[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:06.000 --> 00:08.000]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.000 --> 00:17.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:17.000 --> 00:22.000]  Markets for Wednesday, the 26th of October, 2016, are currently treading with gold at
[00:22.000 --> 00:25.000]  $1,266.33 an ounce.
[00:25.000 --> 00:27.000]  Silver, $17.63 an ounce.
[00:27.000 --> 00:30.000]  Texas crude, $49.96 a barrel.
[00:30.000 --> 00:34.000]  And Bitcoin is currently sitting in about 675 U.S. currency.
[00:34.000 --> 00:45.000]  Today in history, the year 2001, then President George W. Bush signs into law the United
[00:45.000 --> 00:49.000]  and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept an obstruct terrorism
[00:49.000 --> 00:54.000]  act, or the USA PATRIOT Act, into law, with controversial provisions concerning surveillance
[00:54.000 --> 00:59.000]  procedures and gathering anti-money laundering and business records, removing obstacles to
[00:59.000 --> 01:04.000]  investigating terrorism by consolidating agencies and contentious interrogation techniques.
[01:04.000 --> 01:08.000]  Perhaps the biggest concern raised from civil rights groups was the rapidness in which the
[01:08.000 --> 01:14.000]  342-page bill was written up, read and passed by Congress and then signed into law a little
[01:14.000 --> 01:17.000]  over a month after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
[01:17.000 --> 01:22.000]  Today in history.
[01:22.000 --> 01:28.000]  In recent years, NATO's biggest military proliferation on Russia's border since the Cold War is
[01:28.000 --> 01:32.000]  underway, with Great Britain announcing Wednesday today that it is planning on sending fighter
[01:32.000 --> 01:36.000]  jets to Romania next year, and the United States has vowed troops, tanks and artillery
[01:36.000 --> 01:41.000]  to Poland, along with Germany, Canada and other NATO allies also pledging forces at
[01:41.000 --> 01:44.000]  a defense ministers meeting in Brussels.
[01:44.000 --> 01:48.000]  Meanwhile, two Russian warships entered the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark and
[01:48.000 --> 01:50.000]  are said to be armed with cruise missiles.
[01:50.000 --> 01:54.000]  The ships were part of an eight-ship carrier battle group, including Russia's one and
[01:54.000 --> 01:59.000]  only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is expected to join around 10 other
[01:59.000 --> 02:02.000]  Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast.
[02:02.000 --> 02:07.000]  We hope and pray these Russian-NATO escalations over engagement in Syria are soon de-escalated
[02:07.000 --> 02:09.000]  and a resolve is figured out.
[02:09.000 --> 02:17.000]  Our thoughts and prayers also go out to the people of Syria as well.
[02:17.000 --> 02:19.000]  Early voting started Monday in Texas.
[02:19.000 --> 02:21.000]  Record turnout is being recorded in many counties.
[02:21.000 --> 02:25.000]  However, some individual voters have been calling foul when voting straight ticket,
[02:25.000 --> 02:29.000]  claiming that the e-voting machines are leaving the presidential bid unchecked when a straight
[02:29.000 --> 02:31.000]  vote for the Republican Party is placed.
[02:31.000 --> 02:35.000]  Reminds me of what Joseph Stalin said when he said it wasn't who voted that counted,
[02:35.000 --> 02:36.000]  but who counted the votes.
[02:36.000 --> 02:41.000]  Early voting in Texas ends four days before the election, so get out there and vote nobody
[02:41.000 --> 02:42.000]  for president.
[02:42.000 --> 02:45.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[02:45.000 --> 02:49.000]  If you have a product or service you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give me
[02:49.000 --> 02:52.000]  a call at 210-363-2257.
[02:52.000 --> 03:16.000]  This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for October 26, 2016.
[03:16.000 --> 03:44.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[03:44.000 --> 04:11.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[04:11.000 --> 04:36.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[04:36.000 --> 04:49.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[04:49.000 --> 05:02.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[05:02.000 --> 05:29.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[05:29.000 --> 05:38.000]  The manufacturer's statement of origin is not a legal document for the purpose of ownership.
[05:38.000 --> 05:42.000]  Now I know we've talked about that before, that it's the one that you want to have, but
[05:42.000 --> 05:46.000]  there's a reason versus a legal meaning for it.
[05:46.000 --> 05:54.000]  The MSO is not a document of ownership, it's a document of origin.
[05:54.000 --> 06:05.000]  In other words, it says in what country, by what entity, a particular item was manufactured.
[06:05.000 --> 06:09.000]  It does not do anything at all to transfer the property.
[06:09.000 --> 06:14.000]  It's like the tag on the mattress when you buy it in the store that says no one can rip
[06:14.000 --> 06:21.000]  off this tag except for the people that buy it.
[06:21.000 --> 06:23.000]  That's what the MSO is.
[06:23.000 --> 06:29.000]  It doesn't actually have anything to do with ownership.
[06:29.000 --> 06:37.000]  It only has to do with origin of the item.
[06:37.000 --> 06:49.000]  Now what this article dealt with was that you get the certificate of title for the MSO.
[06:49.000 --> 06:53.000]  Well, no, actually you don't.
[06:53.000 --> 06:58.000]  The MSO is never given to you and why it's sent to the state just tells the state where
[06:58.000 --> 07:02.000]  it's made just like it does you, but it doesn't transfer ownership of the property to the
[07:02.000 --> 07:09.000]  state in any way, nor does getting the certificate of title.
[07:09.000 --> 07:15.000]  But the certificate of title, unlike the MSO in relation to ownership or at least possession,
[07:15.000 --> 07:17.000]  does serve a legal purpose.
[07:17.000 --> 07:24.000]  And in order to understand it, you have to actually read the business and commerce code
[07:24.000 --> 07:25.000]  for your state.
[07:25.000 --> 07:32.000]  It's UCC at the federal level, but every state has its own state implementation of the UCC
[07:32.000 --> 07:36.000]  and its business and commerce code, whatever it may actually be called within the state.
[07:36.000 --> 07:40.000]  Here in Texas, it's the business and commerce code.
[07:40.000 --> 07:49.000]  The certificate of title is a negotiable instrument just like a mortgage deed on a house.
[07:49.000 --> 07:52.000]  Okay?
[07:52.000 --> 07:58.000]  And just like a mortgage deed, the purpose of the certificate of title is to signify
[07:58.000 --> 08:07.000]  that there is a loan in place that creates a lien on the property named in the certificate
[08:07.000 --> 08:10.000]  of title or the mortgage deed.
[08:10.000 --> 08:13.000]  That's what it does.
[08:13.000 --> 08:21.000]  It is that instrument that invokes the power of the state to intercede in that contract.
[08:21.000 --> 08:23.000]  Okay?
[08:23.000 --> 08:28.000]  Not as a third-party member, but as an overseer of the contract.
[08:28.000 --> 08:34.000]  The state's not allowed to interfere with any consumable contract or any contract that
[08:34.000 --> 08:39.000]  complies with the laws of the state in which it is done.
[08:39.000 --> 08:49.000]  However, if the contract is violated by either party to it or the contract is done in violation
[08:49.000 --> 08:58.000]  of the laws of the state or is unconscionable in its terms to one party, the state has a
[08:58.000 --> 09:08.000]  duty to step in and do something about that for the party that's suffering the harm.
[09:08.000 --> 09:14.000]  It's part of what we gave the state the power to do, to protect our property and our person
[09:14.000 --> 09:18.000]  from harm from someone else, even in the case of commerce.
[09:18.000 --> 09:20.000]  Okay?
[09:20.000 --> 09:29.000]  It does not give the state ownership, but it does give them a presumption of authority
[09:29.000 --> 09:34.000]  as the overseer of an existing lien and contract.
[09:34.000 --> 09:40.000]  In this case, the contract is the one you signed to get the loan to buy the car.
[09:40.000 --> 09:45.000]  Now, if you paid cash for the car, then there is no outstanding lien.
[09:45.000 --> 09:47.000]  There is no outstanding loan.
[09:47.000 --> 09:54.000]  There is no purpose for the state to intercede, in which case there is no legitimate purpose
[09:54.000 --> 10:01.000]  for a certificate of title, at least not as far as private ownership of the car goes.
[10:01.000 --> 10:03.000]  Okay?
[10:03.000 --> 10:08.000]  Even if you're using the car for commercial purposes or the truck or the whatever you
[10:08.000 --> 10:14.000]  purchase for commercial purposes, if you bought it outright with no lien and no contract
[10:14.000 --> 10:21.000]  with somebody else that would create such a lien, then the state should not be issuing
[10:21.000 --> 10:23.000]  a certificate of title for it.
[10:23.000 --> 10:27.000]  Now, they're telling you the certificate of title is because you registered the car,
[10:27.000 --> 10:33.000]  but when you go back and look at the original statutory basis for registration,
[10:33.000 --> 10:35.000]  you find out several things.
[10:35.000 --> 10:43.000]  Now, remember, all statutory schemes in Texas are not the underlying law.
[10:43.000 --> 10:49.000]  They are agency implementory regulations of the underlying law.
[10:49.000 --> 10:52.000]  They are the implementing regulations.
[10:52.000 --> 10:54.000]  Okay?
[10:54.000 --> 10:59.000]  Same thing the CFR is at the federal level.
[10:59.000 --> 11:07.000]  The statutory scheme that implements the underlying law, which in Texas is law enacted in 1925,
[11:07.000 --> 11:12.000]  and we know this because the certifications that exist in Vernon's annotated civil statutes
[11:12.000 --> 11:17.000]  tell us it is, and it's the secretary of state that has to certify that
[11:17.000 --> 11:21.000]  and who has not certified any of the current codes whatsoever
[11:21.000 --> 11:27.000]  because they don't comply with the underlying law, which is very easy to prove.
[11:27.000 --> 11:32.000]  But, of course, when you're talking to an attorney, a proof and evidence of anything
[11:32.000 --> 11:37.000]  is whatever they want it to be, even when it goes against them, then it's not proof at all.
[11:37.000 --> 11:41.000]  It's just your perception of reality.
[11:41.000 --> 11:45.000]  So the legal system that we have misconstrues everything in its own favor
[11:45.000 --> 11:50.000]  and in government's favor whenever it suits them and in your favor whenever it suits them.
[11:50.000 --> 11:54.000]  Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise because that's exactly how it works.
[11:54.000 --> 11:58.000]  That's why we have so many varying case opinions in different regions about different things,
[11:58.000 --> 12:03.000]  even though the rights of the people are not any different in Louisiana or California or New York
[12:03.000 --> 12:05.000]  as they are in Texas.
[12:05.000 --> 12:07.000]  Our rights are the same no matter where we are,
[12:07.000 --> 12:15.000]  but you can't get most of the states to understand or recognize that fact.
[12:15.000 --> 12:25.000]  So this document that we have doesn't give the state ownership in any way, shape, or form,
[12:25.000 --> 12:30.000]  but it does create the appearance that the state has some authority over the property
[12:30.000 --> 12:33.000]  in relation to a lien and contract.
[12:33.000 --> 12:38.000]  So what are we supposed to do about that when there is no outstanding lien
[12:38.000 --> 12:40.000]  and they've given us a certificate of title?
[12:40.000 --> 12:47.000]  And understand, as a negotiable instrument, it is not an instrument of true ownership.
[12:47.000 --> 12:54.000]  It is an instrument of legal ownership versus equity ownership.
[12:54.000 --> 12:59.000]  There is a huge legal difference in the two.
[12:59.000 --> 13:03.000]  There is a huge commercial difference in the two.
[13:03.000 --> 13:10.000]  Legal ownership only invests you with two rights in relation to a piece of property,
[13:10.000 --> 13:20.000]  possession and use, but it in no way gives you authority as to disposition.
[13:20.000 --> 13:22.000]  You understand that?
[13:22.000 --> 13:31.000]  Under legal ownership, you do not have the right to transfer, sell, destroy,
[13:31.000 --> 13:40.000]  or any other manner of disposition or dispossession of that property from the rightful owner.
[13:40.000 --> 13:41.000]  Think of it like this.
