[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:10.000 --> 00:18.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:18.000 --> 00:39.000]  Markets for the 11th of November, 2015 opened up with gold at $1,084.79 an ounce, silver $14.30 an ounce, Texas crude $44.21 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $310 U.S. currency.
[00:39.000 --> 01:03.000]  Today in history, Friday November 11th, Memorial Day 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated at the interment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery of one of the four caskets exhumed from American cemeteries in France. This was the commemoration of the unknown soldier of World War I.
[01:03.000 --> 01:15.000]  In recent news, the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba broke records with $14.3 billion in sales on Singles Day November 11th.
[01:15.000 --> 01:22.000]  11-11 is Singles Day in China because 11-11 looked like bear branches, a term used for bachelors in Chinese.
[01:22.000 --> 01:37.000]  The Alibaba Group holding limited said mobile sales loan made up about 70% of it, while Alibaba Jack Ma has said that he'd like to export Singles Day to the United States. It's not likely, say experts, since it would turn a solemn day of remembrance into a day of frivolous spending.
[01:37.000 --> 01:52.000]  You know, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, Alibaba was able to make 14-plus billion in sales in a single day in a country that spends a third of what we do on military armament.
[01:52.000 --> 02:10.000]  The world's most popular social media site, Facebook, will now be charged 250,000 euros a day if it doesn't change the way it uses tracking cookies after a lawsuit was raised and won by a Belgian's privacy watchdog group. Frederick de Bouchière, the lawyer behind the case, has stated that he is anticipating other cases to follow.
[02:10.000 --> 02:30.000]  The Belgian privacy watchdog successfully argued that Facebook was infringing on the privacy rights of the country's citizens by tracking them around the Internet, even if they hadn't signed up to the site. Apparently, Facebook had been enabling cookies which would load onto a user's browser if they went onto a Facebook page, even if they weren't logged in, and then used them to track them when they came back to the site.
[02:30.000 --> 02:41.000]  Facebook's defense is that it was only collecting computers' IP addresses and other unique identifiers via these cookies. However, the court ruled that that information was personal data and should not be tracked.
[02:41.000 --> 03:01.000]  Facebook does plan to appeal the case, stating that only EU courts and not Belgian courts have the authority to make such rulings.
[03:11.000 --> 03:39.000]  Really, man, come on, six o'clock noon, see somebody been shot, somebody's been abused, somebody blew up a building, somebody stole their car, somebody got away, somebody didn't get too far, yeah, they didn't get too far.
[03:39.000 --> 04:01.000]  Grandpappy told my pappy back in my day's slot, a man had to answer for the wicked that he'd done, take all the rope in Texas by the tall old tree, round up all of them bad boys in the highest street, for all the people to see.
[04:01.000 --> 04:17.000]  That justice is one thing you should always find, you've got to settle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line, when the guns won't settle, we'll sing a victory tune and we'll all be back as a whole soon.
[04:17.000 --> 04:33.000]  We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing, whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.
[04:33.000 --> 04:51.000]  We ain't got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds, too much corruption and crime in the streets, stand the long arm of the law, put a few more in the ground, I'm all to the maker and you'll settle on them.
[04:51.000 --> 05:11.000]  You can bet you'll settle down. That justice is one thing you should always find, you've got to settle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line, when the guns won't settle, we'll sing a victory tune and we'll all be back as a whole soon.
[05:11.000 --> 05:27.000]  We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing, whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.
[05:41.000 --> 05:54.000]  And 15. This just keeps going on and on and on in how corrupt our public servants are and how corrupt they intend to stay.
[05:54.000 --> 06:05.000]  Now, we've got some issues going on here in Texas right now with the courts that are absolutely repugnant to your right of justice and due process.
[06:05.000 --> 06:15.000]  We now have justice and municipal courts that absolutely refuse to abide by the law regardless of what it says and what it commands them to do.
[06:15.000 --> 06:20.000]  They are going to do as they please regardless.
[06:20.000 --> 06:31.000]  So I have taken it upon myself to go directly after a few judges and a few prosecutors here in Texas through the means of getting them disbarred.
[06:31.000 --> 06:44.000]  And they have assisted me in this by their consistent effort on the record to violate the rights of people appearing before their court.
[06:44.000 --> 06:53.000]  Now, these particular prosecutors and judges are in San Antonio, not to mention the ones we have here in Austin.
[06:53.000 --> 07:03.000]  But I've been developing two motions here in the last couple weeks. And one of them is a motion to disqualify,
[07:03.000 --> 07:21.000]  which is going to basically encompass a presiding judge, a replacement judge, the head presiding judge, and at least three city attorneys in the San Antonio municipal court.
[07:21.000 --> 07:30.000]  Now, the transcripts that we'll be getting from this proceeding should clearly show several things that the judge
[07:30.000 --> 07:43.000]  and the prosecutors have colluded to do to the individual appearing in that court that should be more than enough grounds to get them removed from their position and disbarred.
[07:43.000 --> 07:46.000]  And let me give you some examples.
[07:46.000 --> 08:01.000]  First, the original presiding judge in the case denies the accused individual access to the courts by refusing to allow the individual to file a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court,
[08:01.000 --> 08:13.000]  even though the court is proceeding without any authority in law and without any actual law upon which to act in the first place.
[08:13.000 --> 08:20.000]  Because not only does this motion challenge the jurisdiction of the court directly on the subject matter,
[08:20.000 --> 08:31.000]  it challenges the constitutionality and therefore the very existence of the statutes the court is relying on for that jurisdiction.
[08:31.000 --> 08:46.000]  And the motion I'm working on does not go to the constitutionality of specific statutes, it goes to the constitutionality of the entire transportation code as an enactment.
[08:46.000 --> 08:53.000]  Let me explain why I believe this motion can accomplish the intended goal.
[08:53.000 --> 09:06.000]  Last week, I got certified copies of official records dealing with SB 971 through the Secretary of State and the State Register Office,
[09:06.000 --> 09:14.000]  which is where all enrolled bills and all the records associated with the legislative bill are kept.
[09:14.000 --> 09:28.000]  And the copies that they sent me were of page 2160 and 2161 of SB 971, which was passed by the 74th legislature in 1995.
[09:28.000 --> 09:45.000]  Page 2160 contains Section 28, which is the emergency clause that they used to pass the bill without reading it on the floor of each house over three several days,
[09:45.000 --> 09:55.000]  as the constitution requires, or that bill will not have the force and effect of law.
[09:55.000 --> 10:05.000]  Now you've heard this discussion from me before, but this time it's fleshed out in an actual motion challenging the validity.
[10:05.000 --> 10:19.000]  And I have that motion written up, and if you have an ongoing court case and don't have a way to fight it knowledgeably, then this motion is for you.
[10:19.000 --> 10:32.000]  And I am going to make this motion available, but not for free, because this is a culmination of years of research and lots of costs for copies and everything else,
[10:32.000 --> 10:35.000]  and I've still got a few more things to attach to it.
[10:35.000 --> 10:43.000]  I've got to get some more certified records this week dealing with page one of that bill and several pages from the Texas Constitution,
[10:43.000 --> 10:56.000]  all of which I want the Secretary of State and the Register to verify and certify so that they are admissible official records in any court.
[10:56.000 --> 11:05.000]  They'll bear a state seal, and that state seal self-authenticates any paper documentation you're attempting to submit into evidence in any court.
[11:05.000 --> 11:16.000]  The court may be able to say you can't submit a statute into evidence, but they cannot prevent you from submitting a certified copy of the original enactment
[11:16.000 --> 11:23.000]  upon which that statute is based as actual evidence of the law as it was intended by the legislature.
[11:23.000 --> 11:38.000]  So I'm going to have all the certified records with it. I've got one paragraph left to put in it dealing with the actual ability to suspend the procedural rule,
[11:38.000 --> 11:48.000]  because the emergency clause used in Section 28 of SB 971 is patently unconstitutional on its face.
[11:48.000 --> 11:57.000]  The emergency clause that they used does not appear anywhere in the Texas Constitution at all.
[11:57.000 --> 12:05.000]  It is not acceptable under the constitutional requirements for what constitutes an emergency, and it never has been.
[12:05.000 --> 12:16.000]  It has never been a valid law in Texas. The entire code has been fraud from day one.
[12:16.000 --> 12:25.000]  Now, I'm going to read to you real quick what this particular emergency clause says that they put into it,
[12:25.000 --> 12:32.000]  and then I'm going to explain to you again briefly exactly why it's unconstitutional.
[12:32.000 --> 12:37.000]  Let me see if I can find it in the document here. Ah, here we go.
[12:37.000 --> 12:48.000]  All right. Section 28, emergency. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an emergency
[12:48.000 --> 12:56.000]  and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended,
[12:56.000 --> 13:13.000]  and this rule is hereby suspended. Now, remember that this bill encompassed over 4,200 pages when it was being put before the legislature in 1995.
[13:13.000 --> 13:25.000]  4,200, which means they would have had to have read and discussed over 1,300 pages per day over that three several days.
[13:25.000 --> 13:35.000]  And discussed them now, remember that, because that's the two topmost provisions in Article 3, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution,
[13:35.000 --> 13:42.000]  that they must read it on the floor of each house and open discussion held thereon.
[13:42.000 --> 13:48.000]  There is no way they complied with that rule over three several days with that many pages. There simply isn't.
[13:48.000 --> 13:58.000]  Even if they were in there 24 hours a day for three several days, would they be able to read over 4,200 pages of a bill and discuss it,
[13:58.000 --> 14:12.000]  especially considering that a huge number of sections of that bill violated the Texas Constitution, the right of the accused in any criminal proceeding,
[14:12.000 --> 14:29.000]  and the method by which such a bill can be enacted, and how such a bill is forbidden to alter the substantive purpose and meaning of the underlying law.
[14:29.000 --> 14:40.000]  That is forbidden by Article 3, Section 36, yet they did all of those things in relation to this SB 971.
[14:40.000 --> 14:46.000]  So I've still got some costs involved in getting all those certified copies and everything to attach to this,
[14:46.000 --> 14:54.000]  but when this motion is done, which only likes the one paragraph and the additional certified copies, and it will be good to go,
[14:54.000 --> 15:02.000]  this will be made available for whoever wants to purchase it for any fight you've got dealing with a transportation charge in Texas.
