[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown. Providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:10.000 --> 00:18.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:18.000 --> 00:38.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 27th of January, 2016 opened up with gold at $1,120 an ounce, silver at $14.48 an ounce, Texas crude at $31.45 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 395 U.S. currency.
[00:38.000 --> 00:57.000]  Today in history, Thursday, January 27th, 1825, the U.S. Congress approves Indian territory in what is present-day Oklahoma. This clears the way for the forced relocation of eastern Indians known as the Trail of Tears.
[00:57.000 --> 01:17.000]  In recent news, the Vatican announced over the weekend that Pope Francis will be visiting Sweden later this year to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's writing and posting of the 95 Theses on the front doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31, 1517.
[01:17.000 --> 01:30.000]  Amongst other points, Luther primarily wrote argumentations against the Roman Catholic theology of indulgences, essentially the selling of forgiveness from temporal punishment, from sins for money, a practice still upheld by the Church.
[01:30.000 --> 01:38.000]  On October 31st of this year, Francis is set to be at the southern Swedish city of Lund, where the Lutheran World Federation was founded in 1947.
[01:38.000 --> 01:49.000]  While his predecessors have visited Protestant churches, Francis has come under criticism from traditionalists and conservatives within the Church who accuse him of sending conflicting signals about interfaith relations.
[01:49.000 --> 02:07.000]  Catholic traditionalists have accused Francis of making too many concessions to Lutherans, since both religions will be using Luther's common prayer during the 2017 Reformation commemoration services being held jointly between the two churches, which they say excessively praised Luther, who was historically condemned as a heretic and excommunicated.
[02:07.000 --> 02:29.000]  Pope Francis has made ecumenism one of the main themes of his papacy, considering he has already visited the Lutheran Church of Rome, the Waldensian Protestant community in northern Italy, Rome's Jewish synagogue, and is soon due to become the first pope to visit Rome's mosque later this year.
[02:29.000 --> 02:45.000]  Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, died Sunday at the age of 88. Minsky viewed the brain as a machine whose function can be studied and replicated in the computer, and he considered how machines might be endowed with common sense for artificial intelligence.
[02:45.000 --> 03:00.000]  Daniella Russ, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, said that Minsky helped create the vision of artificial intelligence as we know it today.
[03:15.000 --> 03:38.000]  Really, man, come on, six o'clock noon, say somebody's been shot, somebody's been fused, somebody blew up a building, somebody stole their car, somebody got away, somebody didn't get too far, yeah, they didn't get too far.
[03:38.000 --> 04:00.000]  Grandpappy told my pappy back in my day's slot, a man had the answer for the wicked that he'd done, he'd take all the rope in Texas by the tall old tree, round up all of them bad boys in the highest street, for all the people to see.
[04:00.000 --> 04:26.000]  That just is just one thing you should always find, you've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line, when the guns won't settle, we'll sing a victory tune, and we'll all meet back at the local zoo, we'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing, whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.
[04:26.000 --> 04:32.000]  Good evening, folks, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[04:32.000 --> 04:41.000]  It is February 1, 2016, a new month in the new year in which we are trying to move forward.
[04:41.000 --> 04:52.000]  Now, most of you know I am working on a constitutional challenge motion to the Transportation Code in its entirety as it exists here in Texas.
[04:52.000 --> 05:09.000]  And if you are on Facebook and monitor my posts and things like that and the events that I set up for the Monday Night Show and so on and so forth, you will find a link there to part of what I have been developing today to go into this motion.
[05:09.000 --> 05:15.000]  And what I'm trying to do now is to get the necessary case law associated and tagged in it as well.
[05:15.000 --> 05:33.000]  But the subject matter also, if you don't have Facebook or anything and you want to go to my blog and read this where this article is actually posted, just go to DowOfLaw.wordpress.com.
[05:33.000 --> 05:39.000]  And it will be the latest article posted there that is titled No Articulable Probable Cause.
[05:39.000 --> 05:45.000]  And that tonight is going to be our subject for discussion on the show, at least for me.
[05:45.000 --> 05:51.000]  Whatever you call in after that is almost never on point with what I talked about, but that's okay.
[05:51.000 --> 05:59.000]  But for the next few segments, that's what we're going to be dealing with is what I've been developing in this section of the motion.
[05:59.000 --> 06:18.000]  Now, basically what I want to read to you is some information from an article written by a gentleman by the name of Devalis Rutledge, which is a former police officer and a veteran prosecutor currently serving in special counsel out in the City of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
[06:18.000 --> 06:29.000]  And in this article, he put it in Police Patrol Magazine, and it's a community website for cops.
[06:29.000 --> 06:36.000]  And this is the article that he published, and it's titled Department's Point of Law, Probable Cause, and Reasonable Suspicion.
[06:36.000 --> 06:39.000]  These familiar terms are often confused and misused.
[06:39.000 --> 06:50.000]  What he is going to tell us is what his perspective and that of the United States Supreme Court is in relation to reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
[06:50.000 --> 07:10.000]  Then I'm going to address what I've developed in my motion about why none of the standards set by the United States Supreme Court can be reasonably applied when it comes to regulatory malum prohibitum statutory schemes.
[07:10.000 --> 07:21.000]  The two are oil and water when it comes to the standards set by the court as to how reasonable suspicion or articulable probable cause is gotten.
[07:21.000 --> 07:25.000]  So let me go first through some of the things that he talks about here in the article.
[07:25.000 --> 07:27.000]  I'm not going to read the article to you verbatim.
[07:27.000 --> 07:32.000]  I'm just going to read you some of the excerpts of what the court has established in relation to this.
[07:32.000 --> 07:40.000]  Now, here he's talking about probable cause, and he puts the Fourth Amendment provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause.
[07:40.000 --> 07:50.000]  The Constitution doesn't furnish any definition of probable cause, leaving that task to the Supreme Court, which has also applied the probable cause standard to certain warrantless activities.
[07:50.000 --> 07:51.000]  All this is true.
[07:51.000 --> 07:53.000]  We've got the case law here to show it.
[07:53.000 --> 08:04.000]  The term reasonable suspicion is not of constitutional derivation but was fashioned by the court to describe a level of suspicion lower than probable cause.
[08:04.000 --> 08:11.000]  The court has struggled to provide meaningful definitions of both terms, baloney,
[08:11.000 --> 08:18.000]  and law enforcement officers have likewise struggled to understand and apply the court's vague general pronouncements.
[08:18.000 --> 08:25.000]  In Ornelius v. U.S., the court acknowledged the problem, and this is what the Supreme Court said.
[08:25.000 --> 08:32.000]  Articulating precisely what reasonable suspicion and probable cause mean is not possible.
[08:32.000 --> 08:47.000]  They are common sense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.
[08:47.000 --> 08:55.000]  As such, the standards are not readily or even usefully reduced to a neat set of legal rules.
[08:55.000 --> 09:09.000]  Now, needless to say, this particular case is going into my challenge because right here it makes it very clear that even the Supreme Court's standards are not set in stone,
[09:09.000 --> 09:18.000]  and they must be adjusted according to the circumstances of the situation as to whether or not they can be properly applied.
[09:18.000 --> 09:33.000]  My entire argument is that in a malum prohibitum case where the only way to know the offense is to know the statute that codified it, that is not possible under the standards set.
[09:33.000 --> 09:38.000]  So here we go with some more of what the court has said about it.
[09:38.000 --> 09:48.000]  Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction.
[09:48.000 --> 09:50.000]  This is Adams v. Williams.
[09:50.000 --> 09:52.000]  Now, understand what that's saying.
[09:52.000 --> 10:02.000]  The officer, in order to get probable cause, does not have to have evidence of all of the elements required to prove the crime.
[10:02.000 --> 10:13.000]  He only needs enough to show that the existence of that crime is more than probable, or at least probable, okay?
[10:13.000 --> 10:22.000]  Not just suspiciously close, but is probable, hence the word, all right?
[10:22.000 --> 10:33.000]  Finely-tuned standards, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence useful in formal trials, have no place in the probable cause decision.
[10:33.000 --> 10:36.000]  That's Maryland v. Pringle, okay?
[10:36.000 --> 10:53.000]  So, in other words, under the standards as the court has directed them, the officer is not required to be able to articulate every element and the facts associated with his allegation in making the charge.
[10:53.000 --> 10:58.000]  That's the basic premise of what this finely-tuned standards assertion is here by the court.
[10:58.000 --> 11:12.000]  The rule of probable cause is a practical, non-technical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating often opposing interest, Beck v. Ohio.
[11:12.000 --> 11:16.000]  Now, my problem with Beck in making this statement is twofold.
[11:16.000 --> 11:26.000]  First and foremost, this is the court admitting that it has facilitated a compromise of rights versus delegated powers.
[11:26.000 --> 11:42.000]  When there is no constitutional language that in any way, shape, or form authorizes delegated powers to supersede the protection of individual rights when the two clash.
[11:42.000 --> 12:00.000]  And in this particular case, clash would be the obvious point that the individual committed the crime and thus the reason we can deprive them of their liberty and place them under arrest versus,
[12:00.000 --> 12:19.000]  well, I'm going to stop you and I'm going to intimidate you and I'm going to question you until you let me do what I want while telling you I have probable cause when I actually don't have anything, I'm just on a fishing trip and you're the worm.
[12:19.000 --> 12:25.000]  The rule of probable cause is a practical, non-technical conception.
[12:25.000 --> 12:31.000]  Right. Well, that again won't hold water when it comes to malum prohibitum.
[12:31.000 --> 12:39.000]  We have held that probable cause means a fair probability, U.S. v. Sokolow.
