[00:00.000 --> 00:07.840]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown. Providing the jelly
[00:07.840 --> 00:15.440]  bulletins for the commodities market. Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop
[00:15.440 --> 00:26.080]  into the tides of the alternative. Markets for Wednesday the 27th of January 2016 opened
[00:26.080 --> 00:34.440]  up with gold at $1,120 an ounce, silver at $14.48 an ounce, Texas crude at $31.45 a barrel
[00:34.440 --> 00:45.440]  and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 395 U.S. currency. Today in history, 30 January
[00:45.440 --> 00:52.240]  27th, 1825, the U.S. Congress approves Indian territory in what is present day Oklahoma
[00:52.240 --> 01:01.400]  has cleared the way for the forced relocation of Eastern Indians known as the Trail of Tears.
[01:01.400 --> 01:05.240]  In recent news, the Vatican announced over the weekend that Pope Francis will be visiting
[01:05.240 --> 01:10.520]  Sweden later this year to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's writing and posting of
[01:10.520 --> 01:16.240]  the 95 theses on the front doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31st,
[01:16.240 --> 01:21.440]  1517. Amongst other points, Luther primarily wrote argumentations against the Roman Catholic
[01:21.440 --> 01:26.600]  theology of indulgences, essentially the selling of forgiveness from temporal punishment from
[01:26.600 --> 01:32.120]  sins for money, a practice still upheld by the church. On October 31st of this year,
[01:32.120 --> 01:36.480]  Francis is set to be at the southern Swedish city of Lund where the Lutheran World Federation
[01:36.480 --> 01:41.520]  was founded in 1947. While his predecessors have visited Protestant churches, Francis
[01:41.520 --> 01:45.600]  has come under criticism from traditionalists and conservatives within the church who accuse
[01:45.600 --> 01:50.280]  him of sending conflicting signals about interfaith relations. Catholic traditionalists
[01:50.280 --> 01:54.680]  have accused Francis of making too many concessions to Lutherans since both religions will be
[01:54.680 --> 02:00.040]  using Luther's common prayer during the 2017 Reformation commemoration services being held
[02:00.040 --> 02:04.680]  jointly between the two churches, which they say excessively praise Luther, who was historically
[02:04.680 --> 02:09.720]  condemned as a heretic and excommunicated. Pope Francis has made ecumenism one of the
[02:09.720 --> 02:14.680]  main themes of his papacy considering he has already visited the Lutheran Church of Rome,
[02:14.680 --> 02:19.480]  the Waldenian Protestant community in northern Italy, Rome's Jewish synagogue, and is soon
[02:19.480 --> 02:29.080]  due to become the first pope to visit Rome's mosque later this year.
[02:29.080 --> 02:33.280]  Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute
[02:33.280 --> 02:37.780]  of Technology, died Sunday at the age of 88. Minsky viewed the brain as a machine whose
[02:37.780 --> 02:41.840]  function can be studied and replicated in the computer, and he considered how machines
[02:41.840 --> 02:47.040]  might be endowed with common sense or artificial intelligence. Daniela Russ, director of MIT's
[02:47.040 --> 02:51.280]  Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, said that Minsky helped create
[02:51.280 --> 03:18.160]  the vision of artificial intelligence as we know it today.
[03:18.160 --> 03:43.760]  When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rules.
[03:43.760 --> 04:03.820]  You'd put the
[04:03.820 --> 04:06.820]  And you check it on your father It took it on your brother
[04:06.820 --> 04:10.820]  And you check it on your sister It took it on Selfie hard
[04:11.820 --> 04:12.820]  Bad Boys Bad Boys what you gonna do?
[04:13.820 --> 04:15.820]  What you gonna do When they come for you?
[04:16.820 --> 04:18.820]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, what you gonna do?
[04:18.820 --> 04:20.820]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:20.820 --> 04:24.820]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, what you gonna do?
[04:24.820 --> 04:26.820]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:26.820 --> 04:29.820]  Bad Boys Bad Boys, what you gonna do?
[04:29.820 --> 04:31.820]  What you gonna do When they come for you?
[04:31.820 --> 04:38.380]  Okay, howdy, howdy.
[04:38.380 --> 04:43.240]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rue of Law Radio.
[04:43.240 --> 04:54.180]  And on this Thursday, the 28th day of January, 2016, and we have Jeff on the line.
[04:54.180 --> 04:57.060]  He's going to be up in a minute, Jeff from Mississippi.
[04:57.060 --> 05:06.780]  But tonight I was going to go over something that I found rather very interesting.
[05:06.780 --> 05:17.600]  I've been designing a set of presentations that I will be putting together into a one
[05:17.600 --> 05:22.340]  long seminar or one long presentation.
[05:22.340 --> 05:33.620]  But it's a rather complete redesign of the living mind.
[05:33.620 --> 05:39.900]  So I've been talking about some of this already and I'm doing some intermittent shows to
[05:39.900 --> 05:43.140]  where I'm developing some of the pieces for it.
[05:43.140 --> 05:48.140]  And in going through all this stuff, I came across something real interesting.
[05:48.140 --> 05:51.980]  How to tell when people were lying.
[05:51.980 --> 05:57.620]  And I had had this article for quite a while, but I was busy doing what I consider to be
[05:57.620 --> 06:02.120]  more immediate stuff.
[06:02.120 --> 06:04.420]  So I didn't get to it.
[06:04.420 --> 06:11.300]  But yesterday I decided to look at it and I found it very interesting.
[06:11.300 --> 06:17.860]  This article presents information from New Linguistic Programming from Paul Ekman.
[06:17.860 --> 06:30.060]  If anybody has ever heard of the program The Lie to Me, that was a program about the star
[06:30.060 --> 06:35.500]  characters were deception experts.
[06:35.500 --> 06:39.380]  And they would get hired to tell when people were lying.
[06:39.380 --> 06:45.580]  And it was a very well done program because they demonstrated the technology.
[06:45.580 --> 06:52.700]  And the technologies they demonstrated were based on a researcher named Paul Ekman.
[06:52.700 --> 06:57.860]  I think I have just about all of his works, all except for one of them and it was like
[06:57.860 --> 07:00.580]  300 bucks, so I didn't do it yet.
[07:00.580 --> 07:04.980]  And it was a little bit too scholarly, a white paper to be of any value for what I'm doing.
[07:04.980 --> 07:07.220]  But I find a lot of his techniques in there.
[07:07.220 --> 07:13.540]  So I was going to go through some of the ways to tell if people were lying.
[07:13.540 --> 07:20.700]  And the first thing you do in order to tell if someone's lying or not, it's not something
[07:20.700 --> 07:28.060]  you can just do in that you can't just look at somebody and say because he does a shoulder
[07:28.060 --> 07:35.700]  shrug or a particular emblematic gesture that he's lying.
[07:35.700 --> 07:37.380]  First thing you have to do is calibrate.
[07:37.380 --> 07:41.740]  New Linguistic Programming, they would call it calibrate.
[07:41.740 --> 07:47.420]  But here they call it developing a baseline.
[07:47.420 --> 07:56.780]  You pay attention to the person and notice how they use their voice, tonality, cadence,
[07:56.780 --> 08:02.580]  pitch, tone, how they hold themselves, how they move, whether they use hand gestures,
[08:02.580 --> 08:11.820]  still use hand gestures, get a good feel of how they present themselves in their environment.
[08:11.820 --> 08:19.700]  And in order to, once you start looking for deception, the first thing you look for is
[08:19.700 --> 08:27.940]  a change in the baseline behaviors, their pitch of the voice changes, cadence changes
[08:27.940 --> 08:35.140]  or they weren't using hand movements and they start using hand movements.
[08:35.140 --> 08:41.900]  Anything that appears to shift them out of, out from their baseline.
[08:41.900 --> 08:46.180]  And then you of course pay attention to the context, if they're talking about being chased
[08:46.180 --> 08:51.580]  by a robber with a pistol, their baseline is likely to shift.
[08:51.580 --> 09:01.420]  But other than that, if they're purportedly telling you facts about something and their
[09:01.420 --> 09:07.540]  baseline shifts, now you start paying a lot closer attention.
[09:07.540 --> 09:13.620]  And of course one of the things you pay attention to is tonality.
[09:13.620 --> 09:21.500]  As a rule, when someone is lying, their pitch of their voice will increase somewhat or their
[09:21.500 --> 09:26.380]  voice will speak somewhat faster.
[09:26.380 --> 09:30.020]  I'm not going to go through much on baseline.
[09:30.020 --> 09:40.260]  Here we go, continuous reactions, verbal communication.
[09:40.260 --> 09:41.260]  Here we go.
[09:41.260 --> 09:56.660]  So we look at most, when we communicate with someone, about 20% of what we actually communicate
[09:56.660 --> 10:03.220]  by voice, 80% of the information that goes back and forth between two people are communicated
[10:03.220 --> 10:11.180]  in nonverbal ways.
[10:11.180 --> 10:19.060]  Facial expressions, asymmetrical facial expressions, there's a guy who was one of the developers
[10:19.060 --> 10:24.860]  of neuro-linguistic programming, Richard Bandelier.
[10:24.860 --> 10:29.620]  And always I had a problem with him.
[10:29.620 --> 10:34.260]  I've studied body language for a long time.
[10:34.260 --> 10:42.420]  And when I look at Bandelier, you look at his face and one side of his face is different
[10:42.420 --> 10:43.420]  than the other.
[10:43.420 --> 10:49.820]  If anybody has ever looked at body language, one of the things they do in body language
[10:49.820 --> 10:55.460]  is they'll take a full-on facial photograph, then cut it down the middle.
[10:55.460 --> 11:01.620]  They'll take two photographs, cut them both down the middle, and then take, I'm sorry,
[11:01.620 --> 11:07.180]  they'll take one photograph in mirror image so that they can cut them in half and put
[11:07.180 --> 11:10.860]  the two left sides together as if there were a left and a right.
[11:10.860 --> 11:13.380]  And then they'll put the two right sides together.
[11:13.380 --> 11:21.860]  You would be amazed at how different the two faces look because of the asymmetrical nature
[11:21.860 --> 11:23.900]  of the face.
[11:23.900 --> 11:32.140]  And there are a lot of facial expressions that will tell you if someone is trying to
[11:32.140 --> 11:34.780]  deceive you.
[11:34.780 --> 11:46.460]  There are five basic expressions that are essentially universal across all cultures.
[11:46.460 --> 11:49.020]  So let me find a pair.
[11:49.020 --> 11:50.020]  I've been very happy.
[11:50.020 --> 11:55.500]  I studied this a little more so I could present it a little more quickly, but the five basic
[11:55.500 --> 12:07.700]  are disgust, fear, anger, and I have the other one in front of me.
[12:07.700 --> 12:13.740]  These are the main ones that we look for if we want to see if someone's lying, and Dr.
[12:13.740 --> 12:19.260]  Paul Ekman speaks to these as micro-expressions.
[12:19.260 --> 12:28.860]  While they're micro-expressions, we as natural speakers of the language, we tend to recognize
[12:28.860 --> 12:35.500]  when someone gives us a facial expression.
[12:35.500 --> 12:41.380]  If all of the muscles of the face tend to pull together, that's disgust.
[12:41.380 --> 12:48.860]  And if someone is telling us something and he doesn't believe what he's saying and he
[12:48.860 --> 12:54.580]  doesn't think much of us for asking, we'll get a micro-expression of disgust.
[12:54.580 --> 13:00.420]  If we've asked him something that he doesn't want to answer, we'll get an anger expression.
[13:00.420 --> 13:08.780]  I'm probably not, I need to study this a little more so I can deliver it in a little more
[13:08.780 --> 13:11.540]  coherent way.
[13:11.540 --> 13:16.860]  I'm not doing a good job here.
[13:16.860 --> 13:19.500]  Like with this, I need to do my homework.
[13:19.500 --> 13:25.220]  I thought I could present it more coherently, but I'm going to have to study a little bit
[13:25.220 --> 13:26.220]  more.
[13:26.220 --> 13:27.220]  We do have a caller.
[13:27.220 --> 13:31.380]  I'll probably do better with a caller than I'm doing with this presentation so far.
[13:31.380 --> 13:33.620]  So let's go to Jeff in Mississippi.
[13:33.620 --> 13:34.620]  Jeff, save me.
[13:34.620 --> 13:38.220]  I've screwed up the first part of this show.
[13:38.220 --> 13:39.220]  Yeah.
[13:39.220 --> 13:40.220]  Hey, Randy.
[13:40.220 --> 13:43.340]  Thanks for having me on the show.
[13:43.340 --> 13:46.780]  You are welcome.
[13:46.780 --> 13:53.100]  And I've got a general simple question, but I'm really getting hung up on it.
[13:53.100 --> 13:59.740]  And that is that when I try to type up, Mike, I'm typing up some complaints right now.
[13:59.740 --> 14:05.140]  And I've heard for a long, long time, especially from the Patriot movement, that I need to
[14:05.140 --> 14:10.500]  change my language around and also need to change how I type things.
[14:10.500 --> 14:16.260]  In other words, don't type in all caps, put it in upper or lower case.
[14:16.260 --> 14:20.300]  Don't use words like plaintiff, use words like claimant.
[14:20.300 --> 14:25.780]  But my problem is, is that I've done that, but now I'm starting to receive paperwork
[14:25.780 --> 14:30.300]  back from the court and they're changing it back to plaintiff and putting it back in upper
[14:30.300 --> 14:32.660]  case anyway.
[14:32.660 --> 14:34.500]  So that was my number one question.
[14:34.500 --> 14:35.500]  Okay.
[14:35.500 --> 14:36.500]  Okay.
[14:36.500 --> 14:40.180]  Let's go to that first.
[14:40.180 --> 14:53.340]  So far as I know, uppercase names in court means nothing.
[14:53.340 --> 14:55.820]  It's just their style.
[14:55.820 --> 14:56.820]  Okay.
[14:56.820 --> 15:01.580]  They have a style of producing documents.
[15:01.580 --> 15:03.860]  An uppercase is a way to highlight the name.
[15:03.860 --> 15:08.540]  If you've got the name and uppercase on the document, it's easy to find.
[15:08.540 --> 15:16.980]  But all this Patriot mythology about your uppercase name being your straw man name,
[15:16.980 --> 15:22.620]  your public name and your lowercase name being your private name.
[15:22.620 --> 15:27.900]  I can't find anything in law that supports that.
[15:27.900 --> 15:33.900]  I do have some people purporting to give me stuff in law, but what they give me is a bunch
[15:33.900 --> 15:35.180]  of garbage.
[15:35.180 --> 15:41.580]  So I have never used all uppercase for my name.
[15:41.580 --> 15:48.020]  It's not the way I write my name and I've never noticed the courts ever changing it.
[15:48.020 --> 15:51.220]  So if this court is, it's just stylistic.
[15:51.220 --> 15:52.220]  Okay.
[15:52.220 --> 15:58.820]  So I don't need to get hung up on all that.
[15:58.820 --> 16:09.540]  If you're writing criminal complaints, there really are no hard and fast rules other than
[16:09.540 --> 16:17.860]  one or two in Texas, a complaint must run in the name of the state of Texas, the name
[16:17.860 --> 16:21.380]  and authority of the state of Texas.
[16:21.380 --> 16:28.780]  And it must have the date of the offense cannot be prior to the offense.
[16:28.780 --> 16:36.340]  If the date is prior to the offense, that's not something that can be fixed and complain
[16:36.340 --> 16:37.340]  to get trashed.
[16:37.340 --> 16:42.020]  If it doesn't run in the name of the state, and every complaint I've seen pretty well
[16:42.020 --> 16:46.940]  runs in the name of the state, it's not a complaint if it doesn't run that way.
[16:46.940 --> 16:50.940]  Hang on, we're about to go to break for Andy Kelton's beautiful video.
[16:50.940 --> 16:57.140]  I call it number 512-646-1984 and we still have a fundraiser on, so go to Logos Radio
[16:57.140 --> 16:58.140]  Network.
[16:58.140 --> 16:59.140]  We'll be right back.
[16:59.140 --> 17:00.140]  Thanks to Gargons!
[17:00.140 --> 17:07.340]  Then get them back and support the Logos Radio Network at the same time.
[17:07.340 --> 17:11.420]  The following sponsors have stepped up to help keep this network on air with a fundraising
[17:11.420 --> 17:12.420]  contest.
[17:12.420 --> 17:17.820]  Thanks to Central Texas Gunworks with the first prize, the Spike Skull Lower Receiver.
