[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily
[00:06.000 --> 00:08.000]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.000 --> 00:21.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.000 --> 00:28.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 5th of October 2016 are currently trending with gold at $1,266.60 an ounce,
[00:28.000 --> 00:34.000]  over $17.72 an ounce, Texas crude $48.69 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[00:34.000 --> 00:43.000]  on about $613 U.S. currency.
[00:43.000 --> 00:48.000]  Today in history, the year 1947, the first televised White House presidential address
[00:48.000 --> 00:51.000]  is given by then U.S. President Harry S. Truman.
[00:51.000 --> 00:56.000]  Today in history.
[00:56.000 --> 01:00.000]  In recent news, the Paris Climate Agreement is set to take effect next month.
[01:00.000 --> 01:07.000]  Adopted by consensus on December 12, 2015, at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC
[01:07.000 --> 01:12.000]  or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris and opened for signatures
[01:12.000 --> 01:17.000]  on the 22nd of April 2016, Earth Day, and a ceremony in New York City,
[01:17.000 --> 01:19.000]  it is set to take effect on November 4.
[01:19.000 --> 01:23.000]  It is essentially a global agreement for the redirecting of the world economy away from
[01:23.000 --> 01:26.000]  fossil fuels towards more greenhouse-friendly forms of energy.
[01:26.000 --> 01:31.000]  President Obama, speaking from the Rose Garden, talking about the agreement, said that,
[01:31.000 --> 01:35.000]  quote, this gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got,
[01:35.000 --> 01:40.000]  and that one of the reasons I took this office was to make America the leader in this mission.
[01:40.000 --> 01:44.000]  The agreement already has support from major greenhouse gas emitters like China,
[01:44.000 --> 01:49.000]  the United States, and India, and in total 72 out of 195 countries have ratified the agreement.
[01:49.000 --> 01:53.000]  According to the UN, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump opposes the agreement
[01:53.000 --> 01:59.000]  since it lacks the approval of the U.S. Congress, while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter.
[02:04.000 --> 02:08.000]  More than 50 correctional officers and inmates inside Maryland's largest state prison
[02:08.000 --> 02:12.000]  were charged by prosecutors Wednesday today with bribery and drug conspiracy.
[02:12.000 --> 02:17.000]  The guards are accused of smuggling cell phones, tobacco, and drugs into the Eastern Shore facility
[02:17.000 --> 02:22.000]  in exchange for money and sex, according to indictments unsealed in a federal investigation.
[02:22.000 --> 02:26.000]  Apparently, prison guards were passing through security with undetected heroin, cocaine,
[02:26.000 --> 02:31.000]  and pornographic videos, which were then handed off to inmates in exchange for hundreds of dollars.
[02:31.000 --> 02:35.000]  They were also being accused of warning inmates when prison officials were preparing to search cells
[02:35.000 --> 02:39.000]  and of using force and intimidation to silence inmates who were reporting the smuggling.
[02:39.000 --> 02:44.000]  According to court records, inmates were using the prison phones and their contraband cell phones
[02:44.000 --> 02:46.000]  to pay off correctional officers through PayPal.
[02:46.000 --> 02:52.000]  They were hustling $500 for each package on average and as much as $3,000 a week, according to investigators.
[02:52.000 --> 03:15.000]  This is Brooke Rowdy with your Lowdown for October 5th, 2016.
[03:15.000 --> 03:24.000]  Really, man, come on, six o'clock noon, say somebody been shot, somebody's been fused,
[03:24.000 --> 03:30.000]  somebody blew up a building, somebody stole their car, somebody got away,
[03:30.000 --> 03:39.000]  somebody didn't get too far, yeah, they didn't get too far.
[03:39.000 --> 03:47.000]  Grandpappy told my pappy back in my day, son, a man had to answer for the weed that he'd done.
[03:47.000 --> 03:53.000]  Take all the rope in Texas by the tall old tree, round up all of them lead boys,
[03:53.000 --> 04:01.000]  hang them high in the street for all the people to see.
[04:01.000 --> 04:07.000]  And justice is one thing you should always find, you gotta settle up your boys,
[04:07.000 --> 04:09.000]  you gotta draw a hard line.
[04:09.000 --> 04:13.000]  When the gun smoke settles, we'll sing a victory tune,
[04:13.000 --> 04:17.000]  and we'll all be back at the local school.
[04:17.000 --> 04:22.000]  We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing,
[04:22.000 --> 04:33.000]  let's get for my men before my horses.
[04:33.000 --> 04:37.000]  All right, folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show.
[04:37.000 --> 04:43.000]  It is November 14th, if I'm reading this date correctly, of 2016.
[04:43.000 --> 04:47.000]  We are moving right along here through the end of this year.
[04:47.000 --> 04:53.000]  Now, in class yesterday and through this past week,
[04:53.000 --> 04:59.000]  I've been doing some research on the duties of the county and district attorneys,
[04:59.000 --> 05:03.000]  and in particular, any so-called prosecuting attorney,
[05:03.000 --> 05:11.000]  since there is this unconstitutional provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure under 45.201
[05:11.000 --> 05:21.000]  that attempts to delegate a state constitutional power to an unelected, unaccountable city attorney
[05:21.000 --> 05:25.000]  who is acting as a prosecutor in these municipal courts.
[05:25.000 --> 05:33.000]  Now, that alone is an egregious offense against the Constitution in and of itself, and it's bad enough.
[05:33.000 --> 05:38.000]  What's even worse, though, is when you have the highest criminal court in Texas
[05:38.000 --> 05:43.000]  completely ignoring the Constitution to do what it damn well pleases,
[05:43.000 --> 05:47.000]  to subvert the rule of law and the due process rights of individuals,
[05:47.000 --> 05:59.000]  and then parlaying that violation into permission and sanction of such acts by prosecutors and courts statewide.
[05:59.000 --> 06:07.000]  Now, in this particular instance, we're going to talk about how city attorneys and county attorneys
[06:07.000 --> 06:13.000]  knowingly and intentionally violate their duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure
[06:13.000 --> 06:19.000]  to illegally secure prosecutions against individuals under the Transportation Code.
[06:19.000 --> 06:24.000]  And they do that in one very particular way.
[06:24.000 --> 06:30.000]  And that is the violation of their duty to disclose all facts and evidence,
[06:30.000 --> 06:35.000]  especially those that are exculpatory in nature.
[06:35.000 --> 06:39.000]  Now, what I'm going to do is I'm going to read you a few passages out of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[06:39.000 --> 06:46.000]  in the Texas Constitution, and I'm going to join all these together and show you how this violation takes place
[06:46.000 --> 06:52.000]  and what we're going to have to start doing about it in each and every case that we have.
[06:52.000 --> 06:56.000]  Now, under Article 2.01, duties of district attorneys.
[06:56.000 --> 07:03.000]  Each district attorney shall represent the state in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district
[07:03.000 --> 07:12.000]  and in appeals therefrom, accepting cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely.
[07:12.000 --> 07:20.000]  When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus,
[07:20.000 --> 07:28.000]  and he is notified of the same and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the state therein,
[07:28.000 --> 07:32.000]  unless prevented by other official duties.
[07:32.000 --> 07:40.000]  It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors,
[07:40.000 --> 07:45.000]  not to convict, but to see that justice is done.
[07:45.000 --> 07:56.000]  They shall not suppress facts or secret witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.
[07:56.000 --> 08:02.000]  All right? Now, right there, we have not only the duties of the district attorney, but the primary duty
[08:02.000 --> 08:07.000]  of all prosecuting attorneys, regardless of office.
[08:07.000 --> 08:13.000]  Okay? Then we have Article 2.02, duties of county attorneys.
[08:13.000 --> 08:19.000]  The county attorney shall attend the terms of court in his county below the grade of district court
[08:19.000 --> 08:30.000]  and shall represent the state in all criminal cases under examination or prosecution in said county.
[08:30.000 --> 08:37.000]  And in the absence of the district attorney, he shall represent the state alone and, when requested,
[08:37.000 --> 08:45.000]  shall aid the district attorney in the prosecution of any case in behalf of the state in the district court.
[08:45.000 --> 08:52.000]  He shall represent the state in cases he has prosecuted, which are appealed.
[08:52.000 --> 09:01.000]  Now, here we see that county attorneys in the terms of court in the county below the level of district court,
[09:01.000 --> 09:11.000]  okay, must represent the state in all cases not only being prosecuted, but that are under examination.
[09:11.000 --> 09:20.000]  Now, right there, that tells you that the county attorney has the duty to participate in examining trials
[09:20.000 --> 09:26.000]  for misdemeanor cases because that is what the courts below the level of district court have criminal
[09:26.000 --> 09:32.000]  jurisdiction to hear, Class A, B, and C misdemeanors.
[09:32.000 --> 09:38.000]  They do not have authority to hear felonies.
[09:38.000 --> 09:46.000]  Yet right here, this is telling us that the county attorney shall preside on behalf of the state,
[09:46.000 --> 09:51.000]  or represent the state, in cases where an examining trial is taking place.
[09:51.000 --> 09:57.000]  That would mean for misdemeanors, which completely negates the Court of Criminal Appeals
[09:57.000 --> 10:05.000]  and the Texas Court of Appeals case law that says only felonies get examining trials.
[10:05.000 --> 10:08.000]  Now, that's just one statute that does that.
[10:08.000 --> 10:15.000]  There are others, and there are many other due process reasons why that must be the case.
[10:15.000 --> 10:25.000]  Mainly, across the board, the examining trial is the only procedure in Texas law where a partial,
[10:25.000 --> 10:34.000]  supposedly fair and impartial and unattached magistrate makes a determination of probable cause
[10:34.000 --> 10:38.000]  regarding the allegations against the accused.
[10:38.000 --> 10:44.000]  But it is also the only place where that same magistrate can make a determination about whether
[10:44.000 --> 10:51.000]  or not the initial arrest of the accused, absent a warrant, was actually legal and valid.
[10:51.000 --> 10:59.000]  Which, of course, if it wasn't, then the charges themselves are irrelevant
[10:59.000 --> 11:03.000]  because the initial seizure was illegal.
[11:03.000 --> 11:10.000]  There is no other point or process in Texas law where this can occur.
[11:10.000 --> 11:13.000]  It is not, it can't happen at trial.
[11:13.000 --> 11:15.000]  That's a due process violation.
[11:15.000 --> 11:23.000]  Because if there was no proper arrest, you should not be at trial.
[11:23.000 --> 11:24.000]  That's simple.
[11:24.000 --> 11:30.000]  If there was no proper allegation made, you should not be at trial.
[11:30.000 --> 11:34.000]  In order to make the argument, there's no proper allegation made.
[11:34.000 --> 11:37.000]  That's a due process violation.
[11:37.000 --> 11:44.000]  Yet our courts, being in the incompetent individuals that they are,
[11:44.000 --> 11:47.000]  can't seem to read the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[11:47.000 --> 11:55.000]  But the fact is, it's not that they can't read it, it's the fact that they don't read it,
[11:55.000 --> 11:57.000]  except for when it suits them.
[11:57.000 --> 12:00.000]  And then they cherry pick the parts they read,
[12:00.000 --> 12:03.000]  which we can determine that that's exactly how they do it,
[12:03.000 --> 12:07.000]  simply by reading the opinion that they put forth from it.