[12:39.000 --> 12:46.000]  The process does not deal with hard certainties but with probabilities.
[12:46.000 --> 12:57.000]  Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common sense conclusions about human behavior.
[12:57.000 --> 13:04.000]  Jurors as fact-finders are permitted to do the same and so are law enforcement officers.
[13:04.000 --> 13:07.000]  Now notice, and this is U.S. v. Cortez.
[13:07.000 --> 13:19.000]  Now notice what they said here. This deals specifically with criminal activity that is subject to human behavior.
[13:19.000 --> 13:31.000]  In other words, my suspicions or my probable cause is based upon your mannerisms and the circumstances surrounding those mannerisms.
[13:31.000 --> 13:47.000]  Okay. So when the officer sees somebody in a dark alley underneath a pried open window at 2 a.m. in the morning with a television under their arm, then this would apply.
[13:47.000 --> 13:57.000]  But as we will see when we get into the discussion of the malum prohibitum statutes, this could not possibly apply.
[13:57.000 --> 14:02.000]  Let's look at some more of them here. Let's see.
[14:02.000 --> 14:10.000]  Whether an arrest is valid depends upon whether at the moment the arrest was made the officer had probable cause to make it.
[14:10.000 --> 14:15.000]  Now remember, he didn't have reasonable suspicion to make an arrest.
[14:15.000 --> 14:23.000]  He cannot make an arrest under reasonable suspicion. He can only detain in question but he can't arrest you.
[14:23.000 --> 14:40.000]  Okay. Newsflash, folks, if these guys put cuffs on you or refuse to let you go, then you have the right to presume an arrest has been made.
[14:40.000 --> 14:59.000]  Do not expect or think otherwise. The moment you are restricted at your liberty where a reasonable person would have probable cause to believe that they are not free to leave of their own volition, an arrest and seizure has occurred.
[14:59.000 --> 15:02.000]  That is something else the court has said.
[15:02.000 --> 15:14.000]  Hence the reason we ask, am I under arrest? Am I free to go? You cannot get the same answer to both questions.
[15:14.000 --> 15:25.000]  It can't be yes and yes. It can't be no and no.
[15:25.000 --> 15:45.000]  All right. Now, whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the person to be arrested had committed or was committing an offense.
[15:45.000 --> 15:58.000]  Again, Beck v. Ohio. Now, right here, we have run directly afoul of the Texas Transportation Code using this case statement.
[15:58.000 --> 16:18.000]  And here's how. The Transportation Code specifically authorizes not a detention but an immediate arrest without warrant of an individual that an officer believes has committed a violation of Subtitle C within the Transportation Code.
[16:18.000 --> 16:46.000]  Hence, we have a direct necessary elemental relationship of whatever crime is being alleged with the necessity of the officer being able to articulate specific facts that the individual was engaged in the overall regulable subject matter of transportation in order to be charged and arrested with that offense.
[16:46.000 --> 17:02.000]  But we'll get into that in more detail when I start my arguments out of my paper. Right now, I'm going to finish up with these when we get back on the other side of the break. So y'all hang in there and we'll be right back.
[17:02.000 --> 17:17.000]  They took their guns.
[17:17.000 --> 17:43.000]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25. Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard. The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card.
[17:43.000 --> 17:57.000]  Stop smelling like a butt at AllAboutVapor.com. Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the Rule of Law traffic seminar, get 10 entries into the contest. Check out the contest rules and details at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[17:57.000 --> 18:14.000]  Care status or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[18:27.000 --> 18:39.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 19:01.000]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email MichaelMears at Yahoo.com. That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:31.000 --> 19:54.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. All right. Now, as I was saying, this section of back versus Ohio is going to collide with the warrantless arrest provision 543.001 of the Texas Transportation Code.
[19:54.000 --> 20:06.000]  If that code were actually constitutionally valid, and it isn't, but even if it were, it has severe constitutional issues throughout, regardless.
[20:06.000 --> 20:25.000]  So let's continue on here for a minute. Let's see. And probable cause is the level of information and suspicion that justifies the warrantless search of fleeting targets such as cars, trucks, buses, trains, airplanes, and boats, U.S. versus Ross.
[20:25.000 --> 20:41.000]  Now remember, so far all of these has dealt with a level of information. The officer has to have some articulable facts. Those facts have to be based upon information in his possession.
[20:41.000 --> 21:01.000]  Either he had to obtain it for the purpose of doing the stop and the investigation, or he had to receive it prior to that from some other source in order to do so. But he can't make the stop just to get a reason to make the stop.
[21:01.000 --> 21:16.000]  You get it? But that's exactly what they're doing. And that's exactly one of the other reasons why the standards set here for malum prohibitum statutes cannot work.
[21:16.000 --> 21:44.000]  There is also a concept that is sometimes referred to as probable cause plus. In Winston versus Lee, the Supreme Court said that when a search involves highly invasive prose into the body, such as surgery to recover a bullet, there must be probable cause to believe evidence will be found, plus a compelling need for the evidence that outweighs the suspect's right to be free of invasive procedures that could threaten his life or health.
[21:44.000 --> 22:01.000]  Now that's just probable cause. Now let's see what they said about reasonable suspicion. In 1968, the Supreme Court decided Terry versus Ohio. Hence we have the infamous rule of the Terry stop.
[22:01.000 --> 22:17.000]  Now, part of the premise of this case was the court confronted challenges of the defense attorneys to both the detention of a robbery suspect and the weapons frisk that disclosed the gun that he had on his person.
[22:17.000 --> 22:31.000]  And he sought to suppress that discovery of the weapon at trial. The court noted that a temporary investigative detention is less of an infringement of a person's liberty than arresting him and taking him into custody.
[22:31.000 --> 22:49.000]  Therefore, said the court, a police need not have as much justification for this lower level of restraint as the probable cause that would have been required to make an arrest. The court called this lower justification standard for detention reasonable suspicion.
[22:49.000 --> 23:05.000]  This discussion shows why it is a mistake to use the expression probable cause for the stop, which mismatches a higher level of justification with a lower level of infringement of individual liberty.
[23:05.000 --> 23:21.000]  See, this is why the transportation script is worded the way it's worded. Officer, what is your articulable probable cause or reasonable suspicion? That I have committed some crime.
[23:21.000 --> 23:47.000]  In a malum prohibitum regulatory action such as this when it relates to a traffic stop, the whole purpose is to get him to admit that he is attempting to use a commercial regulation code against someone that is not engaged in the regulated commercial activity.
[23:47.000 --> 23:58.000]  Hence the reason it is so imperative that you get him to try or try to get him to answer that question.
[23:58.000 --> 24:27.000]  Because nothing in the transportation code can be made to apply if transportation itself is not proven to have been involved. Because all the offenses are subordinate in relation to the act of transportation itself, the subject matter of transportation itself.
[24:27.000 --> 24:33.000]  All right, let's look at a couple of other things they got for the reasonable suspicion.
[24:33.000 --> 24:42.000]  The concept of reasonable suspicion like probable cause is not readily or even usefully reduced to a neat set of legal rules.
[24:42.000 --> 24:49.000]  But the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding than that for probable cause.
[24:49.000 --> 24:58.000]  Now let's analyze the situation in the Terry stop case for just a moment. There was a robbery.
[24:58.000 --> 25:10.000]  The officers were looking for a suspect fitting the description given to them by witnesses at the robbery.
[25:10.000 --> 25:26.000]  The officers did not simply go down the street on patrol, encounter a guy in a trench coat or raincoat, and decide to stop him to see if he was committing any crimes.
[25:26.000 --> 25:43.000]  Their reasonable suspicion began with him matching the description of the person involved in the robbery as the perpetrator or possible associate of the perpetrator.
[25:43.000 --> 25:58.000]  Therefore, the officers were already in possession of a certain specific set of facts that gave them what they needed to make that stop.
[25:58.000 --> 26:20.000]  You follow? This will never work in the majority of the transportation cases that are being brought up through illegal issuance of tickets, which I'll cover in a little bit.
[26:20.000 --> 26:30.000]  Now, the court has said that both the quantity and the quality of information constituting reasonable suspicion may be below the level needed for probable cause.
[26:30.000 --> 26:42.000]  Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content
[26:42.000 --> 26:56.000]  than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.
[26:56.000 --> 26:59.000]  That's Alabama versus White.
[26:59.000 --> 27:14.000]  And again, defining reasonable suspicion in terms of familiar activities, the level of information and suspicion you need when making a vehicle stop or pedestrian stop or a pat down on someone who might be armed or the search of a vehicle
[27:14.000 --> 27:21.000]  based on reasons to believe it may harbor concealed weapons, which is the case in Michigan versus Long.
[27:21.000 --> 27:37.000]  All right? So this is where the court got the idea that if you're inside the car, then they can search the interior of the car in the vicinity of the person that they are stopping for the alleged criminal activity
[27:37.000 --> 27:41.000]  to see if they could have any weapons within their reach.
[27:41.000 --> 27:58.000]  Now, for those of you that heard me before tell you that my personal habit and only my personal habit on getting out of my car, locking it and throwing the keys into the front seat,
[27:58.000 --> 28:08.000]  was specifically to remove any criteria whatsoever they could use to justify to get into my car.
[28:08.000 --> 28:21.000]  I am not in the car. I do not have access to the interior of the car because the door is locked and the keys that would unlock it are inside the car.
[28:21.000 --> 28:29.000]  There is no way they can get in that car now legally and lawfully without a warrant
[28:29.000 --> 28:39.000]  because I've taken away their ability to say that I might have had access to a weapon inside the car.
