920]  I'll keep it real short tonight.
[01:23:41.920 --> 01:23:43.920]  Hi, Debbie.
[01:23:43.920 --> 01:23:54.920]  On your FCC filings, your DHS border patrol folks have vans with your backscatter.
[01:23:54.920 --> 01:23:55.920]  I'm sorry, you're cutting out Pat.
[01:23:55.920 --> 01:23:57.920]  What did you just say?
[01:23:57.920 --> 01:24:05.920]  Department of Homeland Security border patrol has mobile vans
[01:24:05.920 --> 01:24:13.920]  set up in all of their mobile checkpoints with your backscatters,
[01:24:13.920 --> 01:24:16.920]  and they just bought a bunch more,
[01:24:16.920 --> 01:24:23.920]  plus all of their permanent installed checkpoints have backscatter machines.
[01:24:23.920 --> 01:24:30.920]  That was released earlier this year in a GAO report for the last two years.
[01:24:30.920 --> 01:24:35.920]  Right now they're all in violation of FCC Part 15.510
[01:24:35.920 --> 01:24:39.920]  because only law enforcement, emergency rescue,
[01:24:39.920 --> 01:24:42.920]  or firefighting organizations that are under the authority of a local
[01:24:42.920 --> 01:24:46.920]  or state government are allowed to operate those devices,
[01:24:46.920 --> 01:24:49.920]  and they're not allowed to operate them outdoors.
[01:24:49.920 --> 01:24:51.920]  Yeah, all of these are outdoors.
[01:24:51.920 --> 01:24:54.920]  Okay, well maybe you could get some documentation of that,
[01:24:54.920 --> 01:24:59.920]  and if you want to go after them, then I can help show you in the code.
[01:24:59.920 --> 01:25:01.920]  I'll send you an email on that.
[01:25:01.920 --> 01:25:02.920]  Okay.
[01:25:02.920 --> 01:25:07.920]  Randy, on that other thing dealing with that one individual
[01:25:07.920 --> 01:25:13.920]  that showed up and did not have a complaint in his file by the prosecutor,
[01:25:13.920 --> 01:25:22.920]  it sounds like conspiracy to me, plus extortion, or conspiracy to extortion,
[01:25:22.920 --> 01:25:28.920]  and probably about five other nice little Class A felonies.
[01:25:28.920 --> 01:25:35.920]  The KKK Act of 1871 would fall there, which is a violation of rights,
[01:25:35.920 --> 01:25:44.920]  which is a Class A misdemeanor, and a Class B felony, if I'm correct, on conspiracy.
[01:25:44.920 --> 01:25:47.920]  Well, we've got more than that.
[01:25:47.920 --> 01:25:54.920]  When the officer made the arrest, made no due diligent effort to locate a magistrate,
[01:25:54.920 --> 01:26:01.920]  cranked the motor vehicle, pointed it toward the jail, he committed aggravated kidnapping.
[01:26:01.920 --> 01:26:02.920]  Oh, yeah.
[01:26:02.920 --> 01:26:05.920]  First-degree felony.
[01:26:05.920 --> 01:26:09.920]  And he did so in the process of making the arrest.
[01:26:09.920 --> 01:26:17.920]  He had to have touched the person in a way an ordinary person of reasonable prudence would find to be offensive.
[01:26:17.920 --> 01:26:20.920]  That's defined as simple assault.
[01:26:20.920 --> 01:26:26.920]  And he committed the simple assault while acting under the color of the authority of a police officer,
[01:26:26.920 --> 01:26:29.920]  under color meaning pretense.
[01:26:29.920 --> 01:26:31.920]  That's a first-degree felony.
[01:26:31.920 --> 01:26:34.920]  Plus he probably had a firearm on his hip.
[01:26:34.920 --> 01:26:38.920]  That's what I mean, because he had the firearm on his hip.
[01:26:38.920 --> 01:26:45.920]  The simple assault becomes aggravated assault, second-degree felony.
[01:26:45.920 --> 01:26:55.920]  But since he was acting under the color of a public official when he didn't actually have that authority
[01:26:55.920 --> 01:27:01.920]  because he had committed a crime related to his office, that's a first-degree felony.
[01:27:01.920 --> 01:27:04.920]  So that's two first-degree felonies.
[01:27:04.920 --> 01:27:09.920]  And everybody who touches him after that sticks to that tar baby.
[01:27:09.920 --> 01:27:17.920]  He took him and gave him to the jailers who intended to continue the incarceration.
[01:27:17.920 --> 01:27:25.920]  It doesn't matter that they didn't know that the incarceration was illegal.
[01:27:25.920 --> 01:27:28.920]  That's not what goes to culpability.
[01:27:28.920 --> 01:27:32.920]  Culpability goes to whether you intended the result of your action.
[01:27:32.920 --> 01:27:33.920]  He was kidnapped.
[01:27:33.920 --> 01:27:35.920]  He was restricted as his liberty.
[01:27:35.920 --> 01:27:39.920]  The jailers intended to continue the restriction at his liberty.
[01:27:39.920 --> 01:27:40.920]  They're culpable.
[01:27:40.920 --> 01:27:49.920]  The magistrate intended to continue the restriction at his liberty as well
[01:27:49.920 --> 01:27:52.920]  and committed other crimes against him.
[01:27:52.920 --> 01:27:55.920]  So there's a whole stack of them.
[01:27:55.920 --> 01:27:57.920]  You had other people backed up.
[01:27:57.920 --> 01:27:58.920]  All right.
[01:27:58.920 --> 01:28:04.920]  I'll call in Monday night, I guess, something else I wanted to talk about, but it will wait until then.
[01:28:04.920 --> 01:28:05.920]  Okay.
[01:28:05.920 --> 01:28:06.920]  Thanks, Sean.
[01:28:06.920 --> 01:28:07.920]  Thanks, Pat.
[01:28:07.920 --> 01:28:08.920]  Bye.
[01:28:07.920 --> 01:28:08.920]  Bye.
[01:28:08.920 --> 01:28:09.920]  Okay.
[01:28:09.920 --> 01:28:10.920]  We've got Sean and Brian.
[01:28:10.920 --> 01:28:13.920]  Sean, you are next after Brian.
[01:28:13.920 --> 01:28:14.920]  Brian, thanks for calling in.
[01:28:14.920 --> 01:28:17.920]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:28:17.920 --> 01:28:18.920]  Hi.
[01:28:18.920 --> 01:28:19.920]  First-time caller.
[01:28:19.920 --> 01:28:25.920]  I was just – I've recently been listening to your archives and learning a lot.
