[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your deli bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.000 --> 00:16.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:16.000 --> 00:36.000]  Markets for the 6th of January 2016 opened up with gold at $1,093.40 an ounce, silver $13.99 an ounce, Texas crude $35.97 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently at $431 U.S. currency.
[00:36.000 --> 00:51.000]  Today in history, Monday, January 6, 1958, Gibson patents its flying V-Guitar, an electric guitar model with a radical futuristic V-body design.
[00:55.000 --> 01:01.000]  In recent news, here at the Lone Star Lowdown we pride ourselves in bringing you the headlines of the day without the hype and media bias.
[01:01.000 --> 01:07.000]  As a result, we are always having to correct the narrative, so to cut to the chase, we are sorry for reporting some falsehoods yesterday.
[01:07.000 --> 01:11.000]  The Bundy situation in Oregon is not a standoff or occupation.
[01:11.000 --> 01:22.000]  According to the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom press conference, they are simply reclaiming the federal wildlife refuge for the state of Oregon and its citizenry, specifically all the ranchers that have had to give up lands to the BLM.
[01:22.000 --> 01:26.000]  Dwight Hammond and his son, Stephen, are facing terrorism charges and resentencing.
[01:26.000 --> 01:33.000]  The point of the land burns which eventually spread from their land to federal lands was for ranching purposes and not agricultural reasons.
[01:33.000 --> 01:36.000]  We are sorry for the incorrect reporting of the other day.
[01:36.000 --> 01:41.000]  Regardless of who drops the ball, the media, or even ourselves, we are always here to correct and clarify.
[01:41.000 --> 01:57.000]  The TransCanada Corporation has filed a lawsuit in a US federal court in Houston, Texas stating that President Barack Obama's ban on the Keystone Pipeline supersedes his legitimate powers within the Constitution.
[01:57.000 --> 02:11.000]  Through a NAFTA claim, TransCanada is seeking to receive compensation for more than $15 billion in the expenditures and damages it has accumulated as a result of the permit ban.
[02:11.000 --> 02:23.000]  Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency today, ordering California state agencies to move as rapidly as possible in fixing a gas leak which has been spewing 110,000 pounds of natural gas per hour since October of last year.
[02:23.000 --> 02:27.000]  His declaration comes after previous attempts to plug the leak of methane have failed.
[02:27.000 --> 02:42.000]  He stated that, quote, seven state agencies are mobilized to protect public health, oversee Southern California's gas companies' actions to stop the leak, track methane emissions, ensure worker safety, safeguard energy reliability, and address any other problems stemming from the leak.
[02:42.000 --> 02:55.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking to fill some advertising slots, so if you have a product or service you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give us a call at 210-363-2257.
[02:55.000 --> 03:12.000]  This has been your Lowdown for January 6, 2016.
[03:25.000 --> 03:45.000]  This has been your Lowdown for January 6, 2016.
[03:45.000 --> 03:55.000]  This has been your Lowdown for January 6, 2016.
[04:15.000 --> 04:25.000]  This has been your Lowdown for January 6, 2016.
[04:25.000 --> 04:35.000]  This has been your Lowdown for January 6, 2016.
[04:35.000 --> 04:53.000]  All right, something I want to go over tonight, I've made a couple of posts of it up on Facebook and talked about it in class yesterday, and I'm going to go over the opening of it with you tonight so that we can see what I've been working on and what we hope to do with it.
[04:53.000 --> 05:09.000]  Now, most of you that's been listening to the show for the last few weeks know that I have developed a constitutional challenge motion to the existence and application of the Texas Transportation Code in its entirety.
[05:09.000 --> 05:33.000]  Not just parts of it, not just this, that, or the other regarding license or registration, the whole code, every letter, word, sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, sub-chapter, title, subtitle, you name it, I'm challenging all of it.
[05:33.000 --> 05:41.000]  Now, the basis of this challenge is, of course, the Texas Constitution itself.
[05:41.000 --> 06:00.000]  According to the legislative record, SB 971 was unconstitutionally enacted in violation of two specific provisions of the Texas Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 32 and Article III, Section 62.
[06:00.000 --> 06:09.000]  The legislature failed to read the bill on the floor of each house over three several days and to hold open discussion on the bill.
[06:09.000 --> 06:23.000]  They also cast a majority vote to suspend the reading of that bill using a fraudulent emergency clause that is found nowhere within the Texas Constitution.
[06:23.000 --> 06:38.000]  The only provision of the Texas Constitution that deals with the suspension of the procedural rules placed upon the legislature for creating law is Article III, Section 62.
[06:38.000 --> 07:03.000]  The only emergency clause authorized to suspend the rule is also clearly stated in Article III, Section 62, and that emergency clause requires nothing less than disasters resulting from enemy attack.
[07:03.000 --> 07:19.000]  The excuse given for the failure to read in the emergency clause used to pass SB 971, however, stated that the emergency came about solely because of the crowded conditions of the legislative calendars of each house,
[07:19.000 --> 07:27.000]  which created an imperative public necessity and state of emergency to get the bill passed.
[07:27.000 --> 07:34.000]  Yeah, what it did was it allowed them to pass it without reading it, as is the requirement.
[07:34.000 --> 07:45.000]  It allowed them to recodify an entire history of enactments into a single code without reading any of the changes that were made.
[07:45.000 --> 07:55.000]  And despite the fact that the bill itself in its very beginning said that there were no substantive changes in the new recodification,
[07:55.000 --> 08:05.000]  but a reading of even the most fundamental portions of the code as it was recodified versus the original from which it was recodified
[08:05.000 --> 08:31.000]  shows that this was an outright blatant lie that could not be construed as anything else than an attempt to perpetrate fraud upon the public and to deprive us of our proper informed representation by our representatives on what they were actually passing.
[08:31.000 --> 08:47.000]  So in more ways than I care to count, SB 971 is unconstitutional, meaning that there are no valid transportation laws in Texas any longer.
[08:47.000 --> 09:05.000]  They cannot fall back on Vernon's because the moment they amended everything and recodified it into the new form in a new code, that effectually repealed the old code.
[09:05.000 --> 09:19.000]  And they cannot revive it simply by reference. They have to repeal it and reenact it, which is also a constitutional requirement.
[09:19.000 --> 09:28.000]  The problem is they have to redo every act that they had under the old code.
[09:28.000 --> 09:38.000]  Everything in the old code was piecemeal. You had an act that dealt with licensing. You had an act that dealt with registration. You had an act that dealt with licensing.
[09:38.000 --> 09:50.000]  I mean everything, every single thing, lighting, safety equipment, everything was a separate individual act put into place at different times through our legislative history.
[09:50.000 --> 10:08.000]  And in 1995, they gathered all those Lego blocks up and used them to construct the fraudulent construct of SB 971 as an entirely new rewritten code.
[10:08.000 --> 10:15.000]  But they did it in a way that is not allowed. And this motion directly challenges that.
[10:15.000 --> 10:23.000]  Now, that being said, I'm going to read you some of the paragraphs, which is this is just the opening sections of this.
[10:23.000 --> 10:30.000]  And I'm going to start with the one where we challenge their ability to deny us the right to challenge.
[10:30.000 --> 10:40.000]  These justice and municipal courts try to forbid you to make constitutional challenges in those courts. They have no authority to do that.
[10:40.000 --> 10:50.000]  They also deny you the ability to make a special appearance for that purpose, which they also have no authority to do.
[10:50.000 --> 11:13.000]  The Code of Criminal Procedure, I believe it's Article 1.02, states that if the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have any procedural rules in place for dealing with something else, then we have to fall back upon the common law or to the rules of civil procedure.
[11:13.000 --> 11:24.000]  All right. So in the case of making a special appearance for challenging the jurisdiction of the court, there is no procedure for that in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[11:24.000 --> 11:35.000]  But you have an absolute fundamental common law right to challenge a court's jurisdiction, both subject matter and impersonal.
[11:35.000 --> 11:43.000]  And there is a specific provision for that in the Texas Code of Civil Procedure.
[11:43.000 --> 11:53.000]  So when the Code of Criminal Procedure doesn't have a rule for a particular thing relating to jurisprudence, then we go to the rules of civil procedure to see if it does.
[11:53.000 --> 12:00.000]  Well, in this case, there is one. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to read the portion of the motion as it pertains to that.
[12:00.000 --> 12:06.000]  The title is Respondent Asserts the Fundamental Right to Challenge the Jurisdiction of this Court.
[12:06.000 --> 12:10.000]  Respondent invokes Section 1.02, Code of Criminal Procedure.
[12:10.000 --> 12:18.000]  The procedure herein described shall govern all criminal proceedings insofar as are applicable.
[12:18.000 --> 12:23.000]  Now that's what 1.02 reads in the pertinent part.
[12:23.000 --> 12:30.000]  For the purpose of filing this special appearance, pursue it, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120A,
[12:30.000 --> 12:36.000]  for the express purpose of challenging this court's subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction,
[12:36.000 --> 12:47.000]  as there is no specific provision or procedure for such jurisdictional challenges within the Code of Criminal Procedure, making those procedures inapplicable for such purpose.
[12:47.000 --> 12:58.000]  Respondent vehemently and belligerently objects to this court of limited jurisdiction asserting a presupposed and irrebuttable presumption of subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction,
[12:58.000 --> 13:03.000]  where no evidence of such jurisdiction appears upon the record of the court.
[13:03.000 --> 13:14.000]  And Respondent further objects to any attempt by this court of limited jurisdiction to deny him or her in the right to challenge the court's own mere presumption of jurisdiction,
[13:14.000 --> 13:23.000]  rather than actual jurisdiction properly established and invoked by the filing of proper pleadings and evidence as presented by the alleged attorney for the state,
[13:23.000 --> 13:28.000]  proving the court's subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction upon the record.
[13:28.000 --> 13:36.000]  Furthermore, the sitting judge in this matter has no authority whatsoever to deny Respondent in the right to challenge the court's presumption of jurisdiction
[13:36.000 --> 13:45.000]  or the constitutionality of any statutory scheme or regulatory code that would deprive the court of subject matter or impersonal jurisdiction,
[13:45.000 --> 13:49.000]  presuming the court ever properly acquired jurisdiction at all.
[13:49.000 --> 13:55.000]  And in the case law, subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal.
[13:55.000 --> 14:04.000]  Texas Association of Businesses versus Texas Air Control Board, 852 SW 2nd 445, Texas, 1993.
[14:04.000 --> 14:12.000]  Which concept lies at the heart of the legal maxim, challenge jurisdiction once, always, and forever?
[14:12.000 --> 14:21.000]  Thus Respondent presumes the court judicially competent enough so as to be well aware of the legal and civil consequences and liabilities affixed to any judge
[14:21.000 --> 14:29.000]  choosing to proceed in the prosecution of any matter whatsoever without proper jurisdiction, much less with no jurisdiction at all.
[14:29.000 --> 14:38.000]  All right, so right there we're setting the grounds by which we're going to make our challenges,
[14:38.000 --> 14:47.000]  and we're refuting the court's attempt to prevent us from making that challenge by saying the Constitution doesn't apply here,
[14:47.000 --> 14:54.000]  you can't do that here, it doesn't matter here, and by saying we have jurisdiction and here's how we got it.