[12:07.000 --> 12:12.000]  Because it is very clear that they do not read all of the imperamateria statutes
[12:12.000 --> 12:18.000]  relating to the subject matter upon which they are ruling and using in their opinion.
[12:18.000 --> 12:21.000]  It's as evident as the nose on your face,
[12:21.000 --> 12:27.000]  provided you haven't had some sort of serious accident and still have a nose on your face.
[12:27.000 --> 12:31.000]  But the point is, these people are idiots.
[12:31.000 --> 12:34.000]  Or they're incompetent.
[12:34.000 --> 12:38.000]  Or they're corrupt and don't give a crap.
[12:38.000 --> 12:41.000]  In which case, any of these cases in fact,
[12:41.000 --> 12:46.000]  they shouldn't be sitting in a position of judgment over others.
[12:46.000 --> 12:51.000]  Ever.
[12:51.000 --> 12:56.000]  Now, that just covers the issue of the examining trial.
[12:56.000 --> 12:59.000]  What about the other part of this that we're having a problem with?
[12:59.000 --> 13:01.000]  Let's talk about the charging instrument itself,
[13:01.000 --> 13:08.000]  that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has also decided that they can override
[13:08.000 --> 13:21.000]  and disavow the constitutional requirements that are implicit in what invokes the jurisdiction of a court in Texas.
[13:21.000 --> 13:25.000]  Now, here in Texas, that can be found in Article 5, Section 12b.
[13:25.000 --> 13:29.000]  Article 5, Section 12b is very, very straightforward.
[13:29.000 --> 13:31.000]  It tells us what an indictment is.
[13:31.000 --> 13:38.000]  An indictment is a written instrument presented to a court by a grand jury charging a person with the commission of an offense.
[13:38.000 --> 13:39.000]  That's what an indictment is.
[13:39.000 --> 13:41.000]  It tells us what an information is.
[13:41.000 --> 13:47.000]  An information is a written instrument presented to a court by an attorney for the state
[13:47.000 --> 13:51.000]  charging a person with the commission of an offense.
[13:51.000 --> 13:53.000]  Get that?
[13:53.000 --> 13:57.000]  The practice and procedures relating to the use of indictments and information,
[13:57.000 --> 14:05.000]  including their contents, amendment, sufficiency, and requisites, are as provided by law,
[14:05.000 --> 14:10.000]  meaning the legislature determines all those things about these two instruments.
[14:10.000 --> 14:14.000]  These two instruments.
[14:14.000 --> 14:25.000]  The presentment of an indictment or information to a court invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause.
[14:25.000 --> 14:33.000]  Now, nowhere in Section 12 does the word complaint appear.
[14:33.000 --> 14:42.000]  Nowhere in Section 12 does it equivocate an information or an indictment with a complaint,
[14:42.000 --> 14:48.000]  nor does it equivocate it with a criminal statement.
[14:48.000 --> 14:51.000]  Now, why is the criminal statement important?
[14:51.000 --> 14:54.000]  Well, that's what you're about to see.
[14:54.000 --> 15:05.000]  If we go down to Article 5, Section 17, and we read through Section 17, we find the following.
[15:05.000 --> 15:09.000]  The county court shall hold terms as provided by law.
[15:09.000 --> 15:16.000]  Prosecutions may be commenced in said court by information filed by the county attorney
[15:16.000 --> 15:21.000]  or by affidavit as may be provided by law.
[15:21.000 --> 15:26.000]  Now, this says affidavit, does not say complaint.
[15:26.000 --> 15:29.000]  The problem here for the complaint is this.
[15:29.000 --> 15:33.000]  It does not legally qualify as an affidavit.
[15:33.000 --> 15:37.000]  There is no jurat of signing it under penalty of perjury.
[15:37.000 --> 15:48.000]  It is not required that a person having firsthand knowledge of the facts be the ones of verifying the complaint or making the complaint.
[15:48.000 --> 15:54.000]  Therefore, it is completely legally insufficient as an affidavit.
[15:54.000 --> 15:58.000]  By their own case law, it is insufficient as an affidavit,
[15:58.000 --> 16:05.000]  because the Texas case law says very clearly that an affidavit cannot contain qualifying language,
[16:05.000 --> 16:14.000]  such as I believe, or I have reason to believe, or I have reason to believe and do believe,
[16:14.000 --> 16:21.000]  which is the language that is required for a criminal complaint.
[16:21.000 --> 16:26.000]  But it is forbidden in an affidavit.
[16:26.000 --> 16:29.000]  Okay?
[16:29.000 --> 16:32.000]  Now, this says as may be provided by law.
[16:32.000 --> 16:36.000]  Grand juries impaled in the district court shall inquire into misdemeanors,
[16:36.000 --> 16:42.000]  and all indictments therefore returned to the district court shall forthwith be certified to the county courts
[16:42.000 --> 16:49.000]  or other inferior courts having jurisdiction to try them for trial.
[16:49.000 --> 16:51.000]  All right, folks, I'll pick this up on the other side.
[16:51.000 --> 16:52.000]  Y'all hang in there.
[16:52.000 --> 16:55.000]  We're going to be a little while with this, so the phones are currently off.
[16:55.000 --> 16:56.000]  Don't panic.
[16:56.000 --> 16:58.000]  I'll turn them off when I get done with this presentation.
[16:58.000 --> 17:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:01.000 --> 17:07.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[17:07.000 --> 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 Trillium Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:36.000]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor
[17:36.000 --> 17:40.000]  along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:40.000 --> 17:48.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:48.000 --> 17:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:52.000 --> 17:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[17:59.000 --> 18:01.000]  Order now.
[18:01.000 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:06.000 --> 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 --> 18:31.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them
[18:31.000 --> 18:34.000]  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 --> 18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  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.
[19:31.000 --> 19:41.000]  All right, folks, we are back, Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[19:41.000 --> 19:48.000]  It is November 14, 2016, and we are still going right on with this little presentation here.
[19:48.000 --> 19:54.000]  All right, now back to Article 5, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution, where all these,
[19:54.000 --> 20:00.000]  the grand jury hands down the indictments and are to be certified to the county courts
[20:00.000 --> 20:04.000]  or other inferior courts having jurisdiction to try them for trial.
[20:04.000 --> 20:10.000]  Now, notice other inferior courts doesn't limit that to county courts.
[20:10.000 --> 20:19.000]  Inferior court is anything below the district court that is authorized to act as a court.
[20:19.000 --> 20:21.000]  Okay?
[20:21.000 --> 20:26.000]  And so they should, they're the ones that should have jurisdiction or must have jurisdiction to try them for trial.
[20:26.000 --> 20:36.000]  And if such indictment be quashed in the county or other inferior court,
[20:36.000 --> 20:41.000]  now what is inferior to the county court?
[20:41.000 --> 20:47.000]  Think about that, be quashed in the county.
[20:47.000 --> 20:51.000]  Well, if we're handing these down to courts below the level of district court,
[20:51.000 --> 20:56.000]  what courts are below the district court that are considered county courts?
[20:56.000 --> 21:01.000]  They are the county courts and the county courts at law.
[21:01.000 --> 21:06.000]  But what are the other inferior courts?
[21:06.000 --> 21:13.000]  Justice of the peace and municipal, which this is telling us right here
[21:13.000 --> 21:22.000]  that indictments are required for criminal cases over which those courts have jurisdiction.
[21:22.000 --> 21:28.000]  But now remember, the legislature is authorized by this same passage of the Constitution,
[21:28.000 --> 21:31.000]  and Article 5, Section 12 rather,
[21:31.000 --> 21:37.000]  to define the requirements of indictments and information by law,
[21:37.000 --> 21:42.000]  which they did in Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[21:42.000 --> 21:52.000]  And if you will read that, you will find out that indictments below the level of the county courts
[21:52.000 --> 21:57.000]  are to be given to the JP courts.
[21:57.000 --> 22:01.000]  That's written right into Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[22:01.000 --> 22:05.000]  So this BS about JP courts and municipal courts,
[22:05.000 --> 22:13.000]  both of which have criminal jurisdiction only of Class C misdemeanors,
[22:13.000 --> 22:20.000]  are not required to have indictments, is complete bogus BS.
[22:20.000 --> 22:24.000]  Again, we owe that to our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
[22:24.000 --> 22:32.000]  the highest Supreme Court on the criminal side, our Supreme Court on the criminal side,
[22:32.000 --> 22:39.000]  who can't seem to read and understand anything in the Constitution or the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[22:39.000 --> 22:51.000]  Now, the person charged shall not be discharged if there is a probable cause of guilt,
[22:51.000 --> 23:02.000]  but may be held by such court or magistrate to answer an information or affidavit.
[23:02.000 --> 23:04.000]  But now notice something here.
[23:04.000 --> 23:12.000]  Only in the county court, okay, can you commence a prosecution by affidavit.
[23:12.000 --> 23:15.000]  You can't do it in the district court.
[23:15.000 --> 23:24.000]  So misdemeanors are the only types of charges by which an affidavit alone is sufficient to commence the prosecution,
[23:24.000 --> 23:30.000]  but it is not enough to invoke the jurisdiction.
[23:30.000 --> 23:33.000]  Article 5, Section 12B tells us that.
[23:33.000 --> 23:39.000]  This section, Section 17 of Article 5, is telling us that right now,
[23:39.000 --> 23:49.000]  because it tells us if the indictment be quashed, okay, either in the county or other inferior court,
[23:49.000 --> 23:55.000]  the person charged shall not be discharged if there is probable cause of guilt,
[23:55.000 --> 24:02.000]  but may be held by such court or magistrate to answer an information or affidavit.
[24:02.000 --> 24:10.000]  Now remember, 2.04 and 2.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically mandates
[24:10.000 --> 24:19.000]  that the county or district attorney prepare an information any time a criminal complaint is made before them.
[24:19.000 --> 24:21.000]  But that says criminal complaint.
[24:21.000 --> 24:27.000]  It doesn't say criminal affidavit.
[24:27.000 --> 24:33.000]  And since a complaint is not the equivalent, legally speaking, of an affidavit,
[24:33.000 --> 24:38.000]  at least not the way they're set up here in Texas,
[24:38.000 --> 24:46.000]  that is not enough to invoke the court's jurisdiction by itself any more than this criminal statement is.
[24:46.000 --> 24:54.000]  But it does tell us one very important thing, that all three instruments are required,
[24:54.000 --> 25:02.000]  the indictment, the information, and the sworn affidavit or the verified complaint.
[25:02.000 --> 25:05.000]  Now here's the difference.
[25:05.000 --> 25:14.000]  If it is an actual sworn affidavit, the court does not lose jurisdiction if the indictment is quashed.
[25:14.000 --> 25:18.000]  Now notice this does not say that you can quash the information.
[25:18.000 --> 25:22.000]  It says you can quash the indictment.
[25:22.000 --> 25:29.000]  It doesn't say squat about quashing the information or the affidavit.
[25:29.000 --> 25:31.000]  Okay?
[25:31.000 --> 25:38.000]  So unless it was defined by statute somewhere that an information could be quashed,
[25:38.000 --> 25:47.000]  there's no authority for that to be quashed, which means the only thing that can be quashed is the affidavit or the indictment.
[25:47.000 --> 25:55.000]  And if that happens, then they can still prosecute based upon the existing information or a sworn affidavit,
[25:55.000 --> 26:03.000]  but not a verified criminal complaint, because that is not the legal equivalent of a sworn affidavit.
[26:03.000 --> 26:05.000]  Okay?