[01:28:25.920 --> 01:28:27.920]  Thank you much for everything you guys are doing.
[01:28:27.920 --> 01:28:29.920]  I really like what you're doing down there in Texas.
[01:28:29.920 --> 01:28:34.920]  I'm kind of trying to bring some of that up here to Minnesota.
[01:28:34.920 --> 01:28:40.920]  It's proven a little tougher than – it seems like Texas, your laws are written differently or not.
[01:28:40.920 --> 01:28:42.920]  I'm working on a court case here.
[01:28:42.920 --> 01:28:46.920]  I recently kind of discovered my sovereign abilities,
[01:28:46.920 --> 01:28:55.920]  and coincidentally I also got in altercation with the police almost immediately after so.
[01:28:55.920 --> 01:29:01.920]  But I have a case I'm working on where the police had pulled me over for speeding,
[01:29:01.920 --> 01:29:07.920]  and I had kind of looked a lot into what my rights were and stuff.
[01:29:07.920 --> 01:29:12.920]  And so when he pulled me over and he started immediately asking me like these hostile questions,
[01:29:12.920 --> 01:29:15.920]  like I gave him my ID and whatnot,
[01:29:15.920 --> 01:29:20.920]  there's definitely some things I would have done differently knowing what I know now back then.
[01:29:20.920 --> 01:29:23.920]  But I didn't respond to him at all.
[01:29:23.920 --> 01:29:27.920]  I just kind of kept the faith and I didn't respond to him at all.
[01:29:27.920 --> 01:29:32.920]  And it led into this big ordeal where they searched my car
[01:29:32.920 --> 01:29:40.920]  and they had pulled me out of my car, accused me of having narcotics and all this stuff.
[01:29:40.920 --> 01:29:45.920]  And I kind of – so I went to court over the speed ticket.
[01:29:45.920 --> 01:29:47.920]  Okay, wait a minute, Brian. Wait a minute.
[01:29:47.920 --> 01:29:52.920]  We're going to break. Just hang on the line and we'll be right back.
[01:29:52.920 --> 01:29:54.920]  You're going to need to look at the due process laws in Minnesota.
[01:29:54.920 --> 01:30:00.920]  I know that for sure. We'll be right back after this break.
[01:30:00.920 --> 01:30:03.920]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[01:30:03.920 --> 01:30:06.920]  but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:30:06.920 --> 01:30:09.920]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:30:09.920 --> 01:30:12.920]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[01:30:12.920 --> 01:30:13.920]  Brave New Books?
[01:30:13.920 --> 01:30:18.920]  Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[01:30:18.920 --> 01:30:23.920]  Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:30:23.920 --> 01:30:26.920]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:30:26.920 --> 01:30:32.920]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:30:32.920 --> 01:30:35.920]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:30:35.920 --> 01:30:41.920]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility,
[01:30:41.920 --> 01:30:43.920]  just behind the bookstore.
[01:30:43.920 --> 01:30:46.920]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:30:46.920 --> 01:30:51.920]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:30:51.920 --> 01:30:55.920]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503,
[01:30:55.920 --> 01:31:00.920]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:31:00.920 --> 01:31:05.920]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:31:05.920 --> 01:31:09.920]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[01:31:09.920 --> 01:31:14.920]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[01:31:14.920 --> 01:31:20.920]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:31:20.920 --> 01:31:24.920]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons,
[01:31:24.920 --> 01:31:26.920]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:31:26.920 --> 01:31:29.920]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[01:31:29.920 --> 01:31:33.920]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:31:33.920 --> 01:31:38.920]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:31:38.920 --> 01:31:41.920]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:31:41.920 --> 01:31:46.920]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[01:31:46.920 --> 01:31:49.920]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:31:49.920 --> 01:31:57.920]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:31:57.920 --> 01:32:01.920]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:32:01.920 --> 01:32:11.920]  Yeah, who you want to chip? Who you take me for? Free Tully? Who you want to chip? I'm not free Tully. You have to hand-chip me. I'm a fact.
[01:32:11.920 --> 01:32:15.920]  Don't let them chip you in the morning, chip you in the evening. Put a chip in your body.
[01:32:15.920 --> 01:32:19.920]  And then when you go computer reading, you can't hide me from nobody.
[01:32:19.920 --> 01:32:25.920]  When you say chip in your mom, chip in your daddy, chip in your grandpa and the granny,
[01:32:25.920 --> 01:32:30.920]  chip in me, chip in your baby, chip in your family, whole family,
[01:32:30.920 --> 01:32:37.920]  chip in your dog and the cat around me, chip in the beef and you still go eat it, chip in the fish, them all in the sea,
[01:32:37.920 --> 01:32:42.920]  chip in the shark and the whale around me, you must be mankind going crazy.
[01:32:42.920 --> 01:32:49.920]  Okay, folks, we are back. We're taking your calls. We've got Brian from Minnesota right now. Thanks for calling in, Brian.
[01:32:49.920 --> 01:32:56.920]  Okay, Brian, I've got two pieces of suggestions here, if you want to call it, not advice. We don't give legal advice.
[01:32:56.920 --> 01:33:03.920]  The first is write a narrative of everything that happened in chronological order.
[01:33:03.920 --> 01:33:07.920]  And then also you need to read the due process laws in your state.
[01:33:07.920 --> 01:33:14.920]  It will be under most likely the code of criminal procedure so that you will know what laws that they violated.
[01:33:14.920 --> 01:33:19.920]  And you might want to get jurisdictionary to learn the basics about...
[01:33:19.920 --> 01:33:21.920]  I definitely plan on that.
[01:33:21.920 --> 01:33:26.920]  Okay, so Randy, do you have comments for Brian?
[01:33:26.920 --> 01:33:34.920]  Yes, once you start reading your code of criminal procedure, you probably don't think of it as a comic book,
[01:33:34.920 --> 01:33:41.920]  but you'll find it rather humorous when you find out all of the things they did wrong.
[01:33:41.920 --> 01:33:48.920]  Now, do be aware of one other thing, too. You are in Minnesota where the judges make it up as they go.
[01:33:48.920 --> 01:33:50.920]  That's what it seems to have appeared to be.
[01:33:50.920 --> 01:33:57.920]  Oh, that's a fact. Your legislature gave the judges in Minnesota the authority to write their own rules
[01:33:57.920 --> 01:34:01.920]  and then to promptly ignore their own rules.
[01:34:01.920 --> 01:34:11.920]  And what I'm looking at, I've been looking for things like we're tampering with a government document and stuff like that.
