[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000]  The following is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.000 --> 00:21.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.000 --> 00:31.000]  Markets for Friday, April 15, 2016 are currently treading with gold $1,233.72 an ounce, silver $16.21 an ounce,
[00:31.000 --> 00:44.000]  Texas crude $40.36 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $430 U.S. currency.
[00:44.000 --> 00:51.000]  Today in history, the year 1865, Abraham Lincoln is shot at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C.
[00:51.000 --> 00:57.000]  Honest Abe died today in history.
[00:57.000 --> 01:05.000]  In recent news, 22 Texas Republican district or county conventions passed resolutions calling for a vote on state secession in March.
[01:05.000 --> 01:09.000]  Though only 10 responded and actually validated the passage of such resolutions,
[01:09.000 --> 01:13.000]  an official count should be available from the Republican Party of Texas in early May.
[01:13.000 --> 01:17.000]  Last year, the Texas nationalist movement made headlines with a statewide tour of speaking events,
[01:17.000 --> 01:21.000]  seeking enough signatures to get secession on the GOP primary ballot.
[01:21.000 --> 01:25.000]  Daniel Miller, the group's president, said that they came close, but not close enough.
[01:25.000 --> 01:30.000]  However, as a result, recruited and trained a lot of volunteers from Amarillo to San Antonio.
[01:30.000 --> 01:36.000]  Supporters of an independent Texas promote such efforts because of federal overreach, corruption, and excessive spending,
[01:36.000 --> 01:41.000]  not to mention the reality of Texas being large and economically independent enough to actually go it alone.
[01:41.000 --> 01:45.000]  And though the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that states do not have the right to secede,
[01:45.000 --> 01:50.000]  secessionists are pointing out that these rulings will have no binding once a state declares independence.
[01:50.000 --> 01:54.000]  Federalists are warning that the federal government will be obligated to use force against such a move,
[01:54.000 --> 02:01.000]  since it would be considered rebellion under federal regulation.
[02:01.000 --> 02:07.000]  150 federal to state law enforcement from various agencies assisted the Seguin Police Department with dozens of arrest warrants
[02:07.000 --> 02:12.000]  targeting Mexican mafia operations trafficking heroin and cocaine into Seguin and Yubrafos.
[02:12.000 --> 02:17.000]  This mass-coordinated effort, 18 months in the planning, was set in motion when indictments unsealed Friday
[02:17.000 --> 02:21.000]  charged defendants with a conspiracy to possess and intent to distribute controlled substances.
[02:21.000 --> 02:28.000]  Authorities suspect that those rounded up are responsible for distributing heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into Seguin and Yubrafos since 2010.
[02:28.000 --> 02:32.000]  The alleged leader of the mafia, Lieutenant, is among the people arrested.
[02:32.000 --> 02:37.000]  Police say that these networks supply drugs from Austin to Houston and are believed to even have ties within the Texas prison system.
[02:37.000 --> 02:41.000]  It does seem police have found themselves a cozy permanent job waging the drug war.
[02:41.000 --> 02:46.000]  Unfortunately, these indefinite efforts will continue to remain so because of the criminalization of drugs themselves,
[02:46.000 --> 02:54.000]  consequently bringing in cartels, violence, smuggling, and millions of tax dollars gone to waste.
[02:54.000 --> 03:02.000]  This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 15, 2016.
[03:24.000 --> 03:36.000]  This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 15, 2016.
[03:36.000 --> 03:46.000]  This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 15, 2016.
[03:46.000 --> 04:01.000]  Take all the rope in Texas by the tall old tree, round up all of them bad boys, hang a lion's tree, or all the people will see.
[04:01.000 --> 04:09.000]  That's just as if the one thing you should always find, you gotta settle up your boys, you gotta draw a hard line.
[04:09.000 --> 04:17.000]  When the gun smoke settles, we'll sing a victory tune, and we'll all meet back at the local zoo.
[04:17.000 --> 04:32.000]  We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces, singin' whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.
[04:32.000 --> 04:39.000]  Hi folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host Eddie Craig. Thank you all for listening in.
[04:39.000 --> 04:53.000]  A couple things on the roll tonight. First and foremost, folks, I want to thank you all for listening to us and taking to heart some of the things that we've tried to empower you with as the years go by.
[04:53.000 --> 05:06.000]  Please understand that our survival here is completely dependent upon your willingness to sponsor us, so to speak, through donations and financial support.
[05:06.000 --> 05:14.000]  We can't survive without it. We just can't. We spend so much time doing what we do on the behalf of other people.
[05:14.000 --> 05:24.000]  Working a regular job is not even an option, to stay on top of this stuff so that we can bring you current, up-to-date, useful information.
[05:24.000 --> 05:35.000]  You can't do both. It's impossible. Plus, even if you are doing both, you wind up having conflicts at work and everything else because of obvious reasons associated with what we're doing.
[05:35.000 --> 05:48.000]  So that being said, understand that without your financial support, we're not here, and that would include me as an individual or the network as a whole.
[05:48.000 --> 05:55.000]  Right now, I am having so many problems making my bills and ends meet at the end of every week.
[05:55.000 --> 06:05.000]  I haven't made more than $60, personally, a week in almost six months. This is getting ridiculous, okay?
[06:05.000 --> 06:14.000]  None of us can live like this on this kind of money, so pretty soon here, I want to find something different to do if something doesn't change,
[06:14.000 --> 06:23.000]  because I try to help people every single day, but people constantly are wanting help for nothing, and it doesn't cost me nothing to provide it, folks.
[06:23.000 --> 06:30.000]  It doesn't cost any of us nothing to provide it. So if you appreciate what we do and you respect what we do,
[06:30.000 --> 06:40.000]  then please respect us enough to know that we need to live, too. And I hate asking for money. I absolutely hate it, okay?
[06:40.000 --> 06:48.000]  But I darn sure don't mind paying for something that I believe to be worth what I get from it.
[06:48.000 --> 06:55.000]  And that's a choice you all got to make, and I appreciate all those that have done so. I'm not trying to jump down anybody's throat about anything in that regard,
[06:55.000 --> 07:03.000]  but please understand, our survival is completely dependent upon you. That's important, okay, because we're not here without you.
[07:03.000 --> 07:13.000]  Now, that being said, I need to go into two areas here that I don't go into as often as I need to, mainly because this is something new that we just started.
[07:13.000 --> 07:20.000]  And all of you that have been listening to this show for any length of time or followed me on Facebook knows that I have written
[07:20.000 --> 07:30.000]  and am still writing on a constitutional challenge motion. I've still got some research information that I'm trying to get and get integrated into this
[07:30.000 --> 07:41.000]  that would make it absolutely ironclad. But it still costs time and money to go do that research and to get those copies and all that stuff.
[07:41.000 --> 07:51.000]  So I went and set up a GoFundMe page, which if you're on Facebook, you'll have the link to it in my legal group, TOW of Law.
[07:51.000 --> 08:01.000]  If you're not, if you need the link to it, please send me an email, eddie at ruleoflawradio.com, and I will send you the link where you can go and donate to the GoFundMe.
[08:01.000 --> 08:13.000]  GoFundMe was set up for the purpose of the lawsuit that will allow me to use this motion to stop what the state is doing to all of the people.
[08:13.000 --> 08:23.000]  Okay? That's what it's for. It's not from me personally. It's not so I can make money, because if you've never sued the government
[08:23.000 --> 08:31.000]  or any of its agents for anything, then you won't understand that I could sue for $10 billion and it wouldn't matter,
[08:31.000 --> 08:45.000]  because I will never be awarded one single penny of money, at least not in excess of the value of what they deem what was taken from me was worth.
[08:45.000 --> 08:55.000]  So understand that. This has nothing to do with me getting rich off of a lawsuit, because that just isn't reality. It's not going to happen.
[08:55.000 --> 09:05.000]  But I can't pay for it by myself, especially when everyone is going to be reaping the benefits of it.
[09:05.000 --> 09:15.000]  Now, the reason I bring up the Constitutional Challenge Motion is this. I made that motion available to you folks. I gave you a set of documents
[09:15.000 --> 09:27.000]  and instructions to go with that motion and told you exactly what to do with it. Some of you aren't following instructions.
[09:27.000 --> 09:38.000]  And the discussion I'm about to have is one of those times. The person that used the motion didn't read what the document instructing him
[09:38.000 --> 09:49.000]  on how to use it says. So he's screwed up in filing it. This is one of the reasons why I don't like making it publicly available at any price
[09:49.000 --> 10:02.000]  for everyone to use is because you screw it up, you don't just screw it up for you. You screw it up for everyone that has to come behind you
[10:02.000 --> 10:15.000]  in that same venue. Now, to the person that this applies to, you know who you are because I've been going through email with you
[10:15.000 --> 10:23.000]  the entire past two weeks over this issue. You're not listening and you're not doing, and neither are some of the rest of you, I'm sure,
[10:23.000 --> 10:36.000]  based upon the feedback I'm getting. So listen to me very carefully. You must know the rules of procedure if you're going into court.
[10:36.000 --> 10:47.000]  You must, if you don't, you're screwed. You shouldn't even be in court. You must know the rules of evidence if you're going into court.
[10:47.000 --> 10:59.000]  You must know how to object to either the court or the other party failing to comply with either set of those rules.
[10:59.000 --> 11:17.000]  When you don't, you are the one that pays. Okay? Not following instructions harms everybody that is attempting to do this, not just you.
[11:17.000 --> 11:29.000]  Now, based upon the information I've received in these emails, the person had more than ample opportunity to object to things that were being done,
[11:29.000 --> 11:40.000]  to force the events into a venue by disqualifying the judge that was aiding and abetting in criminal activity with the prosecutor in this case.
[11:40.000 --> 11:49.000]  And the prosecutor in this case is criminally stupid. She is completely criminally stupid.
[11:49.000 --> 11:59.000]  And I'm going to get into that in detail here in the next segment and on. I'm going to go through pieces of her rebuttal answer.
[11:59.000 --> 12:11.000]  This is the only written attempt at rebutting the constitutional challenge motion that anyone has made me aware of having received.
[12:11.000 --> 12:29.000]  And I want to tell you right now that this rebuttal proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, I am not only 100% correct, but I know this argument far better than any attorney is ever going to.
[12:29.000 --> 12:47.000]  This woman's rebuttal arguments are so incompetent, inept, and completely delusional that it was all I could do not to go over to her county and laugh in her face
[12:47.000 --> 12:56.000]  and go tell her boss what a complete nut job he is employing.
[12:56.000 --> 13:02.000]  And if you think I'm talking crap about this woman tonight, you should have heard me in class yesterday.
[13:02.000 --> 13:09.000]  For those of you that are listening, I am going to post a link if I do this the way I intend to do it.
[13:09.000 --> 13:18.000]  I am going to go through and I am going to encode the video from yesterday's class and get it down to manageable posting size.
[13:18.000 --> 13:27.000]  And I'm going to post it up on YouTube and on my blog site and I'm going to link it back into the Facebook page so everybody will get a chance to hear and see it.
[13:27.000 --> 13:46.000]  What I'm going to do in that video is what I did in class yesterday is dissect every single line-by-line rebuttal argument this incompetent putz of an attorney tried to use to validate their actions.
[13:46.000 --> 13:57.000]  She contradicts every argument she makes with everything she states immediately after making it.
[13:57.000 --> 14:08.000]  She posts case law that she says supports her position while the exact same case law proves her position is invalid
[14:08.000 --> 14:26.000]  because the same opinion goes on to say that the actions of the municipality or the county in whatever case that may be were unlawful because the activity of commerce was not being engaged in.
[14:26.000 --> 14:35.000]  Therefore, their seizure and use of ordinances and blah, blah, blah in these cases was absolutely unconstitutional and illegal.
