[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily
[00:05.840 --> 00:13.440]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.440 --> 00:21.360]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.360 --> 00:27.720]  Markets for Friday the 9th of September 2016 are currently treading with gold at $1,327.80
[00:27.720 --> 00:34.840]  an ounce, silver $19.02 an ounce, Texas crude $47.62 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently
[00:34.840 --> 00:43.640]  sitting at about $622 U.S. currency.
[00:43.640 --> 00:49.800]  Today in history, the year 1947, the first case of a computer bug ever, a literal moth
[00:49.800 --> 00:55.280]  caused a computer glitch when it lodged itself in a relay of a Harvard Mark II computer at
[00:55.280 --> 01:01.800]  Harvard University, today in history.
[01:01.800 --> 01:06.460]  In recent news, Federal District Judge James E. Boasberg ruled today a federal order to
[01:06.460 --> 01:11.560]  stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation
[01:11.560 --> 01:16.520]  until the Army Corps of Engineers can reevaluate its previous decision in the disputed area.
[01:16.520 --> 01:20.200]  The Tribe is arguing that it endangered sacred Indian burial grounds and could threaten their
[01:20.200 --> 01:22.600]  water supply from the Missouri River.
[01:22.600 --> 01:26.380]  The Tribe's lawyer has argued that the Army Corps of Engineers had not properly consulted
[01:26.380 --> 01:31.200]  with the Tribe on the environmental repercussions in historical preservation as is required
[01:31.200 --> 01:32.540]  by federal law.
[01:32.540 --> 01:36.400]  For several weeks now, thousands of Native Americans have camped out nearby in an attempt
[01:36.400 --> 01:38.000]  to halt the construction.
[01:38.000 --> 01:42.280]  The situation had reached heightened intensity when canines handled by the security of Dakota
[01:42.280 --> 01:46.120]  Access bit some of the natives, resulting in injuries on both sides.
[01:46.120 --> 01:49.920]  Dakota Access has stated that the underground oil pipelines are safe and that the company
[01:49.920 --> 02:00.200]  is taking the necessary precautions to safeguard culturally and environmentally sensitive areas.
[02:00.200 --> 02:03.520]  The House of Representatives approved a bill today which would allow for the family members
[02:03.520 --> 02:08.040]  of those killed in the September 11th false flag attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role
[02:08.040 --> 02:11.200]  they may have played in the conspiracy against the American people.
[02:11.200 --> 02:14.720]  Howard President Obama says that he is strongly opposed to the measure and will most likely
[02:14.720 --> 02:16.680]  lead to a presidential veto.
[02:16.680 --> 02:20.240]  His concern is that such lawsuits against Saudi Arabia could spark lawsuits against
[02:20.240 --> 02:22.280]  the United States and other countries.
[02:22.280 --> 02:26.580]  The bill seeks to make some alterations to the 1976 law that gives other countries broad
[02:26.580 --> 02:30.880]  immunity from American lawsuits seeking to amend it so that the federal courts can take
[02:30.880 --> 02:34.600]  up lawsuits against foreign countries if they are found to have been complicit in terrorist
[02:34.600 --> 02:37.880]  attacks which resulted in the death of Americans on U.S. oil.
[02:37.880 --> 02:41.720]  It would also allow Americans to direct financial claims against those who are found to have
[02:41.720 --> 02:43.680]  been funding the attacks.
[02:43.680 --> 02:48.080]  This seems to be the reason for the administration's concern since in retaliation other countries
[02:48.080 --> 02:52.360]  might want to do the same against the U.S. for terrorist attacks on their lands.
[02:52.360 --> 03:21.520]  This was Rick Brody with your Lowdown for September 9th, 2016.
[03:21.520 --> 03:32.600]  Graduate Candidate.
[03:51.520 --> 03:56.520]  All of them bad boys hang up high on the street
[03:56.520 --> 04:00.520]  For all the people to see
[04:00.520 --> 04:04.520]  That justice is one thing you should always find
[04:04.520 --> 04:08.520]  You gotta settle up before you've got to draw a hard line
[04:08.520 --> 04:12.520]  When the gospel settles, we'll sing a victory tune
[04:12.520 --> 04:16.520]  And we'll all meet back at the local zoo
[04:16.520 --> 04:21.520]  We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing
[04:21.520 --> 04:50.520]  Let's get for my men, before my horses
[04:50.520 --> 04:54.520]  All right, now for those of you that are going to be listening in tonight
[04:54.520 --> 04:57.520]  The phones are off, okay?
[04:57.520 --> 04:59.520]  And they will be off for a little while
[04:59.520 --> 05:02.520]  Because I am going to be presenting some information
[05:02.520 --> 05:09.520]  Specific to the due process violations inherent in the denial of an examining trial
[05:09.520 --> 05:11.520]  And I'm going to go into this in a little bit of discussionary details
[05:11.520 --> 05:14.520]  As if we're doing it through a motion
[05:14.520 --> 05:16.520]  So I'm going to couch a legal issue question
[05:16.520 --> 05:22.520]  And then I'm going to make the argument that goes with it as to how this is going to work
[05:22.520 --> 05:28.520]  Now, most of you don't know that here in Texas
[05:28.520 --> 05:34.520]  The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically guarantees the right of the accused
[05:34.520 --> 05:40.520]  To an examining trial when they're charged with a felony, okay?
[05:40.520 --> 05:49.520]  And it says it right in the statute that anyone charged with a felony has a right to an examining trial prior to indictment, okay?
[05:49.520 --> 05:53.520]  The problem is, is that it's not treated like a right
[05:53.520 --> 06:00.520]  The second problem is, is it cannot feasibly be limited only to those that are charged with felonies
[06:00.520 --> 06:21.520]  Because in Texas, the only procedure established by law for looking into the probable cause for a warrantless arrest of any class of offense is an examining trial
[06:21.520 --> 06:27.520]  And yet the courts have ruled in Texas that only those charged with felonies have a right to them
[06:27.520 --> 06:31.520]  And that simply cannot be true
[06:31.520 --> 06:36.520]  And we're going to get into the various reasons as to why that cannot be true
[06:36.520 --> 06:41.520]  And how you are harmed, regardless of the type of criminal offense you're being charged with
[06:41.520 --> 06:47.520]  From a Class C all the way up to a felony of the first degree or a capital offense felony
[06:47.520 --> 06:51.520]  When you are denied the right to an examining trial
[06:51.520 --> 07:05.520]  Especially when that right is denied to you simply because the prosecuting attorney did an end run around the statute and got an indictment before the examining trial could be had
[07:05.520 --> 07:08.520]  Which they do, a lot
[07:08.520 --> 07:12.520]  That's why I say, obviously it's not really a right, right?
[07:12.520 --> 07:17.520]  Despite how the language of the statute says, it's a right
[07:17.520 --> 07:27.520]  All right, let's get into this and I'm going to tell it to you as I've been trying to write it down and work it out in my head as to how this is going to all work
[07:27.520 --> 07:30.520]  Now, this is the legal issue
[07:30.520 --> 07:33.520]  This is how we're going to begin anyway
[07:33.520 --> 07:49.520]  How is it logically and reasonably possible to declare that no common man of reasonable intelligence may claim ignorance or misunderstanding of any mad-made law as a defense for having allegedly violated it
[07:49.520 --> 08:03.520]  While simultaneously telling that same man that he is totally incapable of actually understanding and arguing the meaning and intent of the law he is being charged with or is challenging
[08:03.520 --> 08:08.520]  And that's legal issue number one with the way they're doing this stuff here in Texas
[08:08.520 --> 08:14.520]  So this is what I've come up with in relation to that
[08:14.520 --> 08:29.520]  The attorneys and the courts have unlawfully usurped and claimed under themselves the sole ability, intellect, power, and authority necessary to fully comprehend and interpret the true meaning, and true is in quotes there
[08:29.520 --> 08:46.520]  An intent of the law in any given legal instance even when they are clearly and openly ignoring and acting in direct violation of its specifically stated legislative intent and constructive language
[08:46.520 --> 08:55.520]  To directly abrogate or derogate what a common man of reasonable intelligence would see as its clear meaning and intent
[08:55.520 --> 09:16.520]  However, these same attorneys and courts then absurdly argue that the common man of reasonable intelligence has no right or ability to claim that he was honestly ignorant of or mistaken about any of the literally millions of man-made laws that abound
[09:16.520 --> 09:35.520]  While simultaneously claiming that the same man is completely incapable of reasonably knowing and understanding the law well enough to make a valid legal argument as to what it says, what it means, and to whom and how it applies
[09:35.520 --> 09:38.520]  See the double standard they're making here?
[09:38.520 --> 09:53.520]  You have no excuse to the claiming ignorance there that you didn't know it anyway. Yeah, well you don't know what you're talking about. You can't possibly understand the law and know what it means and how it applies. You can't make that argument. You're not one of us
[09:53.520 --> 09:57.520]  That's what it all boils down to
[09:57.520 --> 10:18.520]  What it comes to is especially when that argument casts serious doubts upon the court's own integrity and judicial incompetence by exposing the long-term governmental bias in its decades-old knowing and willful misinterpretations and misapplications of any particular law
[10:18.520 --> 10:30.520]  It is asinine to believe that anyone except one of these legal insiders could assert with a straight face that this is a legitimately viable system of justice
[10:30.520 --> 10:49.520]  This totally corrupt two-faced good old boy established double standard approach to law has made it abundantly clear that the overall intent of this system was and is for attorneys and the courts to be in total control of every department of government through judicial fiat
[10:49.520 --> 11:09.520]  and to make full use of such a system to their own advantage at the public's continued expense through the creation of an entirely lopsided legal playing field where the entire game is controlled and ruled over by an oligarchy of corrupt and self-serving individuals
[11:09.520 --> 11:35.520]  Issue 2. What weight are Texas courts required to give to a right specifically created by the Texas Legislature as a statutory requirement for both due process and proper criminal procedure, and that is to be afforded the accused as a procedural right in a criminal matter?
[11:35.520 --> 12:01.520]  It is no accident that our Texas courts are totally incapable of understanding and competently stating that the term all, as in ALL, means anything and everything within the contextual category of thing being discussed by our Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Code of Criminal Procedure
[12:01.520 --> 12:18.520]  rather than simply their go-to mode of due process denial by interpreting and applying the term to mean only to some things and only as we decide to interpret and apply it
[12:18.520 --> 12:39.520]  So we should not be overly surprised when those same courts decide that the term right actually means revocable privilege when it suits the Machiavellian desires of the state and its agents rather than equal and fair justice under the law to the accused at least
[12:39.520 --> 12:52.520]  Take, for instance, the right of an accused individual being charged with a felony to an examining trial prior to indictment under the provisions of Section 16.01 Code of Criminal Procedure
[12:52.520 --> 13:02.520]  What are the consequences and penalties to the rights of the accused when this right is ignored or subverted by the prosecutors and the courts?
[13:02.520 --> 13:17.520]  What due process violations as well as subject matter and impersonal jurisdictional challenges are irrevocably glossed over and destroyed, thus preventing them from ever being raised and preserved for appeal?
[13:17.520 --> 13:45.520]  What better way to surreptitiously hide the crimes of the state actors involved in this conspiracy to violate fundamentally protected rights and deny due process at every stage of every proceeding than allowing the accused right to an examining trial to be short-circuited by the prosecutor in concert and collusion with the courts by seeking an indictment before the examining trial can be held?
[13:45.520 --> 13:52.520]  Now, folks, this is something they do on a regular basis, okay?
[13:52.520 --> 14:21.520]  On the other hand, one of the consequences and penalties to those same state actors when they collude and conspire to engage in individual due process rights subverting activity by knowingly and willfully denying the accused an examining trial, which is the only real opportunity under Texas law and the rules of criminal procedure that the accused has prior to trial to examine and challenge the state's original probable cause for a warrantless search, seizure, detention, and or arrest.
[14:21.520 --> 14:31.520]  As well as to challenge the character and admissibility of its chief witnesses' testimony and evidence in the matter generally.
[14:31.520 --> 14:58.520]  This is especially true in any level of criminal case initiated by means of a warrantless seizure, search, detention, and or arrest, which by default are deemed unlawful until such time as a neutral and detached magistrate can be presented with the facts and evidence necessary to make an informed ruling upon a law enforcement officer's required probable cause,
[14:58.520 --> 15:07.520]  which is absolutely necessary to lawfully make any such warrantless detention and or arrest.
[15:07.520 --> 15:26.520]  Instead, the state simply asserts and moves forward on what will then become an irrebuttable presumption that any detention and or arrest made by its officers or agents for any level of offense is automatically lawful and unrebuttable,
[15:26.520 --> 15:37.520]  is always fully justified, and was always performed with sufficient probable cause to make each of the parts totally lawful.
[15:37.520 --> 15:57.520]  When the state's procedures rely totally upon unrebuttable presumptions, no neutral and detached magistrate is required as the officer's or agent's personal intuition supported by his or her own legal presumptions and conclusions,
[15:57.520 --> 16:09.520]  no matter how legally incompetent and inept are now the only requirements for probable cause to be deemed satisfied.
[16:09.520 --> 16:12.520]  Now think about that for a minute, folks.
[16:12.520 --> 16:17.520]  The police officer is the one that accuses you of allegedly committing an offense.
[16:17.520 --> 16:34.520]  He did so based upon his own personal interpretation of the statutes, even though the prosecuting attorney will happily state in court that the officer is not required to have read it, not to have been or is not required to know anything about the statute whatsoever.
[16:34.520 --> 16:54.520]  Yet his legal presumption and conclusion that you somehow violated it is to be taken as true, and it is never to be presumed that if that presumption is rebuttable in any way, that leaves us with a big problem, folks.
[16:54.520 --> 17:00.520]  We'll be right back after this break and continue on.
[17:00.520 --> 17:06.520]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[17:06.520 --> 17:11.520]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.520 --> 17:17.520]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.520 --> 17:25.520]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.520 --> 17:31.520]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.520 --> 17:39.520]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:39.520 --> 17:47.520]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:47.520 --> 17:51.520]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.520 --> 17:58.520]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[17:58.520 --> 18:00.520]  Order now.
[18:00.520 --> 18:05.520]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.520 --> 18:09.520]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.520 --> 18:14.520]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win, too.
[18:14.520 --> 18:20.520]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in flaying English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:20.520 --> 18:24.520]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons.
[18:24.520 --> 18:26.520]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:26.520 --> 18:28.520]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[18:28.520 --> 18:33.520]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:33.520 --> 18:38.520]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.520 --> 18:40.520]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:40.520 --> 18:49.520]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.520 --> 19:00.520]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:00.520 --> 19:26.520]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:26.520 --> 19:41.520]  Hi, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are going over the failure to provide an examining trial, especially in cases involving warrantless arrests.
[19:41.520 --> 19:46.520]  Now, for those of you that are just tuning in in this segment, the phones are currently off.
[19:46.520 --> 19:48.520]  That is why you cannot call in.
[19:48.520 --> 19:57.520]  I am presenting some material, and I will open the phones after I get this done for technical reasons involving expenses.
[19:57.520 --> 20:02.520]  We can't just keep people on the line. It costs too much money to hold you over for however long I'm on here.
[20:02.520 --> 20:08.520]  So after I get done with this, as I'm nearing the end of it, I will turn the phone lines on and let you know that they are on.
[20:08.520 --> 20:12.520]  So please be patient, and let's just continue on with what we've got here.
[20:12.520 --> 20:34.520]  All right, third issue. Does the accused in a criminal matter suffer an identifiable and tangible harm when he is denied an examining trial after having been subjected to a warrantless seizure, search, detention, or arrest, regardless of the level of criminal offense being alleged against him?
[20:34.520 --> 20:43.520]  Texas courts have ruled that Section 16.01 Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to those charged with felony crimes.
[20:43.520 --> 20:53.520]  The case for that is Trussell v. State, 414 Southwest Second, 466, and its progeny.