[01:34:11.920 --> 01:34:15.920]  I'm not having good luck finding such language like that up here.
[01:34:15.920 --> 01:34:17.920]  Look in your penal code.
[01:34:17.920 --> 01:34:18.920]  What's that?
[01:34:18.920 --> 01:34:20.920]  Your penal code.
[01:34:20.920 --> 01:34:22.920]  Okay, I mean, I'll have to go through some of that.
[01:34:22.920 --> 01:34:29.920]  I mean, immediately what I first did, the first thing I knew what to do was, or the first thing which I'm experienced with,
[01:34:29.920 --> 01:34:37.920]  and I went and filed a claim in conciliation court against the police officer and the attorney.
[01:34:37.920 --> 01:34:42.920]  I already had to go to trial over the speeding, and I lost, unfortunately.
[01:34:42.920 --> 01:34:49.920]  I wish I had, and there's a couple things that I would have done differently if I had listened to some of the stuff you guys had said sooner
[01:34:49.920 --> 01:34:53.920]  and brought criminal complaints to the court with me.
[01:34:53.920 --> 01:35:00.920]  But I went and immediately got also a copy of the police report, and I also have the police video.
[01:35:00.920 --> 01:35:05.920]  And now I'm kind of curious of whether I'm going to court.
[01:35:05.920 --> 01:35:09.920]  My court date is coming up real quick here in the conciliation court,
[01:35:09.920 --> 01:35:12.920]  and I'm up against this police officer and the city attorney.
[01:35:12.920 --> 01:35:17.920]  And now I'm kind of curious, like, if I should hold off or do something different,
[01:35:17.920 --> 01:35:24.920]  because between the police report and the video, it's quite clear that he has fabricated evidence in here,
[01:35:24.920 --> 01:35:30.920]  falsified the police report documents, and it's not consistent with the video.
[01:35:30.920 --> 01:35:35.920]  And then also in the video, it's quite clear in the video where they kind of sat there
[01:35:35.920 --> 01:35:38.920]  and talked about the charges they were going to make up and stuff.
[01:35:38.920 --> 01:35:42.920]  Right. If you've got that, then you've got to charge a criminal conspiracy against them.
[01:35:42.920 --> 01:35:51.920]  They conspired to do you harm by falsifying criminal charges against you to cover their backsides for their illegal acts.
[01:35:51.920 --> 01:35:53.920]  Okay.
[01:35:53.920 --> 01:35:58.920]  Did they charge you with anything other than the speeding?
[01:35:58.920 --> 01:36:01.920]  No, no, but they had accused me of having narcotics.
[01:36:01.920 --> 01:36:04.920]  And then, like, immediately when the officer showed up, you know, he started asking me my name,
[01:36:04.920 --> 01:36:08.920]  and he was getting kind of frustrated why I wouldn't answer him, so immediately he starts going,
[01:36:08.920 --> 01:36:10.920]  why are your hands dirty?
[01:36:10.920 --> 01:36:11.920]  Were you breaking into cars?
[01:36:11.920 --> 01:36:15.920]  And so immediately I went into duress and stuff, because he had asked,
[01:36:15.920 --> 01:36:19.920]  I don't think normally I would have got out of the car for a speeding violation anyways,
[01:36:19.920 --> 01:36:21.920]  but he had me get out of the car.
[01:36:21.920 --> 01:36:25.920]  I mean, on the police video, he says right there, he says, I'm going to search this guy's car.
[01:36:25.920 --> 01:36:28.920]  Well, you know, what you could have just said, well, you look a little overweight.
[01:36:28.920 --> 01:36:31.920]  Have you been stealing refrigerators?
[01:36:31.920 --> 01:36:37.920]  Yeah.
[01:36:37.920 --> 01:36:40.920]  I unfortunately didn't.
[01:36:40.920 --> 01:36:46.920]  You did right by not taking any bait from him.
[01:36:46.920 --> 01:36:51.920]  Well, you know, I figured he could have, you know, instead of coming up to my window and saying, you know,
[01:36:51.920 --> 01:36:55.920]  making all these presumptuous statements, you know, he could have been, you know, my neighbor or something,
[01:36:55.920 --> 01:37:01.920]  you know, he could have been treating me like a neighbor or something, but, you know, it was presumed guilt.
[01:37:01.920 --> 01:37:07.920]  And I went to court over the speeding of, like, with the...
[01:37:07.920 --> 01:37:09.920]  Okay, wait, wait, wait.
[01:37:09.920 --> 01:37:12.920]  What did you do with the video?
[01:37:12.920 --> 01:37:14.920]  I just got it today, actually.
[01:37:14.920 --> 01:37:15.920]  Okay.
[01:37:15.920 --> 01:37:18.920]  Why isn't it on YouTube already?
[01:37:18.920 --> 01:37:19.920]  Yeah.
[01:37:19.920 --> 01:37:20.920]  Do something to protect it.
[01:37:20.920 --> 01:37:24.920]  Don't leave it in your own hands, because it'll be far too easy for it to be confiscated
[01:37:24.920 --> 01:37:26.920]  if you know what we mean.
[01:37:26.920 --> 01:37:27.920]  Yeah.
[01:37:27.920 --> 01:37:28.920]  Put it on YouTube.
[01:37:28.920 --> 01:37:31.920]  That'll get their attention.
[01:37:31.920 --> 01:37:32.920]  Okay.
[01:37:32.920 --> 01:37:34.920]  Works for Carlos, California really well.
[01:37:34.920 --> 01:37:37.920]  Charlie, I mean, Rick from California.
[01:37:37.920 --> 01:37:39.920]  Rick, I'm sorry.
[01:37:39.920 --> 01:37:47.920]  Yeah, he came into court, and he was approached by three bailiffs, one with a video camera and one with a summons,
[01:37:47.920 --> 01:37:55.920]  I mean, with an order, ordering him not to record the proceedings and put it on YouTube.
[01:37:55.920 --> 01:37:56.920]  Can I do that?
[01:37:56.920 --> 01:38:00.920]  I mean, it says on the front, unauthorized use, not something.
[01:38:00.920 --> 01:38:04.920]  You can do anything you want to with it.
[01:38:04.920 --> 01:38:05.920]  Okay, okay.
[01:38:05.920 --> 01:38:06.920]  I'd love to get that up on YouTube.
[01:38:06.920 --> 01:38:07.920]  I mean, because if...
[01:38:07.920 --> 01:38:10.920]  But shouldn't I wait for after the court case or something like that to...
[01:38:10.920 --> 01:38:11.920]  No.