[14:35.000 --> 14:43.000]  In other words, her argument lost in the original case and she's still using it as an argument.
[14:43.000 --> 14:49.000]  This is how inept and incompetent they really are.
[14:49.000 --> 14:56.000]  So let me get a little further along here because I'm going to run out of time if I get started on it right this segment, so I'm going to start it in the next segment.
[14:56.000 --> 15:07.000]  But I'm going to go through some of the stuff that she presented in her myopic rebuttal and I'm going to tear it apart.
[15:07.000 --> 15:22.000]  And believe me, the video of class yesterday, if you have sensitive ears and don't like certain vernacular phrases and terminology from the English language that you may be uncomfortable around,
[15:22.000 --> 15:28.000]  then you may not want to watch the video because I pulled out all the stops yesterday.
[15:28.000 --> 15:34.000]  This woman's incompetence literally caused my blood pressure to go up 40 points.
[15:34.000 --> 15:44.000]  No one this stupid should be allowed to even walk into a courtroom unsupervised,
[15:44.000 --> 15:59.000]  much less write a motion trying to explain why the defense is wrong when every argument she makes, she turns right around and takes an ax to it in the very next argument.
[15:59.000 --> 16:07.000]  This, ladies and gentlemen, is legal incompetence at its finest.
[16:07.000 --> 16:17.000]  And once I get this video posted, I am going to email this woman the link to it on YouTube.
[16:17.000 --> 16:29.000]  I may even send it to her law firm if she has partners because this is ridiculous.
[16:29.000 --> 16:41.000]  Had I been the person standing up with this woman in the courtroom, I would have chewed her lunch up and spit it in her face because she could not substantiate any argument she was making, none.
[16:41.000 --> 16:49.000]  In fact, every argument she made, the fact she was saying proved her point, actually disproved her point.
[16:49.000 --> 16:51.000]  We'll get to that on the other side of this break.
[16:51.000 --> 16:53.000]  All right, folks, y'all hang in there.
[16:53.000 --> 17:01.000]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig. We'll be right back.
[17:23.000 --> 17:27.000]  And over to LogosRadioNetwork.com to make your contribution.
[17:27.000 --> 17:32.000]  Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks.
[17:32.000 --> 17:35.000]  First prize being a Spiked Skull Lower Receiver.
[17:35.000 --> 17:37.000]  Second prize being a Taurus Curve.
[17:37.000 --> 17:39.000]  Ten winners will receive gift cards from All About Vapor.
[17:39.000 --> 17:45.000]  And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary jar of My Magic Mud.
[17:45.000 --> 17:50.000]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted as well as contributions by Bitcoin.
[17:50.000 --> 17:56.000]  With the Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th, head on over to LogosRadioNetwork.com
[17:56.000 --> 18:00.000]  for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  Get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:24.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[18:24.000 --> 18:26.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:26.000 --> 18:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:46.000]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner.
[18:46.000 --> 18:49.000]  Or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 18:51.000]  That's RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[18:51.000 --> 19:01.000]  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 --> 19:09.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:09.000 --> 19:38.000]  All right, folks.
[19:38.000 --> 19:39.000]  We are back.
[19:39.000 --> 19:42.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[19:42.000 --> 19:43.000]  All right.
[19:43.000 --> 19:49.000]  Now, after reading this and knowing what is going on in our government at every level,
[19:49.000 --> 19:55.000]  our legislature, the whole nine yards, I've decided just about that I'm going to get out of the patriot business.
[19:55.000 --> 19:58.000]  I'm going to get out of the talk radio host business.
[19:58.000 --> 20:02.000]  And I'm just going to open myself up my own little bar.
[20:02.000 --> 20:10.000]  However, that bar is going to cater exclusively to public servants and politicians.
[20:10.000 --> 20:19.000]  And I'm going to call it the whorehouse for obvious reasons, because that would be the perfect get-together place for them.
[20:19.000 --> 20:22.000]  And people go, ah, they won't come to a place named that.
[20:22.000 --> 20:30.000]  They probably would, considering that they would first off believe by the name that they could find one in the back, if not the front.
[20:30.000 --> 20:41.000]  So at the very least, folks, understand that without some sort of financial support here that can at least let us meet our bills every month, this ain't going to last.
[20:41.000 --> 20:52.000]  The information you're about to receive for free ain't going to last, okay, because I cannot eat your appreciation, believe it or not.
[20:52.000 --> 20:57.000]  I can't pay my bills with your appreciation unless that appreciation comes in the form of money.
[20:57.000 --> 20:59.000]  And I hate to say it, but it's true.
[20:59.000 --> 21:11.000]  If Alex Jones can hawk you a $75 bottle of iodine and you'll lap it up by the caseload, 20 bucks a month to us ain't going to kill you.
[21:11.000 --> 21:14.000]  All right, just saying.
[21:14.000 --> 21:17.000]  All right, now let's go through this.
[21:17.000 --> 21:27.000]  Now let me tell you a couple things about how the person that used this in this case with this particular prosecutor screwed the pooch.
[21:27.000 --> 21:31.000]  So take this personal, learn from this if you're listening.
[21:31.000 --> 21:33.000]  I'm not going to mention any names or locations.
[21:33.000 --> 21:44.000]  You just need to understand if you were paying attention and knew your stuff before you went in there, what happened would not have happened.
[21:44.000 --> 21:59.000]  Now, this prosecutor filed this rebuttal two days before trial, not motions hearings, not any other hearings before trial.
[21:59.000 --> 22:19.000]  What you should have done was immediately file a motion in Lemony demanding that her motion be denied or her rebuttal, her answer be stricken because it was not timely.
[22:19.000 --> 22:29.000]  Had you filed this this close to the day of trial for any reason other than to disqualify the judge or straight up challenge jurisdiction of that court?
[22:29.000 --> 22:33.000]  That's exactly what she would have done to you.
[22:33.000 --> 22:35.000]  And she would have gotten it.
[22:35.000 --> 22:43.000]  You wouldn't have, but at least you would have preserved your objection for the purpose of your appeal.
[22:43.000 --> 22:44.000]  Okay?
[22:44.000 --> 22:47.000]  That's problem number one.
[22:47.000 --> 22:59.000]  Then you should have demanded that the judge provide a finding of facts and conclusions of law in rebuttal to the motion and in accepting this answer.
[22:59.000 --> 23:08.000]  Because this answer on its face is demonstrably stupid.
[23:08.000 --> 23:23.000]  She absolutely misconstrues, misstates or spins every single argument she makes in utter denial of the facts that confront her.
[23:23.000 --> 23:26.000]  The prosecutor does.
[23:26.000 --> 23:28.000]  And you let it slide.
[23:28.000 --> 23:29.000]  You didn't object.
[23:29.000 --> 23:32.000]  I'm more than positive you didn't object.
[23:32.000 --> 23:39.000]  Based upon what you're communicating to me, you didn't object, and you should have.
[23:39.000 --> 23:44.000]  Folks, I understand that you're not experts in this.
[23:44.000 --> 23:53.000]  The problem is, is you are going up against people that claim to be, no matter how incompetent they actually are.
[23:53.000 --> 24:07.000]  And whether you like it or not, the people that are going to be reviewing what you do in that court are of the same attitude as the ones you were facing.
[24:07.000 --> 24:10.000]  They expect things to be a certain way.
[24:10.000 --> 24:17.000]  If you don't take the time and effort to learn what that way is, you can't present it in that way.
[24:17.000 --> 24:25.000]  That's why you will not get justice, and you will not get heard.
[24:25.000 --> 24:29.000]  You need to understand that.
[24:29.000 --> 24:33.000]  Now, let's go through some of this.
[24:33.000 --> 24:41.000]  This woman, the first thing she jumps on is the motion's argument for a special appearance.
[24:41.000 --> 24:49.000]  And in that motion, I very clearly state that we are invoking Rule 1.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[24:49.000 --> 25:00.000]  as that section specifically says that if there is a method of procedure that that code does not deal with in relation to a case,
[25:00.000 --> 25:05.000]  then the civil rules of procedure shall be followed.
[25:05.000 --> 25:16.000]  Well, in no part of the Code of Criminal Procedure is there a process for challenging the court's jurisdiction in a matter, in a criminal case.
[25:16.000 --> 25:22.000]  But we absolutely know it can be done.
[25:22.000 --> 25:28.000]  But the rule for doing it is in the rules of civil procedure, Rule 120A,
[25:28.000 --> 25:35.000]  which I invoke under the auspices of Rule 1.02, where it tells us the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[25:35.000 --> 25:41.000]  when it doesn't have a way of dealing with something, goes to the Code of Civil Procedure.
[25:41.000 --> 25:45.000]  That's where the special appearance is found.
[25:45.000 --> 25:53.000]  Now, she cites a couple of Texas criminal appellate cases here that says that there is no equivalent
[25:53.000 --> 25:59.000]  of a special appearance in the criminal code like there is in the civil code.
[25:59.000 --> 26:03.000]  Well, yeah, that's absolutely right. There isn't one.
[26:03.000 --> 26:12.000]  But to say that in a criminal case, the accused does not have the right to make a special appearance
[26:12.000 --> 26:22.000]  specifically for the purpose of challenging both subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction in that case is asinine.
[26:22.000 --> 26:31.000]  If you can do it in a civil case, what makes you think it's not available to you in a criminal case?
[26:31.000 --> 26:40.000]  Now, I haven't had a chance to research the cases that she cited, but I'm willing to bet they prove her wrong,
[26:40.000 --> 26:46.000]  that her argument is not in the context that the case was decided in.
[26:46.000 --> 26:53.000]  And you'll see why I think that based upon some other arguments that she makes further down using court opinions,
[26:53.000 --> 27:01.000]  that she is using the opinion to cover her butt to make her statements sound as if it is ironclad,
[27:01.000 --> 27:11.000]  when in fact the opinion specifically says that the conditions that we are discussing here generally work this way.
[27:11.000 --> 27:16.000]  Not always, not most of the time, just generally.
[27:16.000 --> 27:22.000]  And she tries to make the argument that it's absolute when it isn't.
[27:22.000 --> 27:29.000]  And even the case that she's citing, the very site she uses, says generally.
[27:29.000 --> 27:34.000]  That's how inept this woman is. Okay?
[27:34.000 --> 27:40.000]  Now, this is the verbiage that she's got in this first paragraph here.
[27:40.000 --> 27:45.000]  The defendant purports to make a special appearance objecting to the court's subject matter jurisdiction,
[27:45.000 --> 27:51.000]  personal jurisdiction, and venue pursuant to Rule 120A of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[27:51.000 --> 27:59.000]  The defendant argues Article 1.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits the applicability of the code and jurisdictional challenges.
[27:59.000 --> 28:04.000]  However, the defendant cites to no legal authority for this supposition.
[28:04.000 --> 28:14.000]  Lady, I just cited the Rules of Procedure to you. I even put the numbers of the Rules of Procedure I was citing right in front of you.
[28:14.000 --> 28:24.000]  When she says no legal authority, she is simply saying I can't find a court opinion that either supports his position or denies his position.
[28:24.000 --> 28:34.000]  So I'm just going to claim he has no position because he can't cite a court case that says he's right.
[28:34.000 --> 28:37.000]  No kidding, woman.
[28:37.000 --> 28:52.000]  The whole point of what I do on this show is to prove that there are legitimate arguments that have never been raised or addressed by the courts of Texas in relation to the crap they rule on.
[28:52.000 --> 29:00.000]  They intentionally ignore it or avoid it so as not to have to respond to it.
[29:00.000 --> 29:01.000]  So she's right.
[29:01.000 --> 29:13.000]  There is no legal authority in the form of case law for my assertion, but there is tons of due process procedure that shows my argument to be valid.
