[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily
[00:08.000 --> 00:10.000]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:10.000 --> 00:23.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:23.000 --> 00:29.000]  Markets for the 21st of December 2015 opened up with gold at $1,080.10 an ounce.
[00:29.000 --> 00:35.000]  Silver, $14.29 an ounce. Texas crude, $34.73 a barrel.
[00:35.000 --> 00:45.000]  And Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $437 U.S. currency.
[00:45.000 --> 00:51.000]  To aid history, Monday, December 21st, 1620, the first landing party arrives at the site
[00:51.000 --> 00:59.000]  of what would later become the settlement of the Plymouth Colony.
[00:59.000 --> 01:04.000]  In recent news, in an interview pre-recorded last week with state news agency NPR, President
[01:04.000 --> 01:10.000]  Obama told Steve Inskeep, quote, there's going to be the potential for anger, frustration,
[01:10.000 --> 01:13.000]  fear, some of it justified, but just misdirected.
[01:13.000 --> 01:16.000]  I think somebody like Mr. Trump's taking advantage of that.
[01:16.000 --> 01:20.000]  That's what he's been exploiting during the course of his campaign.
[01:20.000 --> 01:24.000]  The statement a few days after the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, called Donald
[01:24.000 --> 01:29.000]  Trump a carnival barker whose proposal to ban all Muslims from immigrating into the
[01:29.000 --> 01:32.000]  United States disqualifies him from being president.
[01:32.000 --> 01:37.000]  Seems the president especially enjoys politicking while on his multimillion dollar two week
[01:37.000 --> 01:45.000]  family vacation to Honolulu.
[01:45.000 --> 01:49.000]  The winter solstice, the shortest day and longest night of the year for the Northern
[01:49.000 --> 01:53.000]  Hemisphere, is the exact time when the earth tilts the furthest distance away from the
[01:53.000 --> 01:54.000]  sun.
[01:54.000 --> 01:58.000]  For those on the East Coast, the solstice is happening tonight at 1148 p.m.
[01:58.000 --> 02:03.000]  For people living in the Southern Hemisphere, December 21st marks the summer solstice, the
[02:03.000 --> 02:06.000]  beginning of the astronomical summer for the longest day of their year.
[02:06.000 --> 02:11.000]  December 21st is the official beginning of winter and has been an event celebrated for
[02:11.000 --> 02:16.000]  millennia through sacred masonry in the building of such monuments as Stonehenge in England,
[02:16.000 --> 02:20.000]  a mine constructed building along the Caribbean coast in the city of Tulum, which captures
[02:20.000 --> 02:25.000]  the sun's rays during the sunrise in both the summer and winter solstice, which consequently
[02:25.000 --> 02:30.000]  illuminates a room through a small orifice, and the Goseck Circle in Germany dating back
[02:30.000 --> 02:36.000]  nearly 7,000 years, a series of landscape rings that has two of its gates lining up
[02:36.000 --> 02:42.000]  with the sunrise and sunsets on the winter solstice.
[02:42.000 --> 02:46.000]  The Lowstar Lowdown is currently looking to fill ad space, so if you have a product or
[02:46.000 --> 02:53.000]  a service that you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give us a call at 210-363-2257.
[02:53.000 --> 03:16.000]  This has been your Lowdown for December 21st, 2015.
[03:16.000 --> 03:26.000]  This has been your Lowdown for December 21st, 2015.
[03:26.000 --> 03:36.000]  This has been your Lowdown for December 21st, 2015.
[03:36.000 --> 03:46.000]  This has been your Lowdown for December 21st, 2015.
[04:06.000 --> 04:26.000]  This has been your Lowdown for December 21st, 2015.
[04:26.000 --> 04:40.000]  Alright folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. It is December 21st, 2015, four days before Christmas.
[04:40.000 --> 04:51.000]  Alright, I have come to the conclusion that it is time to go on the offensive on all fronts transportation code
[04:51.000 --> 04:57.000]  and potentially several other codes throughout the great state of Texas.
[04:57.000 --> 05:07.000]  Now what I mean by this is for those of you that have been listening to the show, you know that I have started collecting the documented evidence
[05:07.000 --> 05:19.000]  that the transportation code reenactment and recodification of 1995 by the 74th legislature was done in violation of the Texas Constitution
[05:19.000 --> 05:33.000]  as a bill, meaning the entire code is null and void. It was passed in a manner absolutely prohibited by the Texas Constitution.
[05:33.000 --> 05:43.000]  Now what I did start off with was a motion to dismiss with a constitutional challenge in the trial courts.
[05:43.000 --> 05:54.000]  We're going to up the ante. The $100 I'm asking for to cover the cost of the paperwork and the copying of the certified copies and all that
[05:54.000 --> 06:03.000]  because it's going to be expensive to get all the certified copies for sure, plus the fact that I still need money to put into the lawsuit fund and everything else.
[06:03.000 --> 06:12.000]  But we're going to go all out with this. We are not going to have just a motion to dismiss in the trial court.
[06:12.000 --> 06:27.000]  What I'm going to do is collect myself and several other people or at least one other person, willing to do so anyway, and file a federal RICO criminal complaint.
[06:27.000 --> 06:40.000]  And I understand this. This is not a civil suit. I am not suing anyone for RICO at the federal level with this document.
[06:40.000 --> 06:51.000]  This document is a criminal statement of violations of Title 18 by state actors.
[06:51.000 --> 07:01.000]  So this will be a criminal complaint filed at the federal level. We're going to file it with the Congressional Homeland Security Committee.
[07:01.000 --> 07:11.000]  We're going to file a copy with the U.S. Attorney General's Office, and I'm going to file a copy with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI.
[07:11.000 --> 07:23.000]  And that's what we're going to start with at the federal level in addition to the motion to dismiss at the state level in the trial court.
[07:23.000 --> 07:38.000]  But what we're going to add to the motion to dismiss in the trial court is we're going to attach an affidavit of Joinder to that motion to dismiss.
[07:38.000 --> 07:58.000]  Now, what an affidavit of Joinder is, is it is a statement of facts relating to the current trial court and its plethora of individuals, the prosecutor, the judge, and the police officers, however many of any one of which is involved in this.
[07:58.000 --> 08:09.000]  And we are going to use this affidavit of Joinder to add their names to that federal criminal complaint.
[08:09.000 --> 08:22.000]  And we're going to attach that affidavit of Joinder with our motion to dismiss filed in the trial court.
[08:22.000 --> 08:28.000]  Now, let's consider what each of these documents is for and what they do.
[08:28.000 --> 08:54.000]  The RICO criminal complaint states a multitude of federal laws that the state actors violated by attempting to falsely apply a regulatory statute to a protected individual that is not subject to that statute for the purpose of interfering with interstate
[08:54.000 --> 09:03.000]  and intrastate commerce by seizing persons and property not engaging in that commerce.
[09:03.000 --> 09:06.000]  We used to call that piracy on the high seas.
[09:06.000 --> 09:11.000]  Now it's piracy on the highways.
[09:11.000 --> 09:14.000]  Okay.
[09:14.000 --> 09:28.000]  When they violate Title 18 in this way, it compounds their problems because it also creates other violations. The violations stack up at the federal level just like they do here at the state level.
[09:28.000 --> 09:49.000]  Now, in addition to what we're going to file criminal-wise at the federal level, I'm also going to create a criminal statement for a state grand jury citing all of the state crimes committed by these actors at the same time.
[09:49.000 --> 10:06.000]  And both the federal complaint, the state complaint, and the affidavit of Joinder will be filed with this motion to dismiss as attachments.
[10:06.000 --> 10:20.000]  They may not fear a pro se walking into their courtroom, but let's see how they fear the baggage that pro se breaks in with him to make them carry around.
[10:20.000 --> 10:32.000]  Because the documents that I'm getting will prove the true intent of the legislature was to regulate those using the roads for commercial purposes.
[10:32.000 --> 11:00.000]  That documentation will prove that both law or that law enforcement, cities, counties, and the state have all knowingly colluded to deprive the people of protected rights and property through fraud, knowing and willful fraud.
[11:00.000 --> 11:25.000]  Because the fact that they passed the act in the manner that they did is absolute evidentiary proof that they could, they must have been familiar with the other requirements related to doing so and chose to willfully ignore them
[11:25.000 --> 11:36.000]  in order to enact a law that they knew was unconstitutional from the very beginning.
[11:36.000 --> 11:58.000]  And then they colluded together to perpetrate the fraud upon the people by avoiding the direct addressing of these issues in every court, convicting us based entirely on an irrebuttable presumption under a criminal accusation, which the Supreme Court says you cannot do.
[11:58.000 --> 12:10.000]  I mean, think about that. If a criminal case could be based upon an irrebuttable presumption of fact, even, and by the way, you need to understand the definition of an irrebuttable presumption.
[12:10.000 --> 12:24.000]  An irrebuttable presumption is presuming that something is true even if there is contrary facts and evidence that prove it absolutely isn't true.
[12:24.000 --> 12:35.000]  In other words, we're going to say you're guilty and nothing you do will prevent that.
[12:35.000 --> 12:56.000]  That is what an irrebuttable presumption in a criminal case does. It sets the stage for failure on any defense you may bring forth because they refuse to accept any evidence that is contrary to their established presumption.
[12:56.000 --> 13:08.000]  The logic for this and how they set this up is very easy to follow. It should be very easy to understand, and it should be very easy to see why it's wrong.
[13:08.000 --> 13:29.000]  They begin in a backwards fashion. Now, we've discussed on this show before, and many times before that, that inferences are not allowed in court except under these specific provisions.
[13:29.000 --> 13:49.000]  An inference cannot go farther than one level from the fact that creates the inference, and the inference must be one logically obtainable from the presented fact.
[13:49.000 --> 14:02.000]  An example of this would be, I held a ball six feet off the ground and I let go. It was not suspended by anything the moment I opened my hand.
[14:02.000 --> 14:10.000]  The level of inference from there would be the ball traveled in a downward direction when I released it.
[14:10.000 --> 14:29.000]  Now, given the information you have, which is I held it six feet off the ground, I released it, it was not suspended by any other thing, then the logical inference would be gravity takes over and the ball travels toward the ground.
[14:29.000 --> 14:39.000]  That's the level of inference. Even though I never stated that the ball went toward the ground, the inference is that when I released it, it did.
[14:39.000 --> 14:51.000]  But what they're doing in these trial courts is they're starting way down the line where instead of me just releasing the ball and hitting the ground, the inferences go like this.