[28:39.000 --> 28:50.000]  But that is how I deal with the situation. I do not recommend that for most of you out there, the majority of you out there, in any way, shape, or form,
[28:50.000 --> 29:03.000]  mainly because being outside the car puts you at real risk of injury from a belligerent cop who thinks he's got.
[29:03.000 --> 29:12.000]  Fortunately, I'm big enough that jumping on me just for the heck of it is not something they're going to want to try to do,
[29:12.000 --> 29:18.000]  especially if there's only one or two of them out there on the side of the road.
[29:18.000 --> 29:23.000]  And I don't get physical with them. I stand there and I'm very calm about everything.
[29:23.000 --> 29:35.000]  But I ask questions that make them understand this is not the guy that we want to try to pull crap on.
[29:35.000 --> 29:43.000]  But the difference for me is I know this material backwards, forwards, upside down, and inside out.
[29:43.000 --> 29:51.000]  That's the difference. I know what to say and what not to say, and when does not say it.
[29:51.000 --> 30:02.000]  Y'all hang on, folks, and we'll try to get further on with this when we get back. We'll be right back after this break.
[30:02.000 --> 30:08.000]  Burglars are breaking into hotel rooms by effortlessly and silently opening those key card locks.
[30:08.000 --> 30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you how the hackers do it and what it means for you, the traveler, in a moment.
[30:15.000 --> 30:20.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.000 --> 30:25.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[30:25.000 --> 30:31.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.000 --> 30:33.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.000 --> 30:40.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:40.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:51.000]  When Janet Wolfe returned to her room at the Hyatt in Houston and found her laptop stolen, there was no sign of forced entry,
[30:51.000 --> 30:54.000]  and the housekeeper was ruled out as a suspect. So who done it?
[30:54.000 --> 31:03.000]  A hacker, it turns out, using a digital tool that spoofs the computerized key card locks in place at four million hotel rooms.
[31:03.000 --> 31:10.000]  After break-ins across Texas, the lock company, Onity, offered a pretty lame solution, plugging the locks with putty.
[31:10.000 --> 31:16.000]  The real solution requires replacing every lock's circuit board, something Onity wants the hotels to pay for.
[31:16.000 --> 31:22.000]  But what if they don't? Well, it may be time to stay somewhere else. Motel 6, anyone?
[31:22.000 --> 31:27.000]  I bet you're Catherine Albright for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:52.000 --> 32:01.000]  With a job of ten products, that saves you space, time, and money. Call 888-910-4367 only at NUSA.org.
[32:01.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:06.000 --> 32:11.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society,
[32:11.000 --> 32:13.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:18.000 --> 32:23.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[32:23.000 --> 32:26.000]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:29.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:29.000 --> 32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:46.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:46.000 --> 32:51.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:00.000 --> 33:13.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:13.000 --> 33:32.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:32.000 --> 33:52.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:52.000 --> 33:57.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[33:57.000 --> 34:01.000]  All right, so wrap this up in a nutshell with this article in the case law.
[34:01.000 --> 34:08.000]  Basically, we can just state probable cause means a reasonably reliable information
[34:08.000 --> 34:16.000]  to suspect there is a fair probability that a person has, is, or is about to commit a crime
[34:16.000 --> 34:20.000]  or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence.
[34:20.000 --> 34:27.000]  Reasonable suspicion is a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less reliable nature,
[34:27.000 --> 34:32.000]  that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous.
[34:32.000 --> 34:40.000]  All right, now, that is the basic premise of probable cause and reasonable suspicion
[34:40.000 --> 34:43.000]  and the case law that established them.
[34:43.000 --> 34:49.000]  So now let's look at the relationship established by those cases
[34:49.000 --> 35:01.000]  and the language used to describe that relationship in reference to Malam Prohibitum Regulatory Statute.
[35:01.000 --> 35:07.000]  Now, the title of the article I posted is No Articulable Probable Cause.
[35:07.000 --> 35:12.000]  And I'm just going to read it to you so that the arguments make sense as written, I hope.
[35:12.000 --> 35:16.000]  If not, feedback is acceptable for it.
[35:16.000 --> 35:22.000]  If an officer cannot articulate specific factual elements or produce prima facie evidence
[35:22.000 --> 35:28.000]  that an individual was or is actively engaged in transportation,
[35:28.000 --> 35:34.000]  then how is it possible for the officer to just skip over reasonable suspicion
[35:34.000 --> 35:40.000]  and go directly to probable cause to believe that a crime under the transportation code
[35:40.000 --> 35:45.000]  has actually been, is being, or is about to be committed?
[35:45.000 --> 35:52.000]  Especially considering that such criminality is created and exists solely under a Malam Prohibitum
[35:52.000 --> 35:57.000]  statutory scheme that relates solely to regulating transportation
[35:57.000 --> 36:03.000]  and activities that are directly subordinate and ancillary thereto.
[36:03.000 --> 36:09.000]  Upon what specific articulable facts must an officer first base reasonable suspicion
[36:09.000 --> 36:16.000]  that an individual is engaging in transportation in order to reach the necessary level of probable cause
[36:16.000 --> 36:19.000]  to allege criminal activity?
[36:19.000 --> 36:23.000]  For it is one thing to inherently understand that criminality exists
[36:23.000 --> 36:28.000]  when an act is itself morally wrong and unjustifiable,
[36:28.000 --> 36:35.000]  while also being readily identifiable as having harmed another individual or their property.
[36:35.000 --> 36:43.000]  Acts such as fraud, theft, assault, or murder are some examples of such acts.
[36:43.000 --> 36:50.000]  However, in a Malam Prohibitum statutory scheme that is strictly regulatory in its general nature,
[36:50.000 --> 36:55.000]  such criminality is neither morally wrong nor necessarily unjustifiable,
[36:55.000 --> 37:03.000]  and more often than not involves no actual victim complaining of palpable injury to their person or property.
[37:03.000 --> 37:10.000]  Therefore, Respondent asserts that the common standard for reasonable suspicion or probable cause
[37:10.000 --> 37:13.000]  is not sufficient in such cases,
[37:13.000 --> 37:20.000]  in that the naked unsubstantiated claim of either would suffice to provide an officer
[37:20.000 --> 37:25.000]  with far more opportunity and latitude for abuse of his or her authority
[37:25.000 --> 37:31.000]  and in depriving individuals of their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures,
[37:31.000 --> 37:34.000]  as well as due process.
[37:34.000 --> 37:45.000]  The result being that the defining elements necessary to make a Malam Prohibitum allegation of criminality
[37:45.000 --> 37:51.000]  now rests solely in the subjective opinion and determinations of the officer alone
[37:51.000 --> 37:57.000]  and not within the statutory scheme that defines and controls it.
[37:57.000 --> 38:05.000]  And unlike other forms of Malam Prohibitum statutory schemes, such as possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia,
[38:05.000 --> 38:09.000]  where it is the possession itself that is the criminal act,
[38:09.000 --> 38:17.000]  and which requires at least some reasonable indicator or facts that the person was in possession of same,
[38:17.000 --> 38:23.000]  how is this to be accomplished when the act itself is simply regulatory
[38:23.000 --> 38:30.000]  and there are no articulable facts that lead to the governing subject matter being regulated?
[38:30.000 --> 38:37.000]  How does an officer come to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect or believe
[38:37.000 --> 38:46.000]  that a regulatory offense that is completely ancillary and subordinate only to the regulated governing subject matter
[38:46.000 --> 38:54.000]  of transportation is being, has been, or is about to be committed without any articulable facts or evidence
[38:54.000 --> 39:00.000]  that transportation was or is being engaged in?
[39:00.000 --> 39:06.000]  For instance, how does an officer look at a family minivan traveling down the highway
[39:06.000 --> 39:12.000]  and reach the conclusion that the mother of three inside the van is actually a carrier
[39:12.000 --> 39:19.000]  secretly engaged in the business of transporting passengers' goods or property from one place to another
[39:19.000 --> 39:22.000]  for compensation or hire?
[39:22.000 --> 39:27.000]  Even if an officer began with the premise that the minivan was speeding,
[39:27.000 --> 39:35.000]  at what point is the officer required to actually investigate the existence of facts and evidence necessary
[39:35.000 --> 39:44.000]  to establish and prove that transportation is a factual element of the ancillary regulatory offense being alleged?
[39:44.000 --> 39:53.000]  Despite the fact that there actually is not any offense whatsoever that is defined as speeding within the transportation code,
[39:53.000 --> 40:00.000]  the presumption of such an offense is based entirely upon the statutes within that code
[40:00.000 --> 40:10.000]  as being a regulated activity subordinate and ancillary to the governing subject matter of transportation,
[40:10.000 --> 40:14.000]  not just speeding in and of itself.
[40:14.000 --> 40:21.000]  Speeding is not the primary regulated subject matter, transportation is.
[40:21.000 --> 40:26.000]  Hence, an individual can be speeding only if it can first be proven
[40:26.000 --> 40:32.000]  that they were actively engaged in transportation at the time of the alleged offense.
[40:32.000 --> 40:40.000]  Which begs the question, is the officer, the prosecutor, and the court allowed to simply presume
[40:40.000 --> 40:45.000]  the existence of transportation for the purpose of a criminal prosecution
[40:45.000 --> 40:54.000]  even though there are no facts or evidence that this essential element of the offense even exists?
[40:54.000 --> 41:01.000]  Isn't this lack of evidence for the existence of the primary element of the offense necessarily exculpatory
[41:01.000 --> 41:05.000]  to the accused individual by default?
[41:05.000 --> 41:13.000]  And there I have a footnote attaching Article 2.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Duties of District Attorneys.