[29:13.000 --> 29:28.000]  You can't tell me that in a criminal case where my liberty is at risk, that I have less of an opportunity and ability to challenge the court's jurisdiction than I do simply because I'm being sued.
[29:28.000 --> 29:35.000]  That, folks, would be a stupid argument, but it is the one she's attempting to make.
[29:35.000 --> 29:36.000]  Okay?
[29:36.000 --> 29:38.000]  Keep that in mind.
[29:38.000 --> 29:39.000]  All right.
[29:39.000 --> 29:40.000]  We're about to take a break.
[29:40.000 --> 29:45.000]  Y'all hang on. I'll finish reading the rest of her little passage here and then move on through this.
[29:45.000 --> 29:47.000]  Now, folks, this could take a while.
[29:47.000 --> 29:55.000]  I'll try not to tie up the whole show with it, but it's important that we understand that we can answer anything they're trying to say in this regard.
[29:55.000 --> 29:56.000]  Y'all hang in there, folks.
[29:56.000 --> 30:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:01.000 --> 30:16.000]  We all know the FBI likes getting citizens to inform on their friends, but did you know Facebook is now up to the same dirty tricks? I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you how Facebook is turning users into snitches that rat each other out. Next.
[30:16.000 --> 30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:18.000 --> 30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.000 --> 30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[30:27.000 --> 30:32.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:32.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:41.000]  This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:45.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:45.000 --> 30:53.000]  In an age where every crumb of personal data is prized by snoopy governments and shady marketers, pseudonyms are shields of freedom.
[30:53.000 --> 30:58.000]  Fake names help us connect to the web without having to trade our most precious asset, privacy.
[30:58.000 --> 31:05.000]  But now Facebook is asking users to snitch on friends who use aliases, and it's got me hopping mad.
[31:05.000 --> 31:17.000]  By showing people's accounts to their Facebook friends and asking what that person's real name is, Facebook is assaulting a basic freedom to call ourselves whatever we choose, except, of course, on official documents.
[31:17.000 --> 31:23.000]  Facebook is not your friend, it's a snoop. Don't let it breach your trust with your real friends.
[31:23.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:53.000 --> 32:03.000]  The product that saves you space, time, and money. Call 888-910-4367 only at sqsa.org.
[32:03.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[32:06.000 --> 32:13.000]  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, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:20.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:36.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is 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 --> 32:48.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:48.000 --> 32:51.000]  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 --> 33:03.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:03.000 --> 33:15.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:15.000 --> 33:21.000]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna solve them.
[33:21.000 --> 33:26.000]  To the head government them, prosecute them.
[33:26.000 --> 33:29.000]  Okay.
[33:29.000 --> 33:32.000]  Who's that?
[33:32.000 --> 33:37.000]  The person's a race from the taboo.
[33:37.000 --> 33:42.000]  The person's a race for the chain.
[33:42.000 --> 33:45.000]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me.
[33:45.000 --> 33:47.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[33:47.000 --> 33:50.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio Monday night show with your host, Eddie Craig,
[33:50.000 --> 33:58.000]  and we are going over the first and only written rebuttal attempt to the constitutional challenge motion
[33:58.000 --> 34:05.000]  that I have been made aware of being filed in any case in which it has been used so far.
[34:05.000 --> 34:10.000]  And the other thing, besides posting the video from yesterday's class,
[34:10.000 --> 34:15.000]  this is something that I am considering doing.
[34:15.000 --> 34:22.000]  In this, I've redacted all of the personal information of the individual that this motion is directed at.
[34:22.000 --> 34:25.000]  What I am going to make sure is fine with him.
[34:25.000 --> 34:30.000]  He said I could use it any way I wanted, but I want to double-check just to make sure.
[34:30.000 --> 34:38.000]  I am going to post this motion, or at least the language of this motion, on my blog,
[34:38.000 --> 34:47.000]  and then I am going to, and I'm going to edit this filing here just by the fact that I'm going to put line numbers
[34:47.000 --> 34:54.000]  on every single line in her entire document here.
[34:54.000 --> 35:02.000]  And then I'm going to do a line-by-line rebuttal in the video.
[35:02.000 --> 35:06.000]  Now, it's not done that way as far as citing a particular line number or anything.
[35:06.000 --> 35:10.000]  I read what she wrote, and then I go over it in the class in the video.
[35:10.000 --> 35:18.000]  But I'm also going to try to do a write-up that dissects this thing piece by piece.
[35:18.000 --> 35:27.000]  These are the kinds of things that you need to watch out for to contemplate and expect to be done.
[35:27.000 --> 35:28.000]  Okay?
[35:28.000 --> 35:32.000]  When you fail in your due diligence to see that this is what they're doing
[35:32.000 --> 35:36.000]  and to address this as what they're doing, you lose.
[35:36.000 --> 35:40.000]  And so does everyone coming behind you.
[35:40.000 --> 35:42.000]  Okay?
[35:42.000 --> 35:46.000]  This is something I had to learn about what I'm doing here early on.
[35:46.000 --> 35:50.000]  When I screw up, I screw everybody.
[35:50.000 --> 35:57.000]  When you screw up using what I did, you screw everybody, at least everybody that's following you.
[35:57.000 --> 35:59.000]  Okay?
[35:59.000 --> 36:06.000]  That's why I made sure to put the instruction document with that motion,
[36:06.000 --> 36:10.000]  along with all the other documents that I packaged up to go with that,
[36:10.000 --> 36:14.000]  some of which are from the seminar in addition to this.
[36:14.000 --> 36:18.000]  So you're getting three or four of the motions and the affidavits from the seminar
[36:18.000 --> 36:24.000]  packaged up with the constitutional challenge motion, and it's supporting certified records.
[36:24.000 --> 36:26.000]  Okay?
[36:26.000 --> 36:34.000]  Now, when you get that, one of the documents from the seminar material
[36:34.000 --> 36:39.000]  is the instruction document on what the color coding in the pleadings does
[36:39.000 --> 36:42.000]  and what you're supposed to do with it.
[36:42.000 --> 36:46.000]  Now, as I go through this, you're going to see one of the other things this person did.
[36:46.000 --> 36:48.000]  This person was going to trial.
[36:48.000 --> 36:50.000]  They hadn't been to trial yet.
[36:50.000 --> 36:51.000]  Okay?
[36:51.000 --> 36:57.000]  But in the motion, they left the entire set of paragraphs in it,
[36:57.000 --> 37:02.000]  arguing for their right to a new trial in the case.
[37:02.000 --> 37:04.000]  You haven't even gone to trial.
[37:04.000 --> 37:13.000]  Why are you leaving the arguments relating to a new trial filing in the motion?
[37:13.000 --> 37:17.000]  Now, remember, I told you in the instruction document, and when I give it to you,
[37:17.000 --> 37:20.000]  that this motion can be used for two purposes.
[37:20.000 --> 37:26.000]  If you've already been to trial in a court of no record,
[37:26.000 --> 37:33.000]  then you can file this motion as a motion for new trial if you're still within your time frame.
[37:33.000 --> 37:41.000]  If not, okay, then you have to take that verbiage in the paragraphs,
[37:41.000 --> 37:45.000]  the whole paragraphs in fact, because I modularized this big time.
[37:45.000 --> 37:49.000]  I put everything together so it could be removed in blocks as necessary.
[37:49.000 --> 37:59.000]  If it didn't apply, well, you take those blocks out if you're filing it before,
[37:59.000 --> 38:05.000]  as you're first pleading in a case that hasn't happened yet, okay?
[38:05.000 --> 38:10.000]  And I'm sorry, I said in a court of no record, not true.
[38:10.000 --> 38:14.000]  You file it in the trial court as a motion for new trial,
[38:14.000 --> 38:16.000]  regardless of whether it's in a court of record or not.
[38:16.000 --> 38:20.000]  But the point being that you can file it either way.
[38:20.000 --> 38:29.000]  But you can't file it as a motion for new trial in a case where you have not been to trial yet, okay?
[38:29.000 --> 38:31.000]  That shouldn't be difficult, okay?
[38:31.000 --> 38:33.000]  It shouldn't.
[38:33.000 --> 38:36.000]  Anyway, a little more reading.
[38:36.000 --> 38:43.000]  There is no criminal procedure equivalent to a civil special appearance under Rule 120A, C-Coil v. State.
[38:43.000 --> 38:47.000]  Now, this is the case that she cites from the Texas Appellate Court.
[38:47.000 --> 38:51.000]  Remember, not the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but the Texas Appellate Court.
[38:51.000 --> 38:54.000]  The Appellate Court is trying to say that, or apparently,
[38:54.000 --> 38:57.000]  according to the way she's trying to use the case here,
[38:57.000 --> 39:01.000]  that there is no special appearance in criminal cases.
[39:01.000 --> 39:06.000]  In other words, you don't have the right to challenge personal jurisdiction or venue jurisdiction
[39:06.000 --> 39:10.000]  or any other jurisdiction in a criminal matter, okay?
[39:10.000 --> 39:12.000]  Only in a civil matter.
[39:12.000 --> 39:15.000]  That's why there's not an equivalent in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[39:15.000 --> 39:21.000]  despite the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically tells you in 1.02
[39:21.000 --> 39:26.000]  that if there is a rule associated with necessary procedures that isn't in this code,
[39:26.000 --> 39:29.000]  you go to the Code of Civil Procedure.
[39:29.000 --> 39:36.000]  So the Appellate Court, once again, is completely ignoring its own freaking rules as to how this works, all right?
[39:36.000 --> 39:42.000]  Now, she goes on to cite another case that shoots that case site right in the face.
[39:42.000 --> 39:48.000]  Defendants may, however, raise the issue of jurisdiction of a court at any time.
[39:48.000 --> 39:53.000]  Well, let's see what constitutes jurisdiction of the court.
[39:53.000 --> 39:59.000]  Subject matter, personal, venue, ta-da!
[39:59.000 --> 40:04.000]  If I have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of any court at any time,
[40:04.000 --> 40:12.000]  then you cannot possibly be making the argument that a special appearance in a criminal matter is invalid
[40:12.000 --> 40:25.000]  because any appearance outside of a special appearance in any court is a waiver of jurisdiction relating to venue and person.
[40:25.000 --> 40:27.000]  Got it?
[40:27.000 --> 40:37.000]  Therefore, the Appellate Court appears to be peopled by morons that went to the same school that our prosecuting attorney has, okay?
[40:37.000 --> 40:42.000]  Which is telling you what the quality of the legal education really is these days.
[40:42.000 --> 40:49.000]  Now, not only does she say that a defendant may raise the issue of jurisdiction of a court at any time,
[40:49.000 --> 40:59.000]  she cites two Texas criminal appellate cases that say that's exactly what the case is, all right?
[40:59.000 --> 41:10.000]  And the thing is, is her original site was from a 1989 case, and the two that kick her site right in the teeth are from 93 and 97.
[41:10.000 --> 41:22.000]  So they specifically overruled her original argument in the fact that they say if jurisdiction can be challenged, how can you say that this isn't the case?
[41:22.000 --> 41:31.000]  Because they have the right to challenge every aspect of jurisdiction, not just subject matter.
[41:31.000 --> 41:37.000]  The incompetence abounds, ladies and gentlemen, to continue on.
[41:37.000 --> 41:41.000]  This court derives its jurisdiction from the Texas Constitution.
[41:41.000 --> 41:43.000]  This is a municipal court, folks.
[41:43.000 --> 41:48.000]  They do not derive their jurisdiction from the Texas Constitution.
[41:48.000 --> 41:52.000]  She is misstating fact.
[41:52.000 --> 42:01.000]  The Texas Constitution authorizes the legislature to create these courts, okay?