[26:05.000 --> 26:14.000]  That means the criminal complaint on its face is 100% insufficient to invoke a court's jurisdiction.
[26:14.000 --> 26:20.000]  Something else our great Court of Criminal Appeals can't seem to get right,
[26:20.000 --> 26:30.000]  because they have authorized that a complaint alone is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a municipal or justice court,
[26:30.000 --> 26:38.000]  when there is absolutely no authority for that in law anywhere, nor is it in the Constitution anywhere.
[26:38.000 --> 26:42.000]  In fact, it directly violates Article 5, Section 12B.
[26:42.000 --> 26:49.000]  It violates Article 5, Section 17.
[26:49.000 --> 26:59.000]  Now, you would think these so-called legal minds and experts would understand this, but either they don't or they don't care.
[26:59.000 --> 27:08.000]  Just another reason they shouldn't be in the position they're in.
[27:08.000 --> 27:20.000]  If this sworn affidavit can maintain or sustain the jurisdiction of the court after the indictment has been quashed, okay.
[27:20.000 --> 27:30.000]  But nowhere in any of these passages is that sworn affidavit authorized to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
[27:30.000 --> 27:40.000]  It can sustain it after it's been invoked by an indictment or information, and then the indictment gets quashed,
[27:40.000 --> 27:50.000]  but it cannot stand on its own as the only instrument and invoke a court's jurisdiction.
[27:50.000 --> 27:53.000]  Not even the sworn affidavit can do that.
[27:53.000 --> 28:05.000]  How in the hell can an unsworn criminal complaint grant jurisdiction to a court, okay?
[28:05.000 --> 28:07.000]  That's the second of these problems.
[28:07.000 --> 28:10.000]  Now, let's get to number three.
[28:10.000 --> 28:18.000]  Under the duties that we read for county and district attorneys in that they are not to seek a conviction more than they're to seek justice
[28:18.000 --> 28:32.000]  and that they may not secret facts or witnesses that would prove that the accused is innocent or prove exculpatory to the accused
[28:32.000 --> 28:35.000]  or mitigating to the charges against the accused.
[28:35.000 --> 28:39.000]  Any of that would apply, okay?
[28:39.000 --> 28:43.000]  So why is that a problem?
[28:43.000 --> 28:48.000]  Well, it's a problem for this reason and this reason specifically.
[28:48.000 --> 28:55.000]  This verified criminal complaint, which is not a sworn affidavit,
[28:55.000 --> 29:04.000]  does not list all of the necessary elements that are required to be proven at trial or to provide proper notice of the alleged offense itself
[29:04.000 --> 29:10.000]  in a transportation case especially, but in lots of other ways it isn't there either.
[29:10.000 --> 29:19.000]  Now, Texas law says in the Code of Criminal Procedure that legal presumptions, presumptions of law actually,
[29:19.000 --> 29:26.000]  are not required to be stated in the charging instrument.
[29:26.000 --> 29:32.000]  But there's a problem with the interpretation of that obviously
[29:32.000 --> 29:46.000]  in that the presumption of law cannot be a presumption of one of the elements required to state, charge, and convict of the offense itself.
[29:46.000 --> 29:55.000]  Because if they can presume any of those elements to be true, then you are not being given due process under the law.
[29:55.000 --> 29:57.000]  And I'll explain that on the other side.
[29:57.000 --> 30:01.000]  All right, folks, this is the rule of law. We'll be right back.
[30:01.000 --> 30:04.000]  Heart disease, it's the leading cause of death in the U.S.
[30:04.000 --> 30:08.000]  Every minute someone dies from a coronary event like a heart attack.
[30:08.000 --> 30:14.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with information that could save your life or the life of someone you love.
[30:14.000 --> 30:20.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.000 --> 30:24.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:24.000 --> 30:30.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:30.000 --> 30:32.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:32.000 --> 30:40.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:40.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:47.000]  The signs of a heart attack can be subtle, but ignoring them can be deadly.
[30:47.000 --> 30:55.000]  They include shortness of breath, chest discomfort, pain in the center of the chest that lasts for more than a few minutes or goes away and comes back.
[30:55.000 --> 30:59.000]  It may also feel like uncomfortable pressure, fullness, or squeezing.
[30:59.000 --> 31:04.000]  Discomfort or pain in one or both arms, the jaw, neck, back, or stomach.
[31:04.000 --> 31:07.000]  Some people even confuse a heart attack with indigestion.
[31:07.000 --> 31:11.000]  Nausea, cold sweats, or lightheadedness may also accompany a heart attack.
[31:11.000 --> 31:15.000]  If you or a loved one has any of these symptoms, get immediate medical attention.
[31:15.000 --> 31:17.000]  Better safe than sorry.
[31:17.000 --> 31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.000 --> 31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[31:36.000 --> 31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:38.000 --> 31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:43.000 --> 31:48.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[31:48.000 --> 31:53.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:53.000 --> 31:57.000]  I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[31:57.000 --> 32:02.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[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 --> 32:12.000]  If we the people are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:12.000 --> 32:17.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:17.000 --> 32:19.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:19.000 --> 32:25.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:25.000 --> 32:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:28.000 --> 32:33.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:33.000 --> 32:35.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.000 --> 32:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:40.000 --> 32:45.000]  By 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 --> 33:11.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:24.000 --> 33:33.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[33:33.000 --> 33:35.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[33:35.000 --> 33:44.000]  All right, now, the term affidavit is defined in Texas statutes three different times.
[33:44.000 --> 33:54.000]  Once under selection and eligibility to serve as a guardian under the Estates Code under Chapter 1104,
[33:54.000 --> 33:58.000]  once under Government Code, Chapter 312, Dealing with Construction of Laws,
[33:58.000 --> 34:02.000]  and under Tax Code, Chapter 101, General Provisions.
[34:02.000 --> 34:07.000]  Now, the one under 1104, Estates Code, isn't relevant to our discussion, but the other two,
[34:07.000 --> 34:11.000]  especially the one dealing with construction of laws, is.
[34:11.000 --> 34:20.000]  In 312.011 of the Government Code, affidavit is defined this way.
[34:20.000 --> 34:29.000]  Affidavit means a statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it,
[34:29.000 --> 34:43.000]  sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths and officially certified to by the officer under his seal of office.
[34:43.000 --> 34:53.000]  Now, that is essentially the same definition that is in the Tax Code under 101.003 sub item 5.
[34:53.000 --> 35:00.000]  Okay? But notice it is of a fact or facts.
[35:00.000 --> 35:08.000]  Unless the person signing the instrument has competent first-hand knowledge of what is being asserted in the instrument,
[35:08.000 --> 35:14.000]  it is not a fact, it is hearsay.
[35:14.000 --> 35:27.000]  That person cannot be called to the stand to testify to anything in that document unless they have competent first-hand knowledge of what's asserted in that document,
[35:27.000 --> 35:34.000]  in which case they are not swearing to the truth of what's alleged in the document.
[35:34.000 --> 35:40.000]  They're simply signing it that they believe it could be true.
[35:40.000 --> 35:45.000]  Thus, it is not a valid affidavit.
[35:45.000 --> 35:48.000]  Okay?
[35:48.000 --> 35:57.000]  So if it must be factual, and it must be known to be factual by the person signing the instrument,
[35:57.000 --> 36:10.000]  and since anyone in Texas can sign a complaint, including someone that didn't witness anything about the allegations made in that complaint,
[36:10.000 --> 36:19.000]  the complaint in Texas at best absent a proper jurat and personal knowledge of the facts is not a sworn affidavit.
[36:19.000 --> 36:21.000]  It's a hearsay instrument.
[36:21.000 --> 36:36.000]  Hence, the primary reason it is completely unlawfully illegally being used to invoke jurisdictions of these courts.
[36:36.000 --> 36:48.000]  It has no lawful authority to invoke or invest a court's jurisdiction, and that's just one of the primary reasons why.
[36:48.000 --> 36:53.000]  So not only is the prosecuting attorney for the state illegally acting in the name of the state,
[36:53.000 --> 36:59.000]  because they're not the county or district attorney, in these municipal courts at least,
[36:59.000 --> 37:03.000]  but they are not stating all of the required elements in the charging instrument,
[37:03.000 --> 37:09.000]  and the charging instrument itself is not legally sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court.
[37:09.000 --> 37:16.000]  But our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals once again completely ignores both the law and the Constitution on the matter
[37:16.000 --> 37:24.000]  of how to do things the way they want to do them rather than how they're required to do them.
[37:24.000 --> 37:35.000]  Now, what is the problem with your due process when the charging instrument does not state all of the necessary elements
[37:35.000 --> 37:41.000]  that the state is required to prove that you're guilty of?
[37:41.000 --> 37:50.000]  That means they can tailor any charge to fit the evidence that they actually have
[37:50.000 --> 37:56.000]  versus excluding the elements for which they have none.
[37:56.000 --> 38:04.000]  So they can custom fit the allegation to the accused to make the charge and make it stick.
[38:04.000 --> 38:17.000]  Or they get to unlawfully and illegally presume the elements not listed are automatically and inherently and irrefutably true.
[38:17.000 --> 38:25.000]  Thus, your presumption of innocence is thrown right out the damned window,
[38:25.000 --> 38:34.000]  because they're required to prove every element of an allegation, not just some of them or particular ones of them.
[38:34.000 --> 38:40.000]  They're required to prove them all, especially in a malum prohibitum situation,
[38:40.000 --> 38:49.000]  which every one of these regulatory codes is, every single one of them.
[38:49.000 --> 38:56.000]  So when the complaint does not contain all of the elements, for instance, it makes no allegation that the accused
[38:56.000 --> 39:03.000]  was someone engaging in transportation and thus subject to that code and to the statutes in that code.
[39:03.000 --> 39:07.000]  Makes no allegation of that whatsoever.
[39:07.000 --> 39:13.000]  Transportation is not even put in there other than to say, we're charging you under that code.
[39:13.000 --> 39:20.000]  But they have done absolutely nothing to prove the application of that code is proper,
[39:20.000 --> 39:26.000]  because they've made no allegation that you were engaged in the regulated activity to which that code specifically applies,
[39:26.000 --> 39:35.000]  and the only activity to which it applies.
[39:35.000 --> 39:41.000]  So how do you defend against an element that isn't even stated?
[39:41.000 --> 39:48.000]  How do you get out of an innocent when you argue you didn't prove this element?
[39:48.000 --> 39:53.000]  Well, we don't have to prove it. It's not in the complaint.
[39:53.000 --> 39:55.000]  But it's supposed to be in the complaint.
[39:55.000 --> 39:58.000]  Well, you got any case law that says it's supposed to be in the complaint?
[39:58.000 --> 40:01.000]  No, but I got a statute that says it's supposed to be.
[40:01.000 --> 40:04.000]  Really? Where? It's over here dealing with indictments and information.
[40:04.000 --> 40:07.000]  Oh, well, this is not indictment or information. This is a complaint.
[40:07.000 --> 40:12.000]  And nothing in the statute requires a complaint to state every element that's required to be proven.
[40:12.000 --> 40:15.000]  And they're absolutely right on that.
[40:15.000 --> 40:25.000]  If you don't believe that, look at both 15.03 and 04 and 45.019A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[40:25.000 --> 40:31.000]  on the two different criteria of what constitutes a proper complaint, depending upon the type of charge.
[40:31.000 --> 40:38.000]  And you will find that in neither case does it ever say that the complaint must list all of the elements required to be proven.
