[00:00.000 --> 00:09.520]  A secret U.S. State Department cable published Monday by WikiLeaks said the nuclear facility
[00:09.520 --> 00:15.000]  housing Yemen's radio-action material had gone unguarded for up to a week after its
[00:15.000 --> 00:18.320]  guard was removed and its surveillance camera broke.
[00:18.320 --> 00:23.280]  A U.S. official warned fellow diplomats last January very little now stands between the
[00:23.280 --> 00:27.600]  bad guys and Yemen's nuclear material.
[00:27.600 --> 00:32.760]  Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared Saturday he will bar the new U.S. Ambassador
[00:32.760 --> 00:37.760]  Larry Palmer from entering Venezuela, accusing him of disrespect.
[00:37.760 --> 00:42.760]  Chavez added, quote, if he comes he must be arrested and the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign
[00:42.760 --> 00:47.400]  Affairs, Nicolas Madura, should give him coffee from me and tell him goodbye.
[00:47.400 --> 00:50.080]  He can't enter this country.
[00:50.080 --> 00:54.420]  The Pentagon has banned journalists with the military's newspaper Stars and Stripes from
[00:54.420 --> 01:00.800]  consulting WikiLeaks cables. The Daily's ombudsman Mark Prendergast wrote, amazingly the government
[01:00.800 --> 01:05.680]  wants to bar this newspaper's journalists along with most federal workers from reading
[01:05.680 --> 01:10.720]  information already plastered all over the public square.
[01:10.720 --> 01:17.080]  The 2010 death toll for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan has hit 700 after a NATO soldier
[01:17.080 --> 01:19.720]  was killed Monday by a roadside bomb.
[01:19.720 --> 01:25.320]  The grim milestone for foreign troops was reached days after Barack Obama declared progress
[01:25.320 --> 01:31.360]  in the war in Afghanistan. According to official figures, more than 2,270 U.S.-led soldiers
[01:31.360 --> 01:36.560]  have been killed in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. However, figures released by
[01:36.560 --> 01:42.120]  Afghanistan's Bakhtar news agency put the foreign troop death toll at nearly 4,500.
[01:42.120 --> 01:47.240]  U.S. officials announced recently U.S. soldiers would remain in the country for at least another
[01:47.240 --> 01:52.280]  four years. Hundreds of civilians have lost their lives in U.S.-led airstrikes and ground
[01:52.280 --> 01:57.400]  operations in Afghanistan over the past few months, with Afghans becoming more outraged
[01:57.400 --> 02:00.960]  over the seemingly endless number of deadly assaults.
[02:00.960 --> 02:07.280]  A new study has found 31 U.S. cities have a likely carcinogen in their drinking water.
[02:07.280 --> 02:12.680]  The Environmental Working Group's report released Monday discovered hexavalent chromium in the
[02:12.680 --> 02:17.320]  drinking water of 35 cities and found the substance which the National Institutes of
[02:17.320 --> 02:24.720]  Health call a probable carcinogen in almost all cities they tested. In 2009, California
[02:24.720 --> 02:29.600]  became the first state to take steps to limit the amount of hexavalent chromium in drinking
[02:29.600 --> 02:37.400]  water. Of the cities tested, 25 had levels exceeding the reduction goal proposed in California.
[02:37.400 --> 02:42.040]  Environmental activist Erin Brockovich, who led a fight on behalf of residents of Hinkley,
[02:42.040 --> 02:47.000]  California, against Pacific Gas and Electric for leaking hexavalent chromium into their
[02:47.000 --> 02:52.120]  groundwater said, �This chemical has been so widely used by so many industries across
[02:52.120 --> 03:14.480]  the U.S., the study�s finding doesn�t surprise me.�
[04:22.120 --> 04:40.480]  When I'd like to go over tonight, since we're talking about traffic issues, I have been
[04:40.480 --> 04:48.280]  working on a direct cross-examination, basically question and answer checklist to go through
[04:48.280 --> 04:56.720]  with an officer on the stand regarding a speeding charge. Now, I want to go through this, and
[04:56.720 --> 05:00.320]  those of you that have the seminar material, you don't have to worry about writing it down.
[05:00.320 --> 05:04.960]  It will be part of the seminar material, but this is just to give you a general idea of
[05:04.960 --> 05:10.120]  exactly how these examinations and questioning should work if and when you ever have to get
[05:10.120 --> 05:16.200]  to the actual merits on one of these cases. We're going to take this from the point where
[05:16.200 --> 05:22.480]  the officer has already been examined by the city attorney in a municipal court. He's already
[05:22.480 --> 05:26.360]  established that he is a police officer, that he's been a police officer for this long and
[05:26.360 --> 05:31.220]  that he's done these duties for however long and so on and so forth. We're going to pick
[05:31.220 --> 05:38.800]  up in our cross-examination from there. The questions they ask the officer are, �Officer,
[05:38.800 --> 05:45.180]  have we met before?� �Yes.� �And how did we meet?� �I pulled you over for speeding
[05:45.180 --> 05:52.200]  on whatever highway on the day in question.� �Officer, are you currently under oath?�
[05:52.200 --> 05:57.280]  �Yes.� �And are you obligated by law to tell the truth while you are testifying
[05:57.280 --> 06:03.280]  before this court and this jury?� �Yes.� �And you maintain that you are telling the
[06:03.280 --> 06:09.760]  truth when you assert that I was and am actually guilty of violating every element required
[06:09.760 --> 06:17.040]  to prove the charge alleged against me by you. Is that correct?� �Yes.� �And what
[06:17.040 --> 06:22.280]  happens to me if I prove in this court today that you are wrong?� �Well, then I suppose
[06:22.280 --> 06:27.620]  that you would be free to go.� �And what happens to you for making this allegation
[06:27.620 --> 06:34.000]  against me that has been proven false in a court of law?� �Nothing.� �Nothing.�
[06:34.000 --> 06:39.160]  �And you are the only witness that the city attorney is calling upon to testify today
[06:39.160 --> 06:43.640]  that has personal first-hand knowledge of what actually transpired before you accosted
[06:43.640 --> 06:50.440]  me regarding this alleged act, correct?� �As far as I know, yes.� �Officer, are
[06:50.440 --> 06:54.400]  you trained and certified by the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas to
[06:54.400 --> 07:00.400]  enforce traffic statutes and issue citations?� �He�s going to say no or I�m not sure.�
[07:00.400 --> 07:08.040]  �Officer, who do you think is required to train and certify you to enforce traffic statutes
[07:08.040 --> 07:13.480]  and issue citations?� �He�s going to answer the city of, the county of, or the
[07:13.480 --> 07:21.880]  state of, or I�m not sure.� �Officer, what felony was I allegedly committing when
[07:21.880 --> 07:29.120]  you arrested me without warrant?� �None that I�m aware of.� �Then what credible
[07:29.120 --> 07:33.560]  person came to you and asserted that I had allegedly committed a felony and was about
[07:33.560 --> 07:42.160]  to escape when you arrested me without a warrant?� �Well, again, none that I�m aware of.�
[07:42.160 --> 07:48.000]  �Then what breach of the peace was I allegedly committing in your view when you arrested
[07:48.000 --> 07:54.800]  me without a warrant?� �Again, none that I�m aware of.� �Then it is your testimony
[07:54.800 --> 07:59.380]  before this court that when I was being arrested without warrant, it was not for the commission
[07:59.380 --> 08:05.240]  of a felony, nor for any other commission of a felony to which I was an alleged party
[08:05.240 --> 08:11.440]  and suspect.� �Nor was it for the commission of any breach of the peace committed in your
[08:11.440 --> 08:17.480]  presence.� �Is that correct?� �And he�s either going to say yes or he�s going
[08:17.480 --> 08:24.240]  to attempt to say that, �Well, I never arrested you.� If he goes with the �I never arrested
[08:24.240 --> 08:32.840]  you� part, then we go through Section 543 of the Texas Transportation Code, which deals
[08:32.840 --> 08:38.160]  specifically with the authority to arrest without warrant and the fact that you are
[08:38.160 --> 08:42.760]  in a custodial arrest. We do that by bringing that to the court�s attention through the
[08:42.760 --> 08:49.240]  form of judicial notice. I demand the court take judicial notice of Chapter 543 Texas
[08:49.240 --> 08:57.120]  Transportation Code, which says without doubt and with all certainty that I was in a custodial
[08:57.120 --> 09:04.560]  arrest the moment this officer determined he was going to issue me a citation. Now,
[09:04.560 --> 09:09.120]  this is still in the works here, but this is where we are up to so far. Let�s go from
[09:09.120 --> 09:17.720]  this point in asserting that the officer answers yes. But you do admit on the record that I
[09:17.720 --> 09:23.240]  was arrested by you and that the arrest was without a warrant issued by a magistrate upon
[09:23.240 --> 09:30.000]  a finding of probable cause and specifically authorizing the arrest. Is that correct? Yes,
[09:30.000 --> 09:35.320]  but the legislature specifically authorized the warrantless arrest of traffic violators,
[09:35.320 --> 09:42.400]  so I was acting on a good faith basis in accordance with law.� To which you replied, �I demand
[09:42.400 --> 09:47.520]  the court take judicial notice of Article 1, Section 9 of the Bill of Rights of the Texas
[09:47.520 --> 09:53.520]  Constitution, which reads, �The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers
[09:53.520 --> 10:00.000]  and possessions from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any
[10:00.000 --> 10:07.640]  place or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them as near as may
[10:07.640 --> 10:16.360]  be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.� Now, officer, you
[10:16.360 --> 10:21.960]  have just testified that at the time you arrested me, you did not have such a warrant. Is that
[10:21.960 --> 10:31.280]  correct? Yes, and at the time of this arrest, you had made no written statement supported
[10:31.280 --> 10:36.560]  by oath or affirmation that you had witnessed me commit an unlawful act of any kind. Is
[10:36.560 --> 10:44.440]  that correct? Yes. Officer, you are aware that the Texas legislature is specifically
[10:44.440 --> 10:49.840]  bound by every provision of the Texas Constitution in its official duties, especially the Bill
[10:49.840 --> 10:57.160]  of Rights. Is that correct? Yes. And you are as equally aware of the same constitutional
[10:57.160 --> 11:05.560]  limitations of this court and yourself as a police officer. Is that correct? Yes. And
[11:05.560 --> 11:12.000]  does Article 1, Section 9 clearly read that warrantless arrests are specifically prohibited?
[11:12.000 --> 11:19.200]  Yes. I demand the court take judicial notice of these court decisions handed down by the
[11:19.200 --> 11:24.040]  Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, numerous higher courts in the various states, as well
[11:24.040 --> 11:29.880]  as the Supreme Court of the United States. These cases have not been overturned, and
[11:29.880 --> 11:34.800]  they clearly show that any type of arrest without warrant, which has been conducted
[11:34.800 --> 11:40.960]  without specific articulatable facts and or evidence, that the commission of a felony
[11:40.960 --> 11:47.080]  is occurring in the arresting individual's presence or has already occurred and the perpetrator
[11:47.080 --> 11:53.680]  is about to escape, or that a breach of the peace is or has occurred in the arresting
[11:53.680 --> 12:04.120]  individual's presence. Such an arrest is specifically forbidden in these cases. Despite this, Officer
[12:04.120 --> 12:11.160]  Numnutz over here has already testified to routinely making arrests without warrant for
[12:11.160 --> 12:17.640]  alleged acts that are clearly not within the scope of a felony or a breach of the peace.
[12:17.640 --> 12:22.480]  Officer Numnutz has testified that his actions are valid because he relies on the assertion
[12:22.480 --> 12:29.360]  that the Texas legislature has enacted statutes specifically authorizing this very thing.
[12:29.360 --> 12:35.080]  Even though such a statute would be a direct violation of Texas Constitution Article 1,
[12:35.080 --> 12:42.800]  Section 9, as anyone can plainly see. Further, I demand the court also take judicial notice
[12:42.800 --> 12:50.920]  of Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 29, which clearly reads, to guard against transgressions
[12:50.920 --> 12:56.400]  of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is
[12:56.400 --> 13:02.920]  accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolent, and all
[13:02.920 --> 13:09.800]  laws contrary thereto or to the following provisions shall be void.
[13:09.800 --> 13:16.640]  Officer, in your opinion, does the language and wording of Texas Constitution Article
[13:16.640 --> 13:23.200]  1, Section 29, clearly require that any legislative attempt to create a statute that violates
[13:23.200 --> 13:30.400]  a constitutional provision, including a violation of Article 1, Section 29, regarding warrantless
[13:30.400 --> 13:37.240]  arrest, is specifically and without exception void upon its face? And he's going to say
[13:37.240 --> 13:43.840]  yes or I don't know. Okay. At this point, you could try and demand
[13:43.840 --> 13:49.160]  the dismissal with prejudice because the officer has violated your rights and specific constitutional
[13:49.160 --> 13:55.640]  statutory provisions during the initial arrest and citation. However, do not expect the court
[13:55.640 --> 14:01.240]  to honor its duty to do that very thing by dismissing the case. You have to be prepared
[14:01.240 --> 14:07.840]  to continue and prove the officer and the city attorney are both incompetent. That's
[14:07.840 --> 14:11.680]  what we're working for here. So let's continue with the questioning as
[14:11.680 --> 14:19.720]  if the court has either ignored or refused our movement of the court to dismiss the case.
[14:19.720 --> 14:25.600]  Officer, approximately how many traffic citations a month do you personally issue to people
[14:25.600 --> 14:31.600]  for allegedly speeding or for some other alleged traffic violation? The officer is going to
[14:31.600 --> 14:36.640]  say, I'm not sure. It varies every month. To which you're going to reply, just estimate
[14:36.640 --> 14:45.240]  it for us, please. Oh, about 25 times a month. Okay. And how many times a month do you appear
[14:45.240 --> 14:51.320]  in court to testify in cases where the accused was allegedly speeding? Again, I'm not sure
[14:51.320 --> 14:56.920]  it varies every month. Well, again, just estimate it for us, please.
[14:56.920 --> 15:03.520]  I'd say probably most of my tickets are regarding speeding or parking. So I'd say probably 75%,
[15:03.520 --> 15:11.880]  so oh, I don't know, 18, 19 times a month. Okay. So would it be fair to say that you
[15:11.880 --> 15:18.840]  appear fairly often in court as a witness for the city attorney? Yes. Would it also
[15:18.840 --> 15:23.720]  be safe to say then that based upon your numerous appearances as a witness against those that
[15:23.720 --> 15:29.080]  you have personally accused, that you have had opportunity to refine and hone your ability
[15:29.080 --> 15:36.680]  to testify in such cases? Yes. Would it also be safe to say that you have had extensive
[15:36.680 --> 15:42.040]  contact and or discussions with attorneys as to how to best answer during questioning
[15:42.040 --> 15:52.640]  at a trial? Yes. Has such contact and discussion ever involved any of the attorneys that work
[15:52.640 --> 15:59.720]  in the city attorney's office? Yes. Okay. Just a side note. The city attorney is most
[15:59.720 --> 16:06.920]  likely going to object to this line of questioning. Object in return. You have the right to know
[16:06.920 --> 16:11.560]  if the witness against you has had previous contact and or experience with a particular
[16:11.560 --> 16:18.320]  city's attorneys and what possible meeting of the minds for providing precise legal answers
[16:18.320 --> 16:25.560]  to questions was imparted by this contact. In other words, is the officer and the prosecutor
[16:25.560 --> 16:30.720]  working together in a previously orchestrated and rehearsed manner in order to achieve a
[16:30.720 --> 16:36.860]  conviction and or deprive the accused of due process? You have the right to know this and
[16:36.860 --> 16:43.760]  you have the right to expose the bias. It calls the witness's culpability into question
[16:43.760 --> 16:49.480]  before the jury. All right. We're about to go to break. This is Rule of Law Radio. Eddie
[16:49.480 --> 17:02.280]  Craig, Deborah Stevens. We will be right back in just a moment. Please hang in there. Capital
[17:02.280 --> 17:06.000]  Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.040]  in the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family owned and operated business
[17:11.040 --> 17:15.920]  that offers competitive prices on your coin and metal purchases. We buy, sell, trade and
[17:15.920 --> 17:21.000]  consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious metals and scrap gold. We purchase
[17:21.000 --> 17:25.520]  and sell gold and jewelry items. We offer daily specials on coins and bullion. We are
[17:25.520 --> 17:30.640]  located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3 at the corner of Burnett and Shulmark. And we're
[17:30.640 --> 17:35.920]  open Mondays and Fridays 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5. You are welcome to stop in our shop
[17:35.920 --> 17:43.440]  during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions. Ask for Chad and say you
[17:43.440 --> 17:48.120]  heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio. That's Capital Coin and Bullion
[17:48.120 --> 17:52.800]  at the corner of Burnett and Shulmark and we're open Mondays and Fridays 10 to 6, Saturdays
[17:52.800 --> 18:02.400]  10 to 5. That's Capital Coin and Bullion 512-646-6440. Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[18:02.400 --> 18:07.600]  with phone calls, letters or even losses? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael
[18:07.600 --> 18:12.840]  Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[18:12.840 --> 18:18.120]  and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[18:18.120 --> 18:23.480]  in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail
[18:23.480 --> 18:27.920]  or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out
[18:27.920 --> 18:33.160]  of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go
[18:33.160 --> 18:39.080]  away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.080 --> 18:44.480]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.480 --> 18:49.880]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's
[18:49.880 --> 18:59.320]  ruleoflawradio.com or email michaelmears at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.320 --> 19:20.640]  now.