[20:53.520 --> 21:00.520]  Although the term only is neither apparent nor implied there in any way,
[21:00.520 --> 21:22.520]  and how could it be considering that even those being criminally charged with a Class C fine only or Class A or B misdemeanor offense has the exact same right to challenge the validity of any warrantless seizure, search, detention, or arrest to which they may have been subjected as those being charged with a felony?
[21:22.520 --> 21:40.520]  Or are we to assume and accept that the courts are rewriting or creating their own law by ruling that those individuals being charged with any class of misdemeanor crime do not have access to the same constitutional protections set forth in the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights
[21:40.520 --> 21:56.520]  to challenge a warrantless seizure, search, detention, or arrest, and are not to be afforded the same equal application and protection of the laws and due process rights that are provided to those being charged with felony crimes?
[21:56.520 --> 22:13.520]  The argument that the level of incarceration is lesser in misdemeanors or prohibited in the case of a Class C misdemeanor is an insufficient argument in light of the rights involved that are being denied and destroyed by this ongoing practice within the courts.
[22:13.520 --> 22:17.520]  Now I'm going to read you an excerpt from another case.
[22:17.520 --> 22:22.520]  And this case mentions Trussell, but listen careful.
[22:22.520 --> 22:33.520]  Among these proceedings is the examining trial, originally considered mandatory in all cases of arrest with or without warrant.
[22:33.520 --> 22:53.520]  Texas law makes this procedure distinctly adversarial by providing for the direct and cross-examination of witnesses, representation of the parties by their attorneys, the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants, and application of the same rules of evidence as in criminal trials generally.
[22:53.520 --> 23:16.520]  And this shows us Code of Criminal Procedure Article 16.01, 06, and 07. Compare Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. at 114, Note 14, 115, and Note 15, and 95 Supreme Court at 863, Note 14, and on page 864, Note 15.
[23:16.520 --> 23:37.520]  It was once contemplated that examining trials be held soon after arrest in all cases by the same magistrate before whom the suspect was brought under Article 15.17 of the Code in order to examine into the truth of the accusation made,
[23:37.520 --> 23:51.520]  Code of Criminal Procedure Article 16.01, and to decide whether the suspect should be committed to jail, discharged, or admitted to bail, Code of Criminal Procedure Article 16.17.
[23:51.520 --> 24:12.520]  And Ex parte Garcia, 547 S.W. 2nd, 271, Texas Criminal Appeals, 1977, Ex parte Wright, 138 Texas Criminal Register, or I don't know what the R on is, I have to look, 350, 136 S.W. 2nd, 212 in 1940.
[24:12.520 --> 24:25.520]  Our decisional law has long since held, however, that an examining trial is only necessary if requested by the suspect, and then only if no indictment has yet been presented charging the same offense.
[24:25.520 --> 24:37.520]  And here it says C. Trussell v. State, 414 S.W. 2nd, 466 and 467, Texas Criminal Appeals, 1967, and its progeny.
[24:37.520 --> 24:43.520]  An examining trial, and the case now is concluded at least as far as that excerpt.
[24:43.520 --> 24:52.520]  And again, the case is Green v. State, 872 S.W. 2nd, 717, 1994.
[24:52.520 --> 25:07.520]  Now on with my discussion. An examining trial is also the best venue in which to challenge the subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction of the trial court, as the Texas Court or the Texas Justice and Municipal Courts are notorious for their
[25:07.520 --> 25:24.520]  suesponte declaration of subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction over both the charges and the accused, despite the lack of any and all actual evidence or written prosecutorial pleadings stating proper grounds for and invoking that jurisdiction.
[25:24.520 --> 25:34.520]  Now we've all heard it, folks. You go into the court, and I'm here to challenge jurisdiction, and the magistrate, not the prosecutor, the magistrate says this court's got jurisdiction.
[25:34.520 --> 25:42.520]  Objection, Judge, there is no evidence in the record of this court having jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction because there was a complaint filed.
[25:42.520 --> 25:54.520]  We have jurisdiction because of the Code of Criminal Procedure under 4.11 and 4.14. These are bogus arguments, which I'll get into here in just a second.
[25:54.520 --> 26:05.520]  We've heard them make them, okay? Now we're going to explain why that's a bunch of BS from an incompetent sitting on the bench.
[26:05.520 --> 26:15.520]  Let's see. In fact, these courts simply self-declare that their jurisdiction exists solely because there was a citation and or complaint filed in the matter,
[26:15.520 --> 26:26.520]  and that Articles 4.11 and 4.14, Code of Criminal Procedure respectively, serves to provide them with jurisdiction over the specific class of offense being alleged.
[26:26.520 --> 26:38.520]  This theory of the acquisition of jurisdiction is demonstrably untrue and based upon an intentional misrepresentation of the basis and facts of the challenge being made.
[26:38.520 --> 26:49.520]  Now we're going to go back into the green case again. Because Appellate was arrested without a warrant, it was necessary under the Fourth Amendment for the state
[26:49.520 --> 26:59.520]  promptly to obtain a probable cause determination as a condition of any significant pretrial restraint of his liberty.
[26:59.520 --> 27:15.520]  Folks, you need to understand, pretrial restraint does not mean solely being locked up. It means being on any type of restriction as to your ability to come and go.
[27:15.520 --> 27:33.520]  That would include PR bonds, monetary bonds, any kind of bond at all, or any restrictions upon your liberty ordered by the court directly.
[27:33.520 --> 27:43.520]  Any of those things are significant. Like, for instance, the court saying you have to have a breathalyzer installed in your car or in your home, and you haven't even been convicted yet.
[27:43.520 --> 27:59.520]  These pretrial conditions are punishments without a conviction. They are due process violations.
[27:59.520 --> 28:24.520]  But attorneys seem to think this is all okay, because to them your individual rights don't exist in relation to government power and authority or the right of society to deem what it wants more important in the realm of its policies and procedures than your individual rights will ever be.
[28:24.520 --> 28:36.520]  Okay? Understand that. So let's read some more about this. In green it goes on to say that the reference for this statement is Gerstein v. Pew, and it continues on.
[28:36.520 --> 28:45.520]  We are not apprised of the exact nature of the probable cause determination made at Appellate's PIA, but we presume it was to serve this Fourth Amendment purpose.
[28:45.520 --> 28:55.520]  The probable cause finding contemplated by Gerstein v. Pew is usually non-adversarial and therefore not ordinarily considered to be at critical stage.
[28:55.520 --> 29:24.520]  It is true that an examining trial in Texas serves as an adversarial proceeding designed to inquire into the probable cause of the state to justify the detention of an accused pending formal prosecution, and state law permits the examining magistrate to appoint counsel for the indigent accused.
[29:24.520 --> 29:32.520]  And again, see Article 1.051c super and Article 16.01, 16.06, and 16.17.
[29:32.520 --> 29:38.520]  All right. I'll finish this reading of this particular excerpt from the case when we return, so y'all hang in there.
[29:38.520 --> 29:48.520]  And yes, I've got quite a bit to go, so the phones are still off, but please be patient, keep listening, and I will let you know when they will be turned on.
[29:48.520 --> 30:00.520]  All right, folks, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. We're going to be right back after this break to give you some more information on the due process violations of no examining trials.
[30:00.520 --> 30:08.520]  A NASA probe found something on the moon that has space entrepreneurs starry-eyed, and they're already seeing the green, but it's not green cheese.
[30:08.520 --> 30:13.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you about the business opportunity they discovered in a moment.
[30:13.520 --> 30:20.520]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[30:20.520 --> 30:23.520]  That's creepy, but it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:23.520 --> 30:26.520]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[30:26.520 --> 30:33.520]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches, or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party certified.
[30:33.520 --> 30:37.520]  If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[30:37.520 --> 30:40.520]  Great search results and total privacy.
[30:40.520 --> 30:43.520]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[30:43.520 --> 30:51.520]  A NASA probe has found billions of gallons of frozen water on the moon, and space entrepreneurs plan to make a fortune by mining it.
[30:51.520 --> 30:55.520]  The moon's ice could be defrosted, purified, and used for drinking water.
[30:55.520 --> 31:02.520]  It could also be split into oxygen and hydrogen, oxygen for breathing, and hydrogen to power rocket ships.
[31:02.520 --> 31:10.520]  Companies are already dreaming up plans to sell moon fuel at low-orbit fueling stations where space travelers can top off their tanks.
[31:10.520 --> 31:16.520]  Futurists predict the moon's water will power a new wave of space trade, exploration, and out-of-this-world living.
[31:16.520 --> 31:20.520]  It seems it may also make some people astronomically rich.
[31:20.520 --> 31:25.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:25.520 --> 31:32.520]  What are you thinking? Micro plant powder with iodine and probiotics, or a total body detox for around $10 a month?
[31:32.520 --> 31:42.520]  FUSA.org has 12 formulations of micro plant powder for absorbing and removing toxins from your kidney, liver, blood, lung, stomach, and colon, and feel better than ever.
[31:42.520 --> 31:49.520]  It alkalizes, oxygenates, kills parasites, does the job of 10 products that save you space, time, and money.
[31:49.520 --> 31:56.520]  Call 888-910-4367 only at FUSA.org.
[31:56.520 --> 31:59.520]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar.
[31:59.520 --> 32:06.520]  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.
[32:06.520 --> 32:14.520]  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 in our own lives.
[32:14.520 --> 32:20.520]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:20.520 --> 32:30.520]  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.
[32:30.520 --> 32:35.520]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:35.520 --> 32:41.520]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, along with a copy of the book and a copy of the book.
[32:41.520 --> 32:50.520]  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, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.520 --> 32:54.520]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.520 --> 33:12.520]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:12.520 --> 33:25.520]  Yeah, I got a warrant and I'm going to solve them through the help of the government to prosecute them.
[33:25.520 --> 33:28.520]  Okay.
[33:28.520 --> 33:49.520]  All right, folks, we are back.
[33:49.520 --> 33:58.520]  This is Rule of Law Radio with your host, Eddie Craig, and we are continuing on with the excerpt from Green v. State.
[33:58.520 --> 34:05.520]  Moreover, an examining trial in large measure affords an accused the opportunity to discover the state's case against him.
[34:05.520 --> 34:19.520]  Given its adversarial character and the potential it presents for the preparation of a trial defense, an examining trial is arguably a critical stage for purposes of Sixth Amendment analysis.
[34:19.520 --> 34:35.520]  Okay. And it goes on, in fact, the Supreme Court barely avoided deciding whether or not an examining trial is a critical stage in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 at 379 and 380.
[34:35.520 --> 34:51.520]  And if the right to an examining trial or any other due process requirement, oh, by the way, that's me again, the opinion is done, the due process requirement can be subverted by the knowing and willful actions of a district or county attorney,
[34:51.520 --> 35:11.520]  and such actions are then upheld as legitimate by the same Texas courts. In direct violation of the law enacted by the Texas legislature and the fundamental due process rights of the accused, then any such right has more in common with a revocable at will government privilege than a right,
[35:11.520 --> 35:30.520]  as all it takes to subvert its protections is the unscrupulous actions of a prosecuting attorney who would rather get an indictment and conviction than to see that justice is done, and the blessings of one of his or her own from the bitch to sanction the action for the continued prosecution of the accused.
[35:30.520 --> 35:48.520]  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the case of Trussell v. State, in essence, ruled that the right to an examining trial simply did not exist despite the plain language of the statute then codified as Section 16.01 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[35:48.520 --> 36:06.520]  Therefore, how is it even remotely lawful and constitutionally justifiable that our courts can rule that the right to an examining trial that anyone and everyone charged with a felony has a right to before an indictment can even be sought,
[36:06.520 --> 36:32.520]  can be undermined and totally destroyed by something so simple as a prosecutorial in run around the Bill of Rights and the accused right of due process as a whole, by knowingly and willfully seeking and obtaining the very indictment that Section 16.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically prohibits until after the examining trial has taken place?
[36:32.520 --> 36:56.520]  And how could such a right be any lesser right and available to those being charged with lesser crimes when the entire case against them rests upon the validity of the officer's initial probable cause in cases initiated almost always by a warrantless seizure, search, detention or arrest?
[36:56.520 --> 37:25.520]  Issue number four, can respondent be lawfully convicted of any criminal act or acts where the state neither alleges nor proves but simply irrebuttably presumes the existence of the primary subject matter element of an alleged offense as set forth by the legislature in the title of the bill that enacted the offense
[37:25.520 --> 37:40.520]  and despite respondent's objections to the state's use of unrebuttable presumptions as the sole basis for both claiming jurisdiction over respondent and making allegations against him relating to that same subject matter.
[37:40.520 --> 37:56.520]  Now that may seem like a long issue but just FYI folks, when you're writing legal issues the preferred method is to cast the issue in 75 words or less. This is 72 words if I counted it correctly, okay?
[37:56.520 --> 38:05.520]  So I'm under the 75 limit even though it sounds lengthy, it touches on the necessity of understanding what we're talking about here.
[38:05.520 --> 38:27.520]  All right, onward. Not a single court in Texas has ever recognized the total scope of due process violations inherent in allowing the state to charge an individual with a crime based solely upon an unrebuttable presumption of jurisdiction over the accused and the wrongful application of the legal subject matter under which they are being charged.
[38:27.520 --> 38:45.520]  At trial the state is known to argue time and time again that an officer is not required to know both the necessary elements and proper legal application of a particular statutory scheme and its related offenses in order to charge someone with an offense under that statute.
[38:45.520 --> 39:11.520]  But in the same breath and two-faced manner touched upon earlier, if a private individual makes a mistake of law or elemental fact so as to falsely make a citizen's arrest for something they honestly believe at the time to be a crime, that person can and probably will get sued, especially if their attempt to perfect the arrest resulted in injury to the individual they were trying to apprehend.
[39:11.520 --> 39:24.520]  This is a prime example of that same old double standard discussed earlier relating to mistakes of law by agents of the state, whether legitimate or wrongful versus the people.
[39:24.520 --> 39:43.520]  However, not one of our Texas courts ever requires the state to submit any evidence that respondent was in fact acting as a person within the class of legal persons to whom the regulatory code and its statutory scheme applies at the time of the alleged offense.
[39:43.520 --> 39:47.520]  They simply assert an irrebuttable presumption in such cases.
[39:47.520 --> 40:13.520]  Nor do the courts require the state to prove that the specific legislative subject matter established by the legislative enactment that created both the regulatory code and its related subordinate offenses could lawfully and legally be applicable to respondent and his actions so as to provide the necessary subject matter and personal jurisdiction needed to prosecute respondent under that code.
[40:13.520 --> 40:31.520]  This is absolutely, this absolutely necessary element of any and all alleged transportation offenses is simply put forth as an irrebuttable presumption implied within the criminal complaint via the statutory subject matter terminology used to state the charges.
[40:31.520 --> 40:33.520]  You know what we're talking about here, right?
[40:33.520 --> 40:35.520]  The deadly sins.
[40:35.520 --> 40:51.520]  The allegation of transportation is inferred and thus presumed simply because the criminal complaint uses the legal terminology associated with that subject matter.
[40:51.520 --> 40:54.520]  That would be the eight deadly sins.
[40:54.520 --> 41:01.520]  That is why we object to the eight deadly sins anytime we hear them.
[41:01.520 --> 41:07.520]  Okay? That is why.
[41:07.520 --> 41:11.520]  Let's see.
[41:11.520 --> 41:33.520]  The absolutely necessary element of any and all alleged transportation, oh, I'm sorry, we got that part, and in the same manner that the primary subject matter element of transportation is entirely and irrebuttably presumed but never actually proven in relation to such subordinate charges through admissible facts and evidence.
[41:33.520 --> 41:48.520]  The application of the statutory scheme known as the transportation code to respondent is improperly and unlawfully set forth as an irrebuttable presumption of the primary element of the offense being charged.
[41:48.520 --> 42:10.520]  This totally negates respondent's right to the presumption of innocence of all of the elements of the alleged crime that the state is required to prove at trial, which is a direct violation of the accused presumptive right to innocence for all purposes and all statutory elements relating to the allegations.