[17:17.820 --> 17:23.380]  And the second prize, the Taurus Curve Handgun, every $25 donation gets a chance to win.
[17:23.380 --> 17:24.380]  Enter as often as you like.
[17:24.380 --> 17:26.900]  Check out CentralTexasGunworks.com.
[17:26.900 --> 17:29.220]  Thanks also to MyMagicMud.com.
[17:29.220 --> 17:35.500]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[17:35.500 --> 17:39.580]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[17:39.580 --> 17:43.540]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card.
[17:43.540 --> 17:46.900]  Stop smelling like a putt at AllAboutVapor.com.
[17:46.900 --> 17:51.820]  So thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the rule of law traffic seminar, get 10 entries
[17:51.820 --> 17:52.820]  into the contest.
[17:52.820 --> 17:57.420]  Check out the contest rules and details at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[17:57.420 --> 18:01.300]  Carestays or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[18:01.300 --> 18:07.340]  Non-GMOsolutions.com is now a proud sponsor of the Logos Radio Network with promo code
[18:07.340 --> 18:08.340]  Logos.
[18:08.340 --> 18:12.940]  We thank you for the opportunity to be your source for new man of food, the leader in
[18:12.940 --> 18:15.620]  high quality food that you will truly enjoy.
[18:15.620 --> 18:21.460]  You'll find gluten free options and all products are free from high fructose corn syrup, aspartame,
[18:21.460 --> 18:22.460]  soy and MSG.
[18:22.460 --> 18:27.700]  Whether you're on a tight budget, looking for options to reduce food costs without compromising
[18:27.700 --> 18:34.500]  health or securing long term 25 years storable food for an uncertain future, then non-GMOsolutions.com
[18:34.500 --> 18:36.500]  is your common sense answer.
[18:36.500 --> 18:39.900]  Take advantage of a 10% discount to promo code Logos.
[18:39.900 --> 18:44.780]  No longer will you compromise taste and quality for full term shelf life or eat poor quality
[18:44.780 --> 18:45.780]  food due to cost.
[18:45.780 --> 18:50.780]  Check out our flex pay options and design a no contract plan to satisfy your needs.
[18:50.780 --> 18:56.060]  Go to non-GMOsolutions.com today and get 10% off with promo code Logos.
[18:56.060 --> 19:00.220]  That's non-GMOsolutions.com with promo code Logos.
[19:00.220 --> 19:23.220]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com
[19:23.220 --> 19:33.220]  the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:53.220 --> 20:12.220]  the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[20:23.220 --> 20:30.220]  Okay, we are back.
[20:30.220 --> 20:34.820]  Randy Kelton with our radio and we're talking to Jeff and Miss Tippi and we're talking
[20:34.820 --> 20:40.060]  about essentially style.
[20:40.060 --> 20:45.600]  You're writing a criminal complaint and you were concerned about all uppercase names.
[20:45.600 --> 20:47.820]  You put it up or lower, they changed it.
[20:47.820 --> 20:50.300]  As far as I can tell in law, that means nothing.
[20:50.300 --> 20:56.860]  I've got Eddie Craig on, Eddie, have you come across anything to where your name in upper
[20:56.860 --> 20:58.820]  lower case makes a difference?
[20:58.820 --> 20:59.820]  No.
[20:59.820 --> 21:02.900]  Generally speaking, what I believe he has originally said to you is when he's saying
[21:02.900 --> 21:07.340]  the courts are changing it back, what you actually mean is that the stuff they send
[21:07.340 --> 21:08.900]  you still has it in uppercase.
[21:08.900 --> 21:13.260]  They're not changing your documents, they're just not changing theirs.
[21:13.260 --> 21:15.260]  Is that correct?
[21:15.260 --> 21:16.260]  Okay.
[21:16.260 --> 21:17.260]  Yes.
[21:17.260 --> 21:18.260]  That makes no difference.
[21:18.260 --> 21:20.500]  I've never seen that make a difference.
[21:20.500 --> 21:21.500]  Okay.
[21:21.500 --> 21:22.500]  Okay.
[21:22.500 --> 21:27.140]  Now what about terms like plaintiff, defendant, claimant and wrong?
[21:27.140 --> 21:31.540]  It doesn't matter what you call yourself, they're going to always refer to you unless
[21:31.540 --> 21:36.620]  you ask for a motion and limiting in court while you're in front of a jury or the judge
[21:36.620 --> 21:38.420]  to be addressed differently.
[21:38.420 --> 21:43.300]  Their paperwork from them is going to always reflect you as a defendant.
[21:43.300 --> 21:47.460]  You can put whatever you want in your paperwork, call them yourself, whatever you want.
[21:47.460 --> 21:51.020]  You can call yourself Grandmaster B if you want to.
[21:51.020 --> 21:52.020]  Okay.
[21:52.020 --> 21:56.580]  But for referential index, they're going to always refer to you in a way that's familiar
[21:56.580 --> 21:59.140]  to their style, as Randy put it.
[21:59.140 --> 22:00.140]  Yeah.
[22:00.140 --> 22:05.860]  And in a criminal complaint, I always put complainant.
[22:05.860 --> 22:12.220]  I've just looked at one today where somebody had called himself a defendant and because
[22:12.220 --> 22:19.940]  of the context, so this was not a reply to a motion or a motion in a criminal case or
[22:19.940 --> 22:26.620]  a civil case, this was a criminal accusation and you're the one that's doing the complaining.
[22:26.620 --> 22:33.620]  So I tend to call myself complainant and that's just for clarity.
[22:33.620 --> 22:39.620]  But other than that, in a criminal complaint, a criminal complaint is intended to be prepared
[22:39.620 --> 22:43.380]  and presented by an ordinary citizen.
[22:43.380 --> 22:48.620]  So they're not very astringent, there's not very many rules.
[22:48.620 --> 22:49.620]  Okay.
[22:49.620 --> 22:51.780]  What about a civil?
[22:51.780 --> 22:52.780]  Well no, wait a minute.
[22:52.780 --> 22:56.300]  Are you talking about filing a suit or are you talking about pressing charges because
[22:56.300 --> 22:58.460]  they're two different things?
[22:58.460 --> 23:00.140]  I'm talking about filing a suit.
[23:00.140 --> 23:02.260]  I'm doing a civil suit, a Title 42.
[23:02.260 --> 23:03.260]  Okay.
[23:03.260 --> 23:04.820]  Then you want a civil complaint.
[23:04.820 --> 23:05.820]  Uh-huh.
[23:05.820 --> 23:06.820]  Okay.
[23:06.820 --> 23:09.940]  So that's completely different than criminal, which I think is what Randy's dealing with
[23:09.940 --> 23:10.940]  here.
[23:10.940 --> 23:11.940]  Yes.
[23:11.940 --> 23:15.940]  You're saying complaint and I'm not thinking civil complaint.
[23:15.940 --> 23:17.940]  This is an original petition.
[23:17.940 --> 23:18.940]  Okay.
[23:18.940 --> 23:19.940]  Right?
[23:19.940 --> 23:20.940]  Yeah.
[23:20.940 --> 23:24.420]  In the original petition, you are the plaintiff.
[23:24.420 --> 23:25.420]  Yes.
[23:25.420 --> 23:26.420]  Always.
[23:26.420 --> 23:28.700]  You don't care what they put in there.
[23:28.700 --> 23:29.820]  Oh, okay.
[23:29.820 --> 23:31.260]  I am the plaintiff then.
[23:31.260 --> 23:32.260]  Yeah.
[23:32.260 --> 23:35.660]  In a civil complaint, if it's your suit, you are the plaintiff.
[23:35.660 --> 23:36.660]  Okay.
[23:36.660 --> 23:37.660]  Okay.
[23:37.660 --> 23:43.260]  I don't need to worry about claimant or wrongdoer or all that stuff.
[23:43.260 --> 23:45.260]  Only in reference to them.
[23:45.260 --> 23:46.260]  Okay.
[23:46.260 --> 23:51.060]  Well now, and that's another question, does that really matter because I've heard that
[23:51.060 --> 23:52.060]  like defendants...
[23:52.060 --> 23:55.060]  You can call them defendants all day long.
[23:55.060 --> 23:56.800]  It isn't going to matter.
[23:56.800 --> 24:00.540]  If you want to create another name for them, you can do that, but you got to make sure
[24:00.540 --> 24:02.320]  it's throughout the document.
[24:02.320 --> 24:05.660]  But I recommend you stick with what they know, which is defendant.
[24:05.660 --> 24:06.660]  Go ahead.
[24:06.660 --> 24:12.700]  You put their name in and then put in parentheses here and after referred to as.
[24:12.700 --> 24:18.860]  You do the same thing for you, your name, here and after referred to as.
[24:18.860 --> 24:23.100]  They don't make any difference what they call themselves or what they say.
[24:23.100 --> 24:26.560]  As concerns the immediate document.
[24:26.560 --> 24:33.460]  You have defined what this term means, so you don't have any issues with that.
[24:33.460 --> 24:34.660]  Okay.
[24:34.660 --> 24:41.340]  You might listen because Eddie and I are going to talk about some issues and we may talk
[24:41.340 --> 24:49.140]  about some documents he's producing and I'd like to talk some about style.
[24:49.140 --> 24:56.180]  That really doesn't go to like the blue book styles.
[24:56.180 --> 25:03.740]  Like there's a standard blue book that has how you style citations and how you style
[25:03.740 --> 25:04.740]  different things.
[25:04.740 --> 25:14.140]  I wanted to talk about style as concerns human beings and how they read and understand and
[25:14.140 --> 25:20.620]  written word so that you prepare your paper in a way that makes sense to them.
[25:20.620 --> 25:23.420]  One primary thing is footnotes.
[25:23.420 --> 25:32.660]  I really hate footnote because to read a footnote, you have to drop out of flow.
[25:32.660 --> 25:41.260]  So if a footnote is something ancillary, just something for reference, then I'll put a footnote
[25:41.260 --> 25:42.260]  in.
[25:42.260 --> 25:48.820]  But if I make a statement that the law says this or that, I don't want to put a footnote
[25:48.820 --> 25:53.020]  to where I have that section of what the law actually says.
[25:53.020 --> 26:00.740]  I want to put in a quote right underneath where I'm at so that the reader can read
[26:00.740 --> 26:07.540]  the quote and stay in flow and not have to stop and go to shift gears to go find the
[26:07.540 --> 26:11.980]  footnote and then read the footnote but then it dropped out of mental flow.
[26:11.980 --> 26:18.500]  So I generally always put it right under and I always shrink both margins, change it to
[26:18.500 --> 26:24.340]  single line and drop the font by one or two, generally two.
[26:24.340 --> 26:33.300]  So stylistically, when the reader gets to that quotation, he may have to look at the
[26:33.300 --> 26:37.460]  first one and realize this is how I do quotations.
[26:37.460 --> 26:44.780]  But after that, when he sees that particular change in style, he's going to know this is
[26:44.780 --> 26:51.940]  where my narration stops and where the quote starts and then right down here is where the
[26:51.940 --> 26:55.140]  quote starts and my narration starts again.
[26:55.140 --> 27:03.020]  Yeah, because I've seen quotes put in the body of the text and sometimes it's really
[27:03.020 --> 27:10.180]  hard to tell where the quote starts and the narration begins.
[27:10.180 --> 27:15.860]  So you can figure it out if you read the sentences carefully and check for the quotation marks
[27:15.860 --> 27:21.740]  and make sure that this quotation marks not starting another quote but you have to shift
[27:21.740 --> 27:23.980]  out of flow to do that.
[27:23.980 --> 27:32.460]  So this is the kind of things we probably need to do a whole show on stylistic elements.
[27:32.460 --> 27:34.300]  That's what I'm getting hung up on.
[27:34.300 --> 27:39.500]  You know, my last question, and this may seem petty but it may be important, I've been reading
[27:39.500 --> 27:47.220]  some Title 42 complaints as examples and some of them make the statement that they are seeking
[27:47.220 --> 27:54.780]  declarative and injunctive relief and my big question is I kind of know what declarative
[27:54.780 --> 27:59.980]  relief and injunctive relief is but if you're doing a Title 42, how would that really flow
[27:59.980 --> 28:01.580]  into that?
[28:01.580 --> 28:13.380]  Well, declarative would probably be something like you ask the court to enter a declaratory
[28:13.380 --> 28:19.140]  judgment on say a document that you filed or a document that they're using.
[28:19.140 --> 28:24.580]  You want them to declare that this document is either valid or not valid.
[28:24.580 --> 28:31.940]  Injunctive relief, then you're going to go to asking the court to direct the other person
[28:31.940 --> 28:34.820]  to do something or not to do something.
[28:34.820 --> 28:40.580]  Now if you're doing somebody for money, I mean really what are you asking the court
[28:40.580 --> 28:41.580]  to do?
[28:41.580 --> 28:49.100]  Yeah, then you may have declaratory, you may have injunctive, you may have damages, punitive.
[28:49.100 --> 28:55.940]  Yeah, then you'll go to tort and causes of action.
[28:55.940 --> 29:04.020]  Now your declaratory, you can also be seeking a judicial opinion about a particular statute
[29:04.020 --> 29:09.420]  or interpretation of statute and so on and so forth.
[29:09.420 --> 29:12.660]  I get that, okay.
[29:12.660 --> 29:22.420]  You're asking the court to make a minor ruling on something that then becomes res judicata.
[29:22.420 --> 29:30.580]  You get the court to say that he takes judicial notice of the existence of this document.
[29:30.580 --> 29:35.820]  He doesn't have to take judicial notice of the facts in it but then this document is
[29:35.820 --> 29:40.100]  now officially in the record and it's never going anywhere.
[29:40.100 --> 29:41.100]  Got it.
[29:41.100 --> 29:42.100]  Okay.
[29:42.100 --> 29:43.100]  I sure appreciate it.
[29:43.100 --> 29:46.540]  I'm done fellas and I'll call in next week.
[29:46.540 --> 29:47.540]  Okay.
[29:47.540 --> 29:48.540]  Thank you.
[29:48.540 --> 29:49.540]  Thank you.
[29:49.540 --> 29:54.700]  This is Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, RuPaul Radio, we've got a ton of
[29:54.700 --> 30:03.260]  fundraiser on so make sure you go to Logos Radio Network and Randy's been fun.
[30:03.260 --> 30:07.820]  Children conceived through fertility treatments are more likely to suffer serious birth defects
[30:07.820 --> 30:09.340]  than babies conceived naturally.
[30:09.340 --> 30:14.380]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albracht and in a moment I'll have details on a groundbreaking study
[30:14.380 --> 30:17.380]  on the risks of fertility treatments.
[30:17.380 --> 30:19.100]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:19.100 --> 30:23.500]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again and once your privacy
[30:23.500 --> 30:27.700]  is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.700 --> 30:33.420]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:33.420 --> 30:35.460]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:35.460 --> 30:41.100]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[30:41.100 --> 30:42.820]  Yahoo and Bing.
[30:42.820 --> 30:46.580]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.580 --> 30:50.940]  These days, childless couples are turning to fertility clinics in record numbers but
[30:50.940 --> 30:55.740]  a new study finds the risk of birth defects in babies conceived through fertility treatments
[30:55.740 --> 30:58.380]  is significantly higher than average.
[30:58.380 --> 31:03.900]  After reviewing 300,000 birth records, researchers found that 8% of fertility babies suffered
[31:03.900 --> 31:07.580]  from heart, genital, kidney, brain and lung problems.
[31:07.580 --> 31:10.740]  That's 40% higher than babies conceived naturally.
[31:10.740 --> 31:15.500]  What's more, the risk of birth defects tripled when mothers use chlomophen citrate, a drug
[31:15.500 --> 31:17.820]  that induces ovulation.
[31:17.820 --> 31:21.940]  With millions of babies born each year through fertility treatments, it's about time doctors
[31:21.940 --> 31:24.460]  began telling their patients about these risks.
[31:24.460 --> 31:30.100]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:30.100 --> 31:36.060]  Did you know there are 3 million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional
[31:36.060 --> 31:37.740]  value of the hemp plant?
[31:37.740 --> 31:40.620]  HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder.
[31:40.620 --> 31:46.180]  It does not contain chemicals or THC, is non-GMO and is 100% gluten free.
[31:46.180 --> 31:51.460]  Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds muscle, contains 53% protein and feeds the body the
[31:51.460 --> 31:52.820]  nutrients it needs.