[01:38:11.920 --> 01:38:12.920]  No.
[01:38:12.920 --> 01:38:14.920]  Plaster it all over the place.
[01:38:14.920 --> 01:38:19.920]  No, the whole point is to make it public so that it's not just in your hands,
[01:38:19.920 --> 01:38:23.920]  so nothing will happen to it, and also it puts pressure on them.
[01:38:23.920 --> 01:38:30.920]  And you can make really derisive and demeaning commentary over the video.
[01:38:30.920 --> 01:38:35.920]  And play some, you know, scary music in the background or some funny music in the background.
[01:38:35.920 --> 01:38:37.920]  I think their own words do the most damage.
[01:38:37.920 --> 01:38:38.920]  I mean, it's really bad.
[01:38:38.920 --> 01:38:46.920]  I mean, I was stuck there for maybe 45 minutes where, you know, these cops had...
[01:38:46.920 --> 01:38:47.920]  they had gone through...
[01:38:47.920 --> 01:38:48.920]  they had torn my car apart.
[01:38:48.920 --> 01:38:50.920]  I mean, it's...
[01:38:50.920 --> 01:38:51.920]  I mean...
[01:38:51.920 --> 01:38:58.920]  Well, you've got them on illegal search if you've got a video that shows they were attempting to make up charges to cover their backside.
[01:38:58.920 --> 01:39:01.920]  You've got them on illegal search right there.
[01:39:01.920 --> 01:39:03.920]  I mean, and I don't have to...
[01:39:03.920 --> 01:39:08.920]  I mean, when the officer starts asking me questions like that, they can't compel me to answer.
[01:39:08.920 --> 01:39:09.920]  No.
[01:39:09.920 --> 01:39:14.920]  It's not a violation of obstruction of justice or anything.
[01:39:14.920 --> 01:39:20.920]  No, you're not required to testify against yourself or offer evidence against yourself in any way, shape or form,
[01:39:20.920 --> 01:39:24.920]  regardless of what he wants you to do.
[01:39:24.920 --> 01:39:28.920]  Now, I was in court for that, for this beating violation, and they asked me to testify.
[01:39:28.920 --> 01:39:30.920]  And when I went up to testify, I said...
[01:39:30.920 --> 01:39:35.920]  You don't have to testify either, and it's a very good idea not to do so.
[01:39:35.920 --> 01:39:36.920]  Okay.
[01:39:36.920 --> 01:39:39.920]  Well, he started asking me all these flandering questions, and I said, I'm not going to answer that.
[01:39:39.920 --> 01:39:44.920]  And she said, you have to because I'm testifying, and I no longer have the right to remain silent.
[01:39:44.920 --> 01:39:45.920]  Is that...
[01:39:45.920 --> 01:39:49.920]  That's why you don't want to testify.
[01:39:49.920 --> 01:39:50.920]  Okay.
[01:39:50.920 --> 01:39:56.920]  You cannot be made to give any information that would incriminate you, even when you're testifying.
[01:39:56.920 --> 01:39:57.920]  Okay?
[01:39:57.920 --> 01:40:03.920]  However, general questions they can ask you, demeaning or otherwise.
[01:40:03.920 --> 01:40:10.920]  And you can always say, objection relevance, objection foundation, objection he's a jerk.
[01:40:10.920 --> 01:40:19.920]  That's why you want to get jurisdictionary, because it tells you what the grounds, different grounds for objections so that you'll know.
[01:40:19.920 --> 01:40:25.920]  Yeah, but the whole point here being the reason you do not want to testify is because they're not there to look for the truth.
[01:40:25.920 --> 01:40:26.920]  No.
[01:40:26.920 --> 01:40:30.920]  They're there to trick you into saying something that they can twist and turn and stab you with.
[01:40:30.920 --> 01:40:32.920]  Exactly.
[01:40:32.920 --> 01:40:37.920]  It's got nothing to do about proper procedure or truth or innocence or guilt.
[01:40:37.920 --> 01:40:41.920]  It's all about how can they convict you and get their money.
[01:40:41.920 --> 01:40:42.920]  Right.
[01:40:42.920 --> 01:40:47.920]  I'm definitely, that's one of the things, you know, I wish before I would have, you know,
[01:40:47.920 --> 01:40:54.920]  I was listening to how you guys talk about causing reverse damage, and that's what I'm kind of trying to look at now
[01:40:54.920 --> 01:40:57.920]  is how I can cause some, you know, it's not about winning.
[01:40:57.920 --> 01:40:59.920]  It's about causing some reverse damage.
[01:40:59.920 --> 01:41:06.920]  I mean, and I think I clearly have the officer admits in his own words right here of, you know,
[01:41:06.920 --> 01:41:12.920]  and then they said they found like stems and seeds and weed in my car, and I didn't have any of that.
[01:41:12.920 --> 01:41:18.920]  And it's clearly on the video they didn't find any of it, but they wrote it in the report.
[01:41:18.920 --> 01:41:22.920]  Well, then they've also falsified a police report, which is a felony.
[01:41:22.920 --> 01:41:26.920]  And virtually every State of the Union.
[01:41:26.920 --> 01:41:31.920]  Do you think, I'm, I was kind of thinking, because I'm going to conciliation court.
[01:41:31.920 --> 01:41:33.920]  I filed like a punitive damages charge.
[01:41:33.920 --> 01:41:36.920]  I'm not trying to rob from my American people.
[01:41:36.920 --> 01:41:42.920]  I had gone to a lawyer, and he was trying to get all kinds of, like, you know, were your arms hurt and, you know,
[01:41:42.920 --> 01:41:45.920]  Yeah, that's the ambulance chasers for you.
[01:41:45.920 --> 01:41:49.920]  But the fact of the matter here is you've got them on those grounds.
[01:41:49.920 --> 01:41:56.920]  You need to be filing criminal charges against these officers for falsifying the police report,
[01:41:56.920 --> 01:42:05.920]  fabricating evidence, or at least the illusion of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to commit, and so on and so forth.
[01:42:05.920 --> 01:42:07.920]  You've got a list of them here.
[01:42:07.920 --> 01:42:09.920]  Yeah, definitely.
[01:42:09.920 --> 01:42:16.920]  Would, so since I'm going to conciliation court, is there, do you think it would be,
[01:42:16.920 --> 01:42:18.920]  what would be in my best interest here?
[01:42:18.920 --> 01:42:23.920]  Would it be, because I could, if I don't, I was thinking, my original plan was if I don't win there,
[01:42:23.920 --> 01:42:26.920]  then I'd file criminal charges, but now it sounds,
[01:42:26.920 --> 01:42:28.920]  No, because that makes it look retaliatory.