[40:38.000 --> 40:47.000]  Hence, another reason it cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction.
[40:47.000 --> 40:50.000]  You see how this works?
[40:50.000 --> 40:59.000]  You would think this process of thought and reason would be available to these so-called legal experts.
[40:59.000 --> 41:12.000]  But why would they bother spending any time becoming good at their job when there is nothing to hold them accountable for sucking at their job?
[41:12.000 --> 41:22.000]  They made sure of that by giving themselves immunity for being incompetent, for being malicious, for being freaking criminals.
[41:22.000 --> 41:26.000]  They gave themselves immunity.
[41:26.000 --> 41:36.000]  And lo and behold, the people shall bow and wave to their new God, call the oligarchy of the courts and the legal profession.
[41:36.000 --> 41:51.000]  And you wonder why I would be the first person to vote yes to hang every attorney in this country, every last one.
[41:51.000 --> 42:05.000]  There is not a single one of them that does the job they do that has not, at some point in order to keep that job, undermined the due process rights of someone else,
[42:05.000 --> 42:20.000]  have committed treason against the Constitution, sedition against the Constitution, and betrayed the public trust in the performance of their duties.
[42:20.000 --> 42:33.000]  Not one, not a defense attorney, not a prosecuting attorney, not an attorney become judge, and not even those few morons that become a judge without being an attorney,
[42:33.000 --> 42:44.000]  because they're being trained by the same attorneys that are behaving unlawfully and illegally to begin with, to do the exact same thing that they do.
[42:44.000 --> 42:50.000]  None of these people read the damn codes, and if they do, they do not freaking understand them.
[42:50.000 --> 43:03.000]  Proof positive of that is the fact that they want to argue with you over every single point without bringing up anything other than an illegitimate court opinion about what it means,
[43:03.000 --> 43:14.000]  when that opinion can be shown in the context of all the imperium materiel statutes to be dead wrong.
[43:14.000 --> 43:22.000]  And yet it's the only tool they have to try to tell you why you aren't correct.
[43:22.000 --> 43:28.000]  Well, the court said, well, obviously the court hasn't bothered to read the very thing they're ruling on,
[43:28.000 --> 43:39.000]  because here's 15 different statutes that says that opinion is as bogus as their IQ points.
[43:39.000 --> 43:50.000]  They do not know what the hell they're doing, and you trust them with your life, your property, your children, everything.
[43:50.000 --> 43:54.000]  Why? Why?
[43:54.000 --> 44:01.000]  All right, folks, I'm going to turn on the phones. We'll be right back after this break.
[44:24.000 --> 44:28.000]  With our step by step course, and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 45:03.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:03.000 --> 45:07.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com,
[45:07.000 --> 45:13.000]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D here in Austin, Texas.
[45:13.000 --> 45:15.000]  I'm Brave New Books and Jay Stank.
[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 --> 45:28.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Alchali and Eme oil,
[45:28.000 --> 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 --> 45:51.000]  Naturespureorganics.com.
[46:18.000 --> 46:35.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:35.000 --> 46:41.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984.
[46:41.000 --> 46:46.000]  The phones are on, and we are going to start with Mark in Florida.
[46:46.000 --> 46:49.000]  Mark, what can we do for you?
[46:49.000 --> 46:50.000]  How are you doing, Eddie?
[46:50.000 --> 46:54.000]  Well, can't you tell? My blood pressure is up.
[46:54.000 --> 46:59.000]  Mine is, too, and my back is out, having all kinds of problems.
[46:59.000 --> 47:03.000]  I had a small victory. I won another misdemeanor, second degree.
[47:03.000 --> 47:07.000]  I'd be Class B to you guys, 60-day max in jail.
[47:07.000 --> 47:11.000]  That makes five misdemeanors and three civil so far.
[47:11.000 --> 47:16.000]  Well, good. And what are you using to do that?
[47:16.000 --> 47:25.000]  Various techniques of yours and Randy's, and this past one was a speedy trial.
[47:25.000 --> 47:31.000]  They were over the 90 days, and they went ahead and scheduled court
[47:31.000 --> 47:35.000]  because I wouldn't ask for continuance. I wouldn't let them swear me in.
[47:35.000 --> 47:37.000]  I did everything I was supposed to do.
[47:37.000 --> 47:42.000]  I stood there and played dom and let them schedule the court date for two weeks from then,
[47:42.000 --> 47:48.000]  and the next day I filed the documents for a motions hearing,
[47:48.000 --> 47:52.000]  and when the motions hearing came up, the state announced no process
[47:52.000 --> 47:54.000]  because they didn't want to argue the motion.
[47:54.000 --> 47:59.000]  Yeah, of course not. They'd lose it. There's a calendar in the room. They've lost.
[47:59.000 --> 48:05.000]  That's right, and my motion was very well written this time. Proud of myself.
[48:05.000 --> 48:09.000]  Well, congratulations. Glad to hear it.
[48:09.000 --> 48:11.000]  Well, you get a little better with time, you know.
[48:11.000 --> 48:12.000]  Yes.
[48:12.000 --> 48:16.000]  I have an experience. Unfortunately, I've had too much experience.
[48:16.000 --> 48:22.000]  Well, fortunately, it's the cheapest legal education you're ever going to get.
[48:22.000 --> 48:27.000]  True, true. Here's what happened after that.
[48:27.000 --> 48:33.000]  I'd sent a motions hearing. I drew up motions to get an order
[48:33.000 --> 48:41.000]  declaring me indigent for cost, and detailed, very detailed,
[48:41.000 --> 48:45.000]  the various departments and agencies and everything within the government
[48:45.000 --> 48:49.000]  that asked to give me free copies of audio, video, paper, whatever.
[48:49.000 --> 48:52.000]  Detailed all of that.
[48:52.000 --> 48:56.000]  That related to this case. I put that qualifier in there.
[48:56.000 --> 49:01.000]  Well, the judge just said, oh, you're asking for everybody in the state
[49:01.000 --> 49:05.000]  and anything you want, and it's not specific, and, you know,
[49:05.000 --> 49:11.000]  I just ignored it and ruled against it out of hand.
[49:11.000 --> 49:16.000]  Well, while we're doing that, me filing that motion,
[49:16.000 --> 49:25.000]  the clerk in the description on the computer put motion to dismiss.
[49:25.000 --> 49:26.000]  Okay.
[49:26.000 --> 49:29.000]  I don't know where they get these things from. It's not the first time it's happened.
[49:29.000 --> 49:35.000]  It's frequent, but they can't read the title line in all caps, bold print,
[49:35.000 --> 49:37.000]  and decipher what that is.
[49:37.000 --> 49:43.000]  You know, motion to be declared indigent for cost is what the title was.
[49:43.000 --> 49:45.000]  And they put motion to dismiss.
[49:45.000 --> 49:49.000]  Well, lo and behold, I get four, for the four cases,
[49:49.000 --> 49:56.000]  I get four certified letters from the state, state attorney,
[49:56.000 --> 50:00.000]  motion to strike, my motion to dismiss,
[50:00.000 --> 50:04.000]  making all these claims and assertions throughout it,
[50:04.000 --> 50:08.000]  referring to a document that does not exist.
[50:08.000 --> 50:11.000]  Correct me if I'm wrong. That's all perjury.
[50:11.000 --> 50:19.000]  No, because he's not signing anything he does under penalty of perjury.
[50:19.000 --> 50:21.000]  I'm not sure where I heard this.
[50:21.000 --> 50:26.000]  What it is is prosecutorial misconduct.
[50:26.000 --> 50:32.000]  Okay. Okay. Is it also malfeasance?
[50:32.000 --> 50:38.000]  Yes. If they're intentionally converting motions into something that they can
[50:38.000 --> 50:42.000]  rule upon to get them out of the way without addressing what the motion
[50:42.000 --> 50:50.000]  actually is about, yeah, that's most certainly malfeasance in office.
[50:50.000 --> 50:53.000]  Well, I brought this up.
[50:53.000 --> 50:55.000]  When we got to the motions hearing,
[50:55.000 --> 50:59.000]  there was a very nice black lady that walked up next to me.
[50:59.000 --> 51:01.000]  She said, hi, I'm your public defender.
[51:01.000 --> 51:03.000]  I was like, oh, no, not again.
[51:03.000 --> 51:05.000]  How did we end up with this again?
[51:05.000 --> 51:09.000]  She said, well, the record is still showing that the public defender's office
[51:09.000 --> 51:10.000]  is on several of your cases.
[51:10.000 --> 51:12.000]  We're going to get that squared away today.
[51:12.000 --> 51:17.000]  So I tried to address the court on that, and every time I tried to speak,
[51:17.000 --> 51:21.000]  I'd get two words out and the judge would be going, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir,
[51:21.000 --> 51:25.000]  and stopping me, you know, wouldn't let me speak.
[51:25.000 --> 51:31.000]  And he scolded me for not e-filing my motion to dismiss.
[51:31.000 --> 51:33.000]  And I tried to explain there was no motion to dismiss.
[51:33.000 --> 51:39.000]  He said he took his copies, you know, the courtesy copies I gave to his office,
[51:39.000 --> 51:43.000]  took his copies, sent them back down to the clerk so they could record them
[51:43.000 --> 51:46.000]  and are waiting for them to bring those back up.
[51:46.000 --> 51:52.000]  And every time I tried to explain there is no motion to dismiss, I got interrupted.
[51:52.000 --> 51:58.000]  And the first little break we had, the public defender, a real nice lady,
[51:58.000 --> 52:04.000]  the first day she said, is he always like that with you?
[52:04.000 --> 52:07.000]  I said, yes, ma'am, and worse.
[52:07.000 --> 52:10.000]  She said, he knows he won't let me speak.
[52:10.000 --> 52:15.000]  I said, we're waiting for documents to come up from the clerk that don't exist.
[52:15.000 --> 52:19.000]  And finally the clerk in the court came over because she finally picked up
[52:19.000 --> 52:22.000]  what I was trying to say and being interrupted.
[52:22.000 --> 52:25.000]  She came over and we got a square of the way.
[52:25.000 --> 52:29.000]  But in the process of this, I brought up the point that I was holding four motions to strike,
[52:29.000 --> 52:37.000]  my motion to dismiss, and, you know, the prosecutor had committed perjury
[52:37.000 --> 52:41.000]  and he wouldn't let me speak on that issue.
[52:41.000 --> 52:50.000]  Next thing I know, the prosecutor hands me a motion to revoke my bond
[52:50.000 --> 52:53.000]  because I'm on a $100 bond on one of these cases.
[52:53.000 --> 52:55.000]  Right.
[52:55.000 --> 53:03.000]  And the judge accepted that in court, which he never would accept any of my motions in court,
[53:03.000 --> 53:12.000]  and said, okay, we'll schedule this for tomorrow, which was Friday, Friday a week ago.
[53:12.000 --> 53:18.000]  And I said, Judge, that's not enough time for me to possibly prepare an argument against this motion.
[53:18.000 --> 53:21.000]  He says, I'm only required to give you three hours.
[53:21.000 --> 53:25.000]  We can have it at 630 today if you want.
[53:25.000 --> 53:29.000]  And I was just standing there in shock at that point.
[53:29.000 --> 53:33.000]  You know, I hear the bell ringing, I know what's going on.
[53:33.000 --> 53:37.000]  There's a lynching going on, and I'm the target.
