[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000] The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing you daily bulletins for the commodities market. [00:10.000 --> 00:18.000] Today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative. [00:18.000 --> 00:32.000] Markets for Monday, the 16th of January, 2017, are currently treading with gold at $1,202.86 an ounce, silver $16.95 an ounce, [00:32.000 --> 00:39.000] Texas crude $52.37 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 832 U.S. currency. [00:39.000 --> 00:52.000] Today in history, the year 1991, the coalition forces go to war with Iraq, beginning the Gulf War Operation Desert Storm. [00:52.000 --> 01:05.000] Today in history, in recent news, the government of Oman announced earlier on Monday today that it had resettled 10 lower-level detainees from Guantanamo. [01:05.000 --> 01:14.000] Oman had previously taken in 20. The Pentagon has not yet formally announced the transfer or named the 10 men, but it did confirm that 10 prisoners had been transferred. [01:14.000 --> 01:23.000] The transfers have reduced the remaining population at this prison to 45, nine of whom are also approved for transfer to a country that is willing and able to do so. [01:23.000 --> 01:34.000] Saudi Arabia has also resettled four detainees earlier this month, and several more transfers, including to the United Arab Emirates, another to Saudi Arabia, and possibly one to Italy, are expected in the coming days. [01:34.000 --> 01:40.000] It seems President Obama and his administration are attempting to deliver on their campaign promise of closing Guantanamo. [01:40.000 --> 01:48.000] The question is whether he has enough time and is legally able to do so since federal laws require a 30-day notice to Congress on such transfers. [01:48.000 --> 01:54.000] President-elect Donald Trump has voiced his concerns and has suggested halting any further transfers. [01:54.000 --> 02:06.000] This could very well be the year that Texas raises the smoking age to 21 and becomes the third state in the union to hike its smoking age above 19. [02:06.000 --> 02:16.000] Raising the minimum legal age to buy tobacco products like cigarettes and chewing tobacco has been the goal of Texas Democrats like Senator Carlos Uresti from San Antonio for at least a decade. [02:16.000 --> 02:22.000] However, this year, with bipartisan support from Republicans, Uresti said that we have a good as a chance as we've ever had. [02:22.000 --> 02:28.000] The argument is essentially that raising the smoking age will save lives and money spent on smoking-related illnesses. [02:28.000 --> 02:38.000] Unfortunately, as is usual for politicians and legislators, raising the minimum tobacco age will invariably cause 18- to 20-year-olds to receive citations and legal punishments for smoking when caught. [02:38.000 --> 02:44.000] And as is the case with drugs, will raise the taboo level, possibly having the opposite psychological effect. [02:44.000 --> 02:49.000] Teenagers rebel to rebel, even if it is regulations for their health that they are rebelling against. [02:49.000 --> 02:56.000] This is Rick Rhodey with your Lowdown for January 16, 2017. [03:20.000 --> 03:31.000] I'm sick of people being victimized by criminal cops, psychopathic predators, terrorizing neighborhood cops, equipped with pepper spray, make-up, tazers, and glass. [03:31.000 --> 03:36.000] They're like serial killers acting out subliminal thoughts. Forget what you taught, these cops have got a license to kill. [03:36.000 --> 03:41.000] Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will. Code of silence means that the pigs will never let out a squeal. [03:41.000 --> 03:44.000] And if they go to court, they know the judge will make them a deal, for real. [03:44.000 --> 03:49.000] That's why they stoppin' me, lockin' me up and stoppin' me, complicatin' my property, darkening my demography. [03:49.000 --> 03:54.000] Makin' the poor commodities, procidin' off of poverty. It's all the policy support, the prison economy, yeah. [03:54.000 --> 03:59.000] No one makes money when the violence stops. Hatin' brutality's the way to makin' criminal crops. [03:59.000 --> 04:04.000] Blood in the gut is how to rip butter, they bread at the top. And that's why this is what happens when you call the cops. [04:04.000 --> 04:10.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:10.000 --> 04:15.000] All right, folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig. [04:15.000 --> 04:23.000] And yeah, we do know these days exactly what happens when you call the cops. It is nothing good, hardly ever. [04:23.000 --> 04:29.000] It is January 16th, 2017. We are 16 days into the new year. [04:29.000 --> 04:36.000] And I have yet to be able to get on the Internet today to find out just how many people have been killed by cops since New Year's Eve. [04:36.000 --> 04:44.000] I'm sure the number is ghastly if it's more than zero. But this is America, so just wait. [04:44.000 --> 04:48.000] Things will change eventually when we get PO'd enough and actually do somethin' enough. [04:48.000 --> 04:53.000] Or we're wearin' our chains and diggin' our own holes and so on and so forth. [04:53.000 --> 04:57.000] You have to make your own choices these days, you know. [04:57.000 --> 05:05.000] Now, what I would like to do to start off this New Year right is introduce you to a 1921 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case [05:05.000 --> 05:08.000] called DeSylvia v. State. [05:08.000 --> 05:17.000] Now, this case is very confusing in one very significant way in the fact that when you look it up by its southwest reference number, [05:17.000 --> 05:22.000] you do not get this case. You get a different case. [05:22.000 --> 05:31.000] But when you look it up by the original 88 Texas Criminal Appeals Court 634 number, you get this case. [05:31.000 --> 05:37.000] So it's confusing. But this is all in the same opinion. That's kinda odd. [05:37.000 --> 05:43.000] But in any case, the significance of DeSylvia is this. [05:43.000 --> 05:52.000] In this particular instance, the man DeSylvia challenged the actions of a court in Port Arthur. [05:52.000 --> 06:07.000] The legislature, via legislative enactment, created a county court at law and set its jurisdictional territory to the limits of the municipality of Port Arthur. [06:07.000 --> 06:14.000] In other words, they were telling us in the legislation they were creating a county court at law, [06:14.000 --> 06:21.000] but what they were actually creating, for all intents and purposes, was a municipal court. [06:21.000 --> 06:31.000] But then in the bill, they delegated to the municipality all of the authority to assign the judges, [06:31.000 --> 06:39.000] to determine how they get replaced, and the jurisdiction of that court, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. [06:39.000 --> 06:49.000] DeSylvia challenged the enactment as unconstitutional in violation of Article 3, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution's [06:49.000 --> 06:56.000] one subject bill requirement, or one subject in the title of any bill requirement. [06:56.000 --> 07:07.000] Any time the legislature creates a bill as a law in Texas, or to a degree that bill created as law, the bill has to have a title slash caption. [07:07.000 --> 07:17.000] In that title, the subject matter of the bill must be stated, and that subject matter can only encompass one subject. [07:17.000 --> 07:32.000] Anything else that goes within that bill is a separate object beneath and contextually relevant to that subject, whatever that subject may be. [07:32.000 --> 07:37.000] The way I describe it in class is this. In every Texas legislative bill, you have a subject. [07:37.000 --> 07:45.000] Think of the subject as a toy box. Only the toys related to that type of toy box can go in it. [07:45.000 --> 07:59.000] For instance, if the toy box says that this is for squishy, squeaky toys only, the subject of this box is squeaky toys, okay? [07:59.000 --> 08:07.000] Soft, squeaky toys. We cannot put our building blocks in that box unless they're soft and they're squeaky. [08:07.000 --> 08:12.000] We cannot put our erector set in that box. We cannot put our tricycle in that box. [08:12.000 --> 08:15.000] We can't put our little bowling pin playset in that box. [08:15.000 --> 08:24.000] We can't put any of our dollhouse equipment in that box because none of that is relevant to the subject of soft, squeaky toys, okay? [08:24.000 --> 08:28.000] The only thing that can go in that toy box is soft, squeaky toys. [08:28.000 --> 08:37.000] Well, the same thing applies to legislation relevant to the creation of courts or to the creation of, say, a transportation code. [08:37.000 --> 08:45.000] Now, in this particular instance, the legislator, by telling us that the subject was a county court-at-law, [08:45.000 --> 08:56.000] but actually creating a municipal court-at-law, or a municipal court, rather, they were misleading the public as to what they were doing. [08:56.000 --> 09:02.000] And thus, the court declared that legislation and the actions of that court unconstitutional [09:02.000 --> 09:11.000] and released a silver from the allegations against him because the court had no jurisdiction to hear the allegation in the first place, none. [09:11.000 --> 09:21.000] So the court was declared unconstitutional. But there is language in this opinion that carries it further than that. [09:21.000 --> 09:28.000] And that language, very straightforward, says that the legislator has no authority to delegate to a municipality [09:28.000 --> 09:40.000] the ability to create courts and to assign the jurisdiction and organization of said court, none, not a zip. [09:40.000 --> 09:48.000] Which brings us to today. Today, we have Chapter 29 and Chapter 30 of the Texas Government Code. [09:48.000 --> 09:58.000] The enactments of Chapter 29 and Chapter 30 deal with non-record courts of the Municipal and Justice of the Peace variety in Chapter 29 [09:58.000 --> 10:08.000] and courts of record in Chapter 30. But you will notice one thing about both pieces of legislation. [10:08.000 --> 10:19.000] They authorize the creation of the municipal court by city ordinance. They authorize the city to determine the judges [10:19.000 --> 10:26.000] and how they're appointed, to set the jurisdiction of those courts, and to assign that jurisdiction [10:26.000 --> 10:33.000] relevant to the same jurisdiction as justices of the peace courts within the same territory and county. [10:33.000 --> 10:40.000] Okay? Basically, Chapter 29 and Chapter 30 of the Government Code do the exact same thing, [10:40.000 --> 10:48.000] the legislation trying to create a county court at law, but actually creating a municipal court did. [10:48.000 --> 10:56.000] They are misleading us in what they're doing. Now, they say that the legislation is captioned as the creation of a municipal court of record. [10:56.000 --> 11:04.000] Okay, that's fine. The legislature, if they're creating a municipal court of record, that's fine. [11:04.000 --> 11:15.000] But the legislation doesn't create the court. It delegates that power to the municipality in direct violation of Article 3, [11:15.000 --> 11:24.000] Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, who specifically grants that power only to the legislature. [11:24.000 --> 11:31.000] And they cannot redelegate it to a municipal corporation, period. [11:31.000 --> 11:39.000] So what we have is a lack of jurisdiction to preside over any cases whatsoever involving state law [11:39.000 --> 11:47.000] for every single municipal court in Texas that is not specifically created by legislative statute. [11:47.000 --> 11:54.000] Not only specifically created, but the jurisdiction assigned and the organization and appointment of judges [11:54.000 --> 12:00.000] and everything else designated by the legislature. [12:00.000 --> 12:05.000] Now, there are some courts where at least some of that is done in Chapter 30. [12:05.000 --> 12:15.000] But the general principle of creating a municipal court by ordinance, by the municipality, is at the very top of Chapter 30. [12:15.000 --> 12:20.000] And it is flat out unconstitutional. [12:20.000 --> 12:28.000] Guess what has never been challenged since the case of the Sylvia in 1921. [12:28.000 --> 12:32.000] And this case, by the way, has not been overturned. [12:32.000 --> 12:39.000] And of all places, it came not from the Texas Supreme Court, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, [12:39.000 --> 12:45.000] the Supreme Court on the criminal side. [12:45.000 --> 12:50.000] They ruled this type of creation of a court is unconstitutional. [12:50.000 --> 13:02.000] And since the day that ruling has been made, every court in Texas has ignored it, including the Court of Criminal Appeals itself. [13:02.000 --> 13:07.000] They have absolutely ignored its existence. [13:07.000 --> 13:11.000] Now, why do you think that is? [13:11.000 --> 13:21.000] And what kind of problems do you think that information is about to cause the state of Texas and every corporation in it [13:21.000 --> 13:26.000] that is functioning as a municipality and has a court? [13:26.000 --> 13:30.000] Because here in Austin, for instance, they have two municipal courts of record. [13:30.000 --> 13:38.000] But neither of those municipal courts of record are in any way, shape, or form compliant with Chapter 30 of the Government Code [13:38.000 --> 13:42.000] as to how they are to be designated when they were created. [13:42.000 --> 13:46.000] They're required to have a specific name identifying them as a court of record. [13:46.000 --> 13:48.000] Austin courts don't have that. [13:48.000 --> 13:54.000] They are forbidden to operate a court of record in the same municipality where there is a court of no record. [13:54.000 --> 14:01.000] The Austin Municipal Court is a court of record. The Downtown Community Court is allegedly not a court of record, according to the clerks. [14:01.000 --> 14:16.000] So no way, shape, or form is the Austin Municipal Court system compliant even with the unconstitutional act created in Chapter 30. [14:16.000 --> 14:22.000] But the entire act itself is unconstitutional, as is most of the actions these people take these days. [14:22.000 --> 14:33.000] Now, folks, if you want to know what your best reason for hanging every damned attorney you set eyes on is, this is a perfect example. [14:33.000 --> 14:44.000] This is a perfect example. There is no way, none, that the things that we are experiencing in these court systems [14:44.000 --> 14:51.000] would operate the way they do if it were not for the damned attorneys. [14:51.000 --> 14:56.000] Attorneys that maliciously prosecute people that they have no business prosecuting. [14:56.000 --> 15:01.000] Defense attorneys that won't do their damned job and defend their client. [15:01.000 --> 15:12.000] Judges who will do anything at all to make sure that the party they like wins and that justice is a thing of the past for the accused. [15:12.000 --> 15:21.000] They will not play by their own rules that they created and that they insist that we must play by, but they don't. [15:21.000 --> 15:38.000] They use a justice system that creates civil infractions of criminal statutes and don't have to comply with the due process requirements of either set of rules. [15:38.000 --> 15:47.000] For instance, in any criminal case in Texas, according to the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights, you are entitled to assistance of counsel in a criminal trial. [15:47.000 --> 15:51.000] It doesn't say anything about what level of trial, whether or not you can go to jail. [15:51.000 --> 15:54.000] It says you have the right to assistance of counsel. [15:54.000 --> 15:59.000] It says the legislature has no authority to suspend that right, and they never did. [15:59.000 --> 16:03.000] So where the hell did the courts get it? [16:03.000 --> 16:13.000] Where did the courts get the power to suspend a right written specifically into the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights? [16:13.000 --> 16:17.000] By what authority? [16:17.000 --> 16:28.000] There is none, which means the courts of this state are guilty of treason against the state constitution. [16:28.000 --> 16:33.000] What else can you call it? [16:33.000 --> 16:42.000] They are committing sedition and treason against every single one of us, and we are allowing this to continue. [16:42.000 --> 16:45.000] Why? [16:45.000 --> 16:47.000] Why? [16:47.000 --> 16:48.000] I'll tell you why. [16:48.000 --> 16:50.000] You're lazy. [16:50.000 --> 16:51.000] You won't learn. [16:51.000 --> 16:53.000] You won't fight back. [16:53.000 --> 16:54.000] That's how they get away with it. [16:54.000 --> 16:56.000] We'll talk about that more on the other side. [16:56.000 --> 17:00.000] We'll be right back. [17:00.000 --> 17:01.000] Dang, Cookie. [17:01.000 --> 17:03.000] Cookie? Me love cookies. [17:03.000 --> 17:04.000] Oh, hi, Cookie Munchers. [17:04.000 --> 17:06.000] No, these are yucky cookies. [17:06.000 --> 17:09.000] Cookies? Yucky? No, no bad cookies. [17:09.000 --> 17:11.000] You can't even eat these cookies. [17:11.000 --> 17:12.000] These are cyber cookies. [17:12.000 --> 17:13.000] No, can't eat it. [17:13.000 --> 17:17.000] No, they are cyber cookies, and they clog up your computer. [17:17.000 --> 17:18.000] These have apples. [17:18.000 --> 17:21.000] Really? Oh, that's an actual apple. [17:21.000 --> 17:23.000] Yummy apple. [17:23.000 --> 17:27.000] I'm going to throw away these yucky cookies in the trash. [17:27.000 --> 17:33.000] I click control, shift, delete, and then scroll down to cookies and clear them. [17:33.000 --> 17:34.000] Bye-bye, yucky cookies. [17:34.000 --> 17:42.000] Now, I go to logosradio.network.com, and I click on the Amazon box on the upper right-hand side, bookmark the link, [17:42.000 --> 17:47.000] and I can go to Amazon through this link and order you some yummy new cookies. [17:47.000 --> 17:49.000] New cookies? For me? [17:49.000 --> 17:54.000] Consider it an early Christmas present, and every time I order on Amazon, I go through this link, [17:54.000 --> 17:57.000] and I give a little present to this radio network, too. [17:57.000 --> 17:58.000] B is for Cookie. [17:58.000 --> 18:00.000] B is for Classified. [18:00.000 --> 18:05.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [18:05.000 --> 18:09.