[14:51.000 --> 15:09.000]  The ball was found five miles away in the city reservoir from this building. Therefore, the fact that the ball was in the reservoir creates the inference that it came from some other location.
[15:09.000 --> 15:28.000]  That inference is that it came through the storm drain system. That inference of getting into the storm drain system is that it rolled into a culvert on some street. That creates the inference that the street culvert that it entered was the one outside where you were standing.
[15:28.000 --> 15:39.000]  When you dropped the ball from your hand and it traveled toward the ground, it went into the culvert, or into the storm drain, which the culvert then entered into the reservoir.
[15:39.000 --> 15:47.000]  See, that's multiple levels of inference, and they're starting from an opposite end of where the facts are even being presented.
[15:47.000 --> 15:53.000]  That's what they're doing with the transportation code, and here's how they're doing it.
[15:53.000 --> 16:02.000]  The transportation code begins with the regulated subject matter under which the code itself and everything within that code is to apply, and that is transportation.
[16:02.000 --> 16:19.000]  We can find that in 1.001 of the Act itself. We can find it in the caption of SB 971, which is the bill that created it, and we can find it in the statement of the legislature in that caption that says that this is a recodification of existing statutes
[16:19.000 --> 16:27.000]  relating to transportation.
[16:27.000 --> 16:33.000]  So we're not having to infer anything because that's all black and white right in front of us.
[16:33.000 --> 16:42.000]  The only inference we have to make from this is based upon statutory interpretation what transportation actually means.
[16:42.000 --> 16:50.000]  And it's not really an inference when you have a set of rules that lead you to that as a conclusion, which I'll cover when we get back.
[16:50.000 --> 17:00.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. Y'all hang in there. I'll be right back on the other side and finish this part of the discussion.
[17:00.000 --> 17:17.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.000 --> 17:31.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, longevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:40.000]  We have come to trust longevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:40.000 --> 17:52.000]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of longevity, you may want to join us.
[17:52.000 --> 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 --> 18:15.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:29.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[18:29.000 --> 18:41.000]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 19:01.000]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com. 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.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:31.000 --> 19:44.000]  We are asked a question. Look one again. And they don't have an answer. Let's hope and slip inside.
[19:44.000 --> 20:12.000]  All right, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. All right. Now, to continue on with where I was here,
[20:12.000 --> 20:25.000]  they've created these inferences starting from the wrong end. And with the transportation code, we have to understand how it was established, which we did through SB 971 in 1995, recodification.
[20:25.000 --> 20:37.000]  All that tells us that very clearly the subject matter being regulated is transportation and that we can make the inference of what transportation is based upon the rules of statutory construction.
[20:37.000 --> 20:50.000]  So, we're not going off on making an inference from facts. We're making an inference based upon specific verbiage in the act that says this is what it applies to.
[20:50.000 --> 21:03.000]  So, our inference is where do we obtain a proper definition for it, not the definition itself. So, we just need to know where to find the definition as it relates to this code.
[21:03.000 --> 21:15.000]  Now, the rules of statutory construction, very simple. If the law or the statute or the regulation contains a definition for a term or phrase, that definition is controlling.
[21:15.000 --> 21:32.000]  And if there is such a definition, you may not use a definition from any other place, okay, unless the statute itself says you will use the definition from some other place.
[21:32.000 --> 21:51.000]  Now, it does this in many places when it references peace officer. But you would notice through the transportation code that sometimes it says a peace officer this, and it defines peace officer as it is defined in 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[21:51.000 --> 22:02.000]  And then there are other areas where it refers to peace officer or police officer, but does not set that definition.
[22:02.000 --> 22:12.000]  And you have to ask yourself, well, does the definition from this chapter over here apply when it says in this chapter and I'm in a completely different chapter now?
[22:12.000 --> 22:24.000]  The straight up word would be no, it can't because the legislature knowingly limited the scope of that definition to that chapter.
[22:24.000 --> 22:32.000]  This is another thing that Texas courts have done that has made a mockery of law in Texas.
[22:32.000 --> 22:42.000]  They've ruled through their use of construction that penal code definitions can be applied across the board to any other code.
[22:42.000 --> 23:01.000]  But the problem there is this, the definitions for terms like individual within the penal code are specifically defined within the scope of in this code.
[23:01.000 --> 23:16.000]  So since the legislature said this definition is only applicable in this code, where do the courts have the authority to apply that definition outside of that code?
[23:16.000 --> 23:19.000]  That'd be one of my questions, but I digress from the rest of it.
[23:19.000 --> 23:28.000]  But just understand there's a lot going on in the courts that is not right and proper as if we didn't already know that, right?
[23:28.000 --> 23:37.000]  So through their rules of statutory construction, if the statute or the law or the regulation has a definition, that is controlling.
[23:37.000 --> 23:43.000]  If they do not, then the rules of statutory construction works in this manner.
[23:43.000 --> 23:49.000]  Now the courts have determined that they always start from the lowest common denominator and work their way up.
[23:49.000 --> 23:58.000]  They say that every word or phrase will be taken at its common meaning unless otherwise so stated.
[23:58.000 --> 24:03.000]  And then they've created a set of rules as to what otherwise so stated actually means.
[24:03.000 --> 24:13.000]  One of them is if the law, the statute, the regulation, the whatever contains a definition, that one's controlling.
[24:13.000 --> 24:26.000]  The second rule of statutory interpretation is that if there is a definition created as a matter of law relating to legal items,
[24:26.000 --> 24:44.000]  or there is a specialized industry term definition for the term being used, and there isn't one in the statute, regulation, or law, then that definition will be controlling.
[24:44.000 --> 25:00.000]  And in the event that neither of those locations or situations exist, then we can go to the common English dictionary to find our definition.
[25:00.000 --> 25:13.000]  So we're not actually creating an inference when the law itself has defined the term transportation as the movement of person's goods or property from point A to point B by a carrier.
[25:13.000 --> 25:27.000]  We are not creating an inference when the law, code, or statute or the legal dictionary case law that created it for the purpose of legal applications or industry applications
[25:27.000 --> 25:41.000]  says that a carrier is someone that is engaged in the business of transporting person's goods or property from point A to point B for compensation or hire.
[25:41.000 --> 25:56.000]  Our inference from those two facts, what transportation is, what a carrier is, is that the code regulates commercial activity.
[25:56.000 --> 26:16.000]  That's a logical single level of inference from the facts that we've got. And it's not an inference based upon one fact, it's an inference based upon two facts that are interdependent on each other.
[26:16.000 --> 26:31.000]  But they continue to ignore this as if their own rules don't apply when they don't want them to, which brings us to the issue of if we're a nation ruled by laws, how can that be?
[26:31.000 --> 26:47.000]  Well, you have to remember that we're not a nation ruled by laws because they are constantly changing the law, they are constantly misapplying the law, and they are constantly misstating to us what the law does and does not do
[26:47.000 --> 26:56.000]  and whether or not the law can lawfully and constitutionally do what they say it can and cannot do.
[26:56.000 --> 27:05.000]  The law that you and I are supposed to be operating under is not what they've put into these codes.
[27:05.000 --> 27:22.000]  Everything we do, we do as a matter of right, unless the exercise of that right causes harm to another person, their rights or their property, against their will and consent.
[27:22.000 --> 27:30.000]  Otherwise, government's got no business making anything telling us what we can and cannot do.
[27:30.000 --> 27:35.000]  This is what they've forgotten and this is what these documents are going to show them.
[27:35.000 --> 27:55.000]  Because with this backwards inference setup they've got, they're starting in the wrong place, first of all, because none of the terms they're using to begin with, such as motor vehicle, for instance, driver's license, for instance, registration, for instance,
[27:55.000 --> 28:14.000]  all of those are sub, what do you call it, they are sub-items or sub-sections of the overall subject matter.
[28:14.000 --> 28:27.000]  For instance, the license in the transportation code has nothing to do with hunting. The license in the transportation code has nothing to do with being a plumber.
[28:27.000 --> 28:38.000]  It has nothing to do with being an electrician or a doctor or a psychiatrist or a sales tax collector for the benefit of the state.
[28:38.000 --> 28:44.000]  That is not what the license in the transportation code relates to.
[28:44.000 --> 28:58.000]  The license relates only to the subject matter that the code says it does and that subject matter is transportation.
[28:58.000 --> 29:19.000]  And so through their knowing and willful misrepresentation of these statutes in order to perpetrate fraud against the people and to tax us for the purpose of revenue illegally and unconstitutionally in a manner we never approved of,
[29:19.000 --> 29:31.000]  every public servant has committed treason and sedition against the people of Texas and the Texas Constitution through violations of their oath of office and through misapplication of laws,
[29:31.000 --> 29:47.000]  whether they realized it or not, because they had the duty to know and they could have known and they should have known that what they were doing was unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
[29:47.000 --> 29:52.000]  All right, I'm going to add a little bit to this on the other side and then we'll start taking your calls.
[29:52.000 --> 30:02.000]  So I'm going to turn the calls on when we start this next section and we'll be right back.
[30:02.000 --> 30:05.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[30:05.000 --> 30:09.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[30:09.000 --> 30:11.000]  Our liberty depends on it.
[30:11.000 --> 30:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[30:17.000 --> 30:19.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:19.000 --> 30:23.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:23.000 --> 30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.000 --> 30:29.000]  So protect your rights.
[30:29.000 --> 30:33.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:33.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy.
[30:34.000 --> 30:35.000]  It's worth hanging on to.
[30:35.000 --> 30:43.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:43.000 --> 30:46.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.000 --> 30:52.000]  Remember the scene in George Orwell's novel 1984 when Winston is threatened with his worst fear?
[30:52.000 --> 30:56.000]  That fear was having a cage of hungry rats unleashed on his face.
[30:56.000 --> 31:00.000]  But what if his worst fear was spiders, eight-legged spiders to be exact?
[31:00.000 --> 31:03.000]  Getting a face full of spiders would be pretty cruel and unusual.
[31:03.000 --> 31:07.000]  That image of eight-legged spiders will help you remember the Eighth Amendment.
[31:07.000 --> 31:14.000]  Our founding fathers added the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect us from creepy-crawly eight-legged punishments
[31:14.000 --> 31:18.000]  and other cruel and unusual prison practices that were common in their day.
[31:18.000 --> 31:24.000]  The Eighth Amendment also prohibits the government from requiring excessive bail and charging excessive fines.
[31:24.000 --> 31:34.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:54.000 --> 32:01.000]  For more time and money, call 888-910-4367 only at NUSA.org.