[15:02.000 --> 15:11.000]  It doesn't matter what it is. If they are charging you under the transportation code, this motion can be used to challenge the constitutionality of the charge
[15:11.000 --> 15:17.000]  and the code as a whole. I've got to fine tune a little bit more of the language.
[15:17.000 --> 15:26.000]  I've got several people that know how to read legal pleadings doing so and providing me with feedback to see where I can lean it out a little bit
[15:26.000 --> 15:34.000]  by removing some of the verbiage if necessary or trimming it down, but I want it to be as airtight and accurate as possible.
[15:34.000 --> 15:40.000]  So I've got to add that one more paragraph and get that tweaking done, and this will be ready to go.
[15:40.000 --> 15:50.000]  Now, in relation to this motion, that is exactly the issues that are before this court in San Antonio.
[15:50.000 --> 15:58.000]  Every charge this person has relates to transportation. They attempted to file an original version of this motion in the court
[15:58.000 --> 16:06.000]  challenging its jurisdiction by challenging the constitutionality of the statute and the judge of the court forbade them to file it.
[16:06.000 --> 16:12.000]  That is a due process violation and a denial of access to the courts.
[16:12.000 --> 16:21.000]  The courts here in Texas have ruled, and the case for it is cited in this motion, that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,
[16:21.000 --> 16:30.000]  including even for the first time on appeal. And that case is cited right here up in the beginning part of this motion.
[16:30.000 --> 16:36.000]  So the judge acted in violation of their rights by denying them the ability to file this.
[16:36.000 --> 16:42.000]  Y'all hang on, folks. I will get into a little bit more discussion of this and some other information when we get back on the other side,
[16:42.000 --> 16:51.000]  and after that we'll start taking calls. In the meantime, call in number 512-646-1984 if you want to try to get in line,
[16:51.000 --> 17:00.000]  and we'll see where we can go from there. All right, y'all hang on, and we'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.000 --> 17:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.000 --> 17:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.000 --> 17:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:39.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:39.000 --> 17:47.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:47.000 --> 17:51.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.000 --> 18:00.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too.
[18:14.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[18:21.000 --> 18:26.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[18:26.000 --> 18:34.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:38.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.000 --> 18:44.000]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.000 --> 18:49.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 19:00.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:00.000 --> 19:09.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradio.com.
[19:09.000 --> 19:36.000]  Music.
[19:36.000 --> 19:40.000]  Hi, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[19:40.000 --> 19:47.000]  All right. Now, the case that says that our subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time,
[19:47.000 --> 19:54.000]  even for the first time, on appeal for Texas is Texas Association of Businesses versus Texas Air Control Board,
[19:54.000 --> 19:59.000]  852 Southwest Second 445 in 1993.
[19:59.000 --> 20:07.000]  Now, I want to explain to you a couple of aspects about this motion here that makes this very clear as to why this is.
[20:07.000 --> 20:16.000]  Now, one of the paragraphs at the very beginning of this summarizing what this motion does reads thusly,
[20:16.000 --> 20:30.000]  through demonstrably knowing and willful acts of sedition, treason, and fraud, the 74th legislature in 1995 enacted Senate Bill 971, the Re-Codified Transportation Code Act,
[20:30.000 --> 20:36.000]  in direct violation of Article 3, Sections 32 and 62 of the Texas Constitution,
[20:36.000 --> 20:46.000]  thus requiring that SB 971 and all subsequent legislative amendments thereto be declared unconstitutional and void of any force and effect of law.
[20:46.000 --> 20:56.000]  That's the summary. Now, let me explain real quick why this I stated that they knowingly and willfully committed sedition and treason.
[20:56.000 --> 21:07.000]  In 1999, there was an amendment to Article 3, Section 32, adding a provision allowing a four-fifths majority vote to suspend the reading rule,
[21:07.000 --> 21:15.000]  as I will call it, which is in the first provision of Section 32, and the reading and discussion rule.
[21:15.000 --> 21:23.000]  I'll just call it and blanket the whole thing. That provision allowed a four-fifths vote to suspend the reading and discussion rule.
[21:23.000 --> 21:39.000]  Now, prior to 1999, that four-fifths majority vote did not exist, and there is still and then only one controlling section of the Texas Constitution
[21:39.000 --> 21:51.000]  on how suspension is to be done on any procedural rule that can be suspended, and that is Article 3, Section 62.
[21:51.000 --> 21:59.000]  So after 1999, that amendment took effect for the four-fifths vote.
[21:59.000 --> 22:09.000]  That would mean that only bills that came after 1999 could be subject to the four-fifths vote to suspend the reading and discussion rule.
[22:09.000 --> 22:21.000]  However, the conditions for the suspension and the emergency that authorized those conditions is governed entirely by Section 62,
[22:21.000 --> 22:33.000]  with only one exception to be found in the entire Constitution, and that is Section 49A of Article 3, dealing with appropriations bills.
[22:33.000 --> 22:46.000]  And it specifically states a four-fifths majority vote may suspend that rule. Nowhere does that language appear in Section 62.
[22:46.000 --> 22:52.000]  Therefore, there's only two possible conclusions about the amendment for the four-fifths vote.
[22:52.000 --> 23:05.000]  Either it amended only the four-fifths requirement of 49A, or it established a Constitution-wide four-fifths majority vote requirement
[23:05.000 --> 23:12.000]  to suspend a procedural rule, regardless of why the suspension was taking place.
[23:12.000 --> 23:28.000]  Except, in any case not involving an appropriations bill, then the four-fifths vote was limited to the conditions set forth in Section 62 in order for a suspension to be had.
[23:28.000 --> 23:38.000]  And if you go read Article 3, Section 62, you will find out that those conditions absolutely did not exist.
[23:38.000 --> 23:47.000]  And since the four-fifths vote did not exist in 1995 when the legislature suspended the reading rule,
[23:47.000 --> 23:56.000]  nor was the emergency clause that I read you authorized by the Texas Constitution,
[23:56.000 --> 24:04.000]  considering the legislature was aware of the fact that the rule could be suspended by a majority vote under Section 62,
[24:04.000 --> 24:16.000]  that is direct evidence that they were familiar and had knowledge of the conditions and circumstances required for that suspension that are set forth in Section 62.
[24:16.000 --> 24:24.000]  And therefore, they could not possibly say that they did not know those conditions were required.
[24:24.000 --> 24:42.000]  And those conditions are very, very simple. A state of emergency for the purpose of suspending the procedural rule of reading and discussion can occur only if it is a result of disasters that were brought forth by enemy attack.
[24:42.000 --> 24:54.000]  They must be disasters that are resulting from an enemy attack before that suspension can take place.
[24:54.000 --> 25:08.000]  And that enemy attack must be proclaimed in writing by the governor of Texas, and it must be countersigned by the people in charge of each house of the legislature.
[25:08.000 --> 25:20.000]  That is a mandatory requirement in Article III, Section 62B, C, and D.
[25:20.000 --> 25:25.000]  A just sets forth the state of emergency and how it's developed.
[25:25.000 --> 25:35.000]  And it says very clearly, the state of emergency is the result of disasters resulting from enemy attack.
[25:35.000 --> 25:51.000]  That's it. So there is no question the 74th legislature knew very good and well the emergency clause used to pass SB 971 was complete and utter fraud.
[25:51.000 --> 25:59.000]  And through that fraud, they have killed people.
[25:59.000 --> 26:08.000]  Killed people. Sandra Bland, for instance. They have illegally imprisoned people.
[26:08.000 --> 26:16.000]  They have illegally searched people. They have illegally fined people. They have illegally tried to convicted people.
[26:16.000 --> 26:28.000]  They've thrown them in jail. They put them on community service. And they have stolen money through fraud.
[26:28.000 --> 26:33.000]  And I can absolutely prove it.
[26:33.000 --> 26:42.000]  Now the question is, how many of you are going to get on board and start filing this motion in your own case to make them regret it?
[26:42.000 --> 26:47.000]  Because here is the problem they face.
[26:47.000 --> 27:00.000]  When they recognize that this motion invalidates every one of these acts for the past 20 plus years. Remember, this was enacted in 1995.
[27:00.000 --> 27:04.000]  That's 20 years ago, people.
[27:04.000 --> 27:21.000]  For 20 years, Texas and every county and municipality has stolen from the people of Texas their livelihood, their freedom, and in many cases, their very life.
[27:21.000 --> 27:30.000]  And they are liable to each and every family and individual they've done this to.
[27:30.000 --> 27:37.000]  Because remember, fraud and murder do not have statutes of limitations.
[27:37.000 --> 27:43.000]  Fraud's statute of limitations does not begin to toll until one becomes aware of the fraud.
[27:43.000 --> 27:47.000]  Well, if you're listening, you're aware.
[27:47.000 --> 27:54.000]  You now have a responsibility to do nothing or do something.
[27:54.000 --> 27:57.000]  I hope it's the latter.
[27:57.000 --> 28:06.000]  Now that being said, these cases in San Antonio should all be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction immediately.
[28:06.000 --> 28:10.000]  But the judge refused to allow the individual to file the motion.
[28:10.000 --> 28:12.000]  So we moved to recuse the judge.
[28:12.000 --> 28:17.000]  The judge would not recuse herself, so we moved to disqualify.
[28:17.000 --> 28:20.000]  The judge said, fine, you file it in writing.
[28:20.000 --> 28:32.000]  But by law, the judge was then required to cease and desist all activity in the case pursuant Chapter 29A-1 of the government code for municipal judges.
[28:32.000 --> 28:45.000]  It says very clearly that once that motion has been made, the municipal judge shall cease all actions in the current case and forward that motion up.
[28:45.000 --> 28:57.000]  Well, of course, you don't go into court knowing ahead of time that your judge is going to commit fraud, ignore the law, and deprive you of your due process.
[28:57.000 --> 29:07.000]  Yes, you do, but you can't go in with a prewritten motion stating that's what they're going to do because that motion has to be notarized.
[29:07.000 --> 29:13.000]  So it's not like you can show up in court knowing full well the judge is not going to obey the law.
[29:13.000 --> 29:26.000]  And when you move for a continuance to disqualify them so you can provide the written motion and they refuse, they have short-circuited Chapter 29A-1 of the government code
[29:26.000 --> 29:32.000]  because without that written motion, it's not considered properly filed.
[29:32.000 --> 29:43.000]  So when they refuse to give you a continuance to file it, they are acting on jurisdiction they don't have after they've been challenged for jurisdiction
[29:43.000 --> 29:49.000]  and to disqualify them for ignoring the law that controls what they're supposed to be doing.
