[00:15.640 --> 00:22.640] June 17, 2013. Gold opened today at $1,384, silver at $21.85, and bitcoin is trading at [00:22.640 --> 00:29.640] $101. Support for The Liberty Beat comes from Tomorrow's Meals Today, South Austin Market [00:30.080 --> 00:37.080] Days every Saturday from 3 to 7 p.m. at 10106 Manchac Road. Information at tomorrowsmealstoday.com. [00:37.440 --> 00:41.680] And from Capital City Automotive, honest, reliable auto repair for vehicles foreign [00:41.680 --> 00:48.680] and domestic, online at capitalcityautoaustin.com. And now the news. Porkfest X is this week [00:48.680 --> 00:53.240] starting today and going through Sunday in Lancaster, New Hampshire. Porkfest is short [00:53.240 --> 00:57.240] for the Porcupine Freedom Festival and is organized by the Free State Project, an effort [00:57.240 --> 01:02.600] to bring 20,000 liberty activists to the state of New Hampshire. The event includes speakers, [01:02.600 --> 01:07.000] music, and one of the largest fully functional free markets in the country. Some of the speakers [01:07.000 --> 01:12.200] include Jeff Berwick, Dr. Robert Murphy, Antonio Bieler, David Friedman, and others. More [01:12.200 --> 01:19.200] information at porkfest.com. A new controversial phone app would allow people to snap a picture [01:22.880 --> 01:27.720] of a parking violation and send the photo to police, private parking operators, or city [01:27.720 --> 01:32.520] wardens. A police officer could then be dispatched to issue a ticket. The ticket resulted in [01:32.520 --> 01:37.080] a fine under the plan. Informants would get a cut deposited into their bank accounts or [01:37.080 --> 01:41.720] they could direct the cash to their favorite charities. The SpotSquad app co-founder Chris [01:41.720 --> 01:45.560] Johnson says he and his partners haven't yet signed any agreements to give informants a [01:45.560 --> 01:49.920] percentage of any ticket fines, but he adds that some private parking lot operators are [01:49.920 --> 01:56.920] in fact interested. In response to the recent revelations regarding [01:58.400 --> 02:04.040] spying by the NSA, a 28-year-old artist and developer from Brooklyn, New York has found [02:04.040 --> 02:08.320] a fun way of warning computer users about potential government surveillance. Justin [02:08.320 --> 02:13.320] Blinder released a plug-in for the web browser Firefox this week. His Dark Side of the Prism [02:13.320 --> 02:17.880] browser extension alerts web surfers of the possible surveillance by starting up a different [02:17.880 --> 02:22.800] song from Pink Floyd's 1973 classic, The Dark Side of the Moon, each time a questionable [02:22.800 --> 02:28.480] sight is crossed. Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Brave [02:28.480 --> 02:35.000] New Books, free-thinking materials for free-thinking people since 2006. In Austin in 1904, Guadalupe [02:35.000 --> 02:42.000] Street. And from Central Texas Gunworks, self-defense training, CHL forces and firearm sales. In [02:43.160 --> 02:48.800] Austin it's centraltexasgunworks.com. Jamin Shivley, a former Microsoft Corporate [02:48.800 --> 02:53.360] Strategy Manager plans to create the first U.S. National Marijuana brand. Shivley held [02:53.360 --> 02:57.240] a press conference with former President of Mexico Vicente Fox announcing that he hopes [02:57.240 --> 03:04.240] to eventually import legally from Mexico. [03:27.240 --> 03:34.240] Stole a car, somebody got away, somebody didn't get too far, yeah, they didn't get [03:35.320 --> 03:41.920] too far. Grant Paffey told my Paffey back in my day's [03:41.920 --> 03:48.920] son, a man had the answer for the wicked that he'd done. Take all the rope in Texas by the [03:48.920 --> 03:57.920] tall old trees, round up all of them bad boys, hang them high in the street for all the people [03:57.920 --> 04:03.920] to see. That justice is one thing you should always [04:03.920 --> 04:09.920] find, you gotta saddle up your boys, you've gotta draw a hard line. When the gun smoke [04:09.920 --> 04:17.920] settles we'll sing a victory tune and we'll all be back at the local saloon. We'll raise [04:17.920 --> 04:26.920] up our glasses against evil forces singing, whiskey for my men, beer for my horses. [04:35.920 --> 04:42.920] Alright folks, good evening, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show, it is June 24th, [04:42.920 --> 04:48.920] 2013. I have a guest this evening, I know it's highly unusual, most people don't want [04:48.920 --> 04:53.920] to talk to me for very long if they can help it, but I have a good friend of mine who also [04:53.920 --> 04:57.920] happens to be the attorney that I do work for on occasion and he has agreed to come [04:57.920 --> 05:03.920] on tonight and talk over a couple of issues dealing with some of the motions in the seminar [05:03.920 --> 05:08.920] material. One of which we're going to start off with tonight for sure is going to be the [05:08.920 --> 05:13.920] motion to quash the false summons that they issue here in Texas. In case you don't realize [05:13.920 --> 05:19.920] it, when you get that little form letter in the mail from the municipal or the JP court, [05:19.920 --> 05:26.920] it absolutely does not comply with the requirements of a valid legal summons under Chapter 23 [05:26.920 --> 05:33.920] of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is nothing more than a form letter that without the force [05:33.920 --> 05:40.920] and effect of law is criminal. Why do I say it's criminal? Well, because Texas has a statute [05:40.920 --> 05:44.920] specifically against that, which we will cover in more detail when we get a little further [05:44.920 --> 05:49.920] down into our discussion here, but the crime that's committed is a class A misdemeanor [05:49.920 --> 05:55.920] called simulation of legal process and whoever signed and sent out that letter under color [05:55.920 --> 06:02.920] of law in violation of Chapter 23 is guilty of that class A misdemeanor. So what I would [06:02.920 --> 06:07.920] like to do now is go over the legal aspects of the arguments that I make in that document [06:07.920 --> 06:10.920] with Jeff. Jeff, thank you for being on with me tonight. [06:10.920 --> 06:12.920] Sure. Thank you. Thanks for having us. [06:12.920 --> 06:19.920] No problem. I know you haven't got to go through this thing in any real detail, but for what [06:19.920 --> 06:23.920] you have looked at so far, you have any questions or comments on what we're looking at? [06:23.920 --> 06:30.920] No, and would it be helpful for me to give some detail to the listeners as to why I'm [06:30.920 --> 06:35.920] especially personally interested in this aspect of it? [06:35.920 --> 06:39.920] That is entirely within your purview if you wish to do so. [06:39.920 --> 06:44.920] Okay. I think it'd be relevant more than anything just so that they kind of understand exactly [06:44.920 --> 06:54.920] where we are. I represent a trust that is fighting a code violation on a rental issue [06:54.920 --> 07:01.920] and this is a hot issue here in...most of my practice is in Austin, Texas. This is a [07:01.920 --> 07:06.920] hot issue here in Austin as well as many of the surrounding cities, especially the vacation [07:06.920 --> 07:13.920] homes or vacation rentals. And specifically in this case, my client was ticketed for what [07:13.920 --> 07:20.920] the city believes to be a lease that was less than 30 days. And the way the code violation [07:20.920 --> 07:26.920] that they're alleging the code violation reads is that any lease that's less than 30 days [07:26.920 --> 07:31.920] violates their code. Why you and I have been around and around and around with our code [07:31.920 --> 07:38.920] and in no way, shape, or form is that actually volatile of the municipal code. So where we [07:38.920 --> 07:45.920] stand today is the last two appearances that my client was, in theory, summoned to appear. [07:45.920 --> 07:52.920] I, as counsel, couldn't be present because I was in hearings that kept me from going, [07:52.920 --> 07:58.920] one in Williamson County District Court and one in Travis County District Court. We called [07:58.920 --> 08:05.920] ahead, gave notices of the same, and they have now come back with not one but two failure [08:05.920 --> 08:11.920] to appears. And each one of the summonses that they've sent us, there's an affidavit [08:11.920 --> 08:15.920] that's attached, it's signed by the clerk, that basically says that Mr. Kelly, on behalf [08:15.920 --> 08:21.920] of the trust, failed to appear, and that is a failure to appear pursuant to the code. [08:21.920 --> 08:26.920] And it's very vague like that. It doesn't go into any detail, doesn't cite any statutes [08:26.920 --> 08:31.920] or anything like that. It just says, among a number of different lies, it basically says [08:31.920 --> 08:38.920] that we failed to appear. So that's why this is personally near and dear to my heart and [08:38.920 --> 08:44.920] one of the reasons that I wanted to come on to this evening and discuss this. [08:44.920 --> 08:50.920] Okay. Well, given that, based upon those facts, if you'll look in that motion there, you'll [08:50.920 --> 08:55.920] see that the very first issue that is raised by what these people are doing in relation [08:55.920 --> 09:00.920] to these form letters, the very first legal issue is, does a form letter pretending to [09:00.920 --> 09:06.920] be a proper judicial summons create a binding duty upon any individual to comply with its [09:06.920 --> 09:15.920] demands? And then I go into the legal argument over exactly what the letter contains in relation [09:15.920 --> 09:20.920] to, you know, it says this, it's signed by this person, it's dated this, it's got this [09:20.920 --> 09:26.920] title on it, and basically it makes all kinds of threats against the individual that if [09:26.920 --> 09:32.920] you fail to appear in compliance, you're going to be issued further charges of failure to [09:32.920 --> 09:36.920] appear, warrants going to come out for your arrest, and if we catch you, we're going to [09:36.920 --> 09:41.920] throw you in jail and so on and so forth. It basically is doing everything within the [09:41.920 --> 09:47.920] language powers it possesses to convince you that you have a binding legal duty to comply [09:47.920 --> 09:54.920] with everything it's demanding that you do, including present yourself bodily before this [09:54.920 --> 10:02.920] court or tribunal or whatever it wants to call itself for the purpose of answering to [10:02.920 --> 10:06.920] some allegation. Would you agree that's a fair assessment of the contents of the letter [10:06.920 --> 10:07.920] that you have? [10:07.920 --> 10:11.920] That's exactly the contents. It basically just says that there's an order to appear [10:11.920 --> 10:19.920] here by advise that your case is styled, and that you're to appear on the 25th of June [10:19.920 --> 10:25.920] 2013 thereafter, if you order it, if you fail to appear, an order will be issued, may result [10:25.920 --> 10:30.920] in a charge of contempt and issuance of a warrant for your arrest. So, exactly. Nailed [10:30.920 --> 10:31.920] it. [10:31.920 --> 10:38.920] Okay. All right. So, what I want to do now is I want to read the actual criminal act [10:38.920 --> 10:44.920] that's being perpetrated by the mailing of this letter. This is 32.48 of the Texas Penal [10:44.920 --> 10:52.920] Code. It is titled, Simulating Legal Process, and this is exactly what it reads. Subsection [10:52.920 --> 10:58.920] A, a person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another [10:58.920 --> 11:05.920] any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the [11:05.920 --> 11:12.920] intent to, one, induce payment of a claim from another person, or two, cause another [11:12.920 --> 11:19.920] to, A, submit to the punitive authority of the document, or B, take any action or refrain [11:19.920 --> 11:25.920] from taking any action in response to the document in compliance with the document or [11:25.920 --> 11:31.920] on the basis of the document. Subsection B, proof that the document was mailed to any [11:31.920 --> 11:35.920] person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient [11:35.920 --> 11:42.920] showing that the document was delivered. Subsection C, it is not a defense to prosecution under [11:42.920 --> 11:48.920] this section that the simulating document, one, states that it is not legal process, [11:48.920 --> 11:54.920] or two, purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful [11:54.920 --> 12:00.920] authority to issue or authorize the document. Subsection D, if it is shown on the trial [12:00.920 --> 12:04.920] of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented [12:04.920 --> 12:13.920] to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a court created or established [12:13.920 --> 12:18.920] under the constitutional laws of this state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the [12:18.920 --> 12:24.920] document was delivered with the intent described by subsection A. Subsection E, except as provided [12:24.920 --> 12:31.920] by subsection F, an offense under this section is a class A misdemeanor. Subsection F, if [12:31.920 --> 12:36.920] it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously [12:36.920 --> 12:41.920] been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony. [12:41.920 --> 12:46.920] Wow. Now that is the punitive statute in its entirety [12:46.920 --> 12:56.920] regarding simulating legal process. Somehow or other, I think subsection A to B covers [12:56.920 --> 13:01.920] everything we need in regards to that letter. Completely. Yep. [13:01.920 --> 13:05.920] Now the only, and again, this is coming from a civil attorney, not a criminal attorney, [13:05.920 --> 13:09.920] so you're going to be better versed in this than I, how are we going to get to the recklessly [13:09.920 --> 13:14.920] aspect? Okay. We can show basically by the format [13:14.920 --> 13:19.920] of the document is noncompliance with 23, which shows they're not utilizing the laws [13:19.920 --> 13:24.920] associated with the duties of their office in the manner required. Would you be considered [13:24.920 --> 13:29.920] practicing law recklessly if you admitted that you never looked at the law you use to [13:29.920 --> 13:34.920] defend or act on behalf of your client? I think you get there that way. Yep. [13:34.920 --> 13:37.920] Yep. So to me, that would be the first way we [13:37.920 --> 13:42.920] would head into that foray of, yeah, that's pretty reckless. I mean, especially when you [13:42.920 --> 13:47.920] can get them on a stand. Have you ever read chapter 23? Can you tell me the specific requirements [13:47.920 --> 13:52.920] for a valid legal summons in the state of Texas? Can you explain why the document you [13:52.920 --> 13:57.920] issue does not comply with that legal process requirement? Can you explain about what authority [13:57.920 --> 14:03.920] you acted? Can you explain who delegated the authority to you to act as a judicial officer [14:03.920 --> 14:08.920] for the purpose of signing the summons? Because that chapter 23 specifically says the court [14:08.920 --> 14:18.920] has to sign it. Clerk is not the court. So right there, we got both the magistrate and [14:18.920 --> 14:24.920] the clerk because the magistrate has attempted to delegate what the code specifies is a judicial [14:24.920 --> 14:30.920] duty to someone that is not a judicial officer. And you and I both know the judge cannot delegate [14:30.920 --> 14:38.920] a judicial duty to an underling. Exactly. So I can say that's a pretty reckless method [14:38.920 --> 14:44.920] of operating a court. Couldn't you? Oh yeah, for sure. So you think we covered reckless [14:44.920 --> 14:51.920] now? I think we're there. I think we're there. All right. So with that in mind, I mean, how [14:51.920 --> 14:56.920] would they prove recklessness if somebody say like the Republic of Texas folks did it? [14:56.920 --> 15:00.920] They're doing it intentionally and knowingly under what they deemed their people's court [15:00.920 --> 15:05.920] and their common law court. So how does the state go after them and claim they're being [15:05.920 --> 15:16.920] reckless if all they really have is intent to deliver? It's true. But they do it. So [15:16.920 --> 15:20.920] in this regard, I think we could probably find the case law on the subject that makes [15:20.920 --> 15:24.920] it clear that the state is actually proving that they do it intentionally rather than [15:24.920 --> 15:31.920] recklessly. And since the clerk signed it and the clerk will have to admit, yeah, that's [15:31.920 --> 15:36.920] my signature. Yeah, I put it in the mail. Then intent is definitely there. Intents for [15:36.920 --> 15:43.920] sure there. Yep. Okay. So based upon the first legal issue, is there a binding duty created [15:43.920 --> 15:50.920] by this? Well, if it's not a valid legal summons, how can it in any way, shape or form, create [15:50.920 --> 15:58.920] a binding legal duty on the person it's directed to? It can't. Exactly. Exactly. But here it's [15:58.920 --> 16:04.920] pretending to compel