[41:13.000 --> 41:17.000]  The last two sentences of that provision or that article are,
[41:17.000 --> 41:25.000]  it shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys including any special prosecutors
[41:25.000 --> 41:30.000]  not to convict but to see that justice is done.
[41:30.000 --> 41:33.000]  The second or the last sentence says,
[41:33.000 --> 41:42.000]  they shall not suppress facts or secret witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.
[41:42.000 --> 41:50.000]  When they fail to allege that you were engaged in transportation in the criminal complaint
[41:50.000 --> 41:58.000]  or the indictment or the information, and they fail to prove up that fact at trial,
[41:58.000 --> 42:03.000]  they have violated this provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[42:03.000 --> 42:07.000]  Because speeding doesn't stand by itself.
[42:07.000 --> 42:17.000]  It is an ancillary subordinate subject to the governing subject of transportation.
[42:17.000 --> 42:23.000]  And every statute you read in that code tells you very clearly that's what it relates to.
[42:23.000 --> 42:28.000]  201.904, the department, meaning the Department of Transportation,
[42:28.000 --> 42:34.000]  shall have the authority to erect upon the highways of this state speed signs for the purpose of regulating
[42:34.000 --> 42:40.000]  the commercial motor vehicles, semis, semi-tractor trailers, tractor trailers,
[42:40.000 --> 42:48.000]  and commercial motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers for compensation or hire, and in parentheses, buses.
[42:48.000 --> 42:54.000]  None of that says that speed sign applies to anyone that is not commercial.
[42:54.000 --> 43:01.000]  There is no other statute in the entire code that says it applies to anyone other than commercial.
[43:01.000 --> 43:10.000]  Hence, the only people being notified of a limited speed are those that are engaging in transportation.
[43:10.000 --> 43:16.000]  Therefore, in order to be speeding and have to be in violation of that notice,
[43:16.000 --> 43:24.000]  one must be engaged in transportation for it to even apply.
[43:24.000 --> 43:32.000]  One would think that would be a very simple connect-the-dots scenario, even for an attorney.
[43:32.000 --> 43:38.000]  But we all know that's way beyond their matchmaking capability.
[43:38.000 --> 43:40.000]  All right, I'll continue on with this.
[43:40.000 --> 43:47.000]  There's only a couple of paragraphs left to finish reading and to discuss, and then we'll start taking calls after that.
[43:47.000 --> 43:55.000]  Probably sometime close to the end or into the segment after next, we will start getting into taking your calls.
[43:55.000 --> 44:18.000]  So y'all hang on. We'll be right back.
[44:25.000 --> 44:27.000]  And now you can too.
[44:27.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 45:03.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:03.000 --> 45:07.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com,
[45:07.000 --> 45:13.000]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas,
[45:13.000 --> 45:19.000]  buying Brave New Books and Chase Bank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:23.000 --> 45:31.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.000 --> 45:38.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[45:38.000 --> 45:44.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:44.000 --> 45:48.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[45:48.000 --> 45:51.000]  Naturespureorganics.com.
[46:18.000 --> 46:35.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:35.000 --> 46:37.000]  Now, I'll finish up this reading here.
[46:37.000 --> 46:45.000]  Isn't it this prime element of the existence of transportation, or isn't this prime element of the existence of transportation
[46:45.000 --> 46:50.000]  the sole basis for the court having jurisdiction of the matter in the first instance,
[46:50.000 --> 46:56.000]  considering that the subordinate and ancillary regulatory offense is no crime at all without it?
[46:56.000 --> 47:01.000]  In relation to an offense that is entirely mal and prohibitive under a regulatory statute,
[47:01.000 --> 47:07.000]  how could an officer possibly get to probable cause without actual knowledge and understanding
[47:07.000 --> 47:13.000]  of all of the specific elements of the alleged offense codified by the statutory scheme?
[47:13.000 --> 47:18.000]  Does the officer need only one out of three statutory elements that have to be proven,
[47:18.000 --> 47:23.000]  or is it just four out of five or perhaps seven out of ten?
[47:23.000 --> 47:27.000]  Is it possible that an officer cannot reach probable cause in such cases
[47:27.000 --> 47:34.000]  without being able to express facts proving the existence of all elements required to be proven,
[47:34.000 --> 47:41.000]  beginning with proof that transportation was being engaged in at the time of the alleged offense?
[47:41.000 --> 47:47.000]  And if not, then how is such a standard not entirely capricious, arbitrary, and subjective,
[47:47.000 --> 47:53.000]  and thus completely unconstitutional in relation to an individual's right of due process
[47:53.000 --> 47:57.000]  and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,
[47:57.000 --> 48:06.000]  not to mention the unreasonably increased danger to their property and or person by overzealous or abusive public servants?
[48:06.000 --> 48:13.000]  Respondent asserts that such reasonable suspicion or probable cause simply cannot be reasonably
[48:13.000 --> 48:21.000]  or objectively obtained in instances wherein offense is defined and governed entirely by statutory schemes
[48:21.000 --> 48:27.000]  as a mal and prohibitive offense, using the present standards established by the courts
[48:27.000 --> 48:34.000]  when applied to the private non-transportation activities of the general public.
[48:34.000 --> 48:44.000]  So as you can see, the standards they've set when you put them up against a strictly mal and prohibitive scheme
[48:44.000 --> 48:53.000]  where an offense is not readily visible or provable based upon specific facts,
[48:53.000 --> 48:59.000]  like one where there's an injury, for instance,
[48:59.000 --> 49:05.000]  their method of establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause won't work.
[49:05.000 --> 49:07.000]  It simply won't.
[49:07.000 --> 49:16.000]  And if it does, then it leaves the door wide open for abuse by law enforcement
[49:16.000 --> 49:27.000]  because now they can fabricate anything they want as a close proximity of a violation.
[49:27.000 --> 49:33.000]  Well, let's see. You were going 70. The speed limit is 75.
[49:33.000 --> 49:40.000]  I had reasonable suspicion that as soon as I was out of sight, you were going to speed up to over 75.
[49:40.000 --> 49:49.000]  So I went ahead and initiated a stop based upon reasonable suspicion you were about to commit a crime.
[49:49.000 --> 49:54.000]  You see how that's working?
[49:54.000 --> 49:58.000]  It won't. It can't.
[49:58.000 --> 50:02.000]  Let's go back to the minivan example.
[50:02.000 --> 50:12.000]  How does an officer look at that minivan and come to the conclusion that transportation is relevant?
[50:12.000 --> 50:23.000]  Considering the fact that a license plate or stickers on the car is there only because people are threatened to put them there,
[50:23.000 --> 50:32.000]  but they are only proof that the car is capable and legal to use for that purpose.
[50:32.000 --> 50:43.000]  It is not an indicator or a suspicious activity that would show that is how it's being used.
[50:43.000 --> 50:47.000]  You see the difference?
[50:47.000 --> 50:52.000]  So how does he get to transportation in those instances?
[50:52.000 --> 50:58.000]  Now, with a semi, it's a little easier.
[50:58.000 --> 51:01.000]  With a taxi cab, it's a little easier.
[51:01.000 --> 51:04.000]  With shuttle buses, a little easier.
[51:04.000 --> 51:08.000]  With delivery drivers, a little easier.
[51:08.000 --> 51:12.000]  It's not conclusively easier, but it's a little easier.
[51:12.000 --> 51:20.000]  At least you can begin with the premise of transportation in those cases, but you cannot do it
[51:20.000 --> 51:28.000]  when none of those evidentiary facts and information exist.
[51:28.000 --> 51:40.000]  And like I said, even if you started with speeding, speeding can only be applicable if transportation is applicable,
[51:40.000 --> 51:55.000]  as would insurance, license, or anything else that's in the code, because it only exists in relation to the subject matter of the code.
[51:55.000 --> 51:59.000]  And the code is unconstitutional.
[51:59.000 --> 52:10.000]  But even if it weren't, they still have this problem when the code is all malum prohibitum.
[52:10.000 --> 52:24.000]  So that's a little bit of common sense legal reasoning that appears to be far beyond the capabilities of most attorneys.
[52:24.000 --> 52:40.000]  And I've never seen a specific breed of individual more willing to argue against irrefutable facts and logic
[52:40.000 --> 52:49.000]  than an attorney who knows he can't lose in a rigged game.
[52:49.000 --> 53:00.000]  And that's what this boils down to, is that this is entirely a rigged game.
[53:00.000 --> 53:10.000]  That's why it is imperative that you understand issues like this when you choose to fight.
[53:10.000 --> 53:17.000]  It's why you have to learn to think differently than the way you've been taught.
[53:17.000 --> 53:31.000]  It's why you have to understand that most of what you've been told is either a splinter of the truth or is no truth at all.
[53:31.000 --> 53:47.000]  I cannot think of a single instance in my lifetime where any governmental entity has ever told the public the truth,
[53:47.000 --> 54:01.000]  without political spin, without a hidden agenda, without anything other than plain-necked factual truth.
[54:01.000 --> 54:10.000]  Everything they've told us has been designed to get us to do something they wanted.
[54:10.000 --> 54:18.000]  They used all kinds of fabricated facts and events and everything else to get us to agree to it,
[54:18.000 --> 54:23.000]  just to release documents decades later that proved they were lying to us all along.
[54:23.000 --> 54:36.000]  And remember, these documents don't ever get released until after the criminals that allowed this to happen and staged everything are dead.
[54:36.000 --> 54:43.000]  So now they can't be punished. And we're stuck with it as a historical fact that once again,
[54:43.000 --> 55:00.000]  those in power have subverted the rule of law and the rights of individuals to commit atrocities against each and every one of us in some form and in some fashion.