[29:49.000 --> 30:02.000]  There's no justice here, but we're going to cover more of that when we get back, so y'all hang on.
[30:02.000 --> 30:04.000]  What's the French word for biometrics?
[30:04.000 --> 30:11.000]  You better learn it quick because a French company now controls all of the biometric data our government has collected on us.
[30:11.000 --> 30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with the creepy details.
[30:15.000 --> 30:21.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.000 --> 30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.000 --> 30:31.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:41.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:47.000]  Your facial map, fingerprints, and DNA.
[30:47.000 --> 30:53.000]  They're all unique identifiers collected by a U.S. megacorporation called L1.
[30:53.000 --> 30:58.000]  Started by former heads of U.S. security agencies, including the CIA and FBI,
[30:58.000 --> 31:04.000]  L1 makes nearly all of our driver's licenses and produces the microchips in our passports.
[31:04.000 --> 31:08.000]  It holds biometric data on tens of millions of Americans.
[31:08.000 --> 31:13.000]  And now it's been taken over by French defense contractor Safran.
[31:13.000 --> 31:16.000]  France is an ally, but it's still a foreign government.
[31:16.000 --> 31:22.000]  And I, for one, am very uncomfortable about Safran controlling the biometric data of me and my family.
[31:22.000 --> 31:28.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:32.000 --> 31:36.000]  What are you thinking? Micro plant powder with iodine and probiotics?
[31:36.000 --> 31:39.000]  Or a total body detox for around $10 a month?
[31:39.000 --> 31:46.000]  nthusa.org has 12 formulations of micro plant powder for absorbing and removing toxins from your kidneys,
[31:46.000 --> 31:50.000]  liver, blood, lungs, stomach, and colon, and feel better than ever.
[31:50.000 --> 31:54.000]  It alkalizes, oxygenates, kills parasites, does the job of 10 products.
[31:54.000 --> 31:56.000]  That saves you space, time, and money.
[31:56.000 --> 32:01.000]  Call 888-910-4367 only at nthusa.org.
[32:03.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic center.
[32:06.000 --> 32:11.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[32:11.000 --> 32:14.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:14.000 --> 32:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:18.000 --> 32:21.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:21.000 --> 32:27.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:27.000 --> 32:30.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:30.000 --> 32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:46.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:46.000 --> 32:51.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:00.000 --> 33:04.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:30.000 --> 33:40.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[33:40.000 --> 33:45.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[33:45.000 --> 33:49.000]  All right, now to finish up with this San Antonio court.
[33:49.000 --> 33:54.000]  After the judge refused to allow a continuance to challenge or to disqualify them,
[33:54.000 --> 34:01.000]  but they wound up letting the person out of the court that day without proceeding the trial or hearing the motions on other grounds,
[34:01.000 --> 34:07.000]  they had to go, and this was last Thursday, they had to go back again today to face the same judge
[34:07.000 --> 34:14.000]  who refused to recognize the prior disqualification in the cases that were pending there today
[34:14.000 --> 34:20.000]  and acted as if somehow or other they're not related because they're different cases,
[34:20.000 --> 34:28.000]  even though this is the same judge who's been previously disqualified in this same individual's other cases for judicial incompetence
[34:28.000 --> 34:30.000]  and refuses to do so.
[34:30.000 --> 34:37.000]  So I instruct them to go find the head presiding judge, which they attempt to do.
[34:37.000 --> 34:44.000]  They are advised by the court coordinator, whatever that actually means,
[34:44.000 --> 34:50.000]  to return to court and they will schedule them into a different court with a different judge.
[34:50.000 --> 34:53.000]  Here's the problem with that action.
[34:53.000 --> 34:57.000]  First off, that is not the procedure required by law.
[34:57.000 --> 35:04.000]  The judge that was disqualified was required to send the disqualification motion
[35:04.000 --> 35:08.000]  up to the head administrative judge of the district for a hearing.
[35:08.000 --> 35:15.000]  They're not allowed to short circuit that process by any procedure in the law that I can find.
[35:15.000 --> 35:22.000]  But the reason they want to do it is because that would be documentation against that judge
[35:22.000 --> 35:29.000]  in any future proceeding that someone could latch onto to prove they cannot get a fair trial under that judge.
[35:29.000 --> 35:35.000]  So they don't want you to file the disqualification motions
[35:35.000 --> 35:40.000]  because what they did was they redirected the individual into this other court
[35:40.000 --> 35:49.000]  and that judge proceeded to state that the other judge had recused herself, which was a bald-faced lie.
[35:49.000 --> 35:58.000]  So instead of following the procedure that would allow this individual to fully document the due process violations
[35:58.000 --> 36:06.000]  heaped upon them by the original judge, they instead sidestepped the lawful requirement
[36:06.000 --> 36:14.000]  of the disqualification process to prevent that documentation from being filed into the record.
[36:14.000 --> 36:22.000]  And then, here's something else you need to be aware of that's being pulled in this case and we're going to fix.
[36:22.000 --> 36:32.000]  As of September 1, 2015, the Texas legislature has amended 45.020 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[36:32.000 --> 36:42.000]  to now allow multiple prosecutors to work against the individual in the court.
[36:42.000 --> 36:44.000]  Got that?
[36:44.000 --> 36:52.000]  Not only were you denied assistance of counsel if you needed it, and you're still being denied assistance of counsel if you needed it,
[36:52.000 --> 37:00.000]  but before at least it had to be a one-on-one proceeding against the prosecutor, whoever that may be.
[37:00.000 --> 37:11.000]  Now they get to have as many of them working against you as they can possibly put at the table.
[37:11.000 --> 37:20.000]  And the reason the legislature stated they're doing this is because it's consistent with the way the rest of the court system works,
[37:20.000 --> 37:24.000]  which I find stupid.
[37:24.000 --> 37:42.000]  Okay, and the reason I find it stupid is because the entire reason Chapter 45 exists is to remove those proceedings from the same level of requirements as all of the other types of court procedures.
[37:42.000 --> 37:46.000]  Now in some ways, that's a bad thing, and in some ways it's a good thing.
[37:46.000 --> 37:55.000]  If they're going to deny you assistance of counsel, then it's a good thing, because at least it's only you against the prosecutor.
[37:55.000 --> 37:58.000]  But now that's not going to be the case.
[37:58.000 --> 38:08.000]  So in this individual's case, they've had two and three prosecutors in the court moving against them for the entire set of proceedings they've had on Thursday and Friday.
[38:08.000 --> 38:24.000]  And when that individual challenged this based upon what is written in 45.020, the prosecutor brought to the court's attention that there's been a change in the law as of September 1st,
[38:24.000 --> 38:28.000]  that we can have as many prosecutors as we want.
[38:28.000 --> 38:39.000]  And the court said, I agree. I know the change has taken place because the Texas Municipal Court Association has told them that it has.
[38:39.000 --> 38:50.000]  But here is the shovel that you use to cleave their brain pan from their stupid, miniscule brain.
[38:50.000 --> 39:00.000]  The bill they're quoting that was enrolled, now the enrolled bill is the one that the governor signed and made law, has two sections in it.
[39:00.000 --> 39:10.000]  The first one is the one that deletes the original language denying the ability of multiple prosecutors or defense attorneys.
[39:10.000 --> 39:20.000]  So if you can afford an attorney, you can hire as many as you want. But if you can't afford an attorney, it's still just you against a team of attorneys.
[39:20.000 --> 39:27.000]  So much for a fair trial. Because you're not allowed to have appointed counsel who still would sell you out.
[39:27.000 --> 39:35.000]  So much for a fair trial. So if you think you don't need to know what's going on and how to do it in that court, you better think again.
[39:35.000 --> 39:45.000]  If you're not coming to my class, if you're not reading the stuff that I've written in the seminar material, good luck.
[39:45.000 --> 40:02.000]  Now here's their problem. Section 2 of this bill specifically states, the change in law made by this act applies only to a criminal proceeding that commences on or after the effective date of this act,
[40:02.000 --> 40:15.000]  which again was September 1, 2015. A criminal proceeding that commences before the effective date of this act is governed by the law in effect on the date the proceeding commences.
[40:15.000 --> 40:31.000]  And the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. Guess when the proceedings against this individual began? Long before September 1, 2015.
[40:31.000 --> 40:47.000]  So we can prove that the prosecutor and the prosecutors and the judges in the San Antonio Municipal Court have knowingly and intentionally misstated the law to a defendant
[40:47.000 --> 41:10.000]  for the purpose of prosecuting them under a law that doesn't apply and ignoring the same law that tells them you can't have multiple prosecutors because this is the law that's still in effect for this proceeding.
[41:10.000 --> 41:21.000]  Now you add to that the fact that they lack any subject matter jurisdiction because of the unconstitutionality of the transportation code as a whole?
[41:21.000 --> 41:40.000]  And you have a burial of a legal career or at least a damn good lawsuit because none of these people are acting with any valid lawful jurisdiction, therefore none of them, not even the prosecutor,
[41:40.000 --> 42:05.000]  which isn't actually a prosecutor in this case. They're a city attorney who cannot prosecute in the name of the state regardless of what the legislature wants to do with 45.201 because it violates the constitutional delegation of prosecutorial power to the county and district attorney only, just like it does lawmaking power to the legislature only.
[42:05.000 --> 42:33.000]  So your public servants in the 74th legislature and all of your public servants since then have knowingly, willingly, and intentionally conspired and colluded with the officials of your courts and the executive enforcement arm to commit treason, sedition, and fraud in Texas.
[42:33.000 --> 42:56.000]  We need to be banding together, as many of us as possible, and filing a class action lawsuit against every single municipality and county and the Texas Department of Public Safety for this fraud.
[42:56.000 --> 43:07.000]  And we can go after every judge and every prosecutor and every court that ever prosecuted a case since 1995 because none of them had jurisdiction to do so.
[43:07.000 --> 43:14.000]  And remember, Article 1, Section 29 of the Texas Constitution, we got two provisions here that they cannot defeat.
[43:14.000 --> 43:23.000]  One, the bill never had force and effect of law if it was not read and discussed over three several days in each house.
[43:23.000 --> 43:29.000]  That's written right into the article. It never had the force and effect of law if that didn't happen.
[43:29.000 --> 43:42.000]  And Article 1, Section 29, which specifically states if the law does not comply with all these constitutional provisions, it is void.