you to obey everything in it or suffer the consequences, which falls [16:04.920 --> 16:14.920] squarely under 32.48A2B. And again, just for refresher of the listeners out there, that [16:14.920 --> 16:20.920] section or subsection reads, take any action or refrain from taking any action in response [16:20.920 --> 16:26.920] to the document in compliance with the document or on the basis of the document. And when [16:26.920 --> 16:31.920] that document is threatening you with warrants for arrest, incarceration, additional fines [16:31.920 --> 16:37.920] and fees, I'd say you're being compelled to comply. For sure. Yep. All right. Well, folks, [16:37.920 --> 16:40.920] we're about to take a break. We're going to come back up on the other side. This is your [16:40.920 --> 16:45.920] host, Eddie Craig, with my guest, Jeff Kelly, attorney. We will be right back in. I will [16:45.920 --> 16:49.920] start taking calls if Jeff wants to hang on and discuss any questions after we get done [16:49.920 --> 16:53.920] with our discussion of this. So folks, if you're having to wait, please hang on. We'll [16:53.920 --> 16:57.920] get to you shortly. We'll be right back after this break. So y'all be right there. [17:23.920 --> 17:38.920] I think I love you. But I want to know for sure. So come on. Neutrify me. I love you. [17:38.920 --> 17:43.920] Did you know that you can extend your life by as much as 15% by taking young gravity [17:43.920 --> 17:50.920] products like tangy tangerine? My missus lost so much weight by taking tangy tangerine, [17:50.920 --> 17:56.920] and she eventually disappeared, which will probably let me live an extra 15 years. Go [17:56.920 --> 18:03.920] to logos radio network.com and click the longevity banner. Are you being harassed by debt collectors [18:03.920 --> 18:08.920] with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael [18:08.920 --> 18:13.920] Miras proven method. Michael Miras has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, [18:13.920 --> 18:18.920] and now you can win too. You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how [18:18.920 --> 18:23.920] to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, [18:23.920 --> 18:28.920] mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors [18:28.920 --> 18:33.920] out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay [18:33.920 --> 18:39.920] you to go away. The Michael Miras proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:39.920 --> 18:44.920] Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit rule of [18:44.920 --> 18:49.920] law radio dot com and click on the blue Michael Miras banner or email Michael Miras at yahoo [18:49.920 --> 18:57.920] dot com. That's rule of law radio dot com or email M I C H A E L M I R R A S at yahoo [18:57.920 --> 19:23.920] dot com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. Logos Radio Network dot com. [19:23.920 --> 19:35.920] All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the Monday night traffic show [19:35.920 --> 19:41.920] with your host, Eddie Craig. And again, it is June 24th, 2013. We are live with the guest [19:41.920 --> 19:46.920] tonight, Mr. Jeff Kelly, attorney at law here in Austin and a gentleman that I sometimes [19:46.920 --> 19:52.920] do paralegal work for when needed. And what we want to go over now in continuance of what [19:52.920 --> 19:57.920] we've been discussing is Article twenty three point for the Code of Criminal Procedure, [19:57.920 --> 20:04.920] which tells us what the legal requirements are for a valid summons. Now, as we go down [20:04.920 --> 20:10.920] through this, Jeff, I would like for you to comment and let me know if any of what we're [20:10.920 --> 20:17.920] talking about appears in the documents you were sent that pretend to summon you to court. [20:17.920 --> 20:24.920] Sure. Okay. Now, Chapter twenty three of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Article [20:24.920 --> 20:31.920] twenty three point four, it reads in misdemeanor case in misdemeanor cases, the capias or summons [20:31.920 --> 20:37.920] shall issue from a court having jurisdiction of the case on the filing of an information [20:37.920 --> 20:44.920] or complaint. The summons shall be issued only upon request of the attorney representing [20:44.920 --> 20:51.920] the state and on the determination of probable cause by the judge and shall follow the same [20:51.920 --> 20:58.920] form and procedure as in felony cases. In other words, this is saying that everything [20:58.920 --> 21:05.920] about a misdemeanor capias is exactly the same as it is for a felony capias. Now, the [21:05.920 --> 21:10.920] provisions of twenty three point four go a little further. This is what it says. It's [21:10.920 --> 21:17.920] got five specific mandatory requirements for a valid misdemeanor summons. Number one, the [21:17.920 --> 21:24.920] summons shall issue from a court having jurisdiction of the case. All right. Since we're making [21:24.920 --> 21:28.920] the argument that the court is acting without jurisdiction and we're here under special [21:28.920 --> 21:34.920] appearance to challenge that jurisdiction, then we're in a civil matter, not in a criminal [21:34.920 --> 21:40.920] matter. OK, so the court wouldn't have any jurisdiction to issue the summons until the [21:40.920 --> 21:47.920] court proves on the record it actually has jurisdiction. Number two, the summons shall [21:47.920 --> 21:54.920] issue only upon the filing of an information or complaint, neither of which normally exist [21:54.920 --> 22:01.920] in these cases until well into the procedure, which means everything the court and the prosecutor [22:01.920 --> 22:07.920] has done prior to that point without that complaint and information has been without [22:07.920 --> 22:16.920] any judicial issue in front of the court, i.e. no jurisdiction to do anything. The court [22:16.920 --> 22:21.920] cannot act, correct me if I'm wrong here, Jeff, unless there is a justiciable issue [22:21.920 --> 22:28.920] before it, a conflict of law, right or wrong. That's right. So in what form must that conflict [22:28.920 --> 22:38.920] be registered to the court to grant jurisdiction? Well, in a criminal case, Article 5, Section [22:38.920 --> 22:44.920] 12B of the Texas Constitution says very specifically, an indictment or information invests the court [22:44.920 --> 22:51.920] with jurisdiction of the cause. It does not mention the word complaint. It says an indictment [22:51.920 --> 22:58.920] or information. Then when you get down, you find out that the only persons who can sign [22:58.920 --> 23:04.920] an information is a county or district attorney. The only one that can sign an indictment is [23:04.920 --> 23:11.920] the foreman of the grand jury. None of those people are signing the complaint. So the complaint [23:11.920 --> 23:17.920] cannot by any stretch of the imagination invest the court with jurisdiction to do anything. [23:17.920 --> 23:23.920] So my next question, Jeff, is has your client been served with an information signed by [23:23.920 --> 23:27.920] a county or district attorney? No, sir. The only thing that they've been served with was [23:27.920 --> 23:33.920] the complaint itself. And that came only at my, well, I probably made a mistake with the [23:33.920 --> 23:39.920] demand that we added because all that was sent over first was just like a municipal [23:39.920 --> 23:46.920] ticket. And the ticket came over and basically said just some random charge. And I was concerned [23:46.920 --> 23:52.920] upfront because I had no idea what violation they alleged of the municipal code. So the [23:52.920 --> 23:57.920] complaint, the complaint came over and it was just as vague as the ticket. Yeah, that [23:57.920 --> 24:03.920] sounds just about right. That's actually pretty normal for it to be vague. Very rarely have [24:03.920 --> 24:08.920] I seen them do anything in compliance with law, as I've told you many times while I've [24:08.920 --> 24:12.920] worked with you on some of this stuff, they very rarely do anything they're supposed to [24:12.920 --> 24:18.920] do. Yep, exactly. Okay. Now you were also, just to back up here for just a second, you [24:18.920 --> 24:29.920] were asking about the recklessness from before. So let me look here. 6.03 of the penal code [24:29.920 --> 24:35.920] definitions of culpable mental state. This you're going to like. Subsection A, a person [24:35.920 --> 24:39.920] acts intentionally or with intent with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result [24:39.920 --> 24:44.920] of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause [24:44.920 --> 24:50.920] the result. Subsection B, a person acts knowingly or with knowledge with respect to the nature [24:50.920 --> 24:55.920] of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature [24:55.920 --> 25:00.920] of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge [25:00.920 --> 25:05.920] with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably [25:05.920 --> 25:09.920] certain to cause the result. And this is the one that's going to interest you the most. [25:09.920 --> 25:16.920] Subsection C, a person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to circumstances [25:16.920 --> 25:22.920] surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously [25:22.920 --> 25:28.920] disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result [25:28.920 --> 25:34.920] will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes [25:34.920 --> 25:39.920] a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under [25:39.920 --> 25:45.920] all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. Would you say that a magistrate [25:45.920 --> 25:52.920] judge and a clerk of the court from their viewpoint are required to know the duties [25:52.920 --> 25:56.920] placed upon them by the laws associated with their office? [25:56.920 --> 26:01.920] Most definitely. In this case, it's a municipal judge, but they're definitely charged with [26:01.920 --> 26:07.920] knowing what the criminal code is and whether or not what they're sending out actually comports [26:07.920 --> 26:08.920] with it. [26:08.920 --> 26:14.920] That's correct. And a special thanks to my friend and assistant here, Johnny, for referring [26:14.920 --> 26:18.920] that section to me since I didn't have a chance to look it up. Johnny, I appreciate you much [26:18.920 --> 26:24.920] for that. But getting to recklessness in this case is not going to be difficult, nor is [26:24.920 --> 26:30.920] proving that the form letter does not match the requirements of a valid summons. I mean, [26:30.920 --> 26:35.920] if we go a little further down in here, when we look at this, the summons shall issue only [26:35.920 --> 26:40.920] upon the filing of an information or complaint. Well, a city attorney can't file either of [26:40.920 --> 26:44.920] those. Hence the reason we put in the challenge to the city attorney acting in the name of [26:44.920 --> 26:52.920] the state, because this says right here, it must be filed by the attorney representing [26:52.920 --> 26:57.920] the state. Well, if the city attorney can't represent the state, he can't possibly request [26:57.920 --> 27:05.920] the issuance of the summons. Eddie, what section are you referring to? The statute 23, or I'm [27:05.920 --> 27:12.920] sorry, the requirements of the complaint or the summons in chapter 2304 and the criminal [27:12.920 --> 27:18.920] requirements. When you look at the statute, the second sentence says the summons shall [27:18.920 --> 27:24.920] be issued only upon request of the attorney representing the state. That's 23.04 of the [27:24.920 --> 27:32.920] code of criminal procedure. Okay. If the city attorney cannot lawfully represent the state, [27:32.920 --> 27:37.920] he cannot request the summons. So the first thing I'd want to do is call the clerk who [27:37.920 --> 27:43.920] issued the citation. Can you please testify as to the date and time that the city attorney [27:43.920 --> 27:47.920] or the attorney representing the state, but I wouldn't use that because of course we're [27:47.920 --> 27:51.920] saying he can't represent the state. So would you please identify the date and time that [27:51.920 --> 27:57.920] the city attorney requested the issuance of this summons? Well, the city attorney didn't [27:57.920 --> 28:05.920] request it. It's just part of what I do. Oh, so the letter was issued of your own volition [28:05.920 --> 28:11.920] without request of anyone else. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Ding, ding, ding. Well, they just [28:11.920 --> 28:18.920] confessed to a crime. Now, if they testify that the city attorney requested on such and [28:18.920 --> 28:23.920] such date and such and such time, and we can show the city attorney could not represent [28:23.920 --> 28:32.920] the state, then we have him for impersonating a public servant because he is trying to impersonate [28:32.920 --> 28:36.920] a county or district attorney by requesting that since they're the only ones that can [28:36.920 --> 28:43.920] represent the state. Okay. I felt like we were kind of at 30,000 feet. I understood [28:43.920 --> 28:50.920] the concept, but now that when we drill down, I now see how this plays out. Yeah, it gets [28:50.920 --> 28:55.920] really nasty really quick because none of these people are reading the laws associated [28:55.920 --> 28:59.920] with what they're required to do. They're just doing it. They're just doing it. Well, [28:59.920 --> 29:03.920] they're doing what they've been told to do for years and years. Exactly. And no one seems [29:03.920 --> 29:09.920] to look at the statute itself. But can you imagine what a judge in a civil suit is going [29:09.920 --> 29:18.920] to say when the argument is made that I just did what I was told, I never read the law? [29:18.920 --> 29:24.920] Is that reckless? I would say that's pretty much the point. It's like you're saying that [29:24.920 --> 29:30.920] you took on this job. Now, you and I both know, Jeff, that when you get hired on by [29:30.920 --> 29:34.920] any corporation, what is the first thing the corporation puts in your hands when you take [29:34.920 --> 29:40.920] a job? Bylaws usually so that I know exactly who I represent. Exactly. Hang on just a second. [29:40.920 --> 29:44.920] We're about to go to break and we'll pick this up. All right, folks, this is Rule of [29:44.920 --> 29:50.920] Law Radio calling number 512-646-1984. We're still going to be with Jeff for a little while, [29:50.920 --> 29:53.920] but if you all want to get in line and get ready, we'll go from there. We're going to [29:53.920 --> 29:56.920] be right back on the other side of the break, so you all hold on. [29:56.920 --> 30:05.920] When you surf the Internet, you may get the false impression that you're alone, but advertisers [30:05.920 --> 30:10.920] are likely to be watching and a Gallup poll says we don't like it one bit. I'm Dr. Catherine [30:10.920 --> 30:13.920] Albrecht and I'll be back to tell you more in just a moment. [30:13.920 --> 30:18.920] Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches, and creating a massive [30:18.920 --> 30:24.920] database of your personal information. That's creepy, but it doesn't have to be that way. [30:24.920 --> 30:28.920] Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. Startpage doesn't store your [30:28.920 --> 30:33.920] IP address, make a record of your searches, or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party [30:33.920 --> 30:38.920] certified. If you don't like big brothers spying on you, start over with Startpage. [30:38.920 --> 30:44.920] Great search results and total privacy. Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. [30:44.920 --> 30:48.920] According to a new Gallup poll, most Americans are not aware they're being tracked and profiled [30:48.920 --> 30:53.920] as they surf the Internet, but they clearly hate the idea. Researchers ask Internet users [30:53.920 --> 30:58.920] if advertisers should be allowed to customize online ads to match the websites they visited. [30:58.920 --> 31:05.920] 67% said no. Nevertheless, advertisers continue their stealthy ways. Here are three tips to [31:05.920 --> 31:10.920] stop the snooping. Number one, stick to privacy-friendly websites when possible, especially for web [31:10.920 --> 31:14.920] searches. Your search terms reveal a lot about you, like your interests and your medical [31:14.920 --> 31:19.920] conditions. Number two, delete tracking cookies. And number three, visit websites through a [31:19.920 --> 31:24.920] proxy, like the one at Startpage.com. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information [31:24.920 --> 31:49.920] at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [31:54.920 --> 31:58.920] I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [31:58.920 --> 32:01.920] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [32:01.920 --> 32:07.920] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy, [32:07.920 --> 32:10.920] and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with. [32:10.920 --> 32:13.920] Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then. [32:13.920 --> 32:14.920] Brave New Books? [32:14.920 --> 32:19.920] Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, [32:19.920 --> 32:25.920] Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin soaps. [32:25.920 --> 32:28.920] There's no way a place like that exists. [32:28.920 --> 32:33.920] Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. [32:33.920 --> 32:37.920] Oh, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. [32:37.920 --> 32:42.920] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking [32:42.920 --> 32:45.920] facility just behind the bookstore. [32:45.920 --> 32:48.920] It does exist, but when are they open? [32:48.920 --> 32:53.920] Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays. [32:53.920 --> 33:18.920] So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com. [33:23.920 --> 33:50.920] All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [33:50.920 --> 33:54.920] All right, we're going to continue on in this discussion. Let's look at the next thing that these [33:54.920 --> 33:59.920] legal valid summonses have to have before they carry the force and effect of law. [33:59.920 --> 34:04.920] Now, we've already covered that it has to be signed by the attorney representing the state, [34:04.920 --> 34:09.920] and we already know that according to the Texas Constitution, delegation of powers and the [34:09.920 --> 34:14.920] requirements of a charging instrument and so on and so forth out of the Code of Colonel Procedure, [34:14.920 --> 34:21.920] constitutionally and lawfully speaking, a city attorney cannot represent the state in any court [34:21.920 --> 34:28.920] anywhere, and the legislature cannot delegate that power because it is a specific delegation of the [34:28.920 --> 34:36.920] Constitution to only two public offices, and a city attorney is by no means a public office. [34:36.920 --> 34:42.920] He is private legal counsel to an incorporated entity. [34:42.920 --> 34:48.920] He's not a public official in any true sense of the word. He's private legal counsel, [34:48.920 --> 34:56.920] and he's trying to represent the state by decree of the legislature, and it just can't be done that way. [34:56.920 --> 35:02.920] Now, when we look at the next requirement of this, the summons shall be issued only upon request [35:02.920 --> 35:07.920] to the attorney representing the state, like we said. The summons shall be issued only on the [35:07.920 --> 35:13.920] determination of probable cause order by the judge. Jeff, in your client's file, [35:13.920 --> 35:18.920] have you seen a signed order of probable cause by the judge? [35:18.920 --> 35:25.920] No, and that's what I wanted to drill down on. On the break, we discussed that what was sent was [35:25.920 --> 35:32.920] the order to appear, but then also an affidavit from the clerk basically saying that I did not appear. [35:32.920 --> 35:38.920] That's not probable cause. It's just an affidavit from the clerk saying that on this date and time, [35:38.920 --> 35:44.920] although we called and requested a delay, that we didn't show. [35:44.920 --> 35:50.920] Yeah, exactly. That is not a probable cause affidavit that I can identify. [35:50.920 --> 35:57.920] Does it meet the requirements of a probable cause affidavit? That's a completely different statute. [35:57.920 --> 36:04.920] So, in the affidavit, what law does it allege was violated by this alleged failure to appear? [36:04.920 --> 36:10.920] It's completely silent to that. All it says is that I failed to appear. That's all it says. [36:10.920 --> 36:15.920] On this day, a fine personally examined the official court records of cause number, da-da-da-da, [36:15.920 --> 36:20.920] affiliated with failure to appear charges, defended as charged with the offense of failure to appear [36:20.920 --> 36:25.920] for underlying original offense of the renting property for less than 30 days, [36:25.920 --> 36:30.920] as a misdemeanor. A fine was present in the courtroom, which is basically the clerk. [36:30.920 --> 36:36.920] A fine is a custodian of records. That's it. Doesn't say anything about what specific... [36:36.920 --> 36:43.920] And what's interesting about this, one of the first ones, is it says the judge's name, [36:43.920 --> 36:50.920] let's see, verbal appearance on April 23rd, defendant's... Okay, then the defendant did not appear for court. [36:50.920 --> 36:55.920] The defendant did not submit a motion for continuance. Judge Adams, well, let that out of the bag, [36:55.920 --> 37:03.920] issued orders for a warrant. The defendant appeared later that day after court was already concluded, [37:03.920 --> 37:07.920] but the judge bailiff and arresting code enforcement officer were no longer available. [37:07.920 --> 37:15.920] So, in her own affidavit, she admitted that, in fact, I did show, and in this one, we actually called ahead, [37:15.920 --> 37:18.920] both of them actually called ahead and said that we're running late. [37:18.920 --> 37:24.920] Yeah, and on top of that, here's their other issue with that. The clerk has signed an affidavit stating [37:24.920 --> 37:30.920] that they are not only the one, because we have the letter to prove they signed the letter, [37:30.920 --> 37:36.920] but now because they didn't respond to the letter I sent illegally, I'm going to accuse them of not appearing rightfully. [37:36.920 --> 37:44.920] And the judge, now that affidavit can only be what the judge is using to issue the warrant for failure to appear. [37:44.920 --> 37:51.920] That is not the statement of probable cause required by 23.04 to issue the summons in the first place. [37:51.920 --> 38:01.920] You see the problem they've got? They never had a lawful order from the judge for probable cause to issue the summons. [38:01.920 --> 38:06.920] Okay, that makes sense. [38:06.920 --> 38:11.920] They're using the affidavit the clerk put in there only to issue the warrant for the failure to appear, [38:11.920 --> 38:21.920] but how can you fail to appear once again on something that has no binding lawful authority or creates a binding legal duty? [38:21.920 --> 38:26.920] It's a whirlpool quandary they're not going to have an easy time getting out of. [38:26.920 --> 38:34.920] I mean, let's look at the last thing. The summons shall follow the same form and procedure as in a felony case. [38:34.920 --> 38:40.920] Well, when you go back up and read all this, there's a whole lot of additional things within the felony requirements [38:40.920 --> 38:43.920] that also do not appear on that letter. [38:43.920 --> 38:49.920] For instance, it must begin in and by the authority of the state of Texas. [38:49.920 --> 38:55.920] It must state in the body of the letter the name or description of the person it's summoning, [38:55.920 --> 39:02.920] and rather than being directed to a peace officer of the state to seize and present bodily the individual, [39:02.920 --> 39:06.920] a command for the individual to appear themselves. [39:06.920 --> 39:11.920] And it must state the offense for which they are to appear. [39:11.920 --> 39:16.920] Those are the additional requirements to a felony summons. [39:16.920 --> 39:21.920] And Eddie, which section, what code section is the felony requirement? [39:21.920 --> 39:24.920] All of chapter 23 is felony and misdemeanor together. [39:24.920 --> 39:29.920] It starts listing all of the requirements for the felony capias. [39:29.920 --> 39:34.920] And as it goes down, it says in a misdemeanor case, and that's where 23.04 picks up, [39:34.920 --> 39:43.920] it says in a misdemeanor case it has to do everything the felony requires and these things. [39:43.920 --> 39:48.920] So when you read, and chapter 23 is not very long, it's fairly short, [39:48.920 --> 39:55.920] but everything in it, nothing in that letter meets the requirements, absolutely nothing. [39:55.920 --> 40:01.920] And that is true whether it's a JP court, whether it's a municipal court, or a municipal court of record. [40:01.920 --> 40:05.920] I have yet to see a single one that complies with chapter 23. [40:05.920 --> 40:08.920] Everyone sends out a non-binding form letter. [40:08.920 --> 40:11.920] Eddie, I'm seeing a house of cards here. [40:11.920 --> 40:15.920] Yeah, not only will this house of cards fall, [40:15.920 --> 40:22.920] but we can set the dabbling thing on fire and stamp it out with hobnail boots. [40:22.920 --> 40:29.920] Because this is ridiculous that they can compound this comedy of errors this far [40:29.920 --> 40:34.920] just by failing to read what they're required to do by law. [40:34.920 --> 40:38.920] And honestly, you know this is what they're doing is they're trying to fleece my client for more money. [40:38.920 --> 40:43.920] They're saying, okay, now we have two FTAs and we have the underlying code violation. [40:43.920 --> 40:47.920] We now want, instead of $500, we want $1,500. [40:47.920 --> 40:49.920] That's all it's about. [40:49.920 --> 40:54.920] Now, to answer your previous question in more detail, let's look directly at the statute. [40:54.920 --> 41:00.920] In 23.03, which is immediately precedent to 23.04 of course, this is what it reads. [41:00.920 --> 41:03.920] Capists are summons in felony. [41:03.920 --> 41:06.920] A, a capist shall be issued by the district clerk. [41:06.920 --> 41:10.920] Of course, that's not necessary, so A doesn't really apply to these misdemeanors [41:10.920 --> 41:13.920] because the district court doesn't have original jurisdiction of them. [41:13.920 --> 41:17.920] So A is not really relevant to us, but let's look at B. [41:17.920 --> 41:22.920] Upon request of the attorney representing the state, there's that requirement again, [41:22.920 --> 41:26.920] a summons instead of a capist shall issue. [41:26.920 --> 41:32.920] If a defendant fails to appear in response to the summons, a capist shall issue. [41:32.920 --> 41:36.920] So right there is where they're claiming authority to issue the warrant. [41:36.920 --> 41:44.920] But again, if it's not a valid capist, it doesn't create a duty for which they can issue a warrant, correct? [41:44.920 --> 41:45.920] Correct. [41:45.920 --> 41:53.920] Subsection C, summons, the summons shall be in the same form as the capist, [41:53.920 --> 42:01.920] except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before the proper court at a stated time and place. [42:01.920 --> 42:06.920] The summons shall be served upon a defendant by delivering a copy to him personally [42:06.920 --> 42:11.920] or by leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode [42:11.920 --> 42:15.920] with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein [42:15.920 --> 42:20.920] or by mailing it to the defendant's last known address. [42:20.920 --> 42:32.920] D, a summons issued to any person must clearly and prominently state in English and in Spanish the following. [42:32.920 --> 42:40.920] It is an offense for a person to intentionally influence or coerce a witness to testify falsely or to allude legal process. [42:40.920 --> 42:48.920] It is also a felony offense to harm or threaten to harm a witness or perspective witness in retaliation for [42:48.920 --> 42:56.920] or on account of the service of the person as a witness or to prevent or delay the person's service as a witness to a crime. [42:56.920 --> 43:00.920] Is that statement on that form letter either of them? [43:00.920 --> 43:01.920] Not a chance. [43:01.920 --> 43:06.920] It's not in English or in Spanish. In fact, it's written in Casper the ghost language, right? [43:06.920 --> 43:08.920] It has to be because it's not legible here. [43:08.920 --> 43:12.920] Okay. It must be an invisible ink or something. [43:12.920 --> 43:21.920] All right. Now, specifically, that provision of 23.03 mandates 10 specific mandatory requirements. [43:21.920 --> 43:30.920] Ten! Okay? In addition to the five for the misdemeanor, none of those are on what you have. [43:30.920 --> 43:32.920] Nope. [43:32.920 --> 43:40.920] So how in the world do you think they're going to react to being accused of committing a class A misdemeanor multiple times? [43:40.920 --> 43:42.920] And transfer them in jail. [43:42.920 --> 43:48.920] Yeah, probably. The crooks will always try to throw those that call them crooks in jail, no doubt. [43:48.920 --> 43:51.920] All right, folks, about to go to break. This is Rule of Law Radio. [43:51.920 --> 44:02.920] Callers, I see you on the board. Please hang on. We'll get to you here shortly. We'll be right back. [44:21.920 --> 44:23.920] We'll be right back. [44:51.920 --> 45:10.920] Mr. President, members of Congress, you've been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away. [45:10.920 --> 45:17.920] But you might want to review history. 1835, Gonzales, Texas territory. [45:17.920 --> 45:22.920] The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony. [45:22.920 --> 45:31.920] You know what the people said? Come and take it, because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns. [45:31.920 --> 45:32.920] So are we. [45:32.920 --> 45:38.920] Come and take it if you want it. Come and take it if you think you can. [45:38.920 --> 45:45.920] Come and take it, but I warned you. You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. [45:45.920 --> 45:51.920] We want the freedom that God gave us. So you best not cross that line. [45:51.920 --> 45:59.920] If you want this gun, you got to come through us and take it one shot at a time. [45:59.920 --> 46:16.920] Just like Gonzales, we're keeping our guns. [46:29.920 --> 46:33.920] Do a warrior of love, scuffle and keep the peace. [46:33.920 --> 46:36.920] All they're taking is a misunderstanding. [46:36.920 --> 46:38.920] Somebody calls the police. [46:38.920 --> 47:02.920] Watch on the spot. [47:02.920 --> 47:12.920] All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. All right, real quick, we're going to run down these 10 additional requirements that the felony side of the cap. [47:12.920 --> 47:18.920] Is creates just so we can see everything else that is missing out of what has to be there. [47:18.920 --> 47:25.920] Now, according to what we just read and we'll read in the rest of Chapter 23, if you go through it, these are the 10 additional requirements. [47:25.920 --> 47:35.920] One, that it run in the name of the state of Texas. Two, that it name the person whose arrest is ordered or as required by Article 23.03 C. [47:35.920 --> 47:40.920] The person whose appearance before the court is requested or unknown is to describe them. [47:40.920 --> 47:50.920] Three, that it specify the offense of which the defendant is accused and it appear thereby that she or he is accused of some offense against the penal laws of the state. [47:50.920 --> 47:56.920] Okay, four, that it name the court to which and the time when it is returnable. [47:56.920 --> 48:02.920] And five, that it be dated and attested officially by the authority issuing same. [48:02.920 --> 48:18.920] Okay, now, when you look under that, the summons shall be served by delivering a copy personally or the summons shall be served by leaving it at his or her dwelling house or usual place of abode with someone of proper age. [48:18.920 --> 48:30.920] Or the summons shall be served by mailing to the defendant's last known address and the summons must clearly state in both English and Spanish the statement contained in 23.03 D. [48:30.920 --> 48:38.920] Those are the additional requirements that this has and they aren't there. [48:38.920 --> 48:49.920] This is unacceptable if you ask me. Anyway, now, that being said, this brings us down to an additional issue. [48:49.920 --> 49:01.920] If the pretrial notice pretending to be a proper judicial summons does not and cannot create a binding duty upon the accused to comply with its demands, then what is its purpose of issue in the first place? [49:01.920 --> 49:10.920] So how can something that doesn't comply with law, you know, what is its purpose of being issued? [49:10.920 --> 49:20.920] Why is it even being issued? It's to give you the impression that they're doing what's proper while in fact they're doing nothing that's proper. [49:20.920 --> 49:37.920] This again is the issue of if this is a criminal case and they're required to comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure as the rules governing the process and procedure of the case, then why are they not complying with any of the requirements for a criminal case? [49:37.920 --> 49:47.920] That makes the argument once again this cannot possibly be a criminal case because you're not complying with any of the rules associated with the processing of criminal cases. [49:47.920 --> 49:50.920] Now, how would you sing to that one, Jeff? [49:50.920 --> 49:59.920] Well, I think it's almost circular. They claim, at least outwardly, they claim that it's a criminal. In this case, they allege it's a misdemeanor. [49:59.920 --> 50:06.920] Well, then they're not complying with it, so to put it back in my realm as far as the civil side, I don't know. [50:06.920 --> 50:13.920] I mean, it's bizarre because everything you've been reading on the felony requirements and then each one of the misdemeanor