[55:00.000 --> 55:10.000]  When our government goes rogue and attacks another nation state for its resources, that doesn't just impact that nation.
[55:10.000 --> 55:21.000]  It impacts us here at home. It impacts us around the world.
[55:21.000 --> 55:32.000]  It casts us in a bad light as Americans, even though we had nothing to do with the act and we even disapprove of the act.
[55:32.000 --> 55:46.000]  We even are willing to hang people for the act if they weren't protected by bigger criminals with bigger guns.
[55:46.000 --> 56:04.000]  Things you don't know are dangerous. Therefore, the proverbial statement, ignorance doesn't hurt anybody is dead wrong.
[56:04.000 --> 56:15.000]  Ignorance eventually hurts everybody.
[56:15.000 --> 56:22.000]  And I bet I can prove that better than you can prove it doesn't.
[56:22.000 --> 56:32.000]  So that being said, folks, that's just one of the multitude of possible directions one can go in this motion to challenge the constitutionality of the transportation code.
[56:32.000 --> 56:46.000]  As you can see, it is not a simple subject to argue simply because of the nuances they have invested in it to make their scheme seem plausible.
[56:46.000 --> 57:14.000]  And that's exactly what it is, a scheme. It isn't law, it's a scheme to reallocate money from us to them through an illegal method of taxation that is brought about through complete and total subversion of our constitutional protection, both state and federal.
[57:14.000 --> 57:23.000]  Again, there is no such thing as constitutional rights.
[57:23.000 --> 57:39.000]  There are fundamental inherent rights that are constitutionally protected, but it is not the originator or the source of those rights to the people.
[57:39.000 --> 57:51.000]  They were ours hours long before there was a constitution or a state or a federal government.
[57:51.000 --> 57:59.000]  All right, we are at our top of the hour break. That's the reason I didn't pick up and the phone line yet because I was going to run out of time before I can get very far in the conversations.
[57:59.000 --> 58:10.000]  But I'm going to go ahead and turn the caller bridge on so you can start calling in. The call in number is 512-646-1984.
[58:10.000 --> 58:15.000]  So if you got a question, comment, whatever, just get in line and we'll go from there.
[58:15.000 --> 58:30.000]  All right, folks, y'all hang on. We're going to take about a three or four minute break and then we'll be back. So y'all hang in there.
[58:45.000 --> 58:57.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:57.000 --> 59:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.000 --> 59:17.000]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:17.000 --> 59:27.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.000 --> 59:43.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.000 --> 59:50.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  Markets for Wednesday, the 27th of January, 2016 opened up with gold at $1,120 an ounce, silver at $14.48 an ounce, Texas crude at $31.45 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 395 U.S. currency.
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:01:01.000]  Today in history, 30 January 27, 1825, the U.S. Congress approves Indian territory in what is present-day Oklahoma. This cleared the way for the forced relocation of eastern Indians known as the Trail of Tears.
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  In recent news, the Vatican announced over the weekend that Pope Francis will be visiting Sweden later this year to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's writing and posting of the 95 Theses on the front doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31, 1517.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  Amongst other points, Luther primarily wrote argumentations against the Roman Catholic theology of indulgences, essentially the selling of forgiveness from temporal punishment from sins for money, a practice still upheld by the Church.
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  On October 31 of this year, Francis is set to be at the southern Swedish city of Lund, where the Lutheran World Federation was founded in 1947.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  While his predecessors have visited Protestant churches, Francis has come under criticism from traditionalists and conservatives within the church who accuse him of sending conflicting signals about interfaith relations.
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:02:07.000]  Catholic traditionalists have accused Francis of making too many concessions to Lutherans since both religions will be using Luther's common prayer during the 2017 Reformation commemoration services being held jointly between the two churches, which they say excessively praised Luther, who was historically condemned as a heretic and excommunicated.
[01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  Pope Francis has made ecumenism one of the main themes of his papacy, considering he has already visited the Lutheran Church of Rome, the Waldensian Protestant community in northern Italy, Rome's Jewish synagogue, and is soon due to become the first pope to visit Rome's mosque later this year.
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, died Sunday at the age of 88. Minsky viewed the brain as a machine whose function can be studied and replicated in the computer, and he considered how machines might be endowed with common sense or artificial intelligence.
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:59.000]  Daniela Russ, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, said that Minsky helped create the vision of artificial intelligence as we know it today.
[01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:55.000]  All right. Now, just before we start getting the callers up here, remember that we have a fundraiser going on for the network, as well as the folks that are purchasing the motions. Please, if you've got any extra that you can donate over, please don't forget to donate to the network.
[01:03:55.000 --> 01:04:14.000]  After, had I consulted a little sooner, the price for the motion would probably be steeper than it is, so we could divide that up with the network. But right now, when I put this up, I wasn't thinking about that. I was trying to raise the funds for getting this court case off the ground.
[01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:28.000]  So please, if you can, don't forget to donate and support Rule of Law Network because you wouldn't be listening to me right now if it was not for logos and rule of law. Without that functioning, this is not a show.
[01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  This is some guy screaming at the walls and writing on his computer, okay? So the network needs your support just like I do for this lawsuit. That's what keeps us going.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  So if you can, whenever you can, please don't forget to make a contribution there as well. There has been an added donation button that I was made aware of now. I did not know it was there.
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:05:06.000]  But on the logosradionetwork.com website where the donations tab is, once you go there, you can make donations to both me and to the network from that same page now.
[01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  That didn't used to be there, and I have no idea when it got added, but it's there now. So you don't have to go just to the Rule of Law Radio website donations to get to me anymore. You can go there.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  That being said, let's get started with some of the callers here. Right now, I've got Larry in Arizona. Larry, what do you got?
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  Good evening, Eddie. I have a trial coming up next week, and I just have a couple questions. One of them is I'm going to have two or three different officers testifying against me.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  Can I ask the officers to be sitting outside of the courtroom while I'm...
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:06:11.000]  Yes, it's called invoking the rule. And all you have to do is say you just, Judge, I move the court, that all witnesses be removed from the courtroom during their individual testimony, and that they not be allowed to make any discussion of the case in the hallway or wherever else they may be.
[01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  Okay. And then in Dr. Grave's jurisdiction, they talk about moving the court to take judicial notice of a commonly known item. What verbiage do you use to the judge to do that?
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:35.000]  I move the court to take judicial notice of, and then whatever it is you're wanting to bring to the court's attention that's relevant.
[01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:37.000]  Okay. Is it just that simple?
[01:06:37.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  It's that simple.
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  Okay. And then...
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:47.000]  Now, you can do written motions for that purpose, and I recommend you do them.
[01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  Okay.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:07:00.000]  Okay. File them ahead of time, and then say, you know, Judge, during pretrial here, you didn't or didn't, you did or didn't take notice of my written motion to take notice.
[01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:09.000]  How are you going to rule on that? And force them to rule one way or the other on whether or not they're going to take notice on what you're submitting.
[01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  And then, despite how they rule on it, bring it up again during trial and try to get it submitted verbally.
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  Okay. And then my final question is, on jurisdiction, they have to have all three types of jurisdiction, right?
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:31.000]  Okay. Jurisdiction works this way.
[01:07:31.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  Think of subject matter jurisdiction and impersonal jurisdiction as a zero-sum math problem.
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  If you multiply any number by zero, you always get zero, right?
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:47.000]  Okay.
[01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  So if they have zero subject matter but they have personal jurisdiction, they still have no jurisdiction because the sum is zero.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:03.000]  And vice versa. If they have subject matter jurisdiction but no personal jurisdiction, the sum is zero.
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:09.000]  Venue, however, is the only one that can be waived and moved.
[01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:20.000]  The court does not have to have original venue jurisdiction if a change of venue has been put in.
[01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:21.000]  Okay.
[01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  So realize that venue is transferable. It's not set in stone.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  But the other two must absolutely exist or no jurisdiction exists.
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  Okay. Okay.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:45.000]  And I think you answered the rest of my questions in your first half of the show.
[01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  Okay. Well, good luck then.
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  Okay. You know, the only other thing I have never heard everybody is always asking to donate money to you.
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  I have never heard anybody mention that when they make a donation on your site that they should click on the recurring payment section.
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  You know, I know people like to make a $50 or $100 donation.
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  But if they would just click on recurring payments and send you $20 a month but do it every month.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  Yeah, that would be great.
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  Additional work.
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  I'll tell you what, I started doing that last summer and it's really nice.
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:30.000]  Once a month I get an email that says you've just made a donation to Eddie and I didn't have to do any work to do it.
[01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  Well, I appreciate that very wholeheartedly.
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  I appreciate that.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  And thank you for bringing that up for the listeners.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  Okay. Well, thank you for the information.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  That will take care of me for this evening.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:45.000]  You have a good one and good luck with that case.
[01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  Thank you.
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  All right. Bye-bye.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  All right.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  Now we're going to go to Ralph in Texas if I can get my mouse over here.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  Ralph, what do you got?
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  Well, I really enjoyed your monologue and I'm considering what's happened to me.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  And so I'm considering that the ancillary subordinate charge of failure to identify is only subject to persons who've been arrested.
[01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:12.000]  No, no, no.
[01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  That's incorrect.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  That's an incorrect statement of the statute.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  The statute functions in this way.
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:30.000]  They can only compel you to produce the three pieces of information, which is not required to be produced on physical identification.
[01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:36.000]  You only have to provide the three pieces of information, which you can do verbally.
[01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  But it is only mandatory that you do so if you have already been lawfully arrested for some other offense.
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  The secondary way to violate the statute is if you have been lawfully detained and you provide false information.
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  Okay? Or you have been lawfully arrested and provide false information.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  Those are the only other ways to violate the statute.