[14:54.000 --> 15:02.000]  Because they don't have it if no one ever filed proper pleadings of evidence showing that they had it, and no one ever does.
[15:02.000 --> 15:09.000]  And when you get to the rest of this motion, if and when you purchase this motion you get to the rest of this motion,
[15:09.000 --> 15:14.000]  you will actually read where I make the argument that that's not plausible.
[15:14.000 --> 15:19.000]  The court cannot assert a jurisdiction without evidence of it.
[15:19.000 --> 15:29.000]  And the court is not the one that must present that evidence, it is the prosecution or the plaintiff in every case.
[15:29.000 --> 15:36.000]  If the court itself is attempting to invoke jurisdiction, the court is not being impartial,
[15:36.000 --> 15:45.000]  it is being biased because the court is attempting to invoke jurisdiction of its own authority.
[15:45.000 --> 15:52.000]  Not because there is an issue put before it that actually gives it authority.
[15:52.000 --> 15:55.000]  See the difference?
[15:55.000 --> 16:05.000]  So what I want to do is read the opening, which is the basic summary of what this motion is all about when we get into the details.
[16:05.000 --> 16:09.000]  I've tried to write this involved enough to make it clear,
[16:09.000 --> 16:17.000]  but high level enough not to bog it down in details before we get to the actual detailed argument going through each phase.
[16:17.000 --> 16:21.000]  There are three distinct phases to this challenge.
[16:21.000 --> 16:26.000]  And what I want to do is I'm going to read you each of these so that you can see what they are.
[16:26.000 --> 16:35.000]  All right, summary of respondent's constitutional argument, which I will get to on the other side of this break.
[16:35.000 --> 16:39.000]  Okay, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, Monday night show.
[16:39.000 --> 16:46.000]  I'm going to be a little while on this, so I'll turn the phones on after I get this concluded.
[16:46.000 --> 16:51.000]  Y'all hang in there and we'll be doing some reading and some discussing when I get back.
[16:51.000 --> 17:00.000]  So y'all hold on.
[17:00.000 --> 17:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.000 --> 17:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.000 --> 17:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.000 --> 17:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:39.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:39.000 --> 17:47.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:47.000 --> 17:51.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.000 --> 17:58.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[17:58.000 --> 18:00.000]  Order now.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too.
[18:14.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[18:21.000 --> 18:26.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[18:26.000 --> 18:34.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:38.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:49.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 19:01.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com
[19:31.000 --> 19:39.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[19:39.000 --> 19:44.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and I am your host, Eddie Craig.
[19:44.000 --> 20:04.000]  Okay, let's get into our specific summaries involving the three main areas of objection to the application and constitutionality of SB 971 as enacted by the 74th legislature in 1995,
[20:04.000 --> 20:14.000]  which we currently know here in Texas as the recodification of the transportation statutes into the transportation code.
[20:14.000 --> 20:17.000]  All right, summary of respondent's constitutional argument.
[20:17.000 --> 20:24.000]  We begin our revelation under the pervasive freedom-obscuring gray cloud of governmental lies, deceit, intrigue, and corruption.
[20:24.000 --> 20:28.000]  Salvation of our individual rights involves discovery of factual truth,
[20:28.000 --> 20:34.000]  which will be achieved through revelation of two existing constitutionally unlawful conditions,
[20:34.000 --> 20:41.000]  conditions by which the rights, liberties, and fundamental freedoms of the people of Texas are being eroded and destroyed by our own servant government.
[20:41.000 --> 20:46.000]  This discovery of truth involves two primary constitutional and legal considerations
[20:46.000 --> 21:00.000]  that the alleged 1995 enactment of Senate Bill 971 by the 74th legislature, known as the Recodified Transportation Act, was perpetrated in direct violation of provisions of the Texas Constitution
[21:00.000 --> 21:03.000]  that are intended to control legislative actions and procedures,
[21:03.000 --> 21:19.000]  and that SB 971 is being unconstitutionally and illegally applied to the lives, property, and activities of the people of Texas when acting entirely within their private individual capacity and fundamental rights.
[21:19.000 --> 21:24.000]  The first consideration lies upon, and provides for evidentiary inspection,
[21:24.000 --> 21:37.000]  copies of specific pertinent pages of SB 971 as certified by the Office of the Texas Secretary of State, and we shall here and after refer to these throughout the document as certified copies slash copies,
[21:37.000 --> 21:42.000]  page 1, page 2160, and page 2161.
[21:42.000 --> 21:53.000]  These certified copies provide prima facie evidence that knowing and willful acts of sedition, treason, and fraud were engaged in and perpetrated by as of yet unknown members of the 74th legislature
[21:53.000 --> 21:58.000]  during the alleged 1995 enactment of SB 971.
[21:58.000 --> 22:06.000]  These were legislative acts that were then and are now direct violations of Article III, Sections 32 and 62 of the Texas Constitution,
[22:06.000 --> 22:28.000]  acts that are so egregiously unconstitutional and fraudulent as to shock the conscience and require that the entirety of SB 971 and all subsequent legislative amendments thereto be declared unconstitutional and void of any force and effect of law ab initio pursuant Article I, Section 29, Texas Constitution.
[22:28.000 --> 22:39.000]  The second consideration also relies upon those same certified copies as evidentiary proof that even if SB 971 was enacted or were enacted unconstitutionally,
[22:39.000 --> 22:44.000]  which Respondent adamantly believes and belligerently asserts that it was not,
[22:44.000 --> 23:02.000]  it absolutely is and always has been knowingly and willfully applied to the general public in a completely unconstitutionally and legislatively unintended manner, even prior to its recodification from the original collection of acts codified in Vernon's civil statutes.
[23:02.000 --> 23:16.000]  And this unlawful and legislatively unintended application was and is still being utilized by state and local government actors to deprive the sovereign people of the Texas Republic of which Respondent is one,
[23:16.000 --> 23:26.000]  not only of our right to fundamental and substantive due process in the courts for the purpose of challenging subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction on related charges,
[23:26.000 --> 23:33.000]  but also the free exercise and enjoyment of our individual rights and use of our private property,
[23:33.000 --> 23:39.000]  while simultaneously subjecting us to actual armed aggravated physical assault and kidnapping,
[23:39.000 --> 23:47.000]  false arrest, restraint and imprisonment, unconstitutional and illegal warrantless searches, seizures and theft of private property,
[23:47.000 --> 24:02.000]  and outright forcible and subversive extortion through unjust judgments levying fines and fees to which neither we nor our private property are constitutionally or legally subject.
[24:02.000 --> 24:13.000]  In addition to the fraudulent application as described above, there is a secondary piece of the puzzle relating to the unconstitutional application of SB 971 to the general public.
[24:13.000 --> 24:24.000]  That piece is the disingenuous claim that the people's private use of the public roads by automobile while traveling in their private capacities for their own personal business and pleasure
[24:24.000 --> 24:37.000]  is now completely subject to the state's police power via the plethora of regulatory and licensing schemes codified in SB 971, which relates only to the subject matter of transportation.
[24:37.000 --> 24:47.000]  Respondent vehemently and belligerently asserts that this arbitrary determination is constitutionally abhorrent and subversive in its advancement and application.
[24:47.000 --> 24:57.000]  A prime evidentiary example of this would be a simple comparison with the right of the people of Texas to purchase, own and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
[24:57.000 --> 25:01.000]  and Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution.
[25:01.000 --> 25:04.000]  The comparison is very straightforward.
[25:04.000 --> 25:16.000]  If the passing of time and advancement of technology from single shot to semi-auto is not a sound and reasonable basis for either revoking or making mandatory licensing and registration
[25:16.000 --> 25:27.000]  a required part of the right to keep and bear arms in private or public, then it can be no less true that the passing of time and advancement of technology from horseback to horsepower
[25:27.000 --> 25:37.000]  is not a sound and reasonable basis for either revoking or making mandatory licensing and registration a required part of the right to travel in one's own private automobile
[25:37.000 --> 25:43.000]  upon the public highways to which the people have rightful access as a fundamental and natural right of liberty.
[25:43.000 --> 25:54.000]  The people are the rightful owners of the highways, and the state is but their caretaker as one responsible for their preservation for our private use and pleasure.
[25:54.000 --> 26:08.000]  And in the footnotes commenting for the assertion that it's a fundamental natural right of liberty, we have four different cases that have been decided on that subject by the United States Supreme Court.
[26:08.000 --> 26:13.000]  The first one reads, which is Chicago Motor Coach versus Chicago,
[26:13.000 --> 26:24.000]  the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.
[26:24.000 --> 26:28.000]  Notice the words and individuals.
[26:28.000 --> 26:37.000]  This is not asserting that mass transportation is a way of getting around the deprivation of that right by the state.
[26:37.000 --> 26:48.000]  Every individual has a right to use their property for its intended purpose or the use or the ownership of that property and its proper use is destroyed.
[26:48.000 --> 26:52.000]  The Supreme Court has ruled on that numerous times on all kinds of property.
[26:52.000 --> 27:00.000]  If we have the right to buy it, we have the right to use it, and if we're prevented from using it, then it is a taking by the state.
[27:00.000 --> 27:09.000]  And if the state takes it without just compensation, we have a constitutional problem.
[27:09.000 --> 27:16.000]  And when they prevent you from using it for the rightful use for which you purchased it, that's exactly what they're doing.
[27:16.000 --> 27:23.000]  We've got Thompson v. Smith, the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,
[27:23.000 --> 27:30.000]  either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit it will,
[27:30.000 --> 27:37.000]  but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
[27:37.000 --> 27:47.000]  Kent v. Dulles, the right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
[27:47.000 --> 27:54.000]  Shackman v. Dulles, the right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government.
[27:54.000 --> 28:02.000]  It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.
[28:02.000 --> 28:08.000]  That's the whole reason for my argument about the advancement of technology from single-shot,
[28:08.000 --> 28:13.000]  black-powder, muzzle-loading musket to semi-automatic weapons of today.
[28:13.000 --> 28:18.000]  That's not a valid reason to say the Second Amendment doesn't apply anymore.
[28:18.000 --> 28:28.000]  Therefore, it is not a valid argument to say that because we've gone from horseback to something propelled by replacement horsepower,
[28:28.000 --> 28:39.000]  is to say that the right to use the roads that were built for our business and our pleasure is no longer available to us.
[28:39.000 --> 28:50.000]  I would argue that guns carried on your person in public are every bit as ubiquitous as automobiles are on the streets.
[28:50.000 --> 28:59.000]  And you have to be ten times more careful with them even than you do with the car in most cases.
[28:59.000 --> 29:14.000]  So this police power argument that converts the right to use our roads for their intended purpose and our property for its intended purpose is as bogus as a political promise.
[29:14.000 --> 29:31.000]  It always has been and it always will be. And only a true statist could sit there and argue that the courts and the legislature have the power to take away those rights through legislation.
[29:31.000 --> 29:37.000]  They don't.
[29:37.000 --> 29:42.000]  All right, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio. We have another break coming up here.