requirements, none of which are they hitting. [50:13.920 --> 50:14.920] None of which. [50:14.920 --> 50:15.920] Exactly. [50:15.920 --> 50:24.920] So how in God's name can they issue an order to appear and summons that goes along with that if they're not doing it right? [50:24.920 --> 50:34.920] Precisely. And then claim that they have the force and effect of law behind them to issue a warrant for failing to appear on something that is legally nonbinding. [50:34.920 --> 50:36.920] Yep. Exactly. [50:36.920 --> 50:41.920] So there can only be a conspiratorial reason for that. Can we make conspiracy? [50:41.920 --> 50:47.920] Well, let's see. If we ask the clerk where they got the authority to do this, well, I was trained to do this. Well, who trained you? [50:47.920 --> 50:54.920] Well, my boss, the head clerk. Okay. Who trained the head clerk? That was the judge. Okay. Well, who taught the judge? [50:54.920 --> 51:01.920] Well, the last judge. All it takes is two to make a conspiracy. Here we've got four or five. [51:01.920 --> 51:03.920] Yep. Exactly. [51:03.920 --> 51:12.920] Now, this brings us to an additional problem for whoever is pretending or actually representing the state. [51:12.920 --> 51:19.920] If the city attorney is acting on behalf of the state, the city attorney would be required to know the criminal procedures just as well as the court would. [51:19.920 --> 51:27.920] That would mean that they would have to be fully aware that the court is using an illegal summons to get people into that court. [51:27.920 --> 51:38.920] That would mean that the city attorney is having to look the other way and therefore is conspiring with the court to pretend that that document has some legal binding authority. [51:38.920 --> 51:45.920] That again grants conspiracy and puts them right in the line of fire along with everybody else. [51:45.920 --> 51:53.920] Now, if a county or district attorney is doing it and they know the law is being broken and they're still not doing anything about it, [51:53.920 --> 51:58.920] they run right into the same law that the city attorney does. Whether they actually can represent the state or not is irrelevant. [51:58.920 --> 52:05.920] They are complicit in illegal acts by the court to commit fraud. [52:05.920 --> 52:12.920] So when they actually violate law in a criminal fashion or they violate rights in a criminal fashion, [52:12.920 --> 52:18.920] according to all the case law I can find on the subject, they cease to represent the government. [52:18.920 --> 52:24.920] When they cease to represent the government, they become personally liable for all their acts. [52:24.920 --> 52:31.920] And that's from top to bottom. That's the clerk, the city attorney, everybody. [52:31.920 --> 52:39.920] Exactly. They can no longer claim the prosecutorial protection they could if they were acting properly under color of law to prosecute. [52:39.920 --> 52:50.920] You and I both know that a criminal attorney can hide evidence, withhold it, lie, do pretty much anything, and he cannot be sued for what he does as a prosecutor. [52:50.920 --> 53:01.920] But if he's acting completely outside of his legal authority and jurisdiction, he's not acting as a prosecutor according to the case law. [53:01.920 --> 53:09.920] He's acting entirely of his own personal responsibility. And he has no immunity. [53:09.920 --> 53:11.920] What, something like a judge in Williamson County? [53:11.920 --> 53:14.920] Something like that. Or a DA for that matter. [53:14.920 --> 53:30.920] I mean, how many of the DAs in Williamson County, the ex-judge or the retired judge that was a district attorney before he became a judge that hid the evidence on the guy that went to prison for 25 years because he hid the evidence and everything else? [53:30.920 --> 53:34.920] It's completely ridiculous that we allow these people to get away with this. [53:34.920 --> 53:44.920] I don't remember seeing any grant of authority in anywhere in the state constitution granting immunity to a public servant for not following the law. [53:44.920 --> 53:45.920] Exactly. [53:45.920 --> 53:50.920] And yet the courts themselves have created that immunity out of thin air. [53:50.920 --> 53:53.920] Why did we let the first judge even get away with that? [53:53.920 --> 53:57.920] There should have been a public recall and hanging that very day. [53:57.920 --> 54:04.920] When that opinion hit paper, that judge should have been history. [54:04.920 --> 54:07.920] I mean, because right there you have the issue. [54:07.920 --> 54:12.920] If you look in the Texas Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Article One, Section 29. [54:12.920 --> 54:21.920] In order to prevent, well, let me pull it up here and I'll just get the whole thing right in front of us, because this is completely astounding that these people don't understand this. [54:21.920 --> 54:23.920] They don't recognize this. [54:23.920 --> 54:36.920] I'm astounded still by the number of people that don't even know what's in the Bill of Rights for their state constitution, especially Texas, even though it's written like it was made by a bunch of drunk chimpanzees. [54:36.920 --> 54:41.920] It does have some very good stuff in it that we can use, but no one ever does. [54:41.920 --> 54:49.920] Are you sure they don't know or don't understand what's in there or are they purposely not look at or uphold? [54:49.920 --> 54:56.920] Well, it's hard to say for sure without putting them over an anthill covered in honey to make them confess to which it is. [54:56.920 --> 55:06.920] But when you look in the historical case law for Texas, you will find that there has never been a single court case on record dealing with what I'm about to read. [55:06.920 --> 55:16.920] Not one, just like there is the aggravated assault statute provision for public servants was passed back in the mid 60s. [55:16.920 --> 55:25.920] And yet in the entire time it's existed, not a single public servant has ever been charged and convicted with aggravated assault in the state of Texas. [55:25.920 --> 55:32.920] Not one, even though that statute is written specifically and directed right at public servants carrying guns. [55:32.920 --> 55:34.920] But a cop's never been charged under it. [55:34.920 --> 55:47.920] This is Article One, Section 29 of the Texas Constitution, provisions of Bill of Rights accepted from powers of government to forever remain in violent to guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated. [55:47.920 --> 55:52.920] We declare that's the people, not the government, not the courts, not anyone else. [55:52.920 --> 56:02.920] We the people declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain in violent. [56:02.920 --> 56:09.920] And all laws contrary thereto or to the following provisions shall be void. [56:09.920 --> 56:18.920] Now, when a court renders an opinion that violates any provision of the Texas Constitution, that opinion is null and void. [56:18.920 --> 56:33.920] According to this, because it says to guard against the transgressions, we declare that everything is accepted from the general powers of government, not the judiciary, not the executive, not anybody. [56:33.920 --> 56:36.920] It's government in its entirety. [56:36.920 --> 56:38.920] It's more general, it includes all three branches. [56:38.920 --> 56:42.920] So what is the general power of the legislature to create and pass law? [56:42.920 --> 56:45.920] What is the power of the executive to execute the law? [56:45.920 --> 56:50.920] What is the power of the judicial to interpret the law? [56:50.920 --> 56:52.920] That's their general powers. [56:52.920 --> 56:58.920] Well, we accepted from their general powers anything that violates this Constitution. [56:58.920 --> 57:03.920] So they can't create an opinion that says oaths of office don't matter. [57:03.920 --> 57:10.920] We can't they can't create an opinion that establishes a valid doctrine of de facto officer. [57:10.920 --> 57:12.920] Yet these are things they have done. [57:12.920 --> 57:18.920] There's nothing in the Constitution giving eminent domain powers to private corporations. [57:18.920 --> 57:21.920] And yet they do it. [57:21.920 --> 57:23.920] We should never have let it get to a good point. [57:23.920 --> 57:26.920] That's a very, very good point. [57:26.920 --> 57:32.920] So given that right off the bat, they've got a real big problem when this threat of arrest. [57:32.920 --> 57:34.920] How can it create a binding duty? [57:34.920 --> 57:36.920] Well, it can't. [57:36.920 --> 57:38.920] This summons is illegal. [57:38.920 --> 57:40.920] It doesn't comply with law. [57:40.920 --> 57:44.920] So when you go through the motion in the seminar material that's dealing with this, [57:44.920 --> 57:49.920] I go through this meticulously to make sure they have no exits. [57:49.920 --> 57:51.920] I don't like exits. [57:51.920 --> 57:52.920] OK. [57:52.920 --> 57:54.920] Especially for worms. [57:54.920 --> 57:57.920] So that that means. [57:57.920 --> 57:59.920] Thank you for thank you for your time. [57:59.920 --> 58:01.920] And I really appreciated your time and going through all this. [58:01.920 --> 58:02.920] OK. [58:02.920 --> 58:03.920] Well, no problem, Jeff. [58:03.920 --> 58:06.920] And if you've got just a minute, when we get back, we'll take callers on the other side. [58:06.920 --> 58:08.920] And a couple of them did want to ask you a question. [58:08.920 --> 58:10.920] Can you hang on for one more segment? [58:10.920 --> 58:11.920] Sure, of course. [58:11.920 --> 58:12.920] OK. [58:12.920 --> 58:13.920] All right. [58:13.920 --> 58:14.920] We'll be right back, folks. [58:14.920 --> 58:15.920] OK. [58:15.920 --> 58:16.920] This is Rule of Law Radio. [58:16.920 --> 58:19.920] All you people listening, Johnny, Jeff, Carl, Ed, y'all hang on. [58:19.920 --> 58:21.920] We'll start taking your calls on the other side of the break. [58:21.920 --> 58:26.920] So listen in, pay attention, learn a few things and apply them, because the more of us there [58:26.920 --> 58:28.920] are, the stronger we become. [58:28.920 --> 58:51.920] We'll be right back. [58:58.920 --> 59:21.920] We'll be right back. [59:28.920 --> 59:56.920] Thank you. [59:58.920 --> 01:00:07.920] You're listening to The Liberty Beat, your daily source for liberty news and activist [01:00:07.920 --> 01:00:13.920] updates online at thelibertybeat.com. [01:00:13.920 --> 01:00:17.920] John Bush here with Your Liberty Beat for June 17, 2013. [01:00:17.920 --> 01:00:20.920] Gold opened today at $1,384. [01:00:20.920 --> 01:00:22.920] Silver at $21.85. [01:00:22.920 --> 01:00:25.920] And Bitcoin is trading at $101. [01:00:25.920 --> 01:00:28.920] Support for The Liberty Beat comes from Tomorrow's Meals Today. [01:00:28.920 --> 01:00:33.920] South Austin Market Days every Saturday from 3 to 7 p.m. at 10106 Manchac Road. [01:00:33.920 --> 01:00:36.920] Information at tomorrowsmealstoday.com. [01:00:36.920 --> 01:00:38.920] And from Capital City Automotive. [01:00:38.920 --> 01:00:41.920] Honest, reliable auto repair for vehicles foreign and domestic. [01:00:41.920 --> 01:00:45.920] Online at capitalcityautoaustin.com. [01:00:45.920 --> 01:00:46.920] And now the news. [01:00:46.920 --> 01:00:52.920] Porkfest X is this week starting today and going through Sunday in Lancaster, New Hampshire. [01:00:52.920 --> 01:00:56.920] Porkfest is short for the Porcupine Freedom Festival and is organized by the Free State [01:00:56.920 --> 01:01:00.920] Project in effort to bring 20,000 liberty activists to the state of New Hampshire. [01:01:00.920 --> 01:01:05.920] The event includes speakers, music, and one of the largest fully functional free markets [01:01:05.920 --> 01:01:06.920] in the country. [01:01:06.920 --> 01:01:11.920] Some of the speakers include Jeff Berwick, Dr. Robert Murphy, Antonio Beeler, David Friedman, [01:01:11.920 --> 01:01:12.920] and others. [01:01:12.920 --> 01:01:19.920] More information at porkfest.com. [01:01:19.920 --> 01:01:24.920] A new controversial phone app would allow people to snap a picture of a parking violation [01:01:24.920 --> 01:01:28.920] and send the photo to police, private parking operators, or city wardens. [01:01:28.920 --> 01:01:31.920] A police officer could then be dispatched to issue a ticket. [01:01:31.920 --> 01:01:33.920] The ticket resulted in a fine. [01:01:33.920 --> 01:01:37.920] Under the plan, informants would get a cut deposited into their bank accounts or they [01:01:37.920 --> 01:01:39.920] could direct the cash to their favorite charities. [01:01:39.920 --> 01:01:44.920] The Spot Squad app co-founder Chris Johnson says he and his partners haven't yet signed [01:01:44.920 --> 01:01:48.920] any agreements to give informants a percentage of any ticket fines, but he adds that some [01:01:48.920 --> 01:01:56.920] private parking lot operators are in fact interested. [01:01:56.920 --> 01:02:02.920] In response to the recent revelations regarding spying by the NSA, a 28-year-old artist and [01:02:02.920 --> 01:02:06.920] developer from Brooklyn, New York has found a fun way of warning computer users about [01:02:06.920 --> 01:02:08.920] potential government surveillance. [01:02:08.920 --> 01:02:11.920] Justin Blinder released a plug-in for the web browser Firefox this week. [01:02:11.920 --> 01:02:16.920] His Dark Side of the Prism browser extension alerts web surfers of the possible surveillance [01:02:16.920 --> 01:02:20.920] by starting up a different song from Pink Floyd's 1973 classic, The Dark Side of the [01:02:20.920 --> 01:02:26.920] Moon, each time a questionable sight is crossed. [01:02:26.920 --> 01:02:30.920] Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Brave New Books, free-thinking materials for free-thinking [01:02:30.920 --> 01:02:32.920] people since 2006. [01:02:32.920 --> 01:02:36.920] In Austin, a 1904 Guadalupe Street. [01:02:36.920 --> 01:02:41.920] And from Central Texas Gunworks, self-defense training, CHL forces, and firearm sales. [01:02:41.920 --> 01:02:45.920] In Austin, it's centraltexasgunworks.com. [01:02:45.920 --> 01:02:50.920] Jamin Shivley, a former Microsoft corporate strategy manager, plans to create the first [01:02:50.920 --> 01:02:52.920] U.S. national marijuana brand. [01:02:52.920 --> 01:02:56.920] Shivley held a press conference with former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, announcing [01:02:56.920 --> 01:03:17.920] that he hopes to eventually import legally from Mexico. [01:03:17.920 --> 01:03:18.920] All right, folks, we are back. [01:03:18.920 --> 01:03:21.920] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:03:21.920 --> 01:03:25.920] All right, we have a bunch of callers up on the board, so we're going to start taking [01:03:25.920 --> 01:03:26.920] now. [01:03:26.920 --> 01:03:29.920] Johnny, what can we do for you, sir? [01:03:29.920 --> 01:03:34.920] Hey, Eddie, I just wanted to touch on a couple of things that you've said in the show so [01:03:34.920 --> 01:03:35.920] far. [01:03:35.920 --> 01:03:37.920] All right, be gentle. [01:03:37.920 --> 01:03:46.920] One of them is I basically wanted to get your attorney friend's take on it, but you were [01:03:46.920 --> 01:03:51.920] talking about city prosecutors not having authority to prosecute in the name of the [01:03:51.920 --> 01:03:52.920] state. [01:03:52.920 --> 01:03:57.920] Since you've started talking about that, I found that very interesting. [01:03:57.920 --> 01:04:05.720] The reason being about two years ago, my girlfriend had some tickets in Fort Worth, and she was [01:04:05.720 --> 01:04:11.920] basically just questioning everything, making sure that she was not acquiescing to anything [01:04:11.920 --> 01:04:15.920] that they said and just questioning everything that came out of their mouth. [01:04:15.920 --> 01:04:22.920] And the judge sent her and the prosecutor out in the hall to talk, and her position [01:04:22.920 --> 01:04:30.420] was, she had filed a motion to dismiss challenging subject matter jurisdiction based on lack [01:04:30.420 --> 01:04:36.840] of existence of any party that had shown and demonstrated to the court that it had each [01:04:36.840 --> 01:04:40.720] and every element of standing whereby the court could lawfully afford that accuse or [01:04:40.720 --> 01:04:42.300] any redress. [01:04:42.300 --> 01:04:44.120] And they tried to pretend like they didn't get it. [01:04:44.120 --> 01:04:47.080] When she brought it to their attention, they said, well, we'll have a hearing on it, but [01:04:47.080 --> 01:04:50.320] once you go out in the hallway and talk with the prosecutor first, they were going to try [01:04:50.320 --> 01:04:53.040] to get her to cut a deal with them. [01:04:53.040 --> 01:04:57.100] Her position with the prosecutor is, I can't talk to you, I can't recognize you because [01:04:57.100 --> 01:04:59.120] you don't represent anybody with standing. [01:04:59.120 --> 01:05:01.920] You don't represent any accuser with standing. [01:05:01.920 --> 01:05:07.880] And during the course of that conversation, she asked him, who do you represent? [01:05:07.880 --> 01:05:09.480] And he said, I represent the city of Fort Worth. [01:05:09.480 --> 