[42:10.520 --> 42:22.520]  It would appear from the multitude of Texas case opinions that the Texas court's approach to viewing the law is very much like that of the Indian folk tale of six blind men and an elephant.
[42:22.520 --> 42:27.520]  In the tale, each of the six blind men touches a different part of the elephant.
[42:27.520 --> 42:39.520]  One touches only the elephant's side, another the elephant's tusk, another the tail, one touches only the leg, and another the ear, and the last man touches only the trunk.
[42:39.520 --> 42:52.520]  Afterwards, the blind men decide to discuss their experience about the elephant, and each blind man concludes differently about what all elephants must look like based solely on the part of the elephant that they touched.
[42:52.520 --> 43:00.520]  The one that touched the trunk thinks that all elephants are long, thick, and muscular, like a snake.
[43:00.520 --> 43:09.520]  The one at the leg thinks elephants are like trees. The one at the tusk thinks all elephants are smooth, sharp, and hard, like a spear.
[43:09.520 --> 43:17.520]  The man at the ear thinks that elephants are broad and wavy, like fans. And the one at the tail thinks elephants are like a strong rope.
[43:17.520 --> 43:23.520]  And the last man at the elephant's side thinks that all elephants are big and broad, like a wall.
[43:23.520 --> 43:32.520]  Not one of the observations of these blind men go beyond the single part of the elephant that they touched.
[43:32.520 --> 43:38.520]  All right, folks, that is coming up on a break. I will continue this on the other side.
[43:38.520 --> 43:45.520]  I still got more to go, and we're only into, whoa, that was our third segment. Whoa, we're going pretty good here.
[43:45.520 --> 43:48.520]  All right, folks, y'all hang in there, and we'll get back to you after this break.
[43:48.520 --> 43:59.520]  This is the Bundy Knot Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig, and we are talking about the due process violations of no examining trial.
[43:59.520 --> 44:06.520]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary,
[44:06.520 --> 44:14.520]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[44:14.520 --> 44:22.520]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.520 --> 44:27.520]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:27.520 --> 44:33.520]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:33.520 --> 44:42.520]  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.
[44:42.520 --> 44:51.520]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:51.520 --> 45:00.520]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:03.520 --> 45:07.520]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com,
[45:07.520 --> 45:13.520]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas,
[45:13.520 --> 45:19.520]  on Brave New Books and Chase Bank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[45:19.520 --> 45:23.520]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:23.520 --> 45:31.520]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.520 --> 45:38.520]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[45:38.520 --> 45:44.520]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:44.520 --> 46:02.520]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[46:14.520 --> 46:20.520]  If he did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one?
[46:20.520 --> 46:26.520]  If he could not wait, then he'd buy too long, or would your purpose have to die?
[46:26.520 --> 46:32.520]  Dr. Sandman, the soldier, a warrior of love, scuffling the keys of peace.
[46:32.520 --> 46:35.520]  All they're taking is a misunderstanding.
[46:35.520 --> 46:43.520]  Somebody calls the police, watching the spots fly.
[46:43.520 --> 46:49.520]  Watching the spots fly.
[46:49.520 --> 46:55.520]  Watching the spots fly.
[46:55.520 --> 47:06.520]  Watching the spots fly.
[47:06.520 --> 47:10.520]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[47:10.520 --> 47:14.520]  All right, continuing on here.
[47:14.520 --> 47:24.520]  Now, just like those blind men, the judges and attorneys in Texas appear to only touch one little part of the law at a time to make their determinations and conclusions,
[47:24.520 --> 47:33.520]  while making no effort whatsoever to explore the whole thing so as to reach a better and more accurate conclusion of the law as a whole.
[47:33.520 --> 47:41.520]  To further compound this legal blindness, these judges and attorneys rely more upon what they think they know about how the law reads and what it means
[47:41.520 --> 47:47.520]  than by spending any time at all actually reading and attempting to understand it in its totality,
[47:47.520 --> 47:55.520]  which in order to fully comprehend and understand its meaning and intent is exactly how law is supposed to be read and interpreted.
[47:55.520 --> 48:03.520]  This is what is known in legal parlance as the subject of imperamateria, Latin for upon the same subject.
[48:03.520 --> 48:11.520]  The rule of imperamateria says that laws of the same matter and on the same subject must be construed with reference to each other.
[48:11.520 --> 48:24.520]  The intent behind applying this principle is to promote uniformity and predictability in the law by understanding its full set of requirements, exceptions, and applicable context.
[48:24.520 --> 48:33.520]  Let's try an exercise involving the imperamateria reading of the penal code, the government code, and the speeding statutes,
[48:33.520 --> 48:44.520]  codified within the transportation code in sections 201.904, 545.351, and 545.352 to see how the Texas courts and prosecutors ignore the requirement
[48:44.520 --> 48:51.520]  of an imperamateria reading of the statutes in order to subvert the rule of law and the rights of the accused.
[48:51.520 --> 48:57.520]  Now, before we get into this, I'm going to go ahead and stop there on this article.
[48:57.520 --> 49:11.520]  This is the first part of the article leading up to the specific issues of the Texas court's failure to address all of the law relating to a particular subject.
[49:11.520 --> 49:21.520]  The rest of this is going to be dealing with an imperamateria comparison of the individual statutes within several codes with one goal in mind,
[49:21.520 --> 49:33.520]  to disprove the presumption that an individual is automatically engaging in transportation just because they're in a car upon the highway.
[49:33.520 --> 49:37.520]  Now, the reason we have to make this argument is very simple.
[49:37.520 --> 49:41.520]  We know what the statutes say. We know how the statutes are to be applied.
[49:41.520 --> 49:47.520]  The courts are refusing to recognize any of that because throughout their history and case law,
[49:47.520 --> 49:57.520]  they have always looked only at one small part of the subject at one time so as to avoid having to address it as a whole.
[49:57.520 --> 50:01.520]  I mean, it's not like they don't know they're supposed to do this.
[50:01.520 --> 50:12.520]  They're the courts. They're the ones responsible for setting up these very rules of imperamateria readings and comparisons and so on and so forth,
[50:12.520 --> 50:21.520]  how to interpret a statute in the Constitution, in the way it was intended to be done, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
[50:21.520 --> 50:28.520]  They're the ones that are supposedly the experts in how to do this stuff and are required to do this stuff.
[50:28.520 --> 50:35.520]  And yet time and time again, they utterly fail.
[50:35.520 --> 50:44.520]  And the failure really doesn't matter in the context of how it helps or hurts the accused,
[50:44.520 --> 50:52.520]  regardless of whether it's out of ignorance, willful stupidity, or malice.
[50:52.520 --> 50:57.520]  Doesn't make any difference. The harm is exactly the same.
[50:57.520 --> 51:04.520]  A deprivation of rights under color of law without any reasonable, articulate,
[51:04.520 --> 51:15.520]  and judicially responsible reading of the law itself, much less the statutes that we're going to be talking about here.
[51:15.520 --> 51:22.520]  Now, again, I'm going to be going directly to the statutes as they currently exist to show how this works.
[51:22.520 --> 51:27.520]  Then after I'm showing how it works in the way it's currently set up,
[51:27.520 --> 51:36.520]  this article and the legal brief it's going to be attached to eventually as far as how it's going to be written
[51:36.520 --> 51:45.520]  is going to show exactly how this has been misapplied from the original law.
[51:45.520 --> 51:52.520]  It's going to backtrack all the way back to the original enactments to show exactly how the so-called
[51:52.520 --> 52:01.520]  statutory revision committee and how the legislators themselves have knowingly allowed the subversion
[52:01.520 --> 52:08.520]  of the Constitution and the rule of law to be supplanted by their statutory schemes
[52:08.520 --> 52:21.520]  and applications of those schemes in order to commit grand theft, grand larceny, massive, massive public fraud.
[52:21.520 --> 52:25.520]  And it isn't going to be just in the case of the transportation codes. It's going to be in most of the codes.
[52:25.520 --> 52:31.520]  If you took the time to study each and every one of them, you would find out that this type of malfeasance
[52:31.520 --> 52:35.520]  has occurred under every pretense they have a code for.
[52:35.520 --> 52:41.520]  Take the tax code, for instance. Your property taxes are being illegally assessed and illegally collected
[52:41.520 --> 52:47.520]  under the Constitution. If they are completely unlawful in every sense of the word,
[52:47.520 --> 52:58.520]  we never, ever gave our fellow men the power to tax our property and thus take it from us against our will.
[52:58.520 --> 53:08.520]  Why would we be so stupid as to take that which we own and say, well, okay, this Constitution allows you
[53:08.520 --> 53:15.520]  to tax my property, and if I don't pay you, you can take it for free.
[53:15.520 --> 53:21.520]  Yeah, let me sign the dotted line on that particular agreement.
[53:21.520 --> 53:29.520]  Yet that is exactly what these so-called legal eagles would have you believe has happened.
[53:29.520 --> 53:36.520]  And to go and add insult upon injury, they don't even say that you had to consent.
[53:36.520 --> 53:41.520]  They say it doesn't matter if you considered to have your property taken by your fellow men.
[53:41.520 --> 53:47.520]  Your fellow men voted to take it from you, and you lose because you're outnumbered,
[53:47.520 --> 53:54.520]  which means our courts have converted our republic into an absolutely unconstitutional democracy
[53:54.520 --> 53:59.520]  where the majority vote rules the day.
[53:59.520 --> 54:05.520]  Now, think about that. And think about this also.
[54:05.520 --> 54:16.520]  This system is in place thanks to one group of people alone, only one.
[54:16.520 --> 54:22.520]  And that is those that have a bar card.
[54:22.520 --> 54:29.520]  And those that use that bar card to usurp the power of our courts, our legislature,
[54:29.520 --> 54:38.520]  and our executive branch and bring all of them under their control.
[54:38.520 --> 54:42.520]  You cannot look at this system.
[54:42.520 --> 54:48.520]  You cannot look at the fingerprints on this system
[54:48.520 --> 54:59.520]  and deny that attorneys are the cause of all the woes we suffer under these statutory schemes
[54:59.520 --> 55:06.520]  because they are either A, acting as legislators to write the stuff that we're having to live under,
[55:06.520 --> 55:14.520]  or B, they are influencing those that are writing it by being their legal advisors in how to write it,
[55:14.520 --> 55:23.520]  or C, they are on the committees that revise the language after it has been written
[55:23.520 --> 55:30.520]  to make it, quote unquote, constitutionally compliant and legal.
[55:30.520 --> 55:40.520]  Let's not forget the fact that after it's been enacted, that it goes to the statutory revision committee.
[55:40.520 --> 55:47.520]  And God knows how many attorneys are on that.
[55:47.520 --> 55:53.520]  And guaranteed that if there aren't any on it, there are still some that's going to have their fingers in the pie
[55:53.520 --> 56:01.520]  because some of them or all of them or most of them would have to review that committee's revisions
[56:01.520 --> 56:12.520]  to once again make sure that they are constitutionally legal and compliant.
[56:12.520 --> 56:24.520]  The evidence is there in the very fact that you cannot, cannot ignore the fact that every branch of government
[56:24.520 --> 56:31.520]  is populated by attorneys who manipulate and control the outcome of the written law before it's enacted,
[56:31.520 --> 56:39.520]  the written law after it's enacted, and how it is to be interpreted through the courts.
[56:39.520 --> 56:43.520]  Can't deny it.
[56:43.520 --> 56:44.520]  Okay.
[56:44.520 --> 56:59.520]  There is absolutely no one else that could be held to a higher degree of blame for what we currently have in America
[56:59.520 --> 57:05.520]  as a government and as a system of justice.
[57:05.520 --> 57:10.520]  Now, we have a hand in that, don't get me wrong.
[57:10.520 --> 57:14.520]  We're the ones that decided to sit back and let government do things on its own.
[57:14.520 --> 57:20.520]  We're the ones that decided to sit back and let government tell us how it was supposed to work
[57:20.520 --> 57:27.520]  and tell us what we were limited to in our ability to control what they do.
[57:27.520 --> 57:36.520]  We're the ones that turned the keys to the asylum over to the inmates.
[57:36.520 --> 57:41.520]  Hell, we even gave some of them the power to write their own prescriptions
[57:41.520 --> 57:47.520]  because we just didn't want to stop whatever we were doing and think for ourselves
[57:47.520 --> 57:51.520]  and be responsible and liable for ourselves and our own actions.
[57:51.520 --> 57:56.520]  We wanted someone else to take care of us so we didn't have to think about it.
[57:56.520 --> 57:59.520]  You wanted government to be a dishwasher.
[57:59.520 --> 58:03.520]  Load it up, turn it on, walk away.
[58:03.520 --> 58:06.520]  You'll come back and empty it out at election time, right?
[58:06.520 --> 58:09.520]  Refill it again and run the cycle.
[58:09.520 --> 58:10.520]  Sorry, folks.
[58:10.520 --> 58:13.520]  Doesn't work that way.
[58:13.520 --> 58:17.520]  Just doesn't work that way.
[58:17.520 --> 58:18.520]  All right.
[58:18.520 --> 58:20.520]  The phones will be on in the next hour.
[58:20.520 --> 58:22.520]  We will turn them on over this break.
[58:22.520 --> 58:27.520]  Call in number 512-646-1984.
[58:27.520 --> 58:32.520]  If you got a call, question, query, complaint, whatever you got, call in, get in line,
[58:32.520 --> 58:35.520]  and we will talk about it when we get back after this break.
[58:35.520 --> 58:49.520]  So y'all hang in there.
[58:49.520 --> 58:53.520]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world,
[58:53.520 --> 58:57.520]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:57.520 --> 59:01.520]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:01.520 --> 59:06.520]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.520 --> 59:08.520]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:08.520 --> 59:12.520]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:12.520 --> 59:17.520]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:17.520 --> 59:21.520]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:21.520 --> 59:27.520]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.520 --> 59:32.520]  Bibles from America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:32.520 --> 59:43.520]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.520 --> 59:47.520]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.520 --> 59:50.520]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.520 --> 01:00:00.520]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.520 --> 01:00:04.520]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown,
[01:00:04.520 --> 01:00:09.520]  providing your daily bulletins for the commodity market, Today in History,
[01:00:09.520 --> 01:00:20.520]  news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:20.520 --> 01:00:28.520]  Markets for Friday, the 9th of September, 2016, are currently treading with gold at $1,327.80 an ounce,
[01:00:28.520 --> 01:00:33.520]  silver, $19.02 an ounce, Texas crude, $47.62 a barrel,
[01:00:33.520 --> 01:00:43.520]  and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $622 U.S. currency.
[01:00:43.520 --> 01:00:48.520]  Today in history, the year 1947, the first case of a computer bug ever,
[01:00:48.520 --> 01:00:52.520]  a literal moth caused a computer glitch when it lodged itself in a relay
[01:00:52.520 --> 01:00:56.520]  of a Harvard Mark II computer at Harvard University.
[01:00:56.520 --> 01:01:01.520]  Today in history.
[01:01:01.520 --> 01:01:05.520]  In recent news, Federal District Judge James E. Bosberg ruled today
[01:01:05.520 --> 01:01:08.520]  a federal order to stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline
[01:01:08.520 --> 01:01:11.520]  near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation
[01:01:11.520 --> 01:01:16.520]  until the Army Corps of Engineers can reevaluate its previous decision in the disputed area.
[01:01:16.520 --> 01:01:19.520]  The tribe is arguing that it endangered sacred Indian burial grounds
[01:01:19.520 --> 01:01:22.520]  and could threaten their water supply from the Missouri River.
[01:01:22.520 --> 01:01:26.520]  The tribe's lawyer has argued that the Army Corps of Engineers had not properly consulted
[01:01:26.520 --> 01:01:30.520]  with the tribe on the environmental repercussions in historical preservation,
[01:01:30.520 --> 01:01:32.520]  as is required by federal law.
[01:01:32.520 --> 01:01:35.520]  For several weeks now, thousands of Native Americans have camped out nearby
[01:01:35.520 --> 01:01:37.520]  in an attempt to halt the construction.