[43:42.000 --> 43:56.000]  So right off the bat, the judges should have known, the legislature should have known, and we should be hanging every one of them out to dry for the rest of their lives, which should only be a matter of days before we rally up and hang them.
[43:56.000 --> 44:12.000]  All right, folks, we'll be right back. So y'all hang on.
[44:26.000 --> 44:28.000]  Now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  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.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 45:03.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:03.000 --> 45:07.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com.
[45:07.000 --> 45:19.000]  And I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas, buying brave new books and J-Paint to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:23.000 --> 45:31.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Auxiliary Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.000 --> 45:44.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:44.000 --> 45:48.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[45:48.000 --> 45:51.000]  Naturespureorganics.com.
[46:18.000 --> 46:30.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:30.000 --> 46:36.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[46:36.000 --> 46:39.000]  All right, we are going to start taking your calls.
[46:39.000 --> 46:42.000]  And the first one we got up is Lisette in California.
[46:42.000 --> 46:46.000]  Lisette, what can we do for you?
[46:46.000 --> 46:48.000]  Hello, Lisette.
[46:48.000 --> 46:49.000]  Hello.
[46:49.000 --> 46:51.000]  Hi.
[46:51.000 --> 46:54.000]  Hi. Are you able to take another caller?
[46:54.000 --> 46:58.000]  I'm trying to get parked so I can not drive and focus on my phone.
[46:58.000 --> 47:03.000]  Okay, sure. I'll move to the next one in line and I'll come back to you.
[47:03.000 --> 47:04.000]  Thank you.
[47:04.000 --> 47:05.000]  You're welcome.
[47:05.000 --> 47:11.000]  All right. We're going to go to Scott in Texas. Scott, what can we do for you?
[47:11.000 --> 47:14.000]  Hey, Randy.
[47:14.000 --> 47:17.000]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hey, who?
[47:17.000 --> 47:19.000]  Scott in Dallas.
[47:19.000 --> 47:21.000]  No. Hey, who?
[47:21.000 --> 47:28.000]  Randy. I mean, not Randy, Eddie. I don't know where I got Randy from.
[47:28.000 --> 47:30.000]  I come to your class.
[47:30.000 --> 47:37.000]  Yeah, I know who I'm talking to, but you don't.
[47:37.000 --> 47:39.000]  Go ahead, Scott.
[47:39.000 --> 47:41.000]  And Scott disappeared.
[47:41.000 --> 47:44.000]  Ain't tonight having a really good time.
[47:44.000 --> 47:50.000]  All right. While we're waiting for Scott to come back wherever he went, let's go to Larry in Arizona.
[47:50.000 --> 47:53.000]  Larry, what can we do for you?
[47:53.000 --> 47:54.000]  Good evening, Eddie.
[47:54.000 --> 47:55.000]  Good evening.
[47:55.000 --> 47:59.000]  I talked to you a couple weeks ago after I was arrested.
[47:59.000 --> 48:10.000]  And a week later, well, just a few days after my arrest, the sheriff's office started patrolling my area pretty heavy.
[48:10.000 --> 48:11.000]  Right.
[48:11.000 --> 48:17.000]  And they would hang, the deputies would hang out where our dirt road met the paved road.
[48:17.000 --> 48:21.000]  And last week they got me again.
[48:21.000 --> 48:25.000]  And I mean, this was a stop like I've never had before.
[48:25.000 --> 48:31.000]  These two guys pulled me over, one positioned himself at the back of my truck with his hand on his gun.
[48:31.000 --> 48:41.000]  And I mean, they were the rudest, nastiest crowd. So I just, you know, I didn't try to give any resistance.
[48:41.000 --> 48:47.000]  You know, they wrote me for no registration and basically threatened me.
[48:47.000 --> 48:54.000]  You know, the officer told me if I see this truck on the road again, I'm going to impound it.
[48:54.000 --> 48:55.000]  OK.
[48:55.000 --> 49:01.000]  And it's like, I mean, do I just follow the procedure?
[49:01.000 --> 49:06.000]  I mean, these are buddies of the guy that arrested me.
[49:06.000 --> 49:09.000]  Well, I mean, that's up to you.
[49:09.000 --> 49:19.000]  If you really want to understand what's going on in Arizona, there are two sets of people you need to talk to.
[49:19.000 --> 49:27.000]  And I don't know if he is still in Arizona or not, but his name is Thomas Highland.
[49:27.000 --> 49:32.000]  And he was one of the pioneers of this in your neck of the woods.
[49:32.000 --> 49:36.000]  And the other is, huh?
[49:36.000 --> 49:40.000]  Isn't he in New Mexico now?
[49:40.000 --> 49:42.000]  I don't know where he is now.
[49:42.000 --> 49:44.000]  OK.
[49:44.000 --> 49:53.000]  I do know that originally the first time I ever heard of him, he was, I'm pretty sure, unless it was somebody similar, was in Arizona.
[49:53.000 --> 50:03.000]  And then he took that same set of business into New Mexico where Jack and Margie Flynn were already working to do those same things.
[50:03.000 --> 50:05.000]  The thing you need to understand is this.
[50:05.000 --> 50:19.000]  You have to know what your state constitution says, what your case law history says on your ability to travel the roads without government interference.
[50:19.000 --> 50:23.000]  See, this is the thing government tends to forget.
[50:23.000 --> 50:36.000]  It is not valid nor has it ever been upheld that the Second Amendment dealt only with the technology of the time and the right to keep and bear arms.
[50:36.000 --> 50:43.000]  In other words, black powder muskets are not what we're limited to just because of advancements in technology.
[50:43.000 --> 50:58.000]  We have the right to own and use for our self-defense and protection of others and our property any mode of firearm or weapon that is invented.
[50:58.000 --> 51:06.000]  Short of I would not want certain types of explosives in the hands of individuals just because.
[51:06.000 --> 51:10.000]  But other kinds I got no big issues with.
[51:10.000 --> 51:15.000]  All right, hand grenades, individual dynamite, stuff like that, no problem.
[51:15.000 --> 51:22.000]  But dirty bombs, nuclear bombs, biological bombs, no.
[51:22.000 --> 51:35.000]  Anything other than that, I think we have every right to have anything our military has, regardless of the rate of fire or the size of the hole it will make.
[51:35.000 --> 51:48.000]  But that being said, the courts have never ruled that the technology in the area of firearms has ever been an issue as to the right to keep and bear them.
[51:48.000 --> 52:06.000]  How then does the legislature come to the conclusion that the change in technologies relating to ground transportation and methods of propulsion has somehow removed our right to freely move about within the states of our own volition?
[52:06.000 --> 52:26.000]  Just like it did when we were on foot, when we were on horseback, when we were on bicycle, why does that particular change of technology to a car somehow empower them to take away that right and license it back to us?
[52:26.000 --> 52:37.000]  Most people don't think to ask themselves that question. How did technology become the catalyst for the alteration of one right but not for the other?
[52:37.000 --> 52:52.000]  The argument that it's because motor vehicles are now more ubiquitous, there's far more of them on the road, the individuals that own them are very well trained, and blah, blah, blah, so they have to be regulated, BS.
[52:52.000 --> 52:56.000]  That's all that is, BS. And let me tell you why.
[52:56.000 --> 53:15.000]  Because the only people involved in that system that must actually be tested for competency through actual training prior to getting the license are those engaged in business with that license.
[53:15.000 --> 53:32.000]  Anybody else without so much as one second of practice or training behind the wheel of a car can take the written test and the physical control of a car test, and if they pass, will get a license.
[53:32.000 --> 53:49.000]  There is absolutely no training required, and there is absolutely no public safety interest involved in the issuance of a license to an individual for private purposes. None, nada, zip.
[53:49.000 --> 53:59.000]  Commercial drivers are the only ones that must go through formal, certified training in order to get that license.
[53:59.000 --> 54:06.000]  They're the only ones it was ever intended to apply to.
[54:06.000 --> 54:20.000]  So those are the things you have to understand so that you will understand how to read the statutes that they've written, because you have to understand they cannot create a statute that licenses a right.
[54:20.000 --> 54:22.000]  They can't.
[54:22.000 --> 54:36.000]  And the right to travel from state to state through one's own volition and power of locomotion by whatever current means of the day that may be is a right.
[54:36.000 --> 54:38.000]  Okay, I agree.
[54:38.000 --> 54:53.000]  And there's plenty of case law that backs that up, but unfortunately, like everything else under the sun, and it's true because of how the system is set up, the attorneys and the judges will all tell you, you can construe a court opinion any way you want.
[54:53.000 --> 55:03.000]  And they're absolutely right, because it's nothing but a damned opinion, and it's always in favor of the state when it suits them.
[55:03.000 --> 55:10.000]  Right now it suits them because there's tons of revenue in doing this, unconstitutionally and illegally.
[55:10.000 --> 55:29.000]  And there is tons of control that they can exercise over the lives of every individual and use as grounds to interfere with them and engage them and put them into the legal system at any given opportunity.
[55:29.000 --> 55:36.000]  My motion challenging this transportation code will put an end to that as far as using what they've got.
[55:36.000 --> 55:53.000]  They will have no choice but to repeal the transportation code and fall back on the old statutes, and then they're going to have to do it provision by provision to get it into a new one.
[55:53.000 --> 55:57.000]  Have you set a price on your motion yet?
[55:57.000 --> 56:03.000]  Probably about $100, considering what it does for you and how it will do it and how fast it will do it.
[56:03.000 --> 56:08.000]  I think that's an extremely reasonable price for what it's cost me to put it together.
[56:08.000 --> 56:10.000]  And when do you think it will be available?
[56:10.000 --> 56:16.000]  I'm hoping to have everything I need, including the certified copies, before the end of this week.
[56:16.000 --> 56:21.000]  Okay. Okay, now you mentioned Thomas Hyland. Who is the other person you are referring to?
[56:21.000 --> 56:24.000]  Well, Jack and Margie Flynn, but they did theirs in New Mexico.
[56:24.000 --> 56:33.000]  They also, when Tom went to New Mexico, if that's where he still is, he and the Flins worked together on exactly these same issues there as well.
[56:33.000 --> 56:42.000]  But I believe when I first started reading about the stuff that he was trying to do, he was originally in Arizona and then moved to New Mexico.
[56:42.000 --> 56:49.000]  I may have that wrong. It may have been someone else in Arizona, but I think that's right.
[56:49.000 --> 56:52.000]  Okay. Well, I'll track them down.