[53:37.000 --> 53:41.000]  And it doesn't matter what I do, they're going to revoke that bond, put me in jail,
[53:41.000 --> 53:44.000]  and I'm going to lose these last three remaining cases,
[53:44.000 --> 53:48.000]  one of which is a first degree misdemeanor, a year in jail.
[53:48.000 --> 53:53.000]  I'd do a year on one and 60 days each on the other two.
[53:53.000 --> 54:00.000]  You know, I'd be looking at 16 months in jail because I can't possibly form a defense.
[54:00.000 --> 54:08.000]  What is the requirement and process for disqualifying a judge in Florida?
[54:08.000 --> 54:10.000]  Quite easy.
[54:10.000 --> 54:12.000]  Then why aren't you doing that?
[54:12.000 --> 54:18.000]  Why aren't you going to that court with documentation prepared ahead of time, okay?
[54:18.000 --> 54:21.000]  Make sure it doesn't contain any dates already written in,
[54:21.000 --> 54:24.000]  you want the document written up with the dates left blank.
[54:24.000 --> 54:36.000]  The very moment the judge starts this crap in that courtroom, you ask for a break, okay?
[54:36.000 --> 54:40.000]  Ask if we can have a short recess, fill out the dates on that motion,
[54:40.000 --> 54:45.000]  go down and get them verified by a clerk and sign them,
[54:45.000 --> 54:50.000]  and then come back up and file them demanding that judge be disqualified.
[54:50.000 --> 54:55.000]  Now, I have tried that in the past when I disqualified the previous judge.
[54:55.000 --> 54:59.000]  The clerk will not do that.
[54:59.000 --> 55:03.000]  Don't do it with the clerk that's in the room.
[55:03.000 --> 55:06.000]  No, no, I'm talking about downstairs at the clerk's office.
[55:06.000 --> 55:11.000]  The only thing the clerk is being asked to do is to verify that you're signing that motion.
[55:11.000 --> 55:15.000]  They're not even allowed to read the motion.
[55:15.000 --> 55:20.000]  It doesn't matter what's in it, they're not even supposed to be reading it.
[55:20.000 --> 55:23.000]  You are there to get your signature verified.
[55:23.000 --> 55:25.000]  In fact, do it this way.
[55:25.000 --> 55:29.000]  Just go over to the, flip it over to just the signature page,
[55:29.000 --> 55:32.000]  go to the prosecuting attorney's table and say,
[55:32.000 --> 55:36.000]  I want you to verify my signature on this document.
[55:36.000 --> 55:40.000]  All I want you to do is to make sure that I'm me while I'm signing this document,
[55:40.000 --> 55:43.000]  and I want you to sign the bottom.
[55:43.000 --> 55:49.000]  How's that going to look if you get the prosecutor to help you disqualify the judge?
[55:49.000 --> 55:50.000]  Looks pretty good.
[55:50.000 --> 55:56.000]  But in most states, prosecutors are authorized to administer oaths.
[55:56.000 --> 56:04.000]  And that's really all these pleadings require is that someone that's authorized to do it, verify it.
[56:04.000 --> 56:08.000]  They are not listed in the Florida statute as authorized.
[56:08.000 --> 56:10.000]  Okay, then just find someone who is.
[56:10.000 --> 56:15.000]  If nothing else, take a friend that's a notary to court with you.
[56:15.000 --> 56:19.000]  Pay a notary to come to court with you.
[56:19.000 --> 56:21.000]  Yeah.
[56:21.000 --> 56:25.000]  Well, what happened was the next day I showed up and I objected, you know,
[56:25.000 --> 56:27.000]  at the get go to the proceedings.
[56:27.000 --> 56:30.000]  I have not had time to, you know, prepare.
[56:30.000 --> 56:34.000]  I'd only, going into court Thursday, I only had about an hour and a half,
[56:34.000 --> 56:37.000]  two hours worth of naps through the night.
[56:37.000 --> 56:43.000]  And then after Thursday, you know, I didn't, I slept about four hours that night.
[56:43.000 --> 56:47.000]  So, you know, I was in terrible shape going into court Friday.
[56:47.000 --> 56:49.000]  But, you know, I objected.
[56:49.000 --> 56:52.000]  Of course, he overruled that, the work proceeding.
[56:52.000 --> 56:57.000]  And she gave her an argument, and then I got to give my argument.
[56:57.000 --> 57:02.000]  And towards the end of it, I just fell apart.
[57:02.000 --> 57:03.000]  I broke down.
[57:03.000 --> 57:05.000]  I was crying like a baby.
[57:05.000 --> 57:08.000]  Not because I was going to go to jail,
[57:08.000 --> 57:14.000]  because the frustration of all of this, you know, hit me all at once.
[57:14.000 --> 57:18.000]  You know, all the fights I've been through with this and, you know,
[57:18.000 --> 57:24.000]  all the illegalities in court going on, it just all hit me and I just fell apart.
[57:24.000 --> 57:26.000]  So we had to have a recess.
[57:26.000 --> 57:31.000]  We came back and he was getting ready to grant her motion.
[57:31.000 --> 57:34.000]  And I hollered out, motion to disqualify.
[57:34.000 --> 57:37.000]  He said about two more words, and I objected.
[57:37.000 --> 57:44.000]  You know, both the statutes and the rules of judicial administration
[57:44.000 --> 57:46.000]  say you shall move no further.
[57:46.000 --> 57:47.000]  And he said, it must be in writing.
[57:47.000 --> 57:51.000]  I said, no, sir, I have 10 days to reduce writing.
[57:51.000 --> 57:52.000]  And then I went off on him.
[57:52.000 --> 57:55.000]  I started stating all the things he's doing wrong.
[57:55.000 --> 58:01.000]  And he quickly snapped his head to the side and said, I'll recuse myself for responding.
[58:01.000 --> 58:02.000]  Yeah.
[58:02.000 --> 58:05.000]  They don't like to have those motions entered against them in writing
[58:05.000 --> 58:08.000]  because it documents their malfeasance.
[58:08.000 --> 58:12.000]  If I were you, I'd have filed it anyway.
[58:12.000 --> 58:13.000]  Yeah.
[58:13.000 --> 58:17.000]  I'm not sure if I can, since he disqualified.
[58:17.000 --> 58:19.000]  Yeah, but see, that's the thing.
[58:19.000 --> 58:21.000]  When they dis – well, he recused.
[58:21.000 --> 58:22.000]  He self-recused.
[58:22.000 --> 58:28.000]  When they do that to avoid being exposed for the corrupt individual they are,
[58:28.000 --> 58:31.000]  I wouldn't stop doing that in any way.
[58:31.000 --> 58:38.000]  I would still have filed it with the Judicial Conduct Commission and done it anyhow.
[58:38.000 --> 58:39.000]  Oh, I'm not done with him.
[58:39.000 --> 58:40.000]  Believe me.
[58:40.000 --> 58:41.000]  All right, Mark.
[58:41.000 --> 58:43.000]  Well, hang on just a second, and I'll pick you up on the other side, okay?
[58:43.000 --> 58:44.000]  All right, folks.
[58:44.000 --> 58:45.000]  Y'all hang in there.
[58:45.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll 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 --> 59:25.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word
[59:25.000 --> 59:28.000]  beyond what 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 --> 59:43.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.000 --> 59:47.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.000 --> 59:51.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:51.000 --> 59:54.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[59:54.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  Logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown,
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market,
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:10.000]  Today in History,
[01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:12.000]  news updates,
[01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:24.000]  Markets for Wednesday, the 5th of October, 2016,
[01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  are currently trading with gold at $1,266.60 an ounce,
[01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:30.000]  silver at $17.72 an ounce,
[01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  Texas crude at $48.69 a barrel,
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  and bitcoin is currently sitting at about $613 U.S. currency.
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:46.000]  Today in history, the year 1947,
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  the first televised White House presidential address is given by then U.S. President Harry S. Truman,
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  Today in History.
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  In recent news, the Paris Climate Agreement is set to take effect next month,
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  adopted by consensus on December 12, 2015,
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:11.000]  or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris,
[01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  and open for signatures on the 22nd of April, 2016,
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  Earth Day, and a ceremony in New York City.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:19.000]  It is set to take effect on November 4.
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:22.000]  It is essentially a global agreement for the redirecting of the world economy
[01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  away from fossil fuels towards more greenhouse-friendly forms of energy.
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  President Obama, speaking from the Rose Garden, talking about the agreement,
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:31.000]  said that, quote,
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:35.000]  This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got,
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:40.000]  and that one of the reasons I took this office was to make America the leader in this mission.
[01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  The agreement already has support from major greenhouse gas emitters like China,
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:45.000]  the United States, and India,
[01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  and in total 72 out of 195 countries have ratified the agreement,
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  according to the UN.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump opposes the agreement
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  since it lacks the approval of the U.S. Congress,
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter.
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:08.000]  More than 50 correctional officers and inmates inside Maryland's largest state prison
[01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:12.000]  were charged by prosecutors Wednesday today with bribery and drug conspiracy.
[01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:15.000]  The guards are accused of smuggling cell phones, tobacco, and drugs
[01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  into the Eastern Shore facility in exchange for money and sex,
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:22.000]  according to indictments unsealed in a federal investigation.
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:24.000]  Apparently prison guards were passing through security
[01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:27.000]  with undetected heroin, cocaine, and pornographic videos,
[01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  which were then handed off to inmates in exchange for hundreds of dollars.
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  They were also being accused of warning inmates
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:35.000]  when prison officials were preparing to search cells
[01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:39.000]  and of using force and intimidation to silence inmates who were reporting the smuggling.
[01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  According to court records,
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:43.000]  inmates were using the prison phones and their contraband cell phones
[01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:46.000]  to pay off correctional officers through PayPal.
[01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:50.000]  They were hustling $500 for each package on average and as much as $3,000 a week,
[01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  according to investigators.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:05.000]  This is Rick Rowdy with your Lowdown for October 5th, 2016.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:32.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we're going to wrap up with Mark in Florida.
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:40.000]  All right, Mark, I'm glad you're doing well on this,
[01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:45.000]  but what do you actually have to ask about or anything, if anything?
[01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  What I have to ask, yeah, what I have to ask,
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  I'm getting ready to file on the three remaining cases
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:58.000]  since they will not allow me to do a motion to dismiss
[01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  because Florida statutes does not allow that after arraignment.
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  The judge brought that up, and I didn't argue it because I read that statute myself.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  Okay, then what about a writ of corum nobis?
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:16.000]  Now, that I've never heard of, Eddie.
[01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  A writ of corum nobis is a challenge to the court
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:24.000]  stating that the allegations being made are not factual
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:30.000]  and there is no case because it lacks the predicate facts to be a case.
[01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:33.000]  That's just a real simplistic explanation of it.
[01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  But basically, it's the same thing as a motion to dismiss in its effect,
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  but it's something completely outside of that in that it's saying,
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  look, you've made a charge that's impossible.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:51.000]  You're accusing me of a crime that's impossible.
[01:04:51.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  You don't have the facts to support that.
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:04:58.000]  Corum nobis?
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  Nobis, B-I-S.
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  Nobis, okay.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  Well, I was going to do it with a challenge to subject matter for several reasons.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:15.000]  The one charge is expired tags.
[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:19.000]  It's in personum as well as subject matter.
[01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  Yes.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  Do you have a legal argument for that on your blog?
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:30.000]  Well, not engaged in transportation is the legal argument.