[19:59.320 --> 20:25.800]  Alright folks, we are back, Rule of Law Radio. This is Eddie Craig, member Stevenson. I am
[20:25.800 --> 20:32.200]  going over a questionnaire that we use or hopefully we'll be using for cross-examination
[20:32.200 --> 20:38.560]  and direct examination of a police officer on the stand in a speeding citation case.
[20:38.560 --> 20:44.560]  We are down to the next question for the officer which is, Officer, would it be fair to say
[20:44.560 --> 20:50.080]  that you have been specifically trained on how to legally respond or to evade a complete
[20:50.080 --> 20:57.840]  response to questions during testimony? Yes. So it is possible that you could knowingly
[20:57.840 --> 21:03.000]  provide only a partial answer to a question and technically still not be guilty of lying
[21:03.000 --> 21:09.760]  under oath, is that correct? Yes. And this would be possible even if you knew that your
[21:09.760 --> 21:14.680]  partial answer was going to be used by either party to give the court and the jury a particular
[21:14.680 --> 21:22.760]  impression of the facts contrary to what constitutes the whole truth, is that correct? Yes. But
[21:22.760 --> 21:27.120]  you fully intend to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this court today,
[21:27.120 --> 21:36.240]  is that correct? Yes. Okay, now on the date when you arrested me for speeding, where were
[21:36.240 --> 21:40.960]  you specifically located and situated at the time you observed me allegedly speeding? Now
[21:40.960 --> 21:46.520]  again he's going to try to say, I didn't arrest you. And again you're going to say, must I
[21:46.520 --> 21:55.400]  remind the court of the judicial notice taken of Chapter 543 Transportation Code? At which
[21:55.400 --> 22:00.360]  point the court's going to say, no, you don't have to remind the court and yes, the officer
[22:00.360 --> 22:04.880]  did arrest you or he's going to have to admit that he arrested you. So we'll go with the
[22:04.880 --> 22:13.560]  presumption that he knows this and he admits that he arrested you. Okay, I'll ask the question
[22:13.560 --> 22:18.640]  again. Okay, then on the date when you arrested me for speeding, where were you specifically
[22:18.640 --> 22:23.840]  located and situated at the time you observed me allegedly speeding? The officer's going
[22:23.840 --> 22:30.320]  to reply, I was on my motorcycle, I was in my patrol car at whatever the location in
[22:30.320 --> 22:36.320]  relation to yours actually was. Then you're going to ask, were you parked, stopped or
[22:36.320 --> 22:41.000]  moving with the flow of other automobiles? Now notice I did not use the term flow of
[22:41.000 --> 22:48.120]  other traffic. The officer's going to respond that he was either parked, stopped or moving
[22:48.120 --> 22:56.040]  with the flow. So in relation to your specific location and position, is it your testimony
[22:56.040 --> 23:03.440]  that I had actually already passed by your location? The officer's going to say yes.
[23:03.440 --> 23:10.400]  Then you're going to ask. So in this case, since I had already traveled past your position,
[23:10.400 --> 23:16.120]  you were required to first, if he was actually parked or pulled over somewhere, re-enter
[23:16.120 --> 23:23.680]  the flow of other automobiles. Then you were having to accelerate to a high rate of speed
[23:23.680 --> 23:27.280]  and then you had to maneuver your vehicle through whatever automobiles there were upon
[23:27.280 --> 23:36.160]  the roadway in order to pull me over. Is that correct? Yes. Then I don't understand. Weren't
[23:36.160 --> 23:44.120]  you actually speeding and endangering the public by your actions? No. I'm trained to
[23:44.120 --> 23:48.040]  navigate my vehicle safely through traffic in a manner intended to prevent accident or
[23:48.040 --> 23:55.920]  injury. But if everyone has to be tested to get a license and that license allegedly certifies
[23:55.920 --> 24:00.800]  them as properly trained and confident to operate a motor vehicle upon the highway in
[24:00.800 --> 24:06.520]  the company of other motor vehicles and automobiles, couldn't every one of them make that same
[24:06.520 --> 24:14.320]  claim? Aren't all the people with a license certified to operate proficiently to prevent
[24:14.320 --> 24:21.640]  accident and injury? Well, he's going to either say yes, I guess so, or he's going to say
[24:21.640 --> 24:29.840]  no, not really. Oh, I see. So what you seem to be saying is that you are somehow more
[24:29.840 --> 24:35.880]  trained and more qualified and are therefore legally allowed to operate your particular
[24:35.880 --> 24:43.080]  vehicle in a manner that potentially endangers the public. Is that correct? He's going to
[24:43.080 --> 24:49.880]  have to say yes. Okay, I see. Then are you asserting to the court and to the jury that
[24:49.880 --> 24:54.760]  I was traveling along the roadway and doing the same thing in my private automobile that
[24:54.760 --> 24:59.400]  you were doing in your official vehicle, such as weaving through traffic while traveling
[24:59.400 --> 25:04.360]  at a high rate of speed and generally surprising and or scaring other travelers and causing
[25:04.360 --> 25:11.840]  apprehension by a display of flashing lights and sirens? Would that be correct? The officer
[25:11.840 --> 25:16.320]  is going to say you were going faster than the posted speed limit, but no, you were not
[25:16.320 --> 25:20.840]  flashing your lights and I did not notice or hear any other sirens. You also were not
[25:20.840 --> 25:26.760]  swerving in and out of traffic lanes. Normally you aren't. I can't speak for those of you
[25:26.760 --> 25:35.120]  that were. However, okay, if I am properly understanding your testimony then, correctly
[25:35.120 --> 25:40.160]  up to this point, you're saying that other than the fact that I was allegedly speeding,
[25:40.160 --> 25:45.400]  I was doing nothing else that gave you any probable cause to believe that I was creating
[25:45.400 --> 25:53.640]  or being an imminent danger to the public. Is that correct? Yes. Officer, what type of
[25:53.640 --> 25:59.040]  automobile was I traveling in when you pursued and accosted me? I don't believe that I accosted
[25:59.040 --> 26:06.120]  you, sir. Officer, what do you think accosted means? You're trying to insinuate that I somehow
[26:06.120 --> 26:12.400]  assaulted or threatened you. That simply is not true. Officer, accosted simply means to
[26:12.400 --> 26:18.440]  approach and address boldly as one with authority. So are you certain that you did not accost
[26:18.440 --> 26:22.880]  me? They're going to sit there and look at you with a really blank, stupid look on their
[26:22.880 --> 26:28.240]  face. They probably won't even answer and you don't really care. So go ahead to your
[26:28.240 --> 26:32.760]  next question after you give them a second or two to give the jury that look you want
[26:32.760 --> 26:41.040]  them to see. Officer, what type of automobile was I traveling in when you pursued and accosted
[26:41.040 --> 26:50.720]  me? You were in a pickup truck. Officer, is it true that you have charged me with allegedly
[26:50.720 --> 26:58.800]  speeding upon the roadway? Yes, it is. Officer, are you readily familiar with the specific
[26:58.800 --> 27:07.200]  statute that sets the prima facie speed limits in Texas? Yes, I am. Would that section of
[27:07.200 --> 27:15.440]  statute happen to be Texas Transportation Code, Section 545.352? The officer is going
[27:15.440 --> 27:22.520]  to say either yes, it is, or I'm not really sure. At which point you state, I would like
[27:22.520 --> 27:29.520]  the court to take judicial notice of Texas Transportation Code 545.352, subsection D,
[27:29.520 --> 27:36.040]  sub item 2, which pertains to the establishment of prima facie speed limits and which also
[27:36.040 --> 27:42.160]  contains a statutory definition of the term light truck as that term specifically applies
[27:42.160 --> 27:49.240]  to this particular code section and charge. It reads, light truck means a truck with a
[27:49.240 --> 27:54.880]  manufacturer's rated carrying capacity of not more than 2,000 pounds, including a pickup
[27:54.880 --> 28:02.780]  truck, panel delivery truck, and carry-all truck. Now, officer, according to your understanding
[28:02.780 --> 28:08.920]  of this definition, within this specific section of statute, is my pickup truck considered
[28:08.920 --> 28:18.520]  to be a light truck pursuant, Texas Transportation Code 545.352, subsection D, sub item 2? Yes,
[28:18.520 --> 28:27.480]  it is. Officer, pursuant to provisions of Texas Transportation Code 545.352, at the
[28:27.480 --> 28:33.520]  time you saw me allegedly speeding, was I inside an urban district or was I outside
[28:33.520 --> 28:41.520]  any urban district? Now, notice I said, was I inside an urban district or was I outside
[28:41.520 --> 28:49.000]  any urban district? The officer is going to state in the case that I'm working on here,
[28:49.000 --> 28:56.560]  you were inside an urban district. You are absolutely certain, officer, that I was inside
[28:56.560 --> 29:02.040]  an urban district. Yes, it was right out here on I-35 within the Austin city limits and
[29:02.040 --> 29:09.320]  all of that's an urban district. Okay, great. Was I towing a trailer bearing a vessel as
[29:09.320 --> 29:19.760]  defined by section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code? No. And at this point, you may also
[29:19.760 --> 29:27.600]  get an objection from the prosecution. Object and return. Judge, this still pertains to
[29:27.600 --> 29:32.440]  the same section of the transportation code that clearly sets out the requirements of
[29:32.440 --> 29:38.720]  the elements for one to be in violation of the prima facie speed limit. It is relevant
[29:38.720 --> 29:46.040]  and specifically pertains to this case and the facts at hand. All right, so hang on just
[29:46.040 --> 29:49.640]  a moment, we'll pick up on the other side. This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Rule
[29:49.640 --> 29:55.360]  of Law Radio. We are talking about speeding cases and direct examination and we will be
[29:55.360 --> 30:03.400]  right back. Top Ten Reasons to Question the Official Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing,
[30:03.400 --> 30:07.280]  Reason Number Five. As witnessed by millions of viewers, the rescue efforts were interrupted
[30:07.280 --> 30:11.520]  several times due to the presence of other explosives. Government log entries indicate
[30:11.520 --> 30:16.080]  and witnesses report that after the initial devastating blast, a bomb complete with timer
[30:16.080 --> 30:20.040]  was discovered and removed from wreckage by the bomb squad. Yet we are told it's all due
[30:20.040 --> 30:24.560]  to baseless bomb scares or other contrivances. So while officials try to sort out their stories,
[30:24.560 --> 30:28.880]  all we ask is who planted these bombs and why is the government lying about them? For
[30:28.880 --> 30:35.320]  more information, go to okcbombingtruth.com. Here's one more reason not to trust governments
[30:35.320 --> 30:40.120]  and databases. Citizens of Missouri discovered outside companies obtained their driver's
[30:40.120 --> 30:45.040]  license information, including names, addresses and birth dates. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[30:45.040 --> 30:50.360]  and I'll be right back with more. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about
[30:50.360 --> 30:54.760]  yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find
[30:54.760 --> 31:00.160]  your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance
[31:00.160 --> 31:05.840]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service
[31:05.840 --> 31:11.280]  announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[31:11.280 --> 31:18.440]  Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage. Driver's license databases are supposed to
[31:18.440 --> 31:22.640]  be private, but information resellers got a hold of Missouri's records and put them up
[31:22.640 --> 31:27.680]  for sale. Angry citizens filed a class action lawsuit against Missouri Department of Motor
[31:27.680 --> 31:32.960]  Vehicle employees and the information resellers. A court settlement requires Shadowsoft and
[31:32.960 --> 31:38.160]  the source for public data to return the driver's license information and stop selling it. However,
[31:38.160 --> 31:43.400]  they still have their dirty paws on DMV records from other states, including Texas, Florida,
[31:43.400 --> 31:49.200]  Ohio, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Idaho, Minnesota and Iowa. If you're in one of those states,
[31:49.200 --> 31:53.120]  contact your state lawmakers and ask them to put a stop to the sale of your personal
[31:53.120 --> 32:00.120]  information. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:23.120 --> 32:50.400]  Okay, folks, we are back, rule of law radio. David and California, we do see you there
[32:50.400 --> 32:54.240]  on the board. I'm going to have about one more segment here, I think, that I can have
[32:54.240 --> 32:58.000]  this wrapped up within and I'll be happy to take your call on the other side after the
[32:58.000 --> 33:03.720]  next break, so I'll try to get this wrapped up pretty quickly. Now, we just sent the officer
[33:03.720 --> 33:09.640]  up to ask the question whether or not I was towing a trailer bearing a vessel, which Parks
[33:09.640 --> 33:17.020]  and Wildlife code, this is a boat, folks, okay? The boat is specifically required to be less
[33:17.020 --> 33:26.840]  than 26 feet in length, according to 545.352. But you're going to ask the officer, was I
[33:26.840 --> 33:34.920]  towing a trailer bearing a vessel as defined by that 31.003 Parks and Wildlife code? No.
[33:34.920 --> 33:40.640]  Was I towing a trailer or semi-trailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle? No. Was
[33:40.640 --> 33:45.720]  I towing a trailer or semi-trailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock
[33:45.720 --> 33:50.800]  on a highway numbered by this state, including a farm-to-market road? The officer is going
[33:50.800 --> 33:57.400]  to say no. Was I in a school bus that had passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection
[33:57.400 --> 34:03.480]  pursuant Texas transportation code section 548.201? And again, the officer is going to
[34:03.480 --> 34:12.120]  say no. Then you're going to say, well, please forgive me, but now I'm really confused. Pursuant
[34:12.120 --> 34:18.920]  the various sections of transportation code 545.352, which we just stepped through the
[34:18.920 --> 34:26.040]  specific provisions thereof, you have just testified that I was inside an urban district
[34:26.040 --> 34:32.360]  and that the state statute clearly applies only to those motor vehicles that are outside
[34:32.360 --> 34:37.720]  of an urban district. The provisions also require that the motor vehicle be towing a
[34:37.720 --> 34:44.480]  vessel, meaning some type of watercraft, and that the vessel be less than 26 feet in length
[34:44.480 --> 34:52.720]  or that the trailer be designed and used for the transportation of dogs or livestock or
[34:52.720 --> 34:58.440]  that the motor vehicle be a school bus that has passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection.
[34:58.440 --> 35:04.160]  And you've just testified that not a single one of these provisions applies in my case.
[35:04.160 --> 35:10.000]  Now, the prosecutor almost certainly is going to be jumping up and objecting and trying
[35:10.000 --> 35:14.800]  to introduce the city ordinance as the charging law, but we're going to overcome that argument
[35:14.800 --> 35:23.280]  as well. The city attorney is going to jump up objection, Your Honor. The charge is under
[35:23.280 --> 35:27.320]  city law, specifically ordinance such and such, and the defendant is already aware of
[35:27.320 --> 35:33.240]  that fact, to which you as the defendant are going to say objection. The city attorney
[35:33.240 --> 35:40.280]  is testifying as to what the accused is personally aware of. Not only is the city attorney testifying,
[35:40.280 --> 35:44.640]  but he or she is doing so in a manner that borders on contempt by perpetrating fraud
[35:44.640 --> 35:51.160]  upon this court. I demand the court take judicial notice of Texas Constitution Article 3, Section
[35:51.160 --> 35:59.200]  29 through Section 32, which clearly reads, Section 29, enacting clause of laws. The enacting
[35:59.200 --> 36:06.080]  clause of all law shall be, be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas.