[29:42.000 --> 29:50.000]  So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go ahead and start taking callers. 512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[29:50.000 --> 29:58.000]  But let's try to stick to discussion on this issue or something related because this is going to become important to us when I get this complete.
[29:58.000 --> 30:03.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:03.000 --> 30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:18.000 --> 30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.000 --> 30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.000 --> 30:35.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[30:35.000 --> 30:42.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[30:42.000 --> 30:46.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.000 --> 30:52.000]  When was the last time you replaced the hose on your washing machine? I bet you never have. And that's not smart.
[30:52.000 --> 30:57.000]  First, washing machine hoses are the number one cause of catastrophic water damage.
[30:57.000 --> 31:02.000]  See, every time a washing machine cycle ends, it sends a shockwave through the pipes.
[31:02.000 --> 31:06.000]  After years of this water hammer, the rubber gives out and the hose can burst.
[31:06.000 --> 31:11.000]  And when those hoses go, they really gush. It's like a garden hose in your laundry room.
[31:11.000 --> 31:14.000]  Not what you want to come home to after a long day at work.
[31:14.000 --> 31:20.000]  So a good rule of thumb is to replace them every five years or use stainless steel flexible piping.
[31:20.000 --> 31:23.000]  Otherwise, your house could be hosed.
[31:23.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:53.000 --> 32:03.000]  And that saves you space, time and money. Call 888-910-4367 only at NQSA.org.
[32:03.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:06.000 --> 32:08.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[32:08.000 --> 32:13.000]  And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:18.000 --> 32:23.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[32:23.000 --> 32:26.000]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:29.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:29.000 --> 32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:46.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:46.000 --> 32:51.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:00.000 --> 33:05.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:31.000 --> 33:37.000]  The Texas is a race for Dr. Bush.
[33:37.000 --> 33:42.000]  The Texas is a race for the teen.
[33:42.000 --> 33:45.000]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me.
[33:45.000 --> 33:47.000]  Prosecute them wicked leaders, you see.
[33:47.000 --> 33:50.000]  They are murderers, liars, they tell me.
[33:50.000 --> 33:52.000]  They are liars, they tell sweet stories.
[33:52.000 --> 33:54.000]  They don't believe me, say what they tell me.
[33:54.000 --> 33:57.000]  3% of Americans vote for Bush.
[33:57.000 --> 34:00.000]  So how the hell you get the presidency?
[34:00.000 --> 34:03.000]  That's why me have a warrant for you.
[34:03.000 --> 34:05.000]  Everybody listen carefully.
[34:05.000 --> 34:07.000]  Listen to the words of the three shoes.
[34:07.000 --> 34:11.000]  The Texas is a race for Dr. Bush.
[34:11.000 --> 34:13.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[34:13.000 --> 34:15.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[34:15.000 --> 34:19.000]  There is one other sentence I forgot to read, but that's because I hadn't finished entering it yet.
[34:19.000 --> 34:22.000]  I was working on that before I stopped and got ready for the show.
[34:22.000 --> 34:26.000]  But just to give you an idea of what it is, at the end of that last part,
[34:26.000 --> 34:30.000]  we're also going to have, therefore, it cannot be rightfully asserted that respondent exercises
[34:30.000 --> 34:34.000]  only a state-granted privilege when using his or her private automobile upon the highways
[34:34.000 --> 34:38.000]  for his or her own personal business or pleasure.
[34:38.000 --> 34:43.000]  As a fundamental right to locomotion is not a state-granted privilege.
[34:43.000 --> 34:52.000]  It is one possessed by respondent prior to the formation of government as an inherent right.
[34:52.000 --> 34:56.000]  All right, so that's where we're going to go with that.
[34:56.000 --> 34:58.000]  Now, we're going to start taking your calls.
[34:58.000 --> 35:02.000]  First up on the board this evening is Andrew in Pennsylvania.
[35:02.000 --> 35:04.000]  All right, Andrew, what do you got?
[35:04.000 --> 35:08.000]  Okay, picking up from last week, before I gave you that wrong information, you asked me,
[35:08.000 --> 35:12.000]  what does the federal Constitution say about any case involving a state?
[35:12.000 --> 35:17.000]  If I may just correct you, we're referring to Article 3, Section 2, which says,
[35:17.000 --> 35:22.000]  in all cases affecting those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court
[35:22.000 --> 35:25.000]  shall have a regional jurisdiction. Am I right? Is that what you want?
[35:25.000 --> 35:28.000]  That is exactly right.
[35:28.000 --> 35:34.000]  So the question there becomes, if the state is a party and there is no designation
[35:34.000 --> 35:41.000]  in that specific provision of the federal Constitution identifying the type of case
[35:41.000 --> 35:48.000]  required to fulfill its requirements, which would be designating it as civil or criminal,
[35:48.000 --> 35:54.000]  then we must presume from its language that it covers both, right?
[35:54.000 --> 35:56.000]  Okay, yes.
[35:56.000 --> 36:00.000]  Therefore, we have a diversity jurisdiction issue.
[36:00.000 --> 36:08.000]  You have the state in one state moving against an individual who is in another state.
[36:08.000 --> 36:15.000]  Diversity jurisdiction would necessarily apply.
[36:15.000 --> 36:19.000]  Yes, I spoke to Randy about that and he told me it wouldn't and then he got into it
[36:19.000 --> 36:22.000]  unless you did something involving $75,000.
[36:22.000 --> 36:25.000]  I have to re-listen to that to see exactly what he said.
[36:25.000 --> 36:27.000]  I don't know where that comes from.
[36:27.000 --> 36:31.000]  No such qualification appears in the language you read in the federal Constitution, does it?
[36:31.000 --> 36:36.000]  It says in any case in which the state is a party.
[36:36.000 --> 36:38.000]  Okay. Right?
[36:38.000 --> 36:44.000]  It does not delineate any difference between civil or criminal, right?
[36:44.000 --> 36:46.000]  Right. Okay.
[36:46.000 --> 36:55.000]  So when Randy's talking about a money amount, what does that tell you he's speaking to?
[36:55.000 --> 36:57.000]  Something other than the Constitution.
[36:57.000 --> 37:01.000]  No, it means he's talking about a civil case.
[37:01.000 --> 37:05.000]  We're not talking about a civil case, are we?
[37:05.000 --> 37:06.000]  No.
[37:06.000 --> 37:10.000]  This gets back to the whole thing about how in the document it refers to the state as the plaintiff
[37:10.000 --> 37:14.000]  and that's obviously not right because one of the charges is a criminal charge.
[37:14.000 --> 37:18.000]  So something's not – this is where it kind of got threw off at that point.
[37:18.000 --> 37:24.000]  So how do I know what the case is when the documents are being really stupid as to –
[37:24.000 --> 37:28.000]  are contradicting themselves and cannot possibly be valid?
[37:28.000 --> 37:30.000]  What do you – okay, now you've lost me.
[37:30.000 --> 37:34.000]  What do you mean cannot possibly be valid?
[37:34.000 --> 37:40.000]  Okay. I remember you saying if in a criminal case there is no plaintiff because that's the civil.
[37:40.000 --> 37:42.000]  On my document, the charging instrument and the solvent –
[37:42.000 --> 37:43.000]  No.
[37:43.000 --> 37:45.000]  – are both in the state of Arizona as the plaintiff.
[37:45.000 --> 37:46.000]  Yeah.
[37:46.000 --> 37:47.000]  Okay.
[37:47.000 --> 37:48.000]  Okay.
[37:48.000 --> 37:49.000]  Okay.
[37:49.000 --> 37:56.000]  No. Okay.
[37:56.000 --> 38:05.000]  When they identify them, okay, on the documents, it always says plaintiff. Okay?
[38:05.000 --> 38:17.000]  But in reality, when they refer to them as prosecution, then it cannot be civil, not the other way around.
[38:17.000 --> 38:19.000]  Right.
[38:19.000 --> 38:21.000]  You get that?
[38:21.000 --> 38:22.000]  Yes.
[38:22.000 --> 38:27.000]  The civil does not have a prosecutor. It only has plaintiffs.
[38:27.000 --> 38:36.000]  Criminal has a prosecutor, but they are addressed as plaintiff in the documentation.
[38:36.000 --> 38:40.000]  Okay. Thank you.
[38:40.000 --> 38:45.000]  It's confusing, but that's the way it is.
[38:45.000 --> 38:48.000]  Okay. So again, what's your question?
[38:48.000 --> 38:53.000]  You do not yet – if it tells you that they're charging you with a misdemeanor or you've looked it up,
[38:53.000 --> 38:57.000]  are they charging you with a crime or are they charging you with a civil infraction?
[38:57.000 --> 39:01.000]  You said it's over 85, right?
[39:01.000 --> 39:03.000]  Yeah. So that's criminal.
[39:03.000 --> 39:04.000]  Okay.
[39:04.000 --> 39:06.000]  And the other – okay, let's go.
[39:06.000 --> 39:15.000]  Then you need to file a motion for removal, diversity jurisdiction,
[39:15.000 --> 39:22.000]  unless the state of Arizona is going to pay the state of Pennsylvania to extradite you,
[39:22.000 --> 39:32.000]  in which case Arizona would have to foot the bill for that.
[39:32.000 --> 39:37.000]  Okay. And the diversity jurisdiction, I did look it up in the U.S. codes.
[39:37.000 --> 39:43.000]  That's where I would need to look to figure out how to go – figure out how to navigate through this, the U.S. codes.
[39:43.000 --> 39:52.000]  Well, you need to get an example removal to federal court with the cause of removal being diversity jurisdiction,
[39:52.000 --> 39:59.000]  preferably one that relates to a criminal action under diversity jurisdiction.
[39:59.000 --> 40:03.000]  Okay. All right.
[40:03.000 --> 40:10.000]  And the problem – the one more problem, is this going to be – is time going to be a factor because this is –
[40:10.000 --> 40:15.000]  Well, again, that depends on how each – how Arizona pursues this.
[40:15.000 --> 40:17.000]  I have no way of answering that.
[40:17.000 --> 40:23.000]  They may never do anything more than threaten you and do nothing else, in which case time's on your side.
[40:23.000 --> 40:30.000]  Or they may bite the bullet and go, hell, marry, pass and do everything possible to get your butt drug back there
[40:30.000 --> 40:34.000]  and then try to shovel all the money onto you to pay back.
[40:34.000 --> 40:39.000]  I can't answer that. My crystal ball's in the shop.
[40:39.000 --> 40:41.000]  All right. I know that makes sense.
[40:41.000 --> 40:47.000]  Okay. I think you've taken care of everything for me. Thank you.
[40:47.000 --> 40:49.000]  You're welcome.
[40:49.000 --> 40:50.000]  All right.
[40:50.000 --> 40:51.000]  All right.
[40:51.000 --> 40:52.000]  Later.
[40:52.000 --> 40:54.000]  All right. Now we're going to go to Wayne in Oregon.
[40:54.000 --> 40:58.000]  Wayne, what can we do for you?
[40:58.000 --> 41:10.000]  Okay. Well, so I got stopped. The officer put his lights on, which should be an emergency,
[41:10.000 --> 41:14.000]  but there was no emergency on stopping me.