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  Under the detention, you are still not required to identify at all.
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  Okay.
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  In the opening, you mentioned something about the elements and probable cause.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  So if no warrant shall issue except on probable cause, and a probable cause like a criminal complaint is drawn on probable cause,
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  and it does not list all of the elements...
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  No, no, no.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:41.000]  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:42.000]  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  You got that wrong too.
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  A complaint has nothing to do with establishing probable cause for the complaint itself.
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  An individual, any individual except for the actual judge or the prosecutor in a case that they're going to be handling
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:09.000]  can initiate a criminal complaint if they believe a crime has been committed by someone.
[01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  Anyone can.
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  All right?
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  And they get that based upon information they've received through whatever form.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:22.000]  They're not required to swear to it, they're not required to see it personally.
[01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  The example we've given for that many, many, many times is this, domestic violence cases.
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  You take a battered wife who is getting beaten up regularly, she has a friend she talks to,
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  but the wife won't press charges because if it is known to the spouse that the wife has reported them, they could kill them for it.
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:53.000]  But the friend or acquaintance or passerby or neighbor is completely free to go file the complaint themselves
[01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:59.000]  and have their name on it as the person making the allegation.
[01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  That complaint can then be used as the basis for probable cause based upon the articulated facts within it to obtain a warrant
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  or to do an investigation.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  Okay?
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  Right.
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  That's something completely different from the cop seeing it themselves
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:30.000]  and having to come up with the necessary facts to establish either or.
[01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  Okay.
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Now I understand that, but what I'm hanging up on is my court-appointed attorney told me that normally,
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  this is how he's explaining things happen, which is all wrong.
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  He says normally what would happen is you'd go to jail and the next morning the judge would come by and sign the commitment papers.
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  Yeah, which is not what the Code of Criminal Procedure says has to happen.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  There are plenty of cases in Texas that say when an officer takes you directly to a jail cell rather than a magistrate,
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:06.000]  he is guilty of false imprisonment, which is a completely separate issue from the criminal case.
[01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:10.000]  You don't have to win one, lose one to get one.
[01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:17.000]  You can sue for the false imprisonment regardless of whether or not you're even guilty of the offense,
[01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  and you don't have to wait to do it.
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:22.000]  You can do it immediately.
[01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  Well, I'm working on it.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  Plus, I'm trying to figure out the money thing as well.
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:36.000]  However, what I'm really hung up on is this JP merely signing the commitment papers
[01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  or the complaint where the officer is asking for a warrant.
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  I'm having serious problems.
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  Well, you have two issues here.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  You have two separate issues, the commitment order and the warrant and the probable cause statement that goes with it.
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  The commitment paper, the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically says that in order for a judge to sign that commitment paper,
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  the judge must have an order of probable cause made.
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  The only process in the Code of Criminal Procedure by which a judge can have probable cause orders made is as the result of an examining trial.
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  Now, the way they've written the Code of Criminal Procedure is deceptive, and the way they're using it is even more so.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  They're saying that because of certain language that doesn't read the way they're using it,
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  only felonies are entitled to an examining trial as a right.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  That's completely wrong in relation to due process because when a warrantless arrest is made,
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  that arrest by definition is not lawful until probable cause for it has been determined by a neutral detached magistrate.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:12.000]  The only place that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows that magistrate to make that determination is a probable cause examining trial.
[01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  And as long as they're doing it for the purpose of the arrest,
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  there is absolutely no viable reason why they are not required to do it for the case itself.
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:32.000]  But like everything they've done with the Code of Criminal Procedure and these codes, this is not about due process.
[01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  This is about revenue flow and the fewer steps they have to take to protect you and the less they have to do, the higher the profit margin on that flow.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  Hang on just a second. We'll finish this up on the other side.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:17:02.000]  We'll be right back after this break, so y'all hang in there.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:29.000]  Check out centraltexasgunworks.com. Thanks also to MyMagicMud.com.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[01:17:39.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card. Stop smelling like a putt at AllAboutVapor.com.
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the Rule of Law traffic seminar, get 10 entries into the contest.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  Check out the contest rules and details at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  Carestays or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:07.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:07.000 --> 01:18:12.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:18.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:23.000]  In a world where natural fruits have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  Order now.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are talking with Ralph in Texas.
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  All right, Ralph, please continue.
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  Okay, I'm going to move on to a criminal complaint I'm working on.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  Okay.
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:00.000]  And I'm wondering if I should, yes?
[01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:03.000]  No, I said, okay, go ahead.
[01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  Should I use officer in the complaint, or should I just use the officer's name, like, you know, I'm charging these people?
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  Do you have the seminar material?
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:17.000]  Yes, I do.
[01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  Okay.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  In the seminar material, there is a templates folder.
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  In the templates folder are hundreds of criminal complaints for all kinds of criminal acts.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  And a lot of them are written against police officers.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  Use one of them as your example for the charge you're wanting to make.
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:43.000]  Okay.
[01:20:43.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  Okay, I must have missed that.
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  I thought I did a criminal complaint, sir.
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:50.000]  Okay, let me look at my next question.
[01:20:50.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  Would it be wise to exert in the affidavit something like, it is my belief and I do believe that I was arrested for exerting my right not to have to identify myself pursuant to the rights under Penal Code 3802?
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:10.000]  In other words, can I put something like that in an affidavit?
[01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:12.000]  Do you think that would be off the wall?
[01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:17.000]  No, because that is, okay.
[01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  The reason that won't work, okay, is you're not doing anything to refute the officer's actions.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  You're simply saying what you wanted to do.
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  The question is not what you wanted to do.
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  The question is what is he authorized to do?
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  That's always the question.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  Because anything he isn't authorized to do is already wrong, okay?
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  Okay.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  I covered that in one of my overt acts, yes, that he was not authorized to do this.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  So I should leave out the part where I believe.
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  You're making conclusions when you do that.
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Don't ever do that in a criminal complaint.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  Don't ever do that in an affidavit.
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  You do not make conclusions in these documents.
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  You state facts and only facts.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:26.000]  In case you need to find it, in the rule of law traffic material folder,
[01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:32.000]  you go to the going to court folder, and then you go into folder 09, templates.
[01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  Under templates, there is a folder called complaints.
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  In there are complaints of all kinds.
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  You want the folder that says criminal.
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:45.000]  Okay.
[01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  All right.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  Look at those complaints.
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  Those are actual complaints formatted exactly the same way everybody in Texas does them.
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:23:01.000]  And they meet the criteria under 45.019, even though for those types of complaints,
[01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  45.019 is not strictly applicable.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:09.000]  But it has the most detail about how a complaint should look.
[01:23:09.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  So that is what everything is based upon.
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  Okay.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  Sounds good.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:18.000]  So I'm going to save the rest of my questions until after I do some reading up on what to do.
[01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  Yeah.
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  Do not ever make conclusions or suppositions or presumptions about anything in a criminal statement.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  It's always, it's just like an affidavit.
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  An affidavit says on this day, this time, this place, this happened.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  This person perpetrated this act at this date, at this time, in this location,
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  which I believe to be a violation of this law.
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  Okay.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  That's what I think I'm doing, but I'm going to go back after you've told me this.
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  Actually, I've heard it before, don't make conclusions of the law yourself, use your law.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:06.000]  What I'm doing is a criminal complaint and a supporting affidavit.
[01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  So yeah, I'm trying to make it look good.
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  We know that they're pretty much just going to throw it in the garbage,
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:17.000]  but I think it will give them something to pause.
[01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:19.000]  It will give them a pause anyway.
[01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  Well, it will only give them pause if you do it right.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:26.000]  I understand that.
[01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  I understand.
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  That's why I'm working on it.
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:29.000]  That's why I'm working on it.
[01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  I've done it and then redone it once, and I'm working on the second redo.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  So, you know, I'm taking my time on it, trying to get it right.
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  Okay.
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  Well, good luck with it.
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  All right.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  You have a good night.
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:50.000]  All right.
[01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  Now we're going to go to Keith in West Virginia.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  Keith, what do you got?
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  How's it going?
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  I appreciate you taking my call.
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:00.000]  I've got a couple of questions.
[01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  One thing, I'm in West Virginia, in my home state, which I'm battling.
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  It has the West Virginia Code, and then there's chapters within that.
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  And one, Chapter 17 is to do with transportation.
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  And then it has Chapter 17, A, B, and C, which my question is,
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:32.000]  in the definition of Chapter 17 of a vehicle is different than all the 17A, B, C, and D,
[01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  would that, in your opinion or knowledge,
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  does that take precedence over the suffixes or whatnot, the 17A, B, C, and D?
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  Okay.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  It depends on which one is relative to the offense they're alleging against you.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:52.000]  Every definition tells you what its scope is.
[01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  Okay?
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  When you have a section in a statute that says definitions,
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  it'll always be followed up with, in this section, in this title, in this chapter, in this code,
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  that is the scope to which those definitions apply.
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  Okay?
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:17.000]  So if it says, in this subsection, then that definition, as it exists,
[01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:24.000]  in that subsection applies only to that subsection and nowhere else.
[01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:28.000]  So what does it say there?
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:34.000]  Well, it's more hopeful in the Chapter 17 definitions.
[01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:38.000]  That is not at all my question.
[01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  I know what you may hope for.
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  Where is the offense and what definition relates to that offense?
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:50.000]  That's what you have to figure out.
[01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  And you have to do that by determining the scope of the definition that is being used.
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:00.000]  I understand.
[01:27:00.000 --> 01:27:01.000]  Okay?
[01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  So look in there.
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  You say you know where two of them are, so see what the scope is.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  If one says, in this code, and the other says, in this subsection,
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  and your offense is not in that subsection, guess what?