[56:52.000 --> 57:01.000]  And then last time when I talked to you, I was telling you that, you know, I hadn't been to the magistrate, no probable cause had been substantiated.
[57:01.000 --> 57:04.000]  The arrest hadn't been validated.
[57:04.000 --> 57:08.000]  So when I saw the magistrate, she said, how do you plea?
[57:08.000 --> 57:14.000]  And I said, by special appearance, she said, I'll enter not guilty.
[57:14.000 --> 57:22.000]  I said, ma'am, I said, probable cause hasn't been established and the arrest hasn't been validated.
[57:22.000 --> 57:24.000]  I haven't even seen a magistrate yet.
[57:24.000 --> 57:26.000]  She said, you've seen a magistrate now.
[57:26.000 --> 57:28.000]  She told me to be quiet.
[57:28.000 --> 57:33.000]  Yeah, but the problem is you should have objected to the court waiving your protected rights.
[57:33.000 --> 57:41.000]  If no one has filed a complaint and no probable cause has been determined for the original arrest, that's a deprivation of your rights under color of law.
[57:41.000 --> 57:50.000]  Because a warrantless arrest is always presumed to be unlawful pursuant a decision of the United States Supreme Court.
[57:50.000 --> 57:51.000]  Okay.
[57:51.000 --> 57:55.000]  A warrantless arrest is presumed to be unlawful.
[57:55.000 --> 58:06.000]  Therefore, probable cause for any warrantless arrest must be established before going to the merits of any allegation associated with the arrest.
[58:06.000 --> 58:21.000]  If they haven't done that and they enter a plea, the court is waiving your rights to notice, to challenge the form and substance of the charging instrument, and your right to challenge personal jurisdiction.
[58:21.000 --> 58:24.000]  And you need to be objecting to that.
[58:24.000 --> 58:28.000]  All right, Larry, hang on just a minute and we'll finish up with you on the other side.
[58:28.000 --> 58:32.000]  This is our top of the hour break, so it'll be about three or four minutes.
[58:32.000 --> 58:38.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984.
[58:38.000 --> 58:50.000]  If you want to get in line, we will be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 58:58.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.000 --> 59:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:06.000 --> 59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.000 --> 59:18.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.000 --> 59:27.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.000 --> 59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.000 --> 59:43.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102,
[59:43.000 --> 59:47.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.000 --> 59:50.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:22.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market. Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:44.000]  Markets for the 11th of November, 2015, opened up with gold at $1,084.79 an ounce, silver $14.30 an ounce, Texas crude $44.21 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $310 U.S. currency.
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  Today in history, Friday, November 11th, Memorial Day 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated at the internment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery of one of the four caskets exhumed from American cemeteries in France.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  This was the commemoration of the unknown soldier of World War I.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:16.000]  In recent use, the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba broke records with $14.3 billion in sales on Singles Day, November 11th.
[01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:22.000]  11-11 is Singles Day in China because 11-11 looked like bare branches, a term used for bachelors in Chinese.
[01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  The Alibaba Group holding limited said mobile sales loan made up about 70 percent of it, while Alibaba Jack Ma has said that he'd like to export Singles Day to the United States is not likely, say experts, since it would turn a solemn day of remembrance into a day of frivolous spending.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  You know, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, Alibaba was able to make 14-plus billion in sales in a single day in a country that spends a third of what we do on military armament.
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:02:08.000]  The world's most popular social media site, Facebook, will now be charged 250,000 euros a day if it doesn't change the way it uses tracking cookies after a lawsuit was raised and won by a Belgian's privacy watchdog group.
[01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:11.000]  The lawyer behind the case has stated that he is anticipating other cases to follow.
[01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:20.000]  The Belgian privacy watchdog successfully argued that Facebook was infringing on the privacy rights of the country's citizens by tracking them around the Internet, even if they hadn't signed up to the site.
[01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  Apparently, Facebook had been enabling cookies which would load onto a user's browser if they went onto a Facebook page, even if they weren't logged in, and then used them to track them when they came back to the site.
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  Facebook's defense is that it was only collecting computers' IP addresses and other unique identifiers via these cookies.
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:42.000]  However, the court ruled that that information was personal data and should not be tracked.
[01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  Facebook does plan to appeal the case, stating that only EU courts and not Belgian courts have the authority to make such rulings.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:19.000]  Here's your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:47.000]  All right, folks.
[01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:49.000]  We are back.
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:51.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:51.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  All right.
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:55.000]  Now, we are going to finish up with Larry in Arizona.
[01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:58.000]  All right, Larry, go ahead.
[01:03:58.000 --> 01:03:59.000]  Okay.
[01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:02.000]  Well, Eddie, I'm going to go on to another subject here.
[01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  About a month ago, one of the guys that works for me called you because he had been arrested two months ago on this.
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:12.000]  And his trial was today.
[01:04:12.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  And naturally, we got to run over.
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:16.000]  But it was interesting.
[01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  I was going to sit at the table with him and help feed him some of the cards and things.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:21.000]  Right.
[01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  And the judge told me I could not sit at the table with him.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  He said, Your Honor, he said, don't I have a right to counsel?
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:33.000]  And the judge looked at me and said, are you a licensed attorney?
[01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  I said, no.
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:38.000]  And he said, no, you can't sit up here.
[01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  And I thought, well, wait a minute, I've read things about you can have a friend with you and you can have a non-licensed layman assistant.
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  But the judge just ran him over on that and said, absolutely not.
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  Well, find the case law for Arizona or federal case law that controls in Arizona that says that's a deprivation of rights.
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:06.000]  That's an appealable error if that's the case.
[01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  Okay.
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  And then this guy's got a lot of guts.
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  He looked at the judge.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:20.000]  He said, hey, Judge, if I lose this case, is any part of this fine going to go in your pocket or your retirement fund?
[01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:25.000]  And I mean, the judge just looked at him like he would not answer.
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:28.000]  He said, we're not going to discuss that in this courtroom.
[01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  And he should have said, objection, Judge, if it in any way bears upon your ability to be fair and impartial in this case because you have a vested financial interest in the outcome, we are going to discuss it.
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  Okay.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:53.000]  Well, that's the advantage of not having your experience, you know, to know that you can get in his face and argue back with him.
[01:05:53.000 --> 01:06:06.000]  Now, the other thing, when they got into the discussion of motor vehicle, the judge pulled out his copy of the statutes.
[01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:10.000]  And in the statutes, there's about four definitions of motor vehicle.
[01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  There's only one good one that says, you know, must be used in the furthest of a commercial enterprise.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  Well, he pulled out one of the lesser definitions that said...
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:28.000]  Which one control the section of statute that the charges were related to?
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  Doesn't matter how many there are, what matters is the one that relates to the statutes under which the charge is based.
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:40.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  Okay.
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:44.000]  That we didn't know.
[01:06:44.000 --> 01:07:00.000]  And then the other, then the judge and the prosecutor argued that this argument of not in transportation was a bunch of bull because the Tenth Amendment gave the state the right to license everyone.
[01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  Oh, it didn't.
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  Somebody, who said that?
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  What's that?
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:08.000]  Who said that?
[01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  The prosecutor and the judge.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  Objection, the judge is not allowed to speak to the evidence produced in the court and the prosecuting attorney is not allowed to be the source of that evidence.
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  That's a violation of due process.
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:27.000]  The attorney cannot be a witness.
[01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  The attorney cannot introduce evidence through his own testimony, nor can the judge speak to evidence introduced at trial.
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  That proves that neither of them are being fair and impartial, doesn't it?
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  Okay.
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  That's why I'm talking to you.
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:51.000]  Thus, appealable error.
[01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  Now, was this a court of record?
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  Yes.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:08.000]  Then get the transcripts because that's what that will prove unless the judge had it stricken, in which case y'all need to file affidavits to amend the record and to make it right that that's what happened and it be re-entered into the transcript.
[01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:11.000]  Okay.
[01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  So what you need to do is talk to the court reporter and ask the court reporter, is the statement by the prosecutor and the judge relating to the introduction of evidence of the Tenth Amendment still in the transcript?
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:33.000]  This is an electronic recording in our courts.
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:38.000]  It would still have to be transcribed for you to use it.
[01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  So you can either get a copy of the electronic recording and pay to have it transcribed or at least listen to it and make sure that what you need is still in it.
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:49.000]  Yeah.
[01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  And we haven't listened to our recorders, but everybody that was in the courtroom today had a recorder.
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  Well, what you want to do is take and compare your recorder to their recording.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  And if they're not 100% identical, then you file a motion and a criminal complaint for tampering with the record.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  Okay.
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:17.000]  And I mean, we got everything on the record, you know, like you say, isn't it?
[01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  Well, I have one question.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  Why were you guys arguing the definition of motor vehicle if you're arguing not in transportation?
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:31.000]  Actually, the prosecutor brought it up.
[01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  And what did your friend do when they brought it up?
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  He said he was not in a motor vehicle.
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:44.000]  Okay, there we go.
[01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  That right there is a shot to the head.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  Why do you guys insist on putting a gun to your temple and pulling the trigger?
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:57.000]  You cannot make that argument on a not in transportation.
[01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:04.000]  That is a merits argument.
[01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  All he should have done was say objection, assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to and requires a legal conclusion,
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:23.000]  which once again, the prosecuting attorney cannot make nor can he testify as to what motor vehicle means.
[01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  Got it?
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  Okay.
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:32.000]  The moment you start arguing over a definition of anything, you've gone to merits.
[01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:36.000]  The transportation argument is out the window.
[01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:42.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  And it was kind of funny at the end of the trial, the judge, it was just like he was saying a disclaimer,
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  saying now the appeals court may not agree with my decision.
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  And he must have repeated that about three times.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  Yeah.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  So we'll do our appeal now.
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  Well, the problem is if he made that argument, they're going to agree with his decision.
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:19.000]  Because the moment he went to arguing the merits of transportation through the motor vehicle definition,
[01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:24.000]  that he shot himself right in the head on his defense.
[01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  Now, cross your fingers and hope they missed that, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it.
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  Yeah.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  I mean, how does that kill the argument of not in transportation?
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  Okay.
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:36.000]  Let's try this.
[01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  Okay.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  What were you wearing when you robbed the bank?
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:41.000]  I didn't rob the bank.
[01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  The guard in there that was standing over by the corner over there that saw me in there can tell you I didn't rob the bank.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Did you just admit to being in the bank?