[32:01.000 --> 32:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:05.000 --> 32:10.000]  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,
[32:10.000 --> 32:13.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:17.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:17.000 --> 32:20.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:25.000]  The courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:25.000 --> 32:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:28.000 --> 32:33.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:33.000 --> 32:35.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.000 --> 32:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:40.000 --> 32:45.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:45.000 --> 32:50.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.000 --> 32:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[32:54.000 --> 32:59.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[32:59.000 --> 33:02.000]  Live, free speech radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:29.000 --> 33:46.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[33:46.000 --> 33:52.000]  All right. Now, to wrap up this little scenario of how we're going to go on the offensive,
[33:52.000 --> 33:55.000]  there's something else that you need to consider about this,
[33:55.000 --> 34:02.000]  because this is going to cause them to circle their wagons and try to figure out how to protect the schemes.
[34:02.000 --> 34:04.000]  And that's what they are, people.
[34:04.000 --> 34:13.000]  They are complete and total criminal schemes that they have put in place over all these decades,
[34:13.000 --> 34:20.000]  better a century's worth plus of decades, to undermine our rights and freedoms,
[34:20.000 --> 34:27.000]  to transfer the wealth of the people into the hands of a few that call themselves attorneys,
[34:27.000 --> 34:34.000]  and those that will partner with the attorneys to make it all happen.
[34:34.000 --> 34:37.000]  This is what's going to come about on this.
[34:37.000 --> 34:44.000]  Now, we know for a fact they used an unconstitutional emergency clause
[34:44.000 --> 34:50.000]  to suspend a required constitutional rule on reading and discussion
[34:50.000 --> 34:57.000]  before any bill enacted by the legislature can have the force and effect of law.
[34:57.000 --> 35:06.000]  And at the time of this enactment, the only way to get that waiver was through a majority vote,
[35:06.000 --> 35:13.000]  not a four-fifths vote like it is now, as the amendment they put in requires it to be, but a majority vote.
[35:13.000 --> 35:19.000]  But the only provision in the Texas Constitution that dealt with A, the majority vote,
[35:19.000 --> 35:29.000]  and B, the stipulation required or the requirements that allowed for the suspension of that rule
[35:29.000 --> 35:33.000]  was found in Article III, Section 62.
[35:33.000 --> 35:40.000]  And those rules could be done only under the declaration of a state of emergency,
[35:40.000 --> 35:46.000]  which is not the same as the one used to make the suspension of the rule.
[35:46.000 --> 35:49.000]  In fact, they're not even close to each other.
[35:49.000 --> 35:56.000]  One requires an emergency declared by the governor in writing an official proclamation
[35:56.000 --> 36:02.000]  that Texas is suffering from an enemy attack.
[36:02.000 --> 36:11.000]  Okay? The emergency clause they used was, hey, our legislative calendars are full.
[36:11.000 --> 36:19.000]  Therefore, we're going to declare a public emergency and enact the stuff without reading it anyway.
[36:19.000 --> 36:25.000]  I don't see any similarities between the two other than the word emergency.
[36:25.000 --> 36:32.000]  But one's a false emergency and one's an actual emergency, so let me tell you which one I'm going with.
[36:32.000 --> 36:36.000]  I'm going with the one the Constitution said had to be in place,
[36:36.000 --> 36:44.000]  not the one these criminals called attorneys have used to circumvent the Constitution time and time again.
[36:44.000 --> 36:48.000]  Now, the reason I say they're going to circle the wagons is this.
[36:48.000 --> 36:58.000]  If this is how they enacted the entire recodification from Vernon's to the current version of the transportation code as it exists,
[36:58.000 --> 37:08.000]  what are the odds that this is exactly what they did to recodify every existing code in Texas?
[37:08.000 --> 37:10.000]  Think about that.
[37:10.000 --> 37:14.000]  The smallest code we have is the code of criminal procedure.
[37:14.000 --> 37:20.000]  Okay? Everything else is multiple volumes.
[37:20.000 --> 37:28.000]  Okay? Code of criminal procedure really is just a few pages compared to the rest of this,
[37:28.000 --> 37:35.000]  which is actual chapters upon chapters in more than one volume in virtually every case,
[37:35.000 --> 37:44.000]  but at the very least hundreds of pages if not thousands of pages in each of these other codes.
[37:44.000 --> 37:51.000]  What do you think the odds are that they read each one of those codes on the floor of each house and held open discussion?
[37:51.000 --> 37:58.000]  What do you think the probability is that they actually used the same bogus emergency clause
[37:58.000 --> 38:07.000]  to recodify Vernon's into the new codes in violation of the Texas Constitution,
[38:07.000 --> 38:22.000]  in which case the only valid law now in existence in Texas is the common law as it existed prior to any codes at all?
[38:22.000 --> 38:24.000]  Now, how do I come to that inference?
[38:24.000 --> 38:31.000]  Well, it's logically legislative and political construction right there.
[38:31.000 --> 38:38.000]  If the legislature had an act and the legislature amends that act,
[38:38.000 --> 38:48.000]  then once the amended version takes effect, the prior amended version ceases to be,
[38:48.000 --> 38:53.000]  and only the amended version exists from then on.
[38:53.000 --> 39:03.000]  So if you had version A and then you made version B, A goes away and B is all there is.
[39:03.000 --> 39:15.000]  But if after you made version B and it takes effect and A goes away and then version B is found to be completely entirely unconstitutional,
[39:15.000 --> 39:18.000]  there is no fallback because A is gone.
[39:18.000 --> 39:22.000]  A had to go away or B couldn't exist.
[39:22.000 --> 39:28.000]  So the logical inference there is all the codes are dead.
[39:28.000 --> 39:42.000]  If all the codes are dead, then the only law that the legislature could not repeal in order to enact their statutes would be the common law.
[39:42.000 --> 39:56.000]  And if Texas is now once more an absolute common law republic, now is the time for the people of Texas to get together
[39:56.000 --> 40:07.000]  and remove these traitors from office through our absolute constitutional right under the Bill of Rights to do so.
[40:07.000 --> 40:19.000]  The people of Texas have the right to alter, reform, or abolish their government anytime they deem it necessary.
[40:19.000 --> 40:29.000]  Now remember, the Bill of Rights does not set a minimum number of people that it takes to do that.
[40:29.000 --> 40:34.000]  It doesn't set a majority number of the people that it takes to do that.
[40:34.000 --> 40:38.000]  It just says the people.
[40:38.000 --> 40:49.000]  So the two inferences that can be made from that would be any number of or it must be absolutely unanimous.
[40:49.000 --> 40:58.000]  But I think if it was to be absolutely unanimous, that language would be there.
[40:58.000 --> 41:08.000]  So it is my opinion and only my opinion that those of us that understand what has been done and how it's been done
[41:08.000 --> 41:25.000]  are all that is required to stand together and demand that our government be set back up in accordance with our original proper 1836 Constitution.
[41:25.000 --> 41:35.000]  Rather than the 1876, which is a military charter under the Reconstruction Act.
[41:35.000 --> 41:39.000]  The people of Texas didn't enact that Constitution.
[41:39.000 --> 41:44.000]  The federal government did from afar.
[41:44.000 --> 41:58.000]  They created it, they put it in place, and they found people in Texas that were loyal to them to institute it and make it work.
[41:58.000 --> 42:08.000]  So Texas has been operating as a conquered territory since the Civil War, or at least the end of the Civil War.
[42:08.000 --> 42:13.000]  But we don't have an actual state constitution here because of that.
[42:13.000 --> 42:19.000]  Now is the perfect time to fix that.
[42:19.000 --> 42:24.000]  And remember, the 1836 Constitution does not allow for the seizure of property.
[42:24.000 --> 42:31.000]  It doesn't allow for the taxation of private property except by consent.
[42:31.000 --> 42:44.000]  It does not allow government to do 99% of what it does today.
[42:44.000 --> 42:52.000]  And all of the stuff that has been schemed into place to scam the rest of us
[42:52.000 --> 43:02.000]  is going to be left burning in an ash heap somewhere, and should be.
[43:02.000 --> 43:05.000]  So we need to figure out what we're going to do, people.
[43:05.000 --> 43:13.000]  We need to figure out how we're going to come together, when we're going to come together, and it needs to be soon.
[43:13.000 --> 43:21.000]  Now for any Republican Texas folks listening to this, I've never said that you guys were completely wrong.
[43:21.000 --> 43:27.000]  I've never said that you guys are going about it the wrong way.
[43:27.000 --> 43:37.000]  Because you're trying to shift the thought paradigm that's too ingrained to be let go of without more information than these people have.
[43:37.000 --> 43:42.000]  And you've got to give it to them in such a way that they can absorb it and accept it.
[43:42.000 --> 43:46.000]  And right now they haven't been willing to do that. Up until now they haven't been willing to do that.
[43:46.000 --> 43:52.000]  And now might be a good time to organize a better way to educate them on that.
[43:52.000 --> 43:54.000]  All right, when we get back I'll start taking your calls.
[43:54.000 --> 44:01.000]  512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[44:01.000 --> 44:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.000 --> 44:07.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary.
[44:07.000 --> 44:15.000]  The affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[44:15.000 --> 44:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Juris Dictionary 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 --> 45:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:07.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com
[45:07.000 --> 45:13.000]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas.
[45:13.000 --> 45:19.000]  I'm Brave New Books and Chase Payne 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 Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.000 --> 45:38.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[45:38.000 --> 45:44.000]  That's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com.
[45:44.000 --> 46:02.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[46:14.000 --> 46:20.000]  If he's not had a problem, where do you want to go for one?
[46:20.000 --> 46:26.000]  If he could not wait any bout too long, would your purpose best be done?
[46:26.000 --> 46:29.000]  Is that your center man, a soldier, a warrior of love?
[46:29.000 --> 46:32.000]  Is that the land that keeps us peace?
[46:32.000 --> 46:35.000]  All is taken into misunderstanding
[46:35.000 --> 46:40.000]  If somebody calls the police, they're watching the spotlight
[46:40.000 --> 46:45.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:45.000 --> 46:47.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[46:47.000 --> 46:50.000]  And right now we have Marshall in Washington.
[46:50.000 --> 46:51.000]  Marshall, go ahead.
[46:51.000 --> 46:53.000]  What do you got?
[46:53.000 --> 46:54.000]  Good evening, Eddie.
[46:54.000 --> 46:55.000]  Evening.
[46:55.000 --> 47:04.000]  I had a traffic case recently that I got a dismissal on, but I saw a lot of abuse of the other people in the courtroom.