[31:52.820 --> 32:03.260]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[32:03.260 --> 32:06.020]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[32:06.020 --> 32:09.660]  In today's America, we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever
[32:09.660 --> 32:13.540]  going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.540 --> 32:17.060]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[32:17.060 --> 32:21.100]  in our own private capacity and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:21.100 --> 32:25.340]  The courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[32:25.340 --> 32:26.340]  through due process.
[32:26.340 --> 32:30.300]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio has put together the
[32:30.300 --> 32:34.100]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[32:34.100 --> 32:36.460]  is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.460 --> 32:40.500]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[32:40.500 --> 32:41.780]  ordering your copy today.
[32:41.780 --> 32:45.300]  By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law
[32:45.300 --> 32:50.020]  Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents
[32:50.020 --> 32:51.860]  and other useful resource material.
[32:51.860 --> 32:55.820]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:55.820 --> 33:01.460]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:01.460 --> 33:07.060]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:07.060 --> 33:27.620]  Mr. Officer, you're taking the right hand Won't you follow the law of the land?
[33:27.620 --> 33:46.620]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power
[33:46.620 --> 34:01.620]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power
[34:01.620 --> 34:16.620]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power
[34:16.620 --> 34:32.620]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power
[34:32.620 --> 34:35.820]  Randy Kelton, here with Eddie Craig,
[34:35.820 --> 34:39.780]  and we have a very, very special guest
[34:39.780 --> 34:42.020]  that we always treat with kid's gloves
[34:42.020 --> 34:44.460]  because he is quite aged.
[34:45.860 --> 34:48.760]  He is so old, he's older than me.
[34:51.080 --> 34:54.140]  And like I always say, I got dirt in my front yard
[34:54.140 --> 34:55.100]  that's not as old as me.
[34:55.100 --> 34:56.900]  Hello, Jeff said, Rick.
[34:57.860 --> 34:59.100]  How are you, Mr. Randy?
[35:00.700 --> 35:01.740]  Hi, don't have a hearing.
[35:01.740 --> 35:03.340]  Maybe not you.
[35:03.340 --> 35:04.160]  Hello?
[35:04.160 --> 35:05.000]  Yeah, we hear you.
[35:05.000 --> 35:05.940]  Go ahead, Jeff.
[35:05.940 --> 35:06.780]  Okay.
[35:08.380 --> 35:12.120]  My call was basically in response to Jeff in Mississippi.
[35:15.140 --> 35:17.180]  He was talking about the Patriot community
[35:17.180 --> 35:20.380]  and my experience of the Patriot community
[35:20.380 --> 35:25.380]  fits with a Mark Twain quotable quote that goes like this.
[35:26.020 --> 35:28.700]  It isn't what you know, don't know rather,
[35:28.700 --> 35:30.020]  that gets you in trouble.
[35:30.020 --> 35:32.980]  It's what you know for sure that's wrong.
[35:35.060 --> 35:40.060]  He needs to, he is filing under Title 42, which is law.
[35:40.340 --> 35:44.660]  He needs to file his case in law,
[35:44.660 --> 35:49.260]  not equity or common law, but in law.
[35:50.360 --> 35:54.220]  And to do otherwise, it's basically going to cast
[35:54.220 --> 35:57.140]  dispersions on him from the judge
[35:57.140 --> 36:01.660]  and the judge is gonna look at him with a very jaundiced eye.
[36:02.500 --> 36:04.620]  The other thing is, is he needs to check the rules
[36:04.620 --> 36:07.540]  of federal procedure and he also needs to check
[36:07.540 --> 36:11.700]  the local court rules and just to dig a little deeper
[36:11.700 --> 36:14.660]  within the local court rules, check to see if the judge
[36:14.660 --> 36:17.780]  he's going before has his own set of rules
[36:17.780 --> 36:20.380]  so that when he writes his complaint,
[36:20.380 --> 36:24.020]  it matches the rules and he stays inside
[36:24.020 --> 36:28.060]  the good graces of the court.
[36:28.060 --> 36:29.860]  And that's about all I really had to say.
[36:29.860 --> 36:33.660]  Just explain to him real quick what you mean by in law, Jeff.
[36:35.700 --> 36:39.100]  God, that's a four hour soliloquy there, Eddie.
[36:39.100 --> 36:40.900]  Okay, well do you have some place to send him
[36:40.900 --> 36:42.580]  for reference to look it up then?
[36:43.980 --> 36:48.980]  Well, when you're going into court under law,
[36:48.980 --> 36:53.400]  you're citing statutes.
[36:53.400 --> 36:55.480]  What statute did they violate?
[36:57.660 --> 37:00.800]  Not some equity where things are into,
[37:00.800 --> 37:05.360]  where situation didn't break equitably for you.
[37:05.360 --> 37:07.920]  You had a deal where you were supposed to come out,
[37:07.920 --> 37:10.120]  each one was supposed to come out with a certain benefit
[37:10.120 --> 37:12.400]  and one person didn't get the benefit.
[37:12.400 --> 37:13.600]  You know, that would be equity
[37:13.600 --> 37:15.160]  because you're not citing statute there,
[37:15.160 --> 37:16.920]  you're citing equity.
[37:16.920 --> 37:20.440]  And you're going to law, which Title 42 is law,
[37:20.440 --> 37:23.660]  you have to cite what statutes were violated
[37:23.660 --> 37:28.300]  and how they violated and what the penalty is for so doing.
[37:30.400 --> 37:32.760]  It is a comprehensive pleading.
[37:32.760 --> 37:35.360]  But you can't go into court mixing and matching.
[37:35.360 --> 37:36.360]  Yeah, which in this case,
[37:36.360 --> 37:39.960]  if it's a suit against a public official,
[37:39.960 --> 37:42.440]  you would be citing something like Title 18
[37:42.440 --> 37:44.640]  as the statute they violated,
[37:44.640 --> 37:48.920]  giving you your cause of action under Title 42 in law.
[37:50.280 --> 37:51.120]  Something like that.
[37:51.120 --> 37:54.880]  Or you could use, you start in with Title 42 in 1983,
[37:54.880 --> 37:59.320]  deprivation of rights and then bring in the criminal part
[37:59.320 --> 38:02.800]  where they perpetrated a crime and in so doing,
[38:02.800 --> 38:04.440]  deprived you of your rights.
[38:04.440 --> 38:05.280]  Right.
[38:05.280 --> 38:10.280]  My question is, if I'm filing a RICO suit.
[38:13.680 --> 38:14.520]  A what?
[38:14.520 --> 38:19.520]  If I'm filing a RICO or a 42 U.S. Code suit.
[38:21.600 --> 38:22.440]  1961.
[38:22.440 --> 38:27.440]  Is it mandatory that I use the term in law
[38:27.760 --> 38:31.560]  or is the suit filed in law
[38:31.560 --> 38:34.720]  when I file it making claims under statute?
[38:36.680 --> 38:39.600]  It's in law when you're making claims under statute.
[38:39.600 --> 38:41.040]  But one of the several-
[38:41.040 --> 38:45.240]  I don't have to say I'm filing in law or in equity.
[38:45.240 --> 38:46.800]  It just is what it is.
[38:46.800 --> 38:49.360]  That's demonstrated by filing under statute.
[38:49.360 --> 38:50.600]  If you're filing in RICO,
[38:50.600 --> 38:53.240]  you have to file under two statutes.
[38:55.120 --> 39:00.040]  One is 1961, where there's an ongoing enterprise.
[39:00.040 --> 39:02.880]  And the second, what the violation was,
[39:02.880 --> 39:04.480]  the enterprise was perpetrating.
[39:05.680 --> 39:06.560]  Yes.
[39:06.560 --> 39:08.400]  So by citing the statutes-
[39:08.400 --> 39:11.960]  RICO statutes are RICO statutes.
[39:11.960 --> 39:16.960]  Okay, so filing in law is not something like a header
[39:17.520 --> 39:18.680]  on the document or something,
[39:18.680 --> 39:21.120]  some specific words you have to put in there.
[39:21.120 --> 39:21.960]  No.
[39:21.960 --> 39:23.480]  It is a style of preparing to plead.
[39:24.600 --> 39:29.600]  No, it's actually contained in the venue statement.
[39:34.840 --> 39:38.160]  Wait, in the what statement?
[39:38.160 --> 39:41.400]  A jurisdiction, rather, jurisdiction statement.
[39:41.400 --> 39:44.240]  Like this particular jurisdictional statement here.
[39:44.240 --> 39:46.560]  This coordinates jurisdiction under 15 USC,
[39:46.560 --> 39:49.640]  1962 KD at Sequest.
[39:49.640 --> 39:54.640]  Also 47 USC 227, B3, and 28 USC 1331 and 1337.
[39:57.920 --> 39:59.640]  Those are your at-law statements.
[40:02.600 --> 40:04.720]  That's the at-law jurisdiction.
[40:04.720 --> 40:05.560]  Okay.
[40:07.080 --> 40:08.000]  Now I got it.
[40:08.000 --> 40:09.920]  Now I understand where you're going.
[40:10.840 --> 40:11.680]  Okay.
[40:11.680 --> 40:13.960]  And I hope Jeff is listening.
[40:13.960 --> 40:16.800]  I would think that jurisdictional statement
[40:16.800 --> 40:19.800]  would be very, very important.
[40:19.800 --> 40:20.640]  Oh, it is.
[40:21.640 --> 40:23.280]  Yeah, it's kind of like towing a trailer
[40:23.280 --> 40:25.160]  without a ball hitch, Rainey.
[40:25.160 --> 40:26.000]  Yeah.
[40:26.000 --> 40:27.640]  Well, it's something you're readily familiar with, right?
[40:27.640 --> 40:30.520]  I mean, trying to latch it to the vehicle with a chain.
[40:31.560 --> 40:32.640]  Or a stick.
[40:34.120 --> 40:36.680]  I'm real familiar with pulling vehicles with chains
[40:36.680 --> 40:39.000]  and pulling them with, yeah,
[40:39.000 --> 40:41.800]  I've had lots of wrecks doing that.
[40:41.800 --> 40:43.040]  Or how about a rope?
[40:45.320 --> 40:46.160]  I break those.
[40:46.160 --> 40:49.160]  I had someone told me on a motor scooter once,
[40:50.320 --> 40:52.160]  with me holding a rope.
[40:52.160 --> 40:55.320]  You know, when they shift to second gear,
[40:55.320 --> 40:57.880]  they can snatch you right over the handlebars
[40:57.880 --> 41:00.480]  and that motor scooter will run right over you?
[41:02.840 --> 41:03.680]  That hurt.
[41:03.680 --> 41:07.440]  And they'll snatch you over the handlebars
[41:07.440 --> 41:09.400]  before you can turn loose with a rope.
[41:11.320 --> 41:13.920]  Yeah, if you don't manage to jerk it up in the air
[41:13.920 --> 41:16.080]  and throw you off backwards.
[41:16.080 --> 41:18.840]  Well, this one snatched me over the handlebars
[41:18.840 --> 41:21.200]  and I had tire marks up my behind
[41:21.200 --> 41:22.800]  where that thing went over me.
[41:23.920 --> 41:25.800]  It was not one of my better days.
[41:27.960 --> 41:28.800]  Okay.
[41:28.800 --> 41:31.840]  That was what I had to contribute to Jeff in Mississippi.
[41:31.840 --> 41:33.280]  So thank you for the opportunity.
[41:33.280 --> 41:34.120]  Thanks, Jeff.
[41:35.600 --> 41:36.440]  Okay.
[41:36.440 --> 41:37.260]  Good night.
[41:37.260 --> 41:38.100]  Okay, thank you, Jeff.
[41:38.100 --> 41:41.600]  Now we're gonna go to Tommy in Texas.
[41:41.600 --> 41:44.520]  Hello, Tommy, what do you have for us today?
[41:44.520 --> 41:46.280]  Hey, good evening, guys.
[41:46.280 --> 41:47.320]  Yeah.
[41:47.320 --> 41:48.160]  First of all, let me say,
[41:48.160 --> 41:51.320]  I did purchase that jurisdiction course
[41:51.320 --> 41:54.360]  through the Logos Radio Network site.
[41:54.360 --> 41:55.200]  So-
[41:55.200 --> 41:56.840]  Wonderful, wonderful.
[41:56.840 --> 41:58.040]  Yeah, yeah.
[41:58.040 --> 42:03.040]  I've got a question regarding loan assignment
[42:05.000 --> 42:08.680]  or mortgage assignment or promissory note assignment.
[42:08.680 --> 42:12.520]  I have a first mortgage I haven't written agreement with,
[42:12.520 --> 42:15.200]  but apparently they transferred the,
[42:15.200 --> 42:19.280]  they assigned the servicing to another company
[42:19.280 --> 42:20.520]  and they sent me a letter saying
[42:20.520 --> 42:21.920]  that it was gonna be assigned.
[42:21.920 --> 42:22.760]  The other company-
[42:22.760 --> 42:23.800]  Okay, okay, hold on.
[42:23.800 --> 42:27.120]  You're breaking a cardinal rule.
[42:27.120 --> 42:29.520]  You're using pronouns.
[42:29.520 --> 42:31.720]  Personal pronouns, yeah.
[42:31.720 --> 42:32.560]  Okay.
[42:32.560 --> 42:35.360]  Tell us who they is so that we don't get
[42:35.360 --> 42:37.240]  the references mixed up.
[42:38.240 --> 42:39.280]  I apologize.
[42:39.280 --> 42:41.880]  The first mortgage company sent me a note saying
[42:41.880 --> 42:45.440]  that they have reassigned the mortgage servicing.
[42:47.080 --> 42:47.920]  The-
[42:47.920 --> 42:50.040]  Okay, how old is your note?
[42:51.800 --> 42:56.480]  It was signed on November 25th of 2015.
[42:56.480 --> 42:57.920]  Oh, okay, so it's a new note.
[42:57.920 --> 42:59.760]  So I won't ask.
[42:59.760 --> 43:01.440]  The second question was gonna be,
[43:01.440 --> 43:03.760]  is the company still in business?
[43:03.760 --> 43:06.360]  It's 15 and that won't be an issue.
[43:07.640 --> 43:11.120]  The first company is the originator is still in business
[43:11.120 --> 43:16.120]  and they did in fact record the deed in the land records.
[43:19.600 --> 43:22.200]  Did they record an assignment?
[43:24.200 --> 43:26.160]  No, that's why I'm calling.
[43:26.160 --> 43:30.640]  The new assignee, the second mortgage company
[43:30.640 --> 43:33.840]  or new servicing company has not filed
[43:33.840 --> 43:35.400]  a record of assignment.
[43:35.400 --> 43:38.160]  Okay, they may not have to and I'll explain that
[43:38.160 --> 43:39.960]  when we come back on the other side.
[43:41.440 --> 43:45.160]  This is Randy Kelton here with Eddie Craig,
[43:45.160 --> 43:48.320]  we have our radio and our fundraiser is still on
[43:48.320 --> 43:52.120]  so go to Logos Radio Network and look over advertisers
[43:52.120 --> 43:55.000]  and if we have anything there you can use.
[43:55.000 --> 43:57.200]  If you purchase it from us, it'll help us
[43:57.200 --> 43:59.760]  support this station and get you in our growing up.
[44:02.480 --> 44:06.320]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com
[44:06.320 --> 44:08.760]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store
[44:08.760 --> 44:12.400]  at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D here in Austin, Texas
[44:12.400 --> 44:14.280]  buying brave new books and chase pain
[44:14.280 --> 44:16.400]  to see all our fantastic health and wellness products
[44:16.400 --> 44:18.200]  with your very own eyes.
[44:18.200 --> 44:20.080]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay
[44:20.080 --> 44:22.600]  that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[44:22.600 --> 44:24.600]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products
[44:24.600 --> 44:26.760]  including our Australian Emu oil,
[44:26.760 --> 44:28.720]  lotion candles, olive oil, soaps
[44:28.720 --> 44:30.320]  and colloidal silver and gold.
[44:30.320 --> 44:34.120]  Call 512-264-4043
[44:34.120 --> 44:37.480]  or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.480 --> 44:42.480]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[44:43.160 --> 44:44.600]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook
[44:44.600 --> 44:47.240]  for information on events and our products.
[44:47.240 --> 44:49.120]  naturespureorganics.com.