01:05:12.640] And she pointed at the paper that was in his hand, and she said, that says the state of [01:05:12.640 --> 01:05:14.280] Texas. [01:05:14.280 --> 01:05:19.680] And he said, yeah, well, yeah, yeah, well, yeah, okay. [01:05:19.680 --> 01:05:25.440] And he just walked off, I mean, when she said that, he was just absolutely dumbfounded. [01:05:25.440 --> 01:05:28.240] And that was the, that ended the conversation. [01:05:28.240 --> 01:05:34.200] He went back in and told the judge something, and they made her sit last, let everybody [01:05:34.200 --> 01:05:38.540] else go before her, and then they told her, your case is dismissed, you're free to go. [01:05:38.540 --> 01:05:40.160] And we talked about that on the way home. [01:05:40.160 --> 01:05:45.600] She said, did you see how that guy acted when I, you know, when he said he represented the [01:05:45.600 --> 01:05:46.600] city? [01:05:46.600 --> 01:05:50.160] And I pointed at his paper and said, this says state of Texas, she said, did you see [01:05:50.160 --> 01:05:51.160] how he acted? [01:05:51.160 --> 01:05:52.160] It was just, it was unreal. [01:05:52.160 --> 01:05:57.720] And I said, yeah, well, it wasn't until later on, you know, we knew we hit on something, [01:05:57.720 --> 01:06:03.360] we just didn't know what it is until we heard you talking later on about the lack of authority [01:06:03.360 --> 01:06:05.840] of a city prosecutor, prosecuted in the name of the state. [01:06:05.840 --> 01:06:12.480] So I, you know, based on what I saw that day, there is a lot of validity to what you say. [01:06:12.480 --> 01:06:13.480] Yeah. [01:06:13.480 --> 01:06:17.520] And on top of that, in the case, Jeff, you remember the little visit we had for several [01:06:17.520 --> 01:06:21.720] hours at disappearance here a couple of weeks ago? [01:06:21.720 --> 01:06:27.200] We got that hired attorney to sit there and admit he represents the location we were in. [01:06:27.200 --> 01:06:28.960] Yep, exactly. [01:06:28.960 --> 01:06:34.040] So right there on the record, he's admitting he does not represent the state, which is [01:06:34.040 --> 01:06:37.080] what they're going to have to draw any complaint in the name of. [01:06:37.080 --> 01:06:38.080] Yep. [01:06:38.080 --> 01:06:39.080] So. [01:06:39.080 --> 01:06:41.560] The complaint was in the name of the state of Texas. [01:06:41.560 --> 01:06:42.560] Exactly. [01:06:42.560 --> 01:06:43.560] And that's what I'm saying. [01:06:43.560 --> 01:06:48.120] All criminal complaints must be drawn in the name of the state of Texas. [01:06:48.120 --> 01:06:52.280] They can't be in the name of anybody else, which brings us to the issue of how can a [01:06:52.280 --> 01:06:58.520] city, a corporate entity make a crime under a city ordinance? [01:06:58.520 --> 01:06:59.520] They can't. [01:06:59.520 --> 01:07:00.520] Yep. [01:07:00.520 --> 01:07:01.520] Yeah. [01:07:01.520 --> 01:07:06.580] Well, you know, and I mean, this was this was definitely a Kodak moment. [01:07:06.580 --> 01:07:10.440] We didn't realize until later on exactly what we had hit on. [01:07:10.440 --> 01:07:15.240] But it was just from the look on his face and the way he reacted, it was obvious that [01:07:15.240 --> 01:07:19.400] she had touched some kind of serious nerve that he did not want to have any discussion [01:07:19.400 --> 01:07:20.400] about. [01:07:20.400 --> 01:07:21.560] Oh, yeah. [01:07:21.560 --> 01:07:25.360] That's a letting a whole bag of cats out right there. [01:07:25.360 --> 01:07:26.800] Yeah. [01:07:26.800 --> 01:07:35.840] So the other thing I wanted to get your friends take from from the standpoint of a, you know, [01:07:35.840 --> 01:07:42.280] a licensed member of the bar, an officer of the court around here, you know, you guys [01:07:42.280 --> 01:07:47.440] were talking earlier in the show about the summons that they send you and they they, [01:07:47.440 --> 01:07:52.240] you know, use the word order and they give you the style of the case and all that around [01:07:52.240 --> 01:07:53.240] here. [01:07:53.240 --> 01:07:54.660] And my neck of the woods, they don't do any of that. [01:07:54.660 --> 01:07:57.720] They send you what's called a notice to appear. [01:07:57.720 --> 01:08:00.800] It doesn't know where on it does it actually use the word order. [01:08:00.800 --> 01:08:02.440] It does not tell you the style of the case. [01:08:02.440 --> 01:08:06.880] It doesn't give you any contact information for the prosecutor or anyone else on whom [01:08:06.880 --> 01:08:09.720] discovery could be served. [01:08:09.720 --> 01:08:13.880] It basically just it's it's usually just one sentence, a trial scheduled for this date [01:08:13.880 --> 01:08:14.880] and time. [01:08:14.880 --> 01:08:18.120] And, you know, you're required to appear. [01:08:18.120 --> 01:08:22.900] And on the traffic tickets around here, they actually put the very first thing you see [01:08:22.900 --> 01:08:28.540] at the very top of a traffic citation in big red letters, about three times the size of [01:08:28.540 --> 01:08:34.480] all the other font on the ticket, it says customer copy and it gives you a telephone [01:08:34.480 --> 01:08:35.480] number to call. [01:08:35.480 --> 01:08:38.760] And when you call that number there, you know, they have an automated system. [01:08:38.760 --> 01:08:40.200] If you're calling about this, press one. [01:08:40.200 --> 01:08:43.480] If you're calling about that, press two and so on and so forth. [01:08:43.480 --> 01:08:48.640] And they actually say, if you are a customer inquiring about a traffic citation, press [01:08:48.640 --> 01:08:49.640] one. [01:08:49.640 --> 01:08:53.440] If you are a customer inquiring about a warrant, press two, if you are a customer inquiring [01:08:53.440 --> 01:08:56.200] about a court date, on and on and on. [01:08:56.200 --> 01:08:58.920] And now, Eddie, you and I have talked about this before. [01:08:58.920 --> 01:09:04.820] And I mean, I pretty much know the answer to this, you know, the corporate customer [01:09:04.820 --> 01:09:08.040] relationship that they're presuming. [01:09:08.040 --> 01:09:14.520] But I wanted to get Jeff's take on it from the perspective of a licensed attorney and [01:09:14.520 --> 01:09:16.520] an officer of the court. [01:09:16.520 --> 01:09:20.200] And I'll drop off and let you guys discuss that. [01:09:20.200 --> 01:09:21.200] Okay. [01:09:21.200 --> 01:09:23.000] Go ahead, Jeff. [01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:27.120] Well, quite frankly, I hadn't even noticed that nuance in the law until Eddie brought [01:09:27.120 --> 01:09:28.120] it to my attention. [01:09:28.120 --> 01:09:34.760] And now I take, as a real estate attorney, we do a substantial amount with entitlement [01:09:34.760 --> 01:09:39.520] work, meaning changing zoning, fighting things like this and municipalities. [01:09:39.520 --> 01:09:45.080] And we've taken that aspect to a number of our cases, because it is, it's very specific [01:09:45.080 --> 01:09:51.480] in the code from the municipal standpoint that it is an incorporated entity. [01:09:51.480 --> 01:09:56.920] And the way that their ordinances and who they bind is something very interesting. [01:09:56.920 --> 01:10:02.160] Again, like I said, it's one of those things that a nuance that we didn't really pick up [01:10:02.160 --> 01:10:04.760] on until Eddie had said something about it. [01:10:04.760 --> 01:10:11.240] Specifically, to answer your question about that, I think there's something there. [01:10:11.240 --> 01:10:16.680] I think it's very, very interesting that you said that your friend or wife, I don't recall [01:10:16.680 --> 01:10:23.800] what you said, said that that was said, and then they immediately changed their focus [01:10:23.800 --> 01:10:26.200] and dismissed the case. [01:10:26.200 --> 01:10:30.520] That Eddie, I think that's a lot of what's gonna happen in that case that you had mentioned [01:10:30.520 --> 01:10:35.920] earlier on that we had appeared at a couple of weeks ago, because they did. [01:10:35.920 --> 01:10:41.320] They did issue the citation and the summons in the state of Texas, in the name of the [01:10:41.320 --> 01:10:42.320] state of Texas. [01:10:42.320 --> 01:10:47.160] But when he, the prosecutor said specifically that he represents the city, I think he got [01:10:47.160 --> 01:10:48.160] him dead to rights. [01:10:48.160 --> 01:10:49.160] Yeah. [01:10:49.160 --> 01:10:53.680] Now on top of that, based upon what you're saying, the printed font size and everything [01:10:53.680 --> 01:10:58.440] is on that, that citation, like virtually every citation I've seen in Texas, I've seen [01:10:58.440 --> 01:11:00.520] three, I can count them. [01:11:00.520 --> 01:11:08.120] Three that comply with 701.0 or a 708.105 of the transportation code. [01:11:08.120 --> 01:11:14.520] If you read 708.105, it says very clearly that the largest typeface on the citation [01:11:14.520 --> 01:11:19.920] must be the statement that is in that section of the code. [01:11:19.920 --> 01:11:24.160] And notice that in most of these, not only do they put the statement, but they put the [01:11:24.160 --> 01:11:28.840] title of the section right above the statement in the exact same size font. [01:11:28.840 --> 01:11:31.600] Well, the title is not a part of the statement. [01:11:31.600 --> 01:11:33.360] It's completely separate. [01:11:33.360 --> 01:11:38.640] Therefore, the statement and most of the other times, the printed numbers on them and several [01:11:38.640 --> 01:11:45.240] warnings and everything else on the citation itself, all overshadow that statement. [01:11:45.240 --> 01:11:49.440] So does none of them comply with the requirements of the statute itself? [01:11:49.440 --> 01:11:51.640] The citation's illegal on its face. [01:11:51.640 --> 01:11:58.680] Well, you know, guys, as to the customer relationship part of it, I mean, it is, they are presuming [01:11:58.680 --> 01:12:04.520] a customer relationship, whether it says so on the citation or not, but the fact that [01:12:04.520 --> 01:12:08.560] they actually printed on the citations makes it easier, you know, around here. [01:12:08.560 --> 01:12:13.920] I've actually been asked to leave a court and add the case, not officially drop, but [01:12:13.920 --> 01:12:18.000] just disappear because I've gone in there and pointed out, okay, this says customer [01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:19.000] relationship. [01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:23.240] So I want to know how was that relationship established because I've never knowingly and [01:12:23.240 --> 01:12:28.720] unwillingly and conscionably entered into any kind of agreement or contract or anything [01:12:28.720 --> 01:12:34.840] like that, that, you know, where I've intentionally become your customer. [01:12:34.840 --> 01:12:38.340] So, you know, you guys, obviously you've printed it right on the citation. [01:12:38.340 --> 01:12:41.280] You're moving forward based on the presumption that I'm your customer. [01:12:41.280 --> 01:12:45.440] I need you to, you know, if I am to understand the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings, [01:12:45.440 --> 01:12:51.160] I need for you to explain to me how I'm the customer and I was asked to leave because [01:12:51.160 --> 01:12:56.120] of that and the case just went away and, you know, also when I'm in court, I don't even [01:12:56.120 --> 01:12:57.320] refer to it as a court. [01:12:57.320 --> 01:13:03.960] I refer to it as this corporation and they never correct me. [01:13:03.960 --> 01:13:05.800] They never say, what are you talking about? [01:13:05.800 --> 01:13:07.680] This is a court, not a corporation. [01:13:07.680 --> 01:13:08.680] And I do it repeatedly. [01:13:08.680 --> 01:13:12.120] I'll do it 20 times during a plea hearing. [01:13:12.120 --> 01:13:18.320] So they're well aware that it's a corporate, you know, customer type relationship. [01:13:18.320 --> 01:13:22.520] And I've talked with other attorneys about this and they say, oh, that's not, you know, [01:13:22.520 --> 01:13:24.360] I have no clue what I'm talking about. [01:13:24.360 --> 01:13:29.600] So I just, you know, since Jeff, since you've worked with Eddie, you know, I just kind of [01:13:29.600 --> 01:13:31.160] wanted to get your take on it. [01:13:31.160 --> 01:13:32.640] Well, Johnny, here's the deal. [01:13:32.640 --> 01:13:35.640] Eddie, if I could just have one second to address that specific point. [01:13:35.640 --> 01:13:36.640] Johnny, here's the deal. [01:13:36.640 --> 01:13:42.080] When we go to law school, we're almost required to drink the red Kool-Aid, almost required [01:13:42.080 --> 01:13:43.080] to. [01:13:43.080 --> 01:13:47.080] And that's exactly what's going on with so many of these attorneys is, and me, me included. [01:13:47.080 --> 01:13:51.680] I mean, I, quite frankly, and not to coin a phrase that I hear frequently, but I kind [01:13:51.680 --> 01:13:52.680] of woke up. [01:13:52.680 --> 01:13:55.720] I kind of woke up and I, you know, Eddie started saying all this stuff and Eddie, no offense, [01:13:55.720 --> 01:13:58.920] but when you first came into my office, I thought you were crazy. [01:13:58.920 --> 01:14:03.080] And I started asking code sections and then I started going through these code sections [01:14:03.080 --> 01:14:06.200] and I started looking at the case law that interpret the code sections. [01:14:06.200 --> 01:14:09.680] And then I kept seeing, wait a second, all this stuff has been misapplied and all this [01:14:09.680 --> 01:14:14.720] stuff is not being applied the way that it's specifically written in the way that the legislature [01:14:14.720 --> 01:14:16.540] has requested it to be done. [01:14:16.540 --> 01:14:19.680] So yeah, I kind of stopped drinking the red Kool-Aid. [01:14:19.680 --> 01:14:20.680] Yeah. [01:14:20.680 --> 01:14:24.360] And well, it helps the fact that when you actually asked me the sections, I knew what [01:14:24.360 --> 01:14:25.360] the hell you were talking about. [01:14:25.360 --> 01:14:26.360] I could tell you. [01:14:26.360 --> 01:14:27.360] Oh yeah. [01:14:27.360 --> 01:14:28.360] Yep. [01:14:28.360 --> 01:14:33.520] Well, there, there are two maxims in law that I'd like to throw at you before I hang up. [01:14:33.520 --> 01:14:38.200] One of them is that he wishes to be deceived, to be deceived. [01:14:38.200 --> 01:14:44.040] And the other is he is not deceived, who knows himself to be deceived, which goes to, I think [01:14:44.040 --> 01:14:45.740] what you just said about drinking the Kool-Aid. [01:14:45.740 --> 01:14:46.740] So yeah. [01:14:46.740 --> 01:14:51.280] And believe it or not, this, this particular subject on the customer stuff you're talking [01:14:51.280 --> 01:14:57.200] about, it's got me considering putting into the transportation or the traffic stop script, [01:14:57.200 --> 01:15:02.680] the statement that, uh, I wish to inform you on neither consent nor desire to have, uh, [01:15:02.680 --> 01:15:06.760] to be your customer or to have you perform any service on my behalf. [01:15:06.760 --> 01:15:09.480] I hereby refuse. [01:15:09.480 --> 01:15:11.720] Let's see what happens then. [01:15:11.720 --> 01:15:16.480] I tell them I've never knowingly and willingly and constantly become a customer of your corporation. [01:15:16.480 --> 01:15:19.240] I don't want to be a customer of your corporation. [01:15:19.240 --> 01:15:23.640] I demand that you bring forth any contracts whereby you're presuming that I'm a customer [01:15:23.640 --> 01:15:24.640] of your corporation. [01:15:24.640 --> 01:15:26.360] I don't want to do any business with you whatsoever. [01:15:26.360 --> 01:15:30.840] And you're, I'm saying, tell this to the cop who you still talking to copper, the, their [01:15:30.840 --> 01:15:31.840] alleged court. [01:15:31.840 --> 01:15:38.360] Oh, I, I say it's all of them, the cop prosecutor, the judge and everybody. [01:15:38.360 --> 01:15:43.880] And it's interesting, they, they, they, I've never had one of them out of all, and I've [01:15:43.880 --> 01:15:49.360] done this quite a lot and I have never ever had one of them correct me and say, oh, you're [01:15:49.360 --> 01:15:50.360] mistaken. [01:15:50.360 --> 01:15:51.360] This is, this is a court. [01:15:51.360 --> 01:15:52.360] This is not a corporation. [01:15:52.360 --> 01:15:56.080] And I've never had one of them question me, you know, what are you talking about? [01:15:56.080 --> 01:15:57.080] Why do you keep saying corporation? [01:15:57.080 --> 01:15:58.080] Never. [01:15:58.080 --> 01:15:59.080] Oh yeah. [01:15:59.080 --> 01:16:03.280] Well they can't because the statute specifically creates them as corporation courts. [01:16:03.280 --> 01:16:04.280] Yeah. [01:16:04.280 --> 01:16:11.520] Well, they're created by charters and I'm under, I get the cook and there are a couple [01:16:11.520 --> 01:16:12.520] of others. [01:16:12.520 --> 01:16:13.520] I'll have to look them up. [01:16:13.520 --> 01:16:19.520] But they, they talk about how municipal corporations are created by charters and that no municipal [01:16:19.520 --> 01:16:23.280] corporation has any power, even if it would otherwise be available