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. [18:09.000 --> 18:15.000] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win, too. [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 phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, [18:27.000 --> 18:34.000] how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [18:34.000 --> 18:39.000] The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:39.000 --> 18:41.000] Personal consultation is available as well. [18:41.000 --> 18:49.000] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [18:49.000 --> 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, lo-lo-lo-logosradio-network.com. [19:11.000 --> 19:32.000] Yeah, the song on the roof, sirens in my head, raps of silent songs took it to bed. Can I do go? My whole life spins into the present. [19:32.000 --> 19:41.000] Live in the madhouse, see if I keep on, I'll be a good man, come on down to the west side. [19:41.000 --> 19:47.000] Where I'm running to, now that I've fallen so far, to the ground to go. [19:47.000 --> 19:50.000] I'm running for the best of all. [19:50.000 --> 19:55.000] All right, folks, we are back. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. [19:55.000 --> 20:02.000] The call-in number is 512-646-1984, if y'all want to start calling in and getting in line. [20:02.000 --> 20:07.000] Now, why are we lazy? We're lazy because we don't follow through. [20:07.000 --> 20:14.000] Whenever these people do something that's unconstitutional, that's illegal, we complain about it. [20:14.000 --> 20:20.000] But we do it from a chair. We do it in the comfort of friends and family. We don't get in their faces. [20:20.000 --> 20:29.000] We don't go down to the town hall meetings and the city hall managers and mayors and our representatives whenever they come through town. [20:29.000 --> 20:41.000] And we're not standing there in large, angry groups of people asking them just what the hell do they think they're doing at the job that belongs to us. [20:41.000 --> 20:52.000] Why did he allow legislation that harms us in this way or actions by a court in this way to continue or to happen in the first place? [20:52.000 --> 20:59.000] See, the thing is, you have to understand how the separation of powers works, both for us and against us. [20:59.000 --> 21:04.000] The legislature can make the law, and they can determine what's a crime and what's not a crime. [21:04.000 --> 21:16.000] They can determine what the proper legal process is that must occur for due process to be met in relation to the law. [21:16.000 --> 21:23.000] But what they cannot do is dictate the actions of the judiciary. That's a separation of powers requirement. [21:23.000 --> 21:31.000] The legislature cannot control the functions of the actual judicial functions of the judiciary. [21:31.000 --> 21:40.000] But now as far as I'm concerned, that relates solely to the judges. [21:40.000 --> 21:49.000] In other words, they can't tell a judge how to rule on a case, only what the law is upon, which they must rule in a case. [21:49.000 --> 21:59.000] They can't tell a judge how he must make that determination, how he must split those legal hairs when they actually require splitting. [21:59.000 --> 22:08.000] But what they could do, whether the judge likes it or not, they could criminalize the judge's behavior. [22:08.000 --> 22:12.000] We know this for a fact because the Fed has done this. [22:12.000 --> 22:19.000] Title 18, if it was actually codified law, actually makes acts by judges and any other [22:19.000 --> 22:27.000] functionary of government under color of law illegal and criminal. [22:27.000 --> 22:35.000] Now, technically speaking, all the judges would have to do to fix that problem is to render those statutes unconstitutional. [22:35.000 --> 22:41.000] But in order to do that, they would have to figure out how to say, well, if you apply it to us, it's unconstitutional. [22:41.000 --> 22:43.000] But if you apply it to everybody else, they're not. [22:43.000 --> 22:46.000] You kind of see the problem they'd have with that here. [22:46.000 --> 22:52.000] Not that they wouldn't do it if they thought they could get away with it. [22:52.000 --> 23:01.000] But separation of powers, while I agree with it wholeheartedly, does have some possible downsides to it. [23:01.000 --> 23:09.000] But if it was done correctly, we would have remedy when these judges and these prosecutors [23:09.000 --> 23:14.000] and these defense attorneys don't do the job for which they are being paid. [23:14.000 --> 23:20.000] You got to remember when a judge says that it's the function of government we can't interfere with, [23:20.000 --> 23:30.000] the function of government is supposed to be to the benefit of the people for their welfare, not to their detriment. [23:30.000 --> 23:37.000] So when they choose a course of action that deviates from that requirement, [23:37.000 --> 23:43.000] that cannot be a course of action that they're authorized by the people to actually take. [23:43.000 --> 23:49.000] And they could not have immunity for that action. [23:49.000 --> 23:56.000] The idea of immunity does not exist in law, not in our law anyway. [23:56.000 --> 24:05.000] It was legislated from the bench by the courts, another unconstitutional act by attorneys. [24:05.000 --> 24:13.000] You see, the attorneys declared themselves immune and at the same time violated the separation of powers [24:13.000 --> 24:21.000] by declaring other agents of government in other departments also immune, such as cops, for instance, [24:21.000 --> 24:30.000] with official immunity, all in violation of the separation of powers and the constitutionally delegated authority [24:30.000 --> 24:36.000] to oversee the rights of the people and to protect them. [24:36.000 --> 24:46.000] Okay, not to prove them away like so much refuse off of a sculpted tree or bush. [24:46.000 --> 24:56.000] See, the thing that the government tends to forget is they can't turn our rights into a lawn sculptor. [24:56.000 --> 25:04.000] They're not free to clip away at them to get the shape out of our rights that they want them to have. [25:04.000 --> 25:10.000] If our rights are supposed to look like an elephant, they don't get to trim it down to be like a hippo [25:10.000 --> 25:16.000] so that the larger portion of the ears are missing and the tail is shorter and the trunk is gone [25:16.000 --> 25:19.000] because that means parts of the rights are gone, right? [25:19.000 --> 25:30.000] And then they don't get to turn the hippo into a bear, and they don't get to turn the bear into a rabbit. [25:30.000 --> 25:40.000] But they're doing it, and the reason they're doing it is because you don't know squat about tree trimming. [25:40.000 --> 25:44.000] And you're too lazy to learn. [25:44.000 --> 25:48.000] And if all you want to do is complain about the way the tree or the bush looks, [25:48.000 --> 25:55.000] well, then you're still going to be looking at it no matter how much you complain, right? [25:55.000 --> 26:07.000] Until you take your position as one of the people, the master of these individuals, seriously, why should they? [26:07.000 --> 26:16.000] Why should you be taken seriously when you have no real understanding of what they're doing to you in the first place, [26:16.000 --> 26:22.000] but all you're doing is complaining about it? [26:22.000 --> 26:25.000] And that's the problem with most of us. [26:25.000 --> 26:30.000] We're spending all of our time complaining about what is or coming up with some cockamamie idea [26:30.000 --> 26:39.000] about why we think it's that way, and we never take the time and the effort to actually know and understand. [26:39.000 --> 26:46.000] Now, hopefully, because you're tuned into the shows on this network on a regular basis, you're trying to change that. [26:46.000 --> 26:54.000] And that some of you, I know for a fact, some of you have become quite successful at knowing and understanding and changing that. [26:54.000 --> 26:59.000] We get lots of callers on this show that have known and understood and are changing that. [26:59.000 --> 27:14.000] But, folks, I want to tell you, while all of that is great, it is a drop, literally a drop in an ocean, okay? [27:14.000 --> 27:24.000] I can't reach enough people from this platform to have the effect we would need to make a tsunami out of this. [27:24.000 --> 27:31.000] All I can do is be a stone causing a ripple in a pond. [27:31.000 --> 27:45.000] Somebody else has to pick up on the energy from that ripple and either amplify it or start one from where it leaves off and have it continue. [27:45.000 --> 27:52.000] And until we become one voice and one mind on this subject, that's the only way it's going to work. [27:52.000 --> 28:01.000] But we're not making ripples. We're being too complacent. We're being too laid back. [28:01.000 --> 28:11.000] And we've got to change that. They are eating us alive faster than we can fight back to get them loose. [28:11.000 --> 28:25.000] You know, I have racked my brain for many years now trying to find the reason God created certain insects like mosquitoes, for instance. [28:25.000 --> 28:36.000] I cannot find one single beneficial reason for the existence of mosquitoes, at least in the form of a mosquito. [28:36.000 --> 28:50.000] Now, if they were actually created to benefit something, why weren't they simply created to be a non-obnoxious to the humans food source for the other praying bats and insects? [28:50.000 --> 28:56.000] Why did they have to be a pestilence to us just to exist? But there they are. [28:56.000 --> 29:02.000] I have exactly the same problem with figuring out the need for an attorney. [29:02.000 --> 29:12.000] The only thing that I can find relevant to the two is they both live off of someone else's blood. [29:12.000 --> 29:26.000] But just like a mosquito, I can't find a viable reason for an attorney to even exist, not as a singular profession in and of itself, none. [29:26.000 --> 29:42.000] Because everything that they know and everything that they do should be something that each and every one of us learn to do at an early age, to advocate for ourselves, our rights, and our due process. [29:42.000 --> 29:47.000] We should know these things. They should be inherent in us, in our education. [29:47.000 --> 29:53.000] But they're not, because these same people control the schools just like they control the courts. [29:53.000 --> 30:02.000] All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break, so y'all hang in there. [30:02.000 --> 30:07.000] The next time the doctor asks you how you feel, ask him the same question. Why? [30:07.000 --> 30:12.000] New research shows unhappy doctors perform differently than their contented counterparts. [30:12.000 --> 30:15.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht with details in a moment. [30:15.000 --> 30:21.000] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [30:21.000 --> 30:26.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too. [30:26.000 --> 30:31.000] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [30:31.000 --> 30:34.000] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [30:34.000 --> 30:41.000] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [30:41.000 --> 30:44.000] Start over with StartPage. [30:44.000 --> 30:52.000] We've long suspected it, and now a new study confirms it. A doctor's mood impacts their professional behavior towards patients. [30:52.000 --> 30:59.000] A survey of nearly 200 Israeli physicians found that on bad mood days, doctors spent less time talking with patients, [30:59.000 --> 31:04.000] wrote more prescriptions, ordered more tests, and issued more referrals, often unnecessarily. [31:04.000 --> 31:07.000] All of this, of course, leads to higher health care costs. [31:07.000 --> 31:12.000] But when the doctors were in a good mood and felt less burnout, they consulted more with patients, [31:12.000 --> 31:17.000] diagnosed their conditions with fewer tests, and prescribed less expensive medicines. [31:17.000 --> 31:24.000] Let's see, less caregiver stress, less burnout, and better patient care. Sounds like just what the doctor ordered. [31:24.000 --> 31:31.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [31:31.000 --> 31:39.000] What are you thinking? Microplant powder with iodine and probiotics for a total body detox for around $10 a month. [31:39.000 --> 31:46.000] USA.org has 12 formulations of microplant powder for absorbing and removing toxins from your kidneys, liver, [31:46.000 --> 31:49.000] blood, lungs, stomach, and colon, and feel better than ever. [31:49.000 --> 31:53.000] It alkalizes, oxygenates, kills parasites, does the job of 10 products. [31:53.000 --> 32:02.000] That saves you space, time, and money. Call 888-910-4367 only at USA.org. [32:02.000 --> 32:06.000] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. [32:06.000 --> 32:10.000] In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society. If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, [32:10.000 --> 32:13.000] then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [32:13.000 --> 32:18.000] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, [32:18.000 --> 32:20.000] and most importantly, the right to due process of law. [32:20.000 --> 32:26.000] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [32:26.000 --> 32:29.000] Former Sheriff's Deputy A. Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, [32:29.000 --> 32:33.000] has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand [32:33.000 --> 32:36.000] what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [32:36.000 --> 32:41.000] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [32:41.000 --> 32:46.000] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, [32:46.000 --> 32:51.000] video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. [32:51.000 --> 32:55.000] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [32:55.000 --> 33:03.000] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [33:03.000 --> 33:12.000] Live Free Speech Radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com [33:12.000 --> 33:34.000] I'm on the highway to hell, highway to hell. I'm on the highway to hell, highway to hell. [33:34.000 --> 33:40.000] Now ain't that some harsh musical truth right there. We are definitely on the highway to hell. [33:40.000 --> 33:44.000] If we don't wake up and do something. [33:44.000 --> 33:48.000] All right, folks, right now that's enough of a trot on the attorneys. [33:48.000 --> 33:54.000] Always remember, there's nothing wrong with an attorney that a tall tree in a short rope won't fix [33:54.000 --> 34:00.000] or a good set of double-op buck shot, you know, just that kind of stuff. [34:00.000 --> 34:07.000] Anyway, we're going to start taking your calls. Call in number 512-646-1984. [34:07.000 --> 34:13.000] First caller up is Jeff in Mississippi. Jeff, what can we do for you? [34:13.000 --> 34:17.000] Hey, Eddie, thanks for having me on the show. And I'm down to one question. [34:17.000 --> 34:18.000] Well, all right. [34:18.000 --> 34:27.000] I filed a Title 42 and my case got dismissed. The judge sent back his order and opinion. [34:27.000 --> 34:35.000] In my case, I had applied for a university and was denied admission the first time. [34:35.000 --> 34:43.000] Then they allowed me entrance to attend the college. So I attended the college for a year. [34:43.000 --> 34:49.000] And then they turned around and denied me admission again in between semesters. [34:49.000 --> 34:53.000] So I filed suit against them and listed all my facts. [34:53.000 --> 35:05.000] The attorney and the judge both responded with their response was, I don't know how to word this, [35:05.000 --> 35:13.000] is that I did not have a constitutional right to property or liberty interests. [35:13.000 --> 35:21.000] Both of them have said that. And to me, it kind of sounds tricky, like they're kind of getting around the issue. [35:21.000 --> 35:29.000] When I was denied admission both times, the student handbook says that I'm supposed to be taken to a hearing. [35:29.000 --> 35:36.000] And I was not taken to a hearing in either cases. And that's the main thump of my complaint. [35:36.000 --> 35:39.000] The main issue is that I was never taken to a hearing. [35:39.000 --> 35:42.000] And the judge just came back with his opinion and said, well, [35:42.000 --> 35:50.000] Jeffrey never even had a constitutional right for property or liberty interests. [35:50.000 --> 35:57.000] I was going to get your take on liberty and property interests with education. [35:57.000 --> 36:03.000] Well, I'm trying to figure out where liberty and property interests was an argument in this. [36:03.000 --> 36:08.000] It wasn't. That's why I'm confused. [36:08.000 --> 36:13.000] Well, when did this opinion come down? [36:13.000 --> 36:17.000] It just came down about 30 days ago. So I'm writing my appeals brief. [36:17.000 --> 36:22.000] Well, you need to also write a finding of facts or conclusions of law of demand to that judge. [36:22.000 --> 36:26.000] He has a duty to answer that when you file it. [36:26.000 --> 36:30.000] Okay. I've already done that. And he dismissed it without an answer. [36:30.000 --> 36:34.000] Oh, good. Move for sanctions against that judge. [36:34.000 --> 36:36.000] Oh, really? Okay. Who do I do that with? [36:36.000 --> 36:38.000] The court you're appealing to. [36:38.000 --> 36:44.000] Okay. Motion for sanctions against the judge with that accord of appeals. Okay. [36:44.000 --> 36:50.000] On the appellate record, you're going to say, I do not believe that this dismissal was an error [36:50.000 --> 37:00.000] or it was an entirely substantiated abuse of discretion and maliciousness by the judge. [37:00.000 --> 37:06.000] Okay. Okay. So motion for sanctions against him. [37:06.000 --> 37:10.000] The judge has to tell you, this is federal court, right? [37:10.000 --> 37:11.000] Yes. [37:11.000 --> 37:15.000] The judge has to tell you how you can remedy the issues he found. [37:15.000 --> 37:19.000] Telling you you don't have a right to liberty and property interests, [37:19.000 --> 37:26.000] that's as asinine a statement as I could have ever heard come from the mouth of a judge. [37:26.000 --> 37:37.000] Now, had he said you don't have a constitutional right to the liberty or property associated with attending a school [37:37.000 --> 37:42.000] because there's no constitutional right to an education, which is in and of itself BS. [37:42.000 --> 37:46.000] You have the right to learn and teach anything you want. [37:46.000 --> 37:48.000] Now, can you force someone else to do it? [37:48.000 --> 37:53.000] Well, if it's a public facility and you paid the requisite fees like everyone else, [37:53.000 --> 37:58.000] then what was the grounds for denying you other than discriminatory? [37:58.000 --> 38:00.000] Well, that's what he did say. [38:00.000 --> 38:09.000] He said that Jeffrey does not have protected liberty and property interests, constitutional right, when it comes to joining a university. [38:09.000 --> 38:10.000] So he did. [38:10.000 --> 38:13.000] Okay. Well, then the way you said it kind of threw me off. [38:13.000 --> 38:14.000] I'm sorry. [38:14.000 --> 38:25.000] Okay. Yeah. Well, that's not true if you raise it as an issue of discrimination. [38:25.000 --> 38:26.000] Okay. [38:26.000 --> 38:30.000] The problem is what facts are you going to use to make it? [38:30.000 --> 38:34.000] Because here you have, you paid all the requisite fees everyone else did. [38:34.000 --> 38:38.000] There's nothing on your record that would prevent you from attending. [38:38.000 --> 38:41.000] Your grades weren't substandard. [38:41.000 --> 38:45.000] You weren't expelled for something at the school or whatever. [38:45.000 --> 38:52.000] So if you paid the fees, why are you being rejected from attending, [38:52.000 --> 38:56.000] especially if you've already attended the school for a year? [38:56.000 --> 38:57.000] Yes. [38:57.000 --> 39:00.000] So what's the grounds for the dismissal by the school? [39:00.000 --> 39:01.000] That's my point. [39:01.000 --> 39:06.000] The only thing it can be is some sort of discrimination. [39:06.000 --> 39:09.000] They're discriminating you for some reason. [39:09.000 --> 39:12.000] You've got to find it. [39:12.000 --> 39:13.000] Okay. [39:13.000 --> 39:23.000] Well, their reason is that I had been arrested six years ago for having a gun on another university campus. [39:23.000 --> 39:31.000] However, when I got denied admission, I sent them letters asking why did you just deny me admission, [39:31.000 --> 39:33.000] and they would not answer them. [39:33.000 --> 39:38.000] It wasn't until I filed suit that then they came out and said it was because of the prior felony. [39:38.000 --> 39:45.000] Okay. Is there something in law that allows them to discriminate against people because of prior felonies? [39:45.000 --> 39:51.000] I could not find anything in their handbook, policies, or codes at the university. [39:51.000 --> 39:54.000] And what is the disposition on that case right now? [39:54.000 --> 39:57.000] You're still appealing that conviction, right? [39:57.000 --> 40:03.000] Yes. My brief is due in about 10 days, so I'm almost at the end of the brief part. [40:03.000 --> 40:08.000] Okay. [40:08.000 --> 40:14.000] Yeah, that's what I'd be looking for since they've got to have some sort of good reason for it, I would think, [40:14.000 --> 40:17.000] because otherwise it's discriminatory. [40:17.000 --> 40:18.000] You've got to find out why. [40:18.000 --> 40:24.000] And if it's not a basis upon which they can base a discrimination, a legal basis for it, then they can't do it. [40:24.000 --> 40:30.000] And that should be the issue you're raising with the court rather than whatever, having a right to the education type of deal. [40:30.000 --> 40:37.000] You have a right to access the same public services that anyone else does unless the court is willing to grant a right [40:37.000 --> 40:46.000] to discriminate against the provider of that service for some unknown legal basis that he's failed to disclose. [40:46.000 --> 40:52.000] Now, can I add the discrimination angle in my brief, even though I didn't argue my complaint? [40:52.000 --> 41:00.000] No, you can't argue facts you didn't bring up at trial or put into your initial complaint. [41:00.000 --> 41:09.000] What you could do is refile and let him deny it with that in there, and then you could make it on the appeal. [41:09.000 --> 41:13.000] But otherwise, you're stuck with what you had in the original complaint. [41:13.000 --> 41:16.000] Okay. [41:16.000 --> 41:20.000] Okay, my first complaint was the due process part of it. [41:20.000 --> 41:22.000] Well, you have a right to the findings. [41:22.000 --> 41:28.000] When he makes an arbitrary decision on his own, especially when he does nothing to rebut the facts of your complaint, [41:28.000 --> 41:39.000] provided that the facts give you a cause of action, okay, then he's got to answer a finding of facts or conclusions of law. [41:39.000 --> 41:48.000] If he doesn't, then you get to assume some inverse things about his opinion that he had no legal basis to put it on, for instance. [41:48.000 --> 41:51.000] He just did it. [41:51.000 --> 41:55.000] Okay. [41:55.000 --> 41:57.000] Okay, so I will move for sanctions. [41:57.000 --> 41:59.000] Okay. [41:59.000 --> 42:00.000] Well, good luck, Jeff. [42:00.000 --> 42:02.000] And I'll talk to you later. [42:02.000 --> 42:03.000] All right, thanks. [42:03.000 --> 42:05.000] All right, bye-bye. [42:05.000 --> 42:08.000] All right, now we're going to go to Charles in Texas. [42:08.000 --> 42:11.000] Charles, what can we do for you? [42:11.000 --> 42:13.000] Well, I just want to take a step back, Eddie. [42:13.000 --> 42:25.000] I'm looking at, I was going through the Texas Administrative Code, and I found some interesting stuff that I didn't expect to find, [42:25.000 --> 42:36.000] like in the government code, which is a reference from the administrative code, especially about state agencies [42:36.000 --> 42:48.000] and how the state agencies that are really recognized are statewide jurisdictional agencies and the state offices administrative hearings. [42:48.000 --> 42:55.000] Yeah, I must presume you're reading Chapter 2001 of the government code, the Administrative Procedures Act. [42:55.000 --> 42:56.000] Yes, sir. [42:56.000 --> 43:04.000] Hey, I'm doing my research because in February I've got to go face this, I've got to go monkeys anyway. [43:04.000 --> 43:14.000] And what it says in this thing that here, one of the things that excludes as an agency are actually the courts. [43:14.000 --> 43:18.000] Right, the courts are not administrative agencies of the state. [43:18.000 --> 43:20.000] That's correct. [43:20.000 --> 43:27.000] And so I was wondering if you could, if you got a chance, just kind of elaborate a little bit on that as far as it goes with driver's licensing, [43:27.000 --> 43:29.000] because again, I don't see 521. [43:29.000 --> 43:30.000] What's to elaborate on? [43:30.000 --> 43:31.000] State. [43:31.000 --> 43:34.000] I don't understand what you're asking me to elaborate on. [43:34.000 --> 43:41.000] Think about that for just a minute, Charles, while we take a break here, and then I'll pick that question up on the other side, okay? [43:41.000 --> 43:42.000] Yes, sir. [43:42.000 --> 43:46.000] All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, Monday night show with your host, Eddie Craig. [43:46.000 --> 43:50.000] Call in number 512-646-1984. [43:50.000 --> 43:56.000] If you've got a question, query, challenge, complaint, bitch, crack, grumble, whatever, give us a call and we'll talk about it. [43:56.000 --> 44:00.000] We'll be right back. [44:00.000 --> 44:03.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [44:03.000 --> 44:15.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [44:15.000 --> 44:19.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [44:19.000 --> 44:22.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [44:22.000 --> 44:27.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [44:27.000 --> 44:34.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [44:34.000 --> 44:43.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [44:43.000 --> 44:52.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [44:52.000 --> 45:01.000] Please visit LulavlawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [45:01.000 --> 45:12.000] Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from NaturesPureOrganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D. [45:12.000 --> 45:19.000] here in Austin, Texas, buying Brave New Book and Chase Tank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes. [45:19.000 --> 45:23.000] Have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. [45:23.000 --> 45:31.000] Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. [45:31.000 --> 45:38.000] Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at NaturesPureOrganics.com. [45:38.000 --> 45:44.000] That's 512-264-4043, NaturesPureOrganics.com. [45:44.000 --> 45:48.000] Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products. [45:48.000 --> 45:50.000] NaturesPureOrganics.com. [46:18.000 --> 46:47.000] All right, folks, we are back. [46:47.000 --> 46:50.000] This is Rule of Law Radio with your host, Eddie Craig. [46:50.000 --> 46:59.000] Before we get back to our caller, Charles, one thing I want to let you know about, we are doing the 2017 fundraiser right now. [46:59.000 --> 47:10.000] Every $25 donation, get your name put into the pot for the drawing for a brand new AR-15, which has been provided to us by, let's see, who is this here? [47:10.000 --> 47:12.000] My mouse will cooperate with me. [47:12.000 --> 47:17.000] I believe it's Central Texas Gunworks is who donated the gun for us. [47:17.000 --> 47:24.000] And if you buy the traffic seminar, that gets you into the pot 10 times just because you bought the traffic seminar. [47:24.000 --> 47:28.000] So if you don't have it yet, now would be a great time to order it. [47:28.000 --> 47:32.000] That puts you with 10 entries into the drawing for the AR-15. [47:32.000 --> 47:41.000] And in 2014, I'm told that the winner was actually someone who bought the traffic seminar and had their name in a pot enough times that they were lucky enough to get drawn. [47:41.000 --> 47:48.000] So just imagine, $250, not only do you get the seminar, but you may get an AR-15. [47:48.000 --> 47:53.000] Now, if you can't consider that a bargain, you ain't from this planet. [47:53.000 --> 47:57.000] That or you're very, very liberal and don't like guns to begin with. [47:57.000 --> 47:58.000] All right. [47:58.000 --> 48:01.000] That being said, $25, get your name in the pot. [48:01.000 --> 48:07.000] Seminar, get your name in the pot 10 times and the seminar and possibly the AR-15. [48:07.000 --> 48:14.000] Keep that in mind, donate whatever you can, as much as you can, as often as you can, because we're here to work for you. [48:14.000 --> 48:18.000] And we need to be taken care of so that we can stay on the air. [48:18.000 --> 48:19.000] All right. [48:19.000 --> 48:23.000] We don't have a lot of separate income streams here to make this work. [48:23.000 --> 48:26.000] We do this for you guys as well as for ourselves. [48:26.000 --> 48:28.000] That's what this is all about. [48:28.000 --> 48:30.000] So please help us stay on the air. [48:30.000 --> 48:33.000] Please help us survive just to eat half the time. [48:33.000 --> 48:34.000] Okay? [48:34.000 --> 48:35.000] All right. [48:35.000 --> 48:37.000] That being said, let's get back to Charles. [48:37.000 --> 48:39.000] All right, Charles. [48:39.000 --> 48:49.000] What exactly are you asking me to talk about in relation to the courts not being a state administrative agency? [48:49.000 --> 48:50.000] Okay. [48:50.000 --> 48:53.000] Well, one, I'm about to go into court with this. [48:53.000 --> 49:00.000] And yes, this is going to be part of my defense because this is the court where we've already had three cases. [49:00.000 --> 49:01.000] Okay. [49:01.000 --> 49:02.000] Wait a minute. [49:02.000 --> 49:05.000] Something about this is not an answer to my question. [49:05.000 --> 49:12.000] What is it you are wanting me to discuss in relation to a court not being a state administrative agency? [49:12.000 --> 49:16.000] And how do you think this is going to help you? [49:16.000 --> 49:17.000] Okay. [49:17.000 --> 49:19.000] I don't see. [49:19.000 --> 49:24.000] I'm looking at Chapter 159 of Chapter A, Rule 159.1. [49:24.000 --> 49:26.000] This goes to the administration. [49:26.000 --> 49:29.000] This is the state office of administrative hearing. [49:29.000 --> 49:36.000] I do not see where Section 521 of the Texas State Transportation Code is discussed. [49:36.000 --> 49:40.000] It just talks about Chapters 522, 524, and 724. [49:40.000 --> 49:41.000] Wait a minute. [49:41.000 --> 49:43.000] What are you talking about? [49:43.000 --> 49:47.000] Where is it discussing this? [49:47.000 --> 49:55.000] Title 1, Part 7, Chapter 159, Chapter A. [49:55.000 --> 49:59.000] 159 of the government code? [49:59.000 --> 50:01.000] No, the administrative code. [50:01.000 --> 50:02.000] I'm sorry. [50:02.000 --> 50:03.000] Okay. [50:03.000 --> 50:04.000] I'm sorry. [50:04.000 --> 50:10.000] The administrative code makes four exceptions to the jurisdiction of the state office of administrative hearing under the transportation code, [50:10.000 --> 50:25.000] Chapter 521, Chapter 522, Chapter 548, or I'm sorry, 5 something 4 and 754. [50:25.000 --> 50:32.000] Those are the four specific chapters that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the state office of administrative hearings. [50:32.000 --> 50:35.000] So what is your question? [50:35.000 --> 50:37.000] 534. [50:37.000 --> 50:40.000] 534 and 734, that's what they are. [50:40.000 --> 50:43.000] 534, 734. [50:43.000 --> 50:44.000] Okay. [50:44.000 --> 50:54.000] Well, I'm about to go into, I was going to use it, I was going to go into the county court because that's where I'm doing driving with license invalid. [50:54.000 --> 51:05.000] And if this stuff is under the jurisdiction of the state, the Department of Transportation. [51:05.000 --> 51:16.000] No, driving while license invalid is outside of the state office of administrative hearings pursuant the transportation code exception. [51:16.000 --> 51:22.000] Okay, so this would, so they would not be able, this would not be something that they would ever hear. [51:22.000 --> 51:25.000] Not the SOAH court, no. [51:25.000 --> 51:27.000] Okay. [51:27.000 --> 51:37.000] That's why I was looking, that's why I was wondering because I'm still, I've already found the jurisdictional challenge. [51:37.000 --> 51:42.000] I just want something, I want to be able to bolster my argument with something else. [51:42.000 --> 51:45.000] Do you have the seminar material? [51:45.000 --> 51:47.000] No sir, I do not as yet. [51:47.000 --> 51:52.000] Do you have the constitutional challenge motion? [51:52.000 --> 51:53.000] I do not. [51:53.000 --> 51:58.000] That's why you ain't got anything to give the court and why you're having to go work so hard to find it. [51:58.000 --> 52:05.000] The benefit of the seminar material is all these things you're looking so desperately for are already in there. [52:05.000 --> 52:22.000] I spent months upon months writing more than 400 individual legal pleadings dealing with every single screwed up thing they do to provide you with a way to fight back. [52:22.000 --> 52:25.000] Even when you didn't know how. [52:25.000 --> 52:29.000] That's the beauty of the seminar material. [52:29.000 --> 52:33.000] If you can read and comprehend, you can figure out how to use it. [52:33.000 --> 52:42.000] If you have the guts to stand up and learn what's in it, then you can stand up in a courtroom and argue it, which you may be called upon to do. [52:42.000 --> 52:48.000] But it sure as hell better than starting from nothing with no clue. [52:48.000 --> 52:52.000] Yeah, I'm going to order it when I get my tax return. [52:52.000 --> 52:56.000] I'm going to order it because I'm tired of dealing with these people. [52:56.000 --> 53:03.000] I'll be honest, there's been going on almost six to seven months now, and this is just ridiculous to me. [53:03.000 --> 53:07.000] The seminar material, I put a lot of effort into those legal pleadings. [53:07.000 --> 53:13.000] In fact, I'm putting a lot of effort into the rewrite of that seminar material into a newly structured package. [53:13.000 --> 53:15.000] I'm reorganizing everything. [53:15.000 --> 53:18.000] I'm trying to call down the number of pleadings we need. [53:18.000 --> 53:22.000] Unfortunately, they still have a tendency to do the same screw-ups. [53:22.000 --> 53:31.000] So whether or not I'll be able to get the number of motions called down instead of remain the same or actually have more, that remains to be seen. [53:31.000 --> 53:32.000] But I'm trying. [53:32.000 --> 53:39.000] But the fact is, is I have a motion that proves the entire code they're using is unconstitutional. [53:39.000 --> 53:43.000] It was enacted in direct violation of the Texas Constitution. [53:43.000 --> 53:46.000] And there is no way around it. [53:46.000 --> 53:51.000] Everything they're charging you with under that code is unconstitutional. [53:51.000 --> 53:57.000] I've got one that tells you very clearly that the way they're prosecuting these cases violates rights and law, [53:57.000 --> 54:01.000] and they can't get around that the way they're doing it. [54:01.000 --> 54:06.000] I mean, believe me, they make so many mistakes. [54:06.000 --> 54:14.000] It's like trying to plug the leaks in a five-mile-wide dam. [54:14.000 --> 54:19.000] No, because I mean, I don't have the constitutional challenge to know. [54:19.000 --> 54:24.000] But I did file for a challenge to the jurisdiction. [54:24.000 --> 54:26.000] Yeah, but on what argument? [54:26.000 --> 54:30.000] What argument did you argue on jurisdiction? [54:30.000 --> 54:32.000] Subject matter in person. [54:32.000 --> 54:38.000] Okay, how did you argue subject matter, lack of subject matter jurisdiction? [54:38.000 --> 54:42.000] That the officer was not acting as a police officer at the time. [54:42.000 --> 54:46.000] He was not acting within the scope of his authority. [54:46.000 --> 54:49.000] Okay. [54:49.000 --> 54:50.000] How so? [54:50.000 --> 54:59.000] I don't think, I don't believe they had, he didn't have proof that I was doing anything wrong. [54:59.000 --> 55:04.000] Okay, he's going to testify that he saw you doing something wrong. [55:04.000 --> 55:06.000] If they can get a hold of him. [55:06.000 --> 55:12.000] He was since released for unwanted behavior, [55:12.000 --> 55:20.000] and he also already had another issue against him for failing to respond to a call in which a guy. [55:20.000 --> 55:24.000] Okay, so you don't have a credible witness, but he's still a witness. [55:24.000 --> 55:27.000] What you're going to have to do is destroy his credibility if you want to get, [55:27.000 --> 55:30.000] make it where his testimony is not admissible against you. [55:30.000 --> 55:39.000] But the fact is they could still call him and still use it until you either disqualify him or they drop the charges. [55:39.000 --> 55:49.000] Well, I followed the public records request because I want to see if he's certified by the Department of Public Security to conduct traffic stops. [55:49.000 --> 55:53.000] Certified by who? [55:53.000 --> 55:57.000] Doesn't he have to be certified by the Department of Public Security to conduct a traffic stop? [55:57.000 --> 55:58.000] Yes, he does. [55:58.000 --> 56:02.000] Just because he's a cop, just because the cop does not give him automatic authority. [56:02.000 --> 56:03.000] That's correct. [56:03.000 --> 56:09.000] The transportation code is very clear that only peace officers authorized by the code can make those stops. [56:09.000 --> 56:17.000] And the only agency given direct authority to do it in any of the chapters of that code are Department of Public Safety officers. [56:17.000 --> 56:30.000] Everyone else is defined as a police officer under Chapter 541 who must be specifically authorized and certified to make those traffic stops. [56:30.000 --> 56:32.000] Yes, that's why I'm getting the public records. [56:32.000 --> 56:35.000] I want to see if he's certified because he's not. [56:35.000 --> 56:40.000] Who did you send that information request to? [56:40.000 --> 56:44.000] I sent it to the local police department. [56:44.000 --> 56:52.000] Okay, why would you send to the local police department a request for certification provided by the DPS? [56:52.000 --> 56:54.000] Well, because yes, when I discuss it... [56:54.000 --> 57:01.000] A better question would be is why didn't you ask for it from both? [57:01.000 --> 57:03.000] I can get it from both. [57:03.000 --> 57:06.000] The local office for the DPS is just about a block or two. [57:06.000 --> 57:13.000] Okay, what is my rule on covering all the bases? [57:13.000 --> 57:17.000] You never leave them an out. [57:17.000 --> 57:22.000] If they turn around and lie and say, yes, he's certified, but we don't have any documentation to it, [57:22.000 --> 57:27.000] and then you've got one from the DPS that says that officer is not certified on our list of certified individuals, [57:27.000 --> 57:32.000] you can then turn around and prove that the local police department did what? [57:32.000 --> 57:33.000] That they committed perjury. [57:33.000 --> 57:36.000] Correct. [57:36.000 --> 57:40.000] But without that from the DPS, you can't prove that, can you? [57:40.000 --> 57:44.000] No, sir, I can't, but I can take it down and get it done and get it taken care of. [57:44.000 --> 57:48.000] That's after the fact is not going to help you. [57:48.000 --> 57:54.000] Get it done and get it ready before it becomes an issue. [57:54.000 --> 57:56.000] Oh, no, it'll be ready. [57:56.000 --> 58:02.000] I've got another 20-odd days before I have to... [58:02.000 --> 58:09.000] Okay, but they can delay getting you that information as long as they possibly can and thus not make it timely. [58:09.000 --> 58:11.000] The point is if you're going to request it from the locals, [58:11.000 --> 58:18.000] also get it verified by the Department of Public Safety since they're the ones that would have had to have issued it. [58:18.000 --> 58:24.000] Okay, I'll go down there and drop that off with them in the bottom and get back from them. [58:24.000 --> 58:27.000] That's how far I'm going to do that. [58:27.000 --> 58:28.000] Okay. [58:28.000 --> 58:31.000] Well, do you have anything else then on the other side? [58:31.000 --> 58:34.000] No, that's what that is. [58:34.000 --> 58:35.000] Okay. [58:35.000 --> 58:38.000] I can nail the top and shut with that. [58:38.000 --> 58:39.000] All right. [58:39.000 --> 58:40.000] Well, all right then. [58:40.000 --> 58:42.000] We'll let you go and I'll take somebody else on the other side. [58:42.000 --> 58:43.000] We'll be right back, folks. [58:43.000 --> 58:44.000] You all hang in there. [58:44.000 --> 58:50.000] 512-646-1984. [58:50.000 --> 58:54.000] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, [58:54.000 --> 58:58.000] yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. [58:58.000 --> 59:02.000] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, [59:02.000 --> 59:07.000] but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture. [59:07.000 --> 59:09.000] Enter the recovery version. [59:09.000 --> 59:13.000] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, [59:13.000 --> 59:18.000] but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [59:18.000 --> 59:22.000] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, [59:22.000 --> 59:28.000] providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before. [59:28.000 --> 59:33.000] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. [59:33.000 --> 59:43.000] 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 --> 59:50.000] That's freestudybible.com. [59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com. [01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:07.000] The following newsflash is brought to you by The Low Star Lowdown, [01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:10.000] providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market, [01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:23.000] Today in History, news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative. [01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:30.000] Markets for Monday, the 16th of January, 2017, are currently trading with gold at $1,202.86 an ounce, [01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:35.000] silver at $16.95 an ounce, Texas crude at $52.37 a barrel, [01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:45.000] and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $832 U.S. currency. [01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:50.000] Today in history, the year 1991, the coalition forces go to war with Iraq, [01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:53.000] beginning the Gulf War Operation Desert Storm. [01:00:53.000 --> 01:01:01.000] Today in history, in recent news, the government of Oman announced earlier on Monday today [01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:05.000] that it had resettled 10 lower-level detainees from Guantanamo. [01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:07.000] Oman had previously taken in 20. [01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:11.000] The Pentagon has not yet formally announced the transfer or named the 10 men, [01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:14.000] but it did confirm that 10 prisoners had been transferred. [01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:18.000] The transfers have reduced the remaining population at this prison to 45, [01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:23.000] nine of whom are also approved for transfer to a country that is willing and able to do so. [01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:27.000] Saudi Arabia has also resettled four detainees earlier this month, [01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:30.000] and several more transfers, including to the United Arab Emirates, [01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:35.000] another to Saudi Arabia, and possibly one to Italy, are expected in the coming days. [01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:39.000] It seems President Obama and his administration are attempting to deliver on their campaign promise [01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:41.000] of closing Guantanamo. [01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:44.000] Question is whether he has enough time and is legally able to do so [01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:49.000] since federal laws require a 30-day notice to Congress on such transfers. [01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:54.000] President-elect Donald Trump has voiced his concerns and has suggested halting any further transfers. [01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:03.000] This could very well be the year that Texas raises the smoking age to 21 [01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:06.000] and becomes the third state in the union to hike its smoking age above 19. [01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:10.000] Raising the minimum legal age to buy tobacco products like cigarettes and chewing tobacco [01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:14.000] has been the goal of Texas Democrats like Senator Carlos Uresti from San Antonio [01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:16.000] for at least a decade. [01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:19.000] However, this year, with bipartisan support from Republicans, [01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:22.000] Uresti said that we have as good a chance as we've ever had. [01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:25.000] The argument is essentially that raising the smoking age will save lives [01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:28.000] and money spent on smoking-related illnesses. [01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:31.000] Unfortunately, as is usual for politicians and legislators, [01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:35.000] raising the minimum tobacco age will invariably cause 18- to 20-year-olds [01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:38.000] to receive citations and legal punishments for smoking when caught. [01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:41.000] And as is the case with drugs, we'll raise the taboo level, [01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:44.000] possibly having the opposite psychological effect. [01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:48.000] Teenagers rebel to rebel, even if it is regulations for their health [01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:50.000] that they are rebelling against. [01:02:50.000 --> 01:03:07.000] This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for January 16, 2017. [01:03:20.000 --> 01:03:27.000] The country folks can survive [01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:31.000] Because you can't drive us out and you can't make us run [01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:36.000] Those ones and more boys raised on shotguns [01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:39.000] We say grace, we say ma'am [01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:45.000] If you ain't into that, we don't give a damn [01:03:45.000 --> 01:04:01.000] We came from the West Virginia coal mines and the rocky mountains and the western skies [01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:06.000] The preacher man says it's the end of time [01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:11.000] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:15.000] And right now we are going to go to Olivier in Tennessee. [01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:17.000] Olivier, what do you got going on? [01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:21.000] I'm dealing with a couple of these federal suits. [01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:26.000] My affiliate court cases seem like they're going okay, [01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:30.000] but it's kind of funny that I put all these federal suits in [01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:36.000] because the same issue that the state courts did to my state suit was [01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:41.000] suicide dismissal. The federal courts did it. [01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:45.000] So now I'm starting to figure out, hey, this is a pattern. [01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:49.000] This is a trend of them denying us our rights. [01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:53.000] Because when the federal courts did it, for some reason, [01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:57.000] it got me upset to the point where I wanted to go figure it out [01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:03.000] and go see what's going on in detail to see where I thought these judges were going to be, you know, [01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:07.000] top notch, top of the business, cream of the crop. [01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:13.000] Well, they are. They're just not your side of the top notch. [01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:16.000] Well, when I went to go look at what they were saying, [01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:30.000] they still sponsored my complaints underneath the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, PLRA. [01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:33.000] And I'm like, how does that work? [01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:36.000] Number one, I'm not in prison. I want to read the statute. [01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:41.000] Every statute in there has some type of prisoner, [01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:48.000] some type of reference to informative detail about the prisoners' canteen account [01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:54.000] or, you know, their properties to see if they could file informal properties. [01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:03.000] So this whole act was passed by Congress to restrain the amount of prisoner litigations [01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:05.000] that were infested in the federal court. [01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:07.000] Right. [01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:15.000] So when I go investigate all this, I found that I found case law in Tennessee that says that this is a, [01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:22.000] that is, when that is done, it's done beyond the judge's authority. [01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:25.000] Beyond is outside the scope of authority. [01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:32.000] So when that happens, it violates the right to court because they dismiss it [01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:37.000] without giving you opportunity to amend, opportunity to... [01:06:37.000 --> 01:06:42.000] Yeah, which the case law says very clearly a federal court is required to do on a pro se. [01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:47.000] They're not allowed to just simply dismiss an action without first informing the pro se [01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:52.000] about what the corrective measures to amend the action would be. [01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:54.000] Okay. Right. [01:06:54.000 --> 01:06:59.000] So I'm shocked that, and they're using like 92 case law, you know what I'm saying, [01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:11.000] 1992, 1995, 1986, and all my case law, all the case law that I found is earlier, I mean, it's later than that, but... [01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:16.000] Yeah, but if it's later than that, it'll probably be citing something prior to that. [01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:23.000] You got to understand a lot of these opinions that you're relying on today are quoting older case law [01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:28.000] because most of these things will be stare decisis issues. [01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:30.000] Yeah, I said it wrong. [01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:38.000] They were quoting like 1996, 1994, and I found 2000, 2010, 2007 case law. [01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:41.000] That overturned their 90s case law? [01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:47.000] Yeah, I even found case law in their 90s and 96 case law that overturned that. [01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:53.000] Yeah, and this is the thing I was telling you about unscrupulous attorneys as if there's any other kind. [01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:00.000] But the point is, is that they will intentionally misrepresent the case law to win the case. [01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:05.000] They are perpetrating fraud upon the court when they do that. [01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:13.000] In my response, I read the case law and I explained that out in my response. [01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:19.000] I'm like, this case law has nothing to do with this case law does not support the judge's authority. [01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:22.000] He cite his authority underneath the Pritzker Act. [01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:25.000] This case law has nothing to do with that. [01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:30.000] So it's like very evident that the judge is doing things unlawfully. [01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:32.000] Yeah. [01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:38.000] My thing was, I planned on, I started filing, I was going to file suit on the judge, [01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:44.000] well not the judge, but the government for the judge, and then just appeal the case. [01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:54.000] I'm not going to write him 60B because I already found that federal court that's automatically going to overturn it. [01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:57.000] But I don't want to give him a chance to try to. [01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:00.000] Yeah, make a bad situation worse for