[44:49.120 --> 44:56.120]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.360 --> 45:07.720]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[45:07.720 --> 45:11.320]  the affordable, easy to understand, four CD course
[45:11.320 --> 45:15.760]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:15.760 --> 45:19.440]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.440 --> 45:20.960]  If you don't have a lawyer,
[45:20.960 --> 45:23.320]  know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.320 --> 45:26.280]  Thousands have won with our step by step course
[45:26.280 --> 45:28.200]  and now you can too.
[45:28.200 --> 45:31.320]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[45:31.320 --> 45:34.760]  with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:34.760 --> 45:36.720]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[45:36.720 --> 45:39.240]  you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.240 --> 45:41.320]  about the principles and practices
[45:41.320 --> 45:43.640]  that control our American courts.
[45:43.640 --> 45:46.920]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar,
[45:46.920 --> 45:49.840]  tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.840 --> 45:52.480]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.480 --> 45:56.680]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[45:56.680 --> 46:00.680]  or call toll free, 866-LAW-EASY.
[46:00.680 --> 46:25.280]  Okay, we are back.
[46:25.280 --> 46:28.040]  Brandy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio,
[46:28.040 --> 46:30.880]  and we're talking to Tommy in Texas.
[46:32.080 --> 46:35.960]  And what has apparently happened is
[46:35.960 --> 46:37.920]  they've really changed the servicing.
[46:39.280 --> 46:42.520]  In the securitization world,
[46:43.560 --> 46:46.200]  what is actually sold is not the note
[46:46.200 --> 46:48.040]  or the deed of trust or any of that.
[46:49.280 --> 46:50.520]  This is factoring.
[46:51.440 --> 46:54.920]  They factor the accounts receivable.
[46:54.920 --> 46:58.440]  And your note constitutes accounts receivable.
[46:58.440 --> 47:02.440]  And they sell the right to receive the payments.
[47:02.440 --> 47:04.400]  So that's what gets sold.
[47:04.400 --> 47:09.120]  And generally, the lender will keep the servicing rights.
[47:09.120 --> 47:13.160]  The banks actually sell the servicing rights
[47:13.160 --> 47:14.800]  to different companies.
[47:14.800 --> 47:17.800]  So what they've done here is transferred the right
[47:17.800 --> 47:20.080]  to service the note to somebody else.
[47:20.080 --> 47:25.080]  That doesn't go to the deed of trust or the note either.
[47:25.360 --> 47:28.320]  So under the Real Estate Shandler Procedures Act,
[47:28.320 --> 47:30.000]  they have to give you notice,
[47:30.000 --> 47:32.840]  but they don't have to file that in the public record.
[47:35.120 --> 47:37.440]  Okay, because they didn't, and I was wondering,
[47:37.440 --> 47:40.320]  would that hurt in any way my legal standing
[47:40.320 --> 47:43.760]  if I didn't challenge that fact or put it in form?
[47:43.760 --> 47:45.120]  No, no, that won't hurt.
[47:45.120 --> 47:50.120]  That was a necessary, they gave you the necessary notice.
[47:50.160 --> 47:53.920]  And that's giving you notice within 30 days.
[47:53.920 --> 47:57.160]  And they have to tell you that if you still send
[47:57.160 --> 47:59.720]  your payment to the other company,
[47:59.720 --> 48:02.560]  that that company will send it to us,
[48:02.560 --> 48:05.560]  but you're supposed to send your payments to us.
[48:05.560 --> 48:06.920]  And that's about it.
[48:08.080 --> 48:12.160]  But it doesn't involve a change in holder status
[48:12.160 --> 48:15.920]  of the mortgage.
[48:15.920 --> 48:17.720]  Okay, okay.
[48:17.720 --> 48:20.640]  Well, then I feel better then, okay.
[48:21.560 --> 48:25.440]  I just wasn't sure and I couldn't find it.
[48:25.440 --> 48:28.120]  I didn't know if it was a requirement to record that or not,
[48:28.120 --> 48:29.480]  but I guess it is not.
[48:30.440 --> 48:32.040]  No, not that one.
[48:32.040 --> 48:35.720]  Because that doesn't affect holder status.
[48:35.720 --> 48:39.600]  So there is no actual requirement to file.
[48:39.600 --> 48:44.600]  However, if you fail to file, there is a consequence.
[48:45.200 --> 48:49.520]  And that's 13.001 Texas Property Code says
[48:49.520 --> 48:52.000]  that any claim against real property,
[48:52.000 --> 48:54.240]  not properly acknowledged or proven
[48:54.240 --> 48:58.720]  and filed in the public record is void to the holder.
[48:58.720 --> 49:01.320]  And every state I've looked at in the union
[49:01.320 --> 49:03.320]  has a similar statute.
[49:05.120 --> 49:09.120]  So the only state I know of where it's statutory
[49:09.120 --> 49:11.400]  to file is Pennsylvania.
[49:12.360 --> 49:15.360]  Every place else, it's optional.
[49:15.360 --> 49:16.880]  But if you don't file,
[49:17.800 --> 49:21.360]  then you don't have standing to enforce your note.
[49:21.360 --> 49:23.160]  And this is one of the biggest claims
[49:23.160 --> 49:25.360]  people are making against the banks,
[49:25.360 --> 49:27.720]  is you don't have standing to collect.
[49:29.400 --> 49:31.440]  Okay, does that make sense?
[49:31.440 --> 49:34.040]  It makes a lot of sense, yeah.
[49:34.040 --> 49:37.240]  Okay, hey, look, I appreciate what you guys do.
[49:37.240 --> 49:39.960]  The sacrifice that you make, and everyone out there,
[49:39.960 --> 49:41.320]  listen, let me tell you something.
[49:41.320 --> 49:44.760]  You guys need to purchase these men's material
[49:44.760 --> 49:47.160]  because it will give you knowledge.
[49:47.160 --> 49:49.240]  And knowledge is power.
[49:49.240 --> 49:51.240]  I am a direct beneficiary of that.
[49:51.240 --> 49:52.720]  That's not just a statement you see
[49:52.720 --> 49:56.320]  on the bottom of someone's email or on someone's page.
[49:56.320 --> 49:59.160]  It's actually true, and I've lived it.
[49:59.160 --> 50:02.320]  And I've got four wins in court right now,
[50:02.320 --> 50:04.680]  two in traffic and two in family court
[50:04.680 --> 50:05.800]  because of these men.
[50:05.800 --> 50:07.680]  Thank you very much.
[50:07.680 --> 50:08.520]  Appreciate it.
[50:09.320 --> 50:10.160]  Wonderful, yeah.
[50:10.160 --> 50:12.960]  I just had someone I was talking to today
[50:12.960 --> 50:17.960]  had filed Eddie's motions in a court in Rockwall.
[50:19.600 --> 50:23.440]  That's Rockwall is a East suburb of Dallas.
[50:24.360 --> 50:29.000]  And the guy in front of him had exactly the same motions.
[50:30.520 --> 50:32.920]  Oh, man, incredible.
[50:32.920 --> 50:35.120]  That's good, this is getting around.
[50:35.120 --> 50:36.440]  Okay, thank you, Tommy.
[50:38.640 --> 50:42.040]  Now Eddie has got a document he wants,
[50:42.040 --> 50:45.360]  we want to discuss, but Eddie has Skyped it to me twice
[50:45.360 --> 50:47.640]  and your Skype is saying this file isn't available.
[50:47.640 --> 50:50.000]  Can you email it to me so I can keep it?
[50:50.000 --> 50:52.240]  Well, I can certainly try real quick,
[50:52.240 --> 50:53.680]  see if it does any better.
[50:56.080 --> 50:58.680]  Okay, while you're, yeah, you're not as old as me
[50:58.680 --> 51:00.720]  so you can multitask.
[51:00.720 --> 51:01.960]  I can certainly try.
[51:01.960 --> 51:05.400]  I'm usually pretty good at that aspect of things.
[51:05.400 --> 51:09.120]  Kind of give us a brief on what the document is.
[51:09.120 --> 51:11.000]  Okay, well, this is actually a case
[51:11.000 --> 51:14.400]  out of the State of Washington Supreme Court,
[51:14.400 --> 51:18.720]  but it creates an interesting premise for my document
[51:18.720 --> 51:22.400]  challenging the constitutionality of the amended
[51:22.400 --> 51:27.400]  or the recodified transportation code bill SB 971 from 1995.
[51:29.240 --> 51:31.360]  Now the document's emailed to you, Randy,
[51:31.360 --> 51:32.480]  so you should have it.
[51:34.080 --> 51:37.480]  But what I'm looking at in this case brings up
[51:37.480 --> 51:40.240]  a very interesting perspective
[51:40.240 --> 51:44.280]  that I'm actually expecting the State of Texas
[51:44.280 --> 51:46.160]  to try to run to.
[51:46.160 --> 51:49.400]  And because of that, this is what I wanted to discuss
[51:49.400 --> 51:52.000]  with you about how this is going to play out
[51:52.000 --> 51:53.880]  if they do it here.
[51:53.880 --> 51:58.800]  Now basically, this case is NRA self
[51:58.800 --> 52:02.600]  and that's SELF versus RAY, R-H-A-Y,
[52:02.600 --> 52:06.880]  377 Pacific 2nd, 885.
[52:06.880 --> 52:11.440]  Now in this case, it's dealing with
[52:11.440 --> 52:16.440]  an unconstitutional ordinance or statute.
[52:16.560 --> 52:19.560]  And in this case, they have this
[52:19.560 --> 52:22.880]  where this gentleman was challenging the constitutionality
[52:22.880 --> 52:27.800]  of an amendment to a statute of the State of Washington.
[52:27.800 --> 52:31.240]  And this is something that the State Supreme Court said.
[52:32.240 --> 52:37.240]  Section 35.27.020 of RCW,
[52:37.240 --> 52:39.560]  which is revised codes of Washington,
[52:39.560 --> 52:43.080]  as derived from section 15 of an act
[52:43.080 --> 52:45.680]  providing for the organization classification
[52:45.680 --> 52:48.560]  and corporation and government of municipal corporations,
[52:48.560 --> 52:50.920]  laws of 1889 and 90,
[52:50.920 --> 52:54.040]  page 141 is amended to read as follows.
[52:54.040 --> 52:58.360]  And then it puts this into the amended language.
[52:58.360 --> 53:01.800]  In this respect, the 1951 legislature
[53:01.800 --> 53:05.280]  was following its own unconstitutional device
[53:05.280 --> 53:07.360]  for amending a section of an act
[53:07.360 --> 53:11.080]  in disregard of the specific constitutional mandate.
[53:11.080 --> 53:14.480]  The act before us does not purport to amend
[53:14.480 --> 53:16.400]  a section of an act,
[53:16.400 --> 53:20.000]  but only a section of a compilation entitled
[53:20.000 --> 53:22.440]  revised code of Washington,
[53:22.440 --> 53:25.800]  which is not the law.
[53:25.800 --> 53:29.160]  Such an act purporting to amend only a section
[53:29.160 --> 53:34.160]  of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged.
[53:34.720 --> 53:38.560]  So here is what I am expecting the State of Texas
[53:38.560 --> 53:41.360]  to attempt to do in relation to my challenge
[53:41.360 --> 53:46.360]  to SB 971's alteration of Vernon's annotated civil statutes
[53:47.560 --> 53:52.360]  into a single codified transportation code.
[53:52.360 --> 53:53.720]  Okay, hold on, hold on.
[53:53.720 --> 53:55.080]  Back up just a little bit.
[53:55.080 --> 53:56.000]  All right.
[53:56.000 --> 54:00.240]  Explain about the 1925 code
[54:00.240 --> 54:03.360]  as concerns, changes or alterations.
[54:03.360 --> 54:08.200]  All codes in Texas are based upon original acts
[54:08.200 --> 54:12.560]  of the legislature from 1925.
[54:12.560 --> 54:14.920]  If you actually read Vernon's,
[54:14.920 --> 54:18.520]  the publications of Vernon's on,
[54:18.520 --> 54:21.440]  right inside the cover page, there's a title page
[54:21.440 --> 54:25.000]  and inside the title page, there is a certification page
[54:25.000 --> 54:27.080]  from the Secretary of State.
[54:27.080 --> 54:31.960]  The Secretary of State certifies on that certification page
[54:31.960 --> 54:36.880]  that all the statutes in that code are compliant
[54:36.880 --> 54:40.680]  with the original act itself.
[54:40.680 --> 54:43.160]  None of the current codes have that.
[54:43.160 --> 54:44.560]  None of them.
[54:44.560 --> 54:48.080]  They are all recodifications of Vernon's
[54:48.080 --> 54:50.240]  without the certification.
[54:50.240 --> 54:52.640]  And we know already from some of the stuff
[54:52.640 --> 54:54.040]  Randy's read in my paper,
[54:54.040 --> 54:59.040]  why they didn't certify those new recodifications.
[54:59.120 --> 55:03.560]  Because they greatly altered the recodified sections
[55:03.560 --> 55:06.720]  of statute from the originals in Vernon's
[55:06.720 --> 55:10.560]  despite telling the legislators and the public
[55:10.560 --> 55:12.920]  that they were not doing so.
[55:13.800 --> 55:17.000]  They put that in the language of the title of the bill,
[55:17.000 --> 55:19.800]  which is supposed to tell the public and the legislature
[55:19.800 --> 55:21.840]  what its real purpose is.
[55:21.840 --> 55:26.840]  And they put it in the beginning of our 1.0001 or 001
[55:27.160 --> 55:31.000]  of the codified version itself
[55:31.000 --> 55:34.160]  that said there was no substantive changes to the statutes.
[55:34.160 --> 55:36.760]  That was a ball face lie from day one.
[55:38.080 --> 55:43.080]  Now, the 1925 law is what the legislature originally passed
[55:44.720 --> 55:46.400]  that all these codes are based on,
[55:46.400 --> 55:49.480]  whether it be the Vernon's prior to 1995
[55:49.480 --> 55:53.160]  or the recodified transportation code as it exists today
[55:53.160 --> 55:56.440]  and all of its amendments from 1995.
[55:56.440 --> 56:00.760]  Now, what I'm expecting the state to do is to argue
[56:00.760 --> 56:03.840]  that since I'm challenging the constitutionality
[56:03.840 --> 56:08.320]  of SB 971 in its entirety,
[56:08.320 --> 56:12.400]  that they're going to say that the challenge is moot
[56:12.400 --> 56:15.880]  because the constitution does not apply
[56:15.880 --> 56:20.320]  because the underlying law has not been altered
[56:20.320 --> 56:24.440]  and the statute itself is not the law.
[56:24.440 --> 56:28.080]  Therefore, the constitutional limitations don't apply.
[56:29.480 --> 56:33.640]  Now, if you actually read the language of the bill
[56:34.800 --> 56:37.920]  and then look at the rules regarding that,
[56:37.920 --> 56:42.040]  the Texas constitution applies to the bill.
[56:42.040 --> 56:45.920]  It doesn't apply to the law created by the bill
[56:45.920 --> 56:50.520]  except in certain provisions, but in relation to a bill,
[56:50.520 --> 56:53.320]  everything I'm arguing relates to the bill,
[56:53.320 --> 56:58.080]  not the existing law, and SB 971 is a bill.
[56:58.080 --> 57:01.000]  So this argument won't fly for them,
[57:01.000 --> 57:03.840]  but this is what I'm expecting them to pull.
[57:04.720 --> 57:08.440]  If they turn around and say that the statute is not law,
[57:08.440 --> 57:11.480]  they have put themselves into double jeopardy
[57:11.480 --> 57:14.920]  with constitutionality, and here's why.
[57:14.920 --> 57:18.840]  Randy, can you tell me if a statute is not a law,
[57:18.840 --> 57:22.160]  what is the problem with you being charged in court
[57:22.160 --> 57:25.400]  with an offense against something that is not a law?
[57:25.400 --> 57:27.160]  There's no claim.
[57:27.160 --> 57:29.760]  This court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
[57:29.760 --> 57:32.800]  That's correct, and what does Texas law require
[57:32.800 --> 57:35.800]  in relation to a criminal complaint?
[57:36.880 --> 57:38.720]  A complainant.
[57:38.720 --> 57:40.080]  Well, not just a complainant.
[57:40.080 --> 57:42.520]  Let me read you something
[57:42.520 --> 57:44.160]  straight out of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[57:44.160 --> 57:46.960]  Now, this is out of Article 45.019.