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  Yeah.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  Okay.
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:00.000]  Okay.
[01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  You're going to a merit, to a fact related to the allegation.
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  But the allegation doesn't mean anything if they can't first prove that you were engaged in the activity that governs the allegation, can they?
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  Okay.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  So the moment you go to the merits of the allegation, you've agreed that it's applicable, haven't you?
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:27.000]  Okay.
[01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  And therefore, you cannot argue that the umbrella of occupation doesn't apply.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:43.000]  Okay.
[01:12:43.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  Okay.
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  Yeah.
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  It's just tough when you're getting railroaded.
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:52.000]  I mean, they absolutely said everybody must be licensed.
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  And who said that?
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  The judge.
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  And why didn't somebody object?
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:06.000]  The judge is testifying in the court when they're supposed to be presiding over the case.
[01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  That's not right.
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  That's due to lack of experience.
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  Well, but I'm just telling you, that's the things you need to watch out for.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  When a judge starts speaking to the evidence and making statements of fact without putting anything, they can't do that in sitting on the bench.
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:29.000]  That's practicing law from the bench.
[01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  That is becoming involved in the facts of the case, which the judge cannot do and be fair and impartial.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  Yeah.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Okay.
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  The problem is, is if your friend did not object to it, then the appeals court is going to gloss right over it.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  Okay.
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  Okay.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  Well, yeah, the reason I'm asking this is because my trial is in a month, so I'm learning from this one.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  It would be good if someone did.
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  Yes, we will.
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:14.000]  Don't let either of them get away with making statements of fact like that on the record.
[01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  Don't do it.
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  Okay.
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  Objection. If the prosecution or this court is going to enter testimony into this case, I demand that you recuse yourself, become a witness, and be sworn in.
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:36.000]  Otherwise, I move to strike.
[01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  Okay.
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  I will study this archive well.
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  But on top of that, you can say, oh, Judge, thank you so much for speaking out as to the evidence in this case.
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  Would you please disqualify yourself now, because I can no longer get a fair and impartial trial when you're going to testify for the prosecution instead of be a quiet judge.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:10.000]  Okay. I mean, it was obvious that things were wrong, but we just didn't know how to counter what was going on.
[01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:19.000]  You guys need to spend a couple of weeks in Brooklyn arguing with a few folks.
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:20.000]  Yeah.
[01:15:20.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  Okay. Well, I appreciate it. That will give me a lot of food for thought.
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  All right, Larry. Good luck.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:29.000]  Okay. Thank you, Eddie. Appreciate it.
[01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  You're welcome. Bye-bye.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  Bye.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  Now we're going to try real quick to get Lisette. Is she still stationary? Lisette?
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  Yes, I'm here.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  All right. Let's rock.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  Okay. I am calling you.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  I've spoken to you before, and the other time it was a family member that messed me up.
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  And this time, I don't think that I messed myself up, but the best defense is a good offense.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:16:01.000]  So my situation, I'm in California, so California, I guess DMV or however rules apply.
[01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  And I have a vehicle that the DMV never sent a license plate, and it's just I'm unable to really do anything with it.
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  It's paid off. The finance company hasn't sent the title.
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:17.000]  And I know you're going to say that's neither here nor there.
[01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  Long story short, we got pulled over by the Long Beach Police Department around the corner from our house.
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:31.000]  And I let the guy know because parking is such a hassle. Listen, this is a garage car.
[01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  I have a car in front of my rental car in front of my house with all of my stuff.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:40.000]  Didn't even have my license. I gave him my name. He went and did the correct information.
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Okay. Lisette, hang on just a second. I'm sorry. We're about to go to break.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  So I'll let you pick up at that point when we get back, okay?
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:48.000]  Yeah, no problem.
[01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  All right. Hang on just a second. All right, folks.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio. We'll be right back after this break.
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  So y'all hang in there.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  We provide a wide assortment of your favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metals dealers and journalists.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  In addition, we carry popular longevity products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Polynbers.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:17:39.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  We broker metals IRA accounts, and we also accept Bitcoins as payment.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440.
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2.
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:22.000]  Order now.
[01:19:29.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking with Lisette in California.
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  All right, Lisette, go ahead.
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  Oh, okay. So, I mean, basically, my situation is they stopped us, and like I literally was around the corner, I went to drop off a friend and her baby.
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  And I told the cop, hey, listen, follow me the next block over.
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  There's the car, the rental car that's registered to me.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  You'll see a blank spot where this vehicle is garage just to appease them, and also then I have my license and all the other stuff you want.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  So, he went back to his patrol car.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  He entered my name and date of birth.
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:30.000]  Everything popped up.
[01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  He was like, okay.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  He was like, oh, I see it was your birthday yesterday, okay.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  And I said, yeah, and today's my son's birthday.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  We just finished dropping off party guests.
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  Long story short, he says, oh, he's going to give me a break.
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  But he's like, he could tell me, and I'm just looking at him like he's crazy because you can't tell me.
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:51.000]  But anyway, so he didn't, and he's like, I'm going to do your favor.
[01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  It's a fix-it ticket.
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  But he's saying his partner wants to impound a vehicle.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  So, anyways, I basically I was listening to your previous caller, and I want to find out what are the different options I can do because the vehicle had, quote, unquote, expired registration from 2010.
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  It's about to go into 2016.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:13.000]  I am not registering the vehicle.
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  DMV never sent.
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:17.000]  Then stop calling it a vehicle.
[01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  That's the first thing you need to understand.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  That term relates to their code, not to your car.
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  Okay.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  Okay.
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:29.000]  That's helpful right there.
[01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  So you're saying don't say a vehicle, say car.
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  Correct.
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:35.000]  A vehicle.
[01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  Are we doing semantics?
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  No, this is the language of law.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  Law defines terms for a reason.
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  Yes.
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  Okay.
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  A vehicle is something being used for the regulated activity to which the law applies, correct?
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  So you're not using it for that purpose, are you?
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  No, personal use.
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  Therefore, it does not fit into the legal capacity created and established for a vehicle, does it?
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:13.000]  It does not.
[01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  Then stop calling it one.
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  Okay.
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  So every time I'm referring to this incident with the Long Beach police...
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  Anytime you refer to it with anyone, it is my car, it is my conveyance, but it is never a vehicle.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:33.000]  And you object any time any one of them attempts to call it a vehicle.
[01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  I need to object.
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:43.000]  Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion.
[01:22:43.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  Okay.
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:45.000]  All right.
[01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  However, I think we've discussed this before.
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  The accusations against you were infractions, correct?
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:59.000]  Yes, they put infractions and they didn't put it specifically.
[01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  Okay.
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  Whatever you did, you're now in a place where you're breaking up really bad.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  Oh, let me get out of here.
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:08.000]  I was trying to go in this...
[01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:09.000]  I'm backing out now.
[01:23:09.000 --> 01:23:10.000]  That's better.
[01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  Important.
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:12.000]  Okay.
[01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  All right.
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  Continue.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  Yeah.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  They put the...actually, I can't read it to you.
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  It's a license plate and required registration.
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  I'm not registering it and I'm not putting a license plate.
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  Okay.
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  Back out of wherever you went to just now because you're doing it again.
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  I'm out.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:33.000]  Okay.
[01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:34.000]  Is it better?
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:40.000]  It's warbling, not as bad as it was, but still enough where you're distorted.
[01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  All right.
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  Let me just go back to the street.
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  How about now?
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  Still not perfect, but go ahead.
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  How about now?
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:54.000]  Now you're good.
[01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  Okay.
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:23:56.000]  Yeah.
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:24:00.000]  I got this person waiting.
[01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  I basically wanted to find out.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:04.000]  I thought of two different options.
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  One, you're going to shoot it down, but I want you to because I need to know what I'm doing.
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:14.000]  I was going to go to the Long Beach Police Department and tell them to resend the ticket
[01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  and show them the ticket, which is not complete, but to show them my rental agreement for the rental car.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  What does the rental car have to do with it?
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:29.000]  Okay.
[01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  What does the rental car have to do with the other car that they impounded?
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  No, they didn't impound it.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  Okay.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  He said he could impound it.
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  They did not.
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  Okay. So the car that they were going to impound, was that your rental car?
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  No, it was not.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  Okay.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:50.000]  Then why aren't we talking about the rental car?
[01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  Okay.
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  Well, there you go.
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:54.000]  I said you probably, so that's irrelevant?
[01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  Well, were you in the rental car?
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  Were you stopped in the rental car?
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:00.000]  Did they do anything at all in relation to the rental car?
[01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  No.
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  Then why would it be relevant?
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  Well, I said it would be relevant because the car that we were stopped in is normally garaged.
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  Well, that's no.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  The reason they're stopping you is because they want your car to be like the rental car.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  And it's not required to be like the rental car.
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  Right.
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:30.000]  And they don't have lawful authority to stop you in California because it's not like the rental car.
[01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:40.000]  Because those in California are considered infractions, which are civil, and there is no authority to stop you
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:46.000]  and arrest you or to take your property in a civil matter.
[01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  We've had that discussion before.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  I've sent you the case law on that before.
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:58.000]  And there was one case from the appellate court in that area that said, oh, yes, they are crimes.
[01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  But that court is at odds with another court in the same area that says, no, it's not.
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  And here's why it's not.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:13.000]  OK.
[01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:19.000]  So you need to go back to that case law I gave you before and read it again because it tells you why the stop was illegal.
[01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  But here's your caveat.
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  They're not going to drop the ticket.
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:25.000]  The ticket is money in their pocket.
[01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  You're going to have to fight the ticket and you're going to have to sue the cops.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:38.000]  Now, you can move to dismiss the ticket, but the cops are not going to drop it.
[01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  So in terms of the defense being an offense, should I go?
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  You file a motion to dismiss lack of jurisdiction because it's fruit of the poison tree.
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  The officer had no lawful authority to arrest you for the purpose of issuing the citation.
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  The arrest was false imprisonment and false arrest, and it was illegal, making everything that occurred thereafter illegal.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  Now, when we argue that with my we did argue that we argue that when the same vehicle where my.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  You argued that with who?
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  With the Superior Court Judge, and they say they found me guilty, although the officer wasn't able to describe the driver.
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:30.000]  The description they gave was was similar to her description, which was nothing like my description literally in court.
[01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  And the judge said adjudicated guilty and added on all these things.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  So it ended up going up to over five hundred dollars, which was due, by the way, November 4.