you. [01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:03.000] No, no, correct his error. [01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:04.000] That's what I'm saying. [01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:10.000] Try to make a bad situation that he gave you even worse for you by doing something to make it look legitimate. [01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:11.000] Right. [01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:17.000] So I don't want, I'm not going to send him no motion to consideration or something like that. [01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:20.000] I'm just going to straight appeal him because I found all the case law from the appeal court. [01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:21.000] Then I'm going to sue him. [01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:25.000] I'm going to go press criminal, try to press criminal charges on him. [01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:34.000] And then that way just to make the other judges to make a stupid mistake on this lawsuit that I filed against him. [01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:36.000] I filed it against the United States court. [01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:37.000] I really don't care about it. [01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:43.000] But it's like, if you're going to do that, I know my options. [01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:47.000] If you violated my access to court, I'm going to petition that. [01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:48.000] I'm going to argue that. [01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:49.000] I don't care. [01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:52.000] The first 21 suit is the one that I cared about anyway. [01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:07.000] But since you want to play games, I'm going to put your name on somebody else's desk so I can see what type of unlawful act they're going to do because you got to send it to me on paper. [01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:10.000] Am I going down the right alley? [01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:12.000] That really depends. [01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:17.000] It would seem to be since you've got him on the fact that he had no authority, he abused his discretion. [01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:23.000] Abuse of discretion is easy to prove when there's nothing supporting that abuse. [01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:24.000] Okay. [01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:42.000] And since nothing in your case has anything at all to do with being a prisoner, where did this moron get the idea that a prison act had anything to do as being relevant with this case? [01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:43.000] It doesn't. [01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:45.000] Exactly. [01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:50.000] Therefore, it's simply very easy to prove the abuse of discretion on the judge. [01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:57.000] Did you file a finding of facts and conclusions of law, and that's where you got this from, or is he just providing this on his own? [01:10:57.000 --> 01:10:58.000] He provided on his own. [01:10:58.000 --> 01:10:59.000] Okay. [01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:11.000] Now you find a finding of facts and conclusions of law demanding that he show where he used that act to reach those determinations. [01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:17.000] Make him spell it out and thus prove he's a moron. [01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:18.000] No. [01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:25.000] In the order that he sent, because he sent a memorandum in the order, he pretty much spelled it out. [01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:26.000] It doesn't matter. [01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:31.000] The memorandum says exactly how he used that law to make his determination? [01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:32.000] Yes, sir. [01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:38.000] And I read the whole case, and I wanted to throw up. [01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:42.000] Well, aim for his chair. [01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:47.000] My friend wanted to throw up, and he doesn't even understand law like that. [01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:48.000] All right. [01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:54.000] Well, then it sounds to me like, yeah, it should be a very simple attack on this judge. [01:11:54.000 --> 01:11:55.000] Okay. [01:11:55.000 --> 01:11:58.000] So I should, because I got like two, there's two of them. [01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:07.000] Yeah, you file a motion for reconsideration or you can do the appeal. [01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:13.000] Yeah, I will just file to the already case file that said that when the judge does that to you, you could file a appeal. [01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:18.000] You could also do the motion, whatever motion that you want, because he did it unlawfully. [01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:19.000] Right. [01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:23.000] Whichever one pick up first, the appeal court did not have a... [01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:27.000] Yeah, then send it up to the appeals court with that intact. [01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:28.000] Right. [01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:34.000] So I send it up to the appeals court and then put those judges' names on top of their friend's desk. [01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:35.000] Right. [01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:39.000] And let them do something stupid and just send that back to me. [01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:40.000] Yeah. [01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:53.000] And then, hmm, you know what would be real interesting is to find out whether or not the appellate court has any ex parte communications with this judge in relation to this case outside of the opinion. [01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:56.000] Are they going to get on the phone when your paperwork hits their desk? [01:12:56.000 --> 01:12:58.000] Bob, what the hell are you thinking, man? [01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:00.000] This dude's got you dead to rights. [01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:03.000] How am I supposed to cover your butt for this one? [01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:05.000] Well, yeah, I guess we could do that. [01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:07.000] Yeah, we could do that too. [01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:08.000] All right. [01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:10.000] But you got to remember to say this if anybody asks. [01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:11.000] All right. [01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:12.000] All right. [01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:13.000] We got to figure it out now. [01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:14.000] We'll cover you. [01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:15.000] No problem. [01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:24.000] It'd be real interesting to see if that kind of crap is actually going on with these people, which I don't doubt, but proving it would be another matter. [01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:28.000] He wrote his death sentence on the paperwork. [01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:29.000] And I have a... [01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:35.000] Yeah, but you're assuming that one of his friends is going to be willing to wield the axe or pull the lever. [01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:36.000] That's my point. [01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:37.000] No. [01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:43.000] Well, if they don't write what is concurrent to all the other rulings, there's an issue. [01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:44.000] Well, I understand. [01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:45.000] And that's what I'm saying. [01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:47.000] I was mimicking a phone call between them. [01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:50.000] How am I supposed to cover your butt for this one, man? [01:13:50.000 --> 01:13:52.000] You can't. [01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:55.000] And he's like, well, we could spin it this way or that way. [01:13:55.000 --> 01:13:56.000] Yeah, yeah. [01:13:56.000 --> 01:13:57.000] Maybe we can try that. [01:13:57.000 --> 01:13:59.000] Let's see if it works. [01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:00.000] You never know. [01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:02.000] Okay. [01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:06.000] But always be prepared for it, regardless. [01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:07.000] Oh, yeah. [01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:08.000] I got you. [01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:09.000] But that's what I'm saying. [01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:10.000] It's silly. [01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:11.000] But if they do that, everything's on paper. [01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:12.000] It's on paper. [01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:13.000] And by the time I write this... [01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:14.000] Oh, wait. [01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:20.000] You're actually thinking evidence means something to these morons. [01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:23.000] Well, no, no. [01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:24.000] I understand that concept. [01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:30.000] But once they get blocked and their friends get their name put on their desk and they [01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:34.000] have to make a ruling on it, I don't care if you dismiss it or not. [01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:37.000] I'm just going to run the judicial process on you. [01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:38.000] Yeah. [01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:39.000] Because that's not really... [01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:40.000] They act like we're the servants. [01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:43.000] I'm like, you got to change the perspective. [01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:47.000] I'm not going to petition you for something that I have a right to. [01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:48.000] I'm going to sue you. [01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:49.000] It don't cost me nothing. [01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:51.000] I don't care about winning that suit. [01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:54.000] I want to put you in a hot seat. [01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:55.000] So I sue the U.S. [01:14:55.000 --> 01:15:00.000] government for 40 grand plus attorney's fee for each suit that he dismisses. [01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:01.000] Yeah. [01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:04.000] It sounds like you got the right idea. [01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:10.000] And as long as he's giving you all the ammunition and evidence you need, hammer him. [01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:15.000] Step on him so damn hard that he thinks he's a cockroach. [01:15:15.000 --> 01:15:16.000] Okay. [01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:19.000] Now, I understand how I'm going to do the federal. [01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:23.000] Any advice on how I should do the state? [01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:30.000] I got this one judge who dismissed all my cases, two cases of suicide, [01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:34.000] and three cases underneath Rule 12B6. [01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:40.000] And underneath Rule 12B6, it has the same authority as suicide. [01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:43.000] You can't do that on a pro-state litigate. [01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:47.000] Well, you can file an immediate motion to disqualify due to prior encounters with this [01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:53.000] judge and his proclivities toward your cases to get him disqualified before you even file the case [01:15:53.000 --> 01:15:56.000] or in conjunction with the case. [01:15:56.000 --> 01:15:57.000] File them at the same time. [01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:01.000] I'm going to file my criminal complaint or my suit complaint, [01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:06.000] and I'm going to file a motion to disqualify this judge right off the bat. [01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:08.000] In what court? [01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:10.000] In the Supreme Court? [01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:11.000] Yeah. [01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:14.000] In whatever court would have jurisdiction of your suit. [01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:22.000] And if he's the judge of that court, disqualify him so they have to bring in a visiting judge. [01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:24.000] I hate what you're saying, but I'm not trying to... [01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:25.000] Go ahead. [01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:26.000] He's a... [01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:30.000] I filed suit in Circuit Court against the state. [01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:31.000] Okay. [01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:33.000] With my cards and my house and all my property. [01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:34.000] Okay. [01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:35.000] Well, hang on a sec. [01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:36.000] We're going to break. [01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:37.000] Now, I'll finish that list out. [01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:41.000] You got to remember that these states identify their courts differently. [01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:47.000] For here, a circuit court is something way, way different than a municipal or district court. [01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:50.000] But hang on just a second, and we'll finish this up on the other side, Olivier. [01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:53.000] All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. [01:16:53.000 --> 01:17:00.000] We'll be right back after the break, so y'all hang in there. [01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:01.000] I love Logos. [01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:04.000] Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. [01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:07.000] I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. [01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:08.000] I need my truth fixed. [01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:10.000] I'd be lost without Logos. [01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:13.000] And I really want to help keep this network on the air. [01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:16.000] I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, [01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:20.000] and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. [01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:22.000] How can I help Logos? [01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:24.000] Well, I'm glad you asked. [01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:27.000] Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos. [01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:29.000] You can order your supplies or holiday gifts. [01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:31.000] First thing you do is clear your cookies. [01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:34.000] Now, go to logosradionetwork.com. [01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:37.000] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:41.000] Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link, [01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:43.000] and Logos gets a few pesos. [01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:44.000] Do I pay extra? [01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:45.000] No. [01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:47.000] Do you have to do anything different when I order? [01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:48.000] No. [01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:49.000] Can I use my Amazon Prime? [01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:50.000] No. [01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:51.000] I