[36:06.080 --> 36:13.200]  And then you're going to add the commentary. The city is not the Texas legislature. Therefore,
[36:13.200 --> 36:24.320]  the city has no constitutional authority whatsoever to make law that is binding upon the people.
[36:24.320 --> 36:31.640]  These are rules created internally by the cities themselves, and as such are binding
[36:31.640 --> 36:37.840]  only upon its own employees and contractors that have agreed to abide by those terms and
[36:37.840 --> 36:44.640]  conditions. To suggest otherwise is to assert that the Texas Constitution does not mean
[36:44.640 --> 36:52.720]  what it clearly says. In Section 30 of the Texas Constitution under Article 3, laws passed
[36:52.720 --> 37:00.000]  by bill amendments changing purpose. No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill
[37:00.000 --> 37:06.240]  shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.
[37:06.240 --> 37:12.160]  And your commentary is, not only was the specified city ordinance not written and enacted by
[37:12.160 --> 37:18.440]  the Texas legislature, it was not done by bill, which is the only constitutionally valid
[37:18.440 --> 37:23.680]  method of creating law binding upon the people of Texas.
[37:23.680 --> 37:30.480]  And in Section 31 for the court's judicial notice, origination in either house and amendment.
[37:30.480 --> 37:36.240]  Bills may originate in either house, and when passed by such house may be amended, altered,
[37:36.240 --> 37:42.960]  or rejected by the other. Once again, the specified city ordinance did not originate
[37:42.960 --> 37:48.400]  in either house of the Texas legislature, nor was it passed by either house, which is
[37:48.400 --> 37:54.640]  the only constitutionally valid method of creating law binding upon the people of Texas.
[37:54.640 --> 38:00.160]  And finally, I want the court to take judicial notice of Section 32, reading on three several
[38:00.160 --> 38:06.800]  days suspension of rule. No bill shall have the force of law until it has been read on
[38:06.800 --> 38:14.040]  three several days in each house, and free discussion allowed thereon. But four-fifths
[38:14.040 --> 38:20.040]  of the house in which the bill may be pending may suspend this rule, the yeas and nays being
[38:20.040 --> 38:24.760]  taken on the question of suspension and entered upon the journals.
[38:24.760 --> 38:30.960]  And your commentary will be, and yet again, the specified city ordinance was not read
[38:30.960 --> 38:36.440]  upon the floor of either house of the Texas legislature on three several days, nor was
[38:36.440 --> 38:41.640]  it voted on to pass such ordinance without the required reading by a four-fifths majority
[38:41.640 --> 38:47.880]  of the house in which the bill may be pending, nor was it passed by a bill that is pending
[38:47.880 --> 38:54.800]  in either house. This is another mandatory step for the only constitutionally valid method
[38:54.800 --> 38:59.640]  of creating law binding upon the people of Texas.
[38:59.640 --> 39:06.840]  So judge clearly, under the Texas Constitution, a city ordinance is not law that is binding
[39:06.840 --> 39:13.040]  upon the people. No matter how long such an unconstitutional practice has been utilized,
[39:13.040 --> 39:17.840]  and no matter how many lies have been told to the people regarding the validity of such
[39:17.840 --> 39:24.760]  practices by prosecutors, judges, and other commonly known liars, they are absolutely
[39:24.760 --> 39:28.800]  unconstitutional on their face.
[39:28.800 --> 39:34.900]  To it, the Texas legislature has no power and authority whatsoever to attempt to delegate
[39:34.900 --> 39:41.000]  its lawmaking powers to mere political subdivisions, and the internal rules of those political
[39:41.000 --> 39:49.080]  subdivisions cannot be acknowledged and applied as standing law upon the people.
[39:49.080 --> 39:53.400]  So then you're going to address the court according to the specific elements of this
[39:53.400 --> 40:03.280]  alleged defense as written in the Texas Transportation Code, Section 545.351 and 352. It is actually
[40:03.280 --> 40:11.440]  possible and lawful in Texas to travel at a speed in excess of the limit that is posted.
[40:11.440 --> 40:18.040]  Isn't it, officer? And he's either going to reply yes or no. We don't really care.
[40:18.040 --> 40:23.720]  If he says yes, it simply makes your case stronger. If he says no, the next thing we're
[40:23.720 --> 40:30.000]  going to do is going to prove him completely incompetent anyway. If he answers no, you
[40:30.000 --> 40:38.640]  then ask. You are certain that it is not possible to lawfully travel upon the roadways at a
[40:38.640 --> 40:45.120]  speed faster than the posted limit, even if there is no emergency. And the officer is
[40:45.120 --> 40:51.320]  going to say yes or no again. So you're then going to ask him, was the weather clear? And
[40:51.320 --> 40:57.920]  he's going to say yes or no. Was there any debris in the roadway? Most of the time the
[40:57.920 --> 41:05.880]  answer is going to be no. So I did not suddenly swerve my automobile to avoid any obstacles
[41:05.880 --> 41:14.080]  or other object in the roadway, correct? And the officer is going to say that's correct.
[41:14.080 --> 41:22.560]  Or no, you did not. Something to that effect. All right? So then we're going to ask, did
[41:22.560 --> 41:29.320]  you witness me do anything that unnecessarily caused another traveler on the roadway to
[41:29.320 --> 41:36.160]  have to avoid me? And the officer is going to say no. Then you ask, did I lose control
[41:36.160 --> 41:42.160]  of my automobile at any time? No, you did not. Did I cause anyone else to lose control
[41:42.160 --> 41:48.680]  of their automobile? No, you did not. Did I have an accident? No, you did not. Did I
[41:48.680 --> 41:54.920]  cause anyone else to have an accident? No, I did not. Or no, you did not. Officer, I
[41:54.920 --> 42:00.880]  need to be certain and I need the jury and the court to be certain so that we all fully
[42:00.880 --> 42:09.720]  understand your testimony thus far. Is it true pursuant Texas Transportation Code, Section
[42:09.720 --> 42:19.440]  545.351 and 352 that you did not actually witness me doing anything at all that was
[42:19.440 --> 42:26.600]  either unreasonable or imprudent under the circumstances then existing by doing any of
[42:26.600 --> 42:33.560]  the following? One, you've testified that the weather conditions were clear and therefore
[42:33.560 --> 42:41.200]  contributed no hazard to my travels. Is this correct? Yes. Your testimony is that there
[42:41.200 --> 42:46.200]  was no actual or potential hazards in the roadway that I was unable to avoid without
[42:46.200 --> 42:57.000]  A, losing control of my automobile, B, damaging someone else's property, C, having an accident,
[42:57.000 --> 43:05.040]  D, causing an accident, E, causing someone else to lose control of their automobile,
[43:05.040 --> 43:12.520]  F, causing someone else to damage another's property, G, causing someone else to have
[43:12.520 --> 43:22.000]  an accident, H, causing someone else to cause an accident, or I, generally causing myself
[43:22.000 --> 43:28.840]  or someone else to do any of the above things. Is that correct? And again, he's going to
[43:28.840 --> 43:37.800]  answer yes or no. All right, last break. I have just only a very few of these to go so
[43:37.800 --> 43:41.600]  David please hang in there. I will get finished on the other side and take your call. This
[43:41.600 --> 43:47.480]  is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, 512-646-1984 is the call in number.
[43:47.480 --> 44:00.120]  We will be on the other side of the break so please hang in there.
[44:00.120 --> 44:06.160]  Attention an important product from hempusa.org micro plant powder will change your life by
[44:06.160 --> 44:11.680]  removing all types of positive toxins such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses
[44:11.680 --> 44:16.840]  and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients. Micro plant
[44:16.840 --> 44:22.560]  powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive toxins from
[44:22.560 --> 44:27.840]  the blood, organs, spine and brain. This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone
[44:27.840 --> 44:33.240]  which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints. Silica is a precursor to calcium meaning
[44:33.240 --> 44:38.200]  the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart. There is no better time
[44:38.200 --> 44:43.040]  than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage shelter and with
[44:43.040 --> 44:51.560]  an unlimited shelf life you can store it anywhere. Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org. It's
[44:51.560 --> 45:01.960]  a great way to change your life so call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:01.960 --> 45:09.240]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense of well being. How many supplements
[45:09.240 --> 45:15.040]  have you heard boast of these benefits? The team behind Shentrition believes that supplements
[45:15.040 --> 45:22.560]  should over deliver on their promises and Shentrition does just that. Shentrition utilizes
[45:22.560 --> 45:27.520]  the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine in conjunction with the science of modern
[45:27.520 --> 45:33.280]  nutrition. Adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component and organic hemp protein
[45:33.280 --> 45:40.600]  in greens and super foods act as a balanced nutrient base. Plus Shentrition tastes great
[45:40.600 --> 45:48.240]  in just water. This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product and it's all natural.
[45:48.240 --> 45:57.980]  Visit Shentrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436. After you use Shentrition
[45:57.980 --> 46:04.980]  you'll believe in supplements again.
[46:27.980 --> 46:35.480]  Shentrition.com
[46:57.980 --> 47:13.680]  Alright folks we are back Rule of Law Radio. This is Eddie Craig and Debra Stevens. I am
[47:13.680 --> 47:19.480]  going over the cross examination and direct examination questions of an officer in a speeding
[47:19.480 --> 47:25.040]  ticket case. We've just gone through a list of things that we're wanting to clarify for
[47:25.040 --> 47:31.080]  necessary points here and now we're down to asking our next question to the officer. Officer
[47:31.080 --> 47:36.240]  do you have the personal or technological capability while acting in your personal or
[47:36.240 --> 47:44.760]  official capacity to read other people's minds? No. Then how did you come to the determination
[47:44.760 --> 47:50.520]  that I was willfully failing to be reasonable and prudent as well as not taking due care
[47:50.520 --> 47:57.400]  to regard the potential hazards then existing while engaged in my travels? The officer is
[47:57.400 --> 48:01.040]  going to say I just saw that you were traveling faster than the posted speed limit for that
[48:01.040 --> 48:04.480]  section of highway which is a violation of the law so I pulled you over and wrote you
[48:04.480 --> 48:11.840]  a ticket. Objection. Officer you have just testified that I never violated any provision
[48:11.840 --> 48:22.560]  whatsoever of either Texas transportation code 545.351 or 352. Isn't that correct? Again
[48:22.560 --> 48:28.240]  he's going to say yes or no. Then you're going to say didn't you just admit in your testimony
[48:28.240 --> 48:33.760]  that I had not violated even a single one of the provisions of those sections? He's
[48:33.760 --> 48:41.920]  going to have to finally admit yes I did. Then let me ask you this. If you still insist
[48:41.920 --> 48:47.360]  that I violated some law but have admitted that it was not the law you accused me under
[48:47.360 --> 48:53.440]  then what specific law did I allegedly violate? At that point he's going to say I don't know.
[48:53.440 --> 49:01.240]  Or the prosecution is going to object. Object right back. The officer made a legal accusation
[49:01.240 --> 49:07.920]  that caused me harm and put me on trial today. I have the right to know where he got the
[49:07.920 --> 49:18.880]  accusation from. And I demand he tell the court. Well he's going to stick with I don't
[49:18.880 --> 49:26.120]  know. So you're going to say you don't know. You don't know. Officer didn't you testify
[49:26.120 --> 49:33.400]  earlier that you were absolutely certain that I had allegedly committed the act of speeding?
[49:33.400 --> 49:39.480]  And of course he did so he's going to have to say yes. And didn't we just go through
[49:39.480 --> 49:46.600]  the specific statutes that relate to that charge? And again he's going to have to say
[49:46.600 --> 49:54.840]  yes. Okay officer once again didn't you just agree that I did not violate any provision
[49:54.840 --> 50:03.640]  of those sections? Yes. Then let me ask you my last question officer. Were you committing
[50:03.640 --> 50:08.400]  aggravated perjury when you signed the complaint against me or did you commit aggravated perjury
[50:08.400 --> 50:15.120]  while you were here on the witness stand? He's not going to want to answer. The prosecution
[50:15.120 --> 50:19.920]  is most likely going to jump up and object and once again object right back. He had to
[50:19.920 --> 50:25.520]  have lied somewhere. He just admitted that I didn't violate any of the statutes. If I
[50:25.520 --> 50:30.000]  didn't violate it during the testimony here I couldn't have violated it on the side of
[50:30.000 --> 50:35.440]  the road the day he accused me. All I want him to admit is at which time did he commit
[50:35.440 --> 50:41.800]  the criminal act of aggravated perjury? Unless the officer would like to invoke his fifth
[50:41.800 --> 50:51.520]  amendment rights at this time. So then you look squarely at the judge. Judge I hereby
[50:51.520 --> 50:57.720]  move the court to strike all testimony by this witness as she or he has perjured him
[50:57.720 --> 51:03.880]  or herself during these proceedings or at the very least in the initial filing of the
[51:03.880 --> 51:09.840]  complaint against me. This would also apply to the citation issued by this witness and
[51:09.840 --> 51:15.880]  upon which the complaint is based. I further move the court to officially sanction the
[51:15.880 --> 51:22.280]  city attorney for the following offenses, abuse of process, bringing a frivolous charge
[51:22.280 --> 51:29.440]  before the court for malicious prosecution, for baritory and for prosecutorial misconduct
[51:29.440 --> 51:35.800]  and lastly denying me and my constitutionally protected unalienable rights of due process
[51:35.800 --> 51:43.320]  and assistance of counsel. I also inform the court of my intention to file bar grievances
[51:43.320 --> 51:47.480]  and criminal complaints with the grand jury against the city attorney for each of these
[51:47.480 --> 51:53.640]  offenses. Further I notice the magistrate of this court that I will be filing judicial
[51:53.640 --> 52:00.400]  conduct complaints, bar grievances and criminal complaints against you as magistrate and judge
[52:00.400 --> 52:06.800]  for acting without jurisdiction in this matter, ignoring written pleadings of a defendant,
[52:06.800 --> 52:12.720]  acting with a biased agenda and on behalf of the prosecution, criminal conspiracy, deprivation
[52:12.720 --> 52:18.760]  of rights, especially the right of due process and refusing to ensure me the full protection
[52:18.760 --> 52:24.400]  of the constitution and laws of Texas and finally I move the court to dismiss these
[52:24.400 --> 52:32.400]  proceedings with prejudice. You don't back down, you don't give up and you get all of
[52:32.400 --> 52:40.840]  this on the record. Okay, that is the culmination of direct and cross-examination of a police
[52:40.840 --> 52:46.560]  officer. This will get larger, it will get more finely tuned and more specific. This
[52:46.560 --> 52:51.880]  is what I managed to write in three hours today, okay? All right, Deborah, I believe
[52:51.880 --> 52:55.720]  we are ready to start taking calls. Okay, we got some callers on the board. We got David
[52:55.720 --> 53:00.440]  from California. That was really good by the way, Eddie. Thank you. And very entertaining
[53:00.440 --> 53:05.760]  as well. Okay, David from California and then we've got Dominic. David, thanks for calling
[53:05.760 --> 53:11.600]  in. What is your question or comment tonight? Hey guys, how are you doing? Well, I did something
[53:11.600 --> 53:21.440]  actually really stupid. I got a hold of some coach cases, you know, for iPhones, the back
[53:21.440 --> 53:29.760]  coach cases and I decided like a dummy to go sell them on eBay and it looks like I got
[53:29.760 --> 53:33.880]  a letter today, like I guess you guys called it a tort letter, my brother-in-law was telling
[53:33.880 --> 53:43.720]  me. And in there, they're asking me to produce my seller ID for eBay, how many pieces I sold
[53:43.720 --> 53:50.800]  and what the sales were of it. From whom? Who sent this? It was an attorney. There's
[53:50.800 --> 54:00.960]  an attorney, some attorney in office that sent me this. Who are they representing? Coach
[54:00.960 --> 54:15.080]  Inc. for infringement of their, I guess of their name, Coach Inc. I don't- You sold it
[54:15.080 --> 54:20.720]  on eBay under their name or you sold it under yours as their product? I sold it on eBay
[54:20.720 --> 54:27.000]  under my name and I sold one actually and then eBay knocked it off. They say, oh, you
[54:27.000 --> 54:30.840]  can't sell it that way, you got to sell it, you know. Well, I don't quite understand.
[54:30.840 --> 54:37.800]  People buy and sell products all the time and they typically document- They typically
[54:37.800 --> 54:44.040]  document what the product- No, wait a minute. They typically document what the product is.