[47:04.000 --> 47:11.000]  And so I'm trying to figure out if I can file charges against the judge.
[47:11.000 --> 47:12.000]  Absolutely.
[47:12.000 --> 47:16.000]  You can do exactly what I started off saying at the show here.
[47:16.000 --> 47:17.000]  Sure.
[47:17.000 --> 47:21.000]  There's a few odd things here in Washington.
[47:21.000 --> 47:24.000]  They're not criminal.
[47:24.000 --> 47:25.000]  Right.
[47:25.000 --> 47:26.000]  They're civil infractions.
[47:26.000 --> 47:28.000]  Infraction, yeah.
[47:28.000 --> 47:39.000]  And they seem to have, I've read through all this stuff, and they have a separate set of civil rules for infractions that are distinct from general civil proceedings.
[47:39.000 --> 47:40.000]  Right.
[47:40.000 --> 47:43.000]  And they do all sorts of odd things.
[47:43.000 --> 47:45.000]  I mean, God's the things that are very odd.
[47:45.000 --> 47:49.000]  But I'll give you one that seems very possibly the worst.
[47:49.000 --> 47:50.000]  And let's see.
[47:50.000 --> 48:03.000]  Consistency, no notice of infraction shall be deemed insufficient for failure of statement of essential facts constituting specific infraction which the defendant committed.
[48:03.000 --> 48:08.000]  So it's like they can file any sort of paperwork in the court that they...
[48:08.000 --> 48:09.000]  Right.
[48:09.000 --> 48:15.000]  That statute should be challenged as unconstitutional on its face because there's no way that can be allowed.
[48:15.000 --> 48:18.000]  That's absolutely unacceptable.
[48:18.000 --> 48:20.000]  I mean, you can't...
[48:20.000 --> 48:24.000]  Is that what they use for the instrument to go after you in the court?
[48:24.000 --> 48:27.000]  Is that citation?
[48:27.000 --> 48:28.000]  Yes.
[48:28.000 --> 48:29.000]  Okay.
[48:29.000 --> 48:30.000]  Then that absolutely...
[48:30.000 --> 48:34.000]  That will never hold water if it's constitutionally challenged.
[48:34.000 --> 48:39.000]  Well, they end up dismissing my case with prejudice, so I don't know if I have standing to...
[48:39.000 --> 48:40.000]  Absolutely.
[48:40.000 --> 48:41.000] ...and fight it.
[48:41.000 --> 48:50.000]  Because you're going after them criminally for what they did to you in this court. That's completely separate from why you were in the court.
[48:50.000 --> 48:52.000]  Oh, I see.
[48:52.000 --> 48:57.000]  It's just the grounds you need to have standing to go after them.
[48:57.000 --> 49:02.000]  Sure. Well, I witnessed them, the same judge, do this stuff to all these other people.
[49:02.000 --> 49:10.000]  You can file criminal complaints on someone else's behalf, but you can't sue or anything like that on their behalf.
[49:10.000 --> 49:11.000]  Oh, I see.
[49:11.000 --> 49:16.000]  Well, a couple of questions about the way I was doing things at the beginning.
[49:16.000 --> 49:24.000]  I guess the question before I give you what happened was what constitutes equivocation?
[49:24.000 --> 49:25.000]  In the ticket...
[49:25.000 --> 49:29.000]  Oh, that constitutes what? Equivocation?
[49:29.000 --> 49:30.000]  Equivocation, yeah.
[49:30.000 --> 49:32.000]  Okay.
[49:32.000 --> 49:42.000]  The issue was, A, there was no policeman in the courtroom and there was no prosecutor in the courtroom, by the way. But we'll come back to that.
[49:42.000 --> 49:52.000]  Okay. Well, let me ask you this question. In this civil process, who is your opponent? Who is named as the other party?
[49:52.000 --> 49:57.000]  Well, the state code says it should be done by the prosecutor.
[49:57.000 --> 50:07.000]  No, no, no. You do not understand what I'm saying. I'm not asking who is doing the representing. I'm asking who is the named party.
[50:07.000 --> 50:09.000]  Oh, oh. Well, me versus the state.
[50:09.000 --> 50:14.000]  The state. Is the state a legal fiction?
[50:14.000 --> 50:15.000]  Sure.
[50:15.000 --> 50:25.000]  Does the law in Washington say that a legal fiction can only enter a court of law represented by counsel?
[50:25.000 --> 50:26.000]  Yes, it does, actually.
[50:26.000 --> 50:35.000]  And what constitutes counsel under the laws of Washington?
[50:35.000 --> 50:37.000]  I think you have a bar card carrying lawyer.
[50:37.000 --> 50:45.000]  Exactly. Therefore, how can a cop present any information in the court on behalf of the state?
[50:45.000 --> 50:49.000]  Well, actually, he didn't. The cop wasn't there and the prosecutor wasn't there.
[50:49.000 --> 50:51.000]  Okay. So who was trying to do it?
[50:51.000 --> 50:53.000]  Based on the infraction.
[50:53.000 --> 50:55.000]  So the judge was doing it himself?
[50:55.000 --> 50:56.000]  Yes.
[50:56.000 --> 51:04.000]  Okay. Well, that's being neither fair nor impartial. He can't be the witness and the prosecutor and the judge.
[51:04.000 --> 51:23.000]  Well, exactly. And when I brought up some preliminary issues and challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, she actually responded with legal arguments against my position that may have been reasonable if there was a prosecutor there, but should the judge be putting legal arguments on the record?
[51:23.000 --> 51:30.000]  Absolutely not. She's practicing law from the bench and she can't do that.
[51:30.000 --> 51:43.000]  Now, let's presume for a second that this is an actual judge and not just some administrative committee with the title of judge, but isn't really a judge.
[51:43.000 --> 51:46.000]  She actually is a judge. She's been a judge for many years.
[51:46.000 --> 51:49.000]  Then she shouldn't be at this point.
[51:49.000 --> 51:56.000]  We sure. But she's actually been this particular judge was cited for some misconduct in the past.
[51:56.000 --> 51:57.000]  Well, now she's got more.
[51:57.000 --> 51:59.000]  She falsified some paperwork in the court.
[51:59.000 --> 52:02.000]  Well, now she's doing more.
[52:02.000 --> 52:04.000]  Yeah.
[52:04.000 --> 52:07.000]  File complaints against her. Be proactive.
[52:07.000 --> 52:17.000]  Sure. Well, I go looking for in Washington State for a lot of stuff that I've read in Virginia and stuff I've heard you and Randy talk about.
[52:17.000 --> 52:22.000]  And there's just gobs of wiggle room in all of the laws I can find in Washington.
[52:22.000 --> 52:25.000]  Well, the thing is, Washington doesn't need wiggle room.
[52:25.000 --> 52:34.000]  Washington is one of the few states that makes it absolutely clear that the code as far as vehicles and stuff is absolutely commercial.
[52:34.000 --> 52:45.000]  It could not be more clear that the Washington legislature recognizes a distinction between public vehicular travel and commerce.
[52:45.000 --> 52:54.000]  The code is full of references to open as a matter of right for public vehicular travel as a matter of right.
[52:54.000 --> 53:01.000]  And it lists automobiles completely separate from motor vehicles.
[53:01.000 --> 53:03.000]  It distinguishes between them.
[53:03.000 --> 53:15.000]  The code in Washington could not be more clear that it does not apply to those engaging in public vehicular travel.
[53:15.000 --> 53:17.000]  Sure.
[53:17.000 --> 53:26.000]  So anyhow, so we went through, I watched a courtroom full of people get convicted and rescheduled.
[53:26.000 --> 53:29.000]  And there's literally the judge is doing everything.
[53:29.000 --> 53:30.000]  The judge is reading.
[53:30.000 --> 53:37.000]  The problem is, is anything they're willing to waive, they will probably get away with her doing.
[53:37.000 --> 53:41.000]  If they don't know any better, whose fault is that?
[53:41.000 --> 53:44.000]  Well, that raises an interesting question.
[53:44.000 --> 53:59.000]  Is it identically the same thing just because somebody waived something in their particular case, and maybe they can't argue it later, is not the same thing as saying that what she did wasn't criminal?
[53:59.000 --> 54:02.000]  No, it's not the same thing.
[54:02.000 --> 54:06.000]  She can commit a crime, and the person not knows she committed a crime.
[54:06.000 --> 54:13.000]  But if she did commit a crime against the individual through her actions, then her actions are void.
[54:13.000 --> 54:21.000]  The difference here is you cannot conduct that non-waver for them.
[54:21.000 --> 54:30.000]  They're the ones that would have to step up and say she committed a crime against me by doing this, and I didn't consent to it.
[54:30.000 --> 54:32.000]  You cannot do that for them.
[54:32.000 --> 54:43.000]  Now, if you saw the judge do something that was improper across the board to everyone, okay, for instance, she took the basic right.
[54:43.000 --> 54:50.000]  Let's say she handcuffed every defendant to the bench when they arrived.
[54:50.000 --> 54:54.000]  She couldn't do that, and all of you suffered because of that decision.
[54:54.000 --> 55:03.000]  Therefore, any one of you have the right to take up what they did to you and fight it, okay?
[55:03.000 --> 55:17.000]  If you had come in and saw that and asked what was going on and they told you, even if they didn't handcuff you, you could report that because that was a crime general to all.
[55:17.000 --> 55:22.000]  Now, if you know she committed a specific crime against a specific person, you can complain about that.
[55:22.000 --> 55:32.000]  But what you cannot do is make that person responsible for going or take their place and go in and complain about it as far as taking action against her.
[55:32.000 --> 55:37.000]  You can file the charge, but you can't do anything else.
[55:37.000 --> 55:41.000]  You can then act only as a witness but not as the one harmed.
[55:41.000 --> 55:44.000]  Sure.
[55:44.000 --> 56:02.000]  The other part was, even though she denied all my preliminary motions and arguments about the insufficiency of the record and whatnot, she ended up, as soon as we got to the merits, there was no prosecutor there.
[56:02.000 --> 56:12.000]  So I guess I finally came up with an argument that she could stomach, and she dismissed when I asked for a dismissal based on a lack of prosecution because there wasn't any prosecutor there.
[56:12.000 --> 56:21.000]  And she gave me that, but I'm kind of wondering if, because of the earlier arguments I was making, she didn't want me appealing or something.
[56:21.000 --> 56:28.000]  Well, I don't know what was going through her mind because I don't know everything that you brought up in relation to it, so I don't know.