[01:01:37.520 --> 01:01:40.520]  The situation had reached heightened intensity when canines,
[01:01:40.520 --> 01:01:42.520]  handled by the security of Dakota Access,
[01:01:42.520 --> 01:01:45.520]  bit some of the natives resulting in injuries on both sides.
[01:01:45.520 --> 01:01:48.520]  Dakota Access has stated that the underground oil pipelines are safe
[01:01:48.520 --> 01:01:51.520]  and that the company is taking the necessary precautions
[01:01:51.520 --> 01:01:59.520]  to safeguard culturally and environmentally sensitive areas.
[01:01:59.520 --> 01:02:02.520]  The House of Representatives approved a bill today which would allow
[01:02:02.520 --> 01:02:05.520]  for the family members of those killed in the September 11th false flag attacks
[01:02:05.520 --> 01:02:08.520]  to sue Saudi Arabia for any role they may have played
[01:02:08.520 --> 01:02:10.520]  in the conspiracy against the American people.
[01:02:10.520 --> 01:02:13.520]  However, President Obama says that he is strongly opposed to the measure
[01:02:13.520 --> 01:02:16.520]  and will most likely lead to a presidential veto.
[01:02:16.520 --> 01:02:18.520]  His concern is that such lawsuits against Saudi Arabia
[01:02:18.520 --> 01:02:21.520]  could spark lawsuits against the United States and other countries.
[01:02:21.520 --> 01:02:25.520]  The bill seeks to make some alterations to the 1976 law
[01:02:25.520 --> 01:02:28.520]  that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits,
[01:02:28.520 --> 01:02:31.520]  seeking to amend it so that the federal courts can take up lawsuits
[01:02:31.520 --> 01:02:35.520]  against foreign countries if they are found to have been complicit in terrorist attacks
[01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:38.520]  which resulted in the death of Americans on U.S. soil.
[01:02:38.520 --> 01:02:40.520]  It would also allow Americans to direct financial claims
[01:02:40.520 --> 01:02:43.520]  against those who are found to have been funding the attacks.
[01:02:43.520 --> 01:02:46.520]  This seems to be the reason for the administration's concern
[01:02:46.520 --> 01:02:50.520]  since in retaliation other countries might want to do the same against the U.S.
[01:02:50.520 --> 01:02:54.520]  for terrorist attacks on their lands.
[01:02:54.520 --> 01:02:58.520]  This is Rick Brody with your Lowdown for September 9, 2016.
[01:02:58.520 --> 01:03:09.520]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty
[01:03:09.520 --> 01:03:17.520]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly
[01:03:17.520 --> 01:03:23.520]  These warm hungers come by that term of rite
[01:03:23.520 --> 01:03:25.520]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:03:25.520 --> 01:03:27.520]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show.
[01:03:27.520 --> 01:03:31.520]  The call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:03:31.520 --> 01:03:35.520]  The lines are now open if you want to get in line.
[01:03:35.520 --> 01:03:37.520]  Alright, we are going to start with our callers.
[01:03:37.520 --> 01:03:39.520]  Our first one up is Truth Raider.
[01:03:39.520 --> 01:03:42.520]  Now Raider, when we get going here, Raider, I understand something.
[01:03:42.520 --> 01:03:45.520]  I know why you're calling in, so let's get that out of the way,
[01:03:45.520 --> 01:03:50.520]  keep it short and sweet because I do have a whole bunch of callers, okay?
[01:03:50.520 --> 01:03:51.520]  Yes, sir. Howdy, Eddie.
[01:03:51.520 --> 01:03:53.520]  Howdy. Alright, let's rock.
[01:03:53.520 --> 01:03:58.520]  Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer,
[01:03:58.520 --> 01:04:07.520]  but in your republic, which everyone or state or which formerly used to be known as a republic,
[01:04:07.520 --> 01:04:16.520]  if your traffic stops are considered to be civil infractions,
[01:04:16.520 --> 01:04:26.520]  all you need to do is file four simple filings challenging the subject matter jurisdiction,
[01:04:26.520 --> 01:04:30.520]  not engaged in transportation affidavit,
[01:04:30.520 --> 01:04:42.520]  declination of pleading, and I believe the other one is, remind me what the fourth one is, Eddie.
[01:04:42.520 --> 01:04:46.520]  A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
[01:04:46.520 --> 01:04:48.520]  Correct, correct.
[01:04:48.520 --> 01:04:54.520]  So I did those in my court and in my county in the Republic of Oregon,
[01:04:54.520 --> 01:05:00.520]  which they are considered civil infractions here and they are in many states.
[01:05:00.520 --> 01:05:07.520]  I made my first appearance and I asked a series of questions to the judge
[01:05:07.520 --> 01:05:11.520]  and I was asking what their background was, do they understand the transportation code,
[01:05:11.520 --> 01:05:14.520]  do they study the transportation code?
[01:05:14.520 --> 01:05:20.520]  And it was like if I was asking her what her age was, what size bra and what girdle number she has,
[01:05:20.520 --> 01:05:27.520]  she came to the strangest looks when I asked these questions, like I was asked her personal questions.
[01:05:27.520 --> 01:05:30.520]  And I said I had a declination of pleading, unconscionable plea.
[01:05:30.520 --> 01:05:34.520]  Okay, Raider, Raider, you're still going to ring around the rosy here.
[01:05:34.520 --> 01:05:37.520]  What is the point of what you called in for?
[01:05:37.520 --> 01:05:39.520]  I'm getting to that point here.
[01:05:39.520 --> 01:05:42.520]  I know you're getting there, all right, that's the problem.
[01:05:42.520 --> 01:05:44.520]  I have another sentence to go.
[01:05:44.520 --> 01:05:46.520]  Okay.
[01:05:46.520 --> 01:05:51.520]  I told the judge, if you enter a plea on my behalf,
[01:05:51.520 --> 01:05:55.520]  I'll be seeking charges against you for practicing law from the bench.
[01:05:55.520 --> 01:05:57.520]  That's not what she's doing.
[01:05:57.520 --> 01:06:01.520]  Stop doing that.
[01:06:01.520 --> 01:06:06.520]  This is not what you told me happened in this case when you wrote me the email.
[01:06:06.520 --> 01:06:10.520]  Listen carefully to me, folks, real quick about what he just said about telling the judge
[01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:13.520]  she's practicing law from the bench by entering a plea on your behalf.
[01:06:13.520 --> 01:06:16.520]  No, she isn't.
[01:06:16.520 --> 01:06:24.520]  She is required, he is required, they are required by statutory law to enter a plea for the accused
[01:06:24.520 --> 01:06:31.520]  if the accused refuses to enter one when it is time for that plea to be entered.
[01:06:31.520 --> 01:06:36.520]  Now, the requisites prior to the entering of that plea is as follows.
[01:06:36.520 --> 01:06:41.520]  All due process rights and protections must have been afforded
[01:06:41.520 --> 01:06:46.520]  so that the court has the capability of maintaining its jurisdiction
[01:06:46.520 --> 01:06:51.520]  in order to take and put upon the record that plea.
[01:06:51.520 --> 01:06:55.520]  If they violated your rights at any stage of the proceedings getting there,
[01:06:55.520 --> 01:06:58.520]  they have no jurisdiction to take that plea.
[01:06:58.520 --> 01:07:02.520]  They are not practicing law from the bench.
[01:07:02.520 --> 01:07:09.520]  If the judge was not authorized to enter a plea just because someone refused,
[01:07:09.520 --> 01:07:15.520]  then all anyone would have to do to avoid ever going to trial for any type of crime
[01:07:15.520 --> 01:07:18.520]  would be to refuse to plea.
[01:07:18.520 --> 01:07:20.520]  It's that simple.
[01:07:20.520 --> 01:07:23.520]  Okay, keep that in mind.
[01:07:23.520 --> 01:07:25.520]  Go ahead.
[01:07:25.520 --> 01:07:28.520]  Well, I must have did something, right, because I lit a fire under her.
[01:07:28.520 --> 01:07:33.520]  Well, okay, fine, but I'm pretty sure if you did what you told me you did,
[01:07:33.520 --> 01:07:38.520]  which was challenge the validity of the arrest for a civil infraction,
[01:07:38.520 --> 01:07:40.520]  that's what you did, right?
[01:07:40.520 --> 01:07:41.520]  Correct.
[01:07:41.520 --> 01:07:44.520]  Then let's get to that part.
[01:07:44.520 --> 01:07:45.520]  Okay.
[01:07:45.520 --> 01:07:46.520]  Well, that's what I did.
[01:07:46.520 --> 01:07:49.520]  That was the main body of the argument.
[01:07:49.520 --> 01:07:55.520]  After that, I left the courtroom. Within two weeks, I get a notice in the mail,
[01:07:55.520 --> 01:07:58.520]  trial cancellation notice.
[01:07:58.520 --> 01:08:01.520]  And for some reason unknown, I tried to find out myself.
[01:08:01.520 --> 01:08:05.520]  I went down to the court and I inquired to what the discovery is
[01:08:05.520 --> 01:08:09.520]  of why they decided to dismiss the case and the charges.
[01:08:09.520 --> 01:08:11.520]  Wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:08:11.520 --> 01:08:14.520]  What does the trial cancellation notice say?
[01:08:14.520 --> 01:08:20.520]  Does it say they canceled the trial or does it say they dismissed the charges?
[01:08:20.520 --> 01:08:22.520]  Trial cancellation followed by the following page,
[01:08:22.520 --> 01:08:26.520]  dismissal of citation and all of its charges.
[01:08:26.520 --> 01:08:27.520]  Okay.
[01:08:27.520 --> 01:08:29.520]  Thanks for clearing that up.
[01:08:29.520 --> 01:08:31.520]  Absolutely, I can take a look at this and see.
[01:08:31.520 --> 01:08:36.520]  Because one is not necessarily the same as the other, correct?
[01:08:36.520 --> 01:08:38.520]  And close your car door, will you?
[01:08:38.520 --> 01:08:40.520]  Yeah, got it here.
[01:08:40.520 --> 01:08:45.520]  Trial cancellation notice on the first page from my county.
[01:08:45.520 --> 01:08:50.520]  And then the following page, it has the Justice Court of the State of Oregon
[01:08:50.520 --> 01:08:54.520]  for the County of Clackamas, my name and I'm going to send a citation,
[01:08:54.520 --> 01:08:58.520]  motion and order to dismiss violations.
[01:08:58.520 --> 01:09:03.520]  And it was the officer who apparently is the one that initiated it.
[01:09:03.520 --> 01:09:08.520]  The deputy is the one that went ahead and said that the deputy for the County of Clackamas
[01:09:08.520 --> 01:09:13.520]  moves the court to dismiss the above State of Oregon uniform,
[01:09:13.520 --> 01:09:16.520]  citation number, et cetera, and all the charges on there.
[01:09:16.520 --> 01:09:20.520]  Nothing more than I need to do signed by the judge, yadda, yadda, yadda.
[01:09:20.520 --> 01:09:21.520]  Okay.
[01:09:21.520 --> 01:09:27.520]  Now in Oregon, does the other side ever have an attorney representing them,
[01:09:27.520 --> 01:09:30.520]  the State of Oregon in that case, even though they're civil?
[01:09:30.520 --> 01:09:33.520]  Or is it the officer?
[01:09:33.520 --> 01:09:36.520]  The officer is the only one that acts as a witness.
[01:09:36.520 --> 01:09:38.520]  I didn't say acts as a witness.
[01:09:38.520 --> 01:09:45.520]  I said represents the state as in its legal counsel.
[01:09:45.520 --> 01:09:46.520]  No, no.
[01:09:46.520 --> 01:09:49.520]  The officer appears to be the witness, the one that made the...
[01:09:49.520 --> 01:09:50.520]  Okay.
[01:09:50.520 --> 01:09:53.520]  So who is acting as legal counsel for the state?
[01:09:53.520 --> 01:09:54.520]  No one in that courtroom.
[01:09:54.520 --> 01:09:55.520]  Okay.
[01:09:55.520 --> 01:10:02.520]  Then they have a whole other problem in that the state can only be represented by an attorney.
[01:10:02.520 --> 01:10:04.520]  The state cannot appear of its own volition.
[01:10:04.520 --> 01:10:06.520]  It can only appear through counsel.
[01:10:06.520 --> 01:10:12.520]  And an officer in the executive branch is not in any way, shape,
[01:10:12.520 --> 01:10:17.520]  or form valid legal counsel in the form of an attorney.
[01:10:17.520 --> 01:10:22.520]  So that adds another argument to the can't arrest without a warrant
[01:10:22.520 --> 01:10:26.520]  or any other warrant on a civil infraction case issue.
[01:10:26.520 --> 01:10:32.520]  Add to that the fact that the state stands unrepresented in this matter.
[01:10:32.520 --> 01:10:36.520]  There is no legal counsel present on behalf of the state.
[01:10:36.520 --> 01:10:40.520]  And as a matter of law, an executive functionary such as the officer
[01:10:40.520 --> 01:10:51.520]  cannot purport to be the representative in legal counsel for the state of whatever.
[01:10:51.520 --> 01:10:52.520]  Okay.
[01:10:52.520 --> 01:10:54.520]  Everybody understand that?
[01:10:54.520 --> 01:11:00.520]  Doesn't matter what state you're in, civil infractions or any crime,
[01:11:00.520 --> 01:11:08.520]  if there is no attorney representing the state, there's a problem.
[01:11:08.520 --> 01:11:09.520]  All right, Raider.
[01:11:09.520 --> 01:11:12.520]  So you got your case dismissed.
[01:11:12.520 --> 01:11:16.520]  The primary argument, and how many charges were on this citation?
[01:11:16.520 --> 01:11:17.520]  Three of them.
[01:11:17.520 --> 01:11:18.520]  Okay.
[01:11:18.520 --> 01:11:20.520]  And all three of those were dismissed?
[01:11:20.520 --> 01:11:21.520]  Correct.
[01:11:21.520 --> 01:11:25.520]  And the primary argument used was the one I gave you specifically stating to
[01:11:25.520 --> 01:11:29.520]  challenge the warrantless arrest on a civil infraction,
[01:11:29.520 --> 01:11:35.520]  which means the officer acted illegally from the very beginning.
[01:11:35.520 --> 01:11:36.520]  Correct.
[01:11:36.520 --> 01:11:37.520]  Okay.
[01:11:37.520 --> 01:11:39.520]  There is no authority granted to a peace officer,
[01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:44.520]  law enforcement officer to arrest, detain an individual for a civil infraction.
[01:11:44.520 --> 01:11:48.520]  The lawful authority to detain, arrest without a warrant is vested in an
[01:11:48.520 --> 01:11:51.520]  officer only in relation to felonies or misdemeanors,
[01:11:51.520 --> 01:11:55.520]  reaches up a piece, and a civil infraction or any civil infractions are
[01:11:55.520 --> 01:11:58.520]  none of these.
[01:11:58.520 --> 01:11:59.520]  Okay?
[01:11:59.520 --> 01:12:00.520]  There is.
[01:12:00.520 --> 01:12:01.520]  Right.
[01:12:01.520 --> 01:12:02.520]  All right.
[01:12:02.520 --> 01:12:04.520]  And how many times did I have to tell you that argument before you finally put
[01:12:04.520 --> 01:12:06.520]  it in writing and filed it?
[01:12:06.520 --> 01:12:08.520]  Two years.
[01:12:08.520 --> 01:12:10.520]  I'm a slow learner.
[01:12:10.520 --> 01:12:13.520]  You know what, folks, I think it takes somewhere between one to two years to
[01:12:13.520 --> 01:12:17.520]  get this down, and people, you know, most of us just don't see it.
[01:12:17.520 --> 01:12:19.520]  Now, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:12:19.520 --> 01:12:20.520]  No, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:12:20.520 --> 01:12:22.520]  Let me stop you right there.