[13:41.000 --> 13:48.000]  You lease a car from a dealership or you rent a car from a rental agency.
[13:48.000 --> 13:53.000]  You have the legal right of possession, you have the legal right of use,
[13:53.000 --> 13:59.000]  but you do not have the right in either of those cases to sell that car to someone and pocket the money.
[13:59.000 --> 14:05.000]  You do not have the legal right to burn that car to the ground.
[14:05.000 --> 14:10.000]  You do not have a right to disposition.
[14:10.000 --> 14:13.000]  You do not have a right to transfer.
[14:13.000 --> 14:18.000]  That is the difference between equity ownership and legal ownership.
[14:18.000 --> 14:27.000]  The equity owner can do all of those things, all of them, because they actually own the property.
[14:27.000 --> 14:33.000]  The certificate of title never creates an equity owner.
[14:33.000 --> 14:34.000]  Why?
[14:34.000 --> 14:41.000]  Because it represents a two-party contract and agreement dealing with a lien,
[14:41.000 --> 14:47.000]  which no one has signed off as having been paid, at least not in the eyes of the state,
[14:47.000 --> 14:52.000]  or they would have to replace that certificate of title with something else.
[14:52.000 --> 14:57.000]  And the thing is that they don't.
[14:57.000 --> 15:02.000]  So what we've got is we've got a way for the state to intercede with the property
[15:02.000 --> 15:11.000]  with no remedy available in law to get them out of that ability to intercede with that property.
[15:11.000 --> 15:18.000]  It doesn't make them an owner in any way, but it does make them an overseer,
[15:18.000 --> 15:24.000]  if you understand it from just a basic, simple standpoint.
[15:24.000 --> 15:32.000]  It's like mom can intercede in the children's bargain over what favors they're going to do each other
[15:32.000 --> 15:36.000]  for X part of their allowance or their next cookie, all right?
[15:36.000 --> 15:40.000]  Mom can say, no, you're not going to give away your allowance, and no, you're not going to give away the cookie.
[15:40.000 --> 15:43.000]  And no, if you're going to give them your allowance, you can only give them half,
[15:43.000 --> 15:47.000]  and you can only take half, and you have to do this if you're going to get that half.
[15:47.000 --> 15:51.000]  Mom can do that, see, because mom has to oversee the agreement.
[15:51.000 --> 15:56.000]  And that's what we're allowing the state to do with that certificate of title.
[15:56.000 --> 16:08.000]  Now, this is the problem with people jumping off of legal cliffs without actually looking at what they're doing.
[16:08.000 --> 16:09.000]  And here's another problem.
[16:09.000 --> 16:14.000]  When they rely upon some moron in government to give them an accurate answer
[16:14.000 --> 16:17.000]  when they ask them a question about what something is,
[16:17.000 --> 16:22.000]  because the moron in government almost never knows.
[16:22.000 --> 16:29.000]  Now, the article in question goes into great detail about this other article that they got all this information from
[16:29.000 --> 16:35.000]  and about all these correspondences between this individual and the DMV and his state and blah, blah, blah.
[16:35.000 --> 16:45.000]  I haven't got to read it all yet, but it isn't working the way they're talking about it working, not here anyway.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  All right. So y'all hang on, folks. We're going to take a break.
[16:48.000 --> 16:52.000]  I'll go ahead and turn the phones on and get everything ready for y'all to start calling in.
[16:52.000 --> 17:00.000]  Calling number will be 512-646-1984. We will be right back after the break.
[17:00.000 --> 17:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.000 --> 17:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.000 --> 17:22.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[17:22.000 --> 17:25.000]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.000 --> 17:31.000]  Logos Serial Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:40.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:40.000 --> 17:47.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:47.000 --> 17:51.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.000 --> 17:58.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[17:58.000 --> 18:00.000]  Order now.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[18:21.000 --> 18:27.000]  what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[18:27.000 --> 18:34.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:50.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 19:01.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradio.com.
[19:11.000 --> 19:40.000]  All right, folks.
[19:40.000 --> 19:43.000]  We are back.
[19:43.000 --> 19:48.000]  Calling number 512-646-1984.
[19:48.000 --> 19:49.000]  All right.
[19:49.000 --> 19:56.000]  Now, the thing about it is, is that this information that this apparently originally started from,
[19:56.000 --> 20:07.000]  I know the gentleman that began this thing by sending this email or letter in to this website called Hidden Mysteries Conspiracy Archive.
[20:07.000 --> 20:12.000]  And it is none other than Ed Branham of the Republic of Texas.
[20:12.000 --> 20:22.000]  Now, and he's talking about some Judge Greer in Tennessee and some Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor in Tennessee.
[20:22.000 --> 20:35.000]  Now, first off, I don't know how Ed Branham would know anything about a Judge Greer or a supervisor in Tennessee dealing with motor vehicle registration versus automobiles.
[20:35.000 --> 20:41.000]  I don't know where he would have got that because there's nothing on here that verifies or tells you how to prove up that there is a Judge Greer,
[20:41.000 --> 20:46.000]  that there is this supervisor that he's got named in this and so on and so forth.
[20:46.000 --> 20:54.000]  And there's no particular evidence of the so-called conversation that they had allegedly by email or some other form.
[20:54.000 --> 20:58.000]  It's just said this person said this and this person said this.
[20:58.000 --> 21:01.000]  In other words, you can't verify it.
[21:01.000 --> 21:15.000]  Now, I find that kind of odd in most of these patronet things that we deal with because that's generally something you want to have available if you're going to start telling people this kind of stuff.
[21:15.000 --> 21:19.000]  And that is how to prove it up.
[21:19.000 --> 21:23.000]  And they don't have anything.
[21:23.000 --> 21:26.000]  There's no copies of the correspondence, nothing.
[21:26.000 --> 21:32.000]  It's just everybody's theory and everybody's he said, she said.
[21:32.000 --> 21:38.000]  And I find it strange that no one ever asked the question of what's your proof.
[21:38.000 --> 21:47.000]  And yet, every time I demand that from the patronets, they explode like a stepped-on landmine.
[21:47.000 --> 22:00.000]  And then they start saying that I'm this, I'm an agent of this, an agent of that, I'm a plant, I'm all this because I'm asking a simple question of what is your evidence of that statement.
[22:00.000 --> 22:08.000]  This is one of the ways you verify that the person that's giving out this information doesn't either A, understand what they're saying,
[22:08.000 --> 22:21.000]  B, can't prove anything that they're saying, and C, have no way to defend what they're saying other than ad hominem attacks when you challenge what they're saying.
[22:21.000 --> 22:31.000]  So it doesn't surprise me that this is how these rumors get started, but this is the reason I have a problem with the patronet community.
[22:31.000 --> 22:50.000]  It's not that I don't applaud the idea that they're out there trying to find an answer, but when you aren't able to comprehend the answer that you find and you decide to just make one up that you can understand, that's where I run into a problem.
[22:50.000 --> 22:53.000]  And unfortunately, that's the way most of these tend to work out.
[22:53.000 --> 22:58.000]  You look at everything that they say that is evidentiary, and there is no actual evidence.
[22:58.000 --> 23:11.000]  It's always somebody's interpretation of something somebody else allegedly said for which there is no actual evidence, or they're misquoting a case and the context of the case and the purpose of the case,
[23:11.000 --> 23:22.000]  or they're using fake case sites that have nothing in it that's in the site they're using, nor is the concept that they're citing even of discussion in the case.
[23:22.000 --> 23:24.000]  It's not even part of the dictum.
[23:24.000 --> 23:34.000]  So I have a problem with that because I find that to be one of those misleading things that run people over a cliff.
[23:34.000 --> 23:48.000]  Relying upon bad information is no better than chewing on the barrel of a loaded gun while testing the trigger, especially when it comes to challenging the legal system as it exists.
[23:48.000 --> 23:52.000]  You want to know why attorneys get control over everybody?
[23:52.000 --> 24:02.000]  It's because everybody makes stupid choices in how they make their arguments because they won't research what comes out of their mouth before they let it.
[24:02.000 --> 24:06.000]  They make presumptions, then they go with the presumption.
[24:06.000 --> 24:07.000]  They don't verify it.
[24:07.000 --> 24:08.000]  They don't justify it.
[24:08.000 --> 24:10.000]  They don't attempt to prove it up.
[24:10.000 --> 24:12.000]  They just make it.
[24:12.000 --> 24:20.000]  And then they act shocked and want to blame the other side when they get smacked.
[24:20.000 --> 24:29.000]  Now, that's a far cry from when you have the evidence in your hands, you put the evidence in their hands, and then they do those things.
[24:29.000 --> 24:33.000]  Then you can legitimately go, you're a corrupt SOB, aren't you?
[24:33.000 --> 24:39.000]  You really don't know what the hell you're doing as an attorney, do you?
[24:39.000 --> 24:43.000]  But until you do that, they're right about one thing.
[24:43.000 --> 24:46.000]  That is just your opinion.
[24:46.000 --> 24:59.000]  But once you've done it, it's no longer your opinion, especially when you're relying upon the very system that they themselves help create that is saying exactly what you're saying.
[24:59.000 --> 25:06.000]  And all you're doing is saying, look, the court said, I didn't say, the court said, oh, well, that's just your interpretation.
[25:06.000 --> 25:07.000]  No, you moron.
[25:07.000 --> 25:10.000]  That's the court's interpretation.
[25:10.000 --> 25:16.000]  Because in order to be interpreting, I would have to tell you that what they're saying here means, and I'm not saying that.
[25:16.000 --> 25:23.000]  I am giving you verbatim the language the court itself used, and you're trying to say that's my interpretation.
[25:23.000 --> 25:27.000]  Are you for real?
[25:27.000 --> 25:35.000]  So that's the point I was making about they ignore their own rules and their own decisions when it suits them.
[25:35.000 --> 25:42.000]  And then they rely heavily upon them when it suits them as well.
[25:42.000 --> 25:51.000]  So this misinformation about what the MSO is, what the certificate of title is, is going to get folks in trouble.
[25:51.000 --> 25:55.000]  And this is one of the things that I rail against at every opportunity.
[25:55.000 --> 26:13.000]  When you do this kind of stuff, you are hurting people, you are destroying the valid arguments coming from people that have actually put the time and effort into understanding what this stuff is and what it does.
[26:13.000 --> 26:14.000]  OK.
[26:14.000 --> 26:15.000]  The boy who cried wolf.
[26:15.000 --> 26:16.000]  All right.
[26:16.000 --> 26:25.000]  When the court sees moron after moron after moron, then they have no reason to believe that there's anything that's going to step in front of them except the moron.
[26:25.000 --> 26:38.000]  And so every argument that comes out of somebody's mouth that sounds even remotely similar to any of these morons' arguments is going to get dismissed no matter how true it is.
[26:38.000 --> 26:47.000]  If you can't prove it up, shut up before you hurt somebody.
[26:47.000 --> 26:55.000]  In case you haven't noticed, whenever I give you information on this show, I point you to the case, I point you to the statute.
[26:55.000 --> 26:59.000]  And if I don't remember what the case is, I can tell you that.
[26:59.000 --> 27:01.000]  I don't remember what the name of the case is.
[27:01.000 --> 27:03.000]  I know it's a Supreme Court case.
[27:03.000 --> 27:05.000]  I can't remember what it is, blah, blah, blah.
[27:05.000 --> 27:09.000]  But nothing I tell you is made up out of my mind.
[27:09.000 --> 27:13.000]  It's something that I have read in black and white from an authoritative source.
[27:13.000 --> 27:19.000]  The problem is, is I read so many hundreds of them that it's hard to keep them all straight.
[27:19.000 --> 27:24.000]  And don't ever let an attorney convince you that they know every case and every decision.
[27:24.000 --> 27:25.000]  They don't.
[27:25.000 --> 27:27.000]  The only thing they read is the one that's currently controlling.
[27:27.000 --> 27:39.000]  And sometimes they'll read the back history of how it was before that if they're trying to argue against the one that is currently holding at that level on that issue.