[41:14.000 --> 41:21.000]  He claimed that the reason was because we had a – we were obscuring the license plate.
[41:21.000 --> 41:26.000]  Well, the thing that was on there was the dealer license plate holder.
[41:26.000 --> 41:32.000]  Whenever they sell a vehicle, they always stick their dealer license plate holder on there.
[41:32.000 --> 41:39.000]  And I looked it up in the Oregon laws, and that's one of the things that's specifically allowed.
[41:39.000 --> 41:43.000]  Yeah, but what is it not allowed to block?
[41:43.000 --> 41:47.000]  Yeah, it doesn't. Anyway, so –
[41:47.000 --> 41:53.000]  Somewhere in there it will tell you the individual parts of a plate that cannot be blocked.
[41:53.000 --> 41:56.000]  It may not be under what is allowed around the plate,
[41:56.000 --> 42:01.000]  but it will tell you what parts of the plate cannot be blocked from view.
[42:01.000 --> 42:04.000]  Now, this is assuming, of course, that you're required –
[42:04.000 --> 42:12.000]  What I wanted to get to is that he says, well, he's not going to put that down on the ticket.
[42:12.000 --> 42:14.000]  Not put what down on the ticket?
[42:14.000 --> 42:18.000]  The point was that I was driving without privilege. So what I'm wondering –
[42:18.000 --> 42:22.000]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait!
[42:22.000 --> 42:23.000]  Okay, okay.
[42:23.000 --> 42:32.000]  Back up. State again what he is not going to write down on the ticket.
[42:32.000 --> 42:37.000]  The part about the license plate holder that the dealer put on there.
[42:37.000 --> 42:49.000]  He's not going to put on the citation that he stopped you because of the license plate holder.
[42:49.000 --> 42:50.000]  Yeah.
[42:50.000 --> 43:01.000]  Okay. So what does he allege was being blocked on the plate that prevented him from reading it?
[43:01.000 --> 43:03.000]  Well, that's the thing. I believe it was –
[43:03.000 --> 43:09.000]  I'm not asking you what you believe. I'm asking you what he wrote down.
[43:09.000 --> 43:12.000]  He didn't write anything down. That's what I'm saying.
[43:12.000 --> 43:16.000]  What he wrote down was I was driving without privilege.
[43:16.000 --> 43:21.000]  How does that in any way relate to a license plate?
[43:21.000 --> 43:23.000]  Well, it doesn't.
[43:23.000 --> 43:27.000]  So what is he inferring by that statement?
[43:27.000 --> 43:34.000]  What did you not have that he asked you for to make that charge?
[43:34.000 --> 43:38.000]  That's what he used as his reason to stop me.
[43:38.000 --> 43:42.000]  No. Hold on, Wayne. We'll be right back.
[43:42.000 --> 43:48.000]  All right, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio, the call-in number 512-646-1984.
[43:48.000 --> 43:52.000]  I need somebody to talk to after Wayne because he's the only one I got left,
[43:52.000 --> 43:54.000]  and you can see already where this is going to go.
[43:54.000 --> 44:00.000]  So y'all hurry up and get in line. We'll be right back.
[44:00.000 --> 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 Jurisdictionary,
[44:07.000 --> 44:12.000]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how
[44:12.000 --> 44:15.000]  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]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[44:39.000 --> 44:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.000 --> 44:52.000]  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 --> 45:12.000]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D.
[45:12.000 --> 45:15.000]  Here in Austin, Texas, I'm Brave New Books and Chase Banks
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  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 --> 45:27.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian emu oil,
[45:27.000 --> 45:31.000]  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 --> 45:48.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[45:48.000 --> 46:15.000]  Naturespureorganics.com.
[46:15.000 --> 46:27.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:27.000 --> 46:33.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio calling number 512-646-1984.
[46:33.000 --> 46:36.000]  We are talking to Wayne in Oregon.
[46:36.000 --> 46:39.000]  Now, Wayne, let me ask you a question before we get started on this again.
[46:39.000 --> 46:45.000]  Do you ever see the movie Cool Hand Luke with Paul Newman?
[46:45.000 --> 46:48.000]  No, I've heard of the title, but I've never seen it.
[46:48.000 --> 46:52.000]  Okay, well, Paul Newman is a guy who keeps getting himself in the trouble,
[46:52.000 --> 46:59.000]  and he keeps getting thrown into prison, and the last prison he winds up in,
[46:59.000 --> 47:06.000]  he tends to cause enough trouble to get himself, let's just say, beat up and then disposed of.
[47:06.000 --> 47:13.000]  Okay, but in the process of getting to that final conclusion and rest,
[47:13.000 --> 47:16.000]  there's one scene in there where he gets the crap beat out of him
[47:16.000 --> 47:21.000]  after he's caught from having tried to escape,
[47:21.000 --> 47:27.000]  and the warden stands up on the hill overlooking the chain gangs down there
[47:27.000 --> 47:30.000]  digging the ditch or clearing the grass or whatever it is they were doing that day,
[47:30.000 --> 47:37.000]  and he says, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
[47:37.000 --> 47:40.000]  So I want to address that to you.
[47:40.000 --> 47:45.000]  You began this conversation by saying you were pulled over and told by the officer
[47:45.000 --> 47:51.000]  that you were being stopped because your license plate was obscured.
[47:51.000 --> 47:55.000]  Now you're saying that he didn't put that on the ticket,
[47:55.000 --> 48:00.000]  he told you he wasn't going to put you on that ticket, and instead he wrote,
[48:00.000 --> 48:07.000]  driving without privilege, which you now say is the reason he pulled you over.
[48:07.000 --> 48:11.000]  So before we go forward, which one is it?
[48:11.000 --> 48:13.000]  That's what he cited me for.
[48:13.000 --> 48:15.000]  I didn't ask you that.
[48:15.000 --> 48:19.000]  What did he tell you he stopped you for?
[48:19.000 --> 48:27.000]  That's what he said was that the plate holder, I wasn't allowed to have a plate holder.
[48:27.000 --> 48:29.000]  I said that was put on there by the dealer.
[48:29.000 --> 48:32.000]  He said, well, you can't have that.
[48:32.000 --> 48:35.000]  But the code says you can.
[48:35.000 --> 48:37.000]  Yes, I'm looking right at the code right now.
[48:37.000 --> 48:49.000]  It says in Oregon it's 803.550 Section 2B.
[48:49.000 --> 48:56.000]  It says any material they're covering other than a frame or plate holder.
[48:56.000 --> 49:01.000]  So it's right there in the code that you're allowed to have this.
[49:01.000 --> 49:02.000]  Okay.
[49:02.000 --> 49:07.000]  So the officer, like most...
[49:07.000 --> 49:11.000]  You're what?
[49:11.000 --> 49:14.000]  My question is, what can I do to...
[49:14.000 --> 49:19.000]  Because they have this thing is called the poison tree.
[49:19.000 --> 49:23.000]  If he pulled me over, claiming there is an emergency,
[49:23.000 --> 49:28.000]  and then tells me that something I'm doing is not right,
[49:28.000 --> 49:32.000]  but obviously it is and doesn't put it on the ticket.
[49:32.000 --> 49:34.000]  So it's not on the ticket.
[49:34.000 --> 49:42.000]  How can I prove that he had no right to pull me over if he didn't put it on the citation?
[49:42.000 --> 49:43.000]  Well, again...
[49:43.000 --> 49:45.000]  Can I bring it in anyway?
[49:45.000 --> 49:50.000]  What does driving without privilege mean?
[49:50.000 --> 49:59.000]  There's only three ways that you're going to get the answer you want out of him on the stand.
[49:59.000 --> 50:05.000]  One is if you get on the stand and recorded everything
[50:05.000 --> 50:09.000]  and testify that you have a recording and introduced that recording as evidence
[50:09.000 --> 50:14.000]  and play it for the jury and say, see, he lied when he testified.
[50:14.000 --> 50:20.000]  The second way is to do discovery, get the audio and video from his police cruiser,
[50:20.000 --> 50:28.000]  assuming backwards Oregon cops have those things, which I'm fairly certain they do,
[50:28.000 --> 50:34.000]  and then use that audio and video against him in court,
[50:34.000 --> 50:39.000]  or he just sits up there and tells the truth.
[50:39.000 --> 50:44.000]  Which one I'm never holding my breath for.
[50:44.000 --> 50:46.000]  The last.
[50:46.000 --> 50:47.000]  Okay.
[50:47.000 --> 50:53.000]  So at this point, you either have to have a recording of your own of the incident
[50:53.000 --> 50:56.000]  that you can testify to and introduce in court,
[50:56.000 --> 51:02.000]  or you have to get his from his police cruiser, assuming that they have it.
[51:02.000 --> 51:03.000]  Okay.
[51:03.000 --> 51:07.000]  So you file a motion for discovery to get that.
[51:07.000 --> 51:08.000]  Okay.
[51:08.000 --> 51:13.000]  You can also file, you need to look and see if that particular charge exists
[51:13.000 --> 51:16.000]  anywhere in any code in Oregon,
[51:16.000 --> 51:21.000]  because that charge may not have anything at all to do with that license plate.
[51:21.000 --> 51:23.000]  You're making a presumption.
[51:23.000 --> 51:27.000]  Don't do that.
[51:27.000 --> 51:29.000]  Okay.
[51:29.000 --> 51:35.000]  For all you know, he's accusing you of not having a license, right?
[51:35.000 --> 51:43.000]  No, no, we went and the two of us looked at the license plate and the plate holder.
[51:43.000 --> 51:48.000]  Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne.
[51:48.000 --> 51:51.000]  Listen to me.
[51:51.000 --> 51:54.000]  This is not my first rodeo.
[51:54.000 --> 51:57.000]  Listen to what I'm telling you.
[51:57.000 --> 51:58.000]  Okay.
[51:58.000 --> 52:01.000]  I don't care what he told you on the side of the road.
[52:01.000 --> 52:07.000]  He did not write anything on that citation that clearly says he's charging you
[52:07.000 --> 52:09.000]  with anything related to your plate.
[52:09.000 --> 52:12.000]  Did he?
[52:12.000 --> 52:13.000]  Right.
[52:13.000 --> 52:22.000]  You don't know what driving without privilege means, do you?
[52:22.000 --> 52:26.000]  Well, that didn't come up until after he had already stopped me.
[52:26.000 --> 52:30.000]  Okay, again, not the answer to my question.
[52:30.000 --> 52:38.000]  You don't know what it means, do you?
[52:38.000 --> 52:41.000]  I guess I'm not communicating.
[52:41.000 --> 52:43.000]  You're communicating just fine.
[52:43.000 --> 52:46.000]  Your listening sucks, but you're communicating fine.
[52:46.000 --> 52:47.000]  There you go.
[52:47.000 --> 52:48.000]  Okay.
[52:48.000 --> 52:49.000]  Yeah.
[52:49.000 --> 52:54.000]  Do you or do you not have the location in the code where that charge tells you
[52:54.000 --> 53:00.000]  exactly what it means?
[53:00.000 --> 53:07.000]  Have you found that charge written down in any code in Oregon and read it?
[53:07.000 --> 53:16.000]  Well, if you go anywhere other than yes or no, you are not answering my question.