[01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:36.000]  Acting in my common law capacity as a matter of right to exercise liberty
[01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  through locomotion was not engaging in any commercial use of the highways for any purpose.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  Yeah, I've got all that down pretty good.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:53.000]  Registration is a tax, and they're trying to punish me for not paying a tax in Texas,
[01:05:53.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  basically is what it comes down to, kind of assuming I have to pay a tax in Florida.
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:03.000]  But anyway, I can argue my way through that one.
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  The other one was a citation.
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:11.000]  There's no information, no formal charge.
[01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:17.000]  And on the bottom of the citation, the officer wrote, the other officer said.
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  Yeah, that is not a proper instrument to begin with.
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:23.000]  Yeah, it's all hearsay.
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  And the other one, the plain affidavit is so screwed up, it's not possibly legal.
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  Yeah, that's exactly the kind of stuff a writ of coral nobis is intended to go after.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  But you can also move to quash those instruments or whatever if there's a process for that.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:46.000]  If not, then the writ's the way to go.
[01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  Okay.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:53.000]  The other thing I heard on your rerun show, I believe it was last week,
[01:06:53.000 --> 01:06:59.000]  you mentioned about filing a habeas if you're on bond.
[01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  That's true, because you're being restricted at your liberty by that bond.
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:08.000]  If you can show that the reason the bond is in place is itself unlawful and illegal,
[01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  then the habeas works.
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  I don't know if I can prove that point, but the prosecutor,
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  their reason for wanting my bond revoked was because I was a danger to law enforcement
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:34.000]  and society because the officer stated that I said a cuss word.
[01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  There was no threat or anything like that.
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:41.000]  Right. That again is prosecutorial malfeasance.
[01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  He is intentionally perpetrating fraud upon the court knowing full well
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  that's not grounds for revocation of a bond.
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:56.000]  Yeah. Okay. So I can do a habeas on this?
[01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:00.000]  Yeah, if you can show enough facts to prove that there shouldn't even be a case,
[01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:03.000]  much less a bond.
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:07.000]  Well, I mean, the whole thing about the bond is so you show up to court.
[01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  No, it's also so they don't hold you in jail until it's time to show up to court.
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:22.000]  Right. But the Florida law does say if you get arrested while you're on bond,
[01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  they can revoke it. They can't do that.
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:33.000]  But my argument is I'm down to 133 pounds now.
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  I weighed 137 when I graduated high school and went to Marine Corps.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  I weighed 155 all my life. I'm wasting away.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  I'll turn 60 next month. How am I a threat to anybody?
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:49.000]  I've got no history of violence whatsoever.
[01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:52.000]  Well, that's a separate issue to deal with in that motion,
[01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:57.000]  but I would go after the prosecutor for attempting to perpetrate fraud upon the court
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  and so on and so forth.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  He knew that is not proper grounds to request revocation of a bond,
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:06.000]  and he knows it.
[01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  And her supervisor was in the room. I think he was the one that pushed it.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  Well, maybe.
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:15.000]  He was there both days.
[01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  Okay. So I can't do the habeas just for the fact that I've showed up
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  to the court all these times?
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  Again, I told you what the habeas can be used for.
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:31.000]  If you can show that none, like for instance, the instruments you're talking about
[01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  where the complaint isn't valid, the officer said this,
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  but it ain't the right officer and so on and so forth.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  If they put a bond on you based upon that, that's completely unlawful.
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  They don't have a case without a proper complaint and so on and so forth.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  So that would be the time when you'd file a writ of habeas to get out from under that bond
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  and make them pay it back.
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:09:58.000]  But what they're going to do then is turn around and try to refile everything
[01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  and take it right back away from you.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  It's been too much time. They're out of time on that one.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  The clock's out.
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:12.000]  All right, Eddie. Thank you very much, sir.
[01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  I'll let you get on to the next one.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  All right, sir. Thank you for calling.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:17.000]  Yep. Have a great day.
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  You too. All right.
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  Now we're going to go to Charles in Texas.
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  Charles, what can we do for you?
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  Hello, Charles.
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:30.000]  Going once.
[01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  Hello.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  Hello.
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  Okay. Sorry, it's more of an update.
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  You remember we talked last week about some of the stuff I was doing within the
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:44.000]  In the County Court and the Municipal Court.
[01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  Well, I did call the admin judge in Dallas, and the judge here did recuse himself.
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  Well, on the upside of that, I guess the admin judge went through and was looking
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  at other stuff, because now the other judge that sits on the municipal bench up
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  here has also recused herself for the current case, the case before this, and the
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  case before that where they said I was guilty of DWLI, where they may be guilty
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  and incensio.
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:27.000]  Yeah.
[01:11:27.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  So she recused herself of cases that went back about a year now.
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  Now I went ahead and I filed motions to dismiss all the charges in all these cases,
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  and go ahead and just get that off my back.
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  The question I have now is, what becomes of the DWLI cases, the DWI misdemeanor
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  B, if that case is dismissed down in the municipal court?
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  Well, I'm not sure I understand your question.
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  What does the procedure say comes next?
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  If you're getting them dismissed, what would you expect to come next?
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  What I would expect is if the misdemeanor B has been dismissed, then the other two
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  misdemeanor B cases would be irrelevant and invalid.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  How so?
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  Well, okay, if my understanding is incorrect, please correct me.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  What are the three charges?
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  The charges in the original case for DWLI...
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  For DWLI Class C or Class B?
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:52.000]  Class C.
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:53.000]  Okay.
[01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  That's the one I was convicted of without a trial.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  Okay.
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Okay.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  Now the case that she's recused herself of is that case that came before her court.
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  That she's recused...
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  Excuse me.
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  That she's just recused herself from after a year.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  She's just recused herself of it completely.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  So I went ahead and...
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  I mean, I'm not even sure why she even recused herself from a case that is
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  supposed to be closed.
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  So that guy...
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  You're trying to get the case dismissed, right?
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  You said you got convicted of it, but you're trying...
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  Did you appeal that?
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:43.000]  No, sir, I did not.
[01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:46.000]  That's what I don't understand.
[01:13:46.000 --> 01:13:50.000]  If it shows a conviction, why is she recusing herself from that case?
[01:13:50.000 --> 01:13:54.000]  But you said you didn't have a trial to get convicted.
[01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:55.000]  That's correct.
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:13:56.000]  Okay.
[01:13:56.000 --> 01:14:01.000]  Then how could you possibly be convicted?
[01:14:01.000 --> 01:14:04.000]  Well, you can't because you have to have...
[01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  What I'm asking you is, is what paperwork do you have that says you were convicted?
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:15.000]  Just within the attorney's file.
[01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  What attorney?
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:20.000]  The DWLR case.
[01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:25.000]  Mr. Mayor B, they pointed that they made me take an attorney because otherwise
[01:14:25.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  they told me I'd have to be guilty.
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  Okay.
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:29.000]  Now, wait a minute.
[01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:31.000]  When you say you were...
[01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  Okay.
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:37.000]  Did your attorney go to court for you?
[01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  Yeah, he went...
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  Not in the municipal court thing, but in the county court, yes.
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:46.000]  Okay.
[01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  Listen carefully to me.
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  And the one that you are convicted of, did that attorney go to court for you?
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  No, sir.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:56.000]  Okay.
[01:14:56.000 --> 01:15:00.000]  So nobody appeared in the court because no one notified you to appear in court,
[01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  and they convicted you in absentia when you didn't appear.
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:07.000]  Is that accurate?
[01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  Yes.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:10.000]  Okay.
[01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  And this is the case that this judge is recusing herself from?
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:17.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  And this is the judge that made that in absentia conviction?
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  Correct.
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:32.000]  And in the other two cases, you have filed a complaint with the head administrative
[01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  judge of the district to disqualify the current judge,
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  which is different than the one that's recused herself.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:44.000]  That's correct.
[01:15:44.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  But the two cases that this judge you're attempting to disqualify are presiding over
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  are dependent upon the conviction in the one where the judge is trying to now
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  recuse herself.
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  Correct.
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:01.000]  Okay.
[01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  Now that we've got that all lined out and we know what page we're on,
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  what are you trying to do now?
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  Well, for the first part, I went ahead and moved for dismissal of all the charges
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:17.000]  in the municipal court.
[01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:23.000]  Including the one that's already been falsely adjudicated?
[01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:30.000]  And did you put that in writing to this administrative judge?
[01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:33.000]  No, I haven't sent her a copy of the dismissal now.
[01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  Who did you file the request for dismissal with?
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:40.000]  Municipal court.
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  The same court where the judge disqualified or recused herself?
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  Correct.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:48.000]  Okay.
[01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  All right.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  That gets us back somewhere where we have a link here that I can deal with.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:55.000]  So hang on just a second and I'll get back to you on the other side of the break.
[01:16:55.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  All right, folks.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:16:57.000]  Y'all hold on.
[01:16:57.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high-quality coins
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:15.000]  and precious metals.
[01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:19.000]  We're committed to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:17:19.000 --> 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 young Jevity products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Polynburst.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House storable foods,
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  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 --> 01:17:46.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440.
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  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 --> 01:18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  Michael Maris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris banner
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  or email michaelmaris at yahoo.com.
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  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.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:40.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984 and we are talking with Charles in Texas.
[01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  Alright, so you filed a motion to dismiss this charge in the court where this lady judge just recused herself from the case,
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  though I don't know what grounds you cited for it if she allegedly adjudicated it already.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:20:09.000]  So why would a judge recuse herself from a case that she allegedly already adjudicated even though she did so illegally in absentia?
[01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  Did you file a complaint against that judge?
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:19.000]  Yes, I filed a complaint with her.
[01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  The last time I went to court before her was when she entered a plea of no contest on my behalf.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:39.000]  And I disqualified her, had her notice to vacate the ruling, and to disregard the plea.
[01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  And the last time I heard from her, I talked to the judge in Dallas at that time and she said she would take care of that.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  And that was the last time I'd ever heard of that and I have not seen that judge spent.
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  Okay, but that didn't answer my question. Did you file a judicial conduct complaint against that judge?
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  Yes.
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  Okay, and you got a copy of her order showing that she did what she did or at least a transcript of the proceeding where she did what she did.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  Yes, it's in the lawyer's file that I'm about to get.
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:24.000]  Okay. And hopefully you asked for her removal from the bench, not just sanction or censure, but removal.
[01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  That judge has no business being on that bench.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  Most of these people have no business being on a bench unless, of course, it's a weight bench and someone's dropping a barbell on their chest.
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  Well, the only reason I didn't send anything was a motion to dismiss to the admin judge because she said the only thing she could do was her cases for the disqualification.
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  Right. That's all that an administrative judge can do.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  Yes. So I went ahead and just filed it in the court of record. Well, not in the court of record, but in the court where the case originated to have it dismissed.
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Okay. That's a dismissal, but you did file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Committee.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  Yes.
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  Okay.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:15.000]  I filed a complaint with her six months ago, and I had not heard anything back yet.
[01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  I understand she's probably still investigating.
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  I doubt if they're investigating anything, but that's not really the point.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:26.000]  Okay. So what's your question then?
[01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:43.000]  Okay. So if the Class C conviction gets overturned and gets dismissed, does that nullify the case for the Class B misdemeanors in the county court since there is no previous conviction for VWLI?
[01:22:43.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  Absolutely. But that's an appeal in the county court. It won't be a separate case. It shouldn't be a separate case unless it's a separate offense, is it?
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  No. Well, yes, it's a separate offense.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  Okay. But right now it's a B because of the prior conviction.