mean, yes. [01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:52.000] Wow. [01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:54.000] Giving without doing anything or spending any money. [01:17:54.000 --> 01:17:55.000] This is perfect. [01:17:55.000 --> 01:17:57.000] Thank you so much. [01:17:57.000 --> 01:17:58.000] We are welcome. [01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:00.000] Happy holidays, Logos. [01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:04.000] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, [01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:06.000] except in the area of nutrition. [01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:09.000] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, [01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:11.000] and it's time we changed all that. [01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:16.000] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment [01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:18.000] is good nutrition. [01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:21.000] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, [01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:26.000] and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:30.000] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, [01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:32.000] most of which we reject. [01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:34.000] We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, [01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:39.000] we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, [01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:40.000] and many others. [01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:43.000] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, [01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:47.000] your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:52.000] As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.000] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, [01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:59.000] help your friends and family, and increase your income. [01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:01.000] Order now. [01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:07.000] This is the Logos Radio Network. [01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:50.000] All right, folks. [01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:53.000] This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host Eddie Craig, [01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:56.000] and we are talking to Olivier in Tennessee. [01:19:56.000 --> 01:19:59.000] All right, Olivier, go ahead. [01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:01.000] Okay, you're explaining to me the difference, [01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:03.000] there's a big difference with the courts and... [01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:06.000] Yeah, as far as, you're calling it a circuit court, [01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:10.000] but I don't know what level of court that actually is in Tennessee. [01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:16.000] For instance, the way you're describing them, a circuit court, you know, [01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:19.000] is something actually, it's one level of court is that. [01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:22.000] Is it the first level, second level, third level? [01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:25.000] I think second level is the trial court. [01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:28.000] Yeah, well, because in some places, like some of the courts in California [01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:32.000] that they call circuit courts are actually municipal courts. [01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:36.000] Okay, no, this is a trial court. [01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:38.000] Okay. [01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:41.000] All right, so here it would probably be the equivalent of a district court. [01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:50.000] Okay, so in any case, in that court, above that you should have a court of appeals? [01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:51.000] Right. [01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:55.000] Okay, and then above that you've got your state supreme court. [01:20:55.000 --> 01:20:56.000] Correct. [01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:01.000] Okay, all right, now that I got that lined out, go ahead. [01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:04.000] You were telling me to file a motion against that judge, [01:21:04.000 --> 01:21:07.000] and I was trying to make sure I was following your concept. [01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:09.000] Yeah, if you've already got him for the appeal, [01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:12.000] then you've got your appellate court set out, right? [01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:14.000] You know which appellate court you've got to go to. [01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:19.000] But if the suit you're filing in the court with the judge that you don't like [01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:22.000] because of the way he does things, you file it, [01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:27.000] is that the only circuit court that has jurisdiction to hear your case? [01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:31.000] I'm trying to figure out which is the proper jurisdiction [01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:37.000] because I heard to sue the state and feds and the feds and state. [01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:39.000] Well, that's not the point. [01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:42.000] The point is that you can sue where you live [01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:45.000] or you can sue where the event occurs, [01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:48.000] depending upon which one is more convenient to you. [01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:54.000] If you live within the jurisdiction of this circuit court and not any other circuit court, [01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:57.000] then that's the court you would file in. [01:21:57.000 --> 01:22:01.000] But if the judge there is a problem and you know he's a problem [01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:03.000] and you've had problems before, [01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:11.000] then you can summarily move to disqualify him at the same time you file your suit. [01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:17.000] Oh, because he denied me to file my suit last time. [01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:18.000] Right. [01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:21.000] He denied you access to the courts with no legal basis. [01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:23.000] You don't want him as a judge. [01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:26.000] Get rid of him. [01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:29.000] So as I'm filing this suit, I file a motion? [01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:35.000] Yeah, a motion to disqualify that judge and demand a visiting judge put in there, [01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:44.000] put in a writ of no confidence against the judge as well as a motion to dismiss. [01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:48.000] Or you can cite in the motion to dismiss that you have no confidence in the judge's ability [01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:54.000] to properly apply the law and the facts to a case or to comply with the rules of procedure. [01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:59.000] Motion to dismiss while I file my next law. [01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:03.000] No, not a motion to dismiss, a motion to disqualify. [01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:08.000] Motion to disqualify. [01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:15.000] Motion to disqualify the judge with this suit because he does not... [01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:20.000] Because he's already demonstrated that he has no intention of complying with the law, [01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:28.000] the rules of procedure, or the due process rights of the plaintiff in this matter. [01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:29.000] Okay, gotcha. [01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:36.000] So write that motion out, disqualify, and that means whichever judge gets it... [01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:43.000] Yeah, that means that they'll have to assign to a different judge. [01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:44.000] Okay. [01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:48.000] They may even have to bring in a visiting judge, [01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:54.000] depending upon how many judges are in that circuit court. [01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:55.000] Okay. [01:23:55.000 --> 01:24:00.000] And I file a suit with his name on it for all five of the Suicides. [01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:03.000] What do you mean with his name on it? [01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:04.000] Well, well, not... [01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:10.000] You're talking about suing him in that court? [01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:15.000] Are you talking about filing a separate suit for these other issues in a court that he controls, [01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:21.000] or are you talking about filing a suit against him directly in a court that he controls? [01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:23.000] I'm trying to file a suit against him. [01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:25.000] Okay, yeah, you can still file it in the same court, [01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:27.000] but then you don't have to worry about disqualifying him. [01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:32.000] He's a defendant. [01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:36.000] He can't hear a case that he's a party to. [01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:38.000] Perfect. [01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:39.000] All right, got that. [01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:40.000] All right. [01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:42.000] So I'll work that up because you gave me enough on that. [01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:44.000] I want one more quick question. [01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:45.000] That's the Chief of Police. [01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:47.000] I was reading the city code, right? [01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:53.000] Going down the line, I figured out that the Chief of Police is responsible for all the duties, [01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:57.000] the education, and the training of the city police. [01:24:57.000 --> 01:24:58.000] Right. [01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:05.000] So the city police are doing traffic, and they doesn't allow them to do traffic. [01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:09.000] So that means it falls back on whoever is giving them... [01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:10.000] Right. [01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:14.000] The Chief is always one, he is respondent superior for the officers [01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:18.000] in a case where it's a policy decision they're operating under. [01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:24.000] He is respondent superior, which means not only do you sue them, you sue him. [01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:27.000] Well, how do you write up that suit? [01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:29.000] You name him as a defendant. [01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:34.000] You write it the same way you did, but you just have to be able to specify why he's named. [01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:37.000] What gives you a cause of action against the Chief? [01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:41.000] Cite the statute that says the Chief is responsible for the training of the police officers. [01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:47.000] The Chief is responsible for the creation of policy, managing the actions of those police officers. [01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:53.000] The Chief's current policy, or at least his inattention to the requirements of training, [01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:58.000] have allowed these officers to act in areas where they have no lawful authority. [01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:06.000] As a directly responsible party for these officers, he is liable for their actions. [01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:07.000] Okay. [01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:12.000] So now I was really reading the grand jury instruction, [01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:17.000] and they allow us to bring evidence of crime to the grand jury. [01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:21.000] Yeah, you should be able to do that in any state. [01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:26.000] All right. So now, what crimes are you charging him with? [01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:28.000] That's what I'm trying to figure out. [01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:32.000] For instance, does Tennessee have an official oppression statute? [01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:35.000] Does it have an abuse of official capacity statute? [01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:40.000] Does it have any penal code statutes that go directly against public servants [01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:47.000] for violations of their office and the rights of the individual, using the power of their office? [01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:51.000] Texas has them. You have to look and see if Tennessee has them. [01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:57.000] So he's charging with all those statutes that he violates? [01:26:57.000 --> 01:27:03.000] Absolutely. If you've got evidence that would prove that he violated all the necessary elements to constitute the crime, [01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:07.000] then you can take that evidence before a grand jury. [01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:15.000] And the warrantless statute for the warrantless searches, the traffic statute stating that only [01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:24.000] Highway State Patrol has authority to regulate traffic, and any statute that revolves around that, [01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:29.000] I could apply in my summary to the grand jury. [01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:31.000] Yep. [01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:32.000] Okay. [01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:40.000] But you have to be able to show them how his actions committed some crime that's in the penal laws of the state. [01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:43.000] I mean, yeah, it's easy. If you can't commit... [01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:48.000] No, no, no. You can sit up here and say, okay, right here it says the state troopers are the only ones authorized to do this, [01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:56.000] but he's authorized his cops to do it. Well, what penal law did he break by authorizing his cops to do that? [01:27:56.000 --> 01:27:59.000] You see my point? [01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:00.000] Right. [01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:03.000] Okay. That's what you've got to find. [01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:10.000] Yeah, I understand. We have a big section of that. As you're listening, I know that there's nothing going over there. [01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:14.000] Okay. Great. Then you've got what you need. [01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:18.000] Okay. You think they should do something about it? [01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:27.000] I think they have the power to hand out an indictment if they find probable cause to believe he committed a crime and are willing to do it. [01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:35.000] That's why I say you need to take as much evidence and of every single necessary element of the offense to them [01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:43.000] and know exactly what offense you're trying to show them he committed so that they have all they need to either true bill or no bill. [01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:48.000] I got paperwork of 500 pages with 16 citations. [01:28:48.000 --> 01:28:55.000] Yeah, but you've got to be able to explain it to them in a way they can understand because they're not going to know what you know. [01:28:55.000 --> 01:29:07.000] I know. So I'm going to write it out in a pamphlet and have all the explanation definitions and the statute which correlate from city to state, the