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  It doesn't apply.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  Correct.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  The one that says, in this code, will be the one that applies.
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  And what I'm running into as far as the, I mean, transmit to commercial activity, the definition of vehicle reads every device in comma upon
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  or which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn on the public highway, et cetera,
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  which it seems they kind of covered all because it...
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:59.000]  It's the same definition that exists in virtually every state statute for that.
[01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  But what is transport a subpart of?
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:05.000]  Commercial activity.
[01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:06.000]  No.
[01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  What word?
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:13.000]  What is it a part of?
[01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  Transport is a shorter version of what other word?
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  Expectation.
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  Exactly.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  But they do, in legalese, have two similar but slightly different meanings.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  Now, the question is, does your code define transport or transportation?
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  No.
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  Does your code mention transportation?
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:45.000]  No, not that I'm aware of.
[01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:53.000]  Then I'm assuming at this point that the only thing you're reading is the code, the statutes, correct?
[01:28:53.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  Yeah, that and the definitions in the subsection.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:01.000]  Well, the definitions are in that code and statutory scheme.
[01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:04.000]  Are they not?
[01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  Yes.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:06.000]  Okay.
[01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  Are the statutes the actual law?
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:12.000]  No.
[01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  Then why are you reading the statutes instead of the actual law?
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:26.000]  To see if the statutes comply with the actual law.
[01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  Which in law would be the bill passed.
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:30.000]  Correct.
[01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  The bill that created the basis for those statutes is the law.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  Do you follow?
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  All right.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:51.000]  Now, I don't know how it is in your state, but here, the very top of the bill, the title, has to tell you what subject matter that bill relates to.
[01:29:51.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  If yours says transportation, congratulations, you're home free.
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:56.000]  Hang on.
[01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:01.000]  We'll be right back after this break.
[01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Do now pass go.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  Go directly to jail.
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  That's what lawbreakers normally hear from courts.
[01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  But in Alabama, one judge is offering offenders a unique option for punishment.
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  In a moment, I'll tell you what it is.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:21.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  So protect your rights.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  No country puts a bigger share of its citizens behind bars than the U.S.
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  But in Baymanet, Alabama, one judge is offering a novel alternative to jail, go to church on Sundays.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  This only applies to people convicted of misdemeanors, and offenders must check in weekly with their pastor and the police.
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:06.000]  Then after 52 sermons, their cases are dismissed.
[01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  The ACLU says this violates the separation between church and state, and other critics say it's unfair to atheists and minority religions.
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  But I see the program is at least worth trying.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  Being in church on Sunday rather than a prison cell just might change the lives of people on the wrong path.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off.
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Me and I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:25.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:41.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  We have two more segments to go.
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:46.000]  And right now we are talking to Keith in West Virginia.
[01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  All right, Keith, you need to get your hands on the original bill dealing with that code
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  or that section of code or that offense or that whatever
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:34:04.000]  and find out what is actually being regulated by it.
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:05.000]  Understood.
[01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  I got that today.
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  The capital is House Bill 189 here.
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  And what does the caption or title of the bill say it's there for?
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  I did not get that.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:20.000]  You got the whole bill and you didn't get that?
[01:34:20.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  I was just speaking with the people up there and going through their books.
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:29.000]  They were helping me more than I could probably understand truthfully.
[01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Okay.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  Well, you need to know what the caption or title of that bill is,
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  provided West Virginia requires that to be in a bill.
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:39.000]  Here they do.
[01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  They are required in the title to tell the people what subject matter that bill relates to
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  and is meant to encompass.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:54.000]  And anything that isn't in that subject matter cannot be considered part of that bill
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  and therefore is invalid as law.
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  Otherwise, it violates the one subject provision of our Constitution.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  Yours I don't know, but here that would be the problem.
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:11.000]  I wish I was in Texas.
[01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  Doesn't everybody?
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  I think so.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  I have to listen to you.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:20.000]  But the word draw or drawing.
[01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  It means pulled.
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:22.000]  That's all it means.
[01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:28.000]  Drawn on a highway is talking about a trailer or something trailer-like,
[01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:34.000]  something that would not move under its own power and require something else to be moving it.
[01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  And it also means pulled behind, not pushed in front of.
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:41.000]  Understood.
[01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  I've got another question.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  What about this law, the other state Supreme Court, is it even worth taking judicial notice?
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  They will take it under advisory opinion only,
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:00.000]  despite the fact that the federal Constitution says every state has to give full force and effect
[01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  to every other state's acts and court decisions.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:06.000]  They don't do it.
[01:36:06.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  None of them do it.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  Thank you to the Bar Association for scuttling the rule of law
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  when the states had to keep the laws identical between them in order to comply.
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  I don't agree with the bar in one way either.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:27.000]  I kind of hate these guys.
[01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  The only thing that I would like to do about the bar is to use the bar to hold them under water
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  until they stop making bubbles.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  I can fully understand.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  One more thing.
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  I talked to a state-appointed lawyer today to bounce some stuff off of her
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  and just get your opinion of the statement, a state can put regulations on a right.
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  That depends upon the right and its exercise.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  They can't put limitations on a right just to do it.
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  See, that's another thing that attorneys via the bar and the courts have done to subvert rights in this country.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  They have declared themselves the power to limit rights if they consider them to be in conflict
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:21.000]  with government's delegated powers.
[01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  Rather than looking at it from the perspective they should be,
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:34.000]  which is would the exercise of this delegated power impair a right if we used it this way?
[01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  And if it would, we obviously can't do it that way.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  They've gone exactly the opposite.
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:48.000]  Your attorney, like most, is an idiot statist.
[01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  I understand on that.
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:57.000]  One more thing, as far as the basic rights that it was regulating our travel
[01:37:57.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  and our own private property would be the 5th and 14th Amendment, correct?
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  I didn't quite follow your connection there.
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with you unless you look a lot different than you sound.
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  And even then, it wouldn't apply to you anymore because you were never a freed slave, right?
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  And neither is anybody you know, colored or otherwise, in the entire country, right?
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  Yeah, well, that's the 13th, isn't it?
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:37.000]  No, that's the 14th.
[01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  The 14th Amendment is what the Supreme Court has used to apply federal dictates to the people of the states.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  But it applied only to freed slaves, not to anyone else,
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  which begs the question when the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment in relation to the people of the states,
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:09.000]  are they subversively declaring we're still slaves?
[01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  Good question. I appreciate you talking to me, Eddie.
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:16.000]  Yes, sir, no problem. Thanks for calling in.
[01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  All right, now we're going to go to Andrew in Texas.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  Andrew, what can we do for you?
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  How are you doing, Eddie?
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  Okay, so far.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  I was trying to – can you hear me?
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  Yeah, I hear you.
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  I have a – when I was – I'm 29 now.
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  When I was 17, I got a ticket, two tickets that were never taken care of.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  I was picked up by local law enforcement for not appearing in court, blah, blah, and I got bailed out by my mother.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:54.000]  And apparently she signed a promissory note, you know, promise to pay fines and whatnot.
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  I haven't actually seen this documentation in a long time, but I will get it.
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:00.000]  When did they pick – you said this happened when you were 17.
[01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  When did they pick you up for this?
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  No, this was – yeah, this was way back then.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  Okay, so this all happened within the same timeframe?
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  Yes, and I have a capious warrant for that – for those offenses.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:16.000]  Still?
[01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Which, as far as I understand, yes, still.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  Okay.
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  You know, they're asking for money.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  So what I was wondering is if I can apply this new motion to those cases.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Absolutely.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:30.000]  If I can challenge – I can challenge jurisdiction now still.
[01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  The Eddie Craig maximum of law is this.
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  Challenge jurisdiction once, always, and forever.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:41.000]  Okay.
[01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:46.000]  Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, past, present, or future.
[01:40:46.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  Even after an agreement has been made to pay fines.
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  If the agreement was unconstitutional to begin with, it's invalid.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  If the agreement is based upon a presumption of law that's unconstitutional, it is invalid.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  If it's based upon the premise of a law that doesn't exist, it is invalid.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  That was my logic.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  I wanted to run a bite.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  But other than that, that's really all I had because I've been trying to take care of this for a long time.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:22.000]  And instead of giving them –
[01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:28.000]  Well, the problem is, is their capious warrants are only good for the statute of limitations.
[01:41:28.000 --> 01:41:38.000]  Because unless they can show that you fled the state, the warrant doesn't suspend the statute of limitations.
[01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:46.000]  They have to show you that you're a fleeing felon for that, or a fleeing justice, basically.
[01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  That you would have had to have leave the state to suspend it.
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  And again, this is something the courts are doing.
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  And so I should probably double-check the definitions of fleeing justice to make sure it's not anything –
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:01.000]  Well, that's just one way of putting it, what they actually call it.
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  The fugitives from justice is what they actually call it.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Right.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:10.000]  Well, I'll double-check that definition to see if I –
[01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  Well, look at warrants because warrants is going to be the primary issue.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  How long can a warrant last and can it last beyond the statute of limitations
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:25.000]  without proof that the individual fled the state in order to avoid arrest?
[01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:31.000]  Because most states, that's the only way to suspend the statute of limitations on a warrant
[01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:38.000]  unless it's for an act that does not have any statute of limitations itself, such as murder.
[01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  Now, isn't the statute of limitations based on conviction and not on –
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  No, the statute of limitations is based upon the time they have to prosecute and punish the act.
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  Okay, so I never went to court for any of this, I guess.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  Yeah, but the question is, did they ever file anything to actually make it a prosecution in the first place?
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  And if they did, how long did they wait to issue the warrants?