[57:46.960 --> 57:50.200]  This deals with justice and municipal courts,
[57:50.200 --> 57:54.040]  but it'll be no less true for any other court,
[57:55.040 --> 58:00.040]  and under 45.019, subsection A,
[58:00.040 --> 58:03.360]  a complaint is sufficient without regard to its form
[58:03.360 --> 58:07.800]  if it substantially satisfies the following requisites.
[58:07.800 --> 58:10.720]  Number four of those requisites reads,
[58:10.720 --> 58:14.160]  it must show that the accused has committed an offense
[58:14.160 --> 58:17.240]  against the law of this state,
[58:17.240 --> 58:20.000]  or state that the Appian has good reason to believe
[58:20.000 --> 58:22.760]  and does believe that the accused has committed an offense
[58:22.760 --> 58:26.000]  against the law of this state.
[58:26.000 --> 58:28.000]  All right, that's what I'm only gonna set up at
[58:28.000 --> 58:29.000]  when we get back, Randy.
[58:29.000 --> 58:31.960]  We can talk about that if you remember over the break,
[58:31.960 --> 58:33.320]  and then we'll get into it.
[58:33.320 --> 58:36.880]  I'll try to remember that long.
[58:37.880 --> 58:39.000]  Sometimes I'm able to.
[58:39.000 --> 58:42.920]  This is Randy Caron, 80 Craig, rules our radio.
[58:42.920 --> 58:45.800]  We have the phones off for the moment.
[58:45.800 --> 58:47.360]  Once we're through with this, we'll turn it back on.
[58:47.360 --> 58:48.520]  We'll be right back.
[58:48.520 --> 58:53.880]  By the end of this afternoon, I'd like to send out
[58:53.880 --> 59:13.560]  the top ten defendants of this episode.
[59:43.560 --> 01:00:02.760]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at thelogosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.760 --> 01:00:07.640]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Blowdown, providing your
[01:00:07.640 --> 01:00:10.520]  deli bulletins for the commodity market.
[01:00:10.520 --> 01:00:23.240]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:23.240 --> 01:00:28.960]  Markets for Wednesday, the 27th of January, 2016 opened up with gold at $1,120 an ounce,
[01:00:28.960 --> 01:00:35.960]  silver at $14.48 an ounce, Texas crude at $31.45 a barrel, and bitcoins currently sitting
[01:00:35.960 --> 01:00:44.080]  at about $395 U.S. currency.
[01:00:44.080 --> 01:00:50.320]  Today in history, 30th of January, 1825, the U.S. Congress approves Indian territory in
[01:00:50.320 --> 01:00:55.000]  what is present-day Oklahoma, and has cleared the way for the forced relocation of eastern
[01:00:55.000 --> 01:01:01.480]  Indians known as the Trail of Tears.
[01:01:01.480 --> 01:01:05.300]  In recent news, the Vatican announced over the weekend that Pope Francis will be visiting
[01:01:05.300 --> 01:01:10.600]  Sweden later this year to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's writing and posting of
[01:01:10.600 --> 01:01:16.520]  the 95 Theses on the front doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31,
[01:01:16.520 --> 01:01:17.520]  1517.
[01:01:17.520 --> 01:01:21.520]  Amongst other points, Luther primarily wrote argumentations against the Roman Catholic
[01:01:21.520 --> 01:01:26.680]  theology of indulgences, essentially the selling of forgiveness from temporal punishment, from
[01:01:26.680 --> 01:01:30.480]  sins for money, a practice still upheld by the Church.
[01:01:30.480 --> 01:01:35.160]  On October 31 of this year, Francis is set to be at the southern Swedish city of Lund,
[01:01:35.160 --> 01:01:38.520]  where the Lutheran World Federation was founded in 1947.
[01:01:38.520 --> 01:01:42.640]  While his predecessors have visited Protestant churches, Francis has come under criticism
[01:01:42.640 --> 01:01:46.800]  from traditionalists and conservatives within the Church who accuse him of sending conflicting
[01:01:46.800 --> 01:01:49.760]  signals about interfaith relations.
[01:01:49.760 --> 01:01:53.840]  Catholic traditionalists have accused Francis of making too many concessions to Lutherans,
[01:01:53.840 --> 01:01:58.440]  since both religions will be using Luther's common prayer during the 2017 Reformation
[01:01:58.440 --> 01:02:02.920]  Commemoration services being held jointly between the two churches, which they say excessively
[01:02:02.920 --> 01:02:07.840]  praise Luther, who was historically condemned as a heretic and excommunicated.
[01:02:07.840 --> 01:02:12.200]  Pope Francis has made ecumenism one of the main themes of his papacy, considering he
[01:02:12.200 --> 01:02:16.440]  has already visited the Lutheran Church of Rome, the Waldenian Protestant community in
[01:02:16.440 --> 01:02:21.680]  northern Italy, Rome's Jewish synagogue, and is soon due to become the first pope to visit
[01:02:21.680 --> 01:02:29.200]  Rome's mosque later this year.
[01:02:29.200 --> 01:02:33.400]  Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute
[01:02:33.400 --> 01:02:36.480]  of Technology, died Sunday at the age of 88.
[01:02:36.480 --> 01:02:39.760]  Minsky viewed the brain as a machine whose function can be studied and replicated in
[01:02:39.760 --> 01:02:44.600]  the computer, and he considered how machines might be endowed with common sense or artificial
[01:02:44.600 --> 01:02:45.600]  intelligence.
[01:02:45.600 --> 01:02:49.920]  Daniela Russ, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, said
[01:02:49.920 --> 01:02:54.400]  that Minsky helped create the vision of artificial intelligence as we know it today.
[01:02:54.400 --> 01:03:01.400]  This is your lowdown for January 27, 2016.
[01:03:24.400 --> 01:03:46.600]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, we're at the Law Radio here with Eddie Craig, and we're
[01:03:46.600 --> 01:03:52.640]  talking about the difference between the code and the actual law.
[01:03:52.640 --> 01:03:55.920]  You want to pick it up, Eddie?
[01:03:55.920 --> 01:04:01.120]  Yeah, the issue here that I'm trying to clarify for the purpose of the argument in this motion
[01:04:01.120 --> 01:04:10.160]  is the state's attempt to say that the challenge to constitutionality of SB 971 isn't applicable
[01:04:10.160 --> 01:04:17.920]  because the statute is not law and therefore is not subject to those restrictions.
[01:04:17.920 --> 01:04:24.040]  Now this puts them in a catch-22 from my perspective of how this would be argued, and the reason
[01:04:24.040 --> 01:04:29.280]  for that is because in Texas, the criminal complaint, as I was reading before the break,
[01:04:29.280 --> 01:04:37.560]  subsection four of article 45.019A says that the complaint must show that the accused has
[01:04:37.560 --> 01:04:43.520]  committed offense and offense against the law of this state.
[01:04:43.520 --> 01:04:49.760]  So if the statute that they're using is not the law and they're admitting that it's not
[01:04:49.760 --> 01:04:56.560]  the law, then they are admitting that they have knowingly prosecuted people under something
[01:04:56.560 --> 01:04:58.760]  that is not law.
[01:04:58.760 --> 01:05:05.640]  In other words, they've knowingly committed extortion, fraud, kidnapping, assault, aggravated
[01:05:05.640 --> 01:05:11.640]  assault, and murder on its face.
[01:05:11.640 --> 01:05:18.400]  Their only other option is to say that it is law, in which case the constitutional provisions
[01:05:18.400 --> 01:05:24.580]  I'm arguing invalidate it for being enacted in a manner that is violated of very specific
[01:05:24.580 --> 01:05:28.560]  provisions that it can't violate and be law.
[01:05:28.560 --> 01:05:34.520]  So either way, they're hosed, and that's my argument, and I want to see if Randy can force
[01:05:34.520 --> 01:05:37.080]  me not to stick to it.
[01:05:37.080 --> 01:05:48.640]  If the state comes to court and files a document in the court wherein the state takes the position
[01:05:48.640 --> 01:05:53.680]  that the code is not law, that's collateral estoppel.
[01:05:53.680 --> 01:06:02.800]  They cannot come back later and say, oh yeah, it may not be law, but we can enforce it.
[01:06:02.800 --> 01:06:08.800]  I can't see them doing that, if they would open an incredible can of worms.
[01:06:08.800 --> 01:06:15.000]  Yeah, at this point I can see the lesser of two evils for them being too treated as if
[01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:21.160]  it is law and let it be declared unconstitutional, because at least they would have some sort
[01:06:21.160 --> 01:06:23.760]  of coverage for liability.
[01:06:23.760 --> 01:06:28.000]  When you look at the way the courts have ruled on this, if an officer acts in good faith
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:32.680]  under an act that's later declared unconstitutional, he can't be punished for his actions under
[01:06:32.680 --> 01:06:36.680]  the act prior to that declaration by a court.
[01:06:36.680 --> 01:06:42.080]  I've got a problem with that, at least as far as Texas is concerned, because the Texas
[01:06:42.080 --> 01:06:50.160]  Constitution does not set a period, if it's void ab initio, it's void ab initio.
[01:06:50.160 --> 01:06:54.800]  Article 1, section 29 says that when an act is done in violation of the Constitution,
[01:06:54.800 --> 01:06:56.280]  it is void.
[01:06:56.280 --> 01:07:02.120]  It's not voidable, it's not later voidable, it is void.
[01:07:02.120 --> 01:07:08.640]  So I don't see how they can refuse to declare it void ab initio and take away that liability
[01:07:08.640 --> 01:07:10.440]  from these officers.
[01:07:10.440 --> 01:07:19.000]  Because if anything, the courts were absolutely required to understand the legislative intent.
[01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  And yet for decades now, they've used it in a manner that is completely outside of its
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:26.080]  stated legislative intent.
[01:07:26.080 --> 01:07:30.960]  Because the bill very clearly says in its title that the legislative intent is to create
[01:07:30.960 --> 01:07:38.480]  non-substantive recodifications of existing statutes relating to transportation.
[01:07:38.480 --> 01:07:43.920]  There's no quibble over the fact that the code itself regulates transportation as its
[01:07:43.920 --> 01:07:49.480]  primary subject matter, the governing subject matter.
[01:07:49.480 --> 01:07:56.480]  And yet they've treated it as if transportation is irrelevant.
[01:07:56.480 --> 01:08:03.000]  I can't see how that could be anything less than intentional.
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:14.480]  They couldn't, 1925, they couldn't pass laws requiring or restricting you in your right
[01:08:14.480 --> 01:08:17.400]  to travel.
[01:08:17.400 --> 01:08:23.120]  The only thing they could pass laws concerning was commercial.
[01:08:23.120 --> 01:08:28.080]  And I read some articles recently about how all of this came about.
[01:08:28.080 --> 01:08:37.840]  And the licensing originally came about because in the 20s, we were just getting trucks that
[01:08:37.840 --> 01:08:46.080]  could actually haul products, but they weren't very well constructed and people were kind
[01:08:46.080 --> 01:08:51.800]  of jury rigging their own stuff, destroying the roads and killing people all over the
[01:08:51.800 --> 01:08:52.960]  place.
[01:08:52.960 --> 01:09:02.920]  So they needed a way to get this under control and they passed this commercial code.
[01:09:02.920 --> 01:09:11.440]  Sometime in the late 30s and early 40s, they began enforcing this code against everybody
[01:09:11.440 --> 01:09:16.440]  and nobody raised a red flag.
[01:09:16.440 --> 01:09:23.320]  And so now they had the code to where they could enforce it against everybody, but the
[01:09:23.320 --> 01:09:27.240]  whole time it's been illegal.
[01:09:27.240 --> 01:09:38.480]  And the problem we have now is they're making so much money doing this that everything is
[01:09:38.480 --> 01:09:39.960]  always about the money.
[01:09:39.960 --> 01:09:43.080]  The fight will be horrendous.
[01:09:43.080 --> 01:09:48.880]  They're going to fight tooth and nail to save all of this unauthorized tax they've been
[01:09:48.880 --> 01:09:52.040]  collecting.
[01:09:52.040 --> 01:10:03.000]  So how do we structure this so that if we get a ruling against us, if you get a ruling
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:10.040]  that says, oh yeah, this applies, that that ruling can be taken and used in a way to disrupt
[01:10:10.040 --> 01:10:14.480]  the entire system?
[01:10:14.480 --> 01:10:21.760]  Well again, in reference to this case, I am using the United States Supreme Court's rules
[01:10:21.760 --> 01:10:27.040]  of constitutional and statutory interpretation against the state.
[01:10:27.040 --> 01:10:30.840]  Because if it winds up in the United States Supreme Court, that's who they're going to
[01:10:30.840 --> 01:10:31.840]  play by anyway.
[01:10:31.840 --> 01:10:41.280]  Well, this should go to Fed anyway, because it's a due process violation, federal due
[01:10:41.280 --> 01:10:42.560]  process violation.
[01:10:42.560 --> 01:10:43.560]  True.
[01:10:43.560 --> 01:10:46.800]  And there is something interesting I have found of late too.
[01:10:46.800 --> 01:10:53.200]  It turns out that in July of last year, the Texas Supreme Court may finally have judges
[01:10:53.200 --> 01:10:59.520]  on it that actually bother to read what's written in the law for a change.
[01:10:59.520 --> 01:11:04.080]  And this was an occupational licensing case.
[01:11:04.080 --> 01:11:07.920]  It dealt with the eyebrow threading here in Texas.
[01:11:07.920 --> 01:11:12.600]  They made the cosmetologists and everybody else, the beauticians, they were raising all
[01:11:12.600 --> 01:11:16.880]  kinds of stake about the eyebrow threaders.
[01:11:16.880 --> 01:11:23.200]  And the legislature was trying to force them into acquiring a cosmetology license, which
[01:11:23.200 --> 01:11:25.720]  is 300 hours of training.
[01:11:25.720 --> 01:11:32.080]  Plus, they had to have a facility of X number of square feet and such capacity and blah,
[01:11:32.080 --> 01:11:38.880]  blah, blah, when in fact an eyebrow threader, not one minute of that 300 hours dealt with
[01:11:38.880 --> 01:11:41.160]  the occupation.
[01:11:41.160 --> 01:11:45.520]  Not one inch of square footage is required for them to do it, because they can go to
[01:11:45.520 --> 01:11:48.280]  someone's home and do it.
[01:11:48.280 --> 01:11:52.760]  So all these requirements they were forcing on this occupation, the Texas Supreme Court
[01:11:52.760 --> 01:11:55.320]  said, uh-uh, it's ridiculous.
[01:11:55.320 --> 01:11:58.200]  You guys are getting way outside of your bounds.
[01:11:58.200 --> 01:12:04.160]  You're using established businesses to suppress new businesses to keep their profit margins
[01:12:04.160 --> 01:12:05.160]  higher.
[01:12:05.160 --> 01:12:06.920]  Not going to happen.
[01:12:06.920 --> 01:12:12.000]  But the part I found interesting about this occupational licensing case was the court's
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:17.560]  opening discussion on the needs for these licenses.
[01:12:17.560 --> 01:12:23.440]  One of the discussionary paragraphs contains a reference to, you need a medical license
[01:12:23.440 --> 01:12:26.440]  to practice law in Texas.
[01:12:26.440 --> 01:12:35.660]  And then they go into, and you need a driver's license to zoom down I-130 outside of Austin.
[01:12:35.660 --> 01:12:42.240]  Now why would the Texas Supreme Court make reference to driver's licenses in a case that
[01:12:42.240 --> 01:12:50.520]  is 100% about occupational licensing, and at the same time do so in conjunction with
[01:12:50.520 --> 01:12:54.920]  a specific occupation license, which is the medical?
[01:12:54.920 --> 01:12:58.160]  Well, there's only one reason.
[01:12:58.160 --> 01:13:04.240]  Because the driver's license itself is the licensing of an occupation as well.
[01:13:04.240 --> 01:13:08.960]  It's not there to make conversation, it's there to make a point.
[01:13:08.960 --> 01:13:15.720]  Well, that's been, it's really clear in law.
[01:13:15.720 --> 01:13:16.920]  Oh yeah.
[01:13:16.920 --> 01:13:18.120]  No argument there.
[01:13:18.120 --> 01:13:22.560]  It's just not clear in the money-grubbing little cockroach courts that want to steal
[01:13:22.560 --> 01:13:30.000]  rather than follow the law.
[01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:39.880]  So how do we construct a case so that the question we ask is such that if we get a ruling
[01:13:39.880 --> 01:13:44.120]  against us, it undermines the corpus truus.