[01:42:28.920 --> 01:42:32.920]  You want to file the criminal charges anyway.
[01:42:32.920 --> 01:42:35.920]  Yeah, use those for leverage.
[01:42:35.920 --> 01:42:39.920]  Okay, so I should file those and still, I mean, is there, I mean, should I throw out?
[01:42:39.920 --> 01:42:42.920]  Yeah, criminal has nothing to do with anything else.
[01:42:42.920 --> 01:42:44.920]  It's totally different.
[01:42:44.920 --> 01:42:45.920]  What is?
[01:42:45.920 --> 01:42:49.920]  The criminal has nothing to do with the conciliatory court.
[01:42:49.920 --> 01:42:50.920]  Okay.
[01:42:50.920 --> 01:42:56.920]  Criminal is a whole separate deal, so there's no need to hold off on one for the other.
[01:42:56.920 --> 01:42:58.920]  It's totally separate.
[01:42:58.920 --> 01:43:01.920]  If they committed crimes, you have a duty to report.
[01:43:01.920 --> 01:43:03.920]  So do your duty.
[01:43:03.920 --> 01:43:06.920]  Be a good citizen.
[01:43:06.920 --> 01:43:07.920]  Right.
[01:43:07.920 --> 01:43:13.920]  I was trying to, you know, I was familiar, I had never represented myself pro se,
[01:43:13.920 --> 01:43:16.920]  and I have one in conciliation court representing myself,
[01:43:16.920 --> 01:43:21.920]  so it was the most familiar thing to me and was kind of intimidated about doing pro se.
[01:43:21.920 --> 01:43:24.920]  Well, what we're saying is that when you file criminal charges,
[01:43:24.920 --> 01:43:26.920]  there's no such thing as pro se or anything else.
[01:43:26.920 --> 01:43:32.920]  You're going to the district attorney, and the state is prosecuting a crime.
[01:43:32.920 --> 01:43:35.920]  You're just, you would just be submitting a criminal complaint
[01:43:35.920 --> 01:43:40.920]  and your statement of probable cause to the district attorney, so it's not a lawsuit.
[01:43:40.920 --> 01:43:43.920]  Listen, Brian, we need to move on because we've got one more caller
[01:43:43.920 --> 01:43:46.920]  that I promised we would take his call before the end of the show,
[01:43:46.920 --> 01:43:49.920]  so call back in tomorrow night and we'll discuss this some more.
[01:43:49.920 --> 01:43:50.920]  Excellent.
[01:43:50.920 --> 01:43:51.920]  Thank you very much.
[01:43:51.920 --> 01:43:53.920]  Okay, Randy, quickly.
[01:43:53.920 --> 01:43:54.920]  That's what I was going to say.
[01:43:54.920 --> 01:43:55.920]  Okay, great.
[01:43:55.920 --> 01:44:06.920]  We'll be right back with Sean.
[01:44:06.920 --> 01:44:13.920]  Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[01:44:13.920 --> 01:44:18.920]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[01:44:18.920 --> 01:44:21.920]  You have a choice to keep your body clean,
[01:44:21.920 --> 01:44:31.920]  detoxified with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:31.920 --> 01:44:35.920]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:35.920 --> 01:44:39.920]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:39.920 --> 01:44:43.920]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins.
[01:44:43.920 --> 01:44:48.920]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:48.920 --> 01:45:15.920]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:15.920 --> 01:45:18.920]  Okay, we are back.
[01:45:18.920 --> 01:45:20.920]  Coming into the home stretch here.
[01:45:20.920 --> 01:45:22.920]  We're going to do the best we can to take all your calls,
[01:45:22.920 --> 01:45:26.920]  but you guys and gals out there may have to call back in tomorrow night
[01:45:26.920 --> 01:45:32.920]  after we're through talking with special guest Mike Maris.
[01:45:32.920 --> 01:45:34.920]  All right, we're going now to Sean in Texas.
[01:45:34.920 --> 01:45:35.920]  Sean, thanks for calling in.
[01:45:35.920 --> 01:45:37.920]  What is your question tonight?
[01:45:37.920 --> 01:45:38.920]  Hi, Dave.
[01:45:38.920 --> 01:45:39.920]  Hi, folks.
[01:45:39.920 --> 01:45:44.920]  I've got something I think a little bit out of left field from your norm,
[01:45:44.920 --> 01:45:45.920]  but it's important.
[01:45:45.920 --> 01:45:50.920]  It's about vaccinations, and this is happening nationwide,
[01:45:50.920 --> 01:45:54.920]  and it's happening in increasing fashion.
[01:45:54.920 --> 01:45:57.920]  Doctors after, literally pediatricians,
[01:45:57.920 --> 01:46:04.920]  after being told in office visits by parents of children that they,
[01:46:04.920 --> 01:46:08.920]  the parents, choose not to vaccinate their children,
[01:46:08.920 --> 01:46:13.920]  end up with the kids being vaccinated in the other room anyway.
[01:46:13.920 --> 01:46:14.920]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:46:14.920 --> 01:46:18.920]  Okay, this makes me ask the question,
[01:46:18.920 --> 01:46:23.920]  how did the kid, how did the doctor get the kid away from the parent
[01:46:23.920 --> 01:46:26.920]  in the other room in the first place?
[01:46:26.920 --> 01:46:28.920]  This should never have happened.
[01:46:28.920 --> 01:46:30.920]  Oh, I agree.
[01:46:30.920 --> 01:46:32.920]  We have a lot of parents that, well,
[01:46:32.920 --> 01:46:36.920]  most parents who still trust the folks with the white coats
[01:46:36.920 --> 01:46:38.920]  and the stethoscopes basically,
[01:46:38.920 --> 01:46:43.920]  and they assume that once they give their expressed wishes
[01:46:43.920 --> 01:46:48.920]  to have no vaccinations given their kids, that it won't be done.
[01:46:48.920 --> 01:46:54.920]  There's another fold to this as well, and these stories are pretty rampant.
[01:46:54.920 --> 01:46:57.920]  As far as I'm concerned, you see three of them as pretty rampant,
[01:46:57.920 --> 01:46:59.920]  but they're consistent.
[01:46:59.920 --> 01:47:02.920]  People also go in the hospital to give birth,
[01:47:02.920 --> 01:47:09.920]  and give the hospital nursing staff and the hospital admin folks orders
[01:47:09.920 --> 01:47:11.920]  to not vaccinate their kids.