[53:16.000 --> 53:18.000]  Okay, yes.
[53:18.000 --> 53:25.000]  Okay, you have looked it up in the code and you know exactly what it means.
[53:25.000 --> 53:26.000]  Yes?
[53:26.000 --> 53:31.000]  I've looked up the part about the license plate.
[53:31.000 --> 53:37.000]  Now you know why Paul Newman's character winds up shoved in a hole.
[53:37.000 --> 53:40.000]  Oh, no.
[53:40.000 --> 53:45.000]  Listen carefully one more time.
[53:45.000 --> 53:54.000]  Have you specifically found in writing in any Oregon statute the specific phrase
[53:54.000 --> 54:03.000]  driving without privilege and read what the statute says it means and applies to?
[54:03.000 --> 54:06.000]  Oh, well, yeah, I'm looking at that.
[54:06.000 --> 54:08.000]  Oh, shit.
[54:08.000 --> 54:10.000]  Not what I asked you, Wayne.
[54:10.000 --> 54:13.000]  Driving.
[54:13.000 --> 54:17.000]  What are you looking at now?
[54:17.000 --> 54:20.000]  The 807.010.
[54:20.000 --> 54:21.000]  Which says what?
[54:21.000 --> 54:24.000]  Vehicle without driving.
[54:24.000 --> 54:25.000]  It says what?
[54:25.000 --> 54:26.000]  What's its title?
[54:26.000 --> 54:28.000]  What's it saying?
[54:28.000 --> 54:37.000]  Operating vehicle without driving privileges or in violation of license restrictions.
[54:37.000 --> 54:46.000]  Okay, so right there the statute itself draws a distinct difference between driving privilege
[54:46.000 --> 54:49.000]  or license plate.
[54:49.000 --> 54:55.000]  So he didn't charge you with anything relating to license plate.
[54:55.000 --> 54:56.000]  Right.
[54:56.000 --> 55:03.000]  So what else is written there that would cover the first part of that and not the second?
[55:03.000 --> 55:08.000]  They're not related at all.
[55:08.000 --> 55:11.000]  He had an excuse to stop me.
[55:11.000 --> 55:14.000]  It's not related to the charge.
[55:14.000 --> 55:21.000]  Okay, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, come back from vacation and listen to what I asked you.
[55:21.000 --> 55:26.000]  You have not read to me the entire statute, have you?
[55:26.000 --> 55:28.000]  Well, I didn't think you wanted to hear the whole thing.
[55:28.000 --> 55:35.000]  No, what I want you to read to me is the part that sets itself apart from the licensing
[55:35.000 --> 55:38.000]  or the license plate.
[55:38.000 --> 55:44.000]  Since it says this or this, there has to be language in that statute that deals with the
[55:44.000 --> 55:48.000]  first this and not the second.
[55:48.000 --> 56:01.000]  Where is that and what does it say?
[56:01.000 --> 56:07.000]  I guess I'm just not – I'll have to try to listen to your question offline later when
[56:07.000 --> 56:13.000]  you put up the recording and I tried to figure out what you were saying because I'm just
[56:13.000 --> 56:16.000]  not catching it, I guess.
[56:16.000 --> 56:18.000]  There are two different sections.
[56:18.000 --> 56:21.000]  One of them is 807, the other one is 803.
[56:21.000 --> 56:23.000]  They're not related.
[56:23.000 --> 56:28.000]  He stopped me for one thing, he gave me a citation for something completely different.
[56:28.000 --> 56:31.000]  They're not related at all.
[56:31.000 --> 56:38.000]  Well, that may or may not be true as far as the fundamental difference here, but the statute
[56:38.000 --> 56:43.000]  that you just read to me, assuming of course, which is a bad idea in most cases and most
[56:43.000 --> 56:50.000]  probably this one, that you read it to me exactly as it was written, they are related
[56:50.000 --> 56:57.000]  at least as far as being under the same statute when you commit a violation.
[56:57.000 --> 57:05.000]  That's why it says operating a motor vehicle without driving privilege or the license plate,
[57:05.000 --> 57:07.000]  whatever.
[57:07.000 --> 57:12.000]  Those are in the same statute as you just read them, right?
[57:12.000 --> 57:18.000]  I'm going to be challenging the whole idea about operating a vehicle anyway because I
[57:18.000 --> 57:24.000]  believe I was traveling along the lines of what you were reading at the start of this
[57:24.000 --> 57:25.000]  here.
[57:25.000 --> 57:29.000]  No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
[57:29.000 --> 57:37.000]  You go into court with that argument and you're going to get swatted clean out of the park.
[57:37.000 --> 57:38.000]  Okay?
[57:38.000 --> 57:45.000]  This is not an issue of right to travel with what they're alleging against you.
[57:45.000 --> 57:51.000]  Would you agree that even a truck driver has the right to travel as long as he's not currently
[57:51.000 --> 57:56.000]  acting like a truck driver?
[57:56.000 --> 57:57.000]  Okay.
[57:57.000 --> 58:03.000]  So when they come up to a truck driver and say, I'm charging you for acting in commerce,
[58:03.000 --> 58:10.000]  what does the right to travel have to do with rebutting that allegation?
[58:10.000 --> 58:14.000]  Well, he would have to say he's not acting in commerce.
[58:14.000 --> 58:15.000]  Correct.
[58:15.000 --> 58:19.000]  He doesn't say I'm traveling as a right.
[58:19.000 --> 58:24.000]  He has to say I'm not engaged in commerce.
[58:24.000 --> 58:28.000]  They're two different arguments with two different outcomes.
[58:28.000 --> 58:29.000]  Okay?
[58:29.000 --> 58:30.000]  Okay.
[58:30.000 --> 58:34.000]  All right, do you want to drop this till the next round or do you want to pick this up
[58:34.000 --> 58:38.000]  after the break?
[58:38.000 --> 58:40.000]  If you don't have another caller.
[58:40.000 --> 58:41.000]  I got several other callers.
[58:41.000 --> 58:44.000]  I need an answer, though, or I'm going to have to hang up on you and move on.
[58:44.000 --> 58:45.000]  Okay.
[58:45.000 --> 58:46.000]  All right.
[58:46.000 --> 58:49.000]  All right, folks, we'll be right back on the other side of the break.
[58:49.000 --> 58:50.000]  Hang on.
[58:50.000 --> 58:55.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:55.000 --> 58:58.000]  because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.000 --> 59:02.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:02.000 --> 59:07.000]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:07.000 --> 59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.000 --> 59:13.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.000 --> 59:22.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:22.000 --> 59:25.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word
[59:25.000 --> 59:28.000]  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 --> 59:39.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free
[59:39.000 --> 59:48.000]  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 --> 59:57.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  Markets for the 4th of January, 2016, opened up with gold, $1,075.61 an ounce,
[01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  silver, $13.89 an ounce, Texas crude, $37.04 a barrel,
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:38.000]  and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 433 U.S. currency.
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:47.000]  Today in history, Sunday, January 4th, 1903,
[01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  Topsy, a female Asian elephant, was electrocuted to death at Coney Island, New York amusement park.
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:57.000]  The killer? Thomas Edison and his D.C. Current during the War of Currents campaign.
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  In recent news, Eamon and Ryan Bundy are the apparent leaders of the militia protesters
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:10.000]  who have taken over and occupied a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon.
[01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  The patriotic protesters call themselves citizens for constitutional freedom.
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  Their father is the Nevada rancher who was all over the media in 2014
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:23.000]  when he and his supporters had the iconic armed standoff with the Federal Bureau of Land Management.
[01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  Eamon Bundy stated today that violence, if it comes our way,
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:29.000]  will be because government is wanting their building back.
[01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  We're putting nobody in harm's way. We're not threatening anybody.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:36.000]  We're 30 miles out of the closest town. What's all the fuss about?
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  Dwight Hamond and his son Stephen are facing jail for apparently setting arson fires that spread to government lands.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  These controlled burns were fully supported by the local ranchers for the purpose of preparing the soil
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  for the upcoming planting and harvesting season.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  Of course, 69-year-old Clive and Bundy weighed in on the matter,
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  stating that the United States Justice Department has no jurisdiction or authority within the state of Oregon.
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:03.000]  These lands are not under the U.S. treaties of commerce and they are not Article IV territories.
[01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:06.000]  Congress does not have unlimited power.
[01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  President Barack Obama stated today concerning executive orders touching upon increased gun controls that,
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  quote, these are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch,
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:27.000]  but they are also ones that an overwhelmingly majority of American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.
[01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  One of the initiatives currently being considered, an executive order defining who's engaging in the business of selling guns,
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:39.000]  which would immediately require some private dealers to obtain a license and begin conducting background checks.
[01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:42.000]  Critics are concerned with the precedent this might be setting.
[01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  The executive simply has no authority to pass new laws.
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  If a majority of Americans support these measures, they would surely be passed in Congress
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:55.000]  or the people's representatives or delegated power to legislate in the interests of their constituents.
[01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:02.000]  This was your Lowdown for January 4th, 2016.
[01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:29.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:36.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  All right, I am one of these days going to invest in Excedrin or something because, well, you get the idea.
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  All right, back to Wayne.
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:51.000]  All right, Wayne, let's try this one last time.
[01:03:51.000 --> 01:04:02.000]  Okay, if you're going to go in there with the right to travel, take your wallet, okay, and make sure you have money.
[01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:12.000]  If you do not understand how they get away with using their emergency lights in these situations,
[01:04:12.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  take your wallet, make sure you have money.
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  If you go in there doing anything other than challenging the validity of the stop and detention by the officer,
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  take your wallet and make sure you have money.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  All right, so what you need to do is get your hands on the statute and read it thoroughly to understand exactly
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  what the elements of driving without privilege means, okay?
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  Because let's say, for instance, did the officer tell you that he ran you for a license or anything like that or did you produce one?
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  No, I had only an Oregon ID that was expired.
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:15.000]  Okay, and did he run your ID?
[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  I don't know.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:23.000]  Did he go back to his car or did he get on the radio and say run this for me?
[01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  He may have, I don't know.
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:29.000]  He had it and went to his car.
[01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:32.000]  Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
[01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:37.000]  Okay, so what do you think he was doing while he was in the car?
[01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  And unless he was making funny motions and leaning back with a big grin on his face, don't go there.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  All right.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  Okay, he was running your information.
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:06:02.000]  So now my next question is, and again, you can simply answer yes or no, do you have a valid Oregon or any other state's license?
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:06.000]  Well, I now have a valid permit.
[01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:08.000]  I need to take the driving.
[01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:10.000]  What do you mean now have?
[01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:13.000]  At the time of the stop, did you have one?
[01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  No.
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:15.000]  No.
[01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  No.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  There is the basis for the charge.
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  Right.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  So now read the statute and see what all the necessary elements are.
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  Okay, but I can tell you what the officer and the prosecutor are going to attempt to assert in relation to the original cause for the stop and the license plate holder.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  They're going to do exactly what the Supreme Court has authorized cops to do and claim a mistake of law.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:55.000]  Oh, well, it was an honest mistake.
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:06:59.000]  The officer could have read this and he could have thought he wasn't supposed to have it.