[01:12:22.520 --> 01:12:26.520]  It does not take two years to get this down when someone is telling you
[01:12:26.520 --> 01:12:28.520]  exactly how to address it.
[01:12:28.520 --> 01:12:32.520]  If that is true, then there's something seriously wrong with your ability to
[01:12:32.520 --> 01:12:34.520]  learn in the first place.
[01:12:34.520 --> 01:12:40.520]  Because I wished to the good Lord that I had had someone who knew what they
[01:12:40.520 --> 01:12:47.520]  were talking about to tell me exactly what to do in these cases years ago.
[01:12:47.520 --> 01:12:51.520]  Now, what you will have to take additional time to learn is how to argue
[01:12:51.520 --> 01:12:54.520]  when they do something you're not expecting.
[01:12:54.520 --> 01:12:58.520]  But to make that argument straight up when it's been given to you verbatim by
[01:12:58.520 --> 01:13:01.520]  someone that does know what they're talking about, if that's still taking you
[01:13:01.520 --> 01:13:06.520]  two years, you shouldn't even be doing this.
[01:13:06.520 --> 01:13:10.520]  Well, I've heard several callers call in the past.
[01:13:10.520 --> 01:13:12.520]  How about this, Eddie?
[01:13:12.520 --> 01:13:16.520]  They complained to you that it doesn't seem like no matter what you file in the
[01:13:16.520 --> 01:13:18.520]  court, they still rule against you anyway.
[01:13:18.520 --> 01:13:21.520]  And how many times have I told people, expect that.
[01:13:21.520 --> 01:13:23.520]  That is the status quo.
[01:13:23.520 --> 01:13:28.520]  Winning a trial is virtually impossible except under very specific sets of
[01:13:28.520 --> 01:13:31.520]  circumstances like the one you found yourself in.
[01:13:31.520 --> 01:13:35.520]  And in those people in California where the state and those acting as their
[01:13:35.520 --> 01:13:40.520]  prosecutors and judges have no legal leg to stand on for their actions.
[01:13:40.520 --> 01:13:46.520]  And they will find it out the hard way if they continue because they have zero
[01:13:46.520 --> 01:13:48.520]  immunity.
[01:13:48.520 --> 01:13:52.520]  Unlike places like here where they treat them as criminal even though they're
[01:13:52.520 --> 01:13:59.520]  not, and these courts act as supposedly judicial proceedings so as to cover
[01:13:59.520 --> 01:14:04.520]  themselves in some form of immunity, which they don't really have.
[01:14:04.520 --> 01:14:08.520]  And this article that I was reading at the beginning of the show, as we get
[01:14:08.520 --> 01:14:12.520]  down through this and we do this in paramaterial discussion, I am going to
[01:14:12.520 --> 01:14:16.520]  strip away that immunity layer by layer until they are standing there butt
[01:14:16.520 --> 01:14:23.520]  naked at the North Pole in a high wind.
[01:14:23.520 --> 01:14:24.520]  Okay?
[01:14:24.520 --> 01:14:28.520]  So when you're giving the information directly from someone that knows,
[01:14:28.520 --> 01:14:34.520]  please listen and do what you're instructed to do the way you're instructed
[01:14:34.520 --> 01:14:36.520]  to do it, folks.
[01:14:36.520 --> 01:14:42.520]  You will save yourself a whole lot of heartburn, headache, and time if that is
[01:14:42.520 --> 01:14:44.520]  the case.
[01:14:44.520 --> 01:14:47.520]  Now, granted, not everyone you're going to ask is going to know what they're
[01:14:47.520 --> 01:14:52.520]  talking about, nor are they going to give you good information on what to do
[01:14:52.520 --> 01:14:53.520]  because they don't really know.
[01:14:53.520 --> 01:14:55.520]  They've never actually been there.
[01:14:55.520 --> 01:15:00.520]  Hence the problem with going to a patronet and asking how to do this and
[01:15:00.520 --> 01:15:04.520]  finding out that they have never won a case, they've never made it past the
[01:15:04.520 --> 01:15:08.520]  opening trial day without getting hammered.
[01:15:08.520 --> 01:15:13.520]  And yet they're still telling people how often they win and yet they can't
[01:15:13.520 --> 01:15:15.520]  produce a single one.
[01:15:15.520 --> 01:15:19.520]  And even when they do have an occasional one where they walked away from the
[01:15:19.520 --> 01:15:25.520]  case, they can't prove that it was for the reasons they're stating.
[01:15:25.520 --> 01:15:31.520]  So you got to understand, any information I give you, I can point you to in
[01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:34.520]  black and white, period.
[01:15:34.520 --> 01:15:39.520]  Anyone that cannot do that or at least show you where the black and white
[01:15:39.520 --> 01:15:45.520]  creates the context in which it must operate so as to make the theoretical
[01:15:45.520 --> 01:15:52.520]  plausible isn't giving you good information.
[01:15:52.520 --> 01:15:55.520]  There always has to be a way to connect the dots.
[01:15:55.520 --> 01:15:59.520]  If there is no way to connect the dots and these dots seem to have as much
[01:15:59.520 --> 01:16:07.520]  effect as Jack's magic beans in a rainstorm, something is wrong.
[01:16:07.520 --> 01:16:11.520]  Don't wait until your house is sitting in the clouds and the Giants are
[01:16:11.520 --> 01:16:17.520]  swinging at it with their golf clubs to figure that out.
[01:16:17.520 --> 01:16:20.520]  All right, Raider, anything else?
[01:16:20.520 --> 01:16:21.520]  Well, I'd like to thank you very much, Eddie.
[01:16:21.520 --> 01:16:23.520]  I couldn't have done it without you.
[01:16:23.520 --> 01:16:25.520]  Well, I'm glad you done it.
[01:16:25.520 --> 01:16:28.520]  That's the important thing, that you finally got it done and it finally sunk
[01:16:28.520 --> 01:16:32.520]  in that being a belligerent claimant means not only knowing how to argue but
[01:16:32.520 --> 01:16:36.520]  how to follow instruction, right?
[01:16:36.520 --> 01:16:38.520]  All right.
[01:16:38.520 --> 01:16:39.520]  All right.
[01:16:39.520 --> 01:16:43.520]  Would you like me to send you a scan of that, a scan of the motion?
[01:16:43.520 --> 01:16:45.520]  You most certainly can if you wish.
[01:16:45.520 --> 01:16:48.520]  I can redact or you can redact and if you don't care, just let me know.
[01:16:48.520 --> 01:16:49.520]  All right.
[01:16:49.520 --> 01:16:50.520]  All righty.
[01:16:50.520 --> 01:16:51.520]  All right, folks, we're going to take a break.
[01:16:51.520 --> 01:16:53.520]  Raider, thanks for calling in.
[01:16:53.520 --> 01:17:00.520]  We'll be right back after the break, 512-646-1984.
[01:17:00.520 --> 01:17:03.520]  At Capital Coin and Boolean, our mission is to be your preferred shopping
[01:17:03.520 --> 01:17:07.520]  destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at
[01:17:07.520 --> 01:17:08.520]  an affordable price.
[01:17:08.520 --> 01:17:11.520]  We provide a wide assortment of your favorite products featuring a great
[01:17:11.520 --> 01:17:13.520]  selection of high-quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:13.520 --> 01:17:17.520]  We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for
[01:17:17.520 --> 01:17:18.520]  investors.
[01:17:18.520 --> 01:17:21.520]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited
[01:17:21.520 --> 01:17:23.520]  metals dealers and journalists.
[01:17:23.520 --> 01:17:26.520]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:17:26.520 --> 01:17:30.520]  In addition, we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy
[01:17:30.520 --> 01:17:31.520]  Tangerine and Pollenbursts.
[01:17:31.520 --> 01:17:35.520]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods, Berkey Water
[01:17:35.520 --> 01:17:38.520]  Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:17:38.520 --> 01:17:42.520]  We broke through Metals IRA accounts and we also accept Bitcoins as payment.
[01:17:42.520 --> 01:17:45.520]  Call us at 512-646-6440.
[01:17:45.520 --> 01:17:49.520]  We're located at 7304 Burnet Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of
[01:17:49.520 --> 01:17:50.520]  Anderson.
[01:17:50.520 --> 01:17:53.520]  We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2.
[01:17:53.520 --> 01:17:59.520]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBoolean.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:17:59.520 --> 01:18:04.520]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except
[01:18:04.520 --> 01:18:06.520]  in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:06.520 --> 01:18:10.520]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we
[01:18:10.520 --> 01:18:11.520]  changed all that.
[01:18:11.520 --> 01:18:16.520]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is
[01:18:16.520 --> 01:18:17.520]  good nutrition.
[01:18:17.520 --> 01:18:21.520]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated,
[01:18:21.520 --> 01:18:25.520]  and mutilated, young Jeopardy can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:25.520 --> 01:18:29.520]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products,
[01:18:29.520 --> 01:18:31.520]  most of which we reject.
[01:18:31.520 --> 01:18:35.520]  We have come to trust young Jeopardy so much, we became a marketing
[01:18:35.520 --> 01:18:39.520]  distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:39.520 --> 01:18:44.520]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as
[01:18:44.520 --> 01:18:47.520]  you help support quality radio.
[01:18:47.520 --> 01:18:51.520]  As you realize the benefits of young Jeopardy, you may want to join us.
[01:18:51.520 --> 01:18:56.520]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and
[01:18:56.520 --> 01:18:58.520]  family, and increase your income.
[01:18:58.520 --> 01:19:00.520]  Order now.
[01:19:00.520 --> 01:19:27.520]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:27.520 --> 01:19:33.520]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:33.520 --> 01:19:35.520]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:35.520 --> 01:19:39.520]  Caller number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:39.520 --> 01:19:43.520]  Our next caller in line is Steve in Illinois.
[01:19:43.520 --> 01:19:45.520]  Steve, what can we do for you?
[01:19:45.520 --> 01:19:47.520]  How's it going, Eddie?
[01:19:47.520 --> 01:19:49.520]  Just had court today.
[01:19:49.520 --> 01:19:59.520]  They had notified me of a continuance, gave me the option to go or just stay.
[01:19:59.520 --> 01:20:03.520]  So I went ahead and went.
[01:20:03.520 --> 01:20:15.520]  I went in for the record on special appearance, proper persona, and put in a
[01:20:15.520 --> 01:20:23.520]  notice for dismissal and for lack of jurisdiction, and I did mention at the
[01:20:23.520 --> 01:20:30.520]  same time that if this case does not get dismissed, I will have intent to file
[01:20:30.520 --> 01:20:35.520]  criminal complaint.
[01:20:35.520 --> 01:20:45.520]  As usual, it was ignored, it cared less, went about his business, and set up
[01:20:45.520 --> 01:20:51.520]  another court date, went ahead with their continuance.
[01:20:51.520 --> 01:20:53.520]  This has been the ongoing thing.
[01:20:53.520 --> 01:21:00.520]  This is my sixth time of having to go up and appear.
[01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:06.520]  And each time I go in with a motion for discovery, lack of jurisdiction,
[01:21:06.520 --> 01:21:13.520]  challenged jurisdiction, went in to put a motion in for proving that the law
[01:21:13.520 --> 01:21:20.520]  applied to me, proving that I was asking in transportation for hire, and I
[01:21:20.520 --> 01:21:24.520]  wanted to even ask for it to be put in writing.
[01:21:24.520 --> 01:21:27.520]  Totally ignored.
[01:21:27.520 --> 01:21:36.520]  So there's my dilemma dealing with the court system here in Illinois.
[01:21:36.520 --> 01:21:42.520]  I don't know if I've got to finish the process out here for them to play their
[01:21:42.520 --> 01:21:48.520]  game before I can file a federal court or not.
[01:21:48.520 --> 01:21:54.520]  I just wondered if you had any idea about that.
[01:21:54.520 --> 01:21:55.520]  Well, it really depends.
[01:21:55.520 --> 01:21:59.520]  If you've already got federally protected rights violations that you can
[01:21:59.520 --> 01:22:04.520]  lay your fingers directly on and prove, then you can remove the case to the
[01:22:04.520 --> 01:22:05.520]  Fed.
[01:22:05.520 --> 01:22:10.520]  You can file a separate suit in the Fed, but what claims you may have may
[01:22:10.520 --> 01:22:15.520]  very well depend upon what the status of the state case against you is.
[01:22:15.520 --> 01:22:19.520]  For instance, you can't have a malicious prosecution suit against the state
[01:22:19.520 --> 01:22:28.520]  actors unless and until the outcome of the case is decided in your favor in
[01:22:28.520 --> 01:22:33.520]  some manner, whether it be dismissed in your favor, whether you are found not
[01:22:33.520 --> 01:22:37.520]  guilty, or you have it overturned on appeal.
[01:22:37.520 --> 01:22:39.520]  Those outcomes are in your favor.
[01:22:39.520 --> 01:22:45.520]  Then and only then do you have standing to make a malicious prosecution claim.
[01:22:45.520 --> 01:22:49.520]  Okay, so if you want to have that in addition to any other things you've got,
[01:22:49.520 --> 01:22:54.520]  then you have to wait for the state action to finish in your favor.
[01:22:54.520 --> 01:22:55.520]  All right.
[01:22:55.520 --> 01:22:56.520]  I don't see it.
[01:22:56.520 --> 01:23:01.520]  At this point, I don't see it going in my favor because they've ignored every
[01:23:01.520 --> 01:23:03.520]  document that I have turned in.
[01:23:03.520 --> 01:23:09.520]  Well, you say they've ignored it, but how far have they progressed?
[01:23:09.520 --> 01:23:14.520]  Well, my trial was supposed to be today, but like I said, it was postponed
[01:23:14.520 --> 01:23:16.520]  because the cops couldn't be there.
[01:23:16.520 --> 01:23:18.520]  Did you object to that?
[01:23:18.520 --> 01:23:20.520]  Yes, I did.
[01:23:20.520 --> 01:23:22.520]  Okay.
[01:23:22.520 --> 01:23:25.520]  As I said, everything was ignored.
[01:23:25.520 --> 01:23:26.520]  Okay.
[01:23:26.520 --> 01:23:28.520]  Well, you said this was the sixth time you've been there.
[01:23:28.520 --> 01:23:31.520]  How many times has the cop failed to show?
[01:23:31.520 --> 01:23:35.520]  This was the only time he was required to show.
[01:23:35.520 --> 01:23:36.520]  Okay.
[01:23:36.520 --> 01:23:40.520]  So what did is the other delays?
[01:23:40.520 --> 01:23:44.520]  Well, let's see.
[01:23:44.520 --> 01:23:46.520]  I had pretrial.
[01:23:46.520 --> 01:23:50.520]  I had two times for pretrial.
[01:23:50.520 --> 01:23:56.520]  Then I moved to have the judge disqualified.
[01:23:56.520 --> 01:24:00.520]  That was overruled by the other judge, of course.
[01:24:00.520 --> 01:24:04.520]  Then I had to go back and see that judge again.
[01:24:04.520 --> 01:24:10.520]  He motioned them to go ahead with trial, which was supposed to be for today,
[01:24:10.520 --> 01:24:18.520]  and then today they went ahead with their continuance for next month.
[01:24:18.520 --> 01:24:19.520]  Okay.
[01:24:19.520 --> 01:24:24.520]  All this time I put in my challenge of jurisdiction, my motion for discovery.
[01:24:24.520 --> 01:24:29.520]  And what are the speedy trial rules for such cases in Illinois?
[01:24:29.520 --> 01:24:31.520]  That I don't know.
[01:24:31.520 --> 01:24:34.520]  I don't know what them are specifically.
[01:24:34.520 --> 01:24:37.520]  Then I would look if I were you, because there's a good chance
[01:24:37.520 --> 01:24:41.520]  they may have gone too long and not prosecuted this case.
[01:24:41.520 --> 01:24:47.520]  Yeah, because this whole case started last October.
[01:24:47.520 --> 01:24:48.520]  Yeah.
[01:24:48.520 --> 01:24:50.520]  You're talking a year just about.