[56:28.000 --> 56:32.000]  Plus, I don't know what the specific procedures in those courts in Washington are.
[56:32.000 --> 56:37.000]  I know what they are, but I don't know every nuance of how they're supposed to behave.
[56:37.000 --> 56:53.000]  But what I can tell you is that in relation to the allegations that got you into that court, they're defensible and they don't have a leg to stand on to pursue a prosecution if you know what to hit them with.
[56:53.000 --> 56:54.000]  Okay.
[56:54.000 --> 57:07.000]  Now, what I will tell you is there is a gentleman by the name of David R. Merland, and he's a very intelligent man, and no, this is not some of the patronet stuff that I'm talking about here.
[57:07.000 --> 57:16.000]  This guy, David Merland, actually uses the codes properly to do what he's doing along with the state constitutions and so on and so forth.
[57:16.000 --> 57:23.000]  But he's got a book out called Public Vehicular Travel, America's Forgotten Right.
[57:23.000 --> 57:28.000]  You can find that book, you can buy that book, and he's got motion.
[57:28.000 --> 57:32.000]  Everything I talked about at the beginning of the show, he's actually got in this book.
[57:32.000 --> 57:36.000]  He's got a federal criminal complaint filed in it.
[57:36.000 --> 57:38.000]  He's got an affidavit of Joinder in it.
[57:38.000 --> 57:41.000]  He's got a motion to dismiss in it.
[57:41.000 --> 57:51.000]  What he doesn't have in his that I have in mind is criminal, state-level criminal complaints for a grand jury and county and district attorneys.
[57:51.000 --> 57:54.000]  That's the difference between what he's doing with it and what I'm doing with it.
[57:54.000 --> 58:03.000]  Plus, I'm sending copies to the FBI as well as the attorney general at the federal level.
[58:03.000 --> 58:07.000]  Now, were you going to file with a federal grand jury as well?
[58:07.000 --> 58:11.000]  No.
[58:11.000 --> 58:21.000]  I'm trying to put the onus on the various governmental departments to do what they're required to do, at the very least enough to get the state to leave me the hell alone.
[58:21.000 --> 58:23.000]  Very good. Thank you, Eddie.
[58:23.000 --> 58:25.000]  All right, thanks for calling in.
[58:25.000 --> 58:28.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[58:28.000 --> 58:33.000]  We're about to take another break for the top of the hour, so we'll be gone for about four or five minutes.
[58:33.000 --> 58:50.000]  And if you want to get in line, the call-in number is 512-646-1984. Give us a call, get in line, and we'll 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 --> 59:28.000]  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.
[59:28.000 --> 59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.000 --> 59:48.000]  This comprehensive yet compact Study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:48.000 --> 59:51.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:51.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  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.
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:46.000]  Markets for the 21st of December, 2015, opened up with gold at $1,080.10 an ounce, silver $14.29 an ounce, Texas crude $34.73 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $437 U.S. currency.
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  In today's history, Monday, December 21, 1620, the first landing party arrives at the site of what would later become the settlement of the Plymouth Colony.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  In recent news, in an interview pre-recorded last week with state news agency NPR, President Obama told Steve Inskeep,
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  quote, there's going to be the potential for anger, frustration, fear, some of it justified, but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump's taking advantage of that.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:20.000]  That's what he's been exploiting during the course of his campaign.
[01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  The statement a few days after the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, called Donald Trump a carnival barker whose proposal to ban all Muslims from immigrating into the United States disqualifies him from being president.
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:45.000]  It seems the president especially enjoys politicking while on his multimillion dollar two week family vacation to Honolulu.
[01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  The winter solstice, the shortest day and longest night of the year for the northern hemisphere, is the exact time when the earth tilts the furthest distance away from the sun.
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  For those on the East Coast, the solstice is happening tonight at 1148 p.m.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:07.000]  For people living in the southern hemisphere, December 21st marks the summer solstice, the beginning of the astronomical summer for the longest day of their year.
[01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  December 21st is the official beginning of winter and has been an event celebrated for millennia through sacred masonry in the building of such monuments as Stonehenge in England,
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  a mine constructed building along the Caribbean coast in the city of Tulum, which captures the sun's rays during the sunrise and both the summer and winter solstice,
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  which consequently illuminates a room through a small orifice, and the Goseck Circle in Germany dating back nearly 7,000 years,
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:42.000]  a series of landscape rings that has two of its gates lining up with the sunrise and sunsets on the winter solstice.
[01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  The Lowstar Lowdown is currently looking to fill ad space, so if you have a product or a service that you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give us a call at 210-363-2257.
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  This has been your Lowdown for December 21st, 2015.
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:47.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio and now we're going to go to Spencer in Washington.
[01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:49.000]  Spencer, what do you got?
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  You know, I learned quite a bit from that last guy and that was absolutely awesome.
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  You were stating there's a difference between personal transportation and public transportation in Washington here.
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  No, I was stating that there's a difference between automobile and motor vehicle in that one is specifically designated as commercial and the other is not.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  Okay, gotcha.
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  Try to keep the phrasing as close as possible because in a courtroom, phrasing is everything.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  Yes, yes, and that's likely where my research ran into a brick wall there.
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  And what I'm reading is specifically stating a vehicle rather than automobile.
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  Right.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:49.000]  I haven't read into automobiles yet.
[01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:55.000]  I just keep making the assumption that I'm in a vehicle because it describes me as a vehicle.
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  Well, you have to remember that most states simply define vehicle as a device that is self-propelled.
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  Okay.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:05.000]  Yes.
[01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  And then motor vehicle is a vehicle used for the purpose of transporting or transportation of persons or goods upon a highway or capable of saying.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  So you see vehicle is one of the compound definition terms for motor vehicle.
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:41.000]  So a vehicle is not automatically a motor vehicle unless it is used for the purpose defined in the definition of motor vehicle.
[01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  Okay. Now here they try to obfuscate it in some places by saying used and in other places saying capable of.
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  But the problem there is is the same as it is anywhere else and that is what is the overall subject matter under which these terms are being defined.
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  If the overall subject matter is transportation as it is here, then all you have to do is make sure that you append the subject matter to the end of the definition so that it's read within the scope of its proper context.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  A motor vehicle is a vehicle capable of transporting persons or goods upon a highway for the purpose of transportation.
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  A motor vehicle is a vehicle used for transporting persons, goods or property upon a highway for the purpose of transportation.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  You see?
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:44.000]  Ours says motor vehicle means every vehicle that is self-propelled.
[01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  Every vehicle.
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  What's vehicle?
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  A vehicle.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:55.000]  I've got that written down as well here.
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:07:08.000]  A vehicle includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported.
[01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:09.000]  Bingo.
[01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  Drawn upon a public highway.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:14.000]  There you go.
[01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  Okay.
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:22.000]  So the use is where the Washington legislature has defined the delineation.
[01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  The motor vehicle is used, is a vehicle used for the purpose of commerce.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  If you read it, if you look at the stuff that Merlin does on that, he makes it very clear because he gives you the specific statutes to go look it up in.
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  He gives you the acts that the legislature used to put it there.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  So it makes it very, very clear that the legislature has differentiated between use of the highways for the purpose of common right.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  Let's see.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:57.000]  Let me show you one of the statutes here.
[01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:04.000]  We'll see what it is.
[01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  All right. Right here in 1961, the Washington legislature codified this as an act relating to the definition.
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:14.000]  Wrong one.
[01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  Sorry.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:17.000]  In here, it defines highway.
[01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  What's the definition of highway?
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:36.000]  Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns.
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:38.000]  You follow?
[01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  Yes.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:45.000]  So open as a matter of right to the public means it's not licensable.
[01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  It's a right.
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  It's not a privilege.
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  In fact, the statute in Washington says that the license, the fee for the license is a privilege tax.
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  So one is a privilege.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  The other is a right.
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  Follow?
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  Yes.
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  So what questions do you have from that now?
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:14.000]  I don't.
[01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:17.000]  I've got some more reading to do.
[01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:22.000]  Remember, definitions are everything.
[01:09:22.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  Yes.
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  And I'm overlooking the simple stuff.
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:30.000]  That's really what it boils down to.
[01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:31.000]  Yeah.
[01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:32.000]  Don't complicate it.
[01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  Read everything twice, especially the definitions.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:49.000]  And one last thing before I go here, I filed discovery for this case just to know exactly what I'm up against.
[01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:51.000]  Is this a traffic case?
[01:09:51.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  Yes.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:53.000]  This is a traffic case.
[01:09:53.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  Okay.
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:09:58.000]  And did they tell you that you don't get discovery in this case?
[01:09:58.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  Or did they tell you okay?
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  No.
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  There is a court rule that says I do.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  Okay.
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:04.000]  So what did you ask for?
[01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:09.000]  I filed it.
[01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  They gave me discovery that says please be advised the prosecutor will not be participating in negotiations or motions.
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  Any further matters that should go to the court directly?
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:26.000]  How can the prosecution not be participating in relation to motions?
[01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  That right there is language telling you that the court is going to make all of its determinations about your motions without any rebuttal from the prosecution,
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  which means the judge is going to be acting on behalf of the prosecution, which is a violation of your right of due process, even in a civil proceeding.
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  Yeah.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:48.000]  And see, here's the thing.
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  That concerned me, that line.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  Yeah.
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  Here's the thing.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  If this is civil, how can there be a prosecutor? There can only be a plaintiff, not a prosecutor.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  They're mixing rules here.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  If this is all civil, how can there be a prosecutor?
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  There can only be a plaintiff and a defendant, not a prosecutor and a defendant.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  And that's constitutional, which they...
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  Okay.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  The Constitution says that in civil cases where the state is a party, there will be a prosecutor assigned or there will be an attorney for the state assigned.
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  That I do not know.
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  Because an attorney for the state does not necessarily mean prosecutor.
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:55.000]  That's most often how they function, but it's not a necessity that that's how they function, to have the title of attorney for the state.
[01:11:55.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  Because they could be the state's attorney in a civil matter, right?
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:09.000]  In which case, they'd be either the plaintiff or the defendant, right? But they wouldn't be a prosecutor ever if it's not criminal.
[01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  All right.
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  One other thing, they stated only what...they've only provided what's marked here, front page of citation, an affidavit of speed or radar.
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  I never received anything labeled as an affidavit of speed or radar.
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  I received one that's labeled, clearly labeled as the header, is Washington State Patrol case report, which goes into detail about the speed and what his radar detected.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  But it never says anywhere that this is actually an affidavit of speed or radar.