[27:39.000 --> 27:40.000]  Okay?
[27:40.000 --> 27:53.000]  So just understand, stop taking stuff at face value when there's no documentary evidence or physical evidence to support what you're hearing,
[27:53.000 --> 28:02.000]  especially when it sounds too good to be true, because it almost always is.
[28:02.000 --> 28:10.000]  Now, the other thing you understand about what I do here is that the majority of the arguments that I have come straight out of the statutes.
[28:10.000 --> 28:12.000]  They come straight out of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[28:12.000 --> 28:14.000]  They come straight out of the Transportation Code.
[28:14.000 --> 28:16.000]  They come straight out of the Penal Code.
[28:16.000 --> 28:20.000]  They come straight out of the case law.
[28:20.000 --> 28:28.000]  Yet the specific arguments I'm making based upon those pieces of information have never been adjudicated.
[28:28.000 --> 28:34.000]  So there is no actual case law on the arguments that I make 99% of the time.
[28:34.000 --> 28:36.000]  It doesn't make them bad arguments.
[28:36.000 --> 28:43.000]  It just means no one's bothered to ask that question with that prospective analysis on it.
[28:43.000 --> 28:52.000]  And a lot of times I can make the argument that that's exactly why they haven't won their case, because they didn't ask this question this way,
[28:52.000 --> 29:05.000]  because this is the only way that it encompasses these seven statutes instead of just this one to prove that the court opinion that exists on the one is wrong,
[29:05.000 --> 29:13.000]  because it did not consider the remaining statutes in paramateria to the subject matter.
[29:13.000 --> 29:19.000]  You've got to understand how these attorneys think, if and when they actually bother to think.
[29:19.000 --> 29:21.000]  And not many of them do.
[29:21.000 --> 29:27.000]  They simply presume, and they hold their own intelligence above yours,
[29:27.000 --> 29:37.000]  no matter how often and how well you can prove their intelligence is severely lacking.
[29:37.000 --> 29:49.000]  Never trust a government employee to give you good information unless they can show you in writing or in the law where it came from.
[29:49.000 --> 29:52.000]  And always verify it.
[29:52.000 --> 29:57.000]  Folks, we're going to start taking your calls on the other side, 512-646-1984.
[29:57.000 --> 30:03.000]  We will be right back.
[30:03.000 --> 30:04.000]  Are you going bald?
[30:04.000 --> 30:05.000]  Don't worry.
[30:05.000 --> 30:11.000]  I'm not peddling another miracle product, but scientists may have stumbled on a legitimate cure for hair loss.
[30:11.000 --> 30:12.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[30:12.000 --> 30:15.000]  In a moment, I'll come back and tell you what it is.
[30:15.000 --> 30:17.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.000 --> 30:21.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.000 --> 30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.000 --> 30:31.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:37.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[30:37.000 --> 30:41.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:45.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:45.000 --> 30:48.000]  Treating baldness is a $1 billion a year industry.
[30:48.000 --> 30:52.000]  Yet despite all that money, there are only a few legitimate medications that work,
[30:52.000 --> 30:54.000]  and none actually cures baldness.
[30:54.000 --> 30:57.000]  But during a recent study on how stress affects our intestines,
[30:57.000 --> 31:03.000]  UCLA researchers identified a chemical compound that could end hair loss and even regrow hair.
[31:03.000 --> 31:09.000]  The compound A, stress, and B blocks a hormone that our bodies produce when we're under stress.
[31:09.000 --> 31:15.000]  Mice that received the stress hormone and lost their hair were later injected with A, stress, and B for five days.
[31:15.000 --> 31:19.000]  In less than three months, all of the mice re-grew all of their hair.
[31:19.000 --> 31:21.000]  Hair Club for Men Lookout.
[31:21.000 --> 31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.000 --> 31:31.000]  What are you thinking?
[31:31.000 --> 31:37.000]  Micro plant powder with iodine and probiotics for a total body detox for around $10 a month.
[31:37.000 --> 31:44.000]  If USA.org has 12 formulations of micro plant powder for absorbing and removing toxins from your kidney,
[31:44.000 --> 31:48.000]  liver, blood, lungs, stomach, and colon, and feel better than ever,
[31:48.000 --> 31:52.000]  it alkalizes, oxygenates, kills parasites, does the job of 10 products.
[31:52.000 --> 31:55.000]  That saves you space, time, and money.
[31:55.000 --> 32:02.000]  Call 888-910-4367 only at musa.org.
[32:02.000 --> 32:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:05.000 --> 32:07.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society,
[32:07.000 --> 32:10.000]  and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[32:10.000 --> 32:13.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:16.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[32:16.000 --> 32:20.000]  the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:29.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:29.000 --> 32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:45.000]  Ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:45.000 --> 32:50.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.000 --> 32:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.000 --> 33:12.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:12.000 --> 33:37.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[33:37.000 --> 33:43.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[33:43.000 --> 33:52.000]  Okay, real quick, someone did a Facebook comment to me that the MSO contains VIN numbers, therefore it's blah, blah, blah.
[33:52.000 --> 34:00.000]  No, it is a manufacturer's statement of origin where the item was built.
[34:00.000 --> 34:07.000]  That item has specific numbers associated with its build.
[34:07.000 --> 34:15.000]  How do you think you verify that a car, say an antique car you're buying, has all of the original parts?
[34:15.000 --> 34:20.000]  Because all of the original parts have VIN numbers, serial numbers, built into them.
[34:20.000 --> 34:29.000]  One goes to the chassis, which is the VIN itself, and then the individual item numbers that are stamped into like your engine block and so on and so forth
[34:29.000 --> 34:33.000]  that shows the car still has its original parts.
[34:33.000 --> 34:36.000]  All those parts are listed on the MSO.
[34:36.000 --> 34:42.000]  Okay, it still does not create ownership.
[34:42.000 --> 34:50.000]  It is simply proof of what the car was and what it had in it and where it was all put together and made.
[34:50.000 --> 34:52.000]  Okay, just understand that.
[34:52.000 --> 34:57.000]  All right, that being said, let's start with Gary in Kansas tonight.
[34:57.000 --> 35:00.000]  Gary, what can we do for you?
[35:00.000 --> 35:01.000]  Hey, how are you doing, Eddie?
[35:01.000 --> 35:04.000]  I'm doing all right.
[35:04.000 --> 35:05.000]  I've got a question.
[35:05.000 --> 35:07.000]  I got a DUI back in 2014.
[35:07.000 --> 35:11.000]  I was guilty as hell, and I caused damage to the car.
[35:11.000 --> 35:14.000]  Didn't have insurance.
[35:14.000 --> 35:27.000]  But anyway, I wanted to know on your package, do you have a mock-up of writ of habeas corpus?
[35:27.000 --> 35:32.000]  Yeah, there's a habeas in there, but you can get habeas examples from pretty much anywhere.
[35:32.000 --> 35:34.000]  Okay.
[35:34.000 --> 35:41.000]  Also, by the law of dictionary, I was dumb two years ago.
[35:41.000 --> 35:48.000]  Everybody has to have a driver's license, everybody has to register with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
[35:48.000 --> 35:54.000]  And read under 18 U.S.C. 31 610 that a motor vehicle...
[35:54.000 --> 35:58.000]  Has nothing to do with what's written into state law.
[35:58.000 --> 36:02.000]  That is a federal statute that deals with federal criminal law.
[36:02.000 --> 36:07.000]  Has nothing to do with the law in the state.
[36:07.000 --> 36:10.000]  So the state supersedes the federal law?
[36:10.000 --> 36:13.000]  No, it's not a matter of supersede.
[36:13.000 --> 36:20.000]  It's a matter of they are completely different jurisdictions.
[36:20.000 --> 36:30.000]  So I also read that U.S.C. 302, that the United States is in the District of Columbia.
[36:30.000 --> 36:33.000]  And?
[36:33.000 --> 36:38.000]  There are at least 26 different definitions of United States.
[36:38.000 --> 36:42.000]  One of them is the District of Columbia.
[36:42.000 --> 36:46.000]  Okay.
[36:46.000 --> 36:52.000]  I guess what I'm wanting to know that in Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Amendment,
[36:52.000 --> 36:58.000]  so does the Constitution not apply to me?
[36:58.000 --> 37:01.000]  Which Constitution?
[37:01.000 --> 37:04.000]  The Fourth Amendment that says there aren't habeas in here.
[37:04.000 --> 37:08.000]  For any interaction with the federal government?
[37:08.000 --> 37:11.000]  Yes.
[37:11.000 --> 37:17.000]  So we've got to deal with city, county, and state.
[37:17.000 --> 37:18.000]  Okay.
[37:18.000 --> 37:19.000]  Correct.
[37:19.000 --> 37:23.000]  The problem is is you don't understand jurisdiction.
[37:23.000 --> 37:28.000]  The federal Constitution gave the federal government 18 specific enumerated powers.
[37:28.000 --> 37:34.000]  Anything it does is limited to those 18 enumerated powers.
[37:34.000 --> 37:36.000]  I don't care what some idiot attorney tells you.
[37:36.000 --> 37:39.000]  That's what it is because that's what the Constitution does.
[37:39.000 --> 37:44.000]  It creates limited powers for limited government on the federal level.
[37:44.000 --> 37:47.000]  Now, that is supposed to be the same intent at the state.
[37:47.000 --> 37:51.000]  But at the state level, the state courts turned that upside down
[37:51.000 --> 37:57.000]  and said that it is unlimited power to the government, which is a completely idiotic idea.
[37:57.000 --> 38:01.000]  But then again, what do you expect when the attorneys want to own everything?
[38:01.000 --> 38:03.000]  This is the best way they have to steal it,
[38:03.000 --> 38:07.000]  by misrepresenting what a Constitution is and what it does.
[38:07.000 --> 38:11.000]  Now, what we have is a bunch of attorneys at every level, state and federal,
[38:11.000 --> 38:14.000]  claiming that we can't do certain things because the Constitution
[38:14.000 --> 38:17.000]  doesn't specifically authorize us, the people, to do them.
[38:17.000 --> 38:21.000]  Newsflash, the Constitution never authorized us to do squat
[38:21.000 --> 38:25.000]  because it is not the source of the rights that we have.
[38:25.000 --> 38:26.000]  It limits government.
[38:26.000 --> 38:32.000]  It never, ever limits the people in any way, shape, or form.
[38:32.000 --> 38:34.000]  It doesn't grant us rights.
[38:34.000 --> 38:38.000]  It limits government's ability to affect our rights.
[38:38.000 --> 38:40.000]  Okay?
[38:40.000 --> 38:48.000]  Federal jurisdiction does not exist within the territorial boundaries of any state of the union
[38:48.000 --> 38:56.000]  except where it relates to those specific 18 enumerated powers, period.
[38:56.000 --> 38:59.000]  And that would be in Washington, D.C., the 10 square miles?
[38:59.000 --> 39:01.000]  It wouldn't be just D.C.
[39:01.000 --> 39:06.000]  It would be any federal enclave, territory, protectorate,
[39:06.000 --> 39:10.000]  anything over which they have direct authority.
[39:10.000 --> 39:12.000]  Jurisdiction.
[39:12.000 --> 39:14.000]  Jurisdiction and lawmaking authority.
[39:14.000 --> 39:18.000]  Government have jurisdiction over 10 square miles in Washington.
[39:18.000 --> 39:20.000]  Are you listening to anything I'm telling you, Gary?
[39:20.000 --> 39:26.000]  I just told you where they had it.
[39:26.000 --> 39:32.000]  They are given plenary power in an area not to exceed 10 miles square,
[39:32.000 --> 39:39.000]  which is D.C., and any other federal enclave, territory, protectorate,
[39:39.000 --> 39:43.000]  or anything of that nature, like Guam and Puerto Rico, for example.
[39:43.000 --> 39:44.000]  Right.
[39:44.000 --> 39:46.000]  And ports and ports.
[39:46.000 --> 39:48.000]  No.
[39:48.000 --> 39:53.000]  They can create those only if the state cedes land to them for that purpose,
[39:53.000 --> 39:57.000]  and it's the only legitimate purpose for which the federal government can own land.