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  That's correct.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  Okay. Yeah, you need to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. There is no prior conviction, no valid prior conviction in this case.
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  The problem is, is you didn't appeal that ruling by that judge. Yeah, you filed to get rid of her. Yeah, you filed a motion to overturn her ruling, but you still didn't complete an appeal, did you?
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:36.000]  No, I didn't have a chance yet to do an appeal.
[01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  Yeah, but that's what I'm saying is that that chance only lasts for a number of days afterward, depending upon whether it's a court of record or not.
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  And once that judge made that ruling as illegal and unlawful as it was, that became a conviction as far as the records concerned. Illegal or otherwise, that's what it became.
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  So the only thing you could have done was either filed a habeas with a higher court demanding an overturning of the conviction, or you would have had to file an appeal. Which did you do?
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  Yeah. I didn't either because like I said, I didn't even know that this conviction even existed. I had never been, I was never even informed of it until I got arrested the last time and told me, and I was told that there was a conviction for class C misdemeanor DWLI.
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:40.000]  I didn't even know it even existed. That's what bothers me the most. I never even knew that there was one, and I never got notified.
[01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  Now, that judge not needs to be in jail. That's falsifying a judicial record and a judicial conviction. That woman should be in jail. But she won't be because if it's a court of record, she'll probably be an attorney and get away with it.
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  And no, it's a municipal court. No, it's not a court of record. Yeah, but is the woman serving in there as the judge an attorney? They don't have to be an attorney if it's not a court of record, but they could be an attorney, even if it's not a court of record.
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  To be honest with you, I don't know. I know she's a JP of one of the districts here in town. Well, wait a minute. She's a JP and a municipal judge?
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:25.000]  Yes.
[01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:33.000]  That's a whole other problem. Two offices of public emolument.
[01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  Okay. Yeah, because she's been a JP in District 4 here for a good number of years.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  She wasn't just there as a visiting judge.
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  No, sir. She's actually on the website as a municipal judge.
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:59.000]  She's double-dipping. She's on the website. She's double-dipping. She's not allowed to do that either.
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:03.000]  I didn't know about that. Yep. I can take...
[01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  So I need to file a complaint against her on that case. Absolutely.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  Okay. Yeah, you need to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the county court. If there is no proper prior conviction, they lack jurisdiction over a Class C.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  Okay. The problem is, is you've got to do something about the conviction as it exists on the record, which means you've got to file something in an appellate court, which in this case now would be a habeas,
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  because the conviction was illegal.
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  I need to file habeas in an appellate court.
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  Well, the courts of appeals in Texas, I don't know if they have habeas. I know they do not have mandamus, but I don't know for a fact whether or not they have habeas.
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  The district courts would. You could file it in a district court, which is above the county court as well, and get it overturned that way.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  Any higher court would probably be able to do it. The district courts have both mandamus and habeas powers.
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  The district is just on the street.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  Yeah, motion to vacate, motion habeas corpus, any of that would work, because that was an absolutely illegal conviction.
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  Okay, because I got the support to do that. I did file subject matter and personal jurisdiction before the court, before they made me take this idiot as my attorney.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  Yeah, but the first thing that idiot did was go in and rescind your filings.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  No, they're still before the court. I've already talked to the judge. She said, well, not to the judge herself, but to the district clerk, and I was told by the clerk that I cannot make them do anything,
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:33.000]  because the attorney has to be the one who forces the issue, and he is not. But the motions are still there that they have not been acted upon.
[01:28:33.000 --> 01:28:40.000]  Neither has the motion to disqualify the officer and bring criminal charges on him.
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:45.000]  Yeah, but the attorney is not going to do that. Guaranteed the attorney is not going to do that.
[01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  No, he's not. I didn't think he would. I was forced to take the guy or plead guilty.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said that?
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  That was the rule that we were given in the court.
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  Oh, good. File a judicial conduct complaint against the judge of that court. That absolutely is not legal.
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:26.000]  They cannot force legal counsel upon you if you don't want it, nor can they force you to enter a particular plea because of the condition of which you accept or refuse their legal counsel.
[01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  File to disqualify that judge, file a judicial conduct complaint against that judge, and accuse them of judicial corruption.
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:51.000]  Make sure you get a copy of that rule. Get a copy of the procedures and that rule that that court's using. File it with your complaint.
[01:29:51.000 --> 01:29:52.000]  I will.
[01:29:52.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  Okay. All right, Charles. Hang on. I got a break, man. We'll be right back, folks. Hang in there.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  RFID technology can be used to identify, track, and locate things like boxes as they move through a warehouse.
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  But would you use the technology to send social smoke signals? Look at Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with more in just a moment.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  Makers of BlueSig's smokeless electronic cigarettes are embedding their product with radio frequency microchips or RFID technology.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  When the chip packs get within 30 feet of each other, they light up, vibrate, and swap information so smokers can find each other in a crowd.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  Later, the data gets uploaded to BlueSig's Web site when users plug their packs into a computer for recharging.
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  While high-tech cigarettes may help smokers find kindred spirits, they also let BlueSig identify and track them.
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  The chips could also be tracked by bar owners, employers, or anyone else who chooses to. That's a high price to pay for a little company.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  Hi, Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:35.000]  I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11, 2001.
[01:31:35.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:03.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:06.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their Kim trails, but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the Kim trails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:21.000]  That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:26.000]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints.
[01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:38.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:38.000 --> 01:32:45.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, 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 --> 01:32:56.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:56.000 --> 01:32:58.000]  This counts as based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:01.000]  May not actually be kidding about Kim trails.
[01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:11.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradio.com.
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:41.000]  Thank you.
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  We're still talking with Charles in Texas.
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  All right, Charles, that's what I'll be doing with this judge.
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:29.000]  This judge just did more or less the same thing that first municipal judge did, railroaded you into a situation they have no authority or legal power to do.
[01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  Okay, it's not a problem, because I'll take care of that right away then, because when you said go ahead and file a bar grievance complaint against the attorney, I did that that very night and had those copies.
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:49.000]  I had those copies in paper and on my computer, copies of everything I wrote to them and put into them in writing.
[01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  Right.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  So I'm making sure to keep a paper trail now at this point of anything that goes on.
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  Best thing to do.
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  All right.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  Well, thanks for your help.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  I didn't mean to keep you up so long, but I hope everybody else is listening that is maybe in the same situation.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  Hey, guys.
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  All right.
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:11.000]  Thanks for calling, Charles.
[01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:13.000]  All right.
[01:35:13.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  You have a good night.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  All right.
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:19.000]  Now we're going to go to Jenny in Florida.
[01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:22.000]  Jenny, what can we do for you?
[01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  Hi.
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  I called some time ago about the red light camera thing, and they actually threw that out.
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  So I want to now go ahead and see what the procedure is with suing the police officer that arrested me.
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  Suing.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  That's the procedure.
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  You have to sue him.
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:56.000]  How did he sue you for a red light or to arrest you for a red light camera citation?
[01:35:56.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  They suspended my driver's license.
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:06.000]  So when he pulled me over, I didn't even know that my license was suspended.
[01:36:06.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  When he pulled me over, that's when I realized that he arrested me, put me to jail.
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  When I went to jail, that's when he told me it was...I mean, when I came home, that's when I found out what the red light could be.
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  Okay.
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:27.000]  Well, that means you're going to need to sue the red light camera company.
[01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:29.000]  Okay.
[01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  Because the red light camera company provided false information to the police department and to the state.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  Okay.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  As far as all that goes.
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  So you're going to have to sue them.
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:56.000]  If the officer is shown to have relied upon the information that he had and he couldn't do anything about the information he had, then he has plausible deniability.
[01:36:56.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  Okay.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  But the red light camera company isn't going to have any.
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  Okay.
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  But I thought that if the police officer arrests you, he has to bring you before a judge, like if he didn't...
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  Well, again, as far as the red light camera part of it goes, you're not going to have a case against the officer for arresting you because of the suspension.
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:29.000]  However, the false imprisonment is a different issue.
[01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  If he was required by law to do something once he facilitated that arrest and he failed to do it, then that may give you a cause of action against him called false imprisonment.
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  In fact, in Florida, that's exactly what it is.
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  And there's a case that was filed and won called Trevizant versus City of Tampa.
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  Trevizant versus City of Tampa.
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  And what happened there was the officer arrested him for some alleged traffic.
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:12.000]  It's not an offense in Florida, by the way.
[01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  It's an infraction, which makes the arrest itself absolutely illegal.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:25.000]  If the driving, if the suspended license is an infraction in Florida, the officer's arrest was illegal.
[01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  Okay.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:32.000]  Not to mention the false imprisonment for not taking you before a magistrate to begin with.
[01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  So he may have a twofold problem, but you're going to have to do your research to find out.
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  But in the case of Trevizant, the officer arrested him, took him down to what was supposed to be a magistrate.
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  But rather than taking him before a magistrate, he put the guy in a jail cell for 23 minutes until he could find a magistrate.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:38:57.000]  Okay.
[01:38:57.000 --> 01:39:00.000]  Or waited for one to show up.
[01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:06.000]  That was a violation of law, according to Florida law and the jury.
[01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  They paid Trevizant $25,000 for that 23 minutes.
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:18.000]  So he basically got $1,063 a minute for being locked up illegally.
[01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  So there is precedent in Florida for that.
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  Right, because I was in the jail cell as well for about 30 minutes.
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:28.000]  Right.
[01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  And that's exactly the same thing that happened to Trevizant.
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  So you should have already have case precedent.
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  All you got to do is find his court filings and everything and basically change the details to you,
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  tailor it to suit your situation, and file it in your name and go for it, because he won.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  Okay.
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  All right.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  So where do I go about filing the last thing, like, information?
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  Well, see what court he filed it in.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  Find his original filings.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  All I've got is the court or the court case where he won.
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:12.000]  I don't have the actual pleading, the complaint that he filed.
[01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:13.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  Okay.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  So you're going to have to find that, and then whatever court he filed it in is probably the same one,
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  at least the same level of court you're going to want to file yours in.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  Okay.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  Okay.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Thank you.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:32.000]  Because I did, like you said, everything you said, and they threw everything out.
[01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  Ta-da!
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  Ain't life wonderful when people can follow instructions?
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  Congratulations, Jenny.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  You're one of the few.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  Thanks.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  So I'll do it just the way you said, find his information and file it that way.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  Yeah.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  Treva Zant versus City of Tampa.
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  Okay.
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  All right.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:40:55.000]  You're very welcome.
[01:40:55.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  Good luck.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  Go get them.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:01.000]  And remember us in your will or at least at a donation if you do win.
[01:41:01.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  Okay, I will.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:04.000]  All right.
[01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  Good luck, Jenny.
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  Thank you.
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  Bye.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:09.000]  All right.
[01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  Now we have, oh, well, lo and behold, Olivier in Tennessee.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:17.000]  Now, Olivier, I've got just under two minutes and 40 seconds here.
[01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  You are on the air, but I'm going to have to cut you short here in just a minute to go to a break.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:22.000]  So go ahead.
[01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  Okay.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:33.000]  I had a court date today and it was motioned to amend the pleading because I had the wrong immunity clause in there.
[01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:41.000]  And basically the city's argument was that it was irrelevant because it was not correct.
[01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  And it pertains to sheriffs and employees of the county are not sheriffs.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  So basically the judge denied my motion to amend the complaint.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:11.000]  And my question is, am I supposed to expect a very long drawn out case?