[01:47:11.920 --> 01:47:14.920]  You know, verbally, I don't know what else they do.
[01:47:14.920 --> 01:47:20.920]  But then the nurses, and for their part,
[01:47:20.920 --> 01:47:23.920]  probably most of these nurses actually think they're doing the right thing
[01:47:23.920 --> 01:47:27.920]  for the kid, but that's a whole other discussion.
[01:47:27.920 --> 01:47:30.920]  The point is they have no authority to do it,
[01:47:30.920 --> 01:47:32.920]  and when the parent says not to do it,
[01:47:32.920 --> 01:47:36.920]  it makes it clear and concise and obvious,
[01:47:36.920 --> 01:47:39.920]  and they go ahead and do it anyway.
[01:47:39.920 --> 01:47:45.920]  The parent now has a vaccinated child that they can't unvaccinate,
[01:47:45.920 --> 01:47:51.920]  and especially with pediatricians to do this, with doctors.
[01:47:51.920 --> 01:47:55.920]  What is their way, and I would think that the laws would probably change
[01:47:55.920 --> 01:47:57.920]  from state to state on this,
[01:47:57.920 --> 01:48:02.920]  but I have no idea what the approach might be to sue these folks,
[01:48:02.920 --> 01:48:05.920]  to take an active or proactive approach and sue them,
[01:48:05.920 --> 01:48:10.920]  maybe not necessarily thinking that the lawsuits would actually come to fruition,
[01:48:10.920 --> 01:48:13.920]  but at least it's something that would be on their record.
[01:48:13.920 --> 01:48:17.920]  They'd have a lawsuit on a yearly basis when they get monitored or so
[01:48:17.920 --> 01:48:19.920]  by the medical authorities.
[01:48:19.920 --> 01:48:20.920]  That would be there.
[01:48:20.920 --> 01:48:22.920]  It would probably affect their insurance.
[01:48:22.920 --> 01:48:26.920]  Of course, we'd end up paying for their insurance costs,
[01:48:26.920 --> 01:48:29.920]  but hopefully it would damage their reputation too.
[01:48:29.920 --> 01:48:32.920]  We do not need doctors.
[01:48:32.920 --> 01:48:35.920]  My goodness, it's reminiscent of Nuremberg.
[01:48:35.920 --> 01:48:38.920]  We don't need doctors going against the parents' wishes.
[01:48:38.920 --> 01:48:39.920]  Oh, of course not.
[01:48:39.920 --> 01:48:42.920]  I would go with an assault criminal complaint.
[01:48:42.920 --> 01:48:45.920]  I was going to say the very first thing that should be done
[01:48:45.920 --> 01:48:49.920]  is go directly to the district attorney with a criminal complaint for assault
[01:48:49.920 --> 01:48:55.920]  on the doctor, and then also an administrative complaint
[01:48:55.920 --> 01:49:00.920]  needs to be filed with the state medical board and lawsuits as well.
[01:49:00.920 --> 01:49:03.920]  Randy?
[01:49:03.920 --> 01:49:05.920]  I agree.
[01:49:05.920 --> 01:49:07.920]  You walked right down the line.
[01:49:07.920 --> 01:49:08.920]  Especially the administrative complaint.
[01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:09.920]  Criminal first.
[01:49:09.920 --> 01:49:12.920]  It's criminal first because it's absolutely assault,
[01:49:12.920 --> 01:49:18.920]  and I mean there's a puncturing of the skin and an injection of chemicals
[01:49:18.920 --> 01:49:24.920]  that are proven to be harmful and hazardous and dangerous to anyone and everyone.
[01:49:24.920 --> 01:49:29.920]  So it's clear assault, and since it was not authorized,
[01:49:29.920 --> 01:49:31.920]  it's probably even, depending on the state,
[01:49:31.920 --> 01:49:35.920]  there's going to carry heavier penalties or heavier charges
[01:49:35.920 --> 01:49:38.920]  since it's a child that's being assaulted,
[01:49:38.920 --> 01:49:43.920]  and absolutely the administrative complaints need to be filed
[01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:47.920]  with the state medical board because you could get somebody's license pulled.
[01:49:47.920 --> 01:49:51.920]  They never could practice medicine again.
[01:49:51.920 --> 01:49:52.920]  Right.
[01:49:52.920 --> 01:49:56.920]  Okay, they'll lose their license, they'll lose their ability to get malpractice insurance,
[01:49:56.920 --> 01:49:59.920]  and then the lawsuits come in as well.
[01:49:59.920 --> 01:50:01.920]  Well, you know, I wasn't even thinking about that.
[01:50:01.920 --> 01:50:03.920]  I totally agree.
[01:50:03.920 --> 01:50:09.920]  You have some idea how much, but that the vaccines themselves are damaging,
[01:50:09.920 --> 01:50:12.920]  but it might be hard to convince a judge of that.
[01:50:12.920 --> 01:50:20.920]  I was thinking more from the terms of simply the doctor using no authority.
[01:50:20.920 --> 01:50:21.920]  Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:50:21.920 --> 01:50:24.920]  Despite the fact of whether the vaccines are damaging or not,
[01:50:24.920 --> 01:50:31.920]  it's still assault because there has been a needle that has been stuck into the child.
[01:50:31.920 --> 01:50:33.920]  Okay, that is a damage.
[01:50:33.920 --> 01:50:37.920]  So photographs need to be taken of the puncture mark.
[01:50:37.920 --> 01:50:41.920]  Okay, any kind of handling like that, even placing,
[01:50:41.920 --> 01:50:44.920]  you can't even place your hand on somebody.
[01:50:44.920 --> 01:50:47.920]  If you touch somebody without their permission, it's assault.
[01:50:47.920 --> 01:50:53.920]  So even for the nurses and the doctors to even touch the child at all
[01:50:53.920 --> 01:50:55.920]  without the parent's consent is assault,
[01:50:55.920 --> 01:50:59.920]  but the fact that the parent specifically said do not do this to my child,
[01:50:59.920 --> 01:51:03.920]  that makes it assault whether the vaccines are good or bad.
[01:51:03.920 --> 01:51:09.920]  And it also goes to corruption of blood.
[01:51:09.920 --> 01:51:11.920]  Come again?
[01:51:11.920 --> 01:51:14.920]  Corruption of blood in the Constitution.
[01:51:14.920 --> 01:51:20.920]  No corruption of blood that punctured the skin.
[01:51:20.920 --> 01:51:21.920]  Okay.
[01:51:21.920 --> 01:51:24.920]  That goes to Constitution.
[01:51:24.920 --> 01:51:29.920]  Which article?