[01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  So the stop and detention was okay.
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:09.000]  It's complete BS, but it's what they've done.
[01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:10.000]  Yeah.
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  Okay.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  So be prepared for them to make that assertion, and you better have the information ready to challenge that assertion.
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  Because this is not-
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  You're saying I shouldn't try to say that I wasn't operating a vehicle or that I wasn't driving-
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  Okay, let me put it this way.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  Wayne, do whatever you want.
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  Okay.
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  The last thing in the world I want to do is throw someone a life preserver just so they feel like a cork for the shark.
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  So go ahead, grab the weight instead.
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  At least the shark won't get you.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  Yeah.
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  So anything else?
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:17.000]  Well, so what you are saying that I should be doing is should I be disputing that I was operating in commerce?
[01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  What do you think?
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:24.000]  Why would I have brought it up if that was not the right thing to do?
[01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  Okay.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  The question here is, is what do you know about Oregon statutes that would allow you to prove that that's what it is?
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  Okay.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  I'm going to read it thoroughly.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:43.000]  Well, don't read just the statute.
[01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:52.000]  Go back and read the bill that enacted the statute, that enacted the whole code or chapter or title or whatever it is in Oregon.
[01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  Because that legislative bill will tell you a whole lot more than the statutes will.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  Okay.
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:05.000]  Thank you.
[01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:06.000]  You're welcome.
[01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  Good luck.
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:09.000]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  Have a good night.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  God bless you.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  You too, man.
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  All right.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:15.000]  Now we're going to go to Donna in Texas.
[01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  Donna, I already know why you're calling.
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  Okay, why?
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  I'm hoping to have this finished tomorrow.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  I just got my response back from the Secretary of State.
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:38.000]  They did not give me everything I asked for, but they gave me enough to at least make the argument I need to make and go back after them for not complying with the information request.
[01:09:38.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  But I haven't had time to address both of those yet as I've been trying to get this motion done so I can get it out to you guys.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  All right, so let's assume you get that motion in the next day or two.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:53.000]  Assuming.
[01:09:53.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  I know how you love the word assume.
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  And then I have to read it, but do I utilize that technique now or wait until I go to court on the 26th?
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  Well, I don't know what you mean by utilize that technique now.
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  What does that mean?
[01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  The motion.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  As soon as you have finished reading the motion and editing the motion, because you see when it comes to you, it's not customized specifically to you.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  It's written in a way that you have to put in your specific details.
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  All the places where you need to do that and make changes are already highlighted, so they're easy to find, but you still got to put them in there.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:36.000]  Okay.
[01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  My point again, my question is, do I do it prior to?
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  You do it as soon as you can accomplish the edits and the reading.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:48.000]  Okay.
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  So it's as soon as I get it and then I read it and then I edit it, then I go to the court and I submit it.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  Or you can read and edit it at the same time.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  They kind of go hand in hand, see?
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:08.000]  My point is as soon as I can, I go take the report and give it to the court clerk and then I go.
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  Okay.
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  Listen carefully.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:16.000]  When you get the motion and you have made the editing and reading things that you need to do to complete it.
[01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:17.000]  Okay.
[01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  You will then print out one original copy, which you will take to a notary and you will sign in front of a notary.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:28.000]  Okay.
[01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  You will then make no less than three more copies, preferably four more copies.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  Okay.
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  Including the page where you signed, the whole thing, front to back.
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  Got it?
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  Make sure that they are only on one side.
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:48.000]  Don't duplex these.
[01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  Print them out single-sided, eight and a half by 11 paper.
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Okay?
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  Got it.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  You will file the original motion and one copy with the clerk of the court, unless the court you're going to is all electronic,
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  in which case you will file the original with them.
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  They will scan it and then they will probably shred and throw away the original.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:15.000]  If they're going to do that, tell them to give it back to you.
[01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  Don't let them shred the original.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  Let them scan it and say if you're just going to scan it in and use an electronic copy, give me back this when you're done.
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:27.000]  Otherwise, here's an original and a copy.
[01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  That's one for you and one for the prosecutor, unless you have information from me as to where to send it to the prosecutor.
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  And if they do, you get the prosecutor's name and mailing address and then you can either hand deliver it to them or you can mail it to them.
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:53.000]  But no matter where you go, you get all the remaining copies that you are keeping stamped as received.
[01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:59.000]  So if you make four additional copies, you should have three left in your possession, right?
[01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  Correct.
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  You're going to get all three stamped by the clerk and by the prosecution's office when you deliver it, if you hand deliver it.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  If you send it to the prosecutor by mail, you send it certified mail return receipt requested,
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:23.000]  and you will fix those with paperclips, not staples, the green card and the payment receipt, all to the motion.
[01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  With paperclips, not staples. Got it?
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:27.000]  Got it.
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  Okay. That is now your proof that everyone has been served with a copy of that motion.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  After that, we're going to have to wait to see what they do, because from that point forward,
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  they could do several things, one of which is disappear never to bring the issue up with you again,
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:55.000]  or call you in for a motions hearing to see if you actually know what's in that motion and can argue it,
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  in which case, that's why you should be coming to class so you know how to do that.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  But if you can't, then you better know that motion by heart so that you can argue any part of it by what's written in it, right?
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:10.000]  Okay.
[01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  Now, I highly recommend that you always read it in relation to whatever part they're asking you about.
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  Don't try to memorize it, but be more than passingly familiar so that at least you understand what you're arguing and why.
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:29.000]  Okay.
[01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:30.000]  All right?
[01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:36.000]  And that goes for all of you out there using any of the motions in the seminar material or any you write yourself.
[01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  If you can't take them to court and argue them, it's pointless, because that's how they're going to trick you.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  And what would be the argument that they have that I need to be more proficient in?
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  Well, we don't know.
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  There's a myriad of things they can ask you.
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:59.000]  Me trying to tell you everything they could possibly ask you to trip you up is impossible.
[01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:00.000]  Okay?
[01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  Just you have to be prepared to listen to exactly what they're asking you.
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:10.000]  And whenever they ask you something, answer what they ask you.
[01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  Don't go off on a tangent like a conversation I was having a little bit ago.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:18.000]  Okay?
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:20.000]  Stick to what they asked you.
[01:15:20.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  Know what they asked you and where to find it in the motion that you submitted,
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  because they're going to be playing word games and tricks with what's in that motion, guaranteed.
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:40.000]  So you have to know where to go in the motion to handle what they're asking you.
[01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  If you stick to what's written down there, they're going to have a very difficult time tripping you up
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  if you are familiar enough with it to respond.
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  Okay?
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  Okay.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  All right.
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  Any other questions?
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  Yeah, come do it for me.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:01.000]  I wish that was possible.
[01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  I wish it were that simple.
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  We're going to actually put that to the test here sometime in the near future.
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  I'm hoping somebody will pay me in silver to come do that.
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  But right now is not the time because I don't have the time.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  Okay.
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  Well, I do have one question.
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  Okay.
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  You are in court and you want to submit something.
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  What is the right protocol in order to get it?
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  Do you show the...
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  Well, what are you...
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:30.000]  What are you...
[01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:34.000]  It depends on what you're trying to submit and what you're submitting it as.
[01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  Evidence versus exhibits, they're two different sets of setup and requirements.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  Hang on just a minute and I'll address that on the other side.
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Okay?
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  Okay.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  All right, folks.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  Call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  Get in line.
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:57.000]  Get your questions answered after you ask them, provided they're any good.
[01:16:57.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:29.000]  Thanks also to MyMagicMud.com.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[01:17:39.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  Stop smelling like a butt at AllAboutVapor.com.
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the Rule of Law traffic seminar,
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:53.000]  get 10 entries into the contest.
[01:17:53.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  Check out the contest rules and details at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  Terrorists, tasters, or hipsters may not actually be those who will win.
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved,
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:07.000]  except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:07.000 --> 01:18:10.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves,
[01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:12.000]  and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:18.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:23.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products,
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  most of which we reject.
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much,
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com,
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  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 Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health,
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  Order now.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:15.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  Thank you.
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:54.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we're still talking with Donna in Texas.
[01:19:54.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  All right, Donna, go ahead.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:19:58.000]  All right, I want three things.
[01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:00.000]  How do you enter an exhibit?
[01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  How do you enter an evidence?
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  And how long do they have for PIR?
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  Well, it depends on what point in the PIR you are and what you're asking for.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  But under 552 of the Government Code,
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  a public information request must be responded to within 10 days of its submission.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  And if they need to go longer than 10 days,
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  they're required to notify you of that in advance in writing,
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  that it will take longer than 10 days.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  If they are seeking to exclude something from the request,
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  they must notify you within 10 days that they are seeking an opinion from the
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  State's Attorney General's Office to exclude the information you've requested
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  and provide you with a copy of what they sent to them asking for that exclusion,
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  in which case you then have the opportunity to also address the Attorney General
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  challenging their request for exclusion, okay?
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  Now, as far as getting information in as evidence or as exhibits,
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  you can use an exhibit at any time simply by taking the stand and testifying yourself.
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:16.000]  Or you can use it as, you know, something to show a witness that is on the stand
[01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  as long as you set up a proper introduction,
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  which means you have to ask the proper foundational questions,
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  such as let's say, for instance, you want to use the citation as an exhibit.
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  You get the officer talking about what he did that day
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  in relation to issuing the ticket bashing questions.
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  Officer, is it true that you issued the accused and the citation on such-and-such day?
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  Yes, it is.
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  Do you recall what the citation number was?
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:51.000]  And if he has it written down in his book or he has the citation book with him,
[01:21:51.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  he may flip to it and read it, at which point you can say,
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  Officer, can you please identify this?
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  Is this a copy of the citation that was taken from the book that you're reading from?
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  Yes, it is.
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  Okay, Judge, I would like to enter this as a defense exhibit, whatever.
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  And then you let him mark it as such, okay?
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  You do the exact same thing with your evidence in the same way,
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  but normally, depending upon what the evidence is, how you get it in is going to change.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  In this particular case, we are using certified public documents.
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:32.000]  They're certified by the custodian of record, which in this case is the secretary of state.
[01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  As long as they bear a state seal, they are self-authenticating, is how the courts have ruled on it.
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  As a self-authenticating document, you can simply introduce them in saying,
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:52.000]  I asked the court to admit it to evidence, certified document, blah, blah, blah, certified by the secretary of state's office,
[01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  which is page 1 of SB 971, for this purpose.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  And they mark it down as an evidentiary exhibit, and you use it for evidence, and you put it in there for that purpose.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:12.000]  But if it's something you made, for instance, like a recording or a photograph or a video or anything like that,
[01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:21.000]  the only way to get that in is to have someone take the stand and testify as to what that is.
[01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  It can be you, or it can be someone that did it for you, or that was with you when you did it.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:34.000]  But it cannot be someone that has never seen it before, has no clue what it is, and can't tell what's in it,
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  who made it, and when and where it was done, because they have no personal knowledge.
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:42.000]  You follow? Yes, sir.
[01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Okay. So that's really all it is.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  Getting it in works the same way as far as how you bring it up to the court,
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  but how you make it actually admissible depends upon what it is.
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:24:05.000]  So if I can try to do this, I sit and I say, officer, why this particular event happened?