[01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:13.000]  What do you mean?
[01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  Because the information that I provided clearly showed that I'm a pro-state lawyer,
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  and the courts should not take my pleading as strict, as strict stretches that they do as it occurs.
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  Well, no, wait a minute.
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  That applies to form, not to substance.
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  Okay.
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:41.000]  Okay.
[01:42:41.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  Substance is a separate issue.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  The substance has to be the same for either party to make the legal point and argument they're making.
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:52.000]  Okay.
[01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  The judge, the only thing the judge is required to do in relation to substance is if it's poorly written,
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:04.000]  is to attempt to understand what the person is actually asking for.
[01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  He can't invalidate it simply because it's poorly written.
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  But he can if it doesn't contain any actual substance that would allow him to maintain it and sustain it as a valid case.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  Now, if the complaint about what you filed is that it doesn't apply in this particular instance,
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  why do you need the court permission to file an amended?
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  You can just ask for leave to file an amended to it, or you can file an amended after the fact.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:43.000]  But if you give notice to the court that you intend to file an amended, why are they denying that?
[01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  That's the question.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Hang on just a second.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  We'll talk about that a little bit more on the other side.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We will be right back after this break, so y'all hang in there.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:02.000]  Nutritious food is real body armor.
[01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion, and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  Did you know the U.S. government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United States
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  and classified it as a Schedule I drug to hide it behind a marijuana plant?
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  People have been confused about this plant for over 80 years, and many still don't know what hemp is.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  So now you know hemp is not marijuana, and marijuana is not hemp.
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:46.000]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten-free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO,
[01:44:46.000 --> 01:44:48.000]  and is loaded with nutrients.
[01:44:48.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  Call 888-910-4367, 888-910-4367, and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  Only at HempUSA.org.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:08.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:16.000]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:20.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:20.000 --> 01:45:24.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  Americans have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:29.000 --> 01:45:35.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:40.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:50.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:57.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner,
[01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:21.000]  If you did not have any problem, where are you going to look for one?
[01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:27.000]  If you could not wait any longer, would you purposefully die?
[01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:44.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:48.000]  We are now in the last segment, and we are talking to Olivier in Tennessee.
[01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:51.000]  All right, Olivier, go ahead.
[01:46:51.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  All right. Well, basically, I wrote a GTLA.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:04.000]  I wrote the immunity on the GTLA. You say why they denied it.
[01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  Well, I guess I wrote a minute pleading into their response to dismissal.
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:15.000]  They motioned to dismiss in two of the cases.
[01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:21.000]  So I corrected what I wrote.
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  I corrected in the third case, but I filed the third case the day before.
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:34.000]  I had to go to court tomorrow on their motion to dismiss my case,
[01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  stating that I failed to state a claim and that the city is immune
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  underneath the GTLA claim.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  Right, which is standard practice of 12b6 dismissal at the federal level,
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  but it's basically the same thing they do at the state level.
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:57.000]  You said standard practice.
[01:47:57.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  Yeah, the very first thing any political subdivision or governmental entity
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  is going to do is move to dismiss for immunity.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  They're going to do that every single time, and they're going to make the claim
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:14.000]  that you failed to state a claim every single time.
[01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  What you need to make sure you're doing in your lawsuits is this.
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:24.000]  You find whatever legal book there is dealing with the causes of action
[01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:29.000]  as they are legally stated in your state.
[01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:33.000]  Okay, for instance, here we have a book called O'Connor's Texas Causes of Action.
[01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  Okay, in that for almost any kind of tort you can have is the exact verbiage
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:50.000]  and the required elements of the suit to make that allegation.
[01:48:50.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  So it tells you what each element is that must be presented to prove that point,
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  and it tells you the verbiage that should be there for the court to recognize
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  that's what you're doing.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  In other words, if it's not cookie-cutter to them, these morons will not read it,
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  and they will not understand it if they do read it.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  Okay, so I understand that the decisions or what I wrote came from the appellate court.
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  I'm not saying just decisions, okay?
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  No, no, no, I'm talking about the element.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  When I read this, they explain it after they give that decision.
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  Are you reading the court opinion or are you reading the book that says
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  this is how you must state all of the things required for this cause of action?
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:43.000]  The book? No, I haven't encountered a book.
[01:49:43.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  Okay, that's the thing.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  You cannot trust a court opinion to be giving you all of the elements
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:54.000]  that have to be stated in a particular case or the way that it must be stated.
[01:49:54.000 --> 01:49:58.000]  If it only addresses three out of five, that's the only ones you're getting,
[01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  whereas the book on causes of action will tell you that you need these five.
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:10.000]  And here are the cases and the things you need to look at that show you how to prove these five.
[01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:15.000]  Okay, and even if you're correct, the courts will still deny it.
[01:50:15.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  Well, they could, but it's a lot less likely.
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:25.000]  They're going to have a hard time dismissing a case that shows everything
[01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  exactly the way they themselves have required it to be,
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  especially if it can be shown that there is an issue of legal fact in the case,
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  because only a jury can decide the legal fact.
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:52.000]  The court cannot do that and the court cannot dismiss a case that has pending legal facts.
[01:50:52.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  That would be called an involuntary dismissal, correct?
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  That may be what they call it in Tennessee.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:08.000]  But the point is that if you state the required elements of your tort,
[01:51:08.000 --> 01:51:14.000]  then you've established, provided you've set up the evidence appropriately,
[01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  you've established a legal fact that must be determined by a jury.
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  You only need one of those to sustain the case.
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  But that's the only one you're liable to win on if it's the only one there is.
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  All right.
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  And as far as him not allowing the amended pleading,
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  amended pleading is allowed at any time before trial, isn't it?
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:43.000]  Yeah, look at the rules of procedure in your state.
[01:51:43.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  But as far as I know, as long as it's in within,
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:52.000]  it depends on whether or not they've got a filing deadline established for pleadings in the case.
[01:51:52.000 --> 01:51:53.000]  No.
[01:51:53.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  Okay.
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:56.000]  If they haven't done that and you haven't,
[01:51:56.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  and you're not within whatever the procedure says is a timeframe prior to trial or whatever
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  that would prevent you from filing it after that date,
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  then there's no way the court has any validity in saying you can't amend it.
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  The court doesn't have any power to do that.
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:20.000]  Okay.
[01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  So that's the understanding I need to have even though they did it.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  Well, what you need to do is move to file a motion to reconsider,
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  and at the same time make sure you've got good grounds for it,
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  but file a motion to disqualify and recuse the judge that ruled on it that way
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  and back it up with case law that shows you have the right to amend that complaint
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  at any time up to this period,
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:57.000]  and make sure that you're statutorily and case law valid, so to speak.
[01:52:57.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  Okay.
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  What he used to desire to claim was stating that he was telling me to explain myself
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:09.000]  because the city said that the immunity was calling for the sheriff
[01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  and had nothing to do with the county or the municipality.
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:21.000]  But where I got that information from was from the Supreme Court of Tennessee
[01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  where it said that that statute incorporated special deputies,
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  incorporated the employees of the municipality,
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:42.000]  and that statute was the statute that removed immunity from the municipality.
[01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  Okay.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  Then why didn't you cite that Supreme Court opinion to that judge?
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  I didn't have the document in front of me,
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:54:00.000]  but I mentioned that as I was explaining the plea to him.
[01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  Okay.
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:04.000]  The problem is if you're going to assert a case,
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  you bear the burden of proving up that the case is valid.
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  So don't go to court on any of these cases.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:16.000]  If you've got a motion written that says this is my authority to do A, B, C, and D,
[01:54:16.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  don't ever go to court without a full copy of the opinion that gave you A, B, C, and D.
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  Don't ever do that.
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  On appeal, is it enough that I've written it in my complaint?
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  Yeah.
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  As long as you cited the case in the complaint,
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  the judge should have been able to verify that it was valid.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:45.000]  Provided the citation, was it correct?
[01:54:45.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  Right.
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:47.000]  Okay.
[01:54:47.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  So go back with my complaint.
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:54.000]  If I can verify everything from the appeal of court and the Supreme Court
[01:54:54.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  that the verbiage and the statutes that I used.
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:00.000]  The elements.
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  No, no, no.
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Now listen to me.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  You've got several things going on here.
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:08.000]  You have the elements of the tort.
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:13.000]  That's your issue that you're suing about, okay?
[01:55:13.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  That is completely separate from the statutes and the case law
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  as far as what you have to state in your complaint.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  You have to state the elements of your tort for that complaint,
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:32.000]  whatever that allegation is that you're trying to get compensation for.
[01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  You've got to state all of the elements in your complaint.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:42.000]  You use the statute and the case law to support those elements.
[01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  But you must have all those elements to have a valid complaint.
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  Okay.
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  So I understand that, and that's what's confusing to me
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  because I understand that fact.
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  I went over it thoroughly.
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  I'm going to look over the book to see if there's anything different.
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  But I've covered every element in there.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:05.000]  What they're saying is...
[01:56:05.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  Every element according to what?
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  What are you sourcing the required elements from?
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  That's my question.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  The prior case laws that have been ruled on in Tennessee.
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:22.000]  But that's the thing.
[01:56:22.000 --> 01:56:26.000]  What guarantee do you have that the opinions you're reading
[01:56:26.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  cover all of the required elements?
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  Does this case say the only elements required to be proven in a case of this is A, B, C, D, and E?
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  Do you have a case opinion that says that?
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  In that form, yes.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  In the case form, it goes down.
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  It tells you why it's not accepted.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  Then it goes down to tell you all the things that were needed for it to be accepted.
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:00.000]  Okay.
[01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  Then you've got something that should tell you if it tells you
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  this is all of the things that had to be there for it to be accepted.
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  Yes.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  That's how they write it in Tennessee.
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  But that's why I was kind of confused.
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  Why are they arguing this where I've covered everything?
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  Because that is standard practice.
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  That's exactly why you have to go in there knowing what the case law is,
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  knowing what the statutes is, and when that attorney comes up and says,
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  well, he doesn't have a claim under blah, blah, blah,
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:34.000]  then you demand that he prove up his allegation that you didn't state a valid claim.
[01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  Because you have this case, this case, this case, and this case,
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  it says your complaint has all the required elements,
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  and you have stated the facts and provided the evidence necessary to support it.
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  What is his basis, legally speaking, for claiming you have not filed a valid claim?
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  Oh, that's how I need to check it tomorrow.
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  Yeah, because if he's doing that without any supporting evidence
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  to disprove what's in your complaint,
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  then he is falsifying the information to the court, which is fraud upon the court.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  But it's what they do every single time, okay?
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:17.000]  So just get ready to appeal.
[01:58:17.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  There you go.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  All right, man, I got to let you go.
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  I'm off to air here in just a few seconds.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  You have a good night.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  All right.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  All right, folks, this has been the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  Your host, Eddie Craig, I want to thank you all for listening
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  and for calling in, and for those of you that have been victorious, great.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  Love it.
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  Keep it up.
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  All right, folks, keep us in your financial prayers.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  Help us out whenever you can, because Lord knows we need it.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  Eat it every day.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  You all have a great week.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Good night, and God bless.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:02.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.000 --> 01:59:06.000]  what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God
[01:59:06.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  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 --> 01:59:26.000]  This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:26.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  plus charts and maps, and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:36.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version,
[01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:49.000]  That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.000 --> 01:59:57.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it, LogosRadioNetwork.com.