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  And if they never issued the warrants until five years down the road, they were way out of pocket at two years.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:12.000]  Mm-hmm.
[01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  So these are the things you need to know and which you can only have information about by getting what's in the record,
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  which is one of the things I tell people to always do when you have questions like this.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  You need to know what's in that record because that record is where the documents that have all these dates and everything else lives.
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  Yeah, I know exactly. I advise you will do the same thing. I just talked to them on the phone.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  I need to go down there and get some more paperwork from them.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  All right, brother. Well, thank you for the answers.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  You're welcome. You can also do a PIR for the stuff in an adjudicatory court file, Andrew.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  And they have to give it to you because it's 100% public.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  All right, folks. Randu, thanks for calling in. Y'all have a good night. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Sorry!
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  What?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:26.000]  All right, folks.
[01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  We are back, and we are coming into our last segment of Rule of Law Radio for this Monday night.
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  And we have Spencer.
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  I don't know what state he's in, but Spencer, are you there?
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  I am here.
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:40.000]  Okay.
[01:46:40.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  What do you have?
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  Well, I was actually listening to Randy's show on Friday when I got stopped by an officer, got myself into a little bit more trouble here.
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  I was actually, I was traveling out of state.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  I was traveling in the state of Idaho.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  And during this encounter, he decided to write a ticket for failure to register annually within the state of Idaho.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  And I just, I got a real kick out of it.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  I called Randy afterwards.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:21.000]  They had about six patrol cars.
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  He decided to call for backup because I wouldn't render my driver's license.
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  Then eventually he, you know, he started demanding it with his gun on his, or his hand on his gun there.
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  And I, you know, I know this is getting a little bit too far, and I decided to give it over at that point.
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  But yeah, it got a little bit out of hand, but he's, they're writing tickets for failure to register with their DMV
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  when their DMV will not allow you to register if you're a non-resident.
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  Right. And that's a fraudulent charge and he knows it.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:06.000]  Yeah.
[01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  Did your car have Idaho plates?
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  It did not.
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  Okay. Then he's an idiot.
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  Did you show an address in the state?
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  On the license that he forcefully obtained from me, it had, it was clearly Washington on everything that he was presented with.
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  Okay. Then, and you don't, you're not in Idaho, right?
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:33.000]  No, I am not in Idaho.
[01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  I was just traveling, going to go visit a buddy.
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  Okay. Well, then you can do a forced removal to federal court, diversity jurisdiction,
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:49.000]  because they're in one state and you're in another.
[01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:55.000]  Yeah. But they, so they're citing an Idaho law.
[01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  Which is irrelevant to someone living in Washington, right?
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  Exactly.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  Diversity jurisdiction.
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  You'd get a real kick out of that one.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  Now there is something else they may not be realizing and you may not either, but the federal constitution says that in any case where a state is a party,
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  the United States Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:27.000]  That's written right into the federal constitution.
[01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  So odds are they're going to prosecute you in the name of the state of Idaho, which makes Idaho a party to the case.
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  Which means your federal removal is to get it from Idaho to the United States Supreme Court pursuant that article and section of the federal constitution.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  Wow. That's a whole lot of information I don't know how to process.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:02.000]  I've never dealt with anything federal.
[01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:11.000]  Well, that's okay. If you do this, odds are you're going to snafu their wagon for quite a while.
[01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:26.000]  Because now they are the ones that's going to have to argue that it can't be removed while trying to say the federal constitution says something that it doesn't say while it actually says it.
[01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  Yeah.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  So this is more of a you screw with me, I'm going to screw with you deal.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:40.000]  But either way, you're going to move it from the state to the Fed for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
[01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  And then you're going to get them to show in the federal court how they're making charges that they know darn well are not applicable to people that are passing through Idaho,
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:50:56.000]  just so they can attempt to generate revenue off of them.
[01:50:56.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  Yeah, that was the first thing out of my mouth. I'm not commercial. I'm just traveling to visit a buddy. And he's like, I never said you were commercial.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  I agree, you know, and that was that. I was like, I'm not pushing that any further, disagreed with it. So he knew well what he was doing.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:28.000]  Well, the thing is, the fact that he admits you're not commercial doesn't necessarily mean he's bright enough to understand the relationship you're trying to establish.
[01:51:28.000 --> 01:51:42.000]  True. Okay. Plus, you have to remember, every state's law is written slightly different. What's written into the underlying bill that created that law, that statute, is what you need to know.
[01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  You need to know that more than you need to know the statute. The statute is relevant only when it's in full compliance with the underlying law. When it isn't.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  That's one. Yeah.
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  Okay. So what other questions do you have on that?
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  That's one thing you can state and grab the bill, look up the bill, make sure it's compliant. I've never really heard any advice on how to do that. You know, I can look up statutes all day long. Those are printed easily.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  Well, most states have a legislative website where those statutes are, but so are the original bills that created them unless they're earlier than a certain date.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  In which case, you will need to find the provisions of the Idaho Constitution that says how law is made in Idaho.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:48.000]  That will tell you what the various parts of a bill are required to be. And if one of those parts is a title stating the bill's purpose or a caption stating the bill's purpose,
[01:52:48.000 --> 01:53:00.000]  then one of the things you're going to want is to do a public information request to get a certified copy of that caption of that bill that created those statutes.
[01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  You follow? Okay. Yeah.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:18.000]  And that's something I can take up. Yeah, you can do all that through the mail. Yeah. That's easy.
[01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  That's all I just figured. You get a kick out of most of that. All right. Well, you're right. I do. Now let's hope you do too.
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  I do. I'm going to have a blast with it. I've got a lot to learn here. My knowledge just isn't as vast as it should be on all this.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  Most people's aren't, but that's because they actually have a life to live, unlike me having to do this stuff so that people don't wind up in situations they can't handle.
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  Yeah. It's fun, entertaining, and nerve-wracking at the same time. That's true.
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  That's all I've got for you tonight, Eddie. All right. You've got other callers in line here. Yes, sir. Well, thanks for calling in, Spencer. Thank you. You're welcome. Bye-bye.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  All right. Now we're going to go to Travis, which appears to be somewhere here in Texas with the area code. Travis, what do you have?
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:25.000]  Hello, sir. How are you doing tonight, Eddie? I'm doing fine. And you?
[01:54:25.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  I'm doing pretty well. I got pulled over in Hayes County. I'm pretty sure it's Hayes County. Two, three weeks ago. For speeding, he didn't even gun me.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:47.000]  And also for driving with a suspended license. And I haven't checked into your seminar stuff. I was talking with Scott about it.
[01:54:47.000 --> 01:54:55.000]  And he said I should definitely check it out. But I'm just tired of these guys getting my money, you know, doing what they do to us.
[01:54:55.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  You know, and I was just wondering if you had any advice on what I could do when I get to the courtroom on Wednesday.
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:08.000]  When is your case? I'm seeing the judge Wednesday. As in day after tomorrow, Wednesday? Yes, sir.
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  Is this your initial appearance on the citation? Yes, sir. And where are they sending you?
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  To Hayes County Court. Okay. To JP court or municipal court?
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  She couldn't tell me if it was JP or municipal. I was only talking to like a receptionist or something. And I asked her that and she didn't know.
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  Okay. Well, the citation should tell you.
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  Okay. I left it at my parents house. Let me see if it's in my pictures. My dad sent me a picture of it. Hold on.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  Okay.
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  Well, you need to look at that and find out. But what I would recommend you do is go and ask for a reset.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  Tell them you're looking to get assistance of counsel and you've talked to a couple of attorneys who still have not returned your call.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  Delay it for a little bit. Do not ask for a continuance. Ask for a reset.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  Okay. Assistance of reset, correct?
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:32.000]  No, not assistance of reset. You need a reset because you are looking for counsel to assist you.
[01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  Okay.
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  All right. But you'll do that by talking to the prosecutor to say, look, I've got calls into attorneys who haven't called me back yet and it's been a week.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:52.000]  I'm still trying to get one to come and help me with this case. I need a reset. And talk to the prosecutor, not the judge. And it should be that simple.
[01:56:52.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  Do not under any circumstances enter any pleas, sign any documents or anything else. Are we clear?
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:04.000]  Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
[01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  All right. Otherwise, do what I just said and you should get it. And then we've got a little bit more time to get this document finished.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  And that's what you're going to want even more than the traffic seminar at this point.
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  So the traffic seminar would still be good to have for other reasons, dealing with a lot of other issues that aren't just traffic.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:32.000]  Plus, it gets your name in the drawing 10 times for the guns and the gun parts.
[01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  Really?
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  Yeah. But now the constitutional motion for the time being is separate from that and it's $100 itself, but it shoots down the entire transportation code.
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  Okay. That's not bad at all. Yeah, I'll definitely look into that. But where can I get that information?
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:58:00.000]  Just go to the LogosRadioNetwork.com website and everything you need will be right there on the front page in the upper left corner box.
[01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  Okay.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  All right.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  Thank you so much, Eddie.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  You're welcome. Thanks for calling in.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  All right, Charles, I'm sorry, man. We are out of time. I'm not going to be able to take your call.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  If it's important, call back with Randy or send me an email to Eddie, E-D-D-I-E at Rule of Law Radio and I'll answer it as best I can.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  I'm going to be out of pocket tomorrow, folks. I'm taping a movie that will be coming out hopefully before the end of this year,
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  a documentary on some of this stuff that's going on.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  So I'll be out of pocket most of the day tomorrow and not able to work on this motion or anything else.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  But I'll let you know how all that goes and keep you updated.
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  All right, folks. Y'all have an excellent week. Good night and God bless.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says,
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:25.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:54.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  Logosradionetwork.com