[39:57.000 --> 40:00.000]  Correct.
[40:00.000 --> 40:03.000]  So where does my right to travel come into effect?
[40:03.000 --> 40:05.000]  Transportation?
[40:05.000 --> 40:08.000]  Transportation has nothing to do with your right to travel.
[40:08.000 --> 40:11.000]  That's the whole point.
[40:11.000 --> 40:15.000]  Transportation is an occupation.
[40:15.000 --> 40:17.000]  I know that.
[40:17.000 --> 40:18.000]  We have a right to travel.
[40:18.000 --> 40:20.000]  It's the Constitutional right to travel,
[40:20.000 --> 40:24.000]  but let's not get the Constitution involved in this, I guess.
[40:24.000 --> 40:27.000]  No, you don't get to play with the federal Constitution.
[40:27.000 --> 40:32.000]  It doesn't have anything to do with you except when you're interacting at the federal level.
[40:32.000 --> 40:34.000]  You have a state constitution.
[40:34.000 --> 40:39.000]  The one thing the federal Constitution does declare about all the states is
[40:39.000 --> 40:42.000]  that their acts must be uniform.
[40:42.000 --> 40:47.000]  In other words, the people's rights are the same everywhere, in every state.
[40:47.000 --> 40:49.000]  That's the way it was intended to be.
[40:49.000 --> 40:52.000]  That's why we have the right to go from state to state to state,
[40:52.000 --> 40:57.000]  and the laws are supposed to be the same as to how they relate to us.
[40:57.000 --> 41:00.000]  Now, how they regulate this business or that business within the state,
[41:00.000 --> 41:02.000]  that's up to the individual state.
[41:02.000 --> 41:08.000]  But when it comes to the people, that is not the way it was designed to work.
[41:08.000 --> 41:12.000]  Well, I know that, and I don't believe that a Statute of Code Ordinance
[41:12.000 --> 41:17.000]  as a policy is a part of me because I'm not being compensated.
[41:17.000 --> 41:21.000]  It's color of law, defective law.
[41:21.000 --> 41:27.000]  Okay, well, whatever it is you're believing, that's fine, but what is your question?
[41:27.000 --> 41:29.000]  Well, no, set me straight.
[41:29.000 --> 41:30.000]  What is it?
[41:30.000 --> 41:37.000]  Well, without you asking me a question, I don't know what I'm trying to set straight.
[41:37.000 --> 41:40.000]  Yes, the constitutional rights do not apply to me.
[41:40.000 --> 41:44.000]  There is no such thing as a constitutional right.
[41:44.000 --> 41:46.000]  So we have no rights, correct?
[41:46.000 --> 41:48.000]  No, that is not correct.
[41:48.000 --> 41:52.000]  I said there is no such thing as a constitutional right.
[41:52.000 --> 41:57.000]  That language infers that the source of the right is the Constitution itself,
[41:57.000 --> 42:00.000]  and that is not true.
[42:00.000 --> 42:05.000]  Our rights existed with or without the Constitution.
[42:05.000 --> 42:11.000]  Well, I agree with that, but...
[42:11.000 --> 42:17.000]  Then how are you misunderstanding what I'm saying then if you agree with that?
[42:17.000 --> 42:22.000]  I don't believe another man has authority over another man unless it's called slavery.
[42:22.000 --> 42:25.000]  Well, that also would be untrue.
[42:25.000 --> 42:32.000]  A man does have authority over another man if the first man is causing harm to him,
[42:32.000 --> 42:37.000]  property, or to another unjustly.
[42:37.000 --> 42:44.000]  That's the whole reason we designed government, was to protect us from people that would do those things.
[42:44.000 --> 42:48.000]  We didn't design it to replace our ability to do it ourselves,
[42:48.000 --> 42:56.000]  but we did design it to give us a use of force that was greater than that individual could exert against us
[42:56.000 --> 43:06.000]  or a group of individuals could exert against us by making us a unified force against those that would do those things.
[43:06.000 --> 43:14.000]  Now, no man has the right to dictate to me what I can or can't.
[43:14.000 --> 43:16.000]  Somewhere we have a disconnect, Gary.
[43:16.000 --> 43:20.000]  You keep throwing stuff in here that I am not even talking about.
[43:20.000 --> 43:25.000]  I am not in any way, shape, or form talking about a policy enforcer.
[43:25.000 --> 43:27.000]  Never even mentioned a policy enforcer.
[43:27.000 --> 43:32.000]  You said no man, and I am trying to explain where that statement is erroneous,
[43:32.000 --> 43:36.000]  but it's the only place it's erroneous.
[43:36.000 --> 43:43.000]  A municipal ordinance relates only to municipal employees and people contracted with the municipality
[43:43.000 --> 43:48.000]  and any legal entity operating within its territorial borders.
[43:48.000 --> 43:50.000]  That's what an ordinance is for.
[43:50.000 --> 43:52.000]  It's a corporate policy.
[43:52.000 --> 43:54.000]  It has nothing to do with us.
[43:54.000 --> 43:55.000]  Hang on just a second.
[43:55.000 --> 43:56.000]  We'll finish this up on the other side.
[43:56.000 --> 43:57.000]  Y'all hang on, folks.
[43:57.000 --> 44:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:00.000 --> 44:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.000 --> 44:07.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[44:07.000 --> 44:15.000]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[44:15.000 --> 44:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[44:39.000 --> 44:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.000 --> 44:56.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner,
[44:56.000 --> 45:01.000]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:07.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com,
[45:07.000 --> 45:12.000]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D,
[45:12.000 --> 45:15.000]  here in Austin, Texas, on Brave New Books and Chase Bank,
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  Have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:23.000 --> 45:27.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian emu oil,
[45:27.000 --> 45:31.000]  lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.000 --> 45:38.000]  Call 512-264-4043, or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[45:38.000 --> 45:44.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:44.000 --> 45:48.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[45:48.000 --> 46:02.000]  naturespureorganics.com.
[46:02.000 --> 46:17.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:17.000 --> 46:22.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are talking with Gary in Kansas.
[46:22.000 --> 46:25.000]  All right, Gary, let's understand how this works.
[46:25.000 --> 46:30.000]  The Constitution, state or federal, is not the source of the people's rights.
[46:30.000 --> 46:34.000]  The federal Constitution delegates powers to the federal government.
[46:34.000 --> 46:39.000]  Anything it didn't give to the federal government, it left to the people and the states.
[46:39.000 --> 46:44.000]  The state Constitution also does not give the people rights.
[46:44.000 --> 46:50.000]  It also sets up what the powers of state government is and what it's limited to,
[46:50.000 --> 46:53.000]  whether the attorneys and judges like that or not.
[46:53.000 --> 46:56.000]  It's what it does. It's what it was intended to do.
[46:56.000 --> 47:01.000]  Now, constitutional rights, as far as the people are concerned,
[47:01.000 --> 47:07.000]  do not exist because the Constitution is not the source of our rights.
[47:07.000 --> 47:12.000]  Our rights are unalienable and inherent. We are born with them.
[47:12.000 --> 47:17.000]  They exist whether either Constitution exists or not.
[47:17.000 --> 47:23.000]  The federal government has limited jurisdiction only in the areas I mentioned before.
[47:23.000 --> 47:28.000]  Its laws only apply in the areas I mentioned before,
[47:28.000 --> 47:36.000]  except where one of the eight particular enumerated power gives them authority within the state.
[47:36.000 --> 47:41.000]  And only one of the 18 does that, the Interstate Commerce Clause.
[47:41.000 --> 47:46.000]  And it does not do it in the way that they are abusing it
[47:46.000 --> 47:49.000]  and that the states are letting them get away with abusing.
[47:49.000 --> 47:55.000]  As far as the policy enforcers go, you are correct.
[47:55.000 --> 47:58.000]  They don't have anything to do with us.
[47:58.000 --> 48:02.000]  We are not a part of the corporate entity making those policies.
[48:02.000 --> 48:06.000]  We didn't consent to it unless we do consent to it.
[48:06.000 --> 48:08.000]  And then we can be bound by it.
[48:08.000 --> 48:10.000]  But if we don't consent, we're not bound by it
[48:10.000 --> 48:17.000]  because the state Constitution gives only one body within the state the power to create binding public law.
[48:17.000 --> 48:22.000]  That is the state legislature, not the political subdivision.
[48:22.000 --> 48:31.000]  So unless your state Constitution authorizes counties and municipalities to create law in the form of ordinances,
[48:31.000 --> 48:37.000]  then they don't have any application to the people of the state without their consent.
[48:37.000 --> 48:46.000]  And it would have to be their individual consent, not collective consent, not voted consent, individual consent.
[48:46.000 --> 48:49.000]  Did I miss anything?
[48:49.000 --> 48:57.000]  I agree with you, but can you use their laws against them to beat them at their own game?
[48:57.000 --> 49:00.000]  What do you think I do?
[49:00.000 --> 49:03.000]  What is it you think I do?
[49:03.000 --> 49:10.000]  The whole reason I talk about their law is to show you how to beat them black and blue with it.
[49:10.000 --> 49:17.000]  Yeah, the Constitution says you're to be securing your person's papers, properties and houses in effect
[49:17.000 --> 49:21.000]  against unreasonable searches and seizures, except upon oath of affirmation.
[49:21.000 --> 49:23.000]  You've got to have that.
[49:23.000 --> 49:24.000]  You have to have probable cause.
[49:24.000 --> 49:25.000]  You have to have that.
[49:25.000 --> 49:29.000]  And you have to have a warrant for the search and seizure.
[49:29.000 --> 49:33.000]  No, no, you're forgetting a word.
[49:33.000 --> 49:36.000]  Unreasonable.
[49:36.000 --> 49:42.000]  The Constitution does not prohibit any form of warrantless arrest or seizure.
[49:42.000 --> 49:47.000]  It prohibits those which are unreasonable.
[49:47.000 --> 49:48.000]  Okay?
[49:48.000 --> 49:55.000]  Now granted, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[49:55.000 --> 50:02.000]  Granted, most of the things that they're using these regulatory codes for is inherently unreasonable
[50:02.000 --> 50:06.000]  in relation to the people because it doesn't apply to us.
[50:06.000 --> 50:07.000]  Okay?
[50:07.000 --> 50:10.000]  I know that, but beat them at their own game.
[50:10.000 --> 50:12.000]  They have no rights over me.
[50:12.000 --> 50:15.000]  I'm not causing anybody any harm.
[50:15.000 --> 50:18.000]  Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[50:18.000 --> 50:23.000]  What are you trying to say by beat them at their own game?
[50:23.000 --> 50:25.000]  What exactly is it you're saying do that?
[50:25.000 --> 50:27.000]  How are you saying do that?
[50:27.000 --> 50:33.000]  I'm talking about if I don't have a driver's license, I don't have a TEC on my car,
[50:33.000 --> 50:39.000]  I don't have a motor vehicle, so I don't need to show you.
[50:39.000 --> 50:47.000]  And KSA-12070 emergency vehicle is a fire truck, a fire water truck,
[50:47.000 --> 50:50.000]  an ambulance or a police walking vehicle.
[50:50.000 --> 50:53.000]  That is an emergency vehicle.
[50:53.000 --> 50:56.000]  What does that have to do with this conversation?
[50:56.000 --> 51:01.000]  They're engaging in emergency lights and flashers without there being an emergency,
[51:01.000 --> 51:04.000]  so it's fraud as far as I'm concerned.
[51:04.000 --> 51:09.000]  Well, the problem is as far as you're concerned means nothing unless you can show
[51:09.000 --> 51:14.000]  there's no lawful authority for them to use those lights for a purpose that they're using it for.
[51:14.000 --> 51:18.000]  And most state transportation codes authorize them to do it.
[51:18.000 --> 51:24.000]  The problem is when they're stopping someone that is not engaging in transportation.
[51:24.000 --> 51:28.000]  I'm not in transportation, so the shit don't apply to me.
[51:28.000 --> 51:30.000]  Careful with the language.