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:59.000]  Well, on this report, is this report signed and countersigned under penalty of perjury?
[01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Yes.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  Okay. If it's signed under penalty of perjury...
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  Sure, I just see a printed name.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  You just see a printed name. You don't see any signatures?
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  I see a user ID and password.
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:14.000]  You don't see any signatures?
[01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  I see a printed name. I mean, this is a digital printout here. Just a printed name that says, I am entering my authorized user ID and password to authenticate it.
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  And then a printed name. That's all it's got.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  Okay. So the answer to my question then is no, there are no signatures.
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:40.000]  No.
[01:13:40.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  Okay. Then it's not an affidavit.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:45.000]  Was a signature or not?
[01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  No. How can that be a signature?
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:14:01.000]  Electronically signed still requires a signature, even if it's put on there electronically, most of the time, unless there's some special statute they've done up there in Washington for this.
[01:14:01.000 --> 01:14:14.000]  Again, I still think you're going in the wrong direction. You're looking for things you don't have to have rather than challenging jurisdiction that they don't have.
[01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:15.000]  Gotcha.
[01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:31.000]  Okay. If there is no law that requires you to comply with that code because you're not a driver or operator in a motor vehicle, then jurisdiction doesn't exist because subject matter doesn't exist.
[01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  Gotcha. Because it's not a motor vehicle.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  Correct. And you are not a driver or an operator.
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:48.000]  I highly recommend you get his book because the paperwork you need to retype and get ready is in there.
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  Yes, I'm going to go get that tomorrow here. I hadn't heard of him until today.
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  Yeah, David R. Merlin, Public Vehicular Travel, America's Forgotten Right. It is 100% specific to Washington. But if you know any other state like I do Texas, it's very easy for me to take anything that he's given me ideas with here and translate them over to Texas and use them.
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  Well, I thank you again, Eddie. Good luck on your case.
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  Thank you.
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  And enjoy your Christmas.
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  I appreciate it. And you do the same.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:32.000]  Thank you. Bye-bye.
[01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  All right. Bye-bye.
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:47.000]  All right. And that does remind me, folks, please continue to contribute for the lawsuit. I cannot start this thing until I have enough to cover it from beginning to end. And I'm not there. I'm not even a quarter of the way there.
[01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  Please, if you can donate to help carry this through, please do so. Just go to the Rule of Law Radio website, not the Logos Radio website, the Rule of Law Radio website.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  Click on the donations tab up at the top and then click on the gold button under where it says make a donation to Eddie and flag it for legal fund.
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  Okay. That being said, we're about 40 seconds from going to break, so I'm going to take my next caller after this break. Bob, that will be you in California, so please hang on and don't drop off.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  But, folks, we are going to take the information that I've got in these documents that I'm trying to finish up and trying to get the certified copy from the secretary of state and use this to go on the offensive against our state actors that are
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  defrauding us. And hopefully this will allow us in a lot of states, if not all of them, to turn the tables and get everything back that's rightfully ours.
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  All right, y'all hang on. We'll be right back after this break. 512-646-1984. 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 --> 01:17:19.000]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metals dealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  In addition, we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burps. We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods,
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more. We broke through Metals IRA accounts and we also accept Bitcoins as payment.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2.
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullying.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  And it's time we changed all that. 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 Jeopardy 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 Jeopardy so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jeopardy, 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 --> 01:19:01.000]  Order now.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:41.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:46.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  We're going to go to Bob in California.
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  Bob, what do you have?
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  Hi, Eddie. How are you?
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  I'm good, and you?
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  Well, hanging in there, better than I deserve.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  So let me basically give you a quick rundown.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:02.000]  I'm trying to help my kid out, my daughter.
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:05.000]  She's a single parent.
[01:20:05.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  The father had apparently applied for welfare.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:17.000]  He's basically a deadbeat dad, never paid child support to her, never assisted her.
[01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  Went and claimed child support or welfare, added the kid as a dependent, which he never has actually had him as a dependent.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:30.000]  She's always clamped down her taxes, you know, the whole nine yards.
[01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  She provides all of the services for the kid, all support, including medical.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  But apparently, child welfare services calls her up and says that this guy has done this, and you should be paying him child support.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:53.000]  And she basically on the phone told the people that, no, I don't owe him any child support.
[01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:55.000]  He has no direct supervision of the child.
[01:20:55.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  He doesn't have any custody of the child.
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  And the only thing he ever gets from me is the ability to visit with a kid.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:12.000]  So anyways, they filed a suit in the Superior Court there in the county that she lives in.
[01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:16.000]  And she's got to respond to it.
[01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  And my question on all of that is, one, I am sure that we need to file a response, or she needs to file a response.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  But is there any basis for a case law or anything like that where I should be looking forward to see if they even have the right to try to force her into paying support for somebody, one, they've never had custody?
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  Well, this is typical for CPS.
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  They act without any form of investigation whatsoever.
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:51.000]  My first recommendation would be this.
[01:21:51.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  She needs to contact the welfare office and charge him with committing fraud.
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  He falsified his application knowingly and willfully.
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  In most states, that's going to be a felony.
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  Okay.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  Okay.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  And once welfare becomes involved, and she is going to have to answer the suit up to this point,
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  but she needs to make sure that she documents and gets everything in writing where she files the complaint with welfare accusing him of defrauding welfare
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  and keeping the money that he allegedly was collecting for the purpose of supporting a child he didn't even have.
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  Okay.
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  And get those records and names and all that, because those are people that you're going to want to call in or she's going to want to call in her defense against CPS.
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  And then what she's going to have to do.
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  Y.E. and child welfare.
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  I'm sorry?
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  Yeah, she's going to pit one government agency against the other.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:01.000]  She's going to pit welfare against CPS.
[01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  Welfare is going to say we've got a guy over here that committed fraud and defrauded us of money
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  and then turned around and filed a claim with you knowing it was a false claim so you would go after her and so on and so forth.
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  Now, the other thing you're going to have to do is she's going to have to question the CPS workers to get them to testify to their lack of investigation into the facts of the case.
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:33.000]  Yeah, CPS is actually the one who filed the suit.
[01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:34.000]  Right.
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  And that's typical.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  CPS in California is one of the most abusive agencies that state has next to your tax board.
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Yeah.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  Well, DMV comes in a close second.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  Okay.
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:54.000]  So basically I need to call welfare, get their information.
[01:23:54.000 --> 01:24:01.000]  You need to get their information and file a criminal complaint against this guy for defrauding welfare.
[01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  I gotcha.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  Okay.
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  Actually, it would be much better if it comes from her because she's the one that was supposed to be receiving the benefits of the money he was collecting for the support of the child.
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  Correct.
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  Well, yeah, she should have gotten it, but he claimed it for his own purposes even though he's living at his parents' house.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:29.000]  He was married to somebody else already had another kid and is now getting a divorce from that individual.
[01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:33.000]  So yeah, this guy's total the big L.
[01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  Yeah.
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  Well, then you can turn him into the big P.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  The letter, after she was notified by the welfare department initially, and this is where I think initially this started, was the welfare department called her saying that he had added him the kid as a dependent for welfare purposes of collecting welfare.
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  And I don't know if they reported it to Child Services or how they did it, but somehow it got back to Child Services, our CPS, and they called her, I guess, making a claim that she owed money.
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  Right, because they'll keep as much of that money as they can when they take it.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  So the objective here is to head them off at the pass where they can't take it.
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  Right.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  Now she had actually, under my advice, I had told her to, I don't know, when she talked to him, write a record of conversation of the actual conversation they had on the phone, and then certify that and send it to him.
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  And she did, in which she agreed that he would remove the kid off of the request for welfare and that he had agreed on the phone that he had no rights to claim the child as a dependent.
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  Should that be attached to the response to the court?
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  Well, the thing about it is her accounting of it isn't going to make any difference unless it's submitted as evidence, and then someone's got to testify to it.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  But the problem is that she can't testify to what he said, only he can.
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  So in this hearing, she's got to subpoena him and force him to show up.
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  Sure. But wouldn't that also be supportive of the fact that she actually sent it to him certified and that he never responded?
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  You can say you sent him anything. The fact that he didn't respond could be him saying, I don't agree with it. This is a lie. You see what I'm saying?
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  The fact that she wrote it down and sent it to him means nothing.
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  So if he doesn't respond to it, I always understood that if he says nothing, basically it's agreed to.
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:09.000]  Yes and no. And a contract where negotiations are ongoing, that would be true. But you're going to have a hard sell pitching this as a contract.
[01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  Okay. Yeah, that's true. It's not a contract.
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  Okay.
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:14.000]  Like a record of conversation.
[01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  Exactly. So the problem here is getting the facts into the record that CPSA has done no proper investigation to determine the facts before they filed a suit
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:29.000]  and therefore is wasting taxpayer money and maliciously prosecuting your daughter.
[01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  But they are failing to go after an individual who, for the purposes of what we're dealing with here, has committed fraud against the welfare system
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  and defrauded the city or the people of California of funds.
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:47.000]  Right. I understand that part.
[01:27:47.000 --> 01:27:55.000]  And both the welfare system and the CPS are now covering it up by coming after your daughter under false pretenses.
[01:27:55.000 --> 01:28:04.000]  My second question to that was as far as the discovery. Well, first of all, she actually never was subpoenaed.
[01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  And this was actually just a written notice to her in the mail. And it basically came saying the county says, well, they filed a lawsuit against you,
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  and you need to respond to it. So she actually was never filed. They actually never subpoenaed her in either...
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  They don't have to subpoena her if it's civil. All she has to do is be given notice the suit's been filed and win her required responses due by.
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:34.000]  If she doesn't do it, she loses automatically.
[01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:42.000]  Correct. Okay. So is that based upon the date that it was delivered to her in the mail or filed or sent to her?
[01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  The notice should tell you when her statement is due by.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  It doesn't. It says 30 days after filing.
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:29:01.000]  Okay. The filing will be what they filed. She's got 30 days from the day they filed to respond.
[01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:06.000]  Well, that's funny because, I mean, they filed it back in September.
[01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  Well, when did they mail it?
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:13.000]  She just received it two weeks ago here in December.
[01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  When was it postmarked?
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:24.000]  Like I said, it was postmarked December. I was somewhere around like the second or third.
[01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  Okay. Well, here's the problem.
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:31.000]  It shows the filing is of 916.
[01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Okay. Well, then you need to look up to see what the rules of civil procedure are relating to notice
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  and then see if there's any particular rules dealing with CPS on when they have to provide this notice
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  because they can't require you to respond from a filing date
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:56.000]  and then wait till well after that time frame to even send it to you and still hold you accountable under it.