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:42.000]  Of course, I didn't pay it.
[01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  I filed. Did you appeal it?
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  Yeah, well, I filed to appeal with the appellate.
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:56.000]  And what happened is I sent them the the record, the oral record, however, and they never sent me anything back.
[01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  Like the judge is supposed to approve the record or say change this, this and this, and then they send it back to me in 10 days.
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  They never did that.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:08.000]  And I filed everything they asked for within the 20 days in August.
[01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  And I've not received nothing from them.
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  I received initially from them that they got my notice of appeal and you have 20 days to file the record of the hearing, which I did.
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:26.000]  And I quoted a whole gang of stuff about not the jurisdiction, about the description of the officer.
[01:28:26.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  Basically, the officer said in open court for description, she's black like you.
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  Like that was very insulting, but that's not a description.
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  Like he didn't have any other further details.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  He said something then you should have moved to dismiss for lack of evidence.
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  Oh, I did. But the judges just ignored it and that adjudicated guilty.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  He asked, you know, asked me matter of fact, is there anything else?
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  Are you sure this is even a valid judge?
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  Or is this some sort of hearing officer, administrative hearing officer to boot?
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  Well, he is, but he he's listed as a superior court judge.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:13.000]  You're not listening. A title does not make him a judge, a judicial judge.
[01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:21.000]  No more than the title of judge of a pie eating contest makes one a judicial judge.
[01:29:21.000 --> 01:29:26.000]  I am unsure and I think he is an official judge, though, because I asked.
[01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  OK, then you need to file judicial conduct complaints and you need to file a you need to call the clerk of the court where you file the appeal and find out what's going on with it.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  And you need to also send that request in writing.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Well, yeah, that's the other case.
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  OK, well, hang on a second.
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  Let's say I got another break here and then I'll pick you up.
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  OK, all right, folks, this is rule of law radio. We'll be right back after this break. So y'all please hang on.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  We think of plants as silent objects, but new research suggests they not only respond to sounds, but they're constantly chattering with one another.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with more on how plants talk in a moment.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  You may remember when Prince Charles said he talked to his plants.
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:53.000]  People thought he was baddie, but the Prince of Wales may have been on to something.
[01:30:53.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  New research shows that sound is vital for plants.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  They not only respond to it, but they communicate with one another through clicking noises.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  British scientists used microphones to listen to corn saplings and heard clicking sounds coming from their roots.
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  When they suspended the roots in water and played a continuous noise at a similar frequency to the clicks, the plants grew toward it.
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:19.000]  Wow. Maybe I should switch from singing in the shower to singing in the garden.
[01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:21.000]  At least I'll have a captive audience.
[01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:04.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails.
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:12.000]  But good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails.
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  But I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:17.000]  That's why you have insurance.
[01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:22.000]  And Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multiyear A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off.
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:04.000]  Me and I are actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  All right, folks.
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:32.000]  We are back.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:33.000]  This is Real Wall Radio.
[01:33:33.000 --> 01:33:35.000]  And we are speaking with Lisette in California.
[01:33:35.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  All right, Lisette, let's see if we can wrap this up.
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:46.000]  All right, so I just want to know on this new issue what I should be doing.
[01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  Well, like I said, the first thing you need to do as far as the appeal is you need to both call
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:58.000]  and send in writing a request to the clerk of the court where the appeal was filed to know the status of your appeal.
[01:33:58.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  What's been done with it?
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:04.000]  I can do that, but I'm talking about the new thing that just happened last night.
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  That's a brand new thing. That's separate.
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  But it's the same thing, right?
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:10.000]  Yeah.
[01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  Okay.
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  Well, then what changes?
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  So what you're saying is just follow up with the other thing and that gets dismissed
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  and then go into the Long Beach Court and show them the dismissal?
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  Because that's two, one.
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  No, you're still.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:26.000]  Okay.
[01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:28.000]  You're going to have to do the same thing in both cases.
[01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Are you following me here?
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:31.000]  Yes.
[01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:32.000]  Okay.
[01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:36.000]  Because they're two separate issues, they're going to do them as two separate issues,
[01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  whether they involve the exact same set of circumstances or not.
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:42.000]  Okay?
[01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  Right.
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  So?
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  Just give me more practice.
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:47.000]  Exactly. So let's treat it this way.
[01:34:47.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  In a boxing match, if your opponent throws a right hook and you duck to avoid it and are successful,
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:03.000]  and your opponent throws another right hook exactly the same way at exactly the same spot, and what do you do?
[01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:05.000]  You duck.
[01:35:05.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  Exactly.
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  To avoid it.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  So what you do doesn't change as long as the conditions and circumstances haven't changed.
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  Okay?
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:20.000]  You duck and then you stand up and you counterpunch.
[01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:22.000]  All right?
[01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  Because the moment they take this swing at you, you have an opening to punch back.
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  It wasn't a crime.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  You had no authority to stop me.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:35.000]  You illegally imprisoned me and falsely arrested me.
[01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  I'm suing you.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Now, I hear what you're saying.
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:52.000]  When I said that before in court about illegally arresting me, the judge says you weren't arrested.
[01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  You were stopped.
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  No.
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  When you are arrested, then the judge needs to have a judicial conduct complaint filed against them for judicial incompetence
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:03.000]  because the judge does not understand what an arrest is.
[01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  A traffic stop.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  A traffic stop is an arrest if you're not free to go, isn't it?
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  Yeah, correct.
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  Okay.
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  That's why it is imperative that you always ask, am I under arrest?
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  Am I free to go?
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  That way you have a record of, oh, well, if I'm not free to go, then I have to be under arrest if I can't leave on my own volition.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  And I will presume that I am under arrest regardless of what you say, and I invoke all my rights in relation to being arrested.
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  Okay. Can you, for me and I'm sure other listeners, can you repeat the part that you said about not a crime, something like that?
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:56.000]  Infractions in California are not crimes.
[01:36:56.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  They are civil.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  And if they are civil, even though they're in the criminal code, the court ruling that discusses all of the sections that relate to those types of allegations,
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  decided that they could not be criminal regardless of where they're listed.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  Okay.
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  So the fact that they're in a particular code does not mean that they are of that code as far as a criminal act.
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  And there's a high court opinion in California that says so.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:31.000]  All right.
[01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  So since it is not a crime, they cannot arrest you.
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  And they most assuredly can't arrest you in a non-criminal situation without a warrant.
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  And there still has to be probable cause to suspect you of a crime to get that warrant.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  You see?
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:51.000]  Now, that's great that you said that, and I mentioned that in the other case.
[01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  But then the judge said the probable cause was the missing license plate.
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:37:57.000]  So that gave them the authority to say.
[01:37:57.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  And that's a circular argument when it is an infraction, which is civil and does not authorize an arrest.
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  Okay.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  You've got to be able to know what they're arguing and how they're arguing it so you can say, oh, judge, I'm sorry.
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  How would that be applicable as probable cause when it's an infraction that clearly isn't criminal because probable cause only relates to crime?
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  See?
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  Right.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  Let me ask you this.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  So the best defense basically is to read up on this information.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  Well, now, I thought we discussed that months ago.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:52.000]  Well, you know what happens, just like the other guy said, when this is all new to you and you are...
[01:38:52.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  Yeah, but you and I had multiple email correspondences telling you exactly what you needed to be looking at months ago.
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  And you know what?
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  I never got those emails.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  I never got a bounce back saying you didn't.
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  I'm assuming that you did, especially since you answered a couple of them because you asked more questions after I gave you answers.
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  So go back and refresh your memory because I'm pretty sure they're there.
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  Just look for Eddie at RULA, or I'm sorry, rangerx64 at gmail.com.
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  Okay. So in other words, also, basically, like you just told the previous guy, the only thing I can do is just show up since I find the thing to show up.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  I guess it was different before because I guess I felt that I had more to stand on because I wasn't the actual driver, and now I'm the driver.
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  It's kind of ironic.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:54.000]  Like, yeah, I drove it.
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  Well, that's why you needed to appeal and to go after that judge.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  The judge didn't have any evidence to make the ruling that they made.
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  The witness did not present any evidence to make the ruling that was made.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  You should have demanded a directed verdict in favor of the defense because the state has failed to prove its case.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Well, they're saying they proved their case because of the ticket is the evidence.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  No, the ticket is not the evidence, and that's baloney.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  If the ticket is evidence of something, it is evidence that you were illegally detained and arrested and falsely imprisoned for the length of the time it took to write it by the officer.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:43.000]  That's what it's evidence of.
[01:40:43.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  Okay.
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  And the thing is, okay, I get what you're saying.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  So basically for me in this situation, is there something I can write to do right now, or do I just need to go and appear in February, which is what they put on the ticket?
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  What did you write in the first one, if anything?
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  Well, the first situation was completely easy because I had cooperation of her parent.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:19.000]  Well, no, wait a minute. If it was completely easy, how did you get convicted?
[01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:25.000]  Well, I'm saying I guess I felt more relief because I knew I wasn't driving the freaking car.
[01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  What you're actually telling me is you didn't file anything on your behalf in the case.
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  No, I had to. I had to because it was under my name. No, no, no, I had to. I filed all of that stuff.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:40.000]  All of what stuff? That's what I'm asking you. What stuff?
[01:41:40.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  The motion to dismiss, which was denied by two different judges, everything I said, they said it was denied.
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  They said, oh, I read the motion to dismiss. It's denied.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  And then the judge made some smart comment about the relief was in the wrong section or some like technicality about how it was laid out, which I was like, okay, you know, I didn't say anything.
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  And then he just like proceeded and he proceeded to ask questions. He had the officer say whatever the officer said.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  I objected. The officer gave a final description. I said, well, can you describe the driver? Because again, it wasn't me. It was my cousin.
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:28.000]  Again, the term driver is not something you want to be using.
[01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  Can you describe the person you allege was in control of the car?
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  Okay. Well, at that time, I said driver and he said she was black like you with two eyes and nose.
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  And then you should have said, can you say with 100% certainty that she is me?
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  Well, I didn't. So that's a done deal.
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:43:01.000]  No, it's not a done deal because his answer is not evidence. His answer is BS.
[01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  Right. And I argue that in my record on the written record.
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:12.000]  Did you ever get in touch with Rick out there in California?
[01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:14.000]  No, you referred me to.
[01:43:14.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  Or to Kevin.
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  Yes.
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  Okay. Did you get in touch with him?