[42:01.000 --> 42:10.000]  More aptly, the Constitution authorizes the legislature to authorize the cities to make them.
[42:10.000 --> 42:13.000]  The Constitution doesn't do it.
[42:13.000 --> 42:15.000]  The legislature does.
[42:15.000 --> 42:24.000]  Municipal courts are 100% statutory courts, absolutely, positively 100%.
[42:24.000 --> 42:37.000]  There is no mention of a municipal court in the Texas Constitution anywhere, okay, as well as various statutes enacted in accordance with its provisions.
[42:37.000 --> 42:45.000]  She then goes to cite the very passage in the Constitution that I'm using right here to rebut her argument.
[42:45.000 --> 42:55.000]  In Texas, the judicial power is vested in one supreme court, in one court of criminal appeals, in courts of appeals, in district courts, in county courts,
[42:55.000 --> 43:03.000]  in commissioner's courts, in courts of justice of the peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law, okay?
[43:03.000 --> 43:17.000]  That says the judicial power, okay, the power to be a court, does not invest jurisdiction upon a municipal court in any way, shape, or form.
[43:17.000 --> 43:22.000]  The legislature did that, okay?
[43:22.000 --> 43:26.000]  Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 1.
[43:26.000 --> 43:33.000]  The legislature is given explicit authority to create additional courts and prescribe their jurisdiction by statute, right here.
[43:33.000 --> 43:36.000]  She makes my argument for me.
[43:36.000 --> 43:38.000]  The legislature has that power.
[43:38.000 --> 43:40.000]  The Constitution didn't make us.
[43:40.000 --> 43:45.000]  The legislature did.
[43:45.000 --> 43:49.000]  See, you have to read this stuff, okay?
[43:49.000 --> 43:56.000]  Only for the laughs, but just so you can become educated on how uneducated and inept they really are.
[43:56.000 --> 44:01.000]  We'll be right back, so y'all hang in there.
[44:01.000 --> 44:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.000 --> 44:15.000]  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.
[44:15.000 --> 44:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 45:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:13.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come buy our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D here in Austin, Texas,
[45:13.000 --> 45:19.000]  buying Brave New Books and Chase Tank 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 Alchali Emu 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 --> 45:54.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[46:14.000 --> 46:22.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[46:22.000 --> 46:35.000]  All right, now to continue on here with the ineptitude of this woman, let me reference something for you out of another case that later on in her document,
[46:35.000 --> 46:43.000]  this case would, had he made a written rebuttal to her rebuttal, this case would have killed her entire argument.
[46:43.000 --> 46:46.000]  That and the judges that was trying to back her up.
[46:46.000 --> 46:55.000]  But listen very carefully. This is the case of ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123 from 1908.
[46:55.000 --> 47:03.000]  In note 143 of the opinion, it says, it is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not.
[47:03.000 --> 47:06.000]  Now remember, this is the United States Supreme Court.
[47:06.000 --> 47:11.000]  But it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should.
[47:11.000 --> 47:20.000]  The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution.
[47:20.000 --> 47:24.000]  We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful.
[47:24.000 --> 47:32.000]  With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us.
[47:32.000 --> 47:41.000]  We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given.
[47:41.000 --> 47:45.000]  The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.
[47:45.000 --> 47:50.000]  Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them.
[47:50.000 --> 47:56.000]  All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously perform our duty.
[47:56.000 --> 48:05.000]  Now that would speak exactly to what the court in this case would be required to do, all right?
[48:05.000 --> 48:07.000]  But they're not doing it.
[48:07.000 --> 48:19.000]  Instead, this attorney is doing everything within her power to negate the Constitutional challenge as if there isn't one.
[48:19.000 --> 48:26.000]  And when we get to her rebuttal of the actual Constitutional argument, oh, Lord,
[48:26.000 --> 48:38.000]  you want to talk about somebody who should be committed before they injure themselves with a plastic spoon, this woman is a danger to everyone.
[48:38.000 --> 48:45.000]  I mean, it is ridiculous where she goes with that argument in the Constitution.
[48:45.000 --> 48:51.000]  Now a little further down in Ex parte Young, we find this.
[48:51.000 --> 49:00.000]  It is simply the answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the authority of the state.
[49:00.000 --> 49:10.000]  Remember, we're arguing that the state in the legislature unconstitutionally enacted the entire transportation code.
[49:10.000 --> 49:16.000]  That was the argument from a Constitutional standpoint as far as its validity as an enactment.
[49:16.000 --> 49:25.000]  It was actually broken down into three parts, unconstitutionally enacted, unconstitutionally interpreted, and unconstitutionally applied.
[49:25.000 --> 49:35.000]  And she tried to circumvent all of those by going directly to the Constitutional challenge and totally screwing the pooch on that one.
[49:35.000 --> 49:38.000]  But we'll get back to her in just a second.
[49:38.000 --> 49:44.000]  In Young, the court goes on to say the act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional.
[49:44.000 --> 49:55.000]  And if it be so, the use of the name of the state to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of
[49:55.000 --> 50:02.000]  and one which does not affect the state in its sovereign or governmental capacity.
[50:02.000 --> 50:13.000]  It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the state to enforce a legislative enactment,
[50:13.000 --> 50:19.000]  which is void because unconstitutional.
[50:19.000 --> 50:25.000]  If the act which the state attorney general seeks to enforce be in violation of the federal Constitution,
[50:25.000 --> 50:31.000]  the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution.
[50:31.000 --> 50:41.000]  And he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual act.
[50:41.000 --> 50:52.000]  The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.
[50:52.000 --> 51:05.000]  Therefore, the state could not possibly provide any immunity to a municipal justice or county court judge who attempts to enforce an unconstitutional statute
[51:05.000 --> 51:16.000]  and code in violation of the rights of those that are being accused of violating an unconstitutional statute in an unconstitutional code.
[51:16.000 --> 51:22.000]  Nor can they hide the prosecutors.
[51:22.000 --> 51:25.000]  You get that?
[51:25.000 --> 51:33.000]  So this woman's argument is literally putting her in harm's way.
[51:33.000 --> 51:35.000]  Literally.
[51:35.000 --> 51:44.000]  Because she is confessing to her absolute incompetence every time she types a word into this document.
[51:44.000 --> 51:50.000]  And if you don't believe that, watch the video from class yesterday because I ripped this document apart.
[51:50.000 --> 51:53.000]  I mean completely.
[51:53.000 --> 51:54.000]  All right.
[51:54.000 --> 51:57.000]  Let's go a little further on in here.
[51:57.000 --> 52:01.000]  So she's making the argument that we can't challenge the jurisdiction of the court in a criminal matter.
[52:01.000 --> 52:04.000]  That's what she's trying to say.
[52:04.000 --> 52:14.000]  She even goes on to assert as if it's a fact that the court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the instant causes without any evidence
[52:14.000 --> 52:20.000]  being placed into the record that jurisdiction is valid.
[52:20.000 --> 52:24.000]  Which again is a part of the argument she completely ignored.
[52:24.000 --> 52:44.000]  That the challenge to transportation requires her to prove the jurisdiction of the court by showing that the offense itself, which can exist only if transportation was being engaged in, was in fact being engaged in.
[52:44.000 --> 52:47.000]  She has no case without it.
[52:47.000 --> 52:50.000]  None.
[52:50.000 --> 52:56.000]  But she's asserting that they have it regardless. And then what does she cite as the authority for the jurisdiction?
[52:56.000 --> 53:01.000]  The very same code that we are challenging the constitutionality of.
[53:01.000 --> 53:03.000]  Now you get that?
[53:03.000 --> 53:12.000]  You just saw an ex parte young where the United States Supreme Court said you can't hide behind an unconstitutional act.
[53:12.000 --> 53:22.000]  And you certainly cannot declare it as the authority that gives you authority when its constitutionality is being questioned.
[53:22.000 --> 53:35.000]  And yet right here, this court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the instant causes because of the Texas transportation code.
[53:35.000 --> 53:42.000]  Okay? That's exactly what she argues.
[53:42.000 --> 53:44.000]  Now let's go a little further down.
[53:44.000 --> 53:53.000]  This is where she addresses the individual's demand for a new trial that should not have been demanded yet.
[53:53.000 --> 53:56.000]  Am I making myself clear?
[53:56.000 --> 54:05.000]  Okay? This is proof positive to me that you didn't follow instructions, you did not read the motion before you filed it.
[54:05.000 --> 54:19.000]  And if you did, that you absolutely did not understand it like you are supposed to do, or you would have removed this knowing it didn't belong there.
[54:19.000 --> 54:32.000]  And then she goes on to attempt to rebut the procedural challenges, which again, she completely skews the arguments that are made about what was required when the officer made the stop.
[54:32.000 --> 54:43.000]  She attempts to say that the argument that we're making through the constitutional challenge is that the officer failed in his duty to take the accused before a magistrate.
[54:43.000 --> 54:45.000]  We didn't make that argument.
[54:45.000 --> 54:53.000]  We said the officer has only two options in such a case, to take an individual directly before a magistrate or to issue a citation.
[54:53.000 --> 55:06.000]  But the argument to which that assertion is attached is one regarding the failure of a separate and attached magistrate to make a ruling on the warrantless arrest.
[55:06.000 --> 55:17.000]  Remember, every probable cause determination when an arrest was made without warrant requires two, not one, probable cause orders.
[55:17.000 --> 55:33.000]  One, before anything dealing with the merits of the allegation itself can be done, a neutral and attached magistrate must first determine whether or not the warrantless arrest itself was lawful and valid.
[55:33.000 --> 55:43.000]  And if you've read any of the articles on my blog in relation to this stuff, you'll know that it's impossible for it to be valid.
[55:43.000 --> 55:46.000]  And here's why.
[55:46.000 --> 56:04.000]  In a mal and prohibitive statute, the only way to even begin to have reasonable suspicion or articulable probable cause in either case is if you know the statute and the necessary elements of the offense.
[56:04.000 --> 56:12.000]  And in the case of a mal and prohibitive statute, just as any other case, you can't have some of them.
[56:12.000 --> 56:14.000]  You have to have them all.
[56:14.000 --> 56:26.000]  Because what is the problem if you make an arrest for an offense that you say was committed when you're going to get on the stand and testify, well, no, they didn't do this and they didn't do this and they didn't do this?
[56:26.000 --> 56:29.000]  Well, aren't those actual elements of the charge?
[56:29.000 --> 56:30.000]  Well, yeah.
[56:30.000 --> 56:33.000]  Did you know at the time they had not done these particular things?
[56:33.000 --> 56:34.000]  Well, yeah.
[56:34.000 --> 56:50.000]  Then how could you possibly have reached the legal conclusion that they had committed an offense for which you could arrest them or even issue a citation?
[56:50.000 --> 56:52.000]  That's the problem, okay?
[56:52.000 --> 57:00.000]  In a mal and prohibitive case, you can't get there without going through every element because it's a false arrest without a warrant.
[57:00.000 --> 57:14.000]  You knew darn good and well they didn't violate the actual prohibited act because necessary elements to the prohibition were not done.
[57:14.000 --> 57:27.000]  It's like a game warden charging you with fishing without a license because you bought salmon at the supermarket and he walked up and found you with the salmon in your hands.
[57:27.000 --> 57:32.000]  And he writes you a ticket. You were illegally fishing.
[57:32.000 --> 57:36.000]  Well, why? I asked you for a license. You didn't produce it.
[57:36.000 --> 57:37.000]  I was at the supermarket.
[57:37.000 --> 57:40.000]  So what? You had fish in your hands.
[57:40.000 --> 57:52.000]  Is one of the required elements of fishing without a license that the fish be in a body of water and be retrieved by the individual using a pole or some other method of entrapment or catch device?
[57:52.000 --> 57:53.000]  Well, yeah.