[01:13:44.120 --> 01:13:52.040]  That's the only way we'd get a ruling in our favor, if Chester lawyers can take the ruling
[01:13:52.040 --> 01:13:59.080]  and use it in other places that will be more destabilizing than forcing the legislature
[01:13:59.080 --> 01:14:02.360]  to write new laws for travel.
[01:14:02.360 --> 01:14:12.480]  We can't license travel, but we can regulate in some ways how people travel.
[01:14:12.480 --> 01:14:19.760]  Well, we can regulate the movement, like signage and lights and things like that at intersections
[01:14:19.760 --> 01:14:20.920]  for the public safety.
[01:14:20.920 --> 01:14:22.800]  That they can do.
[01:14:22.800 --> 01:14:30.160]  But one of the arguments I'm making in this is straight up, the argument by the state
[01:14:30.160 --> 01:14:35.960]  that licensing in Texas relates to public safety is an absolute joke.
[01:14:35.960 --> 01:14:38.800]  It's a complete joke.
[01:14:38.800 --> 01:14:45.040]  When you look at all the licenses that are issued, you will find that only those that
[01:14:45.040 --> 01:14:51.160]  are going into the specific occupational side of that, as far as they're trying to tell
[01:14:51.160 --> 01:14:56.880]  us you need one over here and one over there, they're different, but they're not, everyone
[01:14:56.880 --> 01:15:03.400]  that goes into an occupation, truck driver, shuttle bus driver, school bus driver, taxi
[01:15:03.400 --> 01:15:13.440]  cab driver, all of those people must have specific hands-on training to go into that
[01:15:13.440 --> 01:15:15.400]  job.
[01:15:15.400 --> 01:15:23.080]  Yet anyone else applying for a license does not require one second's worth of training.
[01:15:23.080 --> 01:15:28.840]  All they have to do is walk in, take the written test, take the driving test.
[01:15:28.840 --> 01:15:33.520]  If they pass them both, they get a license as long as they pay.
[01:15:33.520 --> 01:15:38.480]  There's no other qualification to train them in.
[01:15:38.480 --> 01:15:42.240]  My license is a chauffeur's license.
[01:15:42.240 --> 01:15:44.280]  Really?
[01:15:44.280 --> 01:15:48.880]  How would you have gotten a chauffeur's license when chauffeur's licenses don't exist in the
[01:15:48.880 --> 01:15:49.880]  recodification?
[01:15:49.880 --> 01:15:56.040]  Well, it's considered a chauffeur's license in that it authorizes me to carry I think
[01:15:56.040 --> 01:15:59.120]  up to eight people for pay.
[01:15:59.120 --> 01:16:06.880]  Yeah, but see, that's another one of the issues between the recodification and the Vernon's,
[01:16:06.880 --> 01:16:10.160]  and which is the part you read relating to the licensing.
[01:16:10.160 --> 01:16:17.160]  In relation to a license, the original Vernon's recognized only three forms of license, operators,
[01:16:17.160 --> 01:16:19.280]  commercial operators, and chauffeurs.
[01:16:19.280 --> 01:16:22.680]  All of them were occupational, all of them.
[01:16:22.680 --> 01:16:27.560]  Now, the new code doesn't mention those licenses at all.
[01:16:27.560 --> 01:16:28.640]  It never did.
[01:16:28.640 --> 01:16:32.960]  They were not in the original SB 971, and they're not in any of the amended side of
[01:16:32.960 --> 01:16:33.960]  it.
[01:16:33.960 --> 01:16:36.920]  But I'll finish talking about that when we get back after this break.
[01:16:36.920 --> 01:16:38.920]  All right, folks.
[01:16:38.920 --> 01:16:40.880]  Go ahead, Randy.
[01:16:40.880 --> 01:16:50.720]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, make sure you go to Logos Radio Network and buy everything
[01:16:50.720 --> 01:16:51.720]  on there.
[01:16:51.720 --> 01:16:52.720]  That's all the help we can get.
[01:16:52.720 --> 01:16:57.280]  And if you do buy one of those products, your name goes in the hat for the gun door.
[01:16:57.280 --> 01:17:00.320]  So have a look at the gun.
[01:17:00.320 --> 01:17:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:09.120]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears' proven method.
[01:17:09.120 --> 01:17:13.400]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[01:17:13.400 --> 01:17:14.400]  can win too.
[01:17:14.400 --> 01:17:19.240]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:17:19.240 --> 01:17:20.920]  civil rights statutes.
[01:17:20.920 --> 01:17:25.640]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and
[01:17:25.640 --> 01:17:30.080]  phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial
[01:17:30.080 --> 01:17:33.840]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.840 --> 01:17:38.960]  The Michael Mears' proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:17:38.960 --> 01:17:40.880]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:46.640]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:17:46.640 --> 01:17:49.640]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:17:49.640 --> 01:17:58.640]  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
[01:17:58.640 --> 01:17:59.640]  collectors now.
[01:17:59.640 --> 01:18:07.040]  They took our guns, then get them back and support the Logos Radio Network at the same
[01:18:07.040 --> 01:18:08.040]  time.
[01:18:08.040 --> 01:18:11.600]  The following sponsors have stepped up to help keep this network on air with a fundraising
[01:18:11.600 --> 01:18:12.600]  contest.
[01:18:12.600 --> 01:18:18.000]  Thanks to Central Texas Gun Works with the first prize, the Spike Skull Lower Receiver.
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:20.600]  And prize, the Taurus Curve Handgun.
[01:18:20.600 --> 01:18:23.480]  Every $25 donation gets a chance to win.
[01:18:23.480 --> 01:18:24.480]  Enter as often as you like.
[01:18:24.480 --> 01:18:27.040]  Check out centraltexasgunworks.com.
[01:18:27.040 --> 01:18:29.360]  Thanks also to mymagicmud.com.
[01:18:29.360 --> 01:18:35.640]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[01:18:35.640 --> 01:18:39.720]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[01:18:39.720 --> 01:18:43.880]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card.
[01:18:43.880 --> 01:18:47.080]  Stop smelling like a butt at allaboutvapor.com.
[01:18:47.080 --> 01:18:52.200]  Thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar, get 10 entries into
[01:18:52.200 --> 01:18:53.200]  the contest.
[01:18:53.200 --> 01:18:57.560]  Check out the contest rules and details at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:18:57.560 --> 01:19:02.480]  Terrorists or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[01:19:02.480 --> 01:19:17.920]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:17.920 --> 01:19:41.720]  All right, folks, welcome back.
[01:19:41.720 --> 01:19:43.080]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:43.080 --> 01:19:44.440]  Yes, it is Eddie Craig.
[01:19:44.440 --> 01:19:46.960]  I am coming on tonight for a while with Randy.
[01:19:46.960 --> 01:19:53.040]  I ran into some issues that I needed to discuss openly, and he is the sounding board I have
[01:19:53.040 --> 01:19:54.960]  chosen for that.
[01:19:54.960 --> 01:19:58.960]  We need to tighten the strings a little bit here lately, but we'll get with that later.
[01:19:58.960 --> 01:20:03.000]  In the meantime, there is something, as you know, we're doing the fundraiser and we're
[01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:07.240]  trying to get money together for both the network and for the lawsuit and everything
[01:20:07.240 --> 01:20:08.240]  else.
[01:20:08.240 --> 01:20:13.460]  And as Tommy said earlier when he was on, the information we provide has value.
[01:20:13.460 --> 01:20:15.000]  It had value to him.
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:20.760]  It's had value to many, many others that have used what we provide to save themselves from
[01:20:20.760 --> 01:20:25.320]  a situation they otherwise would have lost, whatever they would have lost in.
[01:20:25.320 --> 01:20:30.600]  But regardless of what that amount might have been, please consider the following.
[01:20:30.600 --> 01:20:35.920]  If you get into a situation where the information that we provide you saves you in that situation
[01:20:35.920 --> 01:20:40.640]  all the money that it would have otherwise cost you to have to face it alone without
[01:20:40.640 --> 01:20:46.080]  us, how about considering how much that would have cost you?
[01:20:46.080 --> 01:20:55.080]  And please put at least some of that into this network, because we really do need your
[01:20:55.080 --> 01:20:56.760]  support to stay going.
[01:20:56.760 --> 01:21:00.520]  Everything here is user-funded, everything, including us.
[01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:03.560]  Nobody here draws a paycheck for this, all right?
[01:21:03.560 --> 01:21:08.120]  We survive, even though all the time we spend is pretty much doing research, helping with
[01:21:08.120 --> 01:21:14.280]  cases and things like that, we survive on either what we can do hourly to help people,
[01:21:14.280 --> 01:21:17.840]  which we don't charge a lot for that, and definitely not what a lawyer would charge
[01:21:17.840 --> 01:21:18.840]  for that.
[01:21:18.840 --> 01:21:23.920]  And it comes few and far between, because we know how money's tight for everybody.
[01:21:23.920 --> 01:21:29.800]  But what we get is what keeps us going, and without it, we're done.
[01:21:29.800 --> 01:21:34.880]  We don't have the kind of sponsorships it takes, like Alex has, and we don't peddle
[01:21:34.880 --> 01:21:38.800]  a lot of things on this show like everybody else out there does.
[01:21:38.800 --> 01:21:42.800]  We're not constantly harping on you to buy everything.
[01:21:42.800 --> 01:21:46.600]  But on times when the funds are short and the needs are great, we don't have a whole
[01:21:46.600 --> 01:21:48.400]  lot of choice.
[01:21:48.400 --> 01:21:56.040]  We survive because of you guys, just like you fight because of us.
[01:21:56.040 --> 01:22:00.640]  So think of that in a sense of value, and please treat us accordingly.
[01:22:00.640 --> 01:22:01.640]  We really could use it.
[01:22:01.640 --> 01:22:04.640]  All right, Randy, you got anything you want to add to that?
[01:22:04.640 --> 01:22:10.880]  Well, just one complaint, you didn't mention Randy's beer farm.
[01:22:10.880 --> 01:22:15.120]  If they want to give you a beer, let them come up to Dallas and buy you one.
[01:22:15.120 --> 01:22:18.400]  Just think how much more coherent I would be.
[01:22:18.400 --> 01:22:27.840]  In truth, we take money out of our own pockets and put into this show to keep it going.
[01:22:27.840 --> 01:22:33.840]  It's of value to me to be here, and I hope it's of value to you.
[01:22:33.840 --> 01:22:37.120]  I hope that what we're producing is of value.
[01:22:37.120 --> 01:22:44.880]  We sit here and we speak into this microphone, and we can't see who we're talking to.
[01:22:44.880 --> 01:22:51.600]  So we don't get much feedback, and the best feedback we could get is some funds to help
[01:22:51.600 --> 01:22:53.280]  keep the show going.
[01:22:53.280 --> 01:22:57.480]  It lets us know that our efforts aren't wasted.
[01:22:57.480 --> 01:23:04.280]  Okay, enough of that, back to the traffic code.
[01:23:04.280 --> 01:23:07.160]  Okay, where were we?
[01:23:07.160 --> 01:23:10.600]  Well, we were discussing how this would be useful.
[01:23:10.600 --> 01:23:16.520]  The information itself would be useful as to what this statute of argument over is it
[01:23:16.520 --> 01:23:19.360]  law or isn't it law, what's it going to do for us?
[01:23:19.360 --> 01:23:24.560]  And like I say, from my perspective, it puts them in a catch-22, but you were about to
[01:23:24.560 --> 01:23:29.160]  tell us some of the ways you think this would be useful in setting up an argument where
[01:23:29.160 --> 01:23:32.920]  we could really screw them over if they tried that.
[01:23:32.920 --> 01:23:36.480]  Yeah, everything's about the money.
[01:23:36.480 --> 01:23:37.840]  It's always about the money.
[01:23:37.840 --> 01:23:43.160]  One of the things that I keep saying, you'll never win your case simply because you have
[01:23:43.160 --> 01:23:44.640]  the law and the facts on your side.
[01:23:44.640 --> 01:23:49.240]  Forget that nonsense, that you'll only win your case if you have the politics on your
[01:23:49.240 --> 01:23:53.960]  side and politics is always driven by money.
[01:23:53.960 --> 01:24:01.240]  So the only way, this is a major, there would be a ruling that would change everything for
[01:24:01.240 --> 01:24:05.880]  every county, every municipality in the state of Texas.
[01:24:05.880 --> 01:24:14.040]  The enforcement of the traffic law is a major revenue source and these guys do not want
[01:24:14.040 --> 01:24:15.960]  to lose this revenue source.
[01:24:15.960 --> 01:24:20.880]  Yeah, not only is it a revenue source through all the stuff they make you pay for, the licensing
[01:24:20.880 --> 01:24:29.800]  and all that, but also the court costs, fines, fees, but it is their gateway to civil asset
[01:24:29.800 --> 01:24:31.480]  forfeiture too.
[01:24:31.480 --> 01:24:37.680]  They use the traffic code to fabricate probable cause to make a traffic stop upon the public
[01:24:37.680 --> 01:24:41.960]  just so they can search your car for cash and everything else.
[01:24:41.960 --> 01:24:45.240]  If we win this, that goes away.
[01:24:45.240 --> 01:24:49.720]  That's an even bigger bite out of their financial enchilada.
[01:24:49.720 --> 01:24:59.600]  So in order to be able to get a ruling in our favor, we have to find a way to cost them
[01:24:59.600 --> 01:25:10.440]  more money ruling against us because they rule against us, we're going to appeal.
[01:25:10.440 --> 01:25:15.280]  And then when we get to the appellate court, if the appellate court rules against us, we
[01:25:15.280 --> 01:25:23.400]  need a ruling that if they give the ruling against us, other lawyers can take that ruling
[01:25:23.400 --> 01:25:30.800]  and use it in ways that will do more harm than eliminating the traffic code or eliminating
[01:25:30.800 --> 01:25:36.200]  the application of the commercial traffic code to the public.
[01:25:36.200 --> 01:25:41.280]  So how do we structure our claims?
[01:25:41.280 --> 01:25:49.800]  What other laws can we use our argument to undermine?
[01:25:49.800 --> 01:25:50.800]  This will take some digging.
[01:25:50.800 --> 01:25:58.640]  I'm sure it'll take a little creative thinking, but we always have to consider the money.
[01:25:58.640 --> 01:26:06.360]  We can't consider, we have to use the law as the way to get in the door, but in the
[01:26:06.360 --> 01:26:09.280]  end it's about money.
[01:26:09.280 --> 01:26:20.040]  So where does more money move or who do we, where can we take some money out of somebody's
[01:26:20.040 --> 01:26:32.160]  pet projects by taking a ruling that we get here and say that says that they can enforce
[01:26:32.160 --> 01:26:34.480]  these unconstitutional laws.
[01:26:34.480 --> 01:26:44.480]  This is kind of a difficult spot because if a law is unconstitutional, then it's not enforceable.
[01:26:44.480 --> 01:26:53.680]  So what other laws do we have that politicians hate and would like to be rid of?
[01:26:53.680 --> 01:26:58.520]  Well the way I'm looking at this, if this is how they recodified the transportation
[01:26:58.520 --> 01:27:04.520]  code from Vernon's, this is how they recodified every code from Vernon's.
[01:27:04.520 --> 01:27:08.600]  And here's why I figure that's going to be a huge problem for them.
[01:27:08.600 --> 01:27:12.800]  Let's look at the way that the legislative process has to work.
[01:27:12.800 --> 01:27:17.880]  If they took and recodified Vernon's into the new code, what does that tell us about
[01:27:17.880 --> 01:27:20.960]  the existence of Vernon's as a reference?
[01:27:20.960 --> 01:27:26.240]  Wait a minute, I didn't understand that question.
[01:27:26.240 --> 01:27:28.440]  Okay, they took Vernon's.
[01:27:28.440 --> 01:27:34.160]  They rewrote Vernon's and made it into a single code, everything on that particular subject.
[01:27:34.160 --> 01:27:39.280]  They took all of the transportation stuff from Vernon's, renumbered, reorganized, reworded
[01:27:39.280 --> 01:27:47.440]  and relinked everything within a single code relating to transportation, okay?
[01:27:47.440 --> 01:27:50.760]  And they did that through SB 971.
[01:27:50.760 --> 01:28:00.200]  So once they recodified it from Vernon's, what happens to referencing Vernon's?
[01:28:00.200 --> 01:28:01.880]  For as I can tell, nothing.