[54:44.040 --> 54:50.640]  I mean, if you're going to sell- These are- I don't think these are real coach. Oh. And
[54:50.640 --> 54:56.800]  so I think they're, yeah, they said that I guess they're trying to- They want me to produce
[54:56.800 --> 55:03.960]  all this stuff and then they want me to pay them 425 bucks to go away. Well, first thing
[55:03.960 --> 55:09.120]  is you're going to challenge agency. Who are you to think that you can threaten me with
[55:09.120 --> 55:17.160]  anything? Who do you represent and show me the proof by getting the principal to send
[55:17.160 --> 55:22.720]  me something in writing stating that you represent them? Okay. Now, let me make certain of what
[55:22.720 --> 55:27.440]  we're dealing with here. You said these are applets or applications or something for
[55:27.440 --> 55:33.600]  the iPhone? Yeah. No, it's like a back case, you know. It's a case. Okay, okay. I understand
[55:33.600 --> 55:37.320]  what's going on. I think I understand what's going on because I was going to say if somebody
[55:37.320 --> 55:43.600]  sells Acme bricks on eBay, I mean, I don't see why the Acme company would have reason
[55:43.600 --> 55:50.560]  to sue, but if they weren't genuine Acme-made bricks and you're selling them as Acme bricks,
[55:50.560 --> 55:55.720]  well, I can see why the Acme company would have cause to sue and send toilet layers.
[55:55.720 --> 56:01.400]  So is that the situation here? These are not genuine coach cases, but you were purporting
[56:01.400 --> 56:05.960]  them to be coach at the time? Yeah, I did. And then eBay said you can't sell them like
[56:05.960 --> 56:10.480]  that. So I put it back on there and I removed the coach stuff off there and said these are
[56:10.480 --> 56:18.400]  not coach. Okay. And so they decided to come after me for that. Okay. Well, the question
[56:18.400 --> 56:25.080]  here, it's kind of twofold. First thing is why would you call a live on air radio show
[56:25.080 --> 56:31.840]  and admit you just possibly committed a crime that could put you in jail? Yeah. Okay. The
[56:31.840 --> 56:38.960]  second problem you have here is did you knowingly do this and don't answer that question on
[56:38.960 --> 56:45.240]  the air, but you need to think real hard about it. But if you actually knew they weren't
[56:45.240 --> 56:50.480]  coach and you put it up there, you have a real issue. The only defense you have at the
[56:50.480 --> 56:58.240]  moment is, is this attorney someone that has the authority to make that issue? Right. Okay.
[56:58.240 --> 57:04.880]  Okay. Now, if you can honestly say that you honestly thought they were and then found
[57:04.880 --> 57:14.440]  out they were not, that's another matter. But if you knew beforehand and did that, that's
[57:14.440 --> 57:18.840]  something you're going to have a hard time moving out from under. If you had some documentation
[57:18.840 --> 57:26.220]  like from where you got them to show that you were misled, that you bought them believing
[57:26.220 --> 57:34.040]  that they were genuine coach or whatever, that would be helpful, I think. Okay. Okay.
[57:34.040 --> 57:41.640]  Got you. All right. Do you think it'd be stupid of me to contact the attorney, their attorneys?
[57:41.640 --> 57:47.320]  You need to contact him, but you also at the same time need to tell him that I don't know
[57:47.320 --> 57:55.240]  who you are. And before you communicate with me any further, I want the principle that
[57:55.240 --> 58:04.520]  you allegedly represent to contact me and verify your agency with them. Got you. Okay.
[58:04.520 --> 58:10.000]  So their agency with them. Because agency cannot be proven from the mouth of the agent
[58:10.000 --> 58:15.440]  that must be proven from the mouth of the principal and the attorney is not the principal.
[58:15.440 --> 58:25.160]  Okay. Unless he can show you that he is a shareholder or owner in coach. Got you. Okay.
[58:25.160 --> 58:31.400]  Do you have anything else, David? That's the first step, I would believe. And then depending
[58:31.400 --> 58:36.400]  on their response, we would take it from there. Did you also have another question? Well,
[58:36.400 --> 58:41.840]  they gave me like three days to respond. Okay. Why don't you stay? Did you have another question
[58:41.840 --> 58:45.840]  though? You know, my brother-in-law did. My brother-in-law's here. Okay. All right. Hold
[58:45.840 --> 58:50.480]  on. Hold on the line. We're about to go to break. We will continue this call when we
[58:50.480 --> 58:55.400]  get back. We've also got Dominic from Texas after that. Open phone lines. 512-646-1984.
[58:55.400 --> 59:02.420]  Folks, if you'd like to call in and ask a question. The Bible remains the most popular
[59:02.420 --> 59:07.480]  book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand
[59:07.480 --> 59:13.880]  it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:13.880 --> 59:20.920]  the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation
[59:20.920 --> 59:26.840]  is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory
[59:26.840 --> 59:32.840]  footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing
[59:32.840 --> 59:38.280]  an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles
[59:38.280 --> 59:44.120]  for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This
[59:44.120 --> 59:53.880]  comprehensive, yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:53.880 --> 01:00:01.240]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. This news brief
[01:00:01.240 --> 01:00:06.360]  brought to you by the International News Net. South Koreans are waiting to see if North
[01:00:06.360 --> 01:00:11.040]  Korea will make good on its threat to take military action in response to the South's
[01:00:11.040 --> 01:00:16.080]  artillery drill Monday. The exercise came hours after an emergency meeting of the UN
[01:00:16.080 --> 01:00:21.120]  Security Council failed to ease tensions. South Korea fired artillery into the Yellow
[01:00:21.120 --> 01:00:26.920]  Sea for 90 minutes. North Korea claims that area is its territory and has warned it could
[01:00:26.920 --> 01:00:31.640]  lead to war. The Senate Saturday repealed the military's
[01:00:31.640 --> 01:00:36.360]  Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, which banned openly gay men and women from serving in the
[01:00:36.360 --> 01:00:41.920]  armed forces. Fred Sands of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, an advocacy group that pushed
[01:00:41.920 --> 01:00:46.240]  for the repeal said, quote, if you can fight and die for your country, there's absolutely
[01:00:46.240 --> 01:00:50.880]  no reason why you can't be granted the full set of rights all Americans have, such as
[01:00:50.880 --> 01:00:58.080]  marriage. Two US drone attacks killed at least 15 people Friday in Northwest Pakistan's
[01:00:58.080 --> 01:01:03.640]  Khyber tribal region. Pakistani officials have protested the more than 100 missile attacks
[01:01:03.640 --> 01:01:08.240]  this year, but are believed to have secretly authorized at least some of them. Analysts
[01:01:08.240 --> 01:01:16.040]  also say targeting information for many of the attacks was provided by Pakistani intelligence.
[01:01:16.040 --> 01:01:21.620]  Washington Post Monday exposed new information on the US domestic spy program, including
[01:01:21.620 --> 01:01:27.000]  the increased involvement of local police and anonymous citizens. The Post investigation
[01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:32.040]  found the FBI is building a database with the names and personal information of thousands
[01:01:32.040 --> 01:01:36.880]  of US residents, whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen, such as a neighbor or
[01:01:36.880 --> 01:01:42.440]  coworker, might have reported for acting suspiciously. The database is accessible to an increasing
[01:01:42.440 --> 01:01:47.800]  number of local law enforcement and military criminal investigators. The Post also found
[01:01:47.800 --> 01:01:52.760]  the technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan,
[01:01:52.760 --> 01:01:57.480]  such as infrared digital camera surveillance, have found their way into the hands of local
[01:01:57.480 --> 01:02:02.840]  traffic cops. Reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin wrote their findings, quote, paint
[01:02:02.840 --> 01:02:07.960]  a picture of a country at a crossroads where longstanding privacy principles are under
[01:02:07.960 --> 01:02:13.600]  challenge. More than 30 million people have been arrested since President Ronald Reagan
[01:02:13.600 --> 01:02:20.660]  launched his war on drugs in 1982, but the recession has many once gung-ho drug war enthusiasts
[01:02:20.660 --> 01:02:25.520]  doubting whether it is still worth it. The conservative Heritage Foundation recently
[01:02:25.520 --> 01:02:30.900]  issued a report calling for the elimination of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
[01:02:30.900 --> 01:02:36.760]  and the Justice Assistant Grant Program. Eighteen state legislatures have reduced or eliminated
[01:02:36.760 --> 01:02:42.040]  harsh mandatory minimum sentences, and more than two dozen are offering treatment instead
[01:02:42.040 --> 01:02:47.000]  of incarceration for some drug offenders. The drug war has cost more than one trillion
[01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:52.600]  dollars, and its primary targets, African Americans, have constituted 80 to 90 percent
[01:02:52.600 --> 01:03:19.920]  of imprisoned drug offenders.
[01:03:22.600 --> 01:03:38.120]  Okay, folks, we are back. Hour two. We're taking your calls. Now we've got Martin in
[01:03:38.120 --> 01:03:42.960]  California with a question on traffic. Okay, Martin, go ahead. What is your question?
[01:03:42.960 --> 01:03:48.200]  Hey, guys. How you doing? Pretty good. So my situation isn't as serious
[01:03:48.200 --> 01:03:58.560]  as David's. Mine was a traffic violation for taking or failing to obey a sign on a
[01:03:58.560 --> 01:04:05.200]  right turn. So today was my arraignment, and I haven't been listening to you guys for
[01:04:05.200 --> 01:04:11.680]  too long, but I know there's a guy out here named Rick, and I watch his YouTube videos
[01:04:11.680 --> 01:04:19.320]  and stuff like that. He seems to be really knowledgeable. Anyhow, I went into court and
[01:04:19.320 --> 01:04:25.320]  took a few documents with me. I took in a request for a verified complaint and a demurrer
[01:04:25.320 --> 01:04:33.560]  to the notice to appear, and I didn't answer a plea today. I filed, like I said, the verified
[01:04:33.560 --> 01:04:40.920]  complaint. He dismissed the verified complaint and said that he would hear my demurrer on
[01:04:40.920 --> 01:04:46.840]  January 18th, and he entered a not guilty plea for me. I objected to it, and he noted
[01:04:46.840 --> 01:04:56.520]  my objection. So I think what I'm going to do on January 18th is a preparatory challenge
[01:04:56.520 --> 01:05:02.880]  and a removal of the court entered plea. I just want to know what you guys thought of
[01:05:02.880 --> 01:05:04.520]  that. Sounds fine.
[01:05:04.520 --> 01:05:09.680]  Does that sound about right to you? Yeah, sounds as good a move as any at this
[01:05:09.680 --> 01:05:14.480]  point. If you can show that the court's acting without jurisdiction and proper complaint,
[01:05:14.480 --> 01:05:17.920]  then you should be able to do that very easily.
[01:05:17.920 --> 01:05:25.320]  Yeah, I actually got it all on a little recorder. I was listening to the show the other day,
[01:05:25.320 --> 01:05:29.400]  and I heard you talking to a guy and said, did you finally get a little recorder? I said,
[01:05:29.400 --> 01:05:33.440]  I better get a recorder. I took my recorder in there. I set it right on the table, and
[01:05:33.440 --> 01:05:37.760]  I don't know if they didn't notice it, but no one said anything, so I left the recording
[01:05:37.760 --> 01:05:42.520]  and recorded the whole thing. Just be real careful. Make sure you check
[01:05:42.520 --> 01:05:47.880]  your state laws. Here in Texas, only one party to a conversation needs to be apprised that
[01:05:47.880 --> 01:05:52.760]  it is being recorded. Other states have different laws.
[01:05:52.760 --> 01:05:58.040]  Gotcha. Now, virtually every state in a public place,
[01:05:58.040 --> 01:06:03.000]  there's no such requirement, though we have seen cases like the one up in Pennsylvania
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:10.840]  and where was the other with that guy on the motorcycle, where they tried to get him for
[01:06:10.840 --> 01:06:15.800]  wiretapping, even though it was obvious that he was in a public place and he was openly
[01:06:15.800 --> 01:06:17.560]  recording. Yeah, I don't think there's any reason for
[01:06:17.560 --> 01:06:22.800]  this particular privacy, but I don't know about the court. There probably is. You probably
[01:06:22.800 --> 01:06:28.680]  have to get permission from the judge or something. Well, the court, that doesn't matter. If you'll
[01:06:28.680 --> 01:06:32.960]  check your state statutes like the ones here in Texas, it's very clear that the courts
[01:06:32.960 --> 01:06:38.480]  cannot stop you from recording there because 2.05 Code of Criminal Procedure says that
[01:06:38.480 --> 01:06:45.640]  they shall respect a free press. Oh, interesting. I guarantee you then, or I
[01:06:45.640 --> 01:06:50.160]  can't guarantee you, but I bet anything that it's the same here, because here it is legal
[01:06:50.160 --> 01:06:55.400]  to record in court, but then it states that you have to have permission from the judge.
[01:06:55.400 --> 01:06:59.040]  Now, someone stated that, but it is legal to record in court.
[01:06:59.040 --> 01:07:04.320]  Well, yeah. Most of the courts try to say that it's their policy. Well, to hell with
[01:07:04.320 --> 01:07:08.120]  your policy. Your policy is not binding on me. It's only binding on your employees.
[01:07:08.120 --> 01:07:12.280]  That's right. And as a defendant, I'm having a record because
[01:07:12.280 --> 01:07:15.880]  I can't trust you to keep an accurate one, so I'm recording it, and I'm not going to
[01:07:15.880 --> 01:07:19.680]  tell you I'm recording it. This is for my protection.
[01:07:19.680 --> 01:07:26.240]  Yeah, I've got to look that up, because that's probably the same case here, but I guess I'll
[01:07:26.240 --> 01:07:33.640]  find out. Now, probably what's going to happen, or hopefully
[01:07:33.640 --> 01:07:48.000]  what happens is that the commissioner is removed from my case by filing my motions to dismiss
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:53.080]  the judge from my case. Recusing or disqualifying?
[01:07:53.080 --> 01:07:57.520]  Disqualifying. Okay.
[01:07:57.520 --> 01:08:01.960]  And if that happens, then I'll probably get a new commissioner, and it'll probably continue
[01:08:01.960 --> 01:08:07.920]  from there. But anyway, I just wanted to check and see if those motions seemed proper.
[01:08:07.920 --> 01:08:13.120]  Yeah. If you like, if you will send me an email,
[01:08:13.120 --> 01:08:17.000]  I can put you directly in touch with Rick. He's giving me permission to give out a phone
[01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:21.400]  number for him, for those of you in California that are listening. If you want somebody that's
[01:08:21.400 --> 01:08:25.480]  out there doing in California, what I'm doing in Texas, Rick's your guy.
[01:08:25.480 --> 01:08:28.360]  Yeah, Rick's your guy. But if you will send me an email offline, I'm
[01:08:28.360 --> 01:08:33.440]  not going to say his number over the air, but if you will give me an email, I will send
[01:08:33.440 --> 01:08:35.760]  you his phone number so you can contact him directly.
[01:08:35.760 --> 01:08:38.760]  Yeah, I have his phone number. Oh, okay.
[01:08:38.760 --> 01:08:41.440]  All right. In fact, I've sent him a few people because
[01:08:41.440 --> 01:08:44.840]  a few people said, hey, how do you do? I'm like, dude, I don't know, man. I'm just starting
[01:08:44.840 --> 01:08:47.880]  doing this. You need to call this guy so I can give him his phone number.
[01:08:47.880 --> 01:08:50.360]  Yeah. Because I don't want to get any... I mean,
[01:08:50.360 --> 01:08:53.560]  you see I'm struggling with my... Well, he would be intimately more familiar
[01:08:53.560 --> 01:08:59.160]  with the proper paperwork at any particular point of the procedure than I would or Randy
[01:08:59.160 --> 01:09:04.920]  would at this point. But what you're talking about as far as getting it out of the hands
[01:09:04.920 --> 01:09:09.360]  of the court because of a lack of jurisdiction or something of that effect, you could just
[01:09:09.360 --> 01:09:13.240]  do a motion to dismiss, though he said he's going to listen to your demure, which can
[01:09:13.240 --> 01:09:18.640]  be used for the same purpose. Right. Right. Yeah, he said he'll listen to
[01:09:18.640 --> 01:09:27.640]  it on the next... You know what's funny? He tried to get me to pay bail and it's funny
[01:09:27.640 --> 01:09:34.400]  because when I started, I objected the proceeding and I requested a verified complaint and extended
[01:09:34.400 --> 01:09:38.320]  time to plea and he goes, no, I'll give you extended time to plea. I'm going to deny your
[01:09:38.320 --> 01:09:44.360]  verified complaint and then... How's he going to deny you a verified complaint?