authorities, [01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:17.000] and show how the authorities clearly correlate with one in each other which states that they do have authority and they don't have authority. [01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:26.000] One of their city codes clearly states their authority. It says that they only have authority to do city laws and ordinances. [01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:27.000] Right. [01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:31.000] And there's no city law that gives them authority to do traffic. [01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:35.000] Yeah, and there couldn't be since traffic state. [01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:40.000] Right. All right, thanks. I'm going to work that up. I'm going to let you get somebody else on the other side. [01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:42.000] All right, Olivier. [01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:43.000] Thank you. [01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:47.000] Thanks for calling in. All right, Terrence, we'll get you on the other side, so hang in there. [01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:52.000] You are the only caller up on the board, so that means I got a half an hour left and only one caller, so I'm going to need some more. [01:29:52.000 --> 01:30:01.000] 512-646-1984. We'll be right back. [01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:05.000] Japan is number one in life expectancy, right? Well, maybe not. [01:30:05.000 --> 01:30:11.000] Recent discoveries have people wondering if those famous 100-year-old Japanese aren't just a scam. [01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:15.000] Hi, Dr. Cameron Albrecht. Back with the bizarre details next. [01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:48.000] For Japanese investigators, it was a gruesome discovery. [01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:54.000] The bones of an elderly woman thought to be alive were found in a backpack belonging to her son. [01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:58.000] Why had he stashed his mother's remains instead of giving her a decent burial? [01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:01.000] Well, the sordid truth was more about money than gruesomeness. [01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:08.000] As it happens, he never reported his mother's death back in 2001 and had been collecting her benefits ever since. [01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:14.000] The discovery is just one of many suggesting the Japanese may not live as long as we thought. [01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:22.000] In a nationwide search, more than 200,000 so-called centenarians or 100-year-olds have turned up to be dead or missing. [01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:27.000] Hi, Dr. Cameron Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:37.000] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000] According to some, it says that fire brought it down. [01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000] However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. [01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:47.000] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:49.000] Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. [01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:51.000] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000] I'm a structural engineer. [01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000] I'm a New York City correction officer. [01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000] I'm an Air Force pilot. [01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:56.000] I'm a father who lost his son. [01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:58.000] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:08.000] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:32.000] to handle your claim and your roof right the first time. [01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:39.000] Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. [01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:46.000] Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. [01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000] So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking. [01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000] That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. [01:32:57.000 --> 01:32:59.000] Discounts are based on full roof replacement. [01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000] May not actually be kidding about chemtrails. [01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:25.000] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com. [01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:40.000] All right, folks, we are back. [01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:42.000] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:48.000] We are now in the last half hour of the show, so this segment and one more. [01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:54.000] And I have two callers up on the board, Terrence in Florida and Brett in Texas, and now Adam. [01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:55.000] So let's start with Terrence. [01:33:55.000 --> 01:33:59.000] Terrence, what can we do for you? [01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:04.000] Well, Eddie, you're sounding well, and I think last week it was. [01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:12.000] Somehow you disappeared in the show, and you started off really good. [01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:16.000] Anywho, I need some patron of stuff to hit you with. [01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:17.000] Okay. [01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:19.000] So don't go on a long rant, because you've got to let me in. [01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:20.000] I'll see what I can do. [01:34:20.000 --> 01:34:21.000] Go on. [01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:24.000] It depends on how severe it is, but let's see. [01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:30.000] Well, first thing you could do, going into court, let's say you're in for a speeding ticket, [01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:33.000] and there's a gold fringe flag. [01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:35.000] Ask the judge to remove it. [01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:37.000] Why? [01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:42.000] Because it's the military flag, and you can't. [01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:44.000] According to what? [01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:45.000] According to what? [01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:52.000] According to, let's go with this one, Executive Order 10834. [01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:53.000] What about it? [01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:58.000] It was 21st, 1959, and describes the reason for the gold fringe. [01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:02.000] Yeah, but the Executive Order created by the President is not the law of the flag. [01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:04.000] The law of the flag was published by Congress. [01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:11.000] The law of the flag in Congress says that a gold fringe flag is a decorative ceremonial flag. [01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:15.000] But the flag in the court with the gold fringe is. [01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:20.000] The President has no authority to order a court to carry a particular flag. [01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:27.000] That's a separate branch of government. [01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:29.000] What branch is it? [01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:30.000] The House or Senate? [01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:31.000] The judiciary? [01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:33.000] What branch of government is it? [01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:38.000] He's in the executive branch. [01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:41.000] Is that the military branch? [01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:43.000] There is no military branch. [01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:47.000] The military is under the authority of the executive. [01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:48.000] And there is the military. [01:35:48.000 --> 01:35:52.000] The military is under the authority of the executive. [01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:59.000] The President's saying that the military will use this flag in no way impacts a court to require to use that flag [01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:02.000] or means the same thing in relation to a court. [01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:05.000] That's a presumption, not a fact. [01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:10.000] Okay, well then a case to read, and I can't cite the history of cases and stuff, [01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:20.000] but there is one that you got in the papers, 12, Powell, H.O.W. 443 in 1851. [01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:22.000] Do you have a copy of that case? [01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:23.000] Very time. [01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:24.000] Do you have a copy of it? [01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:27.000] No, but I ain't going to carry one around with me either. [01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:28.000] Okay. [01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:32.000] Then as far as you know, it's a case site with no real case. [01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:40.000] Okay, now look at this setting that you are in in court, and it is a war. [01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:46.000] There's a guy asking another guy for permission to shoot you if you don't give them money, [01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:48.000] like you did right on the side of the road. [01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:50.000] That's what it boils down to. [01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:53.000] That's flat what it is. [01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:59.000] So you would file a declaratory judgment under what authority did Bob put on a costume with a badge and a gun [01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:01.000] and bring me to you? [01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:03.000] How do you get authority? [01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:05.000] There's no... [01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:07.000] Can I ask you a question? [01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:09.000] My head explodes because there's no plane. [01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:12.000] Can I ask you a question here, Terrence? [01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:13.000] Yes. [01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:16.000] How successful has this been for you? [01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:18.000] I don't live in court. [01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:20.000] Well, that's not actually my question. [01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:21.000] I didn't ask where you're living. [01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:24.000] I asked how successful what you just said has been for you. [01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:27.000] To answer your question, I don't do this for a living. [01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:29.000] I don't go to court for a living. [01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:34.000] You didn't say the person doing it had to do this for a living. [01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:36.000] You said this is what happens when you go to court, [01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:42.000] inferring that it is the case in every case for everyone going into court, including yourself. [01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:44.000] Well, it pretty much is for a speeding ticket. [01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:45.000] Well, wait a minute. [01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:49.000] Again, another conclusion with no facts. [01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:50.000] Okay? [01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:56.000] So let's stick to the way this really works versus how you're envisioning it works. [01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:57.000] Because I got news for you. [01:37:57.000 --> 01:37:59.000] Somebody in there starts shooting at me. [01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:02.000] They better kill me because I will shoot back. [01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:03.000] You got it? [01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:04.000] Well, that's what they're doing. [01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:05.000] That's what they're doing. [01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:10.000] You know, I've gone to court a million times, [01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:17.000] and I've never seen anyone shot in the courtroom except on TV. [01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:18.000] Never. [01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:19.000] Right. [01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:25.000] I've never seen a bailiff pull a gun on anyone in the courtroom except on TV. [01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:27.000] Well, there are videos of... [01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:31.000] Like I said, except on TV. [01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:35.000] Like the most recent attorney that got tackled in court, [01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:39.000] Alan Morgan or something because he disagreed with the judge. [01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:40.000] Okay. [01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:46.000] Tackled isn't shot. [01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:51.000] Tackled is not a declaration of war, as you put it. [01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:56.000] So what exactly is the point you're trying to make here with this? [01:38:56.000 --> 01:39:04.000] The point is to force the cop and the judge, for that matter, [01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:09.000] to prove they have authority at all to bring you in there. [01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:15.000] And what does any of what you're doing or talking about doing, [01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:20.000] how does any of it do that? [01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:25.000] Couldn't you just ask the judge, what is this man's claim? [01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:27.000] You can ask the judge anything you want. [01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:30.000] It doesn't mean the judge is going to answer you. [01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:32.000] But the claim, as they're going to put it, [01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:36.000] is that you committed some offense against the laws of the state. [01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:38.000] That's going to be the claim. [01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:43.000] That's what's stated in the criminal complaint. [01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:44.000] How does that apply to me? [01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:45.000] That's what I want. [01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:50.000] So what facts do you have that your code and Bible or whatever you call it [01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:51.000] applies to me? [01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:54.000] Well, that's Mark Stevens, okay? [01:39:54.000 --> 01:39:56.000] Well, yeah. [01:39:56.000 --> 01:39:59.000] And they're going to respond incorrectly, but they're going to respond, [01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:02.000] you're within the territorial jurisdiction of such and such state [01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:05.000] and therefore those laws do apply to you. [01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:06.000] Says who? [01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:11.000] Says everybody with the power to make you obey them. [01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:13.000] Where does he get authority to make me obey this? [01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:14.000] That's the question. [01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:17.000] Well, they're going to presume they have it because they're sitting in the [01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:19.000] public office. [01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:20.000] That's not enough. [01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:22.000] To who is it not enough? [01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:24.000] To you and you alone or to them? [01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:27.000] To the laws of nature and of nature is God, to the laws of nature. [01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:29.000] Well, when he's sitting in judgment over