[01:24:50.520 --> 01:24:51.520]  Yeah.
[01:24:51.520 --> 01:24:52.520]  Yeah.
[01:24:52.520 --> 01:24:53.520]  When I was arrested.
[01:24:53.520 --> 01:24:54.520]  Right.
[01:24:54.520 --> 01:24:57.520]  So you've got to see how long do they have to file the complaint,
[01:24:57.520 --> 01:25:03.520]  what is the statute of limitations on the offense, and how far into that are they,
[01:25:03.520 --> 01:25:06.520]  and what time frame do they have under that class of offense
[01:25:06.520 --> 01:25:08.520]  for a speedy trial requirement.
[01:25:08.520 --> 01:25:17.520]  All of those things taken together may add up to a day late and a dollar short.
[01:25:17.520 --> 01:25:19.520]  It will do.
[01:25:19.520 --> 01:25:25.520]  But that's been my dilemma the whole time.
[01:25:25.520 --> 01:25:29.520]  Just ignoring everything, all my paperwork and stuff.
[01:25:29.520 --> 01:25:33.520]  Well, like I say, at the trial level, that is to be expected.
[01:25:33.520 --> 01:25:38.520]  Don't get so upset about what they do at the trial level.
[01:25:38.520 --> 01:25:42.520]  Simply object to it, file an affidavit about it,
[01:25:42.520 --> 01:25:47.520]  or get a copy of the transcript if it's an actual court of record,
[01:25:47.520 --> 01:25:53.520]  and file your judicial conduct complaints or whatever is needed in that particular case.
[01:25:53.520 --> 01:25:55.520]  Motion is to disqualify.
[01:25:55.520 --> 01:26:00.520]  Anything like that, when a judge violates the law, your rights,
[01:26:00.520 --> 01:26:08.520]  the rules of procedure appears to be biased or partial in any way to the opposing party or to you,
[01:26:08.520 --> 01:26:13.520]  or just fails or refuses to apply the laws to the facts.
[01:26:13.520 --> 01:26:18.520]  Move to disqualify that judge, file conduct complaints against that judge.
[01:26:18.520 --> 01:26:22.520]  Do it all on the record and do it in writing.
[01:26:22.520 --> 01:26:27.520]  I did, like I said, I did put a request in to have him disqualified.
[01:26:27.520 --> 01:26:29.520]  I went down to the other judge.
[01:26:29.520 --> 01:26:30.520]  Yep.
[01:26:30.520 --> 01:26:32.520]  The only problem is, is what did you cite as proper grounds?
[01:26:32.520 --> 01:26:36.520]  Did you cite proper grounds?
[01:26:36.520 --> 01:26:48.520]  Refusal to answer or refusal to prove in writing the laws applied to me.
[01:26:48.520 --> 01:26:51.520]  A judge is not required to do that.
[01:26:51.520 --> 01:26:56.520]  That is not a job for the court.
[01:26:56.520 --> 01:27:03.520]  You've got to stop asking the court to do things that do not fall within its duties.
[01:27:03.520 --> 01:27:04.520]  Okay.
[01:27:04.520 --> 01:27:07.520]  The prosecutor is the one that's required to prove that.
[01:27:07.520 --> 01:27:11.520]  The prosecutor is the one that has to be challenged on that.
[01:27:11.520 --> 01:27:17.520]  The problem here is, is you're asking for an evidentiary finding before trial has ever occurred,
[01:27:17.520 --> 01:27:20.520]  which is where the evidentiary finding takes place.
[01:27:20.520 --> 01:27:21.520]  Right.
[01:27:21.520 --> 01:27:27.520]  Well, through these other pre-trials, I did specifically state to the judge that I wanted
[01:27:27.520 --> 01:27:33.520]  the prosecutor to prove the jurisdiction, wanted to prove the law applied to me, wanted
[01:27:33.520 --> 01:27:37.520]  her to prove, and that's why I put it in writing.
[01:27:37.520 --> 01:27:43.520]  When I went to disqualify the judge, it was failure for him to enforce it.
[01:27:43.520 --> 01:27:44.520]  Okay.
[01:27:44.520 --> 01:27:45.520]  He failed.
[01:27:45.520 --> 01:27:46.520]  He was biased.
[01:27:46.520 --> 01:27:53.520]  I can't remember the canon number right now for what it was, 1.6 or 6.1 or whatever it
[01:27:53.520 --> 01:27:54.520]  was.
[01:27:54.520 --> 01:27:55.520]  Okay.
[01:27:55.520 --> 01:27:59.520]  I basically wanted to disqualify him for failing to do his job.
[01:27:59.520 --> 01:28:05.520]  Yeah, but so far you haven't told me anything that is his job.
[01:28:05.520 --> 01:28:08.520]  Everything you're talking about falls upon the prosecutor.
[01:28:08.520 --> 01:28:12.520]  The prosecutor is the one that has to assert the court's jurisdiction to hear the facts
[01:28:12.520 --> 01:28:14.520]  of the case, not the court.
[01:28:14.520 --> 01:28:15.520]  Right.
[01:28:15.520 --> 01:28:16.520]  Okay.
[01:28:16.520 --> 01:28:17.520]  Right.
[01:28:17.520 --> 01:28:22.520]  The prosecutor is the one who bears the burden of proof against you in the allegation, right?
[01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:23.520]  Right.
[01:28:23.520 --> 01:28:24.520]  Not the court, right?
[01:28:24.520 --> 01:28:34.520]  When I asked the judge, we're the prosecutor who can prove jurisdiction and stuff, he told
[01:28:34.520 --> 01:28:39.520]  me, this is, I think I mentioned it to you on Facebook, he mentioned to me that they
[01:28:39.520 --> 01:28:43.520]  don't have to prove anything.
[01:28:43.520 --> 01:28:47.520]  That's exactly what the judge told me.
[01:28:47.520 --> 01:28:50.520]  They don't have to prove anything.
[01:28:50.520 --> 01:28:53.520]  Well, that isn't actually true.
[01:28:53.520 --> 01:29:00.520]  The question remains, however, in how did you address that statement in your motion
[01:29:00.520 --> 01:29:03.520]  to disqualify?
[01:29:03.520 --> 01:29:15.520]  That he failed to have the proper evidence brought to me, given to me as I asked for
[01:29:15.520 --> 01:29:17.520]  it in writing.
[01:29:17.520 --> 01:29:18.520]  Okay.
[01:29:18.520 --> 01:29:24.520]  Again, the judge is not the one that has to provide that.
[01:29:24.520 --> 01:29:25.520]  Okay.
[01:29:25.520 --> 01:29:26.520]  Okay.
[01:29:26.520 --> 01:29:27.520]  That's the problem.
[01:29:27.520 --> 01:29:31.520]  You're blaming the judge for something that isn't his responsibility.
[01:29:31.520 --> 01:29:32.520]  Okay.
[01:29:32.520 --> 01:29:33.520]  All right.
[01:29:33.520 --> 01:29:38.520]  This is the problem with not studying the rules of procedure yourself.
[01:29:38.520 --> 01:29:39.520]  Okay.
[01:29:39.520 --> 01:29:40.520]  Okay.
[01:29:40.520 --> 01:29:48.520]  Don't go by what people are telling you, verify what you're told, or learn it for yourself
[01:29:48.520 --> 01:29:49.520]  so you actually know.
[01:29:49.520 --> 01:29:54.520]  Hang on just a second and we're going to cover this a little bit more on the other side before
[01:29:54.520 --> 01:29:55.520]  I have to get my next caller.
[01:29:55.520 --> 01:30:00.520]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break, so y'all hang on.
[01:30:00.520 --> 01:30:04.520]  The notorious serial killer, Arsenic Annie, used rat poison to do in her family.
[01:30:04.520 --> 01:30:09.520]  You're no Arsenic Annie, but you may be serving your own family a deadly poison every day.
[01:30:09.520 --> 01:30:10.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:30:10.520 --> 01:30:11.520]  Details in a moment.
[01:30:11.520 --> 01:30:16.520]  Google is watching you, recording everything you've ever searched for and creating a massive
[01:30:16.520 --> 01:30:19.520]  database of your personal information.
[01:30:19.520 --> 01:30:20.520]  That's creepy.
[01:30:20.520 --> 01:30:22.520]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:22.520 --> 01:30:25.520]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:25.520 --> 01:30:29.520]  Startpage.com doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches, or use tracking
[01:30:29.520 --> 01:30:32.520]  cookies, and they're third party certified.
[01:30:32.520 --> 01:30:36.520]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[01:30:36.520 --> 01:30:39.520]  Great search results and total privacy.
[01:30:39.520 --> 01:30:42.520]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:42.520 --> 01:30:46.520]  It's hydrogenated oil and it kills 50,000 people a year.
[01:30:46.520 --> 01:30:51.520]  It's made by attaching hydrogen atoms to liquid oils to make them creamy and solid at room
[01:30:51.520 --> 01:30:56.520]  temperature, but that process creates a toxic substance that damages brain and nerve cells.
[01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:00.520]  It's so poisonous, the National Academy of Sciences says no one should eat it.
[01:31:00.520 --> 01:31:04.520]  These so-called trans fats double your risk of heart attack, disrupt liver function, and
[01:31:04.520 --> 01:31:07.520]  increase your risk of diabetes, prostate, and breast cancer.
[01:31:07.520 --> 01:31:12.520]  Today, arsenic Annie could kill her family slowly with margarine, coffee creamer, cookies,
[01:31:12.520 --> 01:31:13.520]  and pie crusts.
[01:31:13.520 --> 01:31:17.520]  So be sure to read the label and eliminate everything that says hydrogenated from your
[01:31:17.520 --> 01:31:18.520]  diet.
[01:31:18.520 --> 01:31:19.520]  This is Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:19.520 --> 01:31:31.520]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:31.520 --> 01:31:37.520]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:37.520 --> 01:31:39.520]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:39.520 --> 01:31:44.520]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:44.520 --> 01:31:47.520]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:47.520 --> 01:31:49.520]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.520 --> 01:31:51.520]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:51.520 --> 01:31:52.520]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:52.520 --> 01:31:53.520]  I'm a New York City correctional.
[01:31:53.520 --> 01:31:54.520]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.520 --> 01:31:56.520]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:56.520 --> 01:31:58.520]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.520 --> 01:32:01.520]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.520 --> 01:32:04.520]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:04.520 --> 01:32:07.520]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.520 --> 01:32:11.520]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their Kim Trails, but good luck getting
[01:32:11.520 --> 01:32:12.520]  them to pay for it.
[01:32:12.520 --> 01:32:15.520]  Okay, I might be kidding about the Kim Trails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.520 --> 01:32:19.520]  That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for
[01:32:19.520 --> 01:32:23.520]  you with little to no out-of-pocket expense, and we accept Bitcoin.
[01:32:23.520 --> 01:32:27.520]  As a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints, you
[01:32:27.520 --> 01:32:32.520]  can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the
[01:32:32.520 --> 01:32:33.520]  first time.
[01:32:33.520 --> 01:32:39.520]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.520 --> 01:32:43.520]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos
[01:32:43.520 --> 01:32:46.520]  Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.520 --> 01:32:51.520]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.520 --> 01:32:57.520]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.520 --> 01:32:59.520]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.520 --> 01:33:02.520]  May not actually be kidding about Kim Trails.
[01:33:02.520 --> 01:33:14.520]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:14.520 --> 01:33:33.520]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:33:33.520 --> 01:33:35.520]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:35.520 --> 01:33:39.520]  We got a half an hour to go, and we are still talking with Steve in Illinois.
[01:33:39.520 --> 01:33:43.520]  All right, Steve, what else we got on yours?
[01:33:43.520 --> 01:33:45.520]  Well, that's basically about it.
[01:33:45.520 --> 01:33:51.520]  If you have any suggestions as I come up with my trial next month, any paperwork?
[01:33:51.520 --> 01:33:54.520]  Well, like I said, take a look at what you've done.
[01:33:54.520 --> 01:33:57.520]  Take a look at the rules and procedure and find out what the proper way to do it
[01:33:57.520 --> 01:34:04.520]  should have been, if there is a proper way to do it in particular that's specified there.
[01:34:04.520 --> 01:34:05.520]  Right.
[01:34:05.520 --> 01:34:11.520]  And again, remember that you're not going to stop a corrupt trial court from doing
[01:34:11.520 --> 01:34:13.520]  what it's going to do.
[01:34:13.520 --> 01:34:18.520]  What you have to do is to make a proper record for appeal challenging the due process
[01:34:18.520 --> 01:34:23.520]  violations, the rights violations, the violations of law, or anything else that
[01:34:23.520 --> 01:34:26.520]  they do wrong at that trial level.
[01:34:26.520 --> 01:34:27.520]  Okay?
[01:34:27.520 --> 01:34:28.520]  Okay.
[01:34:28.520 --> 01:34:32.520]  So your job is to get that record made, regardless of what they do.
[01:34:32.520 --> 01:34:34.520]  So stop worrying so much about that.
[01:34:34.520 --> 01:34:35.520]  Object to it, of course.
[01:34:35.520 --> 01:34:38.520]  Do it in writing, always.
[01:34:38.520 --> 01:34:40.520]  But expect it.
[01:34:40.520 --> 01:34:44.520]  Deal with it and move on if they keep going forward.
[01:34:44.520 --> 01:34:48.520]  Because you standing still in one place while they're moving forward
[01:34:48.520 --> 01:34:51.520]  isn't going to do you any good.
[01:34:51.520 --> 01:34:52.520]  Okey-dokey.
[01:34:52.520 --> 01:34:53.520]  All right.
[01:34:53.520 --> 01:34:54.520]  Okay.
[01:34:54.520 --> 01:34:55.520]  I appreciate it.
[01:34:55.520 --> 01:34:56.520]  Yes, sir.
[01:34:56.520 --> 01:34:57.520]  You have a good evening.
[01:34:57.520 --> 01:34:58.520]  Thanks for calling.
[01:34:58.520 --> 01:34:59.520]  You too.
[01:34:59.520 --> 01:35:00.520]  Bye-bye.
[01:35:00.520 --> 01:35:01.520]  All right.
[01:35:01.520 --> 01:35:02.520]  Now we're going to Troy in Florida.
[01:35:02.520 --> 01:35:04.520]  Troy, what can we do for you?
[01:35:04.520 --> 01:35:07.520]  Thank you, Eddie, for taking my call.
[01:35:07.520 --> 01:35:11.520]  I've got a friend, David, who you know well in Dallas, and he had suggested
[01:35:11.520 --> 01:35:12.520]  talking to you.
[01:35:12.520 --> 01:35:17.520]  I just received a DUI, and I've been interviewing attorneys,
[01:35:17.520 --> 01:35:20.520]  and I find that it's scary.
[01:35:20.520 --> 01:35:21.520]  It's very scary.
[01:35:21.520 --> 01:35:24.520]  And at this point in time, I don't know what to do, where to go,
[01:35:24.520 --> 01:35:28.520]  or how to get there, or anything of that nature,
[01:35:28.520 --> 01:35:33.520]  especially one of the contracts I just received from one of the attorneys.
[01:35:33.520 --> 01:35:34.520]  It was not a contract.
[01:35:34.520 --> 01:35:37.520]  It was a retainer, and even in the retainer,
[01:35:37.520 --> 01:35:40.520]  it's spelled out that he did not represent me.
[01:35:40.520 --> 01:35:42.520]  And talking to David, he was like, Ron...
[01:35:42.520 --> 01:35:46.520]  Yeah, you know what the legal definition of a retainer is?
[01:35:46.520 --> 01:35:47.520]  No, sir.
[01:35:47.520 --> 01:35:49.520]  Gift.
[01:35:49.520 --> 01:35:50.520]  Gift.
[01:35:50.520 --> 01:35:51.520]  Yeah.
[01:35:51.520 --> 01:35:54.520]  You're paying him for absolutely no reason whatsoever,
[01:35:54.520 --> 01:35:58.520]  and he doesn't have to do anything to earn that money.
[01:35:58.520 --> 01:35:59.520]  Wow.