[01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  If he talks about it, then do I have to...
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  Okay, wait, wait, wait. What are you wanting to get in?
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  I'm not sure yet. I haven't decided.
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  Well, yes, you have. If you're going to use this motion, what you're going to get in is already decided.
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  Everything you're going to put in is what's in and attached to this motion, and you're not going to put in anything else.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  Okay.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the entire code.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:44.000]  You cannot argue anything whatsoever that's in that code. Are we clear?
[01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  The officer cannot testify to anything whatsoever in what you're introducing
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  because he has no competent firsthand knowledge,
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  and he cannot make legal determinations or conclusions as to constitutionality or admissibility, right?
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  Okay. So this is going to be between you, the prosecutor, and the judge, and no one else.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  You're going to submit this document, and you're going to say, I hereby challenge...
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  Or these documents, rather, there's going to be several.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  Not only are you going to have the motion and three other motions to go with it,
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:31.000]  which is the waiver of counsel, declination to plea, and objection to round-robin processing in the court,
[01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  but you're also going to attach your form for constitutional challenge to a statute or ordinance,
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:47.000]  and you're going to have the evidentiary copies of these documents or these copies of the pages of the bill as attached.
[01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  Okay.
[01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:50.000]  So there's going to be several things you're filing, okay?
[01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:55.000]  And if you have the seminar material, everything is in the seminar material
[01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  except for the stuff dealing with this one specific motion, okay?
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  Okay. And again, with all these different pieces, I have to have four copies of each.
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  Correct.
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  All signed by notary?
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  Correct.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:14.000]  Okay. Got it.
[01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  But that's why you always do one original, get this notary signature, and then you make copies.
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  Do not make multiple originals of the same document.
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  Do you understand what I mean by that?
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  If you have Motion A, you get it notarized, you make four more copies of Motion A.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  That way you've only got one original and four copies.
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  Then you have Motion B. You make one original, get it notarized, then you copy.
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  Repeat all the way through the rest of your motions.
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  Don't print out four copies and get each one notarized of Motion A.
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  Got it. Okay, got it.
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:04.000]  All right.
[01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:05.000]  Okay.
[01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  I look forward to getting that motion.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  I look forward to finishing it.
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  Hurry up.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:15.000]  Hey, I'm going as fast as interruptions will let me, believe me.
[01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  All right.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  Have a good night.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  You too.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  All right.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  Now we have Oliver in Tennessee.
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  Oliver, what can we do for you?
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  How you doing, Eddie?
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  Doing all right.
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:34.000]  I called about a week or two ago, and I had a situation about the city code wanting to
[01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  have a meeting with me.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:41.000]  You told me that they were going to take me into the room and basically beat me up with
[01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  all their legal stuff.
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  Did they?
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:47.000]  I basically... Oh, yeah, they tried.
[01:27:47.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  They tried, but when you told me that, I had my defenses already up and knew how I was going
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  to take care of the situation.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:28:01.000]  I went in there with a recorder, put a recorder on the table, let them do their spill, argue
[01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  my point.
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  We got to the point where city attorneys got so mad, like a child, like a baby, screaming
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:10.000]  and rambling.
[01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  We got so upset that they started pulling out pictures of my tiny house in the backyard,
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:24.000]  and my cars in my backyard, and just all over my property.
[01:28:24.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  I had a witness with me, a friend of mine, and I looked at the pictures.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  I'm like, we're looking at each other like smiling, like, are you serious?
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  I've got pictures of my backyard all over the place.
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:41.000]  Then the city attorney was like, oh, no, that wasn't in your backyard.
[01:28:41.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  Your neighbor gave them permission to go in their yard and take pictures of your backyard.
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  Me and my friend are looking at each other like, wow, my neighbor gave you pictures,
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:56.000]  my neighbor gave you permission to come in their backyard and take pictures.
[01:28:56.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  We're like, hmm, that's funny.
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  I live with my neighbor right now, so when I get home, I'm going to verify this.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  He got hot mad.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  He was saying that, oh, it could have been two houses down, and what he doesn't know
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:16.000]  is that everyone in my neighborhood knows me and likes me.
[01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:21.000]  They already know the situation at hand, so no one's going to give them any type of permission
[01:29:21.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  or anything.
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  So now that I have them on tape and they don't know what to do, I'm trying to figure out how to sue.
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  I called some attorneys, and it doesn't seem like I'm going to get any assistance.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Yeah, they're not going to assist you in suing a municipality.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  For them, that's going to be a lost cause that will deprive them of future business.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  So if you go after the municipality, you're going to have to base it on a constitutional challenge
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  that would remove their ability to claim any immunity to defense,
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:54.000]  because that's exactly where they're going to head first as an immunity defense.
[01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:56.000]  Hang on, Oliver, we'll pick this up on the other side.
[01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  All right, folks, 512-646-1984.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  Why do Americans order extra large portions of food when smaller servings would suffice?
[01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  In a moment, I'll share an interesting new study that may shed some light on the psychology of overeating.
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:20.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:25.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:30.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:30.000 --> 01:30:33.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  Food is one of life's great pleasures, but too much can lead to a host of problems like heart disease and diabetes.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:55.000]  So why do Americans keep opting for enormous food portions?
[01:30:55.000 --> 01:30:59.000]  Northwestern University researchers think it has to do with class consciousness.
[01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  Like cars and TVs, Americans equate larger food portions with higher social status.
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:09.000]  People told researchers that drinking a large coffee meant someone was probably wealthier
[01:31:09.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  than someone else drinking a small size, even when the price was the same.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  So it follows that people who are feeling poor may try to compensate with bigger portions.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  Sure enough, in experiments, lower-income folks were more likely to go for gut-buster sizes.
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  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 --> 01:31:49.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  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 --> 01:31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:08.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:45.000]  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 --> 01:33:03.000]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  Thank you.
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:34:01.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:05.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are talking with Oliver in Tennessee.
[01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  All right, Oliver, let's continue.
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  Okay, well, so that was one situation.
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  I guess I'm just trying to figure out what's the first step, trying to get guided in direction,
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  because I understand pretty much how the system goes, trying to get guided in the direction
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  and how to learn myself of this process of civilly suing the government for whatever I can for that incident.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  And I had another question where I, on the driving issue, I was arrested.
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  I fell asleep at a stoplight.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  Cops came, knocked on my window, woke up.
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  Now, wait a minute.
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  When you say at a stoplight, we're not talking like pulled up in the parking lot on the corner.
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  No, sir.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  Okay.
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:05.000]  I'm talking about at a stoplight, it was late at night.
[01:35:05.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  It was one of those lights that's pretty long.
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  It was a long day.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  I was headed traveling home, two blocks from my house.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:19.000]  It was this long light, and we fell asleep at a light.
[01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  My friend was asleep ever since the restaurant, so I fell asleep at a light.
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  So the snoring just sort of lulled you on in with him, huh?
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:30.000]  Sir?
[01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:34.000]  His snoring just lulled you right on in there with him, huh?
[01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:38.000]  Yeah.
[01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  This was not a Cheech and Chong moment in this car, was it, with the windows up and all?
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Oh, no, no.
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:45.000]  Okay.
[01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  All right.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  Just checking.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:48.000]  I wish it was.
[01:35:48.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  Then I could explain it.
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  He knocked on the window.
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  I woke up.
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  I saw the cop.
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:58.000]  I was like, well, this is not going to be good because I already know the cops in this area,
[01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  and I've been using your method to not apply them exactly, but I'm learning how to apply
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  exactly how you try.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  So when I woke up, I saw the cop.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  I already knew it was bad business.
[01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  And then I had cases.
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:15.000]  I had cases in court at the time, which I was waiting to go to trial on, and I understand
[01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:16.000]  they would not understand me.
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  So I'm sitting here trying to wake up my friend, trying to like, because I'm thinking bad thoughts
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  towards the cop.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:27.000]  I'm not going to say what I want to do over the radio because it's not accessible.
[01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:28.000]  So I was trying to wake him up.
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:29.000]  I couldn't get him up.
[01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  So I rolled out my window.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  The cop was telling me that, oh, I got to get out the car.
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  I fell asleep and everything.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  I looked at him.
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  I looked at the light.
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  I looked at the cop.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  I was like, listen, what I was thinking about was doing when I came out the car.
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  I was going to end up getting shot, and it was not going to go any way that I wanted to.
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  So I was like, you know what?
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  Something told me to go home.
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:52.000]  So I looked at the car.
[01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:56.000]  I said, when the light turn green, I'm going home.
[01:36:56.000 --> 01:36:59.000]  The cop was like, well, you can't go anywhere, and this and that.
[01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  I was like, look at him again.
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  I rolled up my window.
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  I put the car back in.
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:07.000]  I put the car back into drive.
[01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  When the light turned green, he was like, well, I told you you can't go.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  I took off on the cop.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  I went home, parked, got out of the car, and went to one of my neighbor's houses.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:23.000]  I already knew that if I hadn't counted in the state that I was, it was not going to be a good situation.
[01:37:23.000 --> 01:37:27.000]  You know, I didn't have time to accurately think through the situation.
[01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  So I went home.
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  The cop came around, came on my property, searched the car, found IDs in the car, searched all of my property, trying to find them, couldn't find them.
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:48.000]  So they went and put a warrant for my arrest for fleeing, felony fleeing, and eluding, and driving on suspended license.
[01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  I went to court.
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:52.000]  I went to court, got an attorney.
[01:37:52.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  I went and spoke to the attorney.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:03.000]  And she had a deal with me before where she did not like my position where I stood on the driving issue.
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  But I made it clear to her that, you know, hey, you're a woman.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  You're a female.
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  I'm not going to get into an argument with you.
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  This is what I want done.
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  And if you don't want to do it, that's your business.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  But this is how I feel about it.
[01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  This is my position.
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:21.000]  She was already familiar with me.
[01:38:21.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  And she got my case and looked at everything.
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  And we went to court, and they dismissed everything because I already knew the procedure that I was going to take.
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:33.000]  And I had other issues with the police.
[01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  That's why I took off from the police.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  But it came down to where they was not supposed to chase me or, you know, saying, I guess it was called a health and safety check.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  So they didn't have any permission to do anything that they did in the first place.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  So now all these charges are being dismissed.
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:06.000]  The felony has to be bounded over to the grand jury so they can be dismissed because it couldn't be dismissed in lower court.
[01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  So once all these charges get dismissed, is there – can I file suit for that?
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:19.000]  And is that also going to be something that I'm going to have to learn to do myself?
[01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  Well, if you're not going to have an attorney, yeah.
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  But if you have one, you just need to know enough to make sure that she's doing her job.
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  On the civil suit?
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  Well, again, you can do that yourself or with an attorney.
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  Whichever way you go, you have to know enough to get by.
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:46.000]  You have to know less if they're doing it, but you have to know enough to make sure they're doing it right.
[01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  You follow?
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  Okay.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  So will it – I have not tried to inquire on an attorney on the criminal part yet.
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  But on the criminal part, with everything being dismissed, I should be able to find an attorney to pick up that case from?