[57:53.000 --> 57:54.000]  Did you see any of those?
[57:54.000 --> 57:55.000]  No.
[57:55.000 --> 57:57.000]  Was I near a body of water?
[57:57.000 --> 57:58.000]  No.
[57:58.000 --> 58:00.000]  Then how could I possibly have committed the offense?
[58:00.000 --> 58:04.000]  How could any of the elements of the allegation exist?
[58:04.000 --> 58:05.000]  Well, it doesn't matter.
[58:05.000 --> 58:09.000]  You had a fish.
[58:09.000 --> 58:11.000]  You see the problem?
[58:11.000 --> 58:29.000]  Only an attorney could say that that's okay. Only an attorney become a judge could say that that is an even sane argument for a cop to make or a prosecutor to make.
[58:29.000 --> 58:42.000]  These are the kinds of people that are telling you how to live your life and are attempting to control it at every turn and steal your money while doing so. And you're going to let them.
[58:42.000 --> 58:50.000]  Keep us funded, folks. Keep listening. We'll be right back after the break.
[58:50.000 --> 58:58.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.000 --> 59:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.000 --> 59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.000 --> 59:18.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.000 --> 59:27.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.000 --> 59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.000 --> 59:47.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.000 --> 59:50.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:44.000]  The markets for Friday, April 15, 2016, are currently treading with gold at $1,233.72 an ounce, silver at $16.21 an ounce, Texas crude at $40.36 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $430 U.S. currency.
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:57.000]  Today in history, the year 1865, Abraham Lincoln is shot at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C. Honest Abe died today in history.
[01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:05.000]  In recent use, 22 Texas Republican district or county conventions passed resolutions calling for a vote on state secession in March.
[01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  Though only 10 responded and actually validated the passage of such resolutions, an official count should be available from the Republican Party of Texas in early May.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  Last year, the Texas nationalist movement made headlines with a statewide tour of speaking events, seeking enough signatures to get secession on the GOP primary ballot.
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  Daniel Miller, the group's president, said that they came close, but not close enough.
[01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  However, as a result, recruited and trained a lot of volunteers from Amarillo to San Antonio.
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  Supporters of an independent Texas promote such efforts because of federal overreach, corruption, and excessive spending, not to mention the reality of Texas being large and economically independent enough to actually go it alone.
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  And though the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that states do not have the right to secede, secessionists are pointing out that these rulings will have no binding once the state declares independence.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:02:02.000]  Federalists are warning that the federal government will be obligated to use force against such a move since it would be considered rebellion under federal regulation.
[01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:12.000]  A hundred and fifty federal to state law enforcement from various agencies assisted the Seguin police department with dozens of arrest warrants targeting Mexican mafia operations trafficking heroin and cocaine into Seguin and Yubrafos.
[01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  This mass-coordinated effort, 18 months in the planning, was set in motion when indictments unsealed Friday charged defendants with a conspiracy to possess and intent to distribute controlled substances.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  Authorities suspect those rounded up are responsible for distributing heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into Seguin and Yubrafos since 2010.
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  The alleged leader of the mafia, Lieutenant, is among the people arrested.
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  Police say that these networks supply drugs from Austin to Houston and are believed to even have ties within the Texas prison system.
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  It does seem police have found themselves a cozy permanent job waging the drug war.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  Unfortunately, these indefinite efforts will continue to remain so because of the criminalization of drugs themselves, consequently bringing in cartels, violence, smuggling, and millions of tax dollars gone to waste.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:02:59.000]  This was Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 15th, 2016.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:40.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:44.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, Monday night show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  All right.
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:58.000]  Now, again, in this she's trying to argue, take the defendant before a neutral magistrate, and she's trying to say that once the officer released them with the citation, the officer's duty was at an end.
[01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  Yes, that is correct, but that does not relieve a neutral magistrate from the duty to make an order of probable cause that shows that that arrest by that officer was lawful.
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:30.000]  And guess what? There ain't but one place in all the code where such an order can be done, and that's an examining trial, which they attempt to say we are not entitled to because we didn't commit a felony.
[01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  So what Texas once again has done, because every bit of what we have is controlled by attorneys who engineer this crap to keep them working and us paying, is to ensure that we don't get our due process because if we got due process, they would be in jail.
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  And I look forward to the day that I could be one of those people that would get to sit up on that bench and sentence some of these same people.
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  There would not be enough piping in the world to get daylight to you in the hole in which I would throw you.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:29.000]  You understand that? Wouldn't be.
[01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  Anyway, besides her idiotic argument on the fact that the magistrate is unimportant, okay, she goes on to attempt to argue about the constitutionality of the code.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  And this is what she does. She attempts to gloss over the three categories. Remember I told you the three categories in the constitutional challenge motion are unconstitutionally enacted, unconstitutionally interpreted, unconstitutionally applied.
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:17.000]  This is what she does in order to prevent herself from having to answer the various allegations that motion makes.
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  The defendant raises a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the entirety of the Texas transportation code in his motion.
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  The burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statute rests upon the individual raising the challenge.
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  I remember, folks, I did my research, I got my certified documents, I provided those certified documents to everyone that's using this motion as attachments and exhibits to this motion as proof that what the motion says happened, happened.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:55.000]  And that the result of what happened was unconstitutional, okay?
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  So she's basically saying that I have to prove something that I have already written and provided proof of, as if that's even a question at this point.
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:16.000]  So here's what she begins to argue after she says the raising individual bears the burden of proof.
[01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  A reviewing court must begin with the presumption that the statute is valid and that the legislature did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in enacting it.
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  And the court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the statute's constitutionality unless the contrary is clearly shown.
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:43.000]  Now, right here is where we know for a fact the court did not do any review of the facts asserted in the motion.
[01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:47.000]  There is no finding of facts by the court in this matter whatsoever.
[01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  The only thing that we are made aware of is what she puts in this motion right here.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:03.000]  There was no review of the constitutionality of the code by anyone other than this attorney.
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  And then despite the evidence sitting in her face, when you read this after I post it, you are going to see incompetence to such a degree
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  that you would probably for the first time in your life agree that this woman's mother's pregnancy abortion should have been a mandatory thing.
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  Because a person this stupid should not be allowed to roam the face of the earth with responsibility that endangers the existence of others.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  This woman's incompetence is, the bounds of the earth is not enough to hold it.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  I'll go on and I'll show you exactly why I say this.
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  To successfully mount a facial challenge, the party asserting unconstitutionality must establish that there is no set of circumstances
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  that exist under which the statute could be held valid.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:14.000]  Now remember, I assert in that motion that there are three specific provisions of the Texas Constitution
[01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  that were not followed and completely ignored and are constitutionally mandatory for the enactment of every single law.
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:45.000]  There is no set of circumstances on the planet to fix the problem that was created by the 74th legislature in 1995 with what they did.
[01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  None.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  So how could this not be successfully mounting a challenge?
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  Unless of course this attorney's got a time machine that none of us know anything about.
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  Because there is no set of circumstances by which an unconstitutionally enacted statute can be made constitutional.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  There are none.
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  The documents we have prove there are none.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  Her own arguments, further down in this very rebuttal, prove there are none.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:24.000]  Let me show you.
[01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  She then cites a couple of cases that, again, if you read them, there is no way this case can support her argument, neither of them.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  Because no one has ever raised this specific issue in relation to this specific code or any other code in Texas ever before.
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  No one.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  It has never been done.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  So there is absolutely no way either of these two cases would be relevant to this rebuttal.
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  Can't possibly be.
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  But let's continue.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:08.000]  The defendant's constitutional arguments span pages 14 through 70 of the motion.
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  The defendant appears to assert similar basis for unconstitutionality under different headings and in slightly different terms throughout the motion.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  That is incorrect.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  Each argument is couched under one of the three categories in which it is used.
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  So they are not slightly different arguments and terms.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  They are arguments specific to the unconstitutional action being performed.
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  Whether it be the legislature's unconstitutional enactment, the court's unconstitutional interpretation, or the police and prosecutor's unconstitutional application.
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:02.000]  And she is too stupid to recognize that fact.
[01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:09.000]  But anyway, she goes on, for brevity's sake, the state has identified what appears to be the two distinct arguments.
[01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  That's baloney.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  There's a lot more than two.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  If you've read the motion, you know there's more than two.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  The transportation code, one, the transportation code was not lawfully recodified by the legislature in SB 971, 74th legislative session 1995.
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  Two, the transportation code purports to unlawfully regulate, and this is where she goes off on the same tangent, to unlawfully regulate private transportation through license requirements.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  This is where she does what every single court does to avoid addressing the actual issue.
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  She tries to reclassify the activity under the legal terminology that applies to the subject matter, to which it doesn't apply.
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  You have to understand that in the transportation realm, there are private transportation companies.
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  They're defined by law that way.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  A private transportation company or carrier versus a public carrier.
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  A public carrier is someone that is hireable by any member of the public.
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  A private carrier is someone who is contracted only with specific clients.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  So when she converts her argument to private transportation, she is attempting to invoke the commercial activity and make it applicable when our entire argument is too faceted on the fact that one, I'm not engaged in any sort of commercial activity,
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  and two, the rules you're attempting to use to govern that commercial activity are unconstitutional.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  You see what the kind of crap I have to put up with every day helping people?
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  I have to deal with idiocy like this from attorneys.
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  Okay?
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  This is not fun for me, as you might think, except for when we kick their butt, then it becomes fun.
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:22.000]  But the fact is, this level of stupidity gives me a migraine.
[01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  I could have eaten a crate full of Excedrin yesterday after teaching that class because of the level of stupidity that was sloughing off of this writing and into my head having to even argue the ineptitude that's in it.
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  I have had four-hour conversations with a frickin' rock with more intelligence than this woman has.
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  Okay?
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  So the defendant argues the entirety of the transportation code is unconstitutional because it was enacted in contravention of Article 3, Sections 32, 36, and 62 of the Texas Constitution.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  That is the only accurate statement she has made so far.
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:17.000]  The only one.
[01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  Now the stupidity becomes tangible.
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  Listen very carefully.
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  Section 32 provides that no bill shall have the force of a law until it has been read on three several days in each house and free discussion allowed thereon.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  But four-fifths of the House in which the bill may be pending may suspend this rule, as Texas Constitution Article 3, Section 32.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  Now what she does not say here and does not say throughout the entire motion, I'm sorry, her rebuttal, but I made specific arguments about in detail in the constitutional challenge is that that second part about the four-fifths of the House
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  in which the bill may be pending may suspend this rule, that portion was not added to Section 32 until 1999.
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Four years after the legislature unconstitutionally enacted SB 971 into the current transportation code. You get it?
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  The authority she is about to argue as being valid for them to suspend the reading rule didn't exist until four years later when they suspended the rule.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  Y'all hang on, we'll be right back.
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  Make your contribution. Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  First prize being a Spiked Skull Lower Receiver. Second prize being a Taurus Curve.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  Ten winners will receive gift cards from All About Vapor. And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary jar of My Magic Mud.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:50.000]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted as well as contributions by Bitcoin.
[01:17:50.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  The Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th. Head on over to logosradionetwork.com for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  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 --> 01:19:40.000]  Hi, folks, we are back.
[01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:42.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  All right, I'm going to go just a little further on, and that way I'll leave the last couple segments for taking calls.
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  I know everybody's antsy about that.
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:54.000]  They always are.
[01:19:54.000 --> 01:20:03.000]  But what I want to do is I'm going to go ahead and turn the phones on, and you can start getting in line for the next two segments after this one,
[01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:09.000]  which will be the last half hour of the show, and we'll deal with whatever we've got to deal with there.
[01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:23.000]  But this is too important to ignore, and I want to get enough of this out there that I can, you know, get you to pay attention.