[01:35:59.520 --> 01:36:01.520]  Okay.
[01:36:01.520 --> 01:36:02.520]  All right.
[01:36:02.520 --> 01:36:03.520]  So what do I do?
[01:36:03.520 --> 01:36:05.520]  How do I get there?
[01:36:05.520 --> 01:36:09.520]  Well, that's going to be a tough one as far as knowing specifically
[01:36:09.520 --> 01:36:13.520]  what's going on with the laws in Florida and the circumstances of the case,
[01:36:13.520 --> 01:36:16.520]  which I don't want you to have to get into on the air.
[01:36:16.520 --> 01:36:19.520]  What I can say is, is if you will send me an email,
[01:36:19.520 --> 01:36:26.520]  I will send you the same set of information that a lot of the DUI attorneys
[01:36:26.520 --> 01:36:31.520]  here in Texas rely upon to determine whether or not a case is viable.
[01:36:31.520 --> 01:36:37.520]  And some of the things that should be done, not only in questioning the client,
[01:36:37.520 --> 01:36:41.520]  but how it would be played out at trial to see whether or not the facts
[01:36:41.520 --> 01:36:45.520]  and evidence would sustain a conviction.
[01:36:45.520 --> 01:36:48.520]  So I've got a white paper written up on that if you'll send it to me,
[01:36:48.520 --> 01:36:55.520]  which is Eddie, E-D-D-I-E, at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:36:55.520 --> 01:36:56.520]  Okay.
[01:36:56.520 --> 01:36:59.520]  I will email that to you.
[01:36:59.520 --> 01:37:08.520]  Eddie at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:37:08.520 --> 01:37:09.520]  All right.
[01:37:09.520 --> 01:37:10.520]  Be there in three minutes.
[01:37:10.520 --> 01:37:11.520]  Okay.
[01:37:11.520 --> 01:37:13.520]  Well, I won't be able to answer it until the end of the show,
[01:37:13.520 --> 01:37:15.520]  which isn't until 10, so just give me a little bit, okay?
[01:37:15.520 --> 01:37:16.520]  No.
[01:37:16.520 --> 01:37:17.520]  Yes, sir.
[01:37:17.520 --> 01:37:18.520]  Thank you so much for your time.
[01:37:18.520 --> 01:37:19.520]  Yes, sir.
[01:37:19.520 --> 01:37:20.520]  Thanks for calling in.
[01:37:20.520 --> 01:37:21.520]  Thank you.
[01:37:21.520 --> 01:37:22.520]  Yes, sir.
[01:37:22.520 --> 01:37:23.520]  Bye-bye.
[01:37:23.520 --> 01:37:24.520]  Bye-bye.
[01:37:24.520 --> 01:37:25.520]  All right.
[01:37:25.520 --> 01:37:29.520]  Calderon, Alex, you there?
[01:37:29.520 --> 01:37:30.520]  Yes.
[01:37:30.520 --> 01:37:31.520]  Yes.
[01:37:31.520 --> 01:37:32.520]  All right.
[01:37:32.520 --> 01:37:33.520]  What can I do for you?
[01:37:33.520 --> 01:37:34.520]  Yes.
[01:37:34.520 --> 01:37:38.520]  I messaged you on Facebook a little bit earlier about my case and stuff like that.
[01:37:38.520 --> 01:37:41.520]  So the first time I ever had a deal with this by myself,
[01:37:41.520 --> 01:37:44.520]  I don't know what to do exactly.
[01:37:44.520 --> 01:37:45.520]  Okay.
[01:37:45.520 --> 01:37:47.520]  Well, I haven't been able to read beyond the first thing you asked me
[01:37:47.520 --> 01:37:50.520]  and I responded to because I've been working on information
[01:37:50.520 --> 01:37:52.520]  for this felony case that I'm dealing with,
[01:37:52.520 --> 01:37:55.520]  so I wasn't able to keep conversing on there.
[01:37:55.520 --> 01:37:58.520]  I was only on there long enough to put up a couple of things for today
[01:37:58.520 --> 01:38:02.520]  and to take a reading break, which didn't work out the way I intended, of course.
[01:38:02.520 --> 01:38:06.520]  But so I don't know what else you added to that conversation.
[01:38:06.520 --> 01:38:11.520]  It was basically just all what happened during, like, what I said,
[01:38:11.520 --> 01:38:14.520]  what the officer said, and, like, basically...
[01:38:14.520 --> 01:38:15.520]  Okay.
[01:38:15.520 --> 01:38:16.520]  What is the situation of the case?
[01:38:16.520 --> 01:38:18.520]  What kind of case are we talking about?
[01:38:18.520 --> 01:38:28.520]  There is three class C misdemeanors, like, basically better to maintain
[01:38:28.520 --> 01:38:35.520]  financial responsibility, driving while driver's license invalid,
[01:38:35.520 --> 01:38:39.520]  and the...
[01:38:39.520 --> 01:38:46.520]  It was the display of expired license.
[01:38:46.520 --> 01:38:52.520]  Displaying an expired license or expired registration?
[01:38:52.520 --> 01:38:55.520]  I said license.
[01:38:55.520 --> 01:38:57.520]  Okay.
[01:38:57.520 --> 01:39:03.520]  And I'm presuming by the description of the alleged offenses that this is all Texas.
[01:39:03.520 --> 01:39:04.520]  Yes, it is.
[01:39:04.520 --> 01:39:05.520]  Okay.
[01:39:05.520 --> 01:39:06.520]  So what is your question?
[01:39:06.520 --> 01:39:07.520]  Resisting arrest.
[01:39:07.520 --> 01:39:08.520]  I'm sorry?
[01:39:08.520 --> 01:39:09.520]  Thanks.
[01:39:09.520 --> 01:39:13.520]  And class B misdemeanor resisting arrest.
[01:39:13.520 --> 01:39:16.520]  So, I mean, I don't know, I was going to talk to a lawyer,
[01:39:16.520 --> 01:39:19.520]  and I did talk to a lawyer, but he doesn't want to do anything.
[01:39:19.520 --> 01:39:20.520]  He believes that I deserve...
[01:39:20.520 --> 01:39:22.520]  Yeah, everyone has to have a driver's license.
[01:39:22.520 --> 01:39:23.520]  So I was like, okay, yeah, I don't...
[01:39:23.520 --> 01:39:29.520]  How did they make the allegation of resisting arrest?
[01:39:29.520 --> 01:39:30.520]  I don't know exactly.
[01:39:30.520 --> 01:39:34.520]  Basically, he asked me to step out of the vehicle, and I told him no.
[01:39:34.520 --> 01:39:36.520]  And I said, why do you want me to step out?
[01:39:36.520 --> 01:39:37.520]  And he said, to talk.
[01:39:37.520 --> 01:39:39.520]  I said, well, we can talk right here.
[01:39:39.520 --> 01:39:41.520]  And he said, please step out of the vehicle.
[01:39:41.520 --> 01:39:43.520]  I said, why can't we talk right here?
[01:39:43.520 --> 01:39:47.520]  And then they started like basically reaching the vehicle and like trying to...
[01:39:47.520 --> 01:39:48.520]  Okay, wait a minute.
[01:39:48.520 --> 01:39:51.520]  Why do you keep calling your conveyance a vehicle?
[01:39:51.520 --> 01:39:52.520]  Sorry.
[01:39:52.520 --> 01:39:54.520]  It's a car.
[01:39:54.520 --> 01:39:58.520]  Basically, I know I have that problem.
[01:39:58.520 --> 01:39:59.520]  Okay.
[01:39:59.520 --> 01:40:00.520]  Well, see, here's the problem.
[01:40:00.520 --> 01:40:08.520]  If what you're saying is accurate as far as the usage of terminology by the officer,
[01:40:08.520 --> 01:40:10.520]  then they have a problem.
[01:40:10.520 --> 01:40:18.520]  They can't say that they're giving you an official order to step out of the car
[01:40:18.520 --> 01:40:24.520]  if the only basis for that order is to talk to you since they're already doing that.
[01:40:24.520 --> 01:40:30.520]  There would be no legal basis to demand that you step out of the car
[01:40:30.520 --> 01:40:34.520]  to continue a conversation you're already having.
[01:40:34.520 --> 01:40:36.520]  Right, which is pretty much what I said.
[01:40:36.520 --> 01:40:40.520]  I said, we can just talk right here and...
[01:40:40.520 --> 01:40:41.520]  Well, no, I understand that.
[01:40:41.520 --> 01:40:44.520]  But what I'm trying to get you to understand is you need to get your hands on the audio
[01:40:44.520 --> 01:40:49.520]  and video from that police cruiser and his body cam and mic.
[01:40:49.520 --> 01:40:55.520]  Because if what he said and what you're telling me he said is exactly what you said,
[01:40:55.520 --> 01:41:01.520]  then he has gone beyond any lawful authority to place his hands upon you
[01:41:01.520 --> 01:41:04.520]  and charge you with resisting arrest.
[01:41:04.520 --> 01:41:07.520]  So that's going to be kind of important.
[01:41:07.520 --> 01:41:10.520]  Right, and I didn't know how about to go and do that.
[01:41:10.520 --> 01:41:14.520]  I don't know how to get my hands on any of that.
[01:41:14.520 --> 01:41:15.520]  Okay.
[01:41:15.520 --> 01:41:17.520]  Well, you're going to file a motion for discovery
[01:41:17.520 --> 01:41:22.520]  and a public information request simultaneously to get that's what you're going to do.
[01:41:22.520 --> 01:41:23.520]  Okay.
[01:41:23.520 --> 01:41:26.520]  These are all Class Cs.
[01:41:26.520 --> 01:41:29.520]  If you're correct, they're all Class Cs.
[01:41:29.520 --> 01:41:33.520]  Right, but they charged me for the Class B for the resisting arrest.
[01:41:33.520 --> 01:41:37.520]  Because there is no Class C resisting arrest.
[01:41:37.520 --> 01:41:42.520]  Right, so everything else is a Class C, but one of them,
[01:41:42.520 --> 01:41:45.520]  like all the Class Cs are in Collin County,
[01:41:45.520 --> 01:41:52.520]  but the Arbor Frisco Police and the resisting arrest is in Denton County.
[01:41:52.520 --> 01:41:53.520]  Wait a minute.
[01:41:53.520 --> 01:42:00.520]  How are these for different events or something?
[01:42:00.520 --> 01:42:05.520]  Which department did the officer that told you to step out of the car work for?
[01:42:05.520 --> 01:42:11.520]  It was Frisco Police Department, but Frisco falls in Collin County and in Denton County.
[01:42:11.520 --> 01:42:14.520]  Okay, but that's irrelevant.
[01:42:14.520 --> 01:42:17.520]  Who laid hands upon you?
[01:42:17.520 --> 01:42:21.520]  It was the Frisco Police.
[01:42:21.520 --> 01:42:25.520]  I tried to get his name from him again and he wouldn't give it to me.
[01:42:25.520 --> 01:42:32.520]  Okay, so if they're required to send you to the nearest court having jurisdiction of the offense
[01:42:32.520 --> 01:42:36.520]  and the resisting arrest is being charged as a Class B,
[01:42:36.520 --> 01:42:41.520]  then the nearest county court at law may have been in Denton County.
[01:42:41.520 --> 01:42:46.520]  Right, but I went to...
[01:42:46.520 --> 01:42:51.520]  But the question is, is where did the offense actually occur?
[01:42:51.520 --> 01:42:56.520]  I believe it did occur in Denton County.
[01:42:56.520 --> 01:43:00.520]  So what was Frisco Police doing in Denton County?
[01:43:00.520 --> 01:43:03.520]  Frisco Police is actually like...
[01:43:03.520 --> 01:43:07.520]  The Frisco city limit is supposedly right...
[01:43:07.520 --> 01:43:11.520]  I live right on Little Elm in Frisco.
[01:43:11.520 --> 01:43:16.520]  So the borders are right there next to each other.
[01:43:16.520 --> 01:43:20.520]  Well, that's the way borders tend to work.
[01:43:20.520 --> 01:43:21.520]  Huh?
[01:43:21.520 --> 01:43:22.520]  That's the way borders tend to work.
[01:43:22.520 --> 01:43:25.520]  They're usually right next to each other.
[01:43:25.520 --> 01:43:29.520]  Right, Frisco actually falls in Collin County and in Denton County.
[01:43:29.520 --> 01:43:34.520]  Okay, and the place you're in is on the border between the two.
[01:43:34.520 --> 01:43:35.520]  Correct.
[01:43:35.520 --> 01:43:39.520]  But more within Frisco than it is Denton.
[01:43:39.520 --> 01:43:42.520]  Right.
[01:43:42.520 --> 01:43:43.520]  Okay.
[01:43:43.520 --> 01:43:47.520]  It's more in Denton than it is Collin County.
[01:43:47.520 --> 01:43:49.520]  Okay, Collin County, sorry.
[01:43:49.520 --> 01:43:52.520]  All right, well hang on just a second, Alex, and we'll pick this up on the other side of the break.
[01:43:52.520 --> 01:43:54.520]  All right, folks, y'all hang in there.
[01:43:54.520 --> 01:43:59.520]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.520 --> 01:44:04.520]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:44:04.520 --> 01:44:08.520]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:44:08.520 --> 01:44:14.520]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[01:44:14.520 --> 01:44:20.520]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:44:20.520 --> 01:44:26.520]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:44:26.520 --> 01:44:33.520]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:44:33.520 --> 01:44:38.520]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:44:38.520 --> 01:44:40.520]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:40.520 --> 01:44:49.520]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:44:49.520 --> 01:45:00.520]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:45:00.520 --> 01:45:03.520]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.520 --> 01:45:14.520]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:14.520 --> 01:45:18.520]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.520 --> 01:45:22.520]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.520 --> 01:45:27.520]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.520 --> 01:45:33.520]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.520 --> 01:45:42.520]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.520 --> 01:45:51.520]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.520 --> 01:46:00.520]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:21.520 --> 01:46:33.520]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:33.520 --> 01:46:38.520]  We are now in our last segment, so let's see if we can get Alex on the move here.
[01:46:38.520 --> 01:46:48.520]  All right, Alex, as far as how this is going to go, the Class C misdemeanors and everything, all being transportation-related, I've got material for that.
[01:46:48.520 --> 01:46:52.520]  It's in the seminar material, which we sell to fund the network.
[01:46:52.520 --> 01:46:59.520]  But it's got more legal pleadings and information in there than you would possibly have time to fill out and file.
[01:46:59.520 --> 01:47:06.520]  But it will teach you most everything you could ever hope to know about this subject and how to deal with it.
[01:47:06.520 --> 01:47:14.520]  And it already has the legal pleadings in there for it. You just have to read them, edit them, and file them.
[01:47:14.520 --> 01:47:19.520]  Okay? Correct. But if you want that, you've got to get the seminar material to do it.
[01:47:19.520 --> 01:47:22.520]  You can order that on the Web site if you wish to do so.
[01:47:22.520 --> 01:47:28.520]  Go to logosradionetwork.com, and on the front page in the upper left-hand corner should be a box.
[01:47:28.520 --> 01:47:35.520]  And in that box somewhere will be a link that says, Eddie's Traffic Seminar. Okay.
[01:47:35.520 --> 01:47:41.520]  And then when you finally do read everything that's in there, and I recommend that you do that,
[01:47:41.520 --> 01:47:47.520]  especially the legal pleadings that are in there, then you'll be able to stand face-to-face with any attorney,
[01:47:47.520 --> 01:47:55.520]  smile at them, and go, you really are a clueless bastard, aren't you? Okay?
[01:47:55.520 --> 01:47:58.520]  Yeah. I've read a lot of your stuff and everything.
[01:47:58.520 --> 01:48:02.520]  I guess I'm also dealing with the law with my ace away at the same time.
[01:48:02.520 --> 01:48:07.520]  So I've been doing this for the last year and a half, so I know how important the lingo is.
[01:48:07.520 --> 01:48:11.520]  I'm just now getting the transportation part of it.