[01:51:29.920 --> 01:51:30.920]  Or which section?
[01:51:30.920 --> 01:51:31.920]  This one.
[01:51:31.920 --> 01:51:35.920]  It's in the Bill of Rights.
[01:51:35.920 --> 01:51:40.920]  Any other time, Michael Van Nerik would skin me alive.
[01:51:40.920 --> 01:51:42.920]  There should be no corruption of blood.
[01:51:42.920 --> 01:51:44.920]  Because you didn't know it specifically?
[01:51:44.920 --> 01:51:46.920]  Okay, well I can look up corruption of blood.
[01:51:46.920 --> 01:51:50.920]  And this would, the approach would change I would assume from state to state
[01:51:50.920 --> 01:51:55.920]  depending on the law, but in general, what you do,
[01:51:55.920 --> 01:51:59.920]  number one, a criminal complaint filed with the local DA
[01:51:59.920 --> 01:52:04.920]  and administrative complaint to the medical board for the action.
[01:52:04.920 --> 01:52:08.920]  Yeah, and actually Sean, I would say to parents,
[01:52:08.920 --> 01:52:11.920]  put it this way, if it were me and it happened, I wouldn't wait.
[01:52:11.920 --> 01:52:16.920]  I would whip out my cell phone and call 911 on the spot.
[01:52:16.920 --> 01:52:18.920]  I know you would, Debbie.
[01:52:18.920 --> 01:52:19.920]  Okay.
[01:52:19.920 --> 01:52:22.920]  That is absolutely the best thing to do.
[01:52:22.920 --> 01:52:24.920]  You will absolutely get their attention.
[01:52:24.920 --> 01:52:27.920]  Oh yeah, I would call 911 immediately and have the police come
[01:52:27.920 --> 01:52:31.920]  and swear out the affidavit, swear out the complaint,
[01:52:31.920 --> 01:52:34.920]  and ask for that doctor to be arrested on the spot.
[01:52:34.920 --> 01:52:36.920]  That will wake them up.
[01:52:36.920 --> 01:52:39.920]  That will start turning their heads a little bit.
[01:52:39.920 --> 01:52:44.920]  Well, that would be good advice to give some folks on some websites
[01:52:44.920 --> 01:52:46.920]  to do in the future.
[01:52:46.920 --> 01:52:50.920]  But, you know, when you're actually in the course of labor
[01:52:50.920 --> 01:52:52.920]  and having a baby, it's a different story.
[01:52:52.920 --> 01:52:53.920]  You're a little distracted.
[01:52:53.920 --> 01:52:57.920]  Well, that's why you have to have, you know, your husband with you, okay,
[01:52:57.920 --> 01:53:00.920]  or the partner or the father of the child who's awake
[01:53:00.920 --> 01:53:04.920]  and aware to deal with the situation.
[01:53:04.920 --> 01:53:09.920]  Yeah, we tell folks to always have friendly and protective eyes on the kid
[01:53:09.920 --> 01:53:14.920]  at all times, you know, and it's such a frustrating situation
[01:53:14.920 --> 01:53:17.920]  because when nurses do that, like I say, for the most part,
[01:53:17.920 --> 01:53:21.920]  they're actually doing it because they think that they were doing the right thing.
[01:53:21.920 --> 01:53:24.920]  Well, see, the thing is with giving birth to infants in hospitals
[01:53:24.920 --> 01:53:29.920]  is a very terrifying thing because they will always take the baby away
[01:53:29.920 --> 01:53:32.920]  from the parents and they do all kinds of things
[01:53:32.920 --> 01:53:37.920]  and nobody has any idea what they've been taking blood samples of infants
[01:53:37.920 --> 01:53:43.920]  for the last 35 years to ship them off to a federal database, okay?
[01:53:43.920 --> 01:53:46.920]  So if you're under 35 years old, you're toast, folks.
[01:53:46.920 --> 01:53:49.920]  Your blood, your DNA is in a federal government database.
[01:53:49.920 --> 01:53:51.920]  That's been admitted, okay?
[01:53:51.920 --> 01:53:54.920]  And the other thing is they want to put antibiotics in the child's eyes
[01:53:54.920 --> 01:53:58.920]  because there's some rare disease, extremely rare disease
[01:53:58.920 --> 01:54:04.920]  that if there's some rare type of bacteria that gets into the child's eyes
[01:54:04.920 --> 01:54:07.920]  during childbirth and the child could go blind, so there's that.
[01:54:07.920 --> 01:54:12.920]  And then basically when you go and have a baby in a hospital,
[01:54:12.920 --> 01:54:17.920]  you're basically signing off a waiver that you agree to let the hospital
[01:54:17.920 --> 01:54:20.920]  do all these things to your child when it's born.
[01:54:20.920 --> 01:54:22.920]  And that's one reason why I don't have no kids
[01:54:22.920 --> 01:54:25.920]  because I'm not going to deal with this sort of thing
[01:54:25.920 --> 01:54:28.920]  and I'm not going to deal with a home birth either,
[01:54:28.920 --> 01:54:34.920]  so I think I have enough babies right now with the radio listeners.
[01:54:34.920 --> 01:54:37.920]  Well, I resemble that remark.
[01:54:37.920 --> 01:54:38.920]  Well, I mean in a good way.
[01:54:38.920 --> 01:54:39.920]  I have children.
[01:54:39.920 --> 01:54:42.920]  We have people to shepherd and take care of, you know?
[01:54:42.920 --> 01:54:47.920]  Not that they're babies, but I mean we have people to take care of.
[01:54:47.920 --> 01:54:49.920]  She babies me all the time.
[01:54:49.920 --> 01:54:52.920]  Yeah, you wish.
[01:54:52.920 --> 01:54:54.920]  Child abuse.
[01:54:54.920 --> 01:54:58.920]  For 90% of our history, babies were had at home, you know?
[01:54:58.920 --> 01:55:04.920]  We have five and three of them were delivered at home, and you know,
[01:55:04.920 --> 01:55:07.920]  you can do it, but that's not the point.
[01:55:07.920 --> 01:55:08.920]  Both go to the hospital.
[01:55:08.920 --> 01:55:13.920]  They are intimidated naturally and understandably by the setting
[01:55:13.920 --> 01:55:16.920]  and even the family sometimes, you know?
[01:55:16.920 --> 01:55:20.920]  You have to have some fortitude after, you know,
[01:55:20.920 --> 01:55:28.920]  25 or 30 years of persistent agenda-driven propaganda about the vaccinations
[01:55:28.920 --> 01:55:33.920]  and the fear of disease to stand up to doctors and calmly
[01:55:33.920 --> 01:55:36.920]  and confidently say no, thank you, don't you dare do it.