[01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  What I want to do is I want to get you enticed enough by what's going on to go to the blog and to the Facebook page and watch this video
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  and pay attention to what is happening.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  Like I said, the video, I completely held nothing back in class yesterday.
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  So if you're offended by language, well, suck it up for a little while because what I argue is important.
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  All right, anyway, she goes on to recite the language of the three passages of the Constitution
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  that I'm using to challenge the constitutionality of the entire transportation code.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  All right, not only does she cite exactly what is the basic gist of each section,
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:16.000]  but then she goes down here to argue that those sections don't mean what they say they mean,
[01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  while simultaneously admitting that there is no court opinions that support her assertion.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  Listen carefully.
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  Both the House and the Senate of the Texas legislature properly suspended Article 3, Section 32 of the Constitution
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  through record votes of four-fifths of their respective bodies and through the inclusion of Emergency Clause in SB 971.
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:51.000]  Now this is her argument. Remember, if you've read the motion, you understand that Section 28 of SB 971 does have a clause titled Emergency.
[01:21:51.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  But the emergency stated there is, due to imperative public necessity and the crowded conditions of the calendars of each house,
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  creating a state of emergency, the reading rule required by Article 3, Section 32, is hereby suspended and is hereby suspended.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  That's the language of the Emergency Clause more or less, okay?
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  You read that Emergency Clause and you compare it to the requirements of an Emergency Clause that can be found in only one of two places.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:33.000]  49A of Article 3, which deals only with appropriations bills, which the transportation code in SB 971 absolutely is not,
[01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  and the only place where the specific language of the Emergency Clause they used exists in the entire Texas Constitution.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  And then you also have to look at the fact that Section 62 says that in any other case, that it's not an appropriations bill,
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  in order to suspend the procedural rules listed in 62B, there must be certain conditions met by the governor and the legislature.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  And the circumstances and conditions under which those things must be done must also exist.
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  That's what 62 tells us.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  But she's going to argue that that's not what it says, despite very clearly that's what it says.
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  Now, here she's also saying that they properly suspended it with a four-fifths vote.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  And remember what I told you before the break?
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  The four-fifths majority vote clause did not exist in Section 32 of Article 3 when this bill was enacted.
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  The only place where a four-fifths majority vote was even mentioned in the Texas Constitution was in 49A in relation to an appropriations bill.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  Now, I address every aspect of that argument and that verbiage, both from their Emergency Clause and the Texas Constitution,
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  both in 49A and in 62, and prove that they did not and could not possibly have constitutionally suspended that rule.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  But then again, this is an attorney.
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  Nothing means what it says according to an attorney.
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  And even if that attorney wrote it to use it one way, they will be the first ones to argue it completely different if it suits them at the time.
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  Well, fortunately, attorneys didn't write this.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  I don't think.
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  I wasn't there when it was written to begin with, but I don't think.
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  We'll see.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  Anyway, she goes on.
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  The Senate suspended the rule on March 14, 1995, by a record vote of 30 yeas to zero nays.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  How many people are in the Texas House?
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:24:59.000]  Okay, in the Senate.
[01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  How many people are in the Senate?
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  Chapter 312 of the Texas Government Code says that in order for a quorum to exist, there must be at least more than half of the eligible body.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:19.000]  Okay?
[01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  So if there's 100 people, there must be 51 in order to constitute a quorum.
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  And I know there's more than 59 members of the Senate.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:36.000]  Okay?
[01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  Way more than 59.
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  So how could a vote of 30 yeas carry the day to suspend the rule?
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  Because either A, there was not a quorum, or B, the rest of the legislature in the Senate did not vote yes, and they could not possibly have carried the day.
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  You see the problem here?
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  These are the kinds of people that are running your state and your country.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  Okay?
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  And the bill was passed to the House by a viva voce vote.
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  Texas Senate Journal 74th Legislative Regular Session, 1995, at page 548.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:28.000]  Okay?
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  And then she provides links to the documents.
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  Yay!
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  Those are the ones I could not get the Register's Office to send to me.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  And yet here she's saying that as an attorney, she's able to locate them online.
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:45.000]  Why aren't they available to the public online?
[01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:52.000]  At least in a place where we can find them, even with a diligent search.
[01:26:52.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  Senator Lee, the House properly suspended the rule on April 21st, 1995, by a record vote of 115 yeas and 3 nays, and two present not voting.
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  Again, how many members are in the House being representatives?
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  How many?
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  115.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  How many counties are in Texas?
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:21.000]  How many representatives have multiple counties?
[01:27:21.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  How many total representatives do we have in the House of Representatives here in Texas?
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:29.000]  Did we have a quorum?
[01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:30.000]  Okay?
[01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  But even, even if we had a quorum, they voted to suspend a rule without meeting the conditions of Section 62.
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:28:00.000]  And they, and according to this attorney, they did it correctly by using a majority vote that was only allowed at that time to be used in relation to appropriations bills, not to any other bills.
[01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:05.000]  Because the clause she's saying they used in Section 32 didn't exist.
[01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:10.000]  It wasn't until four years later that it came into existence.
[01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:15.000]  But just to save time here, this is what you need to understand about the rest of her argument.
[01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  She goes on to argue that Section 62 does not say what it means, and it creates multiple ways for the legislature to suspend the rule.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  And that's a blatant lie.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  Every single provision of Section 62 of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution clearly begins or contains the language that states to suspend the procedural rules specified in subsection B of this section.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  Every one of them links back to the rules of subsection B.
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  And they also all contain, in the case, in such case of emergency, the only place in 62 where an emergency is defined is in 62A.
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  And in 62A, the only emergency is that caused by disasters relating to enemy attack.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  There is no other. None.
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:35.000]  The only other emergency clause in the entire Constitution is in 49A, dealing with appropriations bills, a fact that she never even addresses in her rebuttal.
[01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  Okay? Doesn't address it at all.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  So she intentionally attempts to subvert every provision of the Texas Constitution to make her argument seem valid.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  And this is how we know the judge of the court did not read anything relating to this case before they ruled on that motion.
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:58.000]  Because even that judge could have seen this was stupid.
[01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  Did you know the majority of businesses in the U.S. are family-owned?
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  We're not just talking mom-and-pop stores, but companies at the very top of the corporate ladder.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  I've got your Catherine Albrecht back with the top family businesses next.
[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 --> 01:30:32.000]  So protect your rights. 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]  When it comes to business, blood and money really do mix.
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  A whopping 8 out of 10 American businesses are family-owned.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  They contribute nearly 60 percent of the nation's economy and employ nearly two-thirds of the U.S. workforce.
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:03.000]  Many of the firms in the S&P 500 are family-controlled, and they're doing great.
[01:31:03.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  They're more stable, and they inspire more commitment and trust in their employees.
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:11.000]  The biggest family-owned business is, surprise, Wal-Mart.
[01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  Next comes Ford, Cargill, Coke Industries, Carlson Companies, Comcast, and News Corp.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  Rounding out the top 10 is the sweetest of them all, Mars. M&Ms, anyone?
[01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  Over 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:52.000 --> 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 --> 01:31:56.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:04.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails,
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:12.000]  but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:18.000]  That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements
[01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:23.000]  can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense, and we accept Bitcoin.
[01:32:23.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  As a multiyear A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints,
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  you can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  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 --> 01:33:04.000]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  Okay, one more thing, and then I'll start taking your calls.
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  Now, this is where her stupidity shines like the sun up close and personal.
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:53.000]  This is her argument here.
[01:33:53.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  The state has found no authority in case law or elsewhere interpreting the provisions of Article III, Section 62 of the Texas Constitution,
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  which I say very plainly in the Constitutional Challenge Motion.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  No one's ever made this determination.
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:10.000]  The defendant interprets the provision as requiring an emergency of an enemy attack,
[01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  plus action by the governor in order for the legislature to suspend the provisions of Article III, Section 32,
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  and consider a bill on second and third reading in one day.
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  No, I don't even mention a second or third reading in one day, because it can't do it in one day.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:27.000]  The Constitution says it can't do it in one day.
[01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  It has to be done over three several days.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  Anyway, the plain language of Sections 32 and 62 suggests this is not the case.
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  Now, listen to this stupidity.
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  Article III, Section 32, provides a mechanism of suspension of the three-day rule in and of itself,
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:54.000]  and independent of Section 62, Texas Constitution Article III.
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  And then she cites Section 32's four-fifths of the House in which the bill may be pending may suspend this rule,
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  the added enactment that was not until four years after the bill.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  But she then goes on further down to declare that every word and every statute must be given some effect.
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  But when she makes this argument right here saying that Section 32 of the Texas Constitution provides a mechanism
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  of suspension of the three-day rule independent of Section 62,
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  she is making the argument that Section 62 has no authority in this case, that Section 32 overrides it.
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  And therefore, 62 is of no force and effect in its entirety.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  You see the two-faced argument she's trying to make here?
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  I'm going to use a clause that didn't exist at the time to make an argument to nullify an entire section of the Texas Constitution
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:14.000]  because it defeats my argument while simultaneously arguing that the unconstitutional code is constitutional
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  because every word in it must be given some force and effect.
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:24.000]  What she tries to argue here for the force and effect is Section 62B of Article III,
[01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  where it lists the five procedural rules that can be suspended by the four-fifths vote.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  Now, okay, if a four-fifths vote is even valid to spin this in this case, which I'm arguing it isn't, all right?
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  But she uses a single and that appears at the next-to-last item
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  for which every one of the items is separated from each other by a semicolon.
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  In other words, item number four reads what it reads semicolon, the word and, and then item number five reads what it reads with a period.
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  She's trying to make the argument that the word and means that all five of those rules must be being sought to be suspended in order for 62 to apply at all.
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:27.000]  Newsflash, Ms. Moron, according to the rules of grammar and legal writing,
[01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:37.000]  a semicolon at the end of a sentence constitutes a complete sentence, okay?
[01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  It is a complete sentence by itself that is conjoined with the following items because they are part of a overall governing ideal or concept.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:03.000]  That's the legal grammar analysis of a semicolon at the end of a constitutional or statutory provision.
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  The word and in this case would not conjoin the requirement that each separate item now be considered as a mandatory part of the other listed items in order to be valid in itself.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  So not only are you legally inept, you are grammatically inept.
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  You are statutorily interpretation and constitutional interpretation inept, okay?
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  You got lucky and found a law degree in a box of Cracker Jacks and automatically think that makes you intelligent.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:52.000]  It doesn't.
[01:38:52.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  Your arguments here are proof positive of that.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  I hope that was enough to pique your interest to come read this when I post it.
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:08.000]  It's a good read just for the entertainment value alone because if you know anything about legal analysis,
[01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  legal arguments, statutory and constitutional interpretation, and construction of language,
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  this woman is going to have you rolling so hard you're going to puke and pee yourself.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  And then I hope you get on the phone to whoever she works for or email and tell them, do you know how incompetent your staff is to write a motion like this?
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  This woman shouldn't be allowed in public unsupervised.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  All right.
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  Enough about Ms. Moron.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:45.000]  We will go on to the couple of callers that we have in the time that we got left.
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  First we have Holly in Oregon.
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  Holly, what can we do for you?
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:50.000]  Okay, good.
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  Well, Goody, you sound very Holly.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  What can I do for you?
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  Hello?
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  Hello?
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  Hello, hello.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  Yeah, I hear you.
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  Who am I talking to?
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:11.000]  No, it's not Holly.
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:13.000]  I haven't changed sections yet.
[01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  Well, whose phone are you borrowing then?
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  No, my own phone.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  Same phone I've been using the whole time.
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  Okay.
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  Well, my call screener is either inebriated or high then for that mistake to be made.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  But in any case, go ahead.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  All right, Eddie, thank you.