[51:30.000 --> 51:33.000]  Deborah does not like to have to edit these.
[51:33.000 --> 51:34.000]  That's fine.
[51:34.000 --> 51:36.000]  Okay. Listen carefully.
[51:36.000 --> 51:39.000]  I understand you're not engaged in transportation.
[51:39.000 --> 51:47.000]  The problem is for you, how do you make that argument and make it stick?
[51:47.000 --> 51:49.000]  Simply saying it doesn't mean anything.
[51:49.000 --> 51:52.000]  How do you back it up?
[51:52.000 --> 51:53.000]  Traffic is commerce.
[51:53.000 --> 51:55.000]  How do you back that up?
[51:55.000 --> 51:56.000]  You're making assertions.
[51:56.000 --> 52:00.000]  What is your proof?
[52:00.000 --> 52:02.000]  You're making all these legal statements a fact.
[52:02.000 --> 52:05.000]  What is your proof?
[52:05.000 --> 52:07.000]  If I could use USC codes.
[52:07.000 --> 52:08.000]  You can't.
[52:08.000 --> 52:10.000]  I just told you that.
[52:10.000 --> 52:13.000]  So what is your proof?
[52:13.000 --> 52:14.000]  Why can't I use third-
[52:14.000 --> 52:17.000]  Because it doesn't apply within the jurisdiction.
[52:17.000 --> 52:20.000]  What is your proof?
[52:20.000 --> 52:24.000]  So I need to challenge jurisdiction.
[52:24.000 --> 52:27.000]  And how do you do that?
[52:27.000 --> 52:29.000]  You got a long way to go, my friend.
[52:29.000 --> 52:34.000]  And I ain't got time to teach it to you in six minutes left on the air with you here.
[52:34.000 --> 52:35.000]  Bye.
[52:35.000 --> 52:36.000]  I'm not saying bye.
[52:36.000 --> 52:41.000]  I'm just simply telling you, you ain't going to get that answer on this show without doing some reading.
[52:41.000 --> 52:46.000]  Yes, you challenge jurisdiction, but you challenge personal jurisdiction.
[52:46.000 --> 52:55.000]  You challenge the subject matter jurisdiction because the state has failed to prove that you are somebody who is subject to that regulatory code.
[52:55.000 --> 52:56.000]  What is their evidence?
[52:56.000 --> 52:58.000]  They have none either.
[52:58.000 --> 53:06.000]  They're making an unrebuttable legal presumption as to who you are and in what capacity you are acting.
[53:06.000 --> 53:11.000]  If you fail to challenge that presumption, it will stand as fact.
[53:11.000 --> 53:14.000]  That's why you lose the argument.
[53:14.000 --> 53:21.000]  You don't know what to challenge, and you don't know how to challenge it.
[53:21.000 --> 53:31.000]  Until you understand what that code is and how it may lawfully and legally be used, you will not understand how to argue it doesn't apply to you,
[53:31.000 --> 53:36.000]  and therefore they lack in personal jurisdiction.
[53:36.000 --> 53:48.000]  You have to understand that any of the offenses they charge you with that are stated under that code only apply to someone to whom that code applies.
[53:48.000 --> 53:59.000]  If you are not someone to whom it applies, nothing in there is an offense that you can commit.
[53:59.000 --> 54:11.000]  Now, in order to understand how that's going to all fit together, you have to study, and that means studying your state code on the subject.
[54:11.000 --> 54:12.000]  All right.
[54:12.000 --> 54:19.000]  I see that he hung up, so he got exasperated in trying to ask a question he could never ask and an answer that he wasn't listening to get,
[54:19.000 --> 54:22.000]  but he got it anyway, so hopefully it will help him.
[54:22.000 --> 54:23.000]  All right.
[54:23.000 --> 54:25.000]  Now we're going to go to Charles in Texas.
[54:25.000 --> 54:28.000]  Charles, what can I do for you?
[54:28.000 --> 54:39.000]  Well, I've been dealing with a couple of issues, and I've talked to you before about it, and basically it's basically just two same issues.
[54:39.000 --> 54:41.000]  Now we're in two different courts, though.
[54:41.000 --> 54:44.000]  I got arrested back on August 3rd.
[54:44.000 --> 54:53.000]  Basically he said that my plate was really illegal because they say private and they're not state tags.
[54:53.000 --> 54:59.000]  So I'm dealing with that, and he got me for DWLI, which is driving me to Los Angeles and Nevada.
[54:59.000 --> 55:04.000]  I know you got that one explained to someone else, and as a class B misdemeanor.
[55:04.000 --> 55:08.000]  Didn't get a citation for it, but he took me straight to jail.
[55:08.000 --> 55:18.000]  He also gave me a ticket for three different other offenses, which those were municipal court issues, so I went ahead and I fought that one.
[55:18.000 --> 55:22.000]  So now I'm still dealing with the DWLI.
[55:22.000 --> 55:31.000]  Well, I went to a docket call this afternoon, actually, and well, let me back up.
[55:31.000 --> 55:32.000]  I'm sorry.
[55:32.000 --> 55:36.000]  The first docket call I went to, we were given three sources.
[55:36.000 --> 55:38.000]  Talked to the DA.
[55:38.000 --> 55:41.000]  They pleaded guilty.
[55:41.000 --> 55:55.000]  Played no contest. Talked to the DA or played innocent and get an attorney or a defense attorney from the state.
[55:55.000 --> 55:57.000]  Well, of course, I'm not going to plead guilty.
[55:57.000 --> 56:00.000]  That's not going to happen.
[56:00.000 --> 56:11.000]  So I went ahead, because I had already filed motions just before then for jurisdiction and persona, jurisdiction, subject matter.
[56:11.000 --> 56:23.000]  And I went ahead and took an attorney, a state attorney to help me, which, of course, that's not really much help.
[56:23.000 --> 56:24.000]  Okay.
[56:24.000 --> 56:26.000]  Get in there today, another docket call.
[56:26.000 --> 56:34.000]  They're telling me that, or it's the attorney that they provided me, you know, quotes as help.
[56:34.000 --> 56:48.000]  They tell me that if I apply as indigent and go ahead and get my charge forgiven, that the DA will go ahead and drop the case against me.
[56:48.000 --> 56:49.000]  Okay.
[56:49.000 --> 56:52.000]  That I'm not too worried about.
[56:52.000 --> 57:12.000]  I also found out after I got out that the facility attorney for the municipal court here in Gilmer has decided to tell my attorney off the record that I made and did not meet with him three times to discuss the case.
[57:12.000 --> 57:24.000]  And he was going to issue a warrant for my arrest for the tickets that I had just finished, even though I'd already filed a jurisdiction motion there also.
[57:24.000 --> 57:29.000]  So at this point, I'm kind of walking her place.
[57:29.000 --> 57:35.000]  I'm really kicked off at this point, because I've got one attorney lying and saying he's going to arrest me.
[57:35.000 --> 57:49.000]  And the other one who, which should not surprise you, thinks that we're both dingulings for thinking that we know better than they do when it comes to court and our due process rights.
[57:49.000 --> 57:59.000]  So I just want to get your take on that and where do you think my best course of action would be at this point?
[57:59.000 --> 58:01.000]  Well, that's kind of hard to say at this point.
[58:01.000 --> 58:07.000]  That's an awful lot of details with no clarity as to how they're all interrelated.
[58:07.000 --> 58:11.000]  Let me think about that over the break and I'll get back with you on the other side.
[58:11.000 --> 58:12.000]  All right, Charles?
[58:12.000 --> 58:14.000]  Oh, I'm sorry I didn't need to go so long.
[58:14.000 --> 58:15.000]  No, that's okay.
[58:15.000 --> 58:18.000]  The break's going to come up no matter how long you were on here.
[58:18.000 --> 58:20.000]  So that's just the way it is.
[58:20.000 --> 58:21.000]  All right.
[58:21.000 --> 58:22.000]  So hang on just a minute.
[58:22.000 --> 58:23.000]  We'll get you on the other side.
[58:23.000 --> 58:24.000]  All right, folks.
[58:24.000 --> 58:28.000]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[58:28.000 --> 58:30.000]  We are at the top of the hour break.
[58:30.000 --> 58:33.000]  We have four more segments to go and we're going to get through all this the best we can.
[58:33.000 --> 58:50.000]  So y'all hang in there and we will be right back after this break.
[58:50.000 --> 58:54.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world.
[58:54.000 --> 58:58.000]  Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.000 --> 59:02.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:02.000 --> 59:07.000]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:07.000 --> 59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.000 --> 59:13.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.000 --> 59:22.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:22.000 --> 59:28.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:28.000 --> 59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.000 --> 59:44.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:44.000 --> 59:48.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:48.000 --> 59:51.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:51.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown,
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  providing the deli bulletins for the commodities market.
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:17.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:25.000]  Markets for Wednesday, the 26th of October, 2016, are currently trading with gold at $1,266.33 an ounce,
[01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:30.000]  silver at $17.63 an ounce, Texas crude at $49.96 a barrel,
[01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $675 U.S. currency.
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:44.000]  Today in history, the year 2001, then President George W. Bush
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:48.000]  signs into law the United and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools
[01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:53.000]  required to intercept an obstruct terrorism act or the USA Patriot Act into law.
[01:00:53.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  With controversial provisions concerning surveillance procedures and gathering,
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:01.000]  anti-money laundering and business records, removing obstacles to investigating terrorism
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:04.000]  by consolidating agencies and contentious interrogation techniques,
[01:01:04.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  perhaps the biggest concern raised from civil rights groups was the rapidness
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  in which the 342-page bill was written up, read, and passed by Congress
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  to sign into law a little over a month after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  Today in history, in recent news,
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  NATO's biggest military proliferation on Russia's border since the Cold War
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:31.000]  is underway, with Great Britain announcing Wednesday today
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:34.000]  that it is planning on sending fighter jets to Romania next year,
[01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:37.000]  and the United States has vowed troops, tanks, and artillery to Poland,
[01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  along with Germany, Canada, and other NATO allies also pledging forces
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  at a defense ministers meeting in Brussels.
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:48.000]  Meanwhile, two Russian warships entered the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark
[01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  and are said to be armed with cruise missiles.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  The ships were part of an eight-ship carrier battle group,
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:57.000]  including Russia's one and only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznestov,
[01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:02.000]  which is expected to join around 10 other Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast.
[01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:06.000]  We hope and pray these Russian-NATO escalations over engagement in Syria
[01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  are soon de-escalated and a resolve is figured out.
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:13.000]  Our thoughts and prayers also go out to the people of Syria as well.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:19.000]  Early voting started Monday in Texas.
[01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  Record turnout is being recorded in many counties.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  However, some individual voters have been calling foul when voting straight ticket,
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  claiming that the e-voting machines were leaving the presidential bid unchecked
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  when a straight vote for the Republican parties placed.
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:35.000]  Reminds me of what Joseph Stalin said when he said it wasn't who voted that counted,
[01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:36.000]  but who counted the votes.
[01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:39.000]  Early voting in Texas ends four days before the election,
[01:02:39.000 --> 01:03:07.000]  so get out there and vote nobody for president.
[01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:31.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984,
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:40.000]  and we are talking to Charles in Texas.
[01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:43.000]  All right, Charles, let's see if I can get over this here.
[01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:47.000]  Now, what was the disposition on the municipal court case?
[01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:51.000]  You filed documentation, then what?
[01:03:51.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  Okay, well, basically the judge told me that the jurisdiction was not going to fly.
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:03:58.000]  Of course, I knew that was incorrect.
[01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:04.000]  I filed disqualification for the judge to withdraw his ruling
[01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  and to vacate the plea that he could on my behalf, which wasn't not guilty,
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  but they never set the court trial that he wanted me to go meet with his city attorney.
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  Well, the thing is, is the court is required to prove up the jurisdiction,
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  or at least the prosecutor is required to prove up that the court has jurisdiction.
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:24.000]  They're simply assuming it.
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  They don't have it.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:31.000]  They have no impersonal jurisdiction without first proving the individual is someone subject to the code.
[01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  They haven't done that.