[01:28:01.880 --> 01:28:03.720]  They mean nothing.
[01:28:03.720 --> 01:28:09.440]  If they recodified it in the new code, they can't go back to Vernon's.
[01:28:09.440 --> 01:28:12.880]  Well Vernon's is not code, it's law.
[01:28:12.880 --> 01:28:14.640]  Well is it or isn't it?
[01:28:14.640 --> 01:28:16.280]  I'm sorry, Vernon's is code.
[01:28:16.280 --> 01:28:17.280]  Right.
[01:28:17.280 --> 01:28:19.320]  Vernon's is not the public law.
[01:28:19.320 --> 01:28:20.480]  Correct.
[01:28:20.480 --> 01:28:26.640]  So the question becomes, what statutes are they now going to rely on when we get these
[01:28:26.640 --> 01:28:28.280]  declared unconstitutional?
[01:28:28.280 --> 01:28:29.520]  There won't be a code.
[01:28:29.520 --> 01:28:34.600]  They can't fall back on Vernon's because they superseded and repealed Vernon's when they
[01:28:34.600 --> 01:28:37.360]  reenacted it under this new code.
[01:28:37.360 --> 01:28:40.000]  So they can't fall back on Vernon's.
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:46.640]  The only thing they can fall back on is the actual underlying law that the codes themselves
[01:28:46.640 --> 01:28:49.200]  didn't change.
[01:28:49.200 --> 01:28:55.280]  They would have to go back to 1925 law itself and use that.
[01:28:55.280 --> 01:28:59.480]  That's all they would have because we just nullified the codes.
[01:28:59.480 --> 01:29:04.720]  Have to recodify, recodify in accordance with the code.
[01:29:04.720 --> 01:29:08.360]  In accordance with the Constitution to create the code, yes, because they would need to
[01:29:08.360 --> 01:29:11.840]  do the recodification via a bill.
[01:29:11.840 --> 01:29:13.880]  I said that wrong.
[01:29:13.880 --> 01:29:18.760]  Recodify in accordance with the underlying law.
[01:29:18.760 --> 01:29:19.760]  Correct.
[01:29:19.760 --> 01:29:20.760]  Public law.
[01:29:20.760 --> 01:29:21.760]  Go ahead.
[01:29:21.760 --> 01:29:32.200]  Is Vernon's considered to be an accurate codification of the underlying law?
[01:29:32.200 --> 01:29:39.560]  The ones that have the certification from the secretary of state are, but like I say,
[01:29:39.560 --> 01:29:43.200]  those were codes and they were superseded by the recodification.
[01:29:43.200 --> 01:29:47.480]  They were automatically repealed when they put in the new stuff.
[01:29:47.480 --> 01:29:51.640]  They would have had to have been, or we could still be using them both, right?
[01:29:51.640 --> 01:29:56.760]  Yeah, and I don't see how we can... All right, folks, y'all hang on and we'll be
[01:29:56.760 --> 01:29:59.560]  right back to pick this up.
[01:29:59.560 --> 01:30:04.040]  Attention foreign language students.
[01:30:04.040 --> 01:30:07.040]  Get the books and get out those dictionaries.
[01:30:07.040 --> 01:30:09.840]  There's major good news about learning a second language.
[01:30:09.840 --> 01:30:16.680]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back to tell you about a new study on bilingualism after this.
[01:30:16.680 --> 01:30:18.400]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:18.400 --> 01:30:22.080]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.080 --> 01:30:27.480]  Once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.480 --> 01:30:28.480]  Protect your rights.
[01:30:28.480 --> 01:30:32.120]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.120 --> 01:30:33.120]  Privacy.
[01:30:33.120 --> 01:30:34.760]  It's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.760 --> 01:30:40.400]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:30:40.400 --> 01:30:42.100]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:42.100 --> 01:30:44.320]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:44.320 --> 01:30:49.880]  Learning a foreign language brings many benefits, but a new study has found a major long-term
[01:30:49.880 --> 01:30:52.200]  health benefit to bilingualism.
[01:30:52.200 --> 01:30:55.200]  It may delay the onset of Alzheimer's.
[01:30:55.200 --> 01:30:59.280]  Canadian researchers reviewed hospital records of patients with dementia.
[01:30:59.280 --> 01:31:03.120]  They discovered that bilingual people were diagnosed three to four years later than those
[01:31:03.120 --> 01:31:08.320]  who only spoke one language, even though they have less education and job status.
[01:31:08.320 --> 01:31:12.720]  Though brains of bilingual people still develop Alzheimer's, the scientists said, speaking
[01:31:12.720 --> 01:31:18.000]  another language better prepares their brains to compensate for the onset of the disease
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:20.600]  due to the enhanced brain networks they've developed.
[01:31:20.600 --> 01:31:24.000]  Huh, maybe it's time to brush up on that French, Nespa.
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:31.440]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.440 --> 01:31:36.800]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.800 --> 01:31:39.200]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:39.200 --> 01:31:43.880]  1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.880 --> 01:31:46.720]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.720 --> 01:31:49.320]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.320 --> 01:31:50.800]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.800 --> 01:31:51.800]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.800 --> 01:31:53.160]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.160 --> 01:31:54.160]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.160 --> 01:31:55.800]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.800 --> 01:31:58.440]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.440 --> 01:32:00.480]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:00.480 --> 01:32:03.720]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:03.720 --> 01:32:07.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:10.640]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting
[01:32:10.640 --> 01:32:11.640]  them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.640 --> 01:32:15.240]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.240 --> 01:32:19.080]  That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for
[01:32:19.080 --> 01:32:24.280]  you with little to no out-of-pocket expense, and we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus
[01:32:24.280 --> 01:32:27.420]  member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints.
[01:32:27.420 --> 01:32:31.760]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the
[01:32:31.760 --> 01:32:32.840]  first time.
[01:32:32.840 --> 01:32:39.160]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.160 --> 01:32:43.520]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos
[01:32:43.520 --> 01:32:46.120]  Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.120 --> 01:32:51.240]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.240 --> 01:32:57.680]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.680 --> 01:32:59.160]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.160 --> 01:33:06.160]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:29.160 --> 01:33:35.840]  Okay.
[01:33:35.840 --> 01:33:36.840]  We are back.
[01:33:36.840 --> 01:33:44.640]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and we kind of started this in the middle.
[01:33:44.640 --> 01:33:51.120]  If you don't listen to Eddie's show regularly, then you might not know precisely what Eddie's
[01:33:51.120 --> 01:33:52.120]  talking about.
[01:33:52.120 --> 01:33:59.640]  Eddie, can you explain why you're saying all of these codes are improper, what the legislature
[01:33:59.640 --> 01:34:02.360]  did to create this problem?
[01:34:02.360 --> 01:34:08.440]  Well, the Texas Constitution under Article III, sections 29 through 38, contained very
[01:34:08.440 --> 01:34:15.640]  specific criteria for how public law in Texas must be made, who can make it, and every step
[01:34:15.640 --> 01:34:18.120]  they have to go through to make it.
[01:34:18.120 --> 01:34:25.640]  Now, two of those steps absolutely require that the bill be read on the floor of each
[01:34:25.640 --> 01:34:32.520]  house of the legislature and that open discussion be held on that bill, and these two things
[01:34:32.520 --> 01:34:34.840]  have to be done over three several days.
[01:34:34.840 --> 01:34:40.960]  Now, if you understand what that means, it means that the total time spent discussing
[01:34:40.960 --> 01:34:46.360]  and reading the bill must be at least three complete days.
[01:34:46.360 --> 01:34:54.000]  And this is any bill, or the bill can be short enough to fit within that three several days.
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  All right?
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:00.720]  But if the bill's longer, they have to get through it in three several days.
[01:35:00.720 --> 01:35:06.040]  The original bill, when it went through, was over 4,100 pages long.
[01:35:06.040 --> 01:35:10.000]  The output bill was over 2,100 pages long.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:19.040]  Now, the question here is, is could they read between 7 and 1,300 plus pages per day for
[01:35:19.040 --> 01:35:20.720]  three several days?
[01:35:20.720 --> 01:35:22.520]  I don't think they could.
[01:35:22.520 --> 01:35:25.160]  In fact, they didn't even try.
[01:35:25.160 --> 01:35:31.260]  In the bill itself, they put in an emergency clause that said they were suspending the
[01:35:31.260 --> 01:35:33.960]  reading on the floor of each house.
[01:35:33.960 --> 01:35:39.360]  The emergency clause they used violates the Texas Constitution.
[01:35:39.360 --> 01:35:44.480]  The suspension that they did violates the Texas Constitution.
[01:35:44.480 --> 01:35:51.000]  They did not do anything to suspend this in compliance with Article III, Section 62, which
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:58.080]  is the only section dealing with suspension of procedural rules, at least at that time.
[01:35:58.080 --> 01:36:03.840]  The only one that exists in addition to that now is a second clause that was added to Article
[01:36:03.840 --> 01:36:14.000]  III, Section 32, turning the majority vote from a majority, 50.01%, into a four-fifths
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:18.280]  majority in order to get that suspension.
[01:36:18.280 --> 01:36:24.240]  But in either case, the bill was improperly suspended in its reading on the floor of each
[01:36:24.240 --> 01:36:30.520]  house, thus making it unconstitutional because another provision of Article III, Section
[01:36:30.520 --> 01:36:39.720]  32, says that no bill shall have the force of law unless those things have been done.
[01:36:39.720 --> 01:36:47.640]  So SB 971 is the bill that recodified the Vernon's annotated civil statutes dealing
[01:36:47.640 --> 01:36:55.040]  with transportation into the existing transportation code, which has been constantly amended ever
[01:36:55.040 --> 01:37:02.080]  since, and those amendments created a secondary violation in addition to the unconstitutional
[01:37:02.080 --> 01:37:09.720]  passing and that is amending the original purpose of the underlying law through recodification
[01:37:09.720 --> 01:37:12.760]  and rewriting of the statutes themselves.
[01:37:12.760 --> 01:37:18.760]  For instance, one of the definitions that was in existence back in 2011, when I did
[01:37:18.760 --> 01:37:24.760]  my Infowars presentation, very clearly stated that the vehicle that was being defined was
[01:37:24.760 --> 01:37:27.240]  used for commercial purposes.
[01:37:27.240 --> 01:37:34.920]  The new version of that that was redone in 2013 took out the words commercial.
[01:37:34.920 --> 01:37:41.200]  They are slowly but surely attempting to amend the verbiage to take away the implication
[01:37:41.200 --> 01:37:50.480]  of commercial activity from a code whose underlying law deals only with commercial activity.
[01:37:50.480 --> 01:37:56.600]  So there is no way on God's green earth that this could ever be considered constitutional
[01:37:56.600 --> 01:38:00.600]  under the Texas Constitution, but they're trying to keep it in place and treat it as
[01:38:00.600 --> 01:38:02.040]  if it is.
[01:38:02.040 --> 01:38:06.960]  And the lower courts are adamant about making sure it stays there, even to the point of
[01:38:06.960 --> 01:38:11.760]  violating your due process rights at every single turn to prevent this information from
[01:38:11.760 --> 01:38:14.040]  being made public.
[01:38:14.040 --> 01:38:16.760]  So that's where we're at.
[01:38:16.760 --> 01:38:26.560]  So what is the emergency suspension statute that you say is unconstitutional?
[01:38:26.560 --> 01:38:27.560]  It's not a statute.
[01:38:27.560 --> 01:38:31.320]  It's the actual verbiage they used in the bill itself.
[01:38:31.320 --> 01:38:37.400]  And in that bill, the verbiage essentially reads, due to the crowded conditions of the
[01:38:37.400 --> 01:38:45.480]  calendar of each house creating, and the importance of this legislation, creates an emergency,
[01:38:45.480 --> 01:38:51.360]  an imperative public necessity that the rule on the reading of a bill on the floor of each
[01:38:51.360 --> 01:38:55.840]  house be suspended, and it is so suspended.
[01:38:55.840 --> 01:39:03.520]  Well, the problem is Article 3, Section 62 of the Texas Constitution says there is only
[01:39:03.520 --> 01:39:11.960]  one way to declare an emergency clause for any bill other than an appropriations bill,
[01:39:11.960 --> 01:39:14.640]  which is handled under 49A.
[01:39:14.640 --> 01:39:21.240]  And under Section 62, the emergency can only exist under several conditions, the first
[01:39:21.240 --> 01:39:28.480]  and foremost of which is the emergency must be the result of disasters related to enemy
[01:39:28.480 --> 01:39:29.840]  attack.
[01:39:29.840 --> 01:39:37.760]  Then it goes on to say that in order to suspend the procedural rules, including Article 3,
[01:39:37.760 --> 01:39:47.600]  Section 32, the governor must sign a written proclamation, the chairman of each house has
[01:39:47.600 --> 01:39:51.480]  to concur by signing that proclamation.
[01:39:51.480 --> 01:39:59.720]  And then there has to be a vote by the legislature of a majority, four-fifths, in order to suspend
[01:39:59.720 --> 01:40:04.720]  the clauses under that emergency declaration.
[01:40:04.720 --> 01:40:05.880]  None of that happened.
[01:40:05.880 --> 01:40:11.000]  In 1995, Texas was not being attacked or invaded by anyone.
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:17.560]  There's no news articles, no news period that we were under attack in 1995 when this emergency
[01:40:17.560 --> 01:40:18.560]  took place.
[01:40:18.560 --> 01:40:25.400]  A crowded calendar condition for the houses of the legislature is not a valid commercial
[01:40:25.400 --> 01:40:31.880]  or the constitutional emergency clause in any way, shape, or form.
[01:40:31.880 --> 01:40:42.800]  So is that particular law still in place or has it been superseded?
[01:40:42.800 --> 01:40:46.880]  When you say that law, are we talking about SB 971, the transportation code?
[01:40:46.880 --> 01:40:56.000]  No, I'm talking about the law that allowed them to suspend the three-day rule that was
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  in effect in 1995.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:03.080]  No, in 1995, the four-fifths majority vote amendment had not been put in.
[01:41:03.080 --> 01:41:06.520]  That was put in in 1999.
[01:41:06.520 --> 01:41:15.040]  Until 1999, the only thing for suspending any procedural rule was 49A in relation to
[01:41:15.040 --> 01:41:19.720]  appropriations bills, the rule could be suspended by four-fifths vote.
[01:41:19.720 --> 01:41:24.640]  Now you've got a four-fifths vote relating to the suspension of any bill.
[01:41:24.640 --> 01:41:32.120]  But the only clause in the entire thing other than 49A that says anything about an emergency
[01:41:32.120 --> 01:41:36.840]  relating to suspension rules is section 62 of Article 3.
[01:41:36.840 --> 01:41:42.600]  And everything in that is absolutely crystal clear as to what the requirements are for
[01:41:42.600 --> 01:41:44.840]  that emergency to exist.
[01:41:44.840 --> 01:41:52.480]  Because it says specifically that if a state of emergency such as that described by subsection
[01:41:52.480 --> 01:42:00.240]  A, then the rules mentioned in subsection B, which point to the rules up in 29 through
[01:42:00.240 --> 01:42:03.480]  38, can be suspended.
[01:42:03.480 --> 01:42:05.480]  What does 49 say?
[01:42:05.480 --> 01:42:12.160]  49A basically has exactly the language of the emergency clause in question.
[01:42:12.160 --> 01:42:20.520]  It deals with imperative public necessity and the state of emergency relating to that
[01:42:20.520 --> 01:42:22.000]  public necessity.
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:28.400]  That is what's there for a fiscal bill, an appropriations bill.
[01:42:28.400 --> 01:42:32.000]  But SB 971 is not an appropriations bill.
[01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:36.400]  So it can't use the appropriations emergency clause to suspend.
[01:42:36.400 --> 01:42:37.880]  That's what I was looking for.
[01:42:37.880 --> 01:42:38.880]  And then they have another problem.
[01:42:38.880 --> 01:42:43.960]  If they try to argue that it is appropriations, then it still fails because all appropriations
[01:42:43.960 --> 01:42:46.520]  bills have to originate in the House.
[01:42:46.520 --> 01:42:50.000]  It would have had to be an HB 971.
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  It's not.
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:53.160]  It's not an originate bill.
[01:42:53.160 --> 01:42:57.680]  So it fails muster at every constitutional juncture.
[01:42:57.680 --> 01:42:59.280]  Wonderful.
[01:42:59.280 --> 01:43:05.200]  So that one is still in place.