[01:09:44.360 --> 01:09:48.080]  Doesn't that have to exist before he has jurisdiction to hear the case?
[01:09:48.080 --> 01:09:53.880]  Exactly. Well, he said that the citation is the verified complaint. I said according to
[01:09:53.880 --> 01:09:58.640]  Code 853.9, it's a verified complaint. Only if I accept it as a verified complaint in
[01:09:58.640 --> 01:10:03.080]  writing at the court and I do not do that and I do not accept it as a verified complaint.
[01:10:03.080 --> 01:10:07.080]  He goes, well, it's a verified complaint and that's that. We're not talking about it.
[01:10:07.080 --> 01:10:15.200]  Oh, okay. Then file a judicial conduct complaint and if he's an attorney, file a bar grievance
[01:10:15.200 --> 01:10:20.240]  for direct and intentionally knowing violation of that particular statute.
[01:10:20.240 --> 01:10:23.920]  Right. He knows very well that you are the only one
[01:10:23.920 --> 01:10:30.280]  that has the power and authority to waive that as a valid verified complaint, not him.
[01:10:30.280 --> 01:10:33.880]  If you did not waive it, he can't do it for you.
[01:10:33.880 --> 01:10:37.040]  Right. Based upon what you're telling me, the statute
[01:10:37.040 --> 01:10:42.440]  says it's written that way. Yeah, it is. It is. I mean, there's more to
[01:10:42.440 --> 01:10:47.840]  that statute, but yeah. You have to submit it in writing to the court and of course I
[01:10:47.840 --> 01:10:54.200]  didn't. He just dismissed it. I said, okay. Well, you know what? That's okay. I figured
[01:10:54.200 --> 01:10:58.800]  I'd... Well, do remember everything you do, do it
[01:10:58.800 --> 01:11:00.560]  in writing. Oh, yeah.
[01:11:00.560 --> 01:11:06.000]  Don't ever do it orally unless you've already done it in writing and then stick to whatever
[01:11:06.000 --> 01:11:09.720]  you wrote if you do give oral dissertation on it.
[01:11:09.720 --> 01:11:17.240]  Right. Yeah, no. All I did was basically file my motions and then read off of my motions
[01:11:17.240 --> 01:11:23.640]  in court trying to stick to that. All right, any other questions you got for us then?
[01:11:23.640 --> 01:11:27.240]  You guys are awesome. Keep up the good work. Thank you.
[01:11:27.240 --> 01:11:28.240]  Thank you. Thank you guys.
[01:11:28.240 --> 01:11:30.920]  Okay. Thanks, David. I mean, thanks to Martin.
[01:11:30.920 --> 01:11:35.800]  Okay. All right. We are going now to Dominic in Texas. Dominic, thanks for calling in.
[01:11:35.800 --> 01:11:38.640]  What's on your mind tonight? Well, first of all, how are you all doing this
[01:11:38.640 --> 01:11:40.760]  evening? We're doing pretty good. Thank you.
[01:11:40.760 --> 01:11:46.520]  That's good. I finally took you all up on the offer to go and get some cheap entertainment
[01:11:46.520 --> 01:11:54.120]  and go and be a court washer. I went in today. Well, I had to go and see if there was anything
[01:11:54.120 --> 01:12:03.840]  in my file because I did get a running a stop sign. I went in and I got a suit and I got
[01:12:03.840 --> 01:12:10.360]  my Samsonite briefcase and I was able to go in with quite a few recording devices without
[01:12:10.360 --> 01:12:17.240]  any questions. Also, when I was in the courtroom, and I hadn't
[01:12:17.240 --> 01:12:23.160]  heard this before, but the judge had notified the people that were sitting and waiting to
[01:12:23.160 --> 01:12:30.560]  talk to the prosecuting attorneys that anything that they told the prosecuting attorneys could
[01:12:30.560 --> 01:12:37.880]  be used against them. I never noticed any of the prosecuting attorneys mentioning that
[01:12:37.880 --> 01:12:43.960]  to the people that they talked to. Before I left that courtroom, I went up to the judge
[01:12:43.960 --> 01:12:48.760]  and I asked him for the name of each and every one of those prosecuting attorneys. He was
[01:12:48.760 --> 01:12:55.840]  more than happy to give them to me, including the spelling. How important is it for me to
[01:12:55.840 --> 01:13:01.720]  file bar grievance? Do I need their bar card number?
[01:13:01.720 --> 01:13:07.000]  It would help. Okay. I'll have to get that also.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:12.080]  Well, you should be able to look up their names online. If you know what court they're
[01:13:12.080 --> 01:13:18.520]  in, that would give you the city. Unless you've got identical names for more than one attorney
[01:13:18.520 --> 01:13:22.160]  in the city, that would be the only reason you shouldn't be able to look up his bar number
[01:13:22.160 --> 01:13:26.920]  on the bar website that way. Yeah, because one of them was the chief prosecuting
[01:13:26.920 --> 01:13:30.720]  attorney. That one shouldn't be too hard to find.
[01:13:30.720 --> 01:13:37.400]  Well, but if this is a city, depending upon its size, there can be several city prosecuting
[01:13:37.400 --> 01:13:42.000]  attorneys or several assistant county attorneys and so on and so forth.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:45.000]  I got their first and last name, including the spelling.
[01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:48.440]  Right. Yeah, that should narrow down.
[01:13:48.440 --> 01:14:00.040]  I did go and ask to see what all was in the folder for the traffic citation. There's nothing
[01:14:00.040 --> 01:14:06.880]  other than the traffic citation, surprisingly. How much time do they have to put that in
[01:14:06.880 --> 01:14:13.100]  there? Can they wait until the date of... No later than 10 days prior to any proceeding
[01:14:13.100 --> 01:14:16.760]  in the prosecution of the case, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:14:16.760 --> 01:14:22.520]  Excellent, because I'm supposed to be going there on the 29th, which is nine days away,
[01:14:22.520 --> 01:14:28.200]  and it's still not in there. First, they didn't want to help me. They gave
[01:14:28.200 --> 01:14:33.120]  me anything in writing, but I persisted and I did get something in writing stating that
[01:14:33.120 --> 01:14:40.720]  the only thing in there was a citation. Yeah. Let's see. I can give you the specific section
[01:14:40.720 --> 01:14:54.000]  of statute that we're talking about. Let's see. It is 45.018, complaint. Subsection B,
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:00.000]  a defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant not later than the day
[01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:07.600]  before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint. The
[01:15:07.600 --> 01:15:14.400]  defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection. They're required to give
[01:15:14.400 --> 01:15:21.260]  you notice of a complaint no later than 10 days prior to any proceeding. There's also
[01:15:21.260 --> 01:15:28.560]  a section in chapter 45 that says that you must object to the contents of any complaint
[01:15:28.560 --> 01:15:36.000]  no later than one day before the trial on the merits as to its contents, subject matter,
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:40.960]  or whatever you deem inappropriate or incorrect about the complaint. Well, I'm standing fast
[01:15:40.960 --> 01:15:46.480]  on the ground that if you give me notice, you must provide me with a copy because the
[01:15:46.480 --> 01:15:54.280]  Constitution and Article 1.05 and 1.051 Code of Criminal Procedure both state that I have
[01:15:54.280 --> 01:15:59.920]  the right to know the nature and cause and to have a copy thereof. Now, I have to have
[01:15:59.920 --> 01:16:06.920]  time as a defendant to analyze the information in that complaint, to verify its contents,
[01:16:06.920 --> 01:16:13.520]  and to write up my objection to its contents or to at least collect my thoughts as to the
[01:16:13.520 --> 01:16:19.200]  object that I'm going to make about the contents. So I stand on the ground that they have to
[01:16:19.200 --> 01:16:25.760]  give it to you more than one day in advance of the trial because you have to object to
[01:16:25.760 --> 01:16:30.960]  it no later than one day prior to trial on the merits.
[01:16:30.960 --> 01:16:37.400]  Okay. Okay. Now, folks, I'll wait until the break is over.
[01:16:37.400 --> 01:16:42.960]  Okay. Hi, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. We were taking
[01:16:42.960 --> 01:16:49.680]  your calls, 512-646-1984. If you have a question or comment about tonight, please give us a
[01:16:49.680 --> 01:16:56.680]  call, and we will be right back, so please hang in to the other side of the break.
[01:17:19.680 --> 01:17:27.680]  Thank you.
[01:17:49.680 --> 01:17:56.680]  Thank you.
[01:18:19.680 --> 01:18:26.680]  Thank you.
[01:18:49.680 --> 01:18:57.680]  Thank you.
[01:19:20.680 --> 01:19:27.680]  Okay, folks. We are back. We're speaking with our callers. We've got Dominic from Texas.
[01:19:27.680 --> 01:19:34.680]  And before we go back to Dominic, just quickly, folks, don't forget our great products, our
[01:19:34.680 --> 01:19:41.680]  great sponsors. One of our best-selling products, of course, is the Rule of Law Radio Traffic
[01:19:49.680 --> 01:19:56.680]  Seminar, Eddie's Traffic Seminar. We're going like hotcakes. We're going like hotcakes.
[01:19:56.680 --> 01:20:03.680]  We're going like hotcakes. We'd make a great Christmas gift. So, folks, you can get the
[01:20:07.680 --> 01:20:13.680]  traffic seminar at ruleoflawradio.com. That includes Eddie's book, and it also includes
[01:20:13.680 --> 01:20:19.680]  the audio from the seminar. And also, folks, don't forget, capital coin and bullion, or
[01:20:19.680 --> 01:20:27.220]  or bullion, not bullion, okay bullion is like the cubes you make soup with, bullion is of
[01:20:27.220 --> 01:20:33.680]  course the precious metals, Chad, he's got a great shop, he's just, him and his wife,
[01:20:33.680 --> 01:20:39.360]  Becky, they're just great people and very, very reasonable price, hardly any markup at
[01:20:39.360 --> 01:20:43.200]  all, honestly I don't see how the guy can stay in business, so folks for all your precious
[01:20:43.200 --> 01:20:50.640]  metals needs buying and selling, please visit capitalcoinandbullion.com, there's a banner
[01:20:50.640 --> 01:20:55.400]  link on the website, ruleoflawradio.com, if you're in Austin you can go to the store and
[01:20:55.400 --> 01:21:03.720]  visit 5448 Burnett Road and they've also got a new store in Georgetown, so you can go to
[01:21:03.720 --> 01:21:07.360]  their website to get that location, I don't have it off the top of my head, of course
[01:21:07.360 --> 01:21:13.560]  Centrition, Jurisdictionary, all the great products, you can see all of our great sponsors
[01:21:13.560 --> 01:21:20.640]  and Michael Mears Method for dealing with debt collectors and creditors, 100% track
[01:21:20.640 --> 01:21:24.880]  record, all the listeners who are participating in this method, who are employing Michael
[01:21:24.880 --> 01:21:30.800]  Mears Method, they're all winning all their cases, so definitely recommend that and folks
[01:21:30.800 --> 01:21:38.680]  also concerning Eddie's book fund, people, we're almost there, all right, Eddie needs
[01:21:38.680 --> 01:21:45.200]  $350 to purchase the judges training manuals so that we can sue the crapola out of these
[01:21:45.200 --> 01:21:50.440]  people for their improprieties in their training methods and so far...
[01:21:50.440 --> 01:21:53.000]  Well that's per set and we do need two sets, remember that.
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:56.960]  We need two sets, that's right, I forgot we need two sets, so we're not almost there,
[01:21:56.960 --> 01:22:03.840]  we're almost halfway there, all right, we have $280 so far and they're $350 a set.
[01:22:03.840 --> 01:22:08.280]  The reason we need two sets is because we need one set to study and we need one set
[01:22:08.280 --> 01:22:14.960]  to enter in as evidence when we file the lawsuit, so folks, please contribute to Eddie's book
[01:22:14.960 --> 01:22:19.680]  fund, I think it's pretty good, only after a few days we're almost halfway there and
[01:22:19.680 --> 01:22:24.720]  definitely we need to get a hold of these books, so keep it coming, all right.
[01:22:24.720 --> 01:22:30.240]  We are now, and I'm sorry, to donate to Eddie's book fund, just go to ruleoflawradio.com
[01:22:30.240 --> 01:22:34.760]  and click on the donate page, the donate button and you'll go to the donate page and then
[01:22:34.760 --> 01:22:40.040]  there'll be several different links for different types of donations, general donations or
[01:22:40.040 --> 01:22:46.840]  donations to Randy's beer fund, okay, you can sign up for a monthly donation, that will
[01:22:46.840 --> 01:22:51.520]  be automatic withdrawal and then there's also donation to Eddie, so click on the donation
[01:22:51.520 --> 01:22:56.640]  to Eddie button and then put a little note that you are donating to the book fund, so
[01:22:56.640 --> 01:23:02.400]  we'll know that it's what it's for, okay, now back to Dominic in Texas, okay, go ahead
[01:23:02.400 --> 01:23:03.400]  Dominic.
[01:23:03.400 --> 01:23:08.280]  Okay, yes, the point I was also thinking about just right now is they do have the 10 days,
[01:23:08.280 --> 01:23:15.800]  but since I haven't pled, haven't made a pleading, they still have plenty of time, right, because
[01:23:15.800 --> 01:23:20.640]  it's 10 days from where I'm supposed to go to court, is that correct?
[01:23:20.640 --> 01:23:26.480]  That's 10 days from any appearance, is what this says, or any proceeding, which usually
[01:23:26.480 --> 01:23:32.700]  means an appearance, okay, now the question here and that would include one to appear
[01:23:32.700 --> 01:23:39.880]  to enter a plea, okay, that's because today they wanted me, when I showed them that, they're
[01:23:39.880 --> 01:23:43.760]  like, well, this is for you to enter a plea, I'm like, how can anybody enter a plea if
[01:23:43.760 --> 01:23:49.080]  we don't know if there's nothing in the folder, what are we pleading to, and she just looked
[01:23:49.080 --> 01:23:54.200]  at me like, they're not used to really people questioning them, just giving them money.
[01:23:54.200 --> 01:24:00.760]  They're not used to having to actually put their brain in gear, and when you pose the
[01:24:00.760 --> 01:24:05.720]  question of how do I plead to something that isn't there, that just completely blows their
[01:24:05.720 --> 01:24:11.960]  mind, well, everybody else has done it, great, everybody else may lick a hot light bulb too,
[01:24:11.960 --> 01:24:19.800]  but I'm not in the habit of doing that myself.
[01:24:19.800 --> 01:24:24.640]  All right, so as far as right now, just so I can use this as a motion to dismiss because
[01:24:24.640 --> 01:24:30.320]  there's nothing there, they do not have for this required in their file within the requisite
[01:24:30.320 --> 01:24:32.600]  amount of time.
[01:24:32.600 --> 01:24:39.240]  That's correct, 45.018 and 45.019, that tells you exactly what the complaint's got to have
[01:24:39.240 --> 01:24:42.240]  in it.
[01:24:42.240 --> 01:24:47.680]  Okay, all right, well, I'm going to play devil's advocate to what you were, the first few segments
[01:24:47.680 --> 01:24:52.840]  where you were questioning the police officer.
[01:24:52.840 --> 01:25:00.680]  One thing that I have seen many other patriots do, as soon as they bring up constitutional
[01:25:00.680 --> 01:25:06.080]  arguments, they are not heard in lower courts because that's out of their pay grade.
[01:25:06.080 --> 01:25:12.160]  Well, that may be, but when you tell the court to take judicial notice and they refuse to
[01:25:12.160 --> 01:25:15.280]  do so on the record, that's an appealable issue.
[01:25:15.280 --> 01:25:20.920]  But if you say, okay, well, pursuant to the constitution in this way or that any time
[01:25:20.920 --> 01:25:21.920]  that...
[01:25:21.920 --> 01:25:22.920]  No, you don't do it that way.
[01:25:22.920 --> 01:25:29.480]  You specifically mandate that the court take judicial notice of that specific article of
[01:25:29.480 --> 01:25:30.480]  the constitution.
[01:25:30.480 --> 01:25:37.960]  Then if the judge refuses, that's an appealable issue because the judge is required to take
[01:25:37.960 --> 01:25:44.080]  judicial notice of ready-made incontrovertible facts.
[01:25:44.080 --> 01:25:48.680]  And that's exactly what a written constitution is, is an incontrovertible fact.