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:30.000]  Thank you for taking my call tonight.
[01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:32.000]  Really quick here, so you only got a few minutes.
[01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:35.000]  Well, I wouldn't have if I'd have known it wasn't Holly.
[01:40:35.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  No, I'm kidding.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  Go ahead.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  All right, yeah.
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  Hey, I'll be watching that video.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  I'll be enjoying that.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  I can't wait to watch it.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  Well, I'll post it when it's done.
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:46.000]  All right.
[01:40:46.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  I'll be checking for it.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  Hey, a couple of things real quick, just to update what's going on with my case concerning
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:55.000]  the officer that tried to charge me with a criminal offense for not showing the ID and
[01:40:55.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  then impounding my truck, searching it and all that kind of stuff for asset forfeiture
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  seizure.
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  He was looking for a felony.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:01.000]  That's what his goal was.
[01:41:01.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  But he came up short.
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  And then, of course, his thing was dismissed when he got to trial.
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  And now I'm trying to see what I can do to get a settlement to get cured.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  I went to this county place, I guess it's a county building that handles all this kind
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  of stuff.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  And they're putting it through mediation to see if they can negotiate with the county
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  and see what's going on in the county and the sheriff's department concerning my case.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:24.000]  So that's an update.
[01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:25.000]  I'm just waiting for that.
[01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:26.000]  What's going to come out of it?
[01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:27.000]  I'll find out a little bit later.
[01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:28.000]  Hey, there's a...
[01:41:28.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  I don't know if you...
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  I know you've heard of Cop Lock.
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:40.000]  There is one episode with our sheriff's department here in my area.
[01:41:40.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  And this guy was walking down the street with his girlfriend and he videotaped this officer
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  just rolling along in the bike lane in his vehicle.
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  And then he turned on his lights, detained the individual and said, I need to see your
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  ID.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:57.000]  You look like somebody who has a warrant.
[01:41:57.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  What do you take of that?
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  Is that considered a Terry stop and that's completely unlawful, correct?
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:04.000]  It's not a Terry stop.
[01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  It's a suspicionless stop.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:09.000]  It's absolutely unlawful and unconstitutional.
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:11.000]  That is what's called profiling.
[01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  It is absolutely illegal.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:15.000]  Okay.
[01:42:15.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  It's on YouTube.
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:21.000]  And for those who are in Oregon who want to check this out, go to YouTube and just check
[01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:27.000]  Cop Lock in Portland and Clackamas County area and you'll come up with the video called
[01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  Deputy Russell Meme Mug Stops a Citizen on the Sidewalk.
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:37.000]  Just type that in there in the description.
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  And it will come up with this particular deputy that did this.
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  He just provided his name, date of birth, found out he didn't have a warrant and then
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  let him go.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  Yeah, that's an illegal stop.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:52.000]  He had no basis for the stop other than profiling.
[01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  It's absolutely illegal.
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  Okay.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  Okay, very good.
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  I just want to find out.
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  Okay.
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  Well, if there's other callers on the board, I'll let you go ahead and get to them.
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  I just want to give you the update what's going on with that and I'll keep you further
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  posted in the future.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:04.000]  Okay.
[01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:05.000]  Thanks for calling.
[01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  All right.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:07.000]  Yep.
[01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  All right.
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  Now we have Allen in California.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:14.000]  Allen, what can we do for you?
[01:43:14.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  Is that me, Eddie?
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  Well, I don't know.
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:18.000]  Is that you?
[01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  No, it's not.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:20.000]  This is Larry in Arizona.
[01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:23.000]  But your screener had a problem with the names.
[01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  Yeah, twice in a row it would appear.
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  Okay.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:29.000]  Okay.
[01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  My question is, earlier this year I got a ticket.
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  Well, hang on just a sec, Larry.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  Sorry, I got a break coming up, but I'll get you as soon as we get back on the other side,
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  okay?
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  So hang on.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  Don't drop off.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  All right, folks.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  We are coming up into the last segment of the show.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  If you've been listening, I hope you have found it entertaining and informative, and
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  I hope that you will continue to watch for that video in motion so you can find it even
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  more so.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We'll be right back, so y'all hang on.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:33.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:34.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:45:50.000 --> 01:46:05.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:46:05.000 --> 01:46:32.640]  All right, folks.
[01:46:32.640 --> 01:46:33.640]  We are back.
[01:46:33.640 --> 01:46:37.640]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are talking to Larry in Arizona.
[01:46:37.640 --> 01:46:40.640]  All right, go ahead, Larry.
[01:46:40.640 --> 01:46:41.640]  Okay.
[01:46:41.640 --> 01:46:42.640]  Okay.
[01:46:42.640 --> 01:46:43.640]  So, okay.
[01:46:43.640 --> 01:46:44.640]  I get the ticket.
[01:46:44.640 --> 01:46:46.640]  It's a civil speeding ticket.
[01:46:46.640 --> 01:46:50.640]  I file all my motions, do everything right.
[01:46:50.640 --> 01:46:51.640]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:46:51.640 --> 01:46:55.640]  When you say you filed all of your motions, explain what that means.
[01:46:55.640 --> 01:46:56.640]  Okay.
[01:46:56.640 --> 01:47:03.640]  Well, a motion to dismiss and a motion that, okay, I forget the terms.
[01:47:03.640 --> 01:47:08.640]  I don't know, the top three motions that you have in the seminar.
[01:47:08.640 --> 01:47:09.640]  Did, okay.
[01:47:09.640 --> 01:47:12.640]  You said it's civil in Arizona, right?
[01:47:12.640 --> 01:47:13.640]  Yes.
[01:47:13.640 --> 01:47:14.640]  Okay.
[01:47:14.640 --> 01:47:19.640]  Did you by any chance spend any time at all reading the article I wrote on my blog site
[01:47:19.640 --> 01:47:22.640]  dealing with states where these offenses are civil?
[01:47:22.640 --> 01:47:25.640]  No, I didn't know.
[01:47:25.640 --> 01:47:26.640]  Okay.
[01:47:26.640 --> 01:47:29.640]  This is something that apparently you're not understanding.
[01:47:29.640 --> 01:47:34.640]  The stuff in the seminar material being geared toward Texas deals with these issues as if
[01:47:34.640 --> 01:47:38.640]  they're being treated criminally, which is how they're treated here, not civilly.
[01:47:38.640 --> 01:47:43.640]  In a civil state, you are playing by a different rule book.
[01:47:43.640 --> 01:47:45.640]  You understand?
[01:47:45.640 --> 01:47:52.640]  And that's a different rule book for everybody, including the cop.
[01:47:52.640 --> 01:47:53.640]  Okay.
[01:47:53.640 --> 01:47:56.640]  So here's the problem.
[01:47:56.640 --> 01:48:04.640]  What you should have done in a civil case in these things is to file a motion for discovery
[01:48:04.640 --> 01:48:13.640]  containing seven specific interrogatories and a motion to dismiss based upon the answers
[01:48:13.640 --> 01:48:17.640]  to those interrogatories.
[01:48:17.640 --> 01:48:25.640]  Those seven interrogatories that I wrote in the article on my blog very specifically go
[01:48:25.640 --> 01:48:33.640]  to show that the officer's initial arrest or detention was absolutely illegal.
[01:48:33.640 --> 01:48:44.640]  Can you tell me why an officer's initial arrest or detention on the subject of a civil infraction
[01:48:44.640 --> 01:48:50.640]  is a crime?
[01:48:50.640 --> 01:48:51.640]  Okay.
[01:48:51.640 --> 01:48:52.640]  It's not.
[01:48:52.640 --> 01:48:55.640]  What do you mean it's not?
[01:48:55.640 --> 01:49:02.640]  Why is his actions in arresting or detaining you for a civil infraction actually a criminal
[01:49:02.640 --> 01:49:05.640]  act by the officer?
[01:49:05.640 --> 01:49:14.640]  Oh, by the officer because he's...I can't think of the terminology I want.
[01:49:14.640 --> 01:49:19.640]  Does the Arizona Constitution have a clause protecting you from unreasonable searches
[01:49:19.640 --> 01:49:20.640]  and seizures?
[01:49:20.640 --> 01:49:21.640]  Yes.
[01:49:21.640 --> 01:49:27.640]  Does it have a clause that authorizes such a search and seizure only under warrant or
[01:49:27.640 --> 01:49:31.640]  only under conditions of certain criminal acts?
[01:49:31.640 --> 01:49:32.640]  Yes.
[01:49:32.640 --> 01:49:38.640]  What crime were you committing when he grabbed you?
[01:49:38.640 --> 01:49:39.640]  None.
[01:49:39.640 --> 01:49:40.640]  Exactly.
[01:49:40.640 --> 01:49:43.640]  A civil infraction is not a crime.
[01:49:43.640 --> 01:49:52.640]  Therefore, the authority to detain or arrest does not exist because there can be no reasonable
[01:49:52.640 --> 01:49:58.640]  suspicion or articulable probable cause.
[01:49:58.640 --> 01:50:03.640]  Therefore, he cannot perform any sort of arrest without a warrant.
[01:50:03.640 --> 01:50:06.640]  Nor could he even get a warrant to do so.
[01:50:06.640 --> 01:50:07.640]  Why?
[01:50:07.640 --> 01:50:12.640]  Because it's civil and no warrant may issue except upon a statement of probable cause
[01:50:12.640 --> 01:50:19.640]  and a statement of probable cause can only exist in relation to a criminal act.
[01:50:19.640 --> 01:50:21.640]  You follow?
[01:50:21.640 --> 01:50:29.640]  This is exactly why it's a different set of rules in states where they are civil.
[01:50:29.640 --> 01:50:34.640]  That's why it must be thought differently.
[01:50:34.640 --> 01:50:35.640]  Okay.
[01:50:35.640 --> 01:50:36.640]  Okay.
[01:50:36.640 --> 01:50:42.640]  So the judge sends me back...my motion says denied.
[01:50:42.640 --> 01:50:43.640]  Okay.
[01:50:43.640 --> 01:50:44.640]  But he didn't go any farther.
[01:50:44.640 --> 01:50:46.640]  He didn't set a trial date.
[01:50:46.640 --> 01:50:48.640]  He didn't do anything.
[01:50:48.640 --> 01:50:55.640]  Two weeks later, I get an imposed bill in the mail.
[01:50:55.640 --> 01:51:01.640]  It says I have 10 days to pay a $250 fine or they're going to turn me over to collections.
[01:51:01.640 --> 01:51:06.640]  And then two days later, I get a suspension of my driver license.
[01:51:06.640 --> 01:51:10.640]  You get a notice that they're going to or that they did?
[01:51:10.640 --> 01:51:12.640]  They did.
[01:51:12.640 --> 01:51:13.640]  Okay.
[01:51:13.640 --> 01:51:15.640]  Then you need to sue that judge.
[01:51:15.640 --> 01:51:18.640]  Okay. Because that judge is acting administratively.
[01:51:18.640 --> 01:51:24.640]  Therefore, that judge has zero immunity protection.
[01:51:24.640 --> 01:51:31.640]  The judge never acquired jurisdiction because the officer's arrest was illegal.
[01:51:31.640 --> 01:51:37.640]  Even if they argued that it was a detention, it was illegal.
[01:51:37.640 --> 01:51:47.640]  Because in either case, he had to have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime.
[01:51:47.640 --> 01:51:49.640]  And it didn't exist.
[01:51:49.640 --> 01:51:50.640]  Okay.
[01:51:50.640 --> 01:51:52.640]  So do I sue the judge in state or court or federal?
[01:51:52.640 --> 01:51:53.640]  No.
[01:51:53.640 --> 01:51:56.640]  You file a motion.
[01:51:56.640 --> 01:52:00.640]  How long do you have to appeal this?