[01:43:05.200 --> 01:43:07.040]  They're all still in place.
[01:43:07.040 --> 01:43:16.760]  So an attack on that one to get it ruled unconstitutional in its application.
[01:43:16.760 --> 01:43:18.400]  In its entire existence.
[01:43:18.400 --> 01:43:21.320]  In its entire existence.
[01:43:21.320 --> 01:43:29.520]  Then it would render any statute passed in accordance with that void as a matter of law,
[01:43:29.520 --> 01:43:31.760]  if we could get that ruling.
[01:43:31.760 --> 01:43:32.840]  Correct.
[01:43:32.840 --> 01:43:38.040]  But that might be harder to get rid of than the transportation code because that will
[01:43:38.040 --> 01:43:40.560]  flush a lot of law.
[01:43:40.560 --> 01:43:41.560]  Yeah.
[01:43:41.560 --> 01:43:47.480]  Well, if every recodification of every code in Texas is done with the same emergency clause,
[01:43:47.480 --> 01:43:50.800]  they're going to have that problem across the board.
[01:43:50.800 --> 01:43:54.280]  And I think they're going to see that one coming once this argument gets out there.
[01:43:54.280 --> 01:43:55.280]  All right, folks.
[01:43:55.280 --> 01:44:00.280]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.280 --> 01:44:03.840]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.840 --> 01:44:04.840]  Sorry.
[01:44:04.840 --> 01:44:07.720]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.720 --> 01:44:08.720]  What?
[01:44:08.720 --> 01:44:12.600]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:12.600 --> 01:44:14.800]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt.
[01:44:14.800 --> 01:44:19.200]  And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.200 --> 01:44:23.160]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home
[01:44:23.160 --> 01:44:25.200]  in America, the television.
[01:44:25.200 --> 01:44:29.080]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity.
[01:44:29.080 --> 01:44:30.080]  But there is hope.
[01:44:30.080 --> 01:44:34.080]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering
[01:44:34.080 --> 01:44:36.380]  from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.380 --> 01:44:40.600]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries
[01:44:40.600 --> 01:44:42.640]  without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:42.640 --> 01:44:50.640]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:50.640 --> 01:44:54.680]  or visit them in 1904, Guadalupe, or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.680 --> 01:44:58.200]  Side effects of using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and
[01:44:58.200 --> 01:44:59.680]  an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:44:59.680 --> 01:45:04.440]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.440 --> 01:45:09.680]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand
[01:45:09.680 --> 01:45:14.360]  four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:14.360 --> 01:45:18.920]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.920 --> 01:45:23.680]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.680 --> 01:45:28.080]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.080 --> 01:45:34.840]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.840 --> 01:45:39.400]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:39.400 --> 01:45:43.680]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.680 --> 01:45:49.800]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.800 --> 01:46:10.320]  pro se tactics, and much more, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:46:10.320 --> 01:46:29.600]  on the right-hand side of the screen.
[01:46:29.600 --> 01:46:30.600]  Okay, we are back.
[01:46:30.600 --> 01:46:40.880]  Miranda Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking about the unconstitutionality
[01:46:40.880 --> 01:46:48.680]  of the way that the legislature is currently passing bills through the house, all apparently
[01:46:48.680 --> 01:46:56.720]  under emergency provisions that do not comport with constitution.
[01:46:56.720 --> 01:47:07.800]  So we're looking for a way to get a wedge in there so we can, and the likelihood of
[01:47:07.800 --> 01:47:12.520]  us getting the transportation code tossed is pretty slim.
[01:47:12.520 --> 01:47:20.800]  So what would be our first step in driving a wedge in this system that we may actually
[01:47:20.800 --> 01:47:22.000]  be able to get done?
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:27.480]  Well, that's the question of the day, as I told you on break, they never met a code they
[01:47:27.480 --> 01:47:32.760]  didn't like, so I don't know how we're going to force the issue on any of them any more
[01:47:32.760 --> 01:47:34.000]  than the other.
[01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:41.200]  This one is extremely easy as far as having everything you need to prove it.
[01:47:41.200 --> 01:47:48.120]  What is, do you have any feel for how the feds look at this?
[01:47:48.120 --> 01:47:54.520]  Well, the problem is this being a challenge to an entire recodification, I don't know
[01:47:54.520 --> 01:48:03.200]  that this has ever been done anywhere, and so I really don't know if we have a frame
[01:48:03.200 --> 01:48:07.000]  of reference at the fed or anywhere else for that.
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:16.640]  Okay, now the fifth, we need to look at the circuit and see which circuit would be likely
[01:48:16.640 --> 01:48:20.960]  to rule in our favor.
[01:48:20.960 --> 01:48:31.760]  Then we need someone who's received a ticket in Texas, who's out of that circuit, then
[01:48:31.760 --> 01:48:35.600]  they could file in that circuit.
[01:48:35.600 --> 01:48:37.240]  Yeah.
[01:48:37.240 --> 01:48:45.960]  Somebody, some circuit that's a long way from Texas and won't tend to have, what I'm doing
[01:48:45.960 --> 01:48:48.560]  now is thinking politically.
[01:48:48.560 --> 01:48:54.040]  The more I do the show, the more I do the deal with the courts, the more I begin to
[01:48:54.040 --> 01:49:00.600]  understand how everything is political.
[01:49:00.600 --> 01:49:06.720]  We can't expect to win your case simply because you have the law and the facts on your side.
[01:49:06.720 --> 01:49:10.480]  We've got to get the politics on our side.
[01:49:10.480 --> 01:49:15.960]  So where do we look for politics?
[01:49:15.960 --> 01:49:24.360]  One of the difficulties in looking for politics in this regard is if we get the traffic code
[01:49:24.360 --> 01:49:32.360]  trashed in Texas, we're likely to get it trashed everywhere else unless we choose our claim
[01:49:32.360 --> 01:49:39.640]  very carefully in a way that only applies to Texas, and it seems you have one.
[01:49:39.640 --> 01:49:48.040]  Unless if the federal court rules that this emergency provision that was used was not
[01:49:48.040 --> 01:49:52.960]  properly used, that won't affect anything but Texas.
[01:49:52.960 --> 01:49:53.960]  Right.
[01:49:53.960 --> 01:50:06.040]  So if we can find a circuit that may be more amenable to our argument and they can render
[01:50:06.040 --> 01:50:11.520]  a ruling and it won't affect their state or the states that they're in around where
[01:50:11.520 --> 01:50:22.400]  all their friends and buddies are, we at least have a better option at getting a ruling.
[01:50:22.400 --> 01:50:31.040]  Then how do we make it easy for the judge to rule in our favor?
[01:50:31.040 --> 01:50:37.320]  Because we know judges do not like hard cases.
[01:50:37.320 --> 01:50:46.120]  They especially don't like to make rulings that changes the world as they know it.
[01:50:46.120 --> 01:51:01.400]  So is there something in ancillary but close enough that we could get an initial ruling
[01:51:01.400 --> 01:51:02.680]  on?
[01:51:02.680 --> 01:51:05.760]  Well that's the rub.
[01:51:05.760 --> 01:51:11.200]  I don't see this coming down easy any way we do it.
[01:51:11.200 --> 01:51:16.120]  In fact, the plan of attack I have for this specifically avoids that level of confrontation
[01:51:16.120 --> 01:51:22.180]  for a while until we have enough dismissals and everything under our belt to have a scattering
[01:51:22.180 --> 01:51:30.240]  of people across the state that could then join up to go after this issue as a whole.
[01:51:30.240 --> 01:51:33.840]  What I'm thinking is let's get somebody outside the state.
[01:51:33.840 --> 01:51:44.840]  We've got that guy in Pennsylvania that was down here and he got a ticket to Arizona.
[01:51:44.840 --> 01:51:45.840]  That's Arizona.
[01:51:45.840 --> 01:51:53.120]  We need somebody who is some people from out of state that's gotten tickets here that might
[01:51:53.120 --> 01:52:01.960]  be willing to take a suit in their circuit.
[01:52:01.960 --> 01:52:15.640]  That's one degree of separation but everything you're arguing so far is so heavy that I can't
[01:52:15.640 --> 01:52:21.360]  see a way to get a ruling because the courts are corrupt and they're absolutely corrupt.
[01:52:21.360 --> 01:52:26.880]  Yeah, unfortunately in this particular case they would have to make their corruption absolutely
[01:52:26.880 --> 01:52:29.320]  public to get away with this.
[01:52:29.320 --> 01:52:33.680]  Because the way that I'm writing this, the opinion they would have to make would say
[01:52:33.680 --> 01:52:39.760]  why every single one of these constitutional provisions is no longer valid.
[01:52:39.760 --> 01:52:42.980]  Even though they're still in the Constitution, there's no amendments to them, there's no
[01:52:42.980 --> 01:52:46.560]  eradicating repeals to them, none of that.
[01:52:46.560 --> 01:52:49.680]  They're going to have to try to say that none of them matter.
[01:52:49.680 --> 01:52:53.920]  In which case what they're trying to say is the Constitution doesn't matter.
[01:52:53.920 --> 01:53:03.120]  I think at this point that would be extremely dangerous even for them.
[01:53:03.120 --> 01:53:14.880]  Yes, my concern is that we get a bogus ruling in a district court and we appeal to the state
[01:53:14.880 --> 01:53:18.440]  circuits and the state circuits are going to rule against us.
[01:53:18.440 --> 01:53:25.800]  We file in the federal court in Texas and they're going to rule against us.
[01:53:25.800 --> 01:53:31.560]  We can just have to expect it and then it will go to the fifth which in my opinion may
[01:53:31.560 --> 01:53:35.120]  be one of the most corrupt circuits in the country.
[01:53:35.120 --> 01:53:38.760]  Well, I'm not arguing with you there.
[01:53:38.760 --> 01:53:46.760]  They're absolutely going to rule against us and then the Supreme will not pick it up.
[01:53:46.760 --> 01:53:52.960]  It's the Supreme's answer to difficult questions is they just ignore them.
[01:53:52.960 --> 01:53:59.960]  So where do we find the clout we need?
[01:53:59.960 --> 01:54:10.360]  One thing, I have an issue, I have someone who works for me that got a ticket in Lakeside,
[01:54:10.360 --> 01:54:16.000]  Texas, a tiny little town about 1,300 people.
[01:54:16.000 --> 01:54:22.720]  She went to court with my challenge to subject matter jurisdiction and it upset the judge
[01:54:22.720 --> 01:54:29.600]  and prosecutor to the point that they threw me and David, the guy who was with out of
[01:54:29.600 --> 01:54:36.320]  the courtroom because we were possible witnesses to ask us if we were possibly be called as
[01:54:36.320 --> 01:54:41.960]  a witness and we both said we have no personal knowledge of anything related to this case.
[01:54:41.960 --> 01:54:49.640]  The prosecutor just kept on, is there any possibility that you could be called as a witness?
[01:54:49.640 --> 01:54:50.640]  Not that I know of.
[01:54:50.640 --> 01:54:52.840]  Said if I called you as a witness, would you object?
[01:54:52.840 --> 01:54:55.680]  I'd love to get up there.
[01:54:55.680 --> 01:54:59.000]  So he invoked the rule and threw us out.
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:05.160]  And then she went in, they ruled against her and they told her she had to pay the fine
[01:55:05.160 --> 01:55:06.160]  right there.
[01:55:06.160 --> 01:55:09.360]  She said, well, I need to talk to my friends out there.
[01:55:09.360 --> 01:55:10.360]  I don't have enough money.
[01:55:10.360 --> 01:55:12.080]  You should have thought of that earlier.
[01:55:12.080 --> 01:55:19.200]  They threw her in jail for 72 hours, taken to court.
[01:55:19.200 --> 01:55:23.400]  That might be a good one because it's so outrageous.
[01:55:23.400 --> 01:55:35.640]  The next morning I go in with a habeas and I asked them for the judge's bar card and
[01:55:35.640 --> 01:55:43.600]  the prosecutor's bar card because I needed it and the order, the order to incarcerate
[01:55:43.600 --> 01:55:49.080]  her and they didn't have it.
[01:55:49.080 --> 01:55:53.780]  So I told them I needed it for my habeas.
[01:55:53.780 --> 01:55:58.920]  So I couldn't get that because they said I'd have to put in an information request and
[01:55:58.920 --> 01:56:00.740]  blah, blah, blah.
[01:56:00.740 --> 01:56:07.560]  So I went down to the county courthouse and I raised so much cane.
[01:56:07.560 --> 01:56:13.840]  I went into a court, the only court I could find in session, called the bailiff over,
[01:56:13.840 --> 01:56:22.340]  told him that I had a habeas for the judge and to go tell the judge, he goes, walks up
[01:56:22.340 --> 01:56:27.280]  next to the, to the bench, but don't say anything.
[01:56:27.280 --> 01:56:31.480]  So I stood up and said, your honor, my name is Randall Kelton, I have a business with
[01:56:31.480 --> 01:56:32.480]  this court.
[01:56:32.480 --> 01:56:35.040]  She did a business now before this court.
[01:56:35.040 --> 01:56:38.720]  So he was not happy about that.
[01:56:38.720 --> 01:56:41.120]  Well, what are you doing in my courtroom?
[01:56:41.120 --> 01:56:43.480]  Said, I'm here with a habeas.
[01:56:43.480 --> 01:56:46.200]  Well, I'm not going to hear it.
[01:56:46.200 --> 01:56:51.480]  Said Mr. Baggis, I need you to arrest the judge and the judge said, Mr. Baggis, throw
[01:56:51.480 --> 01:56:55.560]  him out of my courtroom and he did.
[01:56:55.560 --> 01:56:59.880]  So I went around every other court, I went to the clerk and asked for every judge that
[01:56:59.880 --> 01:57:04.960]  was in that day to contact them and see which one would take my habeas.
[01:57:04.960 --> 01:57:09.440]  The one that normally heard habeas was out for the day and I said, we'll find somebody
[01:57:09.440 --> 01:57:10.440]  else.
[01:57:10.440 --> 01:57:11.440]  I don't care who they are.
[01:57:11.440 --> 01:57:18.000]  I just made a nuisance of myself and it turned out I didn't need to because as soon as I
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:26.800]  walked out of the lakeside city hall, they called down and had this, had Tony let out
[01:57:26.800 --> 01:57:27.800]  of jail.
[01:57:27.800 --> 01:57:34.760]  So while I'm stirring up all this stink, they got her out of there quickly when I asked
[01:57:34.760 --> 01:57:41.480]  for the commitment order, I finally got one, but I think I'm sure they backdated because
[01:57:41.480 --> 01:57:46.480]  I went to the police department and asked them for one and they didn't have one.
[01:57:46.480 --> 01:57:53.600]  But anyway, they arrested her for not paying the fine immediately when you got 10 days
[01:57:53.600 --> 01:57:56.480]  by statute.
[01:57:56.480 --> 01:58:00.560]  This would probably be a good one to sue because they only got 1,300 people, they don't have
[01:58:00.560 --> 01:58:01.560]  deep pockets.
[01:58:01.560 --> 01:58:02.560]  Well, maybe.
[01:58:02.560 --> 01:58:11.680]  If we can't hire the big higher high power lawyers to fight us, anyway, it's the politics
[01:58:11.680 --> 01:58:12.680]  all about the money.
[01:58:12.680 --> 01:58:18.480]  This is Randy Kelton, We Will All Radio, we'll be back tomorrow night for our four hour info
[01:58:18.480 --> 01:58:27.880]  marathon and when the show's over, go and take a look at our sponsors and look at the
[01:58:27.880 --> 01:58:33.720]  gun giveaway and think about what we're worth to you and see if we can't return a little
[01:58:33.720 --> 01:58:38.280]  of that back to us so we can stay on the air and keep our quality up.
[01:58:38.280 --> 01:58:41.320]  This is Randy Kelton, We Will All Radio.
[01:58:41.320 --> 01:58:50.600]  Thank you all for listening and good night.
[01:58:50.600 --> 01:58:56.680]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.680 --> 01:58:57.880]  Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.880 --> 01:59:02.840]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible
[01:59:02.840 --> 01:59:08.520]  says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.520 --> 01:59:11.840]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.840 --> 01:59:20.800]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.800 --> 01:59:26.480]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus
[01:59:26.480 --> 01:59:30.360]  charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.360 --> 01:59:32.920]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.920 --> 01:59:41.280]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.280 --> 01:59:52.200]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:52.200 --> 02:00:03.520]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.