[01:25:48.680 --> 01:25:51.240]  Okay, all right.
[01:25:51.240 --> 01:25:59.040]  One other question or comment, and I'll get off the line, it's about the product, centrician?
[01:25:59.040 --> 01:26:04.320]  A couple of things, I've been taking it for months now and no allergies.
[01:26:04.320 --> 01:26:06.320]  Oh, that's great.
[01:26:06.320 --> 01:26:07.800]  But it does have a downside.
[01:26:07.800 --> 01:26:08.800]  What?
[01:26:08.800 --> 01:26:09.800]  See, I'm married.
[01:26:09.800 --> 01:26:13.960]  I know that all the happiness is over in my life.
[01:26:13.960 --> 01:26:14.960]  What?
[01:26:14.960 --> 01:26:19.960]  The only thing that I would enjoy would be sleeping late in on Saturday.
[01:26:19.960 --> 01:26:25.600]  If Saturday's out, I don't work or Sunday, but when I've been taking centrician, I wake
[01:26:25.600 --> 01:26:26.600]  up at 6 a.m.
[01:26:26.600 --> 01:26:27.600]  Right.
[01:26:27.600 --> 01:26:29.320]  I can't go back to sleep.
[01:26:29.320 --> 01:26:31.880]  Well, what time do you go to sleep, Dominic?
[01:26:31.880 --> 01:26:36.360]  I go to sleep about 11, 1130, 12 depending.
[01:26:36.360 --> 01:26:37.880]  Okay, so basically what you're saying...
[01:26:37.880 --> 01:26:40.360]  Probably the 5 to 7 a.m. range I'm usually in.
[01:26:40.360 --> 01:26:42.160]  That'll help you sleep until each noon.
[01:26:42.160 --> 01:26:45.640]  So basically what you're saying is that you don't quite need as much sleep anymore.
[01:26:45.640 --> 01:26:46.640]  No, I don't.
[01:26:46.640 --> 01:26:47.640]  Well, that's great.
[01:26:47.640 --> 01:26:48.640]  Well, if you want to sleep...
[01:26:48.640 --> 01:26:49.640]  It's my only guilty pleasure.
[01:26:49.640 --> 01:26:54.640]  If you want to sleep in, you need to stay up later, Dominic.
[01:26:54.640 --> 01:26:59.400]  All right, I just want to let people know that that really works.
[01:26:59.400 --> 01:27:00.400]  It works.
[01:27:00.400 --> 01:27:01.400]  Excellent.
[01:27:01.400 --> 01:27:02.400]  It's good stuff.
[01:27:02.400 --> 01:27:03.400]  It's really good stuff.
[01:27:03.400 --> 01:27:11.800]  Superfoods, hemp, hemp seed powder, spirulina powder, and just a plesora, a literal smorgasbord,
[01:27:11.800 --> 01:27:17.480]  a cornucopia of herbs that are specially formulated, adaptogenic herbs.
[01:27:17.480 --> 01:27:18.480]  It's wonderful stuff.
[01:27:18.480 --> 01:27:21.480]  I need to get Stephen Rogers back on the show so we can talk about those herbs some more.
[01:27:21.480 --> 01:27:26.040]  Because I've been waiting and waiting for these allergies to kick in and people all
[01:27:26.040 --> 01:27:28.600]  around me, they're dying from them.
[01:27:28.600 --> 01:27:29.600]  That's great.
[01:27:29.600 --> 01:27:34.000]  Of course, a lot of these people, if you don't mention that it's a prescription, they don't
[01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  believe you.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:38.000]  Well, you're living proof, Dominic.
[01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:42.040]  All right, folks, get centrician right here at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:27:42.040 --> 01:27:43.040]  Click on the banner.
[01:27:43.040 --> 01:27:47.000]  And remember, when you make those purchases through ruleoflawradio.com, your purchases
[01:27:47.000 --> 01:27:49.400]  do go to support this network.
[01:27:49.400 --> 01:27:50.400]  So thank you, Dominic.
[01:27:50.400 --> 01:27:51.400]  Not a problem.
[01:27:51.400 --> 01:27:55.080]  Well, you all have a great evening, and I'll let somebody else get on the line.
[01:27:55.080 --> 01:27:56.080]  OK, thanks, Dominic.
[01:27:56.080 --> 01:27:57.080]  All right.
[01:27:57.080 --> 01:27:58.080]  Bye-bye.
[01:27:58.080 --> 01:27:59.080]  OK, bye.
[01:27:59.080 --> 01:28:00.080]  OK, we are going now to Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:28:00.080 --> 01:28:01.600]  Mark, thanks for calling in.
[01:28:01.600 --> 01:28:02.600]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:28:02.600 --> 01:28:03.600]  Hi.
[01:28:03.600 --> 01:28:08.720]  I was just calling to ask Eddie, was that a hypothetical cross-examination of the police
[01:28:08.720 --> 01:28:11.480]  officer you did earlier tonight?
[01:28:11.480 --> 01:28:12.480]  Yes it is.
[01:28:12.480 --> 01:28:17.960]  You know, there is one other subject in that, too, that they'll try to jump into with the
[01:28:17.960 --> 01:28:25.840]  city, and that is that the city is specifically authorized in Section 3.356 of Chapter 545
[01:28:25.840 --> 01:28:27.880]  to alter the speed limits.
[01:28:27.880 --> 01:28:33.400]  But it also specifically says that they must have an engineering and traffic investigation
[01:28:33.400 --> 01:28:38.360]  by the Texas Transportation Commission officially designating that section of highway for a
[01:28:38.360 --> 01:28:45.040]  different speed limit, and that under no circumstances may the municipality alter the rule established
[01:28:45.040 --> 01:28:52.920]  by 545.351A, which says that the individual cannot operate the vehicle at a speed other
[01:28:52.920 --> 01:28:58.000]  than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing, which basically holds the municipal
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:03.560]  speed limit to the exact same criteria as the state speed limit in that regard.
[01:29:03.560 --> 01:29:04.560]  OK.
[01:29:04.560 --> 01:29:09.160]  What I was going to mention was you were leading the witness in a cross-examination.
[01:29:09.160 --> 01:29:12.760]  You would only be able to ask direct questions.
[01:29:12.760 --> 01:29:15.800]  So that's direct examination.
[01:29:15.800 --> 01:29:19.360]  Yeah what I would do is list him as my witness.
[01:29:19.360 --> 01:29:24.080]  Actually you're not allowed to lead your own witness.
[01:29:24.080 --> 01:29:29.080]  You can't ask leading questions of your own witness unless you have that witness declared
[01:29:29.080 --> 01:29:30.680]  hostile by the court.
[01:29:30.680 --> 01:29:35.720]  Yeah, you can ask leading questions of witnesses that are not your own witnesses.
[01:29:35.720 --> 01:29:36.720]  Oh really?
[01:29:36.720 --> 01:29:39.160]  Yeah, you just can't lead your own witness.
[01:29:39.160 --> 01:29:41.120]  Oh, all right.
[01:29:41.120 --> 01:29:43.000]  Unless they're hostile.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:46.320]  Yes, unless they're declared hostile, that's right.
[01:29:46.320 --> 01:29:52.560]  Which means that a hostile witness is someone that you call to testify for your side who
[01:29:52.560 --> 01:29:54.160]  doesn't want to testify.
[01:29:54.160 --> 01:29:55.400]  That's basically where it comes from.
[01:29:55.400 --> 01:29:56.400]  Stay there, Mark.
[01:29:56.400 --> 01:30:00.400]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:00.400 --> 01:30:03.760]  Christ fed them multitudes with only one loaf of bread.
[01:30:03.760 --> 01:30:06.080]  Poor people, there's something for you.
[01:30:06.080 --> 01:30:10.680]  Austin's Own Caribbean, One Love Kitchen, on the banks of Colorado River.
[01:30:10.680 --> 01:30:16.320]  At 3109 East 1st Street is where you'll find One Love Kitchen, jerk chicken, vegetarian,
[01:30:16.320 --> 01:30:19.880]  restaurant, Monday through Wednesday, lunch and dinner, $5.
[01:30:19.880 --> 01:30:24.640]  Friday and Saturday, we got late night with Emperor Sound Crew, still $5 place.
[01:30:24.640 --> 01:30:30.800]  Jerk chicken and vegetarian place to beat, One Love Kitchen, Austin, Texas.
[01:30:30.800 --> 01:30:34.960]  Google Street View, is it a harmless high tech helper or a big brother bonanza?
[01:30:34.960 --> 01:30:39.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back in a moment to tell you how several hundred
[01:30:39.040 --> 01:30:43.640]  thousand Germans have said no to Google ogling their homes.
[01:30:43.640 --> 01:30:48.960]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database
[01:30:48.960 --> 01:30:50.680]  of your personal information.
[01:30:50.680 --> 01:30:51.960]  That's creepy.
[01:30:51.960 --> 01:30:54.040]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:54.040 --> 01:30:57.200]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:57.200 --> 01:31:01.300]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking
[01:31:01.300 --> 01:31:03.560]  cookies and they're third party certified.
[01:31:03.560 --> 01:31:08.040]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[01:31:08.040 --> 01:31:13.000]  Private search results and total privacy, Startpage.com, the world's most private search
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  engine.
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:18.360]  Hundreds of thousands of Germans have demanded that Google remove their homes from Street
[01:31:18.360 --> 01:31:21.920]  View, the service that delivers close ups of homes on demand.
[01:31:21.920 --> 01:31:26.200]  Protesters have taken to the streets, mooning and sabotaging Google cameras and raising
[01:31:26.200 --> 01:31:30.080]  such a ruckus that the government has called for new data collection protections.
[01:31:30.080 --> 01:31:34.280]  Street View has struck a chord with the German people who have lived under the Gestapo and
[01:31:34.280 --> 01:31:35.860]  the East German police.
[01:31:35.860 --> 01:31:40.760]  They know how surveillance empowers whoever controls it and has a chilling effect on freedom.
[01:31:40.760 --> 01:31:45.360]  Google boasts Street Views on all seven continents and its goal is to image every public road
[01:31:45.360 --> 01:31:46.360]  available.
[01:31:46.360 --> 01:31:50.440]  Isn't it time we started thinking about taking a stand against Google ogling ourselves?
[01:31:50.440 --> 01:31:52.440]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:52.440 --> 01:32:19.080]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:19.080 --> 01:32:21.880]  Okay folks, we are back.
[01:32:21.880 --> 01:32:27.600]  Okay we're talking about hostile witnesses and leading witnesses, yet typically what
[01:32:27.600 --> 01:32:32.960]  a hostile witness is, how that originated, is that a hostile witness is a witness that
[01:32:32.960 --> 01:32:40.600]  you're subpoenaing or bringing to the court to testify as evidence on your side but the
[01:32:40.600 --> 01:32:45.960]  witness doesn't want to do it for some reason or other and so you have to subpoena that
[01:32:45.960 --> 01:32:50.240]  person and then they're declared a hostile witness and then you're allowed to lead them
[01:32:50.240 --> 01:32:52.880]  but you can't lead your own witnesses otherwise.
[01:32:52.880 --> 01:32:57.600]  Now I don't think that you can just have somebody declared as a hostile witness just so that
[01:32:57.600 --> 01:33:00.000]  you can get away with asking them leading questions.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:01.800]  I think that you have to show some legitimate reason.
[01:33:01.800 --> 01:33:05.080]  No there has to be a viable reason why you want them declared hostile.
[01:33:05.080 --> 01:33:06.080]  Yes, yes.
[01:33:06.080 --> 01:33:07.880]  So okay does that make sense Mark?
[01:33:07.880 --> 01:33:12.600]  Yeah, yeah you might want to declare them a hostile witness because they got a gun.
[01:33:12.600 --> 01:33:17.640]  He's already hostile because he's the prosecution's witness.
[01:33:17.640 --> 01:33:20.040]  Right, right.
[01:33:20.040 --> 01:33:26.400]  So basically you can't lead your own witness but you can lead a witness uncrossed?
[01:33:26.400 --> 01:33:27.400]  Yes.
[01:33:27.400 --> 01:33:28.400]  That's correct.
[01:33:28.400 --> 01:33:31.560]  Okay well I had it backwards then.
[01:33:31.560 --> 01:33:32.560]  I'm dyslexic sorry.
[01:33:32.560 --> 01:33:38.600]  I didn't know that applied to verbal components but okay.
[01:33:38.600 --> 01:33:41.680]  All right, hey thanks for clearing that up for me.
[01:33:41.680 --> 01:33:42.680]  Have a good night.
[01:33:42.680 --> 01:33:43.680]  Okay, okay Mark.
[01:33:43.680 --> 01:33:49.960]  All right before we go to the next caller you wanted to send some people to a website
[01:33:49.960 --> 01:33:52.600]  for some information, Eddie?
[01:33:52.600 --> 01:33:58.880]  Yeah folks, especially those in Texas, I would really like for you if you'd go look to section
[01:33:58.880 --> 01:34:02.160]  545.356 of the transportation code.
[01:34:02.160 --> 01:34:03.160]  It's not very long.
[01:34:03.160 --> 01:34:08.520]  You can view that entire section on one screen on your web browser but read through that
[01:34:08.520 --> 01:34:16.080]  especially down at subsection D where these municipalities are mandated by law that when
[01:34:16.080 --> 01:34:23.080]  they lower a speed limit on a stretch of highway in any part of the municipality they are required
[01:34:23.080 --> 01:34:30.120]  no later than February 1st of every year to update those changes on the municipal website
[01:34:30.120 --> 01:34:32.240]  to notify the public.
[01:34:32.240 --> 01:34:39.240]  Now this is after they have lowered the speed only in accordance with an engineering and
[01:34:39.240 --> 01:34:43.520]  traffic investigation study by the Texas Transportation Commission.
[01:34:43.520 --> 01:34:47.940]  They can't even touch the speed limit until that's been done and then if they do change
[01:34:47.940 --> 01:34:53.280]  it they have to post that they've changed it and notify the public.
[01:34:53.280 --> 01:34:58.360]  So whenever they come to court and they say well the city governs that and they lower
[01:34:58.360 --> 01:34:59.360]  the speed limit.
[01:34:59.360 --> 01:35:03.400]  Great, then that means you brought your engineering and traffic investigation survey to court
[01:35:03.400 --> 01:35:06.440]  with you to prove this, didn't you?
[01:35:06.440 --> 01:35:08.840]  Uh, no.
[01:35:08.840 --> 01:35:10.760]  Well then I'm sorry I can't take your word for it.
[01:35:10.760 --> 01:35:13.720]  We have to go by what the state says.
[01:35:13.720 --> 01:35:15.320]  So please go read that section.
[01:35:15.320 --> 01:35:20.040]  It's very entertaining once you start studying traffic and you know what you're looking at
[01:35:20.040 --> 01:35:22.560]  that these people don't ever do these things.
[01:35:22.560 --> 01:35:26.080]  They never do these things.
[01:35:26.080 --> 01:35:27.080]  Big surprise there.
[01:35:27.080 --> 01:35:28.080]  Okay there.
[01:35:28.080 --> 01:35:31.320]  Okay folks we've only got one other caller on the board right now.
[01:35:31.320 --> 01:35:32.320]  Roy from Texas.
[01:35:32.320 --> 01:35:34.760]  After that we've got open phone lines so call in.
[01:35:34.760 --> 01:35:43.640]  We've got about another 20 minutes or so left till the end of the show so call in now 512-646-1984.
[01:35:43.640 --> 01:35:45.160]  We've got Roy from Texas.
[01:35:45.160 --> 01:35:46.560]  Roy thanks for calling in.
[01:35:46.560 --> 01:35:47.560]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:35:47.560 --> 01:35:56.320]  Yeah the TMCEC publication that you guys are going to purchase which, what book is that?
[01:35:56.320 --> 01:35:58.320]  Is it the forms book?
[01:35:58.320 --> 01:35:59.320]  All of them.
[01:35:59.320 --> 01:36:00.320]  Okay well.
[01:36:00.320 --> 01:36:01.320]  All of them.
[01:36:01.320 --> 01:36:05.880]  Okay well I've got all of them online for free.
[01:36:05.880 --> 01:36:07.160]  You've got every single one of them?
[01:36:07.160 --> 01:36:08.160]  I've got the bench book.
[01:36:08.160 --> 01:36:09.160]  That's all right.
[01:36:09.160 --> 01:36:10.160]  I've got the forms book.
[01:36:10.160 --> 01:36:17.040]  I've got the revision edition for 2009-2010, the study guide, the question guide, authorities
[01:36:17.040 --> 01:36:18.400]  and these ethics proceed.