[01:52:00.640 --> 01:52:02.640]  There was no time limit.
[01:52:02.640 --> 01:52:03.640]  I mean, he just needs to...
[01:52:03.640 --> 01:52:04.640]  No.
[01:52:04.640 --> 01:52:05.640]  There's always a time limit.
[01:52:05.640 --> 01:52:08.640]  When was this done?
[01:52:08.640 --> 01:52:15.640]  I got my notice that it was denied about 30 days ago.
[01:52:15.640 --> 01:52:17.640]  And about two weeks ago is when...
[01:52:17.640 --> 01:52:18.640]  Okay.
[01:52:18.640 --> 01:52:19.640] ...the bill and the...
[01:52:19.640 --> 01:52:22.640]  Who is the person that made this so-called ruling?
[01:52:22.640 --> 01:52:27.640]  Is it an actual judge or just some guy sitting behind a table somewhere?
[01:52:27.640 --> 01:52:31.640]  The paperwork says it's a judge.
[01:52:31.640 --> 01:52:36.640]  Okay, then you need to file a judicial conduct complaint against this judge for denying you
[01:52:36.640 --> 01:52:39.640]  and your right of due process, even in a civil matter.
[01:52:39.640 --> 01:52:42.640]  The judge ignored your pleadings.
[01:52:42.640 --> 01:52:55.640]  The judge did not set a trial and convicted you in absentia without a trial, which they cannot do.
[01:52:55.640 --> 01:52:58.640]  Okay.
[01:52:58.640 --> 01:53:02.640]  Okay, so that's a motion I'm filing?
[01:53:02.640 --> 01:53:06.640]  No, it's a judicial conduct complaint.
[01:53:06.640 --> 01:53:07.640]  All right.
[01:53:07.640 --> 01:53:08.640]  Okay.
[01:53:08.640 --> 01:53:15.640]  And then you're going to file a motion with whatever court you were supposed to file your appeal in.
[01:53:15.640 --> 01:53:16.640]  Okay.
[01:53:16.640 --> 01:53:17.640]  Well, actually I don't know...
[01:53:17.640 --> 01:53:21.640]  The thing is I don't know what the procedure in Arizona for this actually is.
[01:53:21.640 --> 01:53:25.640]  You're either going to have to file a written motion for mandamus,
[01:53:25.640 --> 01:53:31.640]  a written mandamus with the higher court directing this judge to rehear this matter properly,
[01:53:31.640 --> 01:53:38.640]  or you're going to have to file a motion for reconsideration with this same judge in relation to what he did
[01:53:38.640 --> 01:53:42.640]  because he can't just convict you without a trial.
[01:53:42.640 --> 01:53:49.640]  He can't just punish you without a trial.
[01:53:49.640 --> 01:53:50.640]  Okay.
[01:53:50.640 --> 01:53:52.640]  Well, I will get my research started then.
[01:53:52.640 --> 01:53:53.640]  Okay.
[01:53:53.640 --> 01:53:55.640]  Good luck and hurry.
[01:53:55.640 --> 01:53:56.640]  Okay.
[01:53:56.640 --> 01:53:57.640]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:53:57.640 --> 01:53:58.640]  You're welcome.
[01:53:58.640 --> 01:53:59.640]  Okay.
[01:53:59.640 --> 01:54:00.640]  Bye-bye.
[01:54:00.640 --> 01:54:01.640]  Bye-bye.
[01:54:01.640 --> 01:54:02.640]  All right.
[01:54:02.640 --> 01:54:04.640]  Now we have Draper in Utah.
[01:54:04.640 --> 01:54:09.640]  Draper, is that correct?
[01:54:09.640 --> 01:54:10.640]  Hi.
[01:54:10.640 --> 01:54:11.640]  Is that me?
[01:54:11.640 --> 01:54:12.640]  I don't know.
[01:54:12.640 --> 01:54:13.640]  Is that you?
[01:54:13.640 --> 01:54:14.640]  Yes.
[01:54:14.640 --> 01:54:15.640]  Okay.
[01:54:15.640 --> 01:54:16.640]  That must just be where I'm coming from.
[01:54:16.640 --> 01:54:17.640]  My name is Scarlett.
[01:54:17.640 --> 01:54:18.640]  Scarlett.
[01:54:18.640 --> 01:54:19.640]  All right.
[01:54:19.640 --> 01:54:21.640]  Scarlett, what can we do for you?
[01:54:21.640 --> 01:54:23.640]  Okay.
[01:54:23.640 --> 01:54:26.640]  So I got a ticket for driving with an expired license.
[01:54:26.640 --> 01:54:33.640]  I went in for an arraignment attempt, and I asked the judge if the prosecutor presented any evidence that the Constitution and laws applied to me.
[01:54:33.640 --> 01:54:34.640]  Oh, goody.
[01:54:34.640 --> 01:54:37.640]  You're following Mark Stevens' plan.
[01:54:37.640 --> 01:54:38.640]  Okay.
[01:54:38.640 --> 01:54:39.640]  Go ahead.
[01:54:39.640 --> 01:54:40.640]  Yes.
[01:54:40.640 --> 01:54:45.640]  So the judge said he had no evidence of jurisdiction, and he moved forward anyway.
[01:54:45.640 --> 01:54:47.640]  I wrote motions.
[01:54:47.640 --> 01:54:49.640]  They denied them all without any ground.
[01:54:49.640 --> 01:54:51.640]  Okay.
[01:54:51.640 --> 01:54:52.640]  Can I ask you a question?
[01:54:52.640 --> 01:54:53.640]  Yes.
[01:54:53.640 --> 01:54:55.640]  Are you actually in Utah?
[01:54:55.640 --> 01:54:56.640]  I am.
[01:54:56.640 --> 01:54:57.640]  Okay.
[01:54:57.640 --> 01:55:03.640]  In Utah, are traffic tickets civil or criminal?
[01:55:03.640 --> 01:55:06.640]  They consider them, they're under the criminal code.
[01:55:06.640 --> 01:55:09.640]  That's not my question.
[01:55:09.640 --> 01:55:14.640]  And fractions are under the criminal code in California, but they're not criminal, not according to the courts.
[01:55:14.640 --> 01:55:15.640]  Okay.
[01:55:15.640 --> 01:55:19.640]  This is in the fraction under the criminal code.
[01:55:19.640 --> 01:55:27.640]  But are they considered crimes or are they considered civil?
[01:55:27.640 --> 01:55:30.640]  They are considered crimes.
[01:55:30.640 --> 01:55:31.640]  They are considered crimes.
[01:55:31.640 --> 01:55:32.640]  You're positive.
[01:55:32.640 --> 01:55:33.640]  Yes.
[01:55:33.640 --> 01:55:34.640]  Okay.
[01:55:34.640 --> 01:55:40.640]  So what exactly was your argument then?
[01:55:40.640 --> 01:55:47.640]  When you say that they denied all these motions, they always deny all the motions, whether they're right or not.
[01:55:47.640 --> 01:55:51.640]  Their job is not to administer justice, it's to steal your money.
[01:55:51.640 --> 01:56:06.640]  And they bank on the fact that you will either A, not properly file an appeal, or B, you're incapable of filing an appeal because you can't afford it.
[01:56:06.640 --> 01:56:10.640]  Okay. How do you properly file an appeal?
[01:56:10.640 --> 01:56:16.640]  Well, that depends upon what the rules of procedure in your particular state are.
[01:56:16.640 --> 01:56:20.640]  Okay. So I can, if I file an appeal as far as...
[01:56:20.640 --> 01:56:23.640]  Have you gone to trial?
[01:56:23.640 --> 01:56:26.640]  They held, so I wrote motions, they denied them all.
[01:56:26.640 --> 01:56:28.640]  They held a trial.
[01:56:28.640 --> 01:56:30.640]  They denied my motion for telephonic hearing.
[01:56:30.640 --> 01:56:32.640]  I was in Arizona at the time.
[01:56:32.640 --> 01:56:34.640]  And so they held a trial without me.
[01:56:34.640 --> 01:56:36.640]  They found me guilty.
[01:56:36.640 --> 01:56:38.640]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
[01:56:38.640 --> 01:56:46.640]  They cannot conduct a criminal trial without you unless you were present when the trial began.
[01:56:46.640 --> 01:56:48.640]  I was not.
[01:56:48.640 --> 01:56:51.640]  So now my question to you is this.
[01:56:51.640 --> 01:56:55.640]  What makes you so sure it's criminal then?
[01:56:55.640 --> 01:57:10.640]  Because that is a flat out violation of the right of due process to convict you in absentia for a criminal case when you were not present from the initial appearance of the case.
[01:57:10.640 --> 01:57:13.640]  And when I say initial appearance, I mean at trial.
[01:57:13.640 --> 01:57:24.640]  You would have had to have been present at the beginning of the trial and then disappeared for them to continue without you.
[01:57:24.640 --> 01:57:26.640]  So how do I find that out then?
[01:57:26.640 --> 01:57:28.640]  Should I call the clerk and ask if it's criminal?
[01:57:28.640 --> 01:57:32.640]  No, because the clerk will tell you I can't give you legal advice.
[01:57:32.640 --> 01:57:44.640]  You need to research what the statutes say and what the courts have ruled about infractions in Utah.
[01:57:44.640 --> 01:57:46.640]  Okay?
[01:57:46.640 --> 01:57:47.640]  Okay.
[01:57:47.640 --> 01:57:53.640]  If you know any attorneys or have friends who know attorneys, get them to ask somebody, hey, is this civil or is this criminal?
[01:57:53.640 --> 01:58:00.640]  Where do I find verification in the actual law that it's one or the other or in the cases that it's one or the other?
[01:58:00.640 --> 01:58:03.640]  But get that information.
[01:58:03.640 --> 01:58:04.640]  Okay.
[01:58:04.640 --> 01:58:09.640]  Okay, because right now you're fighting blind.
[01:58:09.640 --> 01:58:10.640]  Okay.
[01:58:10.640 --> 01:58:15.640]  So I've been told by another judge in a similar court that it is criminal.
[01:58:15.640 --> 01:58:16.640]  Okay.
[01:58:16.640 --> 01:58:21.640]  Don't believe those that are making profit off of lying to you.
[01:58:21.640 --> 01:58:23.640]  Just don't do that.
[01:58:23.640 --> 01:58:24.640]  Okay?
[01:58:24.640 --> 01:58:25.640]  All right.
[01:58:25.640 --> 01:58:27.640]  I'm sorry, Scarlett, but I got to get off the air here.
[01:58:27.640 --> 01:58:30.640]  So thanks for calling in and get to reading.
[01:58:30.640 --> 01:58:31.640]  All right, folks.
[01:58:31.640 --> 01:58:33.640]  This has been the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show.
[01:58:33.640 --> 01:58:35.640]  Thanks again for calling in.
[01:58:35.640 --> 01:58:40.640]  Remember to keep us in your financial support whenever and however much you can because we need it.
[01:58:40.640 --> 01:58:44.640]  Keep an eye out for the video and this motion because it's going to be a fun trip.
[01:58:44.640 --> 01:58:46.640]  I'll see you next Monday.
[01:58:46.640 --> 01:58:47.640]  Good night.
[01:58:47.640 --> 01:58:49.640]  God bless.
[01:58:49.640 --> 01:58:57.640]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.640 --> 01:59:04.640]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.640 --> 01:59:08.640]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.640 --> 01:59:11.640]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.640 --> 01:59:20.640]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.640 --> 01:59:25.640]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.640 --> 01:59:29.640]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.640 --> 01:59:32.640]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.640 --> 01:59:40.640]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.640 --> 01:59:50.640]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.640 --> 01:59:52.640]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:52.640 --> 02:00:11.640]  You found it, LogosRadioNetwork.com.