to them. [01:16:23.280 --> 01:16:26.880] If it is not spelled out in their charter, they don't have it. [01:16:26.880 --> 01:16:30.640] And none of those powers can be inconsistent with the constitution. [01:16:30.640 --> 01:16:36.120] Um, and I went to a plea hearing here about two months ago and started raising those issues [01:16:36.120 --> 01:16:38.720] and that judge did not want to talk about that. [01:16:38.720 --> 01:16:39.720] Yeah. [01:16:39.720 --> 01:16:40.720] And they usually don't. [01:16:40.720 --> 01:16:41.720] All right, Johnny. [01:16:41.720 --> 01:16:42.720] That it? [01:16:42.720 --> 01:16:43.720] Some of the other callers on. [01:16:43.720 --> 01:16:44.720] Yep. [01:16:44.720 --> 01:16:45.720] Yep. [01:16:45.720 --> 01:16:46.720] Thanks guys. [01:16:46.720 --> 01:16:47.720] All right. [01:16:47.720 --> 01:16:48.720] Thanks man. [01:16:48.720 --> 01:16:49.720] Appreciate you calling. [01:16:49.720 --> 01:16:50.720] All right folks. [01:16:50.720 --> 01:16:51.720] This is rule of law radio rescue callers on the board. [01:16:51.720 --> 01:16:52.720] Hang on. [01:16:52.720 --> 01:16:53.720] We'll get you on the other side. [01:16:53.720 --> 01:17:02.320] We'll be right back at capital coin and Boolean. [01:17:02.320 --> 01:17:06.160] Our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer [01:17:06.160 --> 01:17:09.960] service and outstanding value at an affordable price. [01:17:09.960 --> 01:17:13.960] Capital coin features a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals. [01:17:13.960 --> 01:17:17.640] In addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we want to bring you the best [01:17:17.640 --> 01:17:20.800] shopping experience both in store and online. [01:17:20.800 --> 01:17:24.960] In addition to coins and Boolean, we carry popular young jeopardy products such as beyond [01:17:24.960 --> 01:17:27.320] tangy tangerine and pollen burst. [01:17:27.320 --> 01:17:32.360] We offer freeze dried storeable foods by August and farms, Berkey water products, ammunition [01:17:32.360 --> 01:17:34.760] at 10% above wholesale and more. [01:17:34.760 --> 01:17:39.600] You can lock in a spot price with our silver pool and we set up metals IRA accounts. [01:17:39.600 --> 01:17:43.840] Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details. [01:17:43.840 --> 01:17:49.000] We're located at 7304 Burnett road, suite a about half a mile South of Anderson. [01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:53.800] We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to six Saturdays, 10 to two visit us at capital coin [01:17:53.800 --> 01:18:05.800] and bullion.com or call 512-646-6440 Hey, tangy tangerine. [01:18:05.800 --> 01:18:07.920] See what you've done to me. [01:18:07.920 --> 01:18:14.880] I'm losing weight and I'm not half the man I used to be. [01:18:14.880 --> 01:18:19.920] Hey, tangy tangerine, you make me feel so good. [01:18:19.920 --> 01:18:23.120] I don't need so much food. [01:18:23.120 --> 01:18:29.200] Ain't I a sight compared to what I used to be. [01:18:29.200 --> 01:18:39.160] Calcium, magnesium, selenium and zinc take a moment now and think if you have a little [01:18:39.160 --> 01:18:46.960] thing every day will bring the life that you've been looking for. [01:18:46.960 --> 01:18:53.240] Beyond Tangy Tangerine is available at Brave New Books located at 1904 Guadalupe street. [01:18:53.240 --> 01:18:58.320] The bookstore also carries the works of Dr. Joel Wallach, founder of Young Jevity and [01:18:58.320 --> 01:19:02.320] creator of Beyond Tangy Tangerine. [01:19:02.320 --> 01:19:10.120] This is the Logos Radio Network. [01:19:10.120 --> 01:19:29.040] Hi folks, we are back. [01:19:29.040 --> 01:19:30.400] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:19:30.400 --> 01:19:31.880] Okay, I apologize. [01:19:31.880 --> 01:19:36.080] My guest had to make a quick exit during the break, so it's just going to be me. [01:19:36.080 --> 01:19:38.600] Those of you that have questions, don't drop off the line. [01:19:38.600 --> 01:19:41.600] I can still answer probably a great deal of them, so we'll go from there. [01:19:41.600 --> 01:19:43.760] All right, first person up, Jeff in Texas. [01:19:43.760 --> 01:19:45.200] Jeff, what can we do for you? [01:19:45.200 --> 01:19:48.760] Can you hear me all right? [01:19:48.760 --> 01:19:51.800] I can hear you except for a lot of staticky kind of noise. [01:19:51.800 --> 01:19:52.800] What's going on there? [01:19:52.800 --> 01:20:00.800] Well, I'm actually having to use a Wi-Fi phone service because it was part of the problem. [01:20:00.800 --> 01:20:05.880] I was actually in a vehicle as a passenger and my... [01:20:05.880 --> 01:20:07.520] You were in a vehicle as a passenger? [01:20:07.520 --> 01:20:08.520] Vehicle as a passenger. [01:20:08.520 --> 01:20:09.520] Yes, sir. [01:20:09.520 --> 01:20:10.520] Okay. [01:20:10.520 --> 01:20:20.240] We were pulled over by a highway patrolman in Seguin and when we were pulled over, they [01:20:20.240 --> 01:20:24.920] asked the driver, my friend, to step out of the vehicle and then they ended up having [01:20:24.920 --> 01:20:26.920] me step out of the vehicle. [01:20:26.920 --> 01:20:32.960] Well, they informed me that my friend had provided them the consent to search the car, [01:20:32.960 --> 01:20:39.840] so I just stepped out and the next thing you know, they found two firearms. [01:20:39.840 --> 01:20:50.960] They had found in the trunk a lock box, a safety deposit box, that was like $25,000. [01:20:50.960 --> 01:20:56.400] I'm sitting on the side of the road where the officer told me to stand just shocked. [01:20:56.400 --> 01:21:00.920] My friend's in tears and I can hear him saying, you know, it's my life savings. [01:21:00.920 --> 01:21:06.040] You know, it belongs to me, taking the responsibility of the firearms. [01:21:06.040 --> 01:21:10.480] Then they continued to search and they found, I believe the amount was like three... [01:21:10.480 --> 01:21:18.520] No, it was under two ounces of marijuana is what the paper says here, they found on his [01:21:18.520 --> 01:21:19.520] side. [01:21:19.520 --> 01:21:25.560] You know, the whole time they were leading me to believe that I was not under arrest [01:21:25.560 --> 01:21:31.680] and I informed them that, you know, the backpack in there is my only possession and, you know, [01:21:31.680 --> 01:21:38.680] I had actually two laptops and then I had my cell phone, but, you know, they told me [01:21:38.680 --> 01:21:43.880] that, you know, instead of leaving here on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, [01:21:43.880 --> 01:21:47.240] you know, come on back to the office and the whole time I was there just waiting and asking [01:21:47.240 --> 01:21:53.780] for my belongings and, you know, I had no idea, but they brought me in there for questioning [01:21:53.780 --> 01:22:01.360] and they seized my property and they did so, I believe, in a deceptive way, but, you know, [01:22:01.360 --> 01:22:06.160] I'm wondering, you know, what does the law say about that? [01:22:06.160 --> 01:22:07.160] How can I protect myself? [01:22:07.160 --> 01:22:10.240] Well, the first thing is they can be deceptive. [01:22:10.240 --> 01:22:15.320] The public servants can lie to us, their bosses, according to the courts. [01:22:15.320 --> 01:22:19.820] Now, second problem, your friend's an idiot. [01:22:19.820 --> 01:22:21.520] They had no warrant. [01:22:21.520 --> 01:22:24.640] He should have never let them search the car. [01:22:24.640 --> 01:22:28.240] He has every right to say no. [01:22:28.240 --> 01:22:32.280] He knew there was something in the car they could find and he gave them consent to search [01:22:32.280 --> 01:22:33.280] anyway. [01:22:33.280 --> 01:22:34.280] That, in my book, is an idiot. [01:22:34.280 --> 01:22:37.280] Well, I didn't hear them say that. [01:22:37.280 --> 01:22:42.540] The officer came up to my window and told me that, so I don't necessarily know. [01:22:42.540 --> 01:22:46.080] It's just what the officer came and told me, so, I mean, should I not have got out of the [01:22:46.080 --> 01:22:47.080] vehicle or? [01:22:47.080 --> 01:22:49.080] Well, again, you're in a vehicle, right? [01:22:49.080 --> 01:22:51.080] You're in a vehicle, right? [01:22:51.080 --> 01:22:52.080] Yes, sir. [01:22:52.080 --> 01:22:53.080] Do you understand the meaning of that term? [01:22:53.080 --> 01:22:58.800] Do you understand the meaning of that term? [01:22:58.800 --> 01:23:05.600] The law is different as it applies to a vehicle versus a... [01:23:05.600 --> 01:23:10.440] A vehicle is somebody in commerce, which is where their authority comes from to do what [01:23:10.440 --> 01:23:15.040] they did, to make the traffic stop in the first place. [01:23:15.040 --> 01:23:20.880] And a passenger is somebody paying someone else to transport them somewhere else. [01:23:20.880 --> 01:23:25.200] You said you were a passenger in a vehicle, which would mean this would have to be a taxicab [01:23:25.200 --> 01:23:31.400] or shuttle bus that you're paying for, which puts both of you in commerce, which then gives [01:23:31.400 --> 01:23:34.800] the cops the authority to do exactly what they did. [01:23:34.800 --> 01:23:35.800] Okay. [01:23:35.800 --> 01:23:40.920] But that wasn't the case being that it was his personal vehicle? [01:23:40.920 --> 01:23:46.240] It's not a vehicle at all if you wish to stay outside of the reach of the statute. [01:23:46.240 --> 01:23:47.320] That's what I'm asking you. [01:23:47.320 --> 01:23:51.880] Do you understand the terms you're throwing around like they mean nothing when they actually [01:23:51.880 --> 01:23:52.880] mean a great deal? [01:23:52.880 --> 01:23:53.880] They actually mean a great deal. [01:23:53.880 --> 01:23:54.880] Okay. [01:23:54.880 --> 01:23:55.880] I understand. [01:23:55.880 --> 01:23:56.880] Okay. [01:23:56.880 --> 01:23:58.840] I'm very ignorant when it comes to this type of stuff. [01:23:58.840 --> 01:24:00.320] I'm just now learning. [01:24:00.320 --> 01:24:07.120] Well, saying no to a warrantless search, that's been around a lot longer than you have, and [01:24:07.120 --> 01:24:10.160] you'd figured somebody would have known not to do that. [01:24:10.160 --> 01:24:14.240] And if your friend didn't know that, then he's put you in a whole lot of hot water with [01:24:14.240 --> 01:24:15.240] him. [01:24:15.240 --> 01:24:20.040] Now, here's the one thing that can be a saving grace in your favor. [01:24:20.040 --> 01:24:26.600] The case law says in order for you to be charged with the possession of that narcotic, so they [01:24:26.600 --> 01:24:31.320] say, you have to have had knowledge of its existence. [01:24:31.320 --> 01:24:34.960] So they're going to have to prove you knew that it was present. [01:24:34.960 --> 01:24:36.120] Okay. [01:24:36.120 --> 01:24:38.360] All right. [01:24:38.360 --> 01:24:43.320] Now you better make any attorney you get fight on those from that point of view. [01:24:43.320 --> 01:24:46.760] If he just tries to cut a deal and throw you under the bus, he's going to make it. [01:24:46.760 --> 01:24:47.760] Yeah. [01:24:47.760 --> 01:24:50.360] He's not going to, I mean, I don't believe he's going to do that. [01:24:50.360 --> 01:24:55.160] I mean, I know that he's not, obviously in that instance, he was not being responsible [01:24:55.160 --> 01:24:56.760] and I don't know. [01:24:56.760 --> 01:24:58.280] I didn't say your friend. [01:24:58.280 --> 01:24:59.280] I said your attorney. [01:24:59.280 --> 01:25:00.280] Oh, my attorney. [01:25:00.280 --> 01:25:05.600] Do I, do I need an attorney if my friend is willing to, he's hiring one. [01:25:05.600 --> 01:25:09.400] He said that he would, uh, you know, make an affidavit or sign an affidavit saying that [01:25:09.400 --> 01:25:12.160] those were all his possessions. [01:25:12.160 --> 01:25:16.520] Well even if he does that, the cops are still going to try to make you an accessory. [01:25:16.520 --> 01:25:20.040] Whether he said they're his or not is not the point. [01:25:20.040 --> 01:25:24.600] Complete and total deniability that by you, that you had any knowledge it was even in [01:25:24.600 --> 01:25:32.400] the car is mandatory or you are an accessory or you are an accessory. [01:25:32.400 --> 01:25:35.080] Okay. [01:25:35.080 --> 01:25:39.960] Now the problem you've got as far as your property is the civil asset forfeiture statutes [01:25:39.960 --> 01:25:42.680] they're going to use to steal everything, including the car. [01:25:42.680 --> 01:25:51.440] See the thing is they had the, uh, they had the car impounded, um, and it was returned [01:25:51.440 --> 01:25:57.280] to him, but with like, well, just to throw it in there with 1200 additional miles. [01:25:57.280 --> 01:26:02.560] Um, yeah, well again, that doesn't mean they won't come back with a civil asset forfeiture [01:26:02.560 --> 01:26:05.640] seizure and take it at some other time. [01:26:05.640 --> 01:26:06.640] Okay. [01:26:06.640 --> 01:26:12.440] Now I guarantee you, whatever computers you have, they're going through them with a fine [01:26:12.440 --> 01:26:13.440] tooth comb. [01:26:13.440 --> 01:26:14.440] Well, I don't mind that. [01:26:14.440 --> 01:26:19.880] And I told them, I said, look, cause when I was pulled in by three, they took us back [01:26:19.880 --> 01:26:23.920] to the DPS office cause they wanted to put the call car underneath the light and I guess, [01:26:23.920 --> 01:26:28.200] you know, uh, finished the rest of the search up, but I, you know, I was sitting there the [01:26:28.200 --> 01:26:31.040] whole time asking for my stuff and they kept putting me off, putting me off. [01:26:31.040 --> 01:26:35.400] Finally I, you know, get brought into a room where they've got a detective in there and [01:26:35.400 --> 01:26:36.800] you know, he's wanting to question me. [01:26:36.800 --> 01:26:39.800] He just asked me to, you know, so tell me what, tell me about what happened. [01:26:39.800 --> 01:26:43.720] And I asked, I said, well, first off, I said, I don't want to waive any of my rights. [01:26:43.720 --> 01:26:49.720] I said, if you have any questions, uh, you know, that's fine if, if I feel like I can [01:26:49.720 --> 01:26:51.880] answer them without incriminating myself. [01:26:51.880 --> 01:26:56.880] Did anyone ever tell you you were under arrest? [01:26:56.880 --> 01:26:59.080] Did anyone ever read you your rights? [01:26:59.080 --> 01:27:07.040] He was the first person to read me my rights, um, uh, right, right in the room that we were [01:27:07.040 --> 01:27:08.040] in. [01:27:08.040 --> 01:27:09.040] Okay. [01:27:09.040 --> 01:27:11.320] Then you were under arrest because the only time they're going to read you your rights [01:27:11.320 --> 01:27:14.200] is when they have you in a custodial arrest. [01:27:14.200 --> 01:27:21.480] And once he's read you your rights, everything you say, he can beat you up with. [01:27:21.480 --> 01:27:24.680] Okay. [01:27:24.680 --> 01:27:26.400] So why are you talking to him? [01:27:26.400 --> 01:27:33.840] I guess, uh, I didn't, I was unaware that when they read you your rights that you were [01:27:33.840 --> 01:27:34.840] under arrest. [01:27:34.840 --> 01:27:39.440] The whole time out there when I was standing off on the side of the road, they, no one [01:27:39.440 --> 01:27:40.440] had read me my rights. [01:27:40.440 --> 01:27:43.680] They were just coming up to me and asking me just questions every now and then. [01:27:43.680 --> 01:27:46.240] It would be, you know, there was like four or five different officers that ended up being [01:27:46.240 --> 01:27:55.000] there, but, um, the, the thing was is he asked me, he goes, would you give us consent and [01:27:55.000 --> 01:27:59.320] surrender the two computers in your phone so that we can search them in that where we [01:27:59.320 --> 01:28:06.000] can free you of any kind of, uh, um, you know, uh, affiliation with, with what's going on. [01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:09.520] I said, no, I said that and he goes, well, you know how that looks, right? [01:28:09.520 --> 01:28:13.560] I said, well, I'm assuming that the reason that you're asking for my permission is because [01:28:13.560 --> 01:28:15.000] you don't have the right to just take it. [01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:17.560] Uh, you know, just like I told you, I said, I have no affiliation. [01:28:17.560 --> 01:28:19.320] I was just in the vehicle. [01:28:19.320 --> 01:28:21.160] I had no knowledge. [01:28:21.160 --> 01:28:25.160] There you go with that term vehicle again, I'm sorry. [01:28:25.160 --> 01:28:29.720] I was just, uh, I was just in the car and you know, I didn't have any knowledge of what [01:28:29.720 --> 01:28:30.720] was in it. [01:28:30.720 --> 01:28:35.920] And so, uh, you know, he kept working me and I ended up just saying, okay, you know what? [01:28:35.920 --> 01:28:38.760] My phone, I can't do without, I don't have the money to replace it on the phone. [01:28:38.760 --> 01:28:43.760] And I don't know how long it's going to take you guys to have, uh, said, but, uh, the computers [01:28:43.760 --> 01:28:45.000] went work