[01:36:18.400 --> 01:36:21.400]  It's all there for free.
[01:36:21.400 --> 01:36:24.440]  Okay well good because I went looking through it and the only thing I could find was a couple
[01:36:24.440 --> 01:36:29.120]  of bootleg versions of the version four of the manual which was from 2001.
[01:36:29.120 --> 01:36:31.760]  No I've got 2009-2010.
[01:36:31.760 --> 01:36:35.160]  I can send you guys the email links and it's all there for you.
[01:36:35.160 --> 01:36:39.160]  It's thousands and thousands of pages.
[01:36:39.160 --> 01:36:42.880]  Okay well if you send me that link I'll be happy to do it because I tore that website
[01:36:42.880 --> 01:36:47.080]  apart and could not find a download link for these other books because it says that they
[01:36:47.080 --> 01:36:49.720]  are specifically published and sold.
[01:36:49.720 --> 01:36:51.800]  Does not say these books are posted online.
[01:36:51.800 --> 01:36:53.600]  Well I've got it.
[01:36:53.600 --> 01:36:59.840]  The resources, the clerk study guides, the testing, the overall duties, the entire-
[01:36:59.840 --> 01:37:01.440]  Well is this a training?
[01:37:01.440 --> 01:37:03.840]  What about the judge's training manual?
[01:37:03.840 --> 01:37:07.080]  What about the actual manuals they use in the classes?
[01:37:07.080 --> 01:37:09.000]  That's what we're after.
[01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  It's all in here.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:15.080]  The trial processes, post-trial procedures, state and city reports, football, juvenile
[01:37:15.080 --> 01:37:17.720]  minors, the gloss, everything.
[01:37:17.720 --> 01:37:19.760]  And that's actually what they use in the classes?
[01:37:19.760 --> 01:37:22.560]  Yeah that's the study guide.
[01:37:22.560 --> 01:37:23.560]  Okay great.
[01:37:23.560 --> 01:37:28.000]  I would love to see it because the sheet that I've got said they only sell it as a publication
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:30.200]  and they give a price for it and everything.
[01:37:30.200 --> 01:37:33.280]  Okay I'll send you the links.
[01:37:33.280 --> 01:37:34.280]  Okay great.
[01:37:34.280 --> 01:37:35.280]  That's very odd.
[01:37:35.280 --> 01:37:39.240]  Eddie you're saying that it says on the website they're only sold as publications?
[01:37:39.240 --> 01:37:40.240]  They don't have email?
[01:37:40.240 --> 01:37:44.320]  Yeah I've even got the price list here for it.
[01:37:44.320 --> 01:37:45.320]  Let's see.
[01:37:45.320 --> 01:37:47.320]  I've even got the-
[01:37:47.320 --> 01:37:51.320]  Yeah I've downloaded the price list, the publication order form.
[01:37:51.320 --> 01:37:58.040]  Let's see, we have the Texas Criminal Law and Traffic Manual Judicial Edition.
[01:37:58.040 --> 01:38:02.120]  That's a book exactly like what I've got that comes from Lexus and I know that that's not
[01:38:02.120 --> 01:38:09.880]  available online for free, or at least it shouldn't be, the TMCEC 2009 bench book.
[01:38:09.880 --> 01:38:13.840]  I got part of that by chapter but I didn't get the whole thing.
[01:38:13.840 --> 01:38:15.600]  I couldn't ever find the whole book.
[01:38:15.600 --> 01:38:19.240]  I have the TMCEC forms book.
[01:38:19.240 --> 01:38:22.760]  The CD-ROM for the 2009 forms and bench book.
[01:38:22.760 --> 01:38:26.120]  The Municipal Judges book for 2010.
[01:38:26.120 --> 01:38:33.680]  Level 1 Clerk Certification Guide, level 2, level 3, 2010 Texas Class C and Fine Only
[01:38:33.680 --> 01:38:40.820]  Misdemeanors book, Quick Reference Trial Handbook, Rules of Evidence, Court Interpreters, Municipal
[01:38:40.820 --> 01:38:49.320]  Court Legal Glossary, the IDEA Video Authority and Duties DVD, One Object DVD, Pro State
[01:38:49.320 --> 01:38:54.920]  Defendants and Municipal Court DVD, and Roll of Municipal Court and City Government DVD.
[01:38:54.920 --> 01:38:58.440]  Well maybe those are video trainings that we still need to get.
[01:38:58.440 --> 01:38:59.440]  That's exactly what they are.
[01:38:59.440 --> 01:39:07.320]  The DVDs and stuff aren't there but everything you just said as far as publication is right
[01:39:07.320 --> 01:39:09.360]  here in front of me.
[01:39:09.360 --> 01:39:15.600]  Okay so then the only thing that we need to purchase at this point then is the video training
[01:39:15.600 --> 01:39:16.600]  DVDs.
[01:39:16.600 --> 01:39:23.800]  Yeah let's sit down the DVDs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there's 6 of those at $20 a piece.
[01:39:23.800 --> 01:39:27.120]  Okay so that's $120.
[01:39:27.120 --> 01:39:31.400]  So we may have enough to go ahead and order those if we can download the individual book
[01:39:31.400 --> 01:39:32.400]  for free.
[01:39:32.400 --> 01:39:33.400]  What's that?
[01:39:33.400 --> 01:39:37.480]  I can read you off the website right here real quick if you want it.
[01:39:37.480 --> 01:39:38.480]  Please just give me the links.
[01:39:38.480 --> 01:39:39.480]  I'll be happy to download it.
[01:39:39.480 --> 01:39:40.480]  Yeah just send us the link on the email.
[01:39:40.480 --> 01:39:41.480]  Sure will do.
[01:39:41.480 --> 01:39:42.480]  Okay so thank you, thank you Roy.
[01:39:42.480 --> 01:39:43.480]  You bet.
[01:39:43.480 --> 01:39:51.480]  All right and there may still be some that we have to purchase so we need to vet this
[01:39:51.480 --> 01:39:52.480]  out.
[01:39:52.480 --> 01:39:53.480]  Okay.
[01:39:53.480 --> 01:39:57.600]  Yeah I'll get this but yeah this is everything that he's talking about, they're showing
[01:39:57.600 --> 01:40:00.080]  here that you can only get it by order.
[01:40:00.080 --> 01:40:04.920]  They didn't say anything about it being online and I tore the website apart to get it.
[01:40:04.920 --> 01:40:05.920]  Interesting.
[01:40:05.920 --> 01:40:10.480]  I could only find parts of chapters, I couldn't find anything else.
[01:40:10.480 --> 01:40:14.800]  Okay well there may be, he may not have everything, there may be some stuff that we still have
[01:40:14.800 --> 01:40:15.800]  to purchase.
[01:40:15.800 --> 01:40:16.800]  Well I mean for sure the videos.
[01:40:16.800 --> 01:40:17.800]  We'll have to see.
[01:40:17.800 --> 01:40:18.800]  Okay.
[01:40:18.800 --> 01:40:19.800]  I'll look, send me the links.
[01:40:19.800 --> 01:40:21.720]  All right listeners we'll keep you posted on that.
[01:40:21.720 --> 01:40:25.200]  All right we now have Gary in Georgia.
[01:40:25.200 --> 01:40:26.200]  Gary thanks for calling in.
[01:40:26.200 --> 01:40:27.200]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:40:27.200 --> 01:40:34.640]  Well of course there are always a lot of things on my mind that I suppose about since we don't
[01:40:34.640 --> 01:40:41.800]  have any real money in America, you can't redeem your paper notes for gold and silver.
[01:40:41.800 --> 01:40:49.440]  Everything's been securitized and I can't send links because I'm a lawman like Randy.
[01:40:49.440 --> 01:40:51.880]  I require strict proof.
[01:40:51.880 --> 01:41:02.040]  I show that people in prisons, they're controlled and they're bonded and they're securitized
[01:41:02.040 --> 01:41:13.800]  and created on the Wall Street but what I really want to speak about is the securitization
[01:41:13.800 --> 01:41:21.920]  of our property such as our automobiles and they give a certificate of title and so when
[01:41:21.920 --> 01:41:29.240]  you look, when a person looks at that certificate of title in about every state in the union,
[01:41:29.240 --> 01:41:35.680]  they will say that the state more or less owns your property because after all and the
[01:41:35.680 --> 01:41:42.400]  common law have right to property, peaceful ownership of such property without tortures
[01:41:42.400 --> 01:41:44.560]  that are fearing for another.
[01:41:44.560 --> 01:41:52.600]  So as Eddie and I both will concord, first it goes to the fourth branch of government
[01:41:52.600 --> 01:42:01.000]  known as regulations and of course you look at the pre-emblem of every state constitution
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:05.760]  plus the federal will tell you about well who's in charge here?
[01:42:05.760 --> 01:42:21.840]  We the people and therefore they are our trustees and we turn over as a trustee our property
[01:42:21.840 --> 01:42:28.400]  and then they charge to have a lower tax on it because you cannot tax personal property,
[01:42:28.400 --> 01:42:37.600]  even take taxes in my state to get away with the poll tax because it was a head tax, tax
[01:42:37.600 --> 01:42:43.000]  right on the property itself but they try to get you into commerce and they haven't
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:50.320]  shown proof of that but they do securitize the automobile itself.
[01:42:50.320 --> 01:42:57.960]  And I've even heard about the so-called driver's license because as we also know the license
[01:42:57.960 --> 01:42:58.960]  is permission.
[01:42:58.960 --> 01:43:06.280]  So I just wanted to make that comment and I always appreciate you show and when Randy
[01:43:06.280 --> 01:43:16.240]  comes around I have terrific information about the mortgages and I know this is the traffic
[01:43:16.240 --> 01:43:24.920]  show tonight so we'll say the mortgage, your signature, is securitization and I can prove
[01:43:24.920 --> 01:43:32.520]  that and everyone needs to look, the listeners and the payers, you got mortgage problems
[01:43:32.520 --> 01:43:34.000]  for the deed of crush.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:35.000]  Thank you.
[01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  Okay Gary.
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:39.280]  Well also abstract the title, I want to hear that.
[01:43:39.280 --> 01:43:40.280]  Thank you ma'am.
[01:43:40.280 --> 01:43:41.280]  All right thanks Gary.
[01:43:41.280 --> 01:43:42.280]  Okay good deal.
[01:43:42.280 --> 01:43:46.160]  All right we've got one more segment left, we've only got one of the caller on the board
[01:43:46.160 --> 01:43:47.160]  right now.
[01:43:47.160 --> 01:43:48.160]  Suzanne from New York.
[01:43:48.160 --> 01:43:54.360]  So folks if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984 we will be right back for our final segment
[01:43:54.360 --> 01:44:24.320]  of the night.
[01:44:24.920 --> 01:44:30.120]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing
[01:44:30.120 --> 01:44:36.480]  component and organic hemp protein and greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient
[01:44:36.480 --> 01:44:37.480]  base.
[01:44:37.480 --> 01:44:41.760]  Plus, centrician tastes great in just water.
[01:44:41.760 --> 01:44:47.560]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product and it's all natural.
[01:44:47.560 --> 01:44:56.000]  Visit centrician.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[01:44:56.000 --> 01:44:59.400]  After you use centrician, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:44:59.400 --> 01:45:06.600]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:06.600 --> 01:45:13.320]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4 CD course
[01:45:13.320 --> 01:45:17.720]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:17.720 --> 01:45:21.440]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:21.440 --> 01:45:25.280]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:25.280 --> 01:45:30.200]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[01:45:30.200 --> 01:45:36.720]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:36.720 --> 01:45:41.520]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:41.520 --> 01:45:45.840]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:45.840 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:54.320]  pro se tactics and much more.
[01:45:54.320 --> 01:46:13.240]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:13.240 --> 01:46:27.400]  Okay, folks.
[01:46:27.400 --> 01:46:28.400]  We are back.
[01:46:28.400 --> 01:46:33.160]  We're taking your calls, final segment of the night.
[01:46:33.160 --> 01:46:34.920]  We've got Suzanne from New York.
[01:46:34.920 --> 01:46:36.240]  Suzanne, thanks for calling in.
[01:46:36.240 --> 01:46:37.600]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:46:37.600 --> 01:46:46.640]  We went through an entire case, an entire case, full of fraud, perjury, fixed up documents.
[01:46:46.640 --> 01:46:54.920]  My husband wasn't on a note and they took a mortgage out with a forged private attorney
[01:46:54.920 --> 01:47:00.040]  and it was all declared, you know, it was a fraud.
[01:47:00.040 --> 01:47:05.800]  The judge granted a foreclosure to the bank because the bank said that he was on the note
[01:47:05.800 --> 01:47:13.360]  and the mortgage and we told her about it and the property was using this forged private
[01:47:13.360 --> 01:47:17.680]  attorney, transferred during a mortgage to somebody else.
[01:47:17.680 --> 01:47:23.480]  The district attorney, we went to him, he said this is a, they had to do what they had
[01:47:23.480 --> 01:47:24.480]  to do.
[01:47:24.480 --> 01:47:31.000]  Now we have this on tape and we sent documents of things that we found out since then to
[01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:35.400]  him to prosecute and they won't do anything.
[01:47:35.400 --> 01:47:39.520]  We even found out now the private attorney, when the property was transferred to somebody
[01:47:39.520 --> 01:47:44.880]  else's name, this guy is the one that wrote the private attorney up.
[01:47:44.880 --> 01:47:45.880]  We went to the FBI.
[01:47:45.880 --> 01:47:48.520]  This guy being who?
[01:47:48.520 --> 01:47:54.840]  My husband's sister's boyfriend, he's a real estate broker and he was directly involved
[01:47:54.840 --> 01:47:56.600]  in getting this loan.
[01:47:56.600 --> 01:48:00.920]  Now we went to the bank and they told us, well since you're not on the note, you don't
[01:48:00.920 --> 01:48:04.680]  have to worry about it and they wouldn't give us any documents or paperwork.
[01:48:04.680 --> 01:48:10.920]  In the meantime, this guy took my husband off the property and so they could get section
[01:48:10.920 --> 01:48:14.080]  eight illegally, which is a rental subsidy.
[01:48:14.080 --> 01:48:19.080]  The sister wanted me to participate in it because they were getting this and I said,
[01:48:19.080 --> 01:48:26.160]  I won't do anything illegal and we went and we, I tried to say that during the court case
[01:48:26.160 --> 01:48:31.880]  and the court and we got this judge, she became the judge for the, we should have won this
[01:48:31.880 --> 01:48:37.200]  on a summary, but they even got an RJI without a judge being assigned.
[01:48:37.200 --> 01:48:44.040]  I got documents where they changed the record and I told her what she said and the judge
[01:48:44.040 --> 01:48:49.120]  turned to me and said, strike that and they were giving me looks and I said, your honor,
[01:48:49.120 --> 01:48:50.440]  they're giving me dirty looks.
[01:48:50.440 --> 01:48:57.280]  I'm being intimidated and she turned to me, she said, I'll have you taken out of here.
[01:48:57.280 --> 01:48:58.600]  That's what we were going through.
[01:48:58.600 --> 01:49:05.760]  This was, our lawyer even admitted it was a fixed up case, they were using leading questions.
[01:49:05.760 --> 01:49:10.520]  The guy who supposedly took the loan, which was my husband's father, he said he didn't
[01:49:10.520 --> 01:49:11.520]  take the loan.
[01:49:11.520 --> 01:49:16.760]  He pointed to the other guy, Mr., I don't want to say his name, he said he's the one
[01:49:16.760 --> 01:49:18.680]  that took the debt on the house.
[01:49:18.680 --> 01:49:24.920]  We presented the documents that we got by accident, the loan application and it wasn't
[01:49:24.920 --> 01:49:30.760]  even the guy's signature and he told the judge it wasn't his signature, that he didn't sign
[01:49:30.760 --> 01:49:31.760]  it.
[01:49:31.760 --> 01:49:38.840]  We lost the case, we lost our house, we were thrown out, I have an autistic child, we spent
[01:49:38.840 --> 01:49:43.120]  all our money and now we're in appeal and we lost that.
[01:49:43.120 --> 01:49:46.640]  Okay, Suzanne, okay, so the house has already been foreclosed on.