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  Okay?
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  So basically I ignored that after I filed the disqualification.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  I just let that go and did not even think twice about that.
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:44.000]  Well, you always think about that.
[01:04:44.000 --> 01:04:49.000]  The problem here is, is whether or not you give them personal jurisdiction by making a general appearance,
[01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  which is where most people screw up.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  Everything you do in writing, always by special appearance.
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  Every word out of your mouth is always preceded at the beginning of your statement,
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  as far as your initial standing up and responding to the court always begins with,
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:13.000]  I am here by special appearance for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
[01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:15.000]  Okay?
[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:16.000]  You fail to do that.
[01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:22.000]  That special appearance becomes a general appearance and impersonal jurisdiction is established.
[01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  Yeah, that's what I did. I challenged the jurisdiction by special appearance.
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:28.000]  Okay.
[01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  I mean, it's been about two months now and the city attorney has never contacted me.
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:36.000]  I've never gotten anything from him.
[01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  Well, the problem is, if you appeared in compliance with the citation
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  and appeared every time you've been properly summoned to court,
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  they have no basis for which to issue a warrant, none.
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  The issuance of the warrant becomes vindictive at that point.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:01.000]  That's what I think it was, too, because, of course, I didn't go back and see him.
[01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  Well, the court has no authority to order you to go see the prosecutor to discuss your case.
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  The court can't order that.
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:13.000]  No matter what they want you to believe, they're not authorized to do that.
[01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  Correct.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:23.000]  So now I've been dealing with DWLI, which is now Class B, because I found out in the process,
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:28.000]  which Lisa's attorney was useful for getting information.
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  Turns out that the city court or the municipal court had convicted me in absentia for DWLI.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  They cannot convict you in absentia for a criminal allegation in the state of Texas.
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:47.000]  They can only do that if you were present at the time the trial began.
[01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:49.000]  See, and there was no trial.
[01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  So that's the thing that really bothers me the most.
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:57.000]  That is exactly grounds to get that judge disqualified and that prosecutor.
[01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:00.000]  That's a disbarment.
[01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  Okay, I'll file the motion.
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  I'll file the paperwork, because I'm going to call the, I got to call the Dallas,
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:08.000]  that's where the district judge is, is in Dallas.
[01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  I'll file bar complaints and judicial conduct complaints against, for both of them,
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:23.000]  for acting illegally under color of law to convict in a criminal case without ever setting a trial.
[01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  Okay.
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  That's a complete and utter denial of due process.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  Excellent.
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:32.000]  I'll take care of that immediately.
[01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  The other issue is, of course, the DWLI.
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  No, you also have a professional ethics issue with the prosecutor.
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  If he's discussing details of your case with another attorney that isn't in a case involving his court, he's got a problem.
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  Okay.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  Is that conflict of interest or is that...
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  No, it's professional misconduct and a violation of ethics.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  He cannot discuss your case with other attorneys that are not working on that case in that court or in his office.
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:14.000]  He can talk to his assistant DAs, he can talk to defense counsel,
[01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  but he cannot talk to a defense counsel that is involved in a case in a completely different court about a case that's going on in another court.
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  Okay.
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  File those in writing.
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  Don't call anybody.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  File them in writing and get your evidence from that court.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  If they convicted you in absentia, then you need a copy of the order showing that's what they did.
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  You want a copy of everything in that file to prove they never set a trial,
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  they never notified you of that trial, and they conducted a trial without you, which they cannot do.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  Well, Stephen, what I'm understanding is there was no trial.
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:06.000]  It just shows guilty of all the charges.
[01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  Well, that's what I'm talking about.
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:09.000]  Yeah.
[01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  Okay.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:14.000]  You need the documentation to back up the complaint against them.
[01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  I'll get a copy of everything from the attorney.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  Okay.
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:22.000]  I believe it's useful for one thing.
[01:09:22.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  Now, as far as the DWI goes, you know, of course...
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  Have you...
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:29.000]  Okay.
[01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  Are they saying that you've been convicted of that before because of this one done in absentia?
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:36.000]  Yes.
[01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  Well, the thing is, is if you're challenging that, they're going to have a hard time proving that up.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  So get your complaints filed on the other first. Let's get that underway.
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  Now, you can always make a motion that the allegation, they have to put it in information.
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:05.000]  You can move to quash the information, and you can do it on the grounds that the prior conviction is unlawful and illegal.
[01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  It can be conducted in absentia without your knowledge, without your consent, and without a plea of guilty on your part.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  Okay.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  So move to quash the information that's being used in this DWLI.
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  I've got that file. I can file that.
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:26.000]  Okay.
[01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  Which is...
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  So do that first and get busy on that, and then keep tabs on it.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  Okay?
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  The problem is that this case came up today.
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  The DWLI thing has been going on for the last two months, and the prosecutor's misconduct just popped up today.
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  He was talking to my attorney outside the hall in front of the court.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  Okay. I understand that. That doesn't mean not file it just because it was today. Do it ASAP.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:58.000]  Oh, no. I'm going to do it ASAP, and there's no doubt about that.
[01:10:58.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  Okay.
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  I'm filing it regardless.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  Now, the thing is, I'm not really happy with this attorney.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:08.000]  I mean, he got information that's right.
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:16.000]  Call me a kook because I defend, because I believe that I have constitutional defenses based on the Supreme Court
[01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  and our own legal rights that's secured by the Constitution.
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  That bothers me.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:24.000]  Well, that's the problem with attorneys.
[01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  The Constitution to them is not any form of law, when in fact that's exactly what it is.
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:36.000]  This is the problem with letting a bunch of elitist thieves get control of our governmental system.
[01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  Well, we got another docket call.
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  He wants me to go ahead and, like I said, file indigent, get most of the charges forgiven, start paying what's left.
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  Well, that's a plea of guilty. If you're paying anything, you've pled guilty.
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  Yep. That's right. That's the reason why I'm not wanting to do that.
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  But I also told him that I would sit there and do a little bit of research.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  But he doesn't like me doing research because...
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  Well, do yourself a favor, bargrieve the attorney for calling you a kook.
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  That proves the attorney does not have your best interest or consideration for your rights at heart.
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  Go ahead and bargrieve the attorney over that.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  And I can do that in writing also.
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:22.000]  You do everything in writing.
[01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  You can't make a verbal bar complaint.
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  Okay. No problem.
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  Okay.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  Because with the defense attorney they gave me, his expertise is personal injury.
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  That took me off right away that this is a kangaroo attempt to make me happy.
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:49.000]  Yeah. They didn't give you anybody with any criminal experience, but it wouldn't make any difference, okay?
[01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  They could give you a stuffed teddy bear and he would know just as much about the actual law and argument.
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:12:59.000]  Okay. See, that's what I thought because then he's sitting there saying that...
[01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Because he's sitting there telling me...
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:06.000]  Well, I think I said that the Supreme Court had all these cases that defined these things.
[01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  That, I mean, not...
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  That their opinion...
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:17.000]  They said, well, I can go right back and find what the Supreme Court says that you have to have a driver's license.
[01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:21.000]  You can, but again, until you know how to split the same legal hairs the court did,
[01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  it wouldn't do you any good to make that argument with him.
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  You have to understand the verbiage the court uses in these opinions.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  Anytime they go back to using the deadly sins, they are talking in commercial terms.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  That's where every one of them commits legal fraud.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:43.000]  When they go back to the legal presumption that the terminology means the same thing in every case,
[01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  even though the individual is not engaged in the activity to which those regulations apply.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:56.000]  That's exactly why I was saying this is nothing but a bunch of elitist crooks using legalese
[01:13:56.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  and tampering with language to create a situation to enrich themselves at our expense.
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  And I think I'm going to just dismiss this attorney and just go ahead and have a DA myself for hacking
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:17.000]  because if they go to trial, of course, there's no guarantee I'll win that trial.
[01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  Even knowing the law and knowing the terminology, I think that they would probably just rule against me anyway
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  because I think that they would try to deny me like we've been dealing with so far.
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  Well, the thing is until you make the right argument, that's exactly what they're going to do.
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:48.000]  You have to be able to shut off their ability to go back to the legalese and make it apply. Okay?
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  Well, like I said, I filed jurisdiction for some and subject matter also before they gave me this attorney.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  Now, that's one of the crooks. That's one of the cruxes of the argument that they had against me
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  is that I will not drop the jurisdictional motions.
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  Right.
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  That's what I'm saying, Tony. Are you willing to drop this jurisdiction, the motions about jurisdiction?
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  No, sir, I'm not.
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:18.000]  No, because they know that they don't have a leg to stand on without jurisdiction.
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:23.000]  And if you fail to challenge it, then it's presumptive and they know that.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  So basically, he's trained in a rock and hard place in the DAs.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  No, he's not. He's trying to get you to play their game.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  In other words, he's working to undermine your case and your position, which is just another reason to sue him for malpractice
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  and to bar grieve him for being that way.
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  Yeah, because I'm not about to drop that jurisdiction regardless. I'm not about to drop any of that because I want them to prove that I was engaged in transportation.
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  Well, they're required to prove it. They don't want to admit they're required to prove it,
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  and they'll do everything to avoid having to prove it, but it's a fact.
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  If you're going to tell me that I committed some violation under a regulatory code, you must first prove that I am subject to that code,
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:12.000]  and you don't have any proof of that.
[01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  Everything they do is a legal presumption, and they try to make it an unrebuttable legal presumption that prevents you from challenging what they're doing.
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  So don't let them.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:34.000]  I don't. I think I've gone between a rock and a hard place as far as jurisdiction goes, and as long as I hold all my guns over—
[01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  Well, keep going, Charles, and file the things we talked about, all right?
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  That's why I get to listening to you right there, getting in there.
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  All right. Well, hang in there, and we'll talk to you next round, okay?
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  All right. You have a good night. All right, folks, this is Rule Law Radio. We're about to take a break.
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  When we come back, I'll be talking to Dave in Texas, first-time caller. So y'all hang in there, and we'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  We provide a wide assortment of your favorite products featuring a great selection of high-quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metals dealers and journalists.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  In addition, we carry popular longevity products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Polenburks.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:17:39.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  We broker metals IRA accounts, and we also accept Bitcoins as payment.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2.
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  Order now.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:36.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:41.000]  I was blindsided, but now I can see your face.
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:46.000]  You put the fear in my pocket, took the money from my hand.
[01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  Ain't gonna fool me.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  Ain't gonna drive me with that same old sucker punch.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  I get it now, but then I must have been out for you.
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  Back then you had rule of law.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are going to Dave in Texas.
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  Dave, what can we do for you?
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  Hey, Eddie. Good evening. How are you?
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  I'm all right. And you?
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  Doing okay, except for I have a little problem.
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:39.000]  All right.
[01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  I got pulled over last Thursday as I was going through a light,
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  and the officer, she came up and she gave me a ticket for tag expiration
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  that had expired, and for the registration.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  And then she asked me for my license.
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:03.000]  When I gave it to her, of course, my address, I haven't changed it.
[01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  So I've got two tickets for that.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  And she told me that she was going to be kind to me and not arrest me,
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:17.000]  because she said there was a warrant for my arrest for Texas toll tag
[01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:21.000]  in Collin County, which I was unaware of.
[01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  My question is, how can there be a warrant for my arrest
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:31.000]  if I was never notified to go to court?
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  Well, that's because someone made it.
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  They don't have to notify you to go to court to issue a warrant for your arrest.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  There just has to be some sort of criminal allegation against you.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  The question here becomes is, how did the toll tag,
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  which is an administrative issue and civil, become criminal?
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  How could they issue a warrant for something that isn't criminal?
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  So unless they've actually changed something recently in relation to toll tags,
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  it's not criminal.
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  And the other problem they have is, once again,
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  is the toll tags still only apply to those under the transportation code,
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  not to the general public.
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  Remember, they used your money to build that road.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  That road still belongs to the public for their use.
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  They can't charge you a fee for the use of that road when it belongs to the public
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  and they used our money to make it.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  They can charge those that use it for business purposes,
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  but they cannot charge the public to use a road that rightfully belongs to them,
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  that they paid for.