[01:55:36.920 --> 01:55:39.920]  Well, yeah, people have to make the decision before they bring their child
[01:55:39.920 --> 01:55:44.920]  to the doctor at all, first off, and then they have to know that these doctors
[01:55:44.920 --> 01:55:47.920]  are totally corrupt and they're all about partnering
[01:55:47.920 --> 01:55:50.920]  with the pharmaceutical industries and forcing off these vaccinations
[01:55:50.920 --> 01:55:53.920]  on the parents and the kids, and so you have to know
[01:55:53.920 --> 01:55:56.920]  and expect that they're going to try to do it behind your back anyway
[01:55:56.920 --> 01:56:00.920]  and don't let the kid out of your sight when you take it to the doctor.
[01:56:00.920 --> 01:56:02.920]  If you're going to take it to the doctor and if something,
[01:56:02.920 --> 01:56:05.920]  if the unmentionable happens, then you have to call 911.
[01:56:05.920 --> 01:56:08.920]  You have to make these decisions and have this type of fortitude in your heart
[01:56:08.920 --> 01:56:12.920]  and in your spirit already before you even walk in the place
[01:56:12.920 --> 01:56:15.920]  or else you're going to get railroaded.
[01:56:15.920 --> 01:56:17.920]  Yep, and it's happened.
[01:56:17.920 --> 01:56:18.920]  Okay, well, I appreciate it.
[01:56:18.920 --> 01:56:20.920]  I'm going to pass that information on.
[01:56:20.920 --> 01:56:24.920]  I might call you back sometime to get maybe some more particulars
[01:56:24.920 --> 01:56:26.920]  if I have a specific situation to pass on.
[01:56:26.920 --> 01:56:27.920]  Okay, great.
[01:56:27.920 --> 01:56:28.920]  Okay, thanks, Sean.
[01:56:28.920 --> 01:56:29.920]  Thanks a lot, guys. Bye-bye.
[01:56:29.920 --> 01:56:30.920]  Okay, bye.
[01:56:30.920 --> 01:56:31.920]  Okay, we're going to continue on.
[01:56:31.920 --> 01:56:33.920]  We're doing the best we can to get to all your calls.
[01:56:33.920 --> 01:56:35.920]  We only got a couple minutes left.
[01:56:35.920 --> 01:56:36.920]  We've got Alan in Texas.
[01:56:36.920 --> 01:56:38.920]  Alan, what's on your mind tonight?
[01:56:38.920 --> 01:56:40.920]  Quickly, you've got two minutes.
[01:56:40.920 --> 01:56:42.920]  Yeah, I'm over here in Horseshoe Bay,
[01:56:42.920 --> 01:56:47.920]  and this past weekend I was arrested at my house.
[01:56:47.920 --> 01:56:50.920]  And I asked the officer when he was arresting me
[01:56:50.920 --> 01:56:53.920]  which magistrate that he would be taking me to.
[01:56:53.920 --> 01:56:56.920]  He said there would be one there at the Burnet County Jailhouse.
[01:56:56.920 --> 01:57:01.920]  So he took me to the Burnet County Jailhouse where there was no magistrate,
[01:57:01.920 --> 01:57:04.920]  nobody was there except for the jailers and all of them,
[01:57:04.920 --> 01:57:06.920]  and they started the booking process.
[01:57:06.920 --> 01:57:11.920]  And during the booking process, I wasn't getting undressed fast enough.
[01:57:11.920 --> 01:57:15.920]  I about had my pants down around my ankles trying to get them off,
[01:57:15.920 --> 01:57:20.920]  and the officer punched me in my eye.
[01:57:20.920 --> 01:57:24.920]  After he punched me, he picked me up and started pulling my clothes off of me
[01:57:24.920 --> 01:57:27.920]  and threw me my jail clothes and all of that.
[01:57:27.920 --> 01:57:32.920]  Well, the lady that worked back there in the jailhouse had to take pictures of it.
[01:57:32.920 --> 01:57:35.920]  They had to call the nurses or whoever those people are.
[01:57:35.920 --> 01:57:38.920]  And I've never been arrested in my life before.
[01:57:38.920 --> 01:57:41.920]  This is my first time ever being in handcuffs.
[01:57:41.920 --> 01:57:44.920]  And they took pictures of it and everything.
[01:57:44.920 --> 01:57:48.920]  Well, somebody was getting all rowdy in the jail and everything,
[01:57:48.920 --> 01:57:54.920]  and she had slipped a copy of the pictures that she took of one of the pictures of my face
[01:57:54.920 --> 01:57:58.920]  underneath my leg and told me to put it in my sock.
[01:57:58.920 --> 01:58:02.920]  And if I was bound with the picture, she would say that I stole it.
[01:58:02.920 --> 01:58:04.920]  Okay, listen, we're at the end of the show.
[01:58:04.920 --> 01:58:07.920]  We have literally less than 60 seconds left.
[01:58:07.920 --> 01:58:10.920]  We're going to have to continue this story tomorrow night.
[01:58:10.920 --> 01:58:14.920]  Briefly, Randy, you have any comments for Alan?
[01:58:14.920 --> 01:58:18.920]  Yes, we're going to need to spend more time on this tomorrow night.
[01:58:18.920 --> 01:58:22.920]  I don't have time tonight to punch you in the eye.
[01:58:22.920 --> 01:58:24.920]  You really need to go after this guy.
[01:58:24.920 --> 01:58:25.920]  Absolutely.
[01:58:25.920 --> 01:58:28.920]  Okay, Alan, call back in tomorrow night, and we will discuss this tomorrow.
[01:58:28.920 --> 01:58:31.920]  On the other side, Chad, Anthony, I'm sorry, we ran out of time.
[01:58:31.920 --> 01:58:34.920]  We've got Mike Merris for the first hour or two tomorrow night,
[01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:37.920]  and then we'll be taking your calls on various topics,
[01:58:37.920 --> 01:58:39.920]  whatever topic you want to bring to the table.
[01:58:39.920 --> 01:58:41.920]  We'll be back tomorrow evening.
[01:58:41.920 --> 01:58:46.920]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Deborah Stevens.
[01:58:46.920 --> 01:59:12.920]  Thank you very much.
[01:59:12.920 --> 01:59:27.920]  Thank you very much.
[01:59:27.920 --> 01:59:42.920]  Thank you.
[01:59:42.920 --> 01:59:57.920]  Thank you.