[01:48:11.520 --> 01:48:17.520]  Well, every bit is important.
[01:48:17.520 --> 01:48:18.520]  All right. Okay.
[01:48:18.520 --> 01:48:22.520]  And what do I need to do about the Class B?
[01:48:22.520 --> 01:48:30.520]  The Class B is going to depend upon what you can do as far as getting the evidence to prove that this charge is false,
[01:48:30.520 --> 01:48:35.520]  because most likely an attorney is going to try to get you to take a plea deal on the Class B,
[01:48:35.520 --> 01:48:39.520]  which is going to negate anything you're doing in fighting the Class Cs.
[01:48:39.520 --> 01:48:43.520]  The challenge there is going to always be grounded in one thing,
[01:48:43.520 --> 01:48:49.520]  that the initial stop by the officer without a warrant was patently illegal.
[01:48:49.520 --> 01:48:58.520]  He had no probable cause because he had no facts or evidence that would have led him to believe that you were engaging in
[01:48:58.520 --> 01:49:03.520]  and therefore subject to the transportation code.
[01:49:03.520 --> 01:49:10.520]  That is entirely a legal presumption and conclusion on his part and his part alone.
[01:49:10.520 --> 01:49:15.520]  It is not the facts, it is not the law, and there's no evidence supporting it.
[01:49:15.520 --> 01:49:18.520]  He never told me why he even pulled me over.
[01:49:18.520 --> 01:49:23.520]  Yeah, but you're going to get him to admit to that at some point,
[01:49:23.520 --> 01:49:27.520]  and he's going to use the transportation code as his basis for it.
[01:49:27.520 --> 01:49:30.520]  I guarantee you he is.
[01:49:30.520 --> 01:49:34.520]  Right.
[01:49:34.520 --> 01:49:38.520]  Okay, I guess that's all I need to know for now.
[01:49:38.520 --> 01:49:42.520]  I'll see what I can do in the meantime.
[01:49:42.520 --> 01:49:44.520]  Okay, well, I take that back.
[01:49:44.520 --> 01:49:49.520]  Let me clarify one thing before I let you off of here to say that I guarantee he's going to use the transportation code.
[01:49:49.520 --> 01:49:56.520]  You didn't throw a wet bag of dog dung out of your window onto his windshield as he went by in traffic, did you?
[01:49:56.520 --> 01:49:58.520]  No.
[01:49:58.520 --> 01:50:00.520]  You didn't dump trash out of your car window,
[01:50:00.520 --> 01:50:05.520]  throw a lit cigarette into a gas pumping station or anything of that nature, right?
[01:50:05.520 --> 01:50:06.520]  Correct.
[01:50:06.520 --> 01:50:10.520]  You didn't run off the shoulder of the road through someone's field or barn
[01:50:10.520 --> 01:50:14.520]  and back up onto the road and destroy any property, right?
[01:50:14.520 --> 01:50:15.520]  No.
[01:50:15.520 --> 01:50:18.520]  Okay, then he's going to use the transportation code.
[01:50:18.520 --> 01:50:22.520]  Unless, of course, your car looked like something out of a Cheech and Chong movie
[01:50:22.520 --> 01:50:27.520]  and he figured you couldn't see the road well enough to tell why it was stopping you anyway.
[01:50:27.520 --> 01:50:28.520]  No, sorry.
[01:50:28.520 --> 01:50:29.520]  All right.
[01:50:29.520 --> 01:50:34.520]  Okay, then the transportation code it is.
[01:50:34.520 --> 01:50:36.520]  Okay.
[01:50:36.520 --> 01:50:37.520]  All right.
[01:50:37.520 --> 01:50:41.520]  So I guess we'll talk a little bit later about some other stuff.
[01:50:41.520 --> 01:50:44.520]  I'll update you on everything else, I guess.
[01:50:44.520 --> 01:50:47.520]  Okay, well, don't count on me being on Facebook for too much of this.
[01:50:47.520 --> 01:50:50.520]  If you need something important, send it to me in an email.
[01:50:50.520 --> 01:51:00.520]  Use the eddie at ruleoflawradio.com email address and that's eddie at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:51:00.520 --> 01:51:01.520]  Okay.
[01:51:01.520 --> 01:51:05.520]  I check email more than I check Facebook when I'm working.
[01:51:05.520 --> 01:51:06.520]  Okay.
[01:51:06.520 --> 01:51:07.520]  Okay, thanks.
[01:51:07.520 --> 01:51:08.520]  Appreciate it.
[01:51:08.520 --> 01:51:09.520]  Yes, sir.
[01:51:09.520 --> 01:51:12.520]  All right, now we're going to go to Ralph in Texas.
[01:51:12.520 --> 01:51:15.520]  Ralph, what can we do for you?
[01:51:15.520 --> 01:51:16.520]  Yes, sir.
[01:51:16.520 --> 01:51:22.520]  Sometime over the last two years, you read something to the effect of the duty of the
[01:51:22.520 --> 01:51:26.520]  DPS is to regulate commerce and supervise traffic.
[01:51:26.520 --> 01:51:27.520]  No.
[01:51:27.520 --> 01:51:32.520]  What I read was out of the Texas Administrative Code, Rule 1.12, the mission statement of
[01:51:32.520 --> 01:51:38.520]  the Department of Public Safety, which is to supervise traffic on rural highways and
[01:51:38.520 --> 01:51:47.520]  to supervise and regulate commercial and for hire traffic.
[01:51:47.520 --> 01:51:48.520]  Does that sound about right?
[01:51:48.520 --> 01:51:50.520]  I needed to know where...
[01:51:50.520 --> 01:51:56.520]  That's in Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code.
[01:51:56.520 --> 01:51:57.520]  Okay.
[01:51:57.520 --> 01:51:59.520]  I couldn't find it in the Transportation Code.
[01:51:59.520 --> 01:52:01.520]  That's because it's not in the Transportation Code.
[01:52:01.520 --> 01:52:04.520]  It's in the Administrative Code.
[01:52:04.520 --> 01:52:05.520]  Well, I got you this time.
[01:52:05.520 --> 01:52:06.520]  Yeah.
[01:52:06.520 --> 01:52:07.520]  Okay.
[01:52:07.520 --> 01:52:12.520]  I'm going to try to use that in proving that I wasn't involved in transportation.
[01:52:12.520 --> 01:52:20.520]  So one more question would be, if the examining trial is to determine probable cause, what
[01:52:20.520 --> 01:52:29.520]  is the purpose of the Article 15.17 officer bringing the arrested person before a magistrate?
[01:52:29.520 --> 01:52:38.520]  So that the magistrate can inform you of your rights, okay, and then set a schedule for
[01:52:38.520 --> 01:52:45.520]  the examining trial and for the arraignment, which may or may not occur all at the same
[01:52:45.520 --> 01:52:49.520]  time, but they can be scheduled for a later date and time.
[01:52:49.520 --> 01:52:58.520]  But the purpose of the 15.17 is to read you your rights and to perform all the other procedures
[01:52:58.520 --> 01:53:04.520]  codified in 15.17, determine whether or not you can read and write the English language,
[01:53:04.520 --> 01:53:08.520]  whether or not English is your first language, assign you an interpreter, determine whether
[01:53:08.520 --> 01:53:13.520]  or not you require the assistance of legal counsel, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:53:13.520 --> 01:53:15.520]  So it has nothing to do with probable cause?
[01:53:15.520 --> 01:53:16.520]  No.
[01:53:16.520 --> 01:53:20.520]  Not in the 15.17 steps, no.
[01:53:20.520 --> 01:53:28.520]  Well, what if you weren't provided the 15.17 procedure?
[01:53:28.520 --> 01:53:30.520]  Is that due process violation?
[01:53:30.520 --> 01:53:33.520]  Well, absolutely.
[01:53:33.520 --> 01:53:37.520]  Constitutionally due process or Texas statute?
[01:53:37.520 --> 01:53:41.520]  Everything that's in the Code of Criminal Procedure except for the necessity for an
[01:53:41.520 --> 01:53:47.520]  interpreter is straight out of the Bill of Rights, the Texas Bill of Rights.
[01:53:47.520 --> 01:53:52.520]  It's directly out of Chapter 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:53:52.520 --> 01:53:59.520]  If a person is arrested without a warrant, taken directly to jail and not taken before
[01:53:59.520 --> 01:54:07.520]  a magistrate, a magistrate signs a warrant for your arrest and then meets you in jail
[01:54:07.520 --> 01:54:13.520]  and arraigns you, and then the defense attorney, when you sue all of them, says, well, what's
[01:54:13.520 --> 01:54:14.520]  the problem?
[01:54:14.520 --> 01:54:16.520]  Your arrest warrant was signed.
[01:54:16.520 --> 01:54:19.520]  Yeah, but the thing is that you're proceeding.
[01:54:19.520 --> 01:54:24.520]  There was an ex parte communication to give the judge the evidence used to get the arrest
[01:54:24.520 --> 01:54:25.520]  warrant.
[01:54:25.520 --> 01:54:29.520]  You have not been allowed to check the warrant to see whether or not the warrant was valid
[01:54:29.520 --> 01:54:31.520]  and to challenge it, okay?
[01:54:31.520 --> 01:54:36.520]  For instance, the one in this felony case I'm working on, the warrantless arrest affidavit
[01:54:36.520 --> 01:54:44.520]  to establish probable cause is as bogus as this guy's law degree, okay?
[01:54:44.520 --> 01:54:49.520]  Because it doesn't state any facts alleging probable cause.
[01:54:49.520 --> 01:54:54.520]  It says, I have reason to believe the person committed a violation, and then all it does
[01:54:54.520 --> 01:54:56.520]  is put the statute number in there.
[01:54:56.520 --> 01:55:01.520]  It alleges no facts of any kind relating to the elements of the charge.
[01:55:01.520 --> 01:55:08.520]  It is a completely bogus arrest warrant after the fact, okay?
[01:55:08.520 --> 01:55:09.520]  So...
[01:55:09.520 --> 01:55:11.520]  I got a little bit more of a net on mine.
[01:55:11.520 --> 01:55:18.520]  Yeah, the thing is that judge had to hold an ex parte communication with somebody in
[01:55:18.520 --> 01:55:19.520]  order to do that.
[01:55:19.520 --> 01:55:26.520]  Now, the problem here is when that somebody is both your accuser, the witness against
[01:55:26.520 --> 01:55:32.520]  you, and is meeting with the judge presiding over the case and issuing the warrants to
[01:55:32.520 --> 01:55:35.520]  get the probable cause statement done.
[01:55:35.520 --> 01:55:38.520]  There's a problem here.
[01:55:38.520 --> 01:55:44.520]  Because the judge is communicating with the primary witness for the state absent any and
[01:55:44.520 --> 01:55:49.520]  all parties in the matter.
[01:55:49.520 --> 01:55:51.520]  That's a problem in my book.
[01:55:51.520 --> 01:55:52.520]  Right.
[01:55:52.520 --> 01:55:55.520]  Well, that's what I'm saying, and I'm saying it's a due process violation.
[01:55:55.520 --> 01:55:57.520]  Yeah, but you got to raise it.
[01:55:57.520 --> 01:55:58.520]  You can't just say it is.
[01:55:58.520 --> 01:56:02.520]  You got to be able to demonstrate through argument how it is.
[01:56:02.520 --> 01:56:04.520]  Well, yeah, I'm still working on that.
[01:56:04.520 --> 01:56:09.520]  But what I've been using from argument so far is probable cause.
[01:56:09.520 --> 01:56:14.520]  I'm saying I had no probable cause here in about 15.17, I'm calling it.
[01:56:14.520 --> 01:56:19.520]  You need to file a written demand for an examining trial.
[01:56:19.520 --> 01:56:23.520]  Didn't you read the case I had here at the very beginning of the show?
[01:56:23.520 --> 01:56:24.520]  Yes, yes, yes.
[01:56:24.520 --> 01:56:30.520]  Yes, you have to file a written demand for an examining trial to get one.
[01:56:30.520 --> 01:56:34.520]  I did that, but my case is over, and are you collecting dismissals?
[01:56:34.520 --> 01:56:36.520]  Because I can send you mine.
[01:56:36.520 --> 01:56:39.520]  Did they dismiss?
[01:56:39.520 --> 01:56:40.520]  Yeah.
[01:56:40.520 --> 01:56:41.520]  Okay.
[01:56:41.520 --> 01:56:43.520]  They dismissed them live last year.
[01:56:43.520 --> 01:56:49.520]  And their stated grounds in the interest of justice, or did they say something specific?
[01:56:49.520 --> 01:56:53.520]  They said that since I was no-billed on the felony in the interest of justice,
[01:56:53.520 --> 01:56:56.520]  they're going to drop the misdemeanor.
[01:56:56.520 --> 01:56:58.520]  Uh-huh.
[01:56:58.520 --> 01:57:02.520]  What was the felony charge they were trying to get you on?
[01:57:02.520 --> 01:57:06.520]  Evading arrest because I rolled my window up in my car.
[01:57:06.520 --> 01:57:09.520]  Evading arrest with a vehicle.
[01:57:09.520 --> 01:57:13.520]  Well, yeah, that's what they said, or watercraft, however it's worded.
[01:57:13.520 --> 01:57:16.520]  But they said it's because I rolled my window up.
[01:57:16.520 --> 01:57:17.520]  Yeah.
[01:57:17.520 --> 01:57:23.520]  Well, see, they have a problem in that they cannot charge you under the penal code for the felony
[01:57:23.520 --> 01:57:29.520]  because the transportation code has a misdemeanor of exactly the same nature,
[01:57:29.520 --> 01:57:34.520]  and the initial point of contact was based upon that code.
[01:57:34.520 --> 01:57:36.520]  This is the other thing they're doing.
[01:57:36.520 --> 01:57:45.520]  They're trying to get these indictments for felonies when the statute prohibits them from doing that.
[01:57:45.520 --> 01:57:48.520]  That's a problem.
[01:57:48.520 --> 01:57:52.520]  I beat him with your Brady motion.
[01:57:52.520 --> 01:57:54.520]  The Brady motion out of your 2009 material?
[01:57:54.520 --> 01:57:56.520]  Yeah.
[01:57:56.520 --> 01:58:00.520]  It scared him so bad, I think, that that's come up.
[01:58:00.520 --> 01:58:03.520]  And then I did a couple of little things on my own.
[01:58:03.520 --> 01:58:13.520]  Well, I was going to ask you, can a judge, a district judge, assign an attorney in a jaded court?
[01:58:13.520 --> 01:58:21.520]  A district judge can assign legal counsel for an indigent defendant or someone in need of one in any court.
[01:58:21.520 --> 01:58:25.520]  I mean, even a jaded court, I thought they didn't have jurisdiction in another court.
[01:58:25.520 --> 01:58:30.520]  They don't have jurisdiction to hear the offense, but to appoint legal counsel is a whole other matter.
[01:58:30.520 --> 01:58:33.520]  All right, Ralph, I'm sorry, I'm out of time, man.
[01:58:33.520 --> 01:58:35.520]  Charles Roberts, same thing.
[01:58:35.520 --> 01:58:37.520]  Please give me an email or a call later on.
[01:58:37.520 --> 01:58:41.520]  All right, folks, this has been the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:58:41.520 --> 01:58:43.520]  I want to thank you all for listening and for calling.
[01:58:43.520 --> 01:58:45.520]  Please keep us in your financial prayers.
[01:58:45.520 --> 01:58:49.520]  Have a great week, good night, and God bless.
[01:58:49.520 --> 01:58:57.520]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.520 --> 01:59:04.520]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.520 --> 01:59:08.520]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.520 --> 01:59:11.520]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.520 --> 01:59:20.520]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.520 --> 01:59:25.520]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.520 --> 01:59:29.520]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.520 --> 01:59:32.520]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.520 --> 01:59:40.520]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.520 --> 01:59:49.520]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.520 --> 01:59:53.520]  Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:53.520 --> 02:00:11.520]  Visit logosradionetwork.com.