[01:49:46.640 --> 01:49:52.240]  Well, it really wasn't foreclosed on, see, it was a technicality, the guy who supposedly
[01:49:52.240 --> 01:49:59.320]  was the other owner, but where they substitute his name on the title, you know, she used
[01:49:59.320 --> 01:50:03.840]  that forged power of attorney to transfer ownership over to the father who was like
[01:50:03.840 --> 01:50:07.720]  in his 80s, who didn't speak English, excuse me.
[01:50:07.720 --> 01:50:15.280]  The question here is, if you have all this in documentation and your attorney did nothing
[01:50:15.280 --> 01:50:21.360]  to defend you with it, why haven't you filed grievances and charges against your attorney
[01:50:21.360 --> 01:50:25.840]  and gone to the grand jury there in California with the information that you have to indict
[01:50:25.840 --> 01:50:32.840]  the prosecuting attorney or the other attorney, the district attorney and all of these individuals
[01:50:32.840 --> 01:50:34.320]  in question?
[01:50:34.320 --> 01:50:36.640]  That would be the first thing I would have done.
[01:50:36.640 --> 01:50:42.000]  Well, we did file a charge, we did file a complaint against the judge, they threw it
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  out.
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:46.680]  Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, I'm not talking about filing a complaint against a judge like
[01:50:46.680 --> 01:50:48.320]  in a judicial conduct complaint.
[01:50:48.320 --> 01:50:55.160]  I'm talking about going to your state grand jury with criminal actions against these individuals
[01:50:55.160 --> 01:50:57.480]  for what they're doing in violation of law.
[01:50:57.480 --> 01:50:59.320]  Well, we didn't do that.
[01:50:59.320 --> 01:51:03.960]  We tried to get the DA, we went to the state's attorney's office, they said go to the DA,
[01:51:03.960 --> 01:51:07.480]  we went to the banking commission, they said this is grand larceny because they took my
[01:51:07.480 --> 01:51:12.600]  husband's name totally off the property and then he sued my husband in a partition action.
[01:51:12.600 --> 01:51:16.600]  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, did you say the banking commission?
[01:51:16.600 --> 01:51:20.320]  We went to them and they said they can't do nothing about it.
[01:51:20.320 --> 01:51:24.240]  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, who said it was grand larceny?
[01:51:24.240 --> 01:51:25.240]  The banking commission.
[01:51:25.240 --> 01:51:26.760]  Do you have that in writing?
[01:51:26.760 --> 01:51:28.680]  No, I have it on tape.
[01:51:28.680 --> 01:51:29.680]  You have it on tape?
[01:51:29.680 --> 01:51:30.680]  Tape, I, then I have it on tape.
[01:51:30.680 --> 01:51:31.680]  Okay, so then what needs...
[01:51:31.680 --> 01:51:32.680]  That was for barking dogs.
[01:51:32.680 --> 01:51:33.680]  Okay, so you...
[01:51:33.680 --> 01:51:34.680]  That was police did.
[01:51:34.680 --> 01:51:35.680]  Okay, so then what you...
[01:51:35.680 --> 01:51:36.680]  This wasn't criminal, this was civil.
[01:51:36.680 --> 01:51:43.000]  Okay, so then if they're saying it's grand larceny, that's a crime and if you have that
[01:51:43.000 --> 01:51:47.800]  on tape, that is sufficient evidence that can be used in a criminal case.
[01:51:47.800 --> 01:51:52.880]  Eddie's right, you need to go directly to the grand jury and in California, y'all have
[01:51:52.880 --> 01:51:59.560]  a very good grand jury system that citizens regularly go to grand juries with these types
[01:51:59.560 --> 01:52:00.560]  of issues.
[01:52:00.560 --> 01:52:02.560]  We're in New York though.
[01:52:02.560 --> 01:52:03.560]  Oh, I'm sorry.
[01:52:03.560 --> 01:52:04.560]  You're in New York.
[01:52:04.560 --> 01:52:09.200]  New York is really corrupt and they said the tentacles of corruption goes right into the
[01:52:09.200 --> 01:52:10.200]  appeals court.
[01:52:10.200 --> 01:52:18.320]  For the appeals court to hold my husband liable for a mortgage, you know, which was a fraud.
[01:52:18.320 --> 01:52:22.560]  Well, you should still go to the grand jury.
[01:52:22.560 --> 01:52:27.440]  Yes, you still need to go to the grand jury in New York, absolutely.
[01:52:27.440 --> 01:52:29.760]  Grand jury is not the court of appeals.
[01:52:29.760 --> 01:52:36.200]  These are other citizens that their job is to look into criminal complaints against anybody
[01:52:36.200 --> 01:52:39.200]  of high crimes and misdemeanors.
[01:52:39.200 --> 01:52:43.280]  You need to take the evidence you have and present it to them.
[01:52:43.280 --> 01:52:48.720]  What, you know, when I start to tell people what they did, even when I try to get a lawyer
[01:52:48.720 --> 01:52:53.760]  to help us, you know, malpractice, you know, you name it, they did it.
[01:52:53.760 --> 01:52:57.600]  And as I start to tell them, they said, oh, it's too much.
[01:52:57.600 --> 01:52:58.600]  It's too much.
[01:52:58.600 --> 01:52:59.600]  Okay, so...
[01:52:59.600 --> 01:53:00.960]  If it's too much, I know it's too much.
[01:53:00.960 --> 01:53:02.560]  I went through it, you know.
[01:53:02.560 --> 01:53:03.560]  Well, Suzanne...
[01:53:03.560 --> 01:53:05.160]  That's not what they're reading, Suzanne.
[01:53:05.160 --> 01:53:09.560]  What they're meaning is, is you're jumping from predicament to predicament to predicament
[01:53:09.560 --> 01:53:11.840]  in the situation, situation in your problem here.
[01:53:11.840 --> 01:53:15.040]  I'm not going to say, you know, I'm in the middle of something and this is what they're
[01:53:15.040 --> 01:53:16.040]  doing.
[01:53:16.040 --> 01:53:17.040]  All we have been...
[01:53:17.040 --> 01:53:18.040]  I understand that.
[01:53:18.040 --> 01:53:19.040]  I know.
[01:53:19.040 --> 01:53:23.920]  But it's hard for us to even follow what's going on because...
[01:53:23.920 --> 01:53:29.760]  What would you suggest I would say, because I've been trying to write something and it
[01:53:29.760 --> 01:53:30.760]  goes on and on.
[01:53:30.760 --> 01:53:36.640]  I just don't know what would be sure and sweet that would get attention and get me something
[01:53:36.640 --> 01:53:37.640]  done.
[01:53:37.640 --> 01:53:38.640]  I went to the FBI.
[01:53:38.640 --> 01:53:42.160]  They said that they don't investigate things unless it's over a million dollars.
[01:53:42.160 --> 01:53:43.520]  They don't have the resources.
[01:53:43.520 --> 01:53:47.560]  Now, I object to that because I have a disabled child.
[01:53:47.560 --> 01:53:50.400]  Has the house been sold yet at auction, Suzanne?
[01:53:50.400 --> 01:53:51.400]  This was all...
[01:53:51.400 --> 01:53:53.400]  They sold it for half price.
[01:53:53.400 --> 01:53:55.480]  Okay, so this was like...
[01:53:55.480 --> 01:53:57.600]  Okay, but you're saying that it wasn't a foreclosure.
[01:53:57.600 --> 01:54:00.160]  I'm still not exactly clear what's happened.
[01:54:00.160 --> 01:54:04.840]  Who was on the mortgage, was on the house with his brother?
[01:54:04.840 --> 01:54:09.600]  They transferred it over to his father, going a pending mortgage.
[01:54:09.600 --> 01:54:11.240]  There was another mortgage on the house.
[01:54:11.240 --> 01:54:12.240]  He transferred it over.
[01:54:12.240 --> 01:54:13.240]  Who?
[01:54:13.240 --> 01:54:14.240]  His...
[01:54:14.240 --> 01:54:15.240]  See, that's the problem.
[01:54:15.240 --> 01:54:19.160]  You keep going them, they, and us and whatever and we don't have a frame of reference for
[01:54:19.160 --> 01:54:20.160]  that.
[01:54:20.160 --> 01:54:21.160]  His sister.
[01:54:21.160 --> 01:54:23.160]  My husband's sister did it.
[01:54:23.160 --> 01:54:25.160]  Well, what does she have to do with it?
[01:54:25.160 --> 01:54:26.160]  Was she on the deed?
[01:54:26.160 --> 01:54:27.160]  No, no.
[01:54:27.160 --> 01:54:29.680]  She was staying at the house.
[01:54:29.680 --> 01:54:35.360]  How could she transfer title and ownership of the property if her name wasn't on any
[01:54:35.360 --> 01:54:37.080]  legal documents related to the property?
[01:54:37.080 --> 01:54:43.680]  She got a power of attorney in his brother's name and then she forged a power of attorney
[01:54:43.680 --> 01:54:45.320]  and now we find out what this guy...
[01:54:45.320 --> 01:54:46.320]  Wait, wait, wait.
[01:54:46.320 --> 01:54:48.160]  She forged a power of attorney on whose name?
[01:54:48.160 --> 01:54:49.160]  Your husband?
[01:54:49.160 --> 01:54:50.160]  Yeah, my husband's name.
[01:54:50.160 --> 01:54:59.520]  Okay, so your husband's sister got power of attorney over his brother and then she
[01:54:59.520 --> 01:55:05.200]  forged a power of attorney on your husband to transfer the property ownership.
[01:55:05.200 --> 01:55:06.200]  Is that what happened?
[01:55:06.200 --> 01:55:07.200]  Yeah, they used...
[01:55:07.200 --> 01:55:11.520]  She used the brother's name and my husband forged power of attorney to take the brother's
[01:55:11.520 --> 01:55:12.520]  name off.
[01:55:12.520 --> 01:55:14.240]  Okay, that may be enough to go...
[01:55:14.240 --> 01:55:15.240]  That may be enough to...
[01:55:15.240 --> 01:55:20.120]  If the state court or the state district attorney isn't doing anything about it, that could
[01:55:20.120 --> 01:55:21.400]  be federal.
[01:55:21.400 --> 01:55:24.720]  So you may need to get the US attorney involved.
[01:55:24.720 --> 01:55:25.720]  Oh, we called them.
[01:55:25.720 --> 01:55:26.720]  Yeah.
[01:55:26.720 --> 01:55:27.720]  They didn't have the staff.
[01:55:27.720 --> 01:55:28.720]  We were there.
[01:55:28.720 --> 01:55:29.720]  We wrote.
[01:55:29.720 --> 01:55:30.720]  We sent...
[01:55:30.720 --> 01:55:31.720]  To the US attorney?
[01:55:31.720 --> 01:55:32.720]  I'm not talking about the FBI.
[01:55:32.720 --> 01:55:35.240]  That's who sent her back to the district attorney.
[01:55:35.240 --> 01:55:36.240]  Okay.
[01:55:36.240 --> 01:55:37.240]  Both of them.
[01:55:37.240 --> 01:55:38.240]  Yeah, both of them.
[01:55:38.240 --> 01:55:39.240]  And the state...
[01:55:39.240 --> 01:55:43.240]  Okay, like I said, the grand jury is where you're going to need to go, but what you need
[01:55:43.240 --> 01:55:50.760]  to do, you need to write this down, but don't be getting off track on the facts that you're
[01:55:50.760 --> 01:55:51.760]  writing.
[01:55:51.760 --> 01:55:57.460]  Simply write, this person did, on this date, at this time, do the following.
[01:55:57.460 --> 01:56:02.400]  Do not be jumping off track about how it's illegal, why it's wrong, that you have an
[01:56:02.400 --> 01:56:07.040]  autistic child involved in this, that's got nothing to do with the facts.
[01:56:07.040 --> 01:56:14.440]  You need the facts that basically tell the story of what was done and the exact steps
[01:56:14.440 --> 01:56:15.680]  that was done in it.
[01:56:15.680 --> 01:56:19.240]  In a chronological order, yes.
[01:56:19.240 --> 01:56:26.520]  That's the best way, if you write down the facts, A, B, C, and one, two, three, in chronological
[01:56:26.520 --> 01:56:33.640]  order, then people will much more be equipped to help you so that we're not having to ask
[01:56:33.640 --> 01:56:40.200]  all these questions and go back and trying to sort things out like that.
[01:56:40.200 --> 01:56:45.400]  Don't tell it like a story, tell it like a statement, a list of, an itemized list of
[01:56:45.400 --> 01:56:46.400]  specific facts.
[01:56:46.400 --> 01:56:47.400]  List of...
[01:56:47.400 --> 01:56:51.040]  Okay, so was there a mortgage involved somehow?
[01:56:51.040 --> 01:56:52.040]  Yes.
[01:56:52.040 --> 01:56:53.040]  Yes, there was a mortgage.
[01:56:53.040 --> 01:56:57.760]  Did the bank commit some kind of fraud with the mortgage?
[01:56:57.760 --> 01:57:03.360]  Yes, the bank participated.
[01:57:03.360 --> 01:57:08.320]  They went and told, apparently they weren't paying this mortgage that they took out for
[01:57:08.320 --> 01:57:15.000]  $100,000, and then they foreclosed on them, and then there's something I forget right
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:17.520]  now because my mind is like, couldn't...
[01:57:17.520 --> 01:57:22.600]  Okay, and the house was sold, was there a foreclosure auction for the house already?
[01:57:22.600 --> 01:57:23.600]  No.
[01:57:23.600 --> 01:57:30.360]  What's it called when the bank allows you to pay up, what's that called?
[01:57:30.360 --> 01:57:31.360]  I can't remember.
[01:57:31.360 --> 01:57:32.360]  Oh, you pay off a loan?
[01:57:32.360 --> 01:57:37.000]  Yes, like somebody else will come in, this guy came in and he's going to pay for this
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  loan.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:39.000]  What's that called?
[01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  A refinance?
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:43.640]  No, it's called a payoff, and then they give you a...
[01:57:43.640 --> 01:57:44.640]  I'm not sure.
[01:57:44.640 --> 01:57:47.600]  Listen, Suzanne, we're at the end of the show, okay?
[01:57:47.600 --> 01:57:50.600]  We're about to end the show in less than a minute.
[01:57:50.600 --> 01:57:58.600]  So, write down the facts in chronological order of what happened, okay, and then please
[01:57:58.600 --> 01:58:03.040]  come back in Thursday night and let's go over this again because Randy will be with us Thursday
[01:58:03.040 --> 01:58:06.520]  night and he's the mortgage foreclosure expert, okay?
[01:58:06.520 --> 01:58:07.520]  Okay.
[01:58:07.520 --> 01:58:08.520]  Okay, all right.
[01:58:08.520 --> 01:58:09.520]  Thank you very much.
[01:58:09.520 --> 01:58:11.960]  I appreciate the call, and we're going to do everything we can to help you, okay?
[01:58:11.960 --> 01:58:12.960]  All right, thank you.
[01:58:12.960 --> 01:58:14.960]  Okay, thank you, Suzanne.
[01:58:14.960 --> 01:58:19.160]  Okay, outrageous, grand larceny.
[01:58:19.160 --> 01:58:24.280]  Okay, all right, folks, we are at the end of the show.
[01:58:24.280 --> 01:58:25.280]  This is the rule of law.
[01:58:25.280 --> 01:58:26.560]  We'll be back on Thursday.
[01:58:26.560 --> 01:58:33.960]  We will also be broadcasting Friday night as well, so make sure you tune in, make sure
[01:58:33.960 --> 01:58:36.440]  you call in.
[01:58:36.440 --> 01:58:37.960]  Don't forget to support our sponsors.
[01:58:37.960 --> 01:58:42.280]  Don't forget to get Eddie's traffic seminar and jurisdictionary and centrician and all
[01:58:42.280 --> 01:58:44.200]  these things.
[01:58:44.200 --> 01:58:49.400]  Don't forget Tom Kiley, Einon will report tomorrow, and Agenda 21 is also tomorrow.
[01:58:49.400 --> 01:58:51.800]  That's at 6 and 8, respectively.
[01:58:51.800 --> 01:58:56.440]  Free Mind Report at 8 on Wednesday, and of course our brand new show, Truth Exposed Radio,
[01:58:56.440 --> 01:58:57.440]  Wednesday at 6.
[01:58:57.440 --> 01:58:58.440]  We'll be back Thursday.
[01:58:58.440 --> 01:59:24.000]  Thank you.
[01:59:24.000 --> 01:59:36.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't watch my sides, I'm dangerous, I'm dangerous
[01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:43.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't watch my sides, I'm dangerous, dangerous
[01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:58.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't watch my sides, I'm dangerous