[01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  Hang on just a second. We got to take a break, Bob. We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:33.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:36.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  Our public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  We're coming down the Bill of Rights home stretch, eight down and just two more amendments to go.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  This is likely the time when our founding fathers ask themselves, did we leave something out?
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  So just in case they forgot to guarantee an important freedom, they decided to add a catch-all ninth amendment
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:05.000]  to prevent the government from taking advantage of any oversight.
[01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:10.000]  I like to remember the ninth amendment as the just in case we left something out amendment.
[01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:15.000]  In a nutshell, the ninth amendment makes it clear that just because a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution
[01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:19.000]  or one of its amendments doesn't mean you don't have that right.
[01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.000 --> 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 --> 01:31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  Thousands of my fellow force responders are dying.
[01:31:48.000 --> 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 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:00.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  We trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:38.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:38.000 --> 01:32:45.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:56.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:56.000 --> 01:32:58.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:01.000]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  Yeah.
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  Sorry, a little bit hard to see here.
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:33:57.000]  All right, we're going back to Bob in California.
[01:33:57.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  All right, Bob, please continue.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  Well, basically, I think you've answered my questions on what I need to do.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  Get her to call the welfare office, file a complaint against him, have them in turn basically set against...
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  Yeah, well, she also needs to go to the district attorney and do the same, not just the welfare,
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  but she needs to start there to show the DA that she means it.
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:27.000]  So she needs to show that she's filed paperwork with the welfare office showing that this guy committed fraud.
[01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:36.000]  Then she needs to file criminal complaints with the district attorney and then petition the district attorney to make the CPS aware of those charges.
[01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:42.000]  And maybe this suit will go away without her having to do anything beyond answer it.
[01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  Okay.
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  Well, we can definitely give that a try.
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:51.000]  One other quick question, basically a statement reference to something you were talking about earlier.
[01:34:51.000 --> 01:34:54.000]  I caught bits and pieces of it.
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  Definitions, and here in the California vehicle code, they don't even define automobile,
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  which I think is probably true in most of these cases.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  Correct.
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  So how do you get about defining your mandatory required vehicle that you had to go down and register to drive on or to operate or travel on the highways and roads?
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  How do you get around that by...
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  I mean, if I got stopped by a cop, then I definitely will have to get the...
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:35.000]  Well, let me put it this way.
[01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  If you get stopped by a cop in California, the cop's committing a crime because they're in fractions in California just like they are in Washington.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:50.000]  You can only be stopped at your liberty for a crime, right?
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  He has to have probable cause to stop you and hold you.
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  That only relates to a crime, not a civil infraction.
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  So when an officer seizes you for a civil infraction, he has deprived you of your liberty without lawful authority.
[01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  That's an illegal seizure.
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  Yeah.
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  That makes everything that follows fruit of the poison tree.
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  The ticket, any evidence, any charges he makes in relation to traffic at all, because of that original stop, you file a motion to dismiss because it was illegal.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:32.000]  They had no authority to stop you.
[01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  But now in relation to your actual question...
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  Mr. California, basically ignoring that law?
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  Well, of course.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  Every state that has it's ignoring it because they want the revenue.
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  If you don't know about it, why wouldn't they think they could get away with it?
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  Sure.
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  But now back to your question on the definitions.
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  So if the statute didn't define bowling ball and it never mentions bowling ball, why would you make the assumption a bowling ball would have anything to do with what the code is talking about?
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:09.000]  Okay.
[01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  But they're going to classify it when they...
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  Yeah, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:13.000]  It's up to the court.
[01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:19.000]  We don't care what they classify it as, we care what they can prove.
[01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  Okay.
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:40.000]  Until they offer proof that your automobile was being used for the purpose of the regulable activity where the definition of motor vehicle is created in relation to that activity, then what they're doing is creating a presumption, not a fact.
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:43.000]  That I agree, I understand that.
[01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  Okay.
[01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  But...
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  So who bears the burden of proof?
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  Who bears the burden of proof, you or them?
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:51.000]  They do, of course.
[01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  So would you rebut it with objection, assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion?
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:12.000]  Is this an irrebuttable presumption by the prosecution or the officer that my car was being used for a purpose regulated by the code?
[01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  They can't do that.
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  Exactly, exactly.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  So, you know, I think I need to do my research on that too, Eddie, because...
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  Well, you need to look up a man named Charlie Sprinkle.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  Charlie Sprinkle used to be very big in California because he was the first person...
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:32.000]  I've seen Charlie Sprinkle's videos.
[01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:33.000]  Yeah, but he was right.
[01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:37.000]  And his documents are still floating around in the court system out there.
[01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  He sued Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:52.000]  Ronald Reagan for dereliction of duty and extortion as the governor, and Nancy for laundering his ill-gotten paycheck.
[01:38:52.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  I thought it was raiding and abetting, but okay.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  Well, she laundered the money.
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  She took the checks, she put them in an account, then she took the money back out.
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  That's money laundering.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  Right.
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  Yeah, that was basically on his driver's license, wasn't it?
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  Yeah, that's exactly what it was, over his right to travel.
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:16.000]  Right.
[01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:19.000]  Yeah, I'll have to look for that too.
[01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  I'll let you get to the next call, Eddie. Thank you very much for the information.
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  I appreciate it.
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  Thanks for calling in.
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  I appreciate that.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  And a Merry Christmas to you, sir.
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:28.000]  You too.
[01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  Y'all enjoy.
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  Be safe.
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  Okay, bye-bye.
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  All right.
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  Now we're going to go to Pat in Texas.
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:37.000]  Pat, what can we do for you?
[01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  Hi, Eddie.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  Well, hello there.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  Just a quick question.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:46.000]  On the 10th of January, are you holding class?
[01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  The 10th of January, yes.
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:50.000]  Okay.
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  At the bookstore, right?
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  Yes.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:54.000]  Let me double-check that.
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  But I'm pretty sure that that is correct.
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  Yes, it is.
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  We're not going to be there the weekend of the first, but we're going to be there the weekend after the first.
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  After.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  Yeah, that's what I was hoping for.
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  What time is your class going to start?
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  2 o'clock.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  And we're streaming it now, so we're kind of stuck on starting at 2.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Because we're actually live streaming the class now.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  That's good.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  Silver or ferns?
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Whatever you want to bring.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  Okay.
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  Sounds okay.
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  Michael Badner is going to be in town the day before.
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  He's got a class going there in Austin, too.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  Oh, well, cool.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  Bring him by if you can.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  Yeah, I'm going to try and get him over there.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  But he's got some things going on.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:49.000]  And he's coming back to Texas.
[01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  So he says hi to everybody.
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  If they don't know who he is, look him up.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  Yeah.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  But I think most of us know.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  Anyway, I shall see you on the 10th, senior.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:04.000]  Okay.
[01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  See you there.
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  Be safe.
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  And if you can talk Medi into it, bring her with you.
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  I would love to, believe me.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  You know, somebody has to stay here in milk coats.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  Well, all right.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:17.000]  She's going to be gone the week prior.
[01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  I got three days of reprieve.
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:22.000]  All right.
[01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:24.000]  Well, you all take care and be blessed.
[01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:27.000]  And I'll see you on the 10th.
[01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:28.000]  Okay, sir.
[01:41:28.000 --> 01:41:31.000]  You have a Merry Christmas and be safe going into the New Year.
[01:41:31.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:33.000]  You, too.
[01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  Both of you.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  All right.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  Now we're going to go to Ralph in Texas.
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  Ralph, what can we do for you?
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  Hello, Eddie.
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:44.000]  Hello?
[01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  Going on the offensive.
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:46.000]  That sounds great.
[01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:48.000]  That's only going to take what?
[01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  Knowledge, money, and backbone.
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:52.000]  Is that right?
[01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  As far as the lawsuit, you mean?
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:41:57.000]  Yeah, the RICO thing, going on the offensive.
[01:41:57.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  Oh, well, now wait a minute.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  The RICO is not a suit.
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  Remember I said that.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  I'm not suing with the RICO.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:09.000]  This is a criminal RICO complaint.
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  We're filing criminal complaints, not a lawsuit.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:15.000]  Okay, that's right.
[01:42:15.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  I heard you.
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  So that won't cost you.
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:18.000]  Yeah.
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  Is that right?
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:20.000]  Right.
[01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:25.000]  The lawsuit is what I'm doing here against the city of Austin and the state of Texas
[01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  for implementing an unconstitutional code and using it to steal private property,
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  in this case, my two cars.
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:37.000]  It sounds to me like I could use the same thing,
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  although I was not charged with a traffic violation.
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  I was charged painfully for failure to identify.
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  However, there was no crime.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  So when I tried to complain about the officer who arrested me with the sheriff,
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  he wouldn't take the complaint.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  Right.
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  And that means the sheriff needs to be charged for aiding and abetting.
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:05.000]  I called the DOJ in my area, and the investigator I talked to laughed at me and said,
[01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  well, you tried to play games and you spent the night in jail,
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  so aren't you right?
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:11.000]  And I said, exactly.
[01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:12.000]  Who am I talking to again?
[01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:13.000]  He told me who he was.
[01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  And I said, well, sir, I've already had an attorney tell me I've got charges against the officer who arrested me.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  Then the DOJ investigator hung up on me.
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  Right.
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  The DOJ is of no help unless the cop actually killed you.
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  Well, I thought that was one of the recourses to take.
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  Well, that's why we do everything with them in writing and not with phone calls.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  At least with writing, we have a trail.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  I have a trail with recorders.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Yeah, but can you prove who it was on the other end of it?
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Or can you just say, yeah, I had somebody make it all up?
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  You see my problem there?
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  Hang on just a second.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  Ralph will pick this up when we get back.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  All right, folks.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  This is Rule Law Radio.
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  Y'all hang on.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We're going into our last segment here.
[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 --> 01:44:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  What?
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt.
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  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 --> 01:44:50.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:44:58.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:58.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:11.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:27.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  All right, we are in our last segment, and we are talking to Ralph in Texas.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  All right, Ralph, go ahead.
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  History and then my question.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  Okay, I'm sorry, start that again. Start that again.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:44.000]  I'd like to give you a brief history and then my question.
[01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  All right, I bar-grieved the attorney in this Class D misdemeanor failure to identify
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  for not doing anything, and he promptly withdrew his counsel.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  I demanded a court date within about 10 days.
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  They gave me a choice between three days or six weeks, so I took the three days.