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:34.000]  Is there anywhere that I can get case law on that, Eddie?
[01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  No, there isn't.
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  And the reason there isn't is because no one's ever made the argument in court.
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  No one understands the argument in court.
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  Okay, here's my concern.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  I've got to be in court by the 7th to enter a plea on these other two tickets.
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  And I'm afraid that when I go in there,
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  I'll probably be arrested and taken to Collin County.
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:03.000]  Well, that may be true.
[01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:08.000]  But until then, what are you doing to find out what's going on in Collin County?
[01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:12.000]  I had called the Collin County court this morning
[01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  and left the message and never got a return call all day.
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  Okay.
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  I did pull the active warrant list and there is a warrant for my arrest.
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:24.000]  Okay.
[01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  So again, where did this allegedly take place on the toll road?
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  No one knows, right?
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  That's correct.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  At least I don't know.
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  Well, until you get that information from the court as to how this became a criminal issue
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  for the issuance of a warrant and make sure that the charge is correct,
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  then we won't know what to do about that aspect of it.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  But you're right.
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  If you go in there and there's a warrant, they probably will arrest you
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:56.000]  and take you over there or have somebody come and get you.
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  Okay.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  To handle the registration, the expired registration and the driver's license,
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:05.000]  do you have any suggestions on that?
[01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  Well, I'm prepared for you to go to court and file them.
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  Prepared.
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  Really, how?
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  Well, I'm willing to fight, but I need to be educated.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  I know this is a...
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  Well, the problem is you're not going to get educated enough to do this between now and the 7th.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  Pardon?
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  You're not going to get educated enough between now and the 7th.
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  If this is the first time you ever thought about doing this, that's just not going to happen.
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:33.000]  Yes.
[01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  You're asking to rub a genie in a bottle and a miracle pop out, and that ain't going to work.
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  Do I ask for a court-appointed attorney?
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:44.000]  Why?
[01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  And they're not going to give you one anyway if these are Class Cs.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  Okay.
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  And even if you've got a court-appointed attorney, he's going to throw you under the bus.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  He's not going to help you at all, but he's going to charge you lots of money because the court's not going to appoint one,
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  and if you hire one, he's going to take your money and run.
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  Gotcha.
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  Okay.
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:07.000]  You've basically got two options.
[01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  Learn everything you can, fight it and lose, because you don't have enough time to learn it correctly,
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  or pay it and prepare for next time.
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  Those are really your only two options, because if you go in there and not do this correctly,
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:25.000]  you don't have the ability to argue it right off the bat to begin with, in which case you're going to lose.
[01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  Now, remember, at trial, you're always going to lose.
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:31.000]  You're going to lose the trial no matter what the law is, no matter how right you are,
[01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  because the system has designed it where you will lose no matter what,
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  and they do that on the off chance that you will not be able to meet the requirements of an appeal,
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  which is to pay twice the amount of the judgment against you before you can get that appeal.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  Okay.
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:55.000]  The system at this level is completely rigged against the people and the right of due process.
[01:25:55.000 --> 01:25:59.000]  No ifs, no ands, no buts.
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  So just go pay the fines.
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:07.000]  Unless you feel like you want to take the chance just to get the practice in ahead of time, sure.
[01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  Now, I'm not telling you not to fight.
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:14.000]  I'm just giving you what your likely outcomes are based upon what you're telling me.
[01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  Right, and I hear what you're saying, and I really, I mean, I'm not going to feel like I'm educated enough to go in there and try to fight this.
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  Yeah.
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:27.000]  Now, this, of course, is one of the places where my traffic seminar comes in handy.
[01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  You already have all the legal pleadings and everything that you need to read and understand and file,
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  but when it comes to trial, you still have to understand them well enough to stand up and ask the questions and make the arguments.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  And if you fail to do that, then you haven't won anything.
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:45.000]  You're not going to win anything.
[01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:51.000]  Okay, then if they rush me and take me to Collin County on the warrant.
[01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:58.000]  Well, your best bet with Collin County is to go to Collin County and turn yourself in on the warrant and say, excuse me, what is this supposed to be about?
[01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:04.000]  You go down to the courthouse and say, look, someone told me there's a warrant for me on this and I don't even know what this is about.
[01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  But what's going to happen is this, they're going to turn around and say, well, if you want to get released, you've got to pay a bond.
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  And you're either going to have to have a surety bond or you're going to have to have double whatever the amount of the fine
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  they're going to levy against you is going to be to pay the bond to get out if you're going to fight it.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  Or you can pay whatever the fine is or the fees are and do that.
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:30.000]  Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate your help, Eddie.
[01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  Okay. Sorry I couldn't give you better news about it, but this is stuff that requires you to have information before you go in.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  And it takes time to digest it and comprehend it well. Well, I appreciate it.
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  Yes, sir. All right. Take care. You too. Bye.
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  All right. Now we're going to go to Olivier in Tennessee. Olivier, what do you got?
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  This is kind of weird. My server went to go deliver the summons today to the police officers. I included them to city and the police officers, but I didn't know I had to go serve the police officers individually.
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  Are you sure you do that? Because normally you can serve them at their place of work.
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, I served the municipality, but I forgot to serve the individual at the place of work.
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:37.000]  But once I caught a whiff of that because of going through the traditional procedures and the civil proceedings, I caught that.
[01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  I went in here today and got the summons to go about because I had 90 days to serve them. And I got the servers to go deliver to their place of work.
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  When we got there, they told him that they were not going to take the complaints. He had to go get them served to the sheriff office.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  I came back to the car and told him, I'm like, no, that's not what the rules say.
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  Whatever they tell you, go back in there and tell them that they're being served.
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  They just need to go to the officer or the supervisors and leave it there.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  So he went back inside. He told them, he told them what I said, and the lady said, well, we're going to throw these in trash. Are you sure? Is that what you're going to do?
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Yeah, those were going to go in trash. He's like, well, I'm sorry, but you've been served and you have to get these to the officer.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  Okay. Did he get information as to who was saying they're going to throw them in the trash?
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  Yeah, it was the head of the clerk, the supervisor.
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  Okay. Hang on just a second. We'll talk about that when we get back.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:54.000]  All right, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio. We've got, oh, I'd say a half an hour to go.
[01:29:54.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  We've got one more segment, so y'all hang in there. We'll be right back after this break.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:10.000]  Is this your mommy? Getting kids paired up with parents after school is a critical responsibility of teachers and school administrators.
[01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  But is technology a good substitute for common sense?
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Look after Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  Once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:50.000]  A product called KidGopher promises to match kids with parents waiting to pick them up.
[01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  It assigns parents RFID radio frequency microchipped ID cards that can be read by a computer system several feet away.
[01:30:57.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  The unique number on each card triggers a screen display of guardian names and pictures.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:09.000]  But radio signals can be cloned and databases can be altered, and supposedly secure technology tends to make humans lazy.
[01:31:09.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  Nothing can replace the security of staff simply knowing the students and their parents.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  KidGopher would not only put kids at risk, it would condition them to accept RFID and tracking.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:21.000]  And that's not good for our future.
[01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:21.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:45.000]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:58.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:03.000]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:35.000]  All right, folks.
[01:33:35.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  We are back.
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:38.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:42.000]  And we were talking with Olivier in Tennessee.
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  All right, Olivier.
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:53.000]  What is the Tennessee law on avoidance of service of process or interfering with service of process?
[01:33:53.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  I didn't think to look at that.
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  You better, because in most states, it's a felony.
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  I just knew that it gave direct directions on how to leave it, where to leave it near the office if they're not available.
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  Yeah, just make sure you're recording delivery.
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:20.000]  Make sure somebody's videotaping this or there's witnesses that it was delivered.
[01:34:20.000 --> 01:34:34.000]  I mean, the process server is the one who delivered, and I got them also to write down that the clerk said that the complaints would be thrown in the trash.
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  Okay.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:36.000]  Yeah.
[01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:42.000]  I would definitely look up the state law on avoidance or interference with service of process.
[01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  It's illegal in most states.
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  It's a crime.
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  And in most of them, it's a felony crime.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:58.000]  And that would be the clerk herself?
[01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  It would be anyone that attempted to avoid being served when they know they're being served, such as the cops themselves, for instance, and refusing to come out to be served,
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  or anyone that's preventing that service from reaching them.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  Okay.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  Okay.
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:22.000]  That's avoidance or service.
[01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  Avoidance or interference with service of process.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:28.000]  Of process.
[01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  Okay.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:30.000]  Cool.
[01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  Yeah. As far as, I got a transportation argument right quick.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:41.000]  I got an evading arrest, correct?
[01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:48.000]  And I was hearing you state about judicial conduct and the attorneys.
[01:35:48.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  I did judicial conduct my attorney already for coming down and interfering with the haphiest corpus.
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  And also on another case that we have right now where the officer says that he's charged me with evading arrest, and basically there's no other charge, and it's felony evading arrest.
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  So there's no reason that I was being arrested for.
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  And in the language of the felony evading arrest, it says that a driver of a motor vehicle.
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  Right.
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  And I was trying to tell him that.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  I also should say something else.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:28.000]  Attempting to lawfully arrest.
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:31.000]  Lawfully arrest.
[01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  If his action is unlawful, that statement's a blatant lie, isn't it?
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  Right.
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  I understand.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:44.000]  And I was trying to, I told him that I wanted those motions put in.
[01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  Right.
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  And I told him like that, that was one, me not being a driver engaged at that time, all those, I told him I wanted to file a motion.
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  He told me that he's not going to file them because they're not good arguments.
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:09.000]  Judicial conduct on those issues.
[01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:14.000]  Judicial conduct for the judge, bar grievances for the attorneys.
[01:37:14.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  Professional ethics complaints.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:21.000]  Do I do another one on the attorney?
[01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  Because I've done one already.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:26.000]  I've done a professional ethics complaint on the attorney already.
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:27.000]  Yeah.
[01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  I hate these.
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:32.000]  Bar grievance and professional ethics grievance every single time.
[01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:37.000]  Bar grievance and professional ethics are two different things?
[01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  Yes and no.
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  They're two different codes.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  A bar grievance is, the bar grievance is the oversight committee for their, what they're supposed to do.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  Okay.
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:53.000]  But you can file an ethics complaint with the court, with anybody, against the attorney.
[01:37:53.000 --> 01:38:00.000]  And then you can file a malpractice suit against the attorney.
[01:38:00.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  But that's another battle, right?
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:03.000]  Yeah.
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  Because I've got several of them going on.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  Right.
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  It's starting to get confusing.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  Actually, it's not getting confusing.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  All of them playing out and the judge allowing them to do certain things is showing me procedures that I didn't know about.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  Yeah.
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  Okay.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:21.000]  Barbie.
[01:38:21.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  Okay.
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  All right.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  Translations.
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:25.000]  So, Barbie, we're here for that.
[01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  I got a question about the involuntary dismissal.
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  Are you familiar with it?
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  Well, it depends on how you're using it, but yeah.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  Against a pro-state litigant or like the involuntary dismissal for failures to stay the claim.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  That says they wrote a suit, but it was not clear as an attorney would write it.
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  And they said that they failed to stay the claim, but in the, you could tell by the wording of it what the litigant is trying to say.
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  Yeah. Well, what you have to do is you have to look at the causes of action within your state and see how they phrase the cause of action.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  That's what they want.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:19.000]  In other words, if you don't state your cause of action in exactly the language they want it in, they'll consider it not making a claim.
[01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  They won't even attempt to understand it even though they're required to do that.
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  Okay. And isn't there a statute referring to that?
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:33.000]  There's case law on it.
[01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:45.000]  There's Supreme Court case law on it that the court is required to take the complaint and interpret the intent of the complaining party
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  as best they can unless it just completely fails to state any assertion of facts or a complaint of any kind.
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  But they don't do that.
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:39:59.000]  They try to force you into the same standard arguments the attorneys use.
[01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  Okay. And it is a fact that they have to notify you to give you the opportunity to correct.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:16.000]  Yeah. That's the other thing that's in the case law is they must give you an opportunity to correct the complaint.