computer. [01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:48.440] The other one I pointed out to him, I said, look, if you want something, you can have [01:28:48.440 --> 01:28:53.960] that, she pulled out a form, uh, stating that I gave him consent for that one computer. [01:28:53.960 --> 01:28:57.840] And on the bottom of the head and, and, uh, kind of smaller print, you know, I was not [01:28:57.840 --> 01:29:03.200] tricked into deceived or manipulated, uh, you know, surrounding that, that computer. [01:29:03.200 --> 01:29:08.840] When I signed that, uh, she took the pen and paper off of the table and I said, okay, because [01:29:08.840 --> 01:29:11.920] you're willing to surrender that one and not the other two. [01:29:11.920 --> 01:29:14.960] Don't be surprised when you get out of jail, you know, those two pieces of the property [01:29:14.960 --> 01:29:15.960] are not there. [01:29:15.960 --> 01:29:20.240] And what did I do? [01:29:20.240 --> 01:29:27.400] Well, that's going to be the thing by doing any of that, you've opened up the door for [01:29:27.400 --> 01:29:31.400] them to try anything they want, you know, by letting them onto that computer, you have [01:29:31.400 --> 01:29:34.560] no way of knowing if they're going to fill it up with child porn and try to charge you [01:29:34.560 --> 01:29:40.000] with that. [01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:41.000] Well hang on. [01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:42.000] We're going to break. [01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:43.000] I'll finish this on the other side. [01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:44.000] All right folks. [01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:47.840] Uh, I've got a full board here, so I'm not going to give out the number anymore. [01:29:47.840 --> 01:29:51.400] I'm going to try to get through these before we finish up in the next half hour. [01:29:51.400 --> 01:29:52.720] So y'all hang on guys. [01:29:52.720 --> 01:29:54.960] I'll get you as soon as I'm done with Jeff here. [01:29:54.960 --> 01:29:56.360] We'll be right back after the break. [01:29:56.360 --> 01:30:02.720] So y'all hang on. [01:30:02.720 --> 01:30:07.400] Freedom loving Americans are finding creative ways to fight invasive airport body scanners. [01:30:07.400 --> 01:30:11.360] And they're also educating the TSA about unreasonable search and seizure. [01:30:11.360 --> 01:30:15.640] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back in a moment with the latest on scanner skivvies [01:30:15.640 --> 01:30:17.760] and fourth amendment apparel. [01:30:17.760 --> 01:30:23.080] Your search engine is watching you recording all your searches and creating a massive database [01:30:23.080 --> 01:30:28.160] of your personal information that's creepy, but it doesn't have to be that way. [01:30:28.160 --> 01:30:31.280] Start page.com is the world's most private search engine. [01:30:31.280 --> 01:30:35.400] Start page doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking [01:30:35.400 --> 01:30:37.680] cookies and they're third party certified. [01:30:37.680 --> 01:30:43.120] If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with start page, great search results [01:30:43.120 --> 01:30:44.760] and total privacy. [01:30:44.760 --> 01:30:48.440] Start page.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:30:48.440 --> 01:30:53.080] Airport body scanners let TSA officials peep at your privates and Americans are fed up [01:30:53.080 --> 01:30:54.080] with it. [01:30:54.080 --> 01:30:58.600] A Kentucky man is fighting back with privacy friendly underwear for men, women and children. [01:30:58.600 --> 01:31:03.880] The patriotic theme skivvies sport metallic ink shields in strategic places to blur images [01:31:03.880 --> 01:31:05.680] of sensitive areas. [01:31:05.680 --> 01:31:09.400] Other freedom loving entrepreneurs are selling shirts with the fourth amendment printed in [01:31:09.400 --> 01:31:10.600] metallic ink. [01:31:10.600 --> 01:31:15.380] The resulting body scan image is emblazoned with a reminder about constitutional protections [01:31:15.380 --> 01:31:17.520] against unreasonable search and seizure. [01:31:17.520 --> 01:31:22.160] While these are valiant efforts, the best defense is to refuse to be scanned at all. [01:31:22.160 --> 01:31:25.240] Join me in saying no to airport nakedizing machines. [01:31:25.240 --> 01:31:27.360] I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. [01:31:27.360 --> 01:31:32.960] More news and information at katherinealbrecht.com. [01:31:32.960 --> 01:31:37.120] Here at Zombie Killer Ammo and Guns, we believe that the second amendment guarantees our rights [01:31:37.120 --> 01:31:40.560] as citizens to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones. [01:31:40.560 --> 01:31:44.040] We also believe that the right to carry weapons comes with the responsibility of being safe [01:31:44.040 --> 01:31:45.240] and smart about guns. [01:31:45.240 --> 01:31:52.960] So if you're going to be in the Corpus Christi area, give us a call at 361-704-6103. [01:31:52.960 --> 01:31:56.580] Ask for Chris or Portia and mention this radio ad for a 10% discount. [01:31:56.580 --> 01:31:59.200] We can ship ammo, parts and accessories. [01:31:59.200 --> 01:32:03.360] Like us on Facebook at Zombie Killers LLC. [01:32:03.360 --> 01:32:05.520] Nutritious food is real body armor. [01:32:05.520 --> 01:32:10.920] It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion and feeds the entire body the nutrients it [01:32:10.920 --> 01:32:11.920] needs. [01:32:11.920 --> 01:32:15.640] Did you know the US government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United States [01:32:15.640 --> 01:32:20.180] and classified it as a schedule one drug to hide it behind the marijuana plant? [01:32:20.180 --> 01:32:24.280] People have been confused about this plant for over 80 years and many still don't know [01:32:24.280 --> 01:32:25.680] what hemp is. [01:32:25.680 --> 01:32:29.760] So now you know hemp is not marijuana and marijuana is not hemp. [01:32:29.760 --> 01:32:32.720] They are different varieties of the same species. [01:32:32.720 --> 01:32:37.480] HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand [01:32:37.480 --> 01:32:41.920] that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about. [01:32:41.920 --> 01:32:48.160] Remember hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free, anti-inflammatory, [01:32:48.160 --> 01:32:50.920] non-GMO and is loaded with nutrients. [01:32:50.920 --> 01:33:00.000] Call 888-910-4367, 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you only [01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:05.720] at HempUSA.org. [01:33:05.720 --> 01:33:11.000] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com. [01:33:11.000 --> 01:33:15.600] Yeah, who you want to chip? [01:33:15.600 --> 01:33:16.600] Who you take me for? [01:33:16.600 --> 01:33:17.600] Free Tully. [01:33:17.600 --> 01:33:18.600] Who you want to chip? [01:33:18.600 --> 01:33:19.600] Me no free Tully. [01:33:19.600 --> 01:33:20.600] You can't chip me. [01:33:20.600 --> 01:33:21.600] Don't let them chip you in the morning. [01:33:21.600 --> 01:33:22.600] Chip you in the evening. [01:33:22.600 --> 01:33:23.600] Put a chip in your body. [01:33:23.600 --> 01:33:24.600] And anyway you go computer reading. [01:33:24.600 --> 01:33:25.600] You can't hide me from nobody. [01:33:25.600 --> 01:33:26.600] What me say? [01:33:26.600 --> 01:33:27.600] Chip in your mom. [01:33:27.600 --> 01:33:28.600] Chip in your daddy. [01:33:28.600 --> 01:33:29.600] Chip in your grandpa and the grand me. [01:33:29.600 --> 01:33:30.600] Chip in your me. [01:33:30.600 --> 01:33:31.600] Chip in your baby. [01:33:31.600 --> 01:33:32.600] Chip in your family. [01:33:32.600 --> 01:33:33.600] Your whole family. [01:33:33.600 --> 01:33:34.600] Chip in your dad and the cat around me. [01:33:34.600 --> 01:33:35.600] Chip in the beef and you still got ET. [01:33:35.600 --> 01:33:36.600] Chip in the fish. [01:33:36.600 --> 01:33:37.600] Them all in the sea. [01:33:37.600 --> 01:33:38.600] Chip in the dish. [01:33:38.600 --> 01:33:39.600] Chip in the fish. [01:33:39.600 --> 01:33:40.600] Them all in the sea. [01:33:40.600 --> 01:33:41.600] Chip in the fish. [01:33:41.600 --> 01:33:50.600] Chip in the shark and the real around me. [01:33:50.600 --> 01:33:54.600] You know still mankind can chip crazy. [01:33:54.600 --> 01:33:57.600] Get the kind of thing man they want to be. [01:33:57.600 --> 01:33:58.600] Social security. [01:33:58.600 --> 01:33:59.600] Them better be. [01:33:59.600 --> 01:34:01.600] Number with them give me them repeat of the sea. [01:34:01.600 --> 01:34:02.600] Chip you in the morning. [01:34:02.600 --> 01:34:03.600] Chip you in the evening. [01:34:03.600 --> 01:34:05.600] Chip you all at dinner time. [01:34:05.600 --> 01:34:07.600] Alright folks, we are back. [01:34:07.600 --> 01:34:09.600] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:34:09.600 --> 01:34:14.600] Okay, Jeff dropped off but he is back so we're going to try to finish this up. [01:34:14.600 --> 01:34:19.600] Alright, Jeff turn your speakers off or down to nothing please. [01:34:19.600 --> 01:34:22.600] Yes sir, is that better? [01:34:22.600 --> 01:34:25.600] As long as I'm not feeding back where I can hear myself, it's fine. [01:34:25.600 --> 01:34:27.600] And I can still hear myself. [01:34:27.600 --> 01:34:32.600] Okay, I've got it down all the way. [01:34:32.600 --> 01:34:36.600] The only thing I can think of is I'm on a wifi phone. [01:34:36.600 --> 01:34:38.600] That's all that I have. [01:34:38.600 --> 01:34:41.600] Alright, in any case, let me run through this real quick. [01:34:41.600 --> 01:34:45.600] Alright, that way we don't have to worry too much about it and I can go on to the other caller. [01:34:45.600 --> 01:34:47.600] First off, don't ever consent to this stuff. [01:34:47.600 --> 01:34:49.600] And anybody you're riding with, ask them. [01:34:49.600 --> 01:34:53.600] If we get pulled over, do you intend to consent to searches or anything of that nature? [01:34:53.600 --> 01:34:56.600] And if they say yes, say well then I'll hitch a ride. [01:34:56.600 --> 01:35:06.600] But in any case, don't talk to the cops without an attorney when you already know there's something in their possession they can use to hit you hard with. [01:35:06.600 --> 01:35:11.600] Okay, that's just a mistake. [01:35:11.600 --> 01:35:19.600] Now, as far as what to do next, well, first thing you need to do is get with me offline and let's talk about what you are doing and everything that has happened. [01:35:19.600 --> 01:35:25.600] Because at this point, there's not going to be a lot I can do for you on the phone and on the show. [01:35:25.600 --> 01:35:31.600] You're too far in the bear trap and you're going to need more help than just what you're going to be able to get in this time frame to get out of it. [01:35:31.600 --> 01:35:41.600] So, send me an email to eddie at ruleoflawradio.com and we'll talk a little more offline, okay? [01:35:41.600 --> 01:35:43.600] Alright, that sounds good. [01:35:43.600 --> 01:35:48.600] Okay, it will not be until sometime tomorrow, but go ahead and get the email sent so I'll have it. [01:35:48.600 --> 01:35:50.600] Alright, thank you, Eddie. I appreciate it. [01:35:50.600 --> 01:35:54.600] You're welcome. Make sure all your relevant contact information is there, please. [01:35:54.600 --> 01:35:55.600] Yes, sir. [01:35:55.600 --> 01:35:57.600] Okay, thanks for calling in. [01:35:57.600 --> 01:35:58.600] Alright. [01:35:58.600 --> 01:35:59.600] Alright, bye-bye. [01:35:59.600 --> 01:36:02.600] Alright, now we're going to go to Carl in Texas. [01:36:02.600 --> 01:36:04.600] Carl, what can we do for you? [01:36:04.600 --> 01:36:07.600] Evening, Eddie. How are you doing? [01:36:07.600 --> 01:36:09.600] So far, so grand. [01:36:09.600 --> 01:36:14.600] Okay, good. Well, I'm glad to be speaking with you and actually quite honored. [01:36:14.600 --> 01:36:19.600] And what I'm looking for is a lawyer. [01:36:19.600 --> 01:36:30.600] I want to run for the Texas State Representative seat number 54, and I'm just an average guy. [01:36:30.600 --> 01:36:34.600] The only thing special about me, I guess, is that I'm a disabled veteran, [01:36:34.600 --> 01:36:39.600] and what I'm worried about is if I run and win the seat, [01:36:39.600 --> 01:36:47.600] are they going to come and throw me in jail for 10 or 12 years of disability, Social Security and VA checks? [01:36:47.600 --> 01:36:49.600] You know what I mean? [01:36:49.600 --> 01:36:52.600] Why would they do that? [01:36:52.600 --> 01:36:56.600] Because, well, I've been on disability since 01. [01:36:56.600 --> 01:37:00.600] Okay, and what's that got to do with running for office? [01:37:00.600 --> 01:37:08.600] Well, if I do win the seat, if I win the seat, then look, see, he can employ himself. [01:37:08.600 --> 01:37:10.600] That's not employment. [01:37:10.600 --> 01:37:17.600] I understand. I know that. But you know how crooked the government is now. It's not just that simple. [01:37:17.600 --> 01:37:19.600] And by the way, I've been [01:37:19.600 --> 01:37:22.600] Well, the problem, Carl, is you're asking a question, [01:37:22.600 --> 01:37:27.600] how can I defend myself against something that isn't a law that they may do to me? [01:37:27.600 --> 01:37:31.600] That's kind of an impossible question to answer. [01:37:31.600 --> 01:37:34.600] Well, if you're a lawyer, I agree. [01:37:34.600 --> 01:37:41.600] But if you're me, I've been through the wringer in Williamson County. [01:37:41.600 --> 01:37:46.600] Yes, I understand the system. [01:37:46.600 --> 01:37:53.600] If you're an average guy, you're screwed. If you're you, you know what to say and do. [01:37:53.600 --> 01:38:01.600] That's why I need somebody like you or somebody that can at least clean the paperwork up behind me [01:38:01.600 --> 01:38:04.600] and make sure that, you know what I mean? [01:38:04.600 --> 01:38:10.600] The average, look here, and when I give up my disability to run for this office, [01:38:10.600 --> 01:38:15.600] the annual pay for this office is $7,800. [01:38:15.600 --> 01:38:22.600] I'm giving up about $16,000 to $18,000 a year to take this job. [01:38:22.600 --> 01:38:26.600] But I know it's something that needs to be done. I've discussed it with my wife. [01:38:26.600 --> 01:38:29.600] We've balanced our books. We know we can do it. [01:38:29.600 --> 01:38:35.600] Have you talked to the VA to see what the legal maximum is you can make in a job in a year [01:38:35.600 --> 01:38:37.600] and maintain your disability? [01:38:37.600 --> 01:38:42.600] No, I don't talk to the VA, and that's a deep subject. [01:38:42.600 --> 01:38:48.600] Okay, you'll take money from them, but you won't talk to them about what you have to do to maintain that money. [01:38:48.600 --> 01:38:55.600] I'm going to give you the exact quote of what the last VA doctor told me. [01:38:55.600 --> 01:39:00.600] I walked in his office after waiting for a couple of hours. [01:39:00.600 --> 01:39:06.600] This is because I believe I popped an ACL just doing housework. [01:39:06.600 --> 01:39:12.600] But anyway, I go in there, and for five minutes, he didn't look at me or say anything to me. [01:39:12.600 --> 01:39:17.600] He was looking at the computer the whole time, so I was curious what's going on. [01:39:17.600 --> 01:39:24.600] So I grabbed my crutches, and I stood up behind him, and it's my file that he's looking at. [01:39:24.600 --> 01:39:28.600] He sees me standing behind him. [01:39:28.600 --> 01:39:33.600] He shuts the computer screen off, and he turns around, and he says, and I'll quote, [01:39:33.600 --> 01:39:44.600] You. You sit down. You sit down right now. You're very rude. I tell you. Sit. Now. You sit down. Unquote. [01:39:44.600 --> 01:39:49.600] Okay, again, how in the world does that even begin to answer my question? [01:39:49.600 --> 01:39:55.600] Well, I had to leave before, you know. So what was the question again? [01:39:55.600 --> 01:40:09.600] The question is, you'll take money from them, but you won't talk to them about what you need to do in order to make a minimum or a maximum amount that will let you not interfere with that disability income. [01:40:09.600 --> 01:40:22.600] No, I hear what you're saying, and I just, and you're right, I should have separated the financial part from the medical part. You're right. I'll agree with you. Good point. [01:40:22.600 --> 01:40:25.600] But I still need a lawyer to help me get on the ballot. [01:40:25.600 --> 01:40:32.600] Okay, well, then I'd shop around, because I don't know any lawyers that work just for that purpose. [01:40:32.600 --> 01:40:38.600] Okay. Okay. Well, I guess we'll find out. [01:40:38.600 --> 01:40:41.600] Okay. All right. All right. Well, I appreciate you calling in, Carl. [01:40:41.600 --> 01:40:45.600] Have a great day. You too, man. And good luck. [01:40:45.600 --> 01:40:50.600] All right. Now we're going to go to Ed in Texas. Ed, what can I do for you? [01:40:50.600 --> 01:40:53.600] Hello there, Eddie. How are you? [01:40:53.600 --> 01:40:55.600] I'm good so far. [01:40:55.600 --> 01:41:17.600] Well, listen, I wanted to, if you are not aware of the fact, I'm an avid researcher since 1979, and I don't know if you know why the prosecutors are not state prosecutors, lawfully, they're not. [01:41:17.600 --> 01:41:24.600] And the reason why that is, is because you have to go to the basis of where do they get their authority. [01:41:24.600 --> 01:41:28.600] Well, that depends. Who are we talking about? [01:41:28.600 --> 01:41:33.600] The prosecuting attorneys, the DAs of the various counties. [01:41:33.600 --> 01:41:40.600] Well, the DAs of districts. And the county attorney is for counties. [01:41:40.600 --> 01:42:02.600] Yeah. Well, all of those attorneys, the reason why they're not, and they cannot function as a state agent or part of the state mechanism is because the attorney general is the highest, of course, you know this, he's the highest attorney in the state. [01:42:02.600 --> 01:42:24.600] Sorry, he's not either. The attorney general's office in Texas is executive. It is not judicial. In fact, it is patently illegal for a bar card carrying attorney to sit in the seat of the attorney general. Greg Abbott should be in jail right now. So should everybody that preceded him. [01:42:24.600 --> 01:42:26.600] I agree with that. [01:42:26.600 --> 01:42:36.600] Okay. But the thing, what I'm getting at here though, is you're making an assertion that does not have a foundation in law. The Texas constitution. Go ahead. [01:42:36.600 --> 01:42:56.600] What I'm saying is that we know from the origin of the law that our attorney general is supposed to be appointed by the governor. He's not supposed to be properly elected. Just like in England, the attorney general is appointed by the king. [01:42:56.600 --> 01:43:17.600] He's the king's attorney general and he's the executive department. And so because our attorney general in the state is properly elected, that changes the whole complexion of everything. And all of the attorneys are supposed to be, all the prosecuting attorneys are supposed to be under his direct supervision. [01:43:17.600 --> 01:43:34.600] Okay. Again, this is not old England. This is not old England. So let, let's clarify a couple of things here. First of all, article three or I'm sorry, uh, article four section two of the Texas constitution says all executive officers are to be elected. [01:43:34.600 --> 01:43:49.600] That includes the attorney general. But hang on just a minute. We'll finish this up on the other side of this break. This is rule of law radio folks. Y'all hang in there. We're about to go to another short break. I got one segment left to finish up these calls and I'm going to make that happen if at all possible. [01:43:49.600 --> 01:44:01.600] So everybody on the line now hang on and I'll get to you. We'll be right back. So y'all hang on. [01:44:01.600 --> 01:44:14.600] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so easy and neither is finding like minded people to share it with. Oh, well I guess you haven't heard of brave new books then brave new books. [01:44:14.600 --> 01:44:25.600] Yes. Brave new books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul and G Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products and Calvin soaps. [01:44:25.600 --> 01:44:36.600] There's no way a place like that exists. Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT by UT. There's never anywhere to park down there. [01:44:36.600 --> 01:44:44.600] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore. [01:44:44.600 --> 01:45:01.600] It does exist. But when are they open Monday through Saturday 11am to 9pm and one to 6pm on Sundays. So give them a call at 512 480 2503 or check out their events page at brave new bookstore.com. [01:45:01.600 --> 01:45:16.600] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit. When your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand for CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. [01:45:16.600 --> 01:45:35.600] If you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course. And now you can to jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [01:45:35.600 --> 01:45:53.600] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [01:45:53.600 --> 01:46:15.600] Please visit rule of law radio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866 law. [01:46:15.600 --> 01:46:21.600] Folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. All right, we are going to try to get this finished up here. [01:46:21.600 --> 01:46:31.600] We have a heads off the line for just a minute. So I'm gonna go ahead and take another call. We're waiting for him to come back. Mike in Texas, what can we do for you? [01:46:31.600 --> 01:46:34.600] Got a couple quick questions. [01:46:34.600 --> 01:46:38.600] Just wondering what constitutes service in federal court. [01:46:38.600 --> 01:46:56.600] What constitutes service? What does the federal rules say service is? How it's performed? What constitutes service is whatever the rules say the performance of service is. It can be hand delivered, delivered in open court, mailed, whatever the rules say is service. [01:46:56.600 --> 01:47:01.600] And whatever proof of services required constitutes service. [01:47:01.600 --> 01:47:11.600] Okay. I was wondering, I looked up affirmative claims for relief and that's actually for parties that wish to [01:47:11.600 --> 01:47:15.600] Okay, when you say, you're talking about the affirmative relief? [01:47:15.600 --> 01:47:16.600] Affirmative relief. [01:47:16.600 --> 01:47:17.600] Okay. [01:47:17.600 --> 01:47:36.600] That's actually for parties if they wish to recoup, recover legal expenses, I believe. Okay. And so I'm just under the federal rules of procedure 16. I'm just wondering, are they just looking for a list of experts? This is kind of a question. [01:47:36.600 --> 01:47:53.600] No, what you could probably do is as an expert, you could call any attorney as an expert witness to testify as to what the general rates he would charge to perform the same actions you've been doing in your case and have him testify as to the money amounts that you're trying to claim. [01:47:53.600 --> 01:47:56.600] Okay, that's actually a good idea. [01:47:56.600 --> 01:48:02.600] Those are just basic questions. I'll let other people, you know, move on because I know there's a whole list of people. [01:48:02.600 --> 01:48:04.600] Okay. Well, you said two, that's one. [01:48:04.600 --> 01:48:18.600] Well, let's see, I was asking about what constitutes service and questioning on what constitutes what needs to be served. I understand it's just probably a list of people. [01:48:18.600 --> 01:48:31.600] Yeah, it's going to be the list as we saw in what they've got listed in the document. It's going to be whoever you're calling as an expert witness to testify as to what the itemized charges are in the request for affirmative relief. [01:48:31.600 --> 01:48:42.600] In this case, as you said, it's going to be legal expenses and fees. So get an attorney to testify as to what he would charge, why he would charge it, and what the amount is, and go from there. [01:48:42.600 --> 01:48:48.600] Okay, so it's not necessarily subpoenas. It would just be a list of people. [01:48:48.600 --> 01:48:57.600] Yeah, subpoenas is not what's in the list exclusively. It says subpoenas, expert witnesses, anything of that nature. Now, you're going to have to subpoena the attorney. [01:48:57.600 --> 01:49:01.600] I was planning on subpoenaing myself also. [01:49:01.600 --> 01:49:08.600] Well, you don't have to subpoena yourself. You just get up and testify. You'll be there. But you subpoena your witness to ensure his appearance. [01:49:08.600 --> 01:49:12.600] Absolutely. [01:49:12.600 --> 01:49:13.600] Okay. [01:49:13.600 --> 01:49:16.600] I'll let you go. I know you've got a whole list of people. [01:49:16.600 --> 01:49:18.600] All right. Thanks for calling. [01:49:18.600 --> 01:49:19.600] Thank you very much. [01:49:19.600 --> 01:49:31.600] No problem. All right, now we're going to try to finish. Well, Ed's gone again. Okay, we'll go back to Doug now that he's here. Doug in Texas, what can we do for you? [01:49:31.600 --> 01:49:35.600] Yeah, Doug in Texas. I'll be more stiffy. [01:49:35.600 --> 01:49:37.600] Well, all right. [01:49:37.600 --> 01:49:40.600] Okay, Eddie, I was driving home the other night. [01:49:40.600 --> 01:49:42.600] You were wanting home the other night? [01:49:42.600 --> 01:49:54.600] I was traveling on the other night. Well, I seldom drive. I'm capable of doing that. I can do that. [01:49:54.600 --> 01:49:58.600] Okay, well, let's operate from the presumption you're not and go from there. [01:49:58.600 --> 01:50:13.600] Well, I'm okay. I was traveling home and I would patrol. You know, I live in back country roads. I look at the cows, newborns, this, that, the other. [01:50:13.600 --> 01:50:36.600] I don't want to do a 50. So I set my cruise control to 50 and I go along, check out the new cattle and this, that, and the other and people pass me and, you know, give me the one finger salute because I can do 65 if I choose to do so. [01:50:36.600 --> 01:50:48.600] But then I have a black and white little stump pulls up beside me and stays there for like a mile. [01:50:48.600 --> 01:51:08.600] I think, you know, hey, Bubba, you're going into, you got the little stripes on the other side of the road. I thought, well, maybe I'll do a little pit maneuver and run him off the road and give him a ticket as soon as his citation or whatever. [01:51:08.600 --> 01:51:13.600] Would that have been proper? [01:51:13.600 --> 01:51:20.600] Wait a minute. Okay. Praise that one more time. You're talking about writing a ticket to the cop for doing what he was doing? [01:51:20.600 --> 01:51:21.600] Right. [01:51:21.600 --> 01:51:23.600] Okay. Did he have his lights on? [01:51:23.600 --> 01:51:43.600] No. No, he was just riding right beside me and giving me a dirty look and I didn't take it off cruise control. I kept it at 50 miles an hour because I figured if I sped up or slowed down, he might have some reason to screw with me. [01:51:43.600 --> 01:52:00.600] I just left it on cruise control and he's just looking over at me and I'm looking at him. It's like, what are you going to do, Bubba? Write me a ticket for part of the market road and drive him too slow. [01:52:00.600 --> 01:52:03.600] All right. [01:52:03.600 --> 01:52:05.600] Did he stop you? [01:52:05.600 --> 01:52:14.600] No. No, but he did. He drove along sadly. [01:52:14.600 --> 01:52:16.600] Is this a two-lane road? [01:52:16.600 --> 01:52:17.600] Right. [01:52:17.600 --> 01:52:21.600] So he's actually just traveling along beside you in the opposing traffic lane? [01:52:21.600 --> 01:52:45.600] Right. When he started, before it was all over with, he was on the yellow stripe on our side of the road and I thought, well, should I speed up or slow down? What the hell do I do? [01:52:45.600 --> 01:53:04.600] You know, this guy's obviously not...well, he doesn't know what...but he did that. I think that same guy told me to pull over and ditch and let everybody go past me if I wasn't doing the legal limit. [01:53:04.600 --> 01:53:05.600] Yeah. [01:53:05.600 --> 01:53:07.600] Well, 65. [01:53:07.600 --> 01:53:08.600] Okay. [01:53:08.600 --> 01:53:15.600] Well, let's do that. You know, there's no law that requires me to do that. [01:53:15.600 --> 01:53:23.600] Well, actually, they do have one for obstructing traffic, but then again, that's in the transportation code, so it wouldn't necessarily apply. [01:53:23.600 --> 01:53:51.600] That wouldn't absolutely apply to me. And, you know, doing 50 miles an hour or less, and then he's got people backed up that are, you know, 40 feet off each other's bumpers when you're required to be, like, one car length for every 10 miles an hour. [01:53:51.600 --> 01:53:56.600] You know, tailgating is apparently not a problem. [01:53:56.600 --> 01:53:58.600] Okay. Well... [01:53:58.600 --> 01:54:14.600] I know he's not driving too slowly because the little official or servant or whatever is up there trying to give me a hard time. [01:54:14.600 --> 01:54:16.600] Well... [01:54:16.600 --> 01:54:19.600] All right. Well, anything else about it? [01:54:19.600 --> 01:54:24.600] Well, no, that's secondary. Have you ever seen My Cousin Benny? [01:54:24.600 --> 01:54:26.600] Yeah. [01:54:26.600 --> 01:54:33.600] Oh, best show in the world. I've seen that so many times. I've watched that. [01:54:33.600 --> 01:54:40.600] You know, I can watch that show over and over again and see about the Utes and this, that and the other. [01:54:40.600 --> 01:54:41.600] Yeah. [01:54:41.600 --> 01:54:57.600] And I was telling Larry when he screened me that I think we need to make a new version of My Cousin Benny starring you and Deborah Stevens. [01:54:57.600 --> 01:54:59.600] Make a lot of money. [01:54:59.600 --> 01:55:03.600] Yeah, possibly. [01:55:03.600 --> 01:55:04.600] Okay. [01:55:04.600 --> 01:55:08.600] All right. All right, Doug, I've got one more caller. I need to see if I can finish it up, okay? [01:55:08.600 --> 01:55:09.600] All right. [01:55:09.600 --> 01:55:10.600] All right, thanks for calling in. [01:55:10.600 --> 01:55:11.600] Yeah. [01:55:11.600 --> 01:55:15.600] All right, bye-bye. [01:55:15.600 --> 01:55:18.600] All right, Ed, let's see if we can finish this up. [01:55:18.600 --> 01:55:20.600] Okay, can you hear me? [01:55:20.600 --> 01:55:21.600] I can hear you. [01:55:21.600 --> 01:55:29.600] Okay. All right, what I was trying to say, Eddie, was that I learned this from George Gordon a long time ago, [01:55:29.600 --> 01:55:43.600] that there are about four or five states still in the Union where the Attorney General is appointed by the Executive Branch or the Governor. [01:55:43.600 --> 01:55:44.600] Okay? [01:55:44.600 --> 01:55:54.600] And if you'll read on the Attorney General in Corbusier Secundum or American Jurisprudence or some of those things, [01:55:54.600 --> 01:56:02.600] you'll find that the Attorney General is supposed to appoint his prosecutors for the state. [01:56:02.600 --> 01:56:04.600] Okay, let me ask a question. [01:56:04.600 --> 01:56:05.600] Okay. [01:56:05.600 --> 01:56:12.600] Is the state and the people of that state free to form their government in any way they see fit? [01:56:12.600 --> 01:56:14.600] Yes. [01:56:14.600 --> 01:56:27.600] Okay, the Texas Constitution, since the very first original in 1824, has had the Attorney General as an elected executive officer. [01:56:27.600 --> 01:56:31.600] That's the way the people established the Constitution. [01:56:31.600 --> 01:56:39.600] They established the county and district attorneys as elected judicial officers, separate and distinct. [01:56:39.600 --> 01:56:49.600] Then we created a separation of powers requirement under Article 2, forbidding the executive from controlling the judicial. [01:56:49.600 --> 01:57:01.600] Therefore, the organization of which you speak does not exist in Texas, and the argument you're making would be specious in Texas for those reasons. [01:57:01.600 --> 01:57:16.600] Okay, then all right, if that's the way it is, then how then would the prosecutors then become or get the authority of the state to do what they do when they're prosecuting cases? [01:57:16.600 --> 01:57:20.600] Because the Constitution specifically grants them that authority. [01:57:20.600 --> 01:57:25.600] We the people gave it to them. [01:57:25.600 --> 01:57:27.600] Through the vote, is that what you're saying? [01:57:27.600 --> 01:57:37.600] No, through the declaration of powers in the Constitution granted to the attorney for the state. [01:57:37.600 --> 01:57:50.600] All we said was the person that fills that job we must elect to make them accountable to the people, not to some other individual of government. [01:57:50.600 --> 01:58:00.600] Okay, well I'm not sure exactly how they connect up to being a part of having authority under the state mechanism if they don't go through the attorney general. [01:58:00.600 --> 01:58:08.600] Because the attorney general does not prosecute crimes in Texas. He's forbidden to do that. He's an executive officer. [01:58:08.600 --> 01:58:12.600] He can only represent the state at the Supreme Court level. [01:58:12.600 --> 01:58:21.600] A lot of what the attorney general in Texas is doing is illegal, but what the prosecutors are doing isn't as long as they're doing what the Constitution allows. [01:58:21.600 --> 01:58:23.600] Right, right. [01:58:23.600 --> 01:58:29.600] All right, so those are separate issues, but in Texas the argument you're making won't fly. [01:58:29.600 --> 01:58:30.600] Okay? [01:58:30.600 --> 01:58:31.600] Okay. [01:58:31.600 --> 01:58:33.600] All right, thanks for calling in. [01:58:33.600 --> 01:58:40.600] All right, folks, this has been Rule of Law Radio. Thank you all so much for listening and for calling in for your support. Please continue. [01:58:40.600 --> 01:58:44.600] I want to thank you. Good night and God bless you all. [01:59:10.600 --> 01:59:20.600] Thank you. [01:59:40.600 --> 01:59:49.600] That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at BFA.org.