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  Potentially, yeah.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  I can't say whether you will or not because I don't know what the particular attorney may use as the basis for rejecting you.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:18.000]  They could see the fact that, oh, yeah, he's been in trouble a lot. He got them all dismissed.
[01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  I don't know who, if it was always with an attorney or by himself and they were all dismissed, but he gets in trouble a lot.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Hello?
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  Yes, I'm listening.
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  Well, I just had an ad play in my ear and I don't know what it was.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  Oh.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  But anyhow, yeah, that's – I mean, I really couldn't tell you what any particular attorney may use to accept or reject you.
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  That's going to be entirely up to them and what they do or do not look up about you first.
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  You can – like I said, jurisdiction can teach you what you need to know to handle a case yourself.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  The only thing it does not deal with in any way is how to handle a 12b6 dismissal request by the other side.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:09.000]  It never gets into that, especially when it's a government case, and that comes automatically into play.
[01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:11.000]  They're going to try to pull that card.
[01:41:11.000 --> 01:41:18.000]  So if you do a lawsuit and you study with jurisdictionary to get the lawsuit up there and to handle it, that's great.
[01:41:18.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  But do study outside of jurisdictionary on what to do when someone files a 12b6 dismissal motion.
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  12b6 dismissal motion.
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  Yeah, it's called Rule 12b6.
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  Okay.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  Okay.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  And that is a simple saying, hey, they either stated a motion for relief upon – or request a relief that can't be granted
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:52.000]  because it didn't state a proper cause of action and so on and so forth, or it's this, that, or the other,
[01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  but you don't have jurisdiction and you just need to dismiss it.
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  So you've got to be prepared to answer anything they may assert in that regard to get that case dropped.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  Okay.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  All right.
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:10.000]  So the 12b6 is the only ace in the hole that they have, and as long as –
[01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  Well, it's not the only ace in the hole, but it is going to be their go-to do immediately first thing.
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:20.000]  They're going to claim all kinds of immunity.
[01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:28.000]  They're going to claim all kinds of exceptions, and they're going to claim all kinds of reasons why you didn't state a proper claim.
[01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  You need to be able to prepare a response for each of them and address them as they come up in their motion.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  But I guarantee you that's two things they're going to raise, some form of immunity and failure to state a claim.
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  Almost guaranteed those two are going to be a given.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  You have to state a claim.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  All right.
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  You're very welcome.
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  All right.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:05.000]  You have a good night.
[01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  All right.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  Now we're going to go to Keith in West Virginia.
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  Keith, what do you got?
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  Oh, hold on, Keith.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  I only got less than a minute left to get you on air here, and that would barely get us talking.
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  So let me get this break run out, and then I'll pick you up on the other side.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:20.000]  So hang in there.
[01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:25.000]  We're coming up in our last segment here, so we've got time to get to you.
[01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  But, folks, if you are in Texas or if you want to use it as a model for how to do things in your particular state,
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  when I get this new constitutional challenge motion done, it's up for $100.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  It's not part of the seminar.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  It is separate, and the reason it's separate is I'm trying to use it to raise the funds for this lawsuit
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  and to get this stuff done.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  So please help me out with it.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  If you want it, you have a ticket, you need it, or you want to be prepared to fight one later, get it.
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  What?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover,
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  and because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:50.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:44:58.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment in enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:58.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.000 --> 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 --> 01:46:01.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:47.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio with your host, Eddie Craig,
[01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  and we are going to pick up with Keith in West Virginia.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  All right, Keith, go ahead.
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  I appreciate you taking my call, Eddie.
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  I've got a couple of things I wanted to ask you.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:47:04.000]  As far as the use, I'm dealing with a traffic case, but the use of a public defender,
[01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  basically your thoughts on it, what to, if it's possible or feasible to basically force them to do what I want?
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  Well, here's how the force part is going to play out.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:23.000]  They have a duty to do things.
[01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  You're third in line as to what those duties are, okay?
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  That's problem number one.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  Second part of the problem is you only have so much to hold over them,
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:43.000]  and mostly that consists of either A, bar grievance, or B, malpractice suit.
[01:47:43.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  Other than that, you really don't have any reins by which to steer this horse.
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  So the problem with setting the stage to begin with is letting them know that you know these things
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  and you will use these things to your benefit and their detriment if they screw you,
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  because then the first thing they're going to attempt to do is either not take your case or bail on you immediately.
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  And if at any point after they've accepted you as a client,
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  they reach the conclusion that they cannot get you to let them railroad you, undermine you, or lead you astray,
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:33.000]  they will still ask to bail on you, and the court will almost always agree that it's okay
[01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  and let them bail on you.
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  So it really depends on how much effort you want to put into this to either make them do it or learn to do it yourself.
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  You're running risks either way because your level of control is limited.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:59.000]  So did that answer your question or?
[01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  Because my preference is don't ever trust an attorney even if the only thing you're using them for is shark bait.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  This is completely understood, sir, completely understood.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  Another thing you spoke of as far as any kind of past statute or any current statute within my state,
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:22.000]  get it from the Secretary of State's office. It will have a seal on it.
[01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:26.000]  You don't want the statute. You do not want the statute.
[01:49:26.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  You want the legislative bill that created or was used to create the statute.
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:39.000]  A certified copy of the statute is meaningless.
[01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  The statute is not the law.
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  The bill enacted by the legislature signed by the governor, that is the law.
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  And it supersedes anything written into the statute.
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  So if you get certified copies, make sure it is of the bill that created the law you're dealing with or the statute you're dealing with.
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  Would that, as far as my understanding is, as far as proven that I'm not engaged in any kind of commercial activity?
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  Well, that would depend entirely upon how you argue it and what information you have to support it.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  Like what I've got right here, the three pages I've got out of this bill that my motion is railing against proves three things.
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  One, that the subject matter that the bill was intended to regulate always has been and always will be limited strictly to transportation.
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:49.000]  That's written right into the caption of the bill stating what its purpose is.
[01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  So they can't argue that it applies to everyone because it specifically limits itself to transportation.
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  Okay?
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  Next is the Constitution requires that all bills have a caption that notifies the public and the legislators as to what the subject matter of that bill actually truly is.
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  This caption does that.
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  This caption also tells us that the recodification was not authorized in any way to contain any substantive changes adverse to the actual preexisting statutes.
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  In other words, they cannot change what the old statutes applied to when they write this recodification, renumber it, reorganize it, and call it a transportation code in the new one.
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:49.000]  So those two things are in the caption.
[01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  Both, one of them is the truth and the other one is a lie.
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:15.000]  The other thing that the last two pages show us is that the legislature put in a specific emergency clause by which they used the waiver of reading on the floor of each house to avoid that constitutional responsibility.
[01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  They used a fraudulent emergency clause to bypass a procedural rule that can only be suspended under a specific emergency type.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  But they didn't use the specific emergency type because it didn't exist.
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:47.000]  So we have the emergency clause they did use that violates the Constitution, and we have the signature page showing that they passed it using that emergency clause and waiving the reading on the floor of each house over three several days
[01:52:47.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  and open discussion held thereon in violation of a constitutional provision that says no bill will have the force and effect of law unless this is done.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  So in three pages of this bill, I got the evidence I need to prove it's unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution.
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:11.000]  So you have to know what you need.
[01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:22.000]  You have to know where to get it and what it is, and then you have to get it, and then you have to write the arguments that show how it supports your argument.
[01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:24.000]  You follow?
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  For the most part.
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  Okay. Well, if you go back and listen to this a couple of times, it'll become clear.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:31.000]  All right?
[01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:32.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  So what you get, if you're going to use it as evidence, the evidentiary proof of your arguments, what you get has to be bulletproof.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  Now, they will come up with 10 ways from Sunday to try to argue that it's not bulletproof.
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:54:03.000]  But the problem is all they can do is argue. Unless they can produce actual documentary evidence that does better than mine and shoots mine completely down, their arguments mean nothing.
[01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  Because I'm the only one with physical documented evidence.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  Understood.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  Another thing on that kind of subject, case law, getting it verified, how would I go about that?
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  You don't verify case law either.
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  But the best way to make sure is that you get the case law from a legitimate source that the court would recognize as such.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  For instance, Lexis puts its header on any printout of a case that it gets, as does Pacer.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  And some of the actual law school websites contain information that would consider them a valid source.
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  But the only way you can actually verify the case law is if the entire opinion is published in one of their books and you have the book.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  Otherwise, all you have is some printed copy of the case law from somewhere because no one's certifying it.
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  Right. And as far as introducing any kind of paperwork of case law, would I do that through a motion for judicial notice?
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  You don't introduce paperwork of the case law unless the court specifically asks for it.
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  The way I do it and the way that I've seen most attorneys do it is you make all of your case sites in your motion.
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  Then you have the option of either waiting until someone wants to read it and ask for a copy,
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  or you can have a copy of it already printed out and attached to and ready to submit with whatever if they ask for it.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  But unless they ask for it, there's no requirement to do it.
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  Understood, understood.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:56:03.000]  Any tips or how would I find it? Unfortunately, not in Texas, in West Virginia, but as far as to find the equivalent of the,
[01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:12.000]  with your motion challenging the constitutionality of SB 971 as far as finding the equivalent in my state.
[01:56:12.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  Well, find yourself a state law library with a helpful librarian.
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:25.000]  Generally, the books that they have contain reference numbers in each statute.
[01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  Those reference numbers go backwards.
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:37.000]  They show, the number tells them where to go look to see when a particular change was made to a statute.
[01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  And that when will also contain which legislative session, what year, what bill number.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  Okay. And with that information, that tells you what bill you either need to go online and look up,
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:56.000]  which most states have their bills online and electronically available.
[01:56:56.000 --> 01:57:00.000]  So you can at least read them to see if you can find what you need to find.
[01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:05.000]  And then once you find it, you can then go to the Secretary of State and say,
[01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  hey, on this bill number enacted by this legislature in this year, there is a portion of the bill that is either on this page
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:20.000]  or this section number or however it's done in your particular state.
[01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  And I need a certified copy of that section where it reads and then give them a short blurb of what's actually written there that you want to copy up.
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  Okay. And then when you get that certified copy, you've now got certified documents of what the law itself is or what it pertains to and so on and so forth.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  I'd like to say I'm in way over my head and I appreciate the help out of having you talk to me.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  I appreciate everything you do.
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  Well, I appreciate you saying so and I'm glad if I could help.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  I do my best. As aggravating as it gets sometimes, I do my best.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  All right, Keith, thanks for calling in.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  Thanks to all the other callers we had a chance to talk with tonight.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  Those that we didn't, I'm sorry that I didn't have time to get to each and every one of you and apply personal attention.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  But that is the way it works out when you only got two hours to talk to so many people.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  Folks, please go make a donation to get your copy of the motion.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  If you're in Texas, do it by going to the Rule of Law Radio website, not the Logos website.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  There is no donation page where you can get to me from the Logos site, only from the Rule of Law Radio site.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  Make a donation using the gold button under where it says Donation to Eddie and put a note in there, Constitutional Challenge Motion.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  It's a hundred bucks. Make the donation.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  Make sure you provide your email and I'll get it to you as soon as I'm done.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Good night. God bless.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:54.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:02.000]  Logosradionetwork.com