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:26.000]  Absolutely. He was very instrumental in helping me and directing me to the appropriate websites and such. Yes.
[01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  Okay. And did you, have you discussed the results with him?
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  Well, yeah. I let him know that they sent me the information that they got that I was on appeal.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  But I know they have the correct address. And I told them I sent in the stuff on the 18th day.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  It was due in 20 days and they haven't responded. And he said it's typical.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  But I'm like, now it's beyond the deadline. And he told me.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  Yeah, but not. There is no beyond the deadline if it was filed. They're the ones that have to act.
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  Hang on just a second. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  What?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity. But there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:07.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary,
[01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:22.000]  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.
[01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  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.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:04.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:33.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are going to try one more time to wrap this up with Lisette and get to another caller.
[01:46:33.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  Let's see what we can do. All right, Lisette.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  Okay, so last two questions. Can my car be towed? I know not to say vehicle or driver. Well, how do I describe myself?
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  I mean, if they're stopping you for one of—you're just a person traveling in your car. Okay?
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  Okay.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  You're not a driver. You're not an operator. Those are all terms related to the regulated activity that you are not engaged in.
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:03.000]  Okay?
[01:47:03.000 --> 01:47:11.000]  So can they tow your car? Sure. Can they lawfully take your car? No.
[01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:24.000]  There is no crime. Therefore, there is no probable cause. Therefore, there is no legal authority to take your property.
[01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  Would the officers, whether highway patrol or—
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:31.000]  You're asking me to predict what they would do, and I can't do that.
[01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  Well, do they?
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  I don't know. I don't know what they do in California. Some might, some won't, as you've seen yourself.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  It all depends on what they think they can do and get away with, or just how much of an asset they want to be.
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  But, okay. Well, let me play devil's advocate. Say the car does get towed and impound. How does that work if you're saying they can't lawfully take your property?
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  Get the car out ASAP so as to avoid an accumulation of charges and you sue the living daylights out of them for grand theft auto.
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  Oh, my God. And how many people have been successful on—
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  Well, now how am I supposed to know that?
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  It's amazing because all of your advice and everything, I read it, I research it, it's documented. There's information to back it up.
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  But yet, when you go in court, they attempt to make you, I mean me, I'm saying they attempt to make me feel like a freaking idiot.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:55.000]  Exactly. But what you have to understand is, is you're not the idiot in this case. Okay? You're not the idiot.
[01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  It's kind of like that old joke in medical school where the professor in the class is standing up front and he's sitting there talking about a diagnosis for a particular disease.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:13.000]  And he picks up this beaker of yellow fluid and he says, this is urine from a patient number blah, blah, blah.
[01:49:13.000 --> 01:49:23.000]  And he sticks his index finger into the urine, pulls it out and licks his finger and he says, this patient has such and such disease.
[01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  And all the students are like, you can tell that by the taste of the urine?
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:34.000]  And he starts describing the manner in all this and which it would taste and so on and so forth.
[01:49:34.000 --> 01:49:39.000]  And three students volunteer to try it. And at the end of it, he stands up.
[01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:48.000]  Now, for the rest of you that are in this class, how many of you noticed that I didn't lick my index finger?
[01:49:48.000 --> 01:49:55.000]  See, you're not the idiot. You didn't volunteer. You didn't dip your finger and you didn't lick it like the rest of them did.
[01:49:55.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Though the person that was leading tried to convince you that's what everyone needed to do.
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  They're the idiots. They're the crooks. They're the criminals.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:11.000]  You simply have to know how to fight back and prove it.
[01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  And you can do that because everything is documented just like I've said.
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:26.000]  So you need to know how to use that documentation to control what they do or make them regret it.
[01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  And that's something you've got to get yourself schooled on. I can't do it from here.
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  Yeah, that's true. So with the new ticket that I'm looking at right now, should I just be appearing on this date?
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:44.000]  Can I just file a motion to dismiss or withdraw?
[01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  Kevin suggested a wait a week and then file for removal.
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  Removal of this thing, this Long Beach thing to federal court.
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  Well, if you sue them, yeah, you can sue them in federal court.
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:10.000]  You could probably sue them in state courts and say you acted entirely without jurisdiction in the matter.
[01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:15.000]  So but is that a separate action or is that?
[01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:20.000]  Yes, it's separate and apart from what they're doing to you.
[01:51:20.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  What did you say?
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  It is separate and apart from what they're trying to do to you.
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:38.000]  Okay. So then with this situation, am I just appearing and doing the same argument or am I requesting a trial by declaration now or filing a motion?
[01:51:38.000 --> 01:51:47.000]  You are doing what I instructed you to do in the first place, file a motion to dismiss and everything they do you object to.
[01:51:47.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  You file a motion to dismiss because the arrest was illegal.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:52:02.000]  You file a motion objecting to the court stating it was not an arrest and you get case law in California that says such a detention is an arrest
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  because it can't be anything else if you are not allowed to leave of your own volition.
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  It is not a detention because they're not investigating a crime.
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:14.000]  It's an infraction.
[01:52:14.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  Therefore, the detention, regardless of what name you want to call it, is illegal.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  So when the judge admits you weren't arrested, you were detained, well, Judge, can you please tell me where the lawful authority exists for an officer to detain someone for an infraction that is civil rather than criminal?
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:43.000]  That's what I thought you'd say, Judge.
[01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  So then what does the judge do?
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:48.000]  You're missing the point.
[01:52:48.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  They are going to do whatever they want to do.
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:57.000]  You just need to make sure that you document it, refute it, and object to it.
[01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  And then you go through the appeals process and when you get it dismissed, then you come back and sue everybody.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  That's all you can do, but it's what you must do.
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  What is the punishment for an infraction or is there no punishment for an infraction?
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  It's civil.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:18.000]  I don't know what all the punishments are.
[01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  I don't know what they entail, but they're civil.
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  All they can be is a civil fine, and the civil fine has to be done through the filing of a civil suit.
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:32.000]  If they didn't file a civil suit, then their action was illegal.
[01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:36.000]  That's why they don't have jurisdiction to do it.
[01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  There was no civil suit.
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  If you read up on the infractions and the court decisions, that's exactly what it tells you.
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  It's just like the red light camera crap here in Texas.
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  They were never authorized to issue criminal traffic citations in relation to a red light camera ticket.
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:53:58.000]  That's completely illegal under the act.
[01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  All they could do was file a civil suit and sue you for the $75 fine.
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  But they would have to pay more money to sue you than they would recover in the $75 fine.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  So they cheat by lying to you and committing mail fraud by stating that if you don't pay the fine,
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  then they can do certain things to you, which the act also says they're not allowed to do.
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:29.000]  So the whole thing was fraud from the beginning.
[01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  Well, that's exactly what you're facing in California.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  Right.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  So in following your advice, again, with this new freshly issued citation,
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  I should just be filing a motion to dismiss.
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:53.000]  Motion to dismiss, challenge the jurisdiction, the arrest was illegal, the detention was illegal.
[01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:55.000]  Cover both aspects.
[01:54:55.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Regardless of whether you refer to it as a detention or an arrest, the allegations relate to an infraction,
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:11.000]  which in California is civil according to the case of, and you cite the court cases I sent you before.
[01:55:11.000 --> 01:55:18.000]  And therefore, the officer had no probable cause nor any reasonable suspicion that an actual crime was being committed.
[01:55:18.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  Therefore, any arrest and detention performed by said officer was illegal.
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:27.000]  Got it?
[01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  Yeah, I got it.
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  Okay. And again, I'm going to file this motion to dismiss on the new thing.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:44.000]  When the court date comes up that I signed you agreed to appear, I just go on that date, right?
[01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  I can file the motion in advance.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:48.000]  Yes.
[01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  But just show up on that date.
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  Yes.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:57.000]  What I get thrown off when I show up is they wanting you to sign all these different papers.
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  Don't sign anything.
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:03.000]  Don't sign anything.
[01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Okay. Nothing.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  Nothing. Nothing.
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:10.000]  I can sign the permission for the attorney to hear the case, right?
[01:56:10.000 --> 01:56:14.000]  No. Why in the heck would you do that?
[01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  Okay.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  If you have to give them permission to hear it, why in the hell would you give them permission?
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  Okay.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  That's like saying I need you to give me permission to come in and rifle through your wallet and take whatever I find.
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:36.000]  But I can't do it until you give me permission.
[01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:38.000]  And then when they don't, that's fine.
[01:56:38.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  Then they have you stay there to see another judge or something.
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  And this is good because when I went to Compton, I panicked.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  The whole thing is I shouldn't be signing nothing.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  The only thing I had to sign was the ticket, the notice to appear.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:55.000]  Yes.
[01:56:55.000 --> 01:56:56.000]  Right?
[01:56:56.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  Yes.
[01:56:57.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  Yes.
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  So they could leave me alone, right?
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  Well, the thing about it is if they weren't going to let you go without signing that, then there's no way they can say that was not an arrest.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:08.000]  Right.
[01:57:08.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  So what you need to ask the officer is when you accosted me and you issued this citation, was it your intention to let me go to leave of my own volition if I refused to sign the citation?
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  Oh, absolutely not.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  I would have put you in cuffs.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:39.000]  So you're saying that I was not free to leave until I signed your document promising to come down here for an allegation that was related to an infraction.
[01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  Is that correct?
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  Now, Judge, are you still going to sit up there and be stupid enough to say this was not an arrest?
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  So when I go for this appearance, I don't sign nothing.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  Nothing do I sign.
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  No, nothing, nothing, nothing.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  You need to talk to Kevin and find out what happens when they send you to that other judge and who that judge is.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  But right now, Lisette, I'm sorry.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  I'm out of time, darling.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  All right.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  Eddie, you're great.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  Keep it up.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:12.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:58:12.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  You have a good night.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  All right, folks.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  All you callers still on the board.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:16.000]  I am so sorry.
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  I was not able to get to y'all before the end of the show tonight, but the information I had to put out there had to be done.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  All right, I will let you know as I am able that I've got this thing done this week and ready for you to get if you want it.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  Thanks again.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Please keep us in your prayers.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  Please support us with your donations.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  Please continue to donate for the lawsuit to me directly.
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  I really need it.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  I really need the money to make this work.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  All right, folks.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  I'll talk to y'all later.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  Have a great week.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Good night and God bless.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:53.000]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:53.000 --> 01:59:54.000]  You found it.
[01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:02.000]  LogosradioNetwork.com