[01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  They can't just dismiss it out of hand.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:23.000]  Okay. So now these attorneys filed a dismissal.
[01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  And I saw the little discrepancy that they were talking about, but clearly in the code, it shows that they are liable and everything.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  So if I submit an amended pleading to fix all those corrected issues, answer their complaint concerning to number one, the court should not grant the 12-
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  Well, you can file an answer and the answer can be an amended complaint that addresses their issues, yes.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  Okay. Talk about an amended complaint and address their issues.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  All right. Yeah.
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  Now, I had two defendants on the city of Clarksville and a tow company.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  When I take them to court, I'm taking them to court, even though it's written on the same suit.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:26.000]  When I take them to court, I take them to court individually. Is that correct?
[01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:33.000]  Yeah. You can take them individually. You can sue them in the same suit.
[01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  Yeah. I can sue them. Yeah. That's what I mean.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  Like when I sue them in the same suit, when I, let's say, go for a default judgment, I don't have to go for a default judgment.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  So both of them have to go for a default judgment.
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  One of them, I could bring one to court for default judgment and bring the other to court.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  Well, yeah, but if you do it that way, you're going to want to do it in separate suit unless you can file for a default judgment for any of the parties that failed to answer the suit, okay, if they're named in the suit.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  So if you've got both the tow company and the city named in the same suit, then yeah, you can file for a default judgment against the party that didn't respond or didn't respond properly.
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  Okay. Yeah, because I was reading the attorney's response for dismissal and he was claiming, and I read it and as I was reading, he was not claiming any defense for the tow company.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:45.000]  Well, okay. He wasn't claiming any defense. Do you mean he didn't make any rebuttal argument to the points that you made or he just didn't do anything?
[01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  He's not representing the way it's written. He's not representing the tow company. He's representing Clarksville, the city of Clarksville.
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  Okay. Well, then, yeah, if it's a city attorney, that's who it should be. If that's the case, he wouldn't be able to represent the tow company. He can't.
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  Okay. Good. So that means once I file this motion to default, I'm at this default because it's been over 50-something days and they haven't answered me, they haven't got an attorney or anything, no filings in the court.
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  So that means that the courts have to automatically grant this motion to default if they don't show.
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  As a matter of law, they should, yes. But you want to go in with the rules of evidence and you want to go in with the rules relating to those suits to force the court to agree that they have to grant the default judgment.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  So make sure that you have the case law to back it up. Make sure you have the rules of procedure and evidence to back it up and don't go in there empty-handed and just say, I want my default judgment.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  Have something that forces the judge to give it to you. Right, like a plea. Yeah, like another court opinion that's above him.
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  All right, we'll be right back. Hang on, Olivier.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:34.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, 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.
[01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:41.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:41.000 --> 01:44:49.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:44:49.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, poor CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  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. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  Alright folks, we are back and we are still talking with Olivier in Tennessee.
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  Alright Olivier, is that about covering what you have?
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  Yeah, I don't know. You said walk into court with something. Is court rules, procedures good enough?
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  You want the rules of evidence, you want the rules of procedure relating to civil suits when there's unanswered claims or unaddressed complaints, and you want case law that says if the other party doesn't respond within a timely manner
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:24.000]  and doesn't file A, B, or C in response in a timely manner, then the court is required to provide a default judgment to the plaintiff, which is you.
[01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  Okay.
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  We'll see if there is any and get it ready to go and make sure it's still good. Shepardize it once you get it.
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  Do I have to file it in the court case?
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  No, you take it in there with you as reference. If the judge is waffling between giving it to you and not giving it to you, judge, I believe there's a case controlling in this matter, the case of blah, blah, blah.
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  And it says that under these circumstances, in cases like this, the default judgment must be granted because the other party didn't do A, B, and C.
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:56.000]  Got it. Understood.
[01:47:56.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  Give me the domain, your quick version of understanding of it.
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  Theft by government decree?
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  On any property.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:08.000]  Any property because there is no authority for imminent domain.
[01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:11.000]  I don't give a crap what the courts try to concoct out of it.
[01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:14.000]  There is no authority for it.
[01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  They try to use the fact that it says that they cannot take property for government use without just compensation.
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:29.000]  Well, they interpret that to mean that they can take it as long as they compensate you for it, and that's not what it means.
[01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  That is not a nation of free individuals when their property can be taken whether they want to sell it or not as long as the government pays for it.
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  And it doesn't even decree that they have to pay what's reasonable for it.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  The argument is that my claim for inverse condemnation, which is the cause of action for imminent domain, is not reasonable or liable because imminent domain relates to real property, and my property was personal.
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  Well, yeah, it relates to physical structures and land.
[01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  Okay.
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  It doesn't have anything to do with mobile property like your car or personal property like your TV.
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:26.000]  That's theft and that's robbery, but that's not imminent domain.
[01:49:26.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  In Tennessee, well, in the law that I found here in Tennessee, Article 1, Section 21, where it states that no man's service shall be taken or property shall be taken,
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  they said that that encompasses inverse condemnation, which is covered underneath Tennessee's imminent domain statute.
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:12.000]  Okay. Well, the thing is, is if they're splitting legal hairs that the Constitution doesn't when it references property and there's no legislative enactment that splits that hair, then the court's doing something it's not authorized to do, which is write law.
[01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:23.000]  It's creating a legal doctrine for which there is no legal basis as far as the law goes, just like they did with immunity and everything else.
[01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  Immunity is 100% court concocted. There's no foundation for it in law whatsoever.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:41.000]  Okay. So are you saying that the personal property is not covered in it?
[01:50:41.000 --> 01:50:44.000]  Again, that's what they're telling you.
[01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  What you said the Constitution says, which I haven't read, so I can't verify, but if it reads the way you say no man's property and it doesn't distinguish between them, then the court's not allowed to distinguish between them.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  I mean, that's what it's saying. That's what the-
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  Okay. Then you need to find court opinions that back that up.
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:14.000]  No, yeah, I found them. That's what I'm trying to tell you is saying that their argument is saying that inverse condemnation is only real-
[01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  You're talking about the defense counsel's argument?
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:18.000]  Yes.
[01:51:18.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  Then use the case law to tell them they're full of crap and make sure to read whatever case law they're trying to reference as their foundation for their argument and show that they're using the case law incorrectly, that they're attempting to mislead the court,
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  which is perpetrating fraud upon the court, which can get them sanctioned and disbarred.
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:58.000]  Good, good, because I was thinking about something. On the court rules, the last one says condemnation of property, and in there it clearly states that inverse condemnation, which is the imminent domain statutes, include real property and personal property.
[01:51:58.000 --> 01:52:03.000]  Okay, then they're attempting to mislead the court, and you need to go after them for it.
[01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  File a motion for sanctions and for the court to deny their response, at least in part.
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  Okay, so with everything I have, I could doctor it up and then motion for sanction underneath-
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:30.000]  No, file a separate motion for sanctions and state that as your grounds. They're attempting to perpetrate legal fraud upon the court by knowingly misrepresenting the law and the case law on the subject.
[01:52:30.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  Okay, gotcha.
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  Okay, you're welcome.
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  Understood.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  All right, next one up in line. That all, Olivier?
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  All right, I'm going to assume that's yes. All right, Adam in Texas. Adam, what do you got?
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  Hey, how are you?
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  I'm doing all right.
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  So I go in, I recuse, I send all the CRRR mails to all the appropriate parties, and I recuse the first judge, he receives it, and he recuses himself on the 12th of October.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:07.000]  Okay.
[01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  And then he unlawfully exchanges benches with the other justice of the peace.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:21.000]  So my original pre-trial date was for October 20th.
[01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  He recuses himself on the 12th, he unlawfully exchanges benches with the other justice of peace who isn't qualified under the government code.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  And then on the 20th, when I was supposed to show up by pre-trial, I didn't show up because in my mind, the judge introduced himself and a qualified judge sent me notice.
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  Have you filed a motion to disqualify the other judge?
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  Yes.
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  Has that motion been heard?
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  Which one?
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  The one to disqualify the other judge.
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  I don't know where you're at, Adam, but you keep popping in and out.
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  I can't understand a word you're saying.
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:20.000]  I said the only reason I haven't disqualified the second judge is because I'm running into their speech clock.
[01:54:20.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  Okay, no, no, listen to me.
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  There is no such thing as the only reason as.
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:28.000]  You knew this was coming.
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  Do something to stop it before it starts.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:39.000]  I'm going to, but I was waiting for all their final, what ended up happening is.
[01:54:39.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  Why would you wait?
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  What was the necessity to wait?
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  Well, why would I show up on the pre-trial?
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  I didn't say Jack squad about showing up.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:54:58.000]  I said, what was the purpose of waiting to disqualify the second judge?
[01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  Knowing full well, that's the judge is going to come in there if this one does recuse or get disqualified.
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:13.000]  Why would you not have already filed a motion to disqualify the second judge as being unqualified to sit on the bench?
[01:55:13.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  Because I'm still researching on exactly how I'm going to put all that down on her, and I still have time because they.
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  What do you mean researching how you're going to put it all down?
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  Do you have proof she's unqualified or not?
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  Yes, I did.
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:32.000]  Then why is there not a motion saying she is unqualified?
[01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  Here's the evidence.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:39.000]  Okay, you're right, but I still have time.
[01:55:39.000 --> 01:55:47.000]  Anyway, let me tell you the interesting thing real quick is on the 20th when I was supposed to show up for this pre-trial conference is what they called it.
[01:55:47.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  And I did show up because the judge had recused herself eight days prior.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  The other, the lady justice, the temporary justice, she jumps up there on the bench unqualified,
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  and she denies all my pre-trial motions with no support or grounds or reasons.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:17.000]  And then on the same day, the judge that had recused, he jumps up on the bench and he sets a trial setting.
[01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  He says that they set the trial for a non-jury docket, and that I'm supposed to be there, blah, blah.
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  Anyway, I'm pretty sure I just recused him, was he?
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  Okay, wait a minute.
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:32.000]  Do you have a recusal order for this judge?
[01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  Yes, I have.
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  I can't understand a word you're saying, Adam, you're breaking up.
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  He granted the...
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:43.000]  That is not my question.
[01:56:43.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  I asked you if you have a signed order showing he recused himself.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:49.000]  Yes.
[01:56:49.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  Okay.
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  Yes, I do.
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  All right, then he can't do anything else in this case.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:57:01.000]  You need to be filing judicial conduct complaints and demand his removal from the bench permanently.
[01:57:01.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  Okay, that's what I'm trying to do, I'm just trying to get my head around how many crimes they've committed against me.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:09.000]  So, I mean, you know, I recused him.
[01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  He's still sending me mails, skipping my pre-trial, trying to send me to trial and trying to tell me I don't have a right to a jury,
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  putting his seal on it with his name eight days after I recused him, and he's got this other JP who's unqualified.
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  I'm just saying, can I start tying these two together, you know, kind of like get them both or...?
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  Yes, you can, but you still got to do it in writing, and you still need to file the motion to disqualify,
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  and then you need to file judicial conduct complaints against both of them.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:49.000]  Okay, but what am I, what's, what am I accusing him about since he jumps back in the picture after I'm done with him?
[01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  He's acting without jurisdiction and no lawful authority.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  He's recused from the case.
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:58.000]  Okay, so his trial said he...
[01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  Nothing he has done once he has recused himself is valid, nothing.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  Put all of that in your grounds to disqualify him and sanction him and demand his removal from the bench in your complaint.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  Okay, there is case law on that, by the way, that a recused judge cannot act in the same case in which he has been recused
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  or recused themselves or has been disqualified. They can't act in the case.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  Would you say I got them both for impersonating a public official?
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  No, because one is a public official, he's just acting without authority.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  The other one may not be, but I don't know what your evidence is to prove it.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  Anyway, man, I'm out of time.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  All right, folks, this has been the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Y'all have a great week. God bless.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:04.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:25.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:40.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:49.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.000 --> 01:59:54.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:10.000]  LogosradioNetwork.com