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  The next day, I got a letter from the DA saying that there was a no bill on pending felony evading,
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:21.000]  so they decided they didn't want to do the misdemeanor either, so they dismissed the case.
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:23.000]  Okay.
[01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  That's pretty quick, I think, and, you know, I mean, the attorney quits,
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  and then less than a week later, they just dismissed the lawsuit.
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:34.000]  Yeah, because they were – if they were trying to hit you with a felony, how did we get to the evading?
[01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:39.000]  What was their – they were alleging was the basis of evading?
[01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  I wouldn't get out of my car.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:44.000]  That's it. I wouldn't get out of my car.
[01:47:44.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  Okay.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  I was sitting in the car with the engine off and the window rolled off almost all the way.
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:53.000]  Yeah, exactly, and one of these idiots is going to learn to read a statute.
[01:47:53.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  They wouldn't true bill it because the statute specifically says use the vehicle to – well, what is the exact language?
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:08.000]  In other words, the language makes it clear the vehicle has to be moving with the intent to get away.
[01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  Correct, yes, with the intent to evade.
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:13.000]  Yeah.
[01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:14.000]  With the intent to move.
[01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  So, yeah, that was just – I don't know what you call that, vindictiveness on the officers.
[01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  Oh, yeah, that's exactly what that was.
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  Okay.
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  But I'm thinking I've got – I'm thinking I've got conspiracy because the attorney was trying to get me to plead instead of going –
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  No, you've got malpractice there.
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:38.000]  You can't go to conspiracy.
[01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  Go to malpractice. Sue him for malpractice.
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  Okay.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:45.000]  Okay.
[01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:46.000]  All right.
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  Well, my question is because there's a lot I could talk to you about this case, but I want to try to limit this.
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:59.000]  My question is I got the letter from the DA's office saying that they're not going to pursue the felony and they don't want to dismiss –
[01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  they want to dismiss the Class C. The judge later – I did not get any other paperwork from the DA.
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  He said he would send me a hard copy in the mail, and he didn't.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  He just sent me the email.
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  So I got this letter from the judge saying it's dismissed for other causes, which says that there's no bill on the felony.
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:23.000]  It says nothing about prejudice – with prejudice or without prejudice.
[01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  Right.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:30.000]  I don't think that means anything here in this case, but could you address that with prejudice and without prejudice?
[01:49:30.000 --> 01:49:37.000]  Yeah, with prejudice means they couldn't come back and refile the charge – either charge.
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:48.000]  But if they didn't specify, then the DA is free to try and give it to the next grand jury that sits and see what they'll do with it.
[01:49:48.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  They can do that for up to two years.
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:49:54.000]  I would love nothing better.
[01:49:54.000 --> 01:49:58.000]  Well, I agree, but the question is what would they love better?
[01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  Can they actually prove it?
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:02.000]  And most likely they couldn't.
[01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  Even if they got an indictment, how would they prove it?
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  The problem is still the same.
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  Convincing a grand jury to hand down an indictment is nowhere near the same requirements as proving all of the necessary elements at trial.
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:24.000]  Let me use the DA's words at the motion to withdraw by the counsel.
[01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:33.000]  She's telling the judge, well, the felony is somewhat questionable, so we gave him the attorney so that he would plead.
[01:50:33.000 --> 01:50:34.000]  Right.
[01:50:34.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  It was a setup, okay?
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:40.000]  Your attorney's job was to try to get you to plead.
[01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  But isn't that just one level of inference whenever they're trying to get you to plead with something that obviously can never be won on?
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  Where are you getting an inference from?
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:52.000]  They're not inferring anything.
[01:50:52.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  They're using judicial trickery.
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:50:56.000]  It's a con game.
[01:50:56.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  But isn't that conspiracy?
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  Not the way they do it.
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:07.000]  See, here's your problem with the conspiracy.
[01:51:07.000 --> 01:51:14.000]  First, you would have to prove that your attorney was taking his marching orders from the other side or from the judge.
[01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  And you would have to prove that they had a meeting of the minds as to what the goal was in this case,
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  which was to get you to plead guilty to something you didn't actually do for the purpose of depriving you of a right and a protection to which you were entitled.
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  And there's no way to do that unless you were actually there.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:43.000]  There's no way to do that unless you got them to make a signed confession of it or you managed to record it while they were doing it,
[01:51:43.000 --> 01:51:47.000]  which that would be illegal unless you were there when they were doing it.
[01:51:47.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  But if they were there when you were doing it, then you could testify against them anyway as an eyewitness.
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  Well, I've got them on the next partay, the DA and the district judge.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  How so?
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  They admitted it in the open court at the motion to withdraw.
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:15.000]  We had a meeting to decide whether or not to give you an attorney in the felony to help you with the misdemeanor because we would eventually go with the felony.
[01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  Well, that's just it. That's just it. That's not an ex parte.
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  It's an ex parte.
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  I put my motion.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:25.000]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
[01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  It's an ex parte if they discuss the facts of the case without you or your counsel.
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  They didn't.
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:42.000]  They were discussing counsel and its availability to you for the purpose of trying to go after you for the felony.
[01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  If they had started arguing the merits of the felony or the merits of the misdemeanor,
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  now you've got an ex parte, but now you've got the same problem you had with your attorney versus the prosecutor or the judge.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:00.000]  How do you prove it?
[01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  Because they admit on the record that we discussed the facts of the case.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  What you just told me they told you is not an ex parte.
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  Well, can you get that from this?
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  I file a motion in the misdemeanor.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:19.000]  It is signed by the district judge.
[01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  What do you mean it's signed?
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  I make a motion for a court appointed counsel in the misdemeanor JP court.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:36.000]  When I get that motion back, it's been rewritten, it has my name on it, and it's signed by the district judge.
[01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:41.000]  How did my motion in the JP misdemeanor court get to the district judge?
[01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  Because the district judge is the one that has the authority to assign counsel.
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  The JP does not.
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:53.000]  Okay, well then one more question, because I know there's a conspiracy here.
[01:53:53.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  I'm just trying to figure out how to prove it.
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:53:58.000]  Well, of course there's a conspiracy, but proving it is the problem.
[01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:03.000]  The only way you can prove it is to show that they all could have known
[01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:13.000]  and should have known that specific facts were indeed linked to rights violations and other crimes.
[01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:17.000]  If you can prove that, then you can prove your conspiracy.
[01:54:17.000 --> 01:54:20.000]  Okay, one more thing.
[01:54:20.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  Really, just one more here.
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  If the court appointed attorney says at the motion to withdraw at the district level
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:31.000]  and the district court says, Your Honor, I think I can clarify this whole thing
[01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  because they were going back and forth.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  He's the attorney in the misdemeanor.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  No, he's not the attorney in the misdemeanor.
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:38.000]  That's the fact of the back and forth.
[01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  He says, I didn't clarify this whole thing.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  I was never the attorney in the misdemeanor.
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:45.000]  He's not entitled to an attorney in the misdemeanor.
[01:54:45.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  I was there for the felony, and he leaves it at that.
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:57.000]  But we had a conversation on the phone, and he is telling me he is my attorney in the misdemeanor.
[01:54:57.000 --> 01:55:00.000]  Do you have that recorded?
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  Yes.
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Okay.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  Then yeah, because what he's doing there is perpetrating fraud upon the court
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  and intentionally deceiving his client.
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  He's committing fraud against one of you.
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:17.000]  So let's presume for the record that it's you, and he did it knowingly.
[01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  He told you he was your counsel and then failed to act as your counsel
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:26.000]  and to protect your rights in accordance with his mandate.
[01:55:26.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  Yes, that is malpractice.
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:30.000]  Go get him.
[01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  So instead of letting him get away with saying, I was only here for the felony, Judge,
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  take the transcript from that hearing and use it with a transcript from your recording
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  along with the actual audio of your recording to prove that he is misrepresenting facts to somebody,
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  and you're just going to have to presume that he would rather lie to you than to a judge,
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:56:03.000]  and therefore was trying to throw you under the bus on both counts, and you're suing for malpractice.
[01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  And the reason they dismissed the case less than a week later was to protect him.
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:12.000]  Well, most likely, yes.
[01:56:12.000 --> 01:56:16.000]  I mean, they're going, well, we didn't do anything to you, so how can you go back at the attorney?
[01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  I've been trying to get my record.
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  Well, you can go after the attorney for sneezing and getting it on your suit.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:30.000]  What they're trying to do in essence, though, they could care less about him if their neck's on the chopping block.
[01:56:30.000 --> 01:56:37.000]  So without them actually going forward with the prosecution or getting an indictment,
[01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  now you cannot sue for malicious prosecution.
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:43.000]  You follow?
[01:56:43.000 --> 01:56:45.000]  No. Say that again.
[01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:53.000]  You can't sue them now for malicious prosecution because they never put you in jeopardy
[01:56:53.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  by getting the indictment, and they dismissed before they got one.
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:01.000]  What about the misdemeanor?
[01:57:01.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  The misdemeanor is not jeopardy in this particular case because there you're right to jeopardy.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  In that case, did they file a sworn complaint for it?
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  For the misdemeanor?
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  Yes.
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  There's a sworn complaint in the misdemeanor, and one in the felony.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  It's a sworn complaint.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  But wait a minute.
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  There are two different things here, so stick with me.
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  If they filed a sworn complaint in the court, did they ever impanel a jury over it?
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  No.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  Then you do not have malicious prosecution for the misdemeanor.
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  Okay, right now what you have is malpractice, and you potentially have false imprisonment.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  Did the officer take you from your car straight to jail?
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  Yes.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  Then you have false imprisonment against the cop.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  So there's two of them you can sue, but they'll be different suits.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  Oh, man.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  This is turning into a nightmare.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  Well, that's the way it works sometimes.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  I didn't need to thank you so much for your time.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:17.000]  Appreciate the help, and I'm going to get some money if I want to get you a latest package.
[01:58:17.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  Well, all right, Ralph, do me a favor and email me first so we can talk about that
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  because people are sending me money orders.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  Please do not send me money orders with my name already written on them.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  Send them without a name if you're going to send them.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  All right.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  Sorry, Ralph, I got to go.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  All right, folks, this has been Monday Night Rule of Law Radio.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  Thanks for all the callers.
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  Thanks for listening in.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  Please keep me in your financial prayers and donations so I can get this lawsuit done.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Y'all have a great Christmas, a great New Year, and we'll talk to you next Monday.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  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 --> 01:59:26.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:26.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  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 --> 01:59:36.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version,
[01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  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 --> 02:00:07.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com