you, [01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:31.000] he can make the rules according to them, right? [01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:36.000] But right now you're not in his court, you're in theirs. [01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:39.000] So let's try playing by the rules that actually work in that court instead of [01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:45.000] these fabrications you guys keep dreaming up in patronet land. [01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:48.000] There are rules that work. [01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:50.000] There really are. [01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:53.000] This is not them. [01:40:53.000 --> 01:41:00.000] If you didn't cause any harm, they can't say hi to you. [01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:07.000] Again, that's a presumption that they make based upon other presumptions [01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:12.000] that they make. [01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:19.000] Provided you challenge the presumption and demand the proof. [01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:24.000] The whole reason for them calling it and doing it as a presumption is because [01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:29.000] until you challenge it, they get to presume it to be true. [01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:31.000] That's the presumption part. [01:41:31.000 --> 01:41:33.000] But you can't guess a thousand presumptions. [01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:35.000] That's not possible. [01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:37.000] You're not supposed to guess any of them. [01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:41.000] I'm not saying guess a thousand presumptions. [01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:47.000] What I'm telling you is they have to clearly state every fact that they're [01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:51.000] required to prove against you in whatever allegation they've got. [01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:55.000] The difference in what they do and how they do it is whether or not you [01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:00.000] understand that they're actually using evidence or presumption to establish [01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:02.000] that fact. [01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:08.000] And when they aren't using actual evidence to challenge the presumption as [01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:14.000] not proving any fact. [01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:19.000] The initial pullover is a presumption without evidence. [01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:20.000] And we know this. [01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:24.000] What is your point? [01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:27.000] There's no claim. [01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:29.000] Okay, one more time. [01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:31.000] Let me cover how this works. [01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:33.000] Go to court. [01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:34.000] Keep saying that. [01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:37.000] Watch how it goes. [01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:43.000] You cannot simply state there is no claim because they are making a claim. [01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:45.000] It may not be the one you like. [01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:47.000] It may not be in the form you like it. [01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:50.000] But they are stating one. [01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:57.000] What they are failing to do is to be able to support it with evidence. [01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:01.000] That's the part you need to learn. [01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:06.000] Just saying they don't have a claim is not a rebuttal of the claim. [01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:08.000] Okay, where is there evidence of a claim? [01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:13.000] Where is there facts and evidence that equal truth? [01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:16.000] There is no equal truth. [01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:19.000] Geez, where the hell do you guys get this stuff? [01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:21.000] Honestly, I really would like to know. [01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:26.000] Because whatever mushroom patch you all found is some really good crap. [01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:31.000] I've got to tell you. [01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:35.000] Look, we are talking about law, which isn't always truth. [01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:37.000] Okay, it's simply law. [01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:41.000] Big difference. [01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:44.000] Okay, well, we can either have an intelligent discussion of this, [01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:48.000] or we can keep going with your opinion and the wrong way of doing it. [01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:53.000] I can keep giving people your information, or I can give them the right information. [01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:56.000] Hang on, and we'll figure out which one that needs to be. [01:43:56.000 --> 01:44:00.000] All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break. [01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:05.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:09.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:15.000] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. [01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:21.000] You'll get step-by-step instructions in playing English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. [01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:24.000] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. [01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:26.000] How to answer letters and phone calls. [01:44:26.000 --> 01:44:29.000] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. [01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:34.000] How to turn your financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:38.000] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:41.000] Personal consultation is available as well. [01:44:41.000 --> 01:44:49.000] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [01:44:49.000 --> 01:45:00.000] That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:04.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:15.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:01.000] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:22.000] All right. [01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:27.000] I want to come back in real fast, since this is the last segment that I've got to wrap this up in. [01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:31.000] This is going to take a minute, but let's see if I can do this real quick. [01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:36.000] Now, he bailed on the phone call, but I'm going to real quick try to wrap this up. [01:46:36.000 --> 01:46:39.000] Let's assume two things about court. [01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:47.000] One, the judge is a criminal, so no matter what you go in there arguing, he's going to do what he wants. [01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:48.000] Okay? [01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:53.000] That's problem number one for every patronite argument in existence. [01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:59.000] You do not have a set of magic paperwork beans. [01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:00.000] You don't. [01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:05.000] You don't have a magic argument bean either. [01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:15.000] What you do have is the rules of the game that controls how that judge must play it, at least to some degree, more than he's hoping you know. [01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:23.000] You have the rules of evidence, the rules of court, the rules of procedure, professional ethics, et cetera, et cetera. [01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:36.000] Now, if they're willing to ignore all of their own rules, why in the world would your arguments suddenly make them sit up like a vampire exposed to Garnet and holy water? [01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:39.000] Why? [01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:49.000] What would you possibly think would give your argument more teeth than the one their own rules have already given you? [01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:55.000] Through their own rules, you can defeat 99.9% of the crap that goes through these courts. [01:47:55.000 --> 01:48:02.000] Through the very law they're using against you, there will almost always be a remedy. [01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:12.000] You just have to know what the hell you're looking at, and making this crap up that you don't have a real clue about is not going to solve your problem. [01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:15.000] And it sure as hell not going to solve anyone else's. [01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:31.000] But what it is going to do is set bad case precedent for everyone that's trying to make a legitimate argument but coming behind you without an attorney that much harder of a fight for them to have to sustain and manage. [01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:41.000] Because your cockamamie arguments have backlash to every other pro se out there. [01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:42.000] Okay? [01:48:42.000 --> 01:48:51.000] The arguments you're trying to make with the gold-fringed flag and all this other crap is legal quicksand. [01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:54.000] It does nothing to nothing except to you. [01:48:54.000 --> 01:49:06.000] It makes you seem far less competent, far less intelligent, and with no real argument. [01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:09.000] That's simple. [01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:18.000] In case you haven't looked, case after case after case has piled up on these arguments that say they're bogus arguments. [01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:24.000] So the courts are free to ignore them, and they will promptly do so. [01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:36.000] Just like they're willing to ignore valid case law that says they must do something in such and such case, and they must do it this way, and they still don't do it. [01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:39.000] The judges are corrupt. [01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:42.000] The prosecutors are corrupt. [01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:48.000] The defense attorneys are corrupt. [01:49:48.000 --> 01:49:56.000] There's no other way to phrase it when the rules of the game are ignored for the way they want to do it instead of how they're required to do it. [01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:57.000] Okay? [01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:04.000] And these stupid arguments aren't going to solve that problem. [01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:05.000] Okay? [01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:12.000] I told you I want to get put on a T-shirt, beware, wearer is highly allergic to liberals and stupidity. [01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:16.000] Exposure to either is liable to break out in an ass whooping. [01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:17.000] Okay? [01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:28.000] That includes patron-nut arguments that have already been proven to be of no effect whatsoever except on the detrimental side to the people using them and everyone that comes behind them. [01:50:28.000 --> 01:50:36.000] So please stop burying the rest of us under these stupendously stupid arguments because that's what they are. [01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:39.000] There's just no other way to put it. [01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:40.000] All right. [01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:43.000] Brett in Texas, what do you got? [01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:44.000] Hello, Eddie. [01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:47.000] Thanks for everything that you're sharing here. [01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:48.000] I'm trying. [01:50:48.000 --> 01:50:49.000] I'm trying to do it nice. [01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:53.000] Otherwise, I get sanctioned after the show's over. [01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:56.000] Well, I got a couple of questions for you. [01:50:56.000 --> 01:51:05.000] First, let me just say, though, that I do identify in some way with this previous caller, maybe not to the extent of all the, I don't know, patron-nut stuff. [01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:10.000] But I do identify with his basic concept because I was that naive. [01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:14.000] I was thinking that surely these people are not criminals. [01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:16.000] These people are trying to do the right thing. [01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:28.000] And if you present to them some basic common maxims of law and some real truth and some underlying foundational, well, surely they'll see the sense. [01:51:28.000 --> 01:51:31.000] But I've grown up a little bit since then. [01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:32.000] Yeah. [01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:37.000] Well, there's one thing you have to understand that even they have finally admitted about their maxims of law. [01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:44.000] Now, originally, the maxims of law were considered to be of such magnitude that they actually bore weight in a court. [01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:51.000] Now, the opinion is that they're nothing more than advisory situations and circumstances. [01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:59.000] Yeah, I used to think that there would be some sensible, just common basic natural ideas. [01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:04.000] Like this guy was talking, Terrence was saying, you know, if I didn't hurt anybody, then why are they even bothering me? [01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:06.000] And I thought that way. [01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:07.000] Now I realize different. [01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:15.000] I realize this is their system of unrighteousness so that they can get revenue unjustly and they can slap us all around every time they feel like it. [01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:16.000] Exactly. [01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:17.000] What do they care? [01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:24.000] Hell, they would be better off and a lot more accurate if they just flew the Jolly Roger in the freaking courtroom. [01:52:24.000 --> 01:52:25.000] Yes. [01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:32.000] Then you could argue maritime for damn sure pirates on the high seas in a landlocked harbor. [01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:35.000] But anyway, I do have a couple of questions for you. [01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:42.000] One question is where is a good resource or how is a way that I research to find, [01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:49.000] I've so far not been very successful in looking for the elements that need to be proven when either, [01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:54.000] A, they're accusing me of driving without a license, driving while suspended, stuff like that. [01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:57.000] What are these pieces that they have to prove? [01:52:57.000 --> 01:52:59.000] Because of course they're not proving. [01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:05.000] Like I looked at that Texas transportation code 521 and I can pick out a few things up myself. [01:53:05.000 --> 01:53:06.000] But I don't know. [01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:11.000] There may be a list of some, I don't know, some compendium somewhere that says here's the name of the offense [01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:14.000] and here's the six things that got to be proved. [01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:16.000] And I would really like to know that. [01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:19.000] Well, when you read the offense, you learn the elements. [01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:25.000] The thing you're talking about is the elements of the allegation itself, the charge, okay? [01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:27.000] The elements is what must be proven. [01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:32.000] You have to understand though that not every element is listed within the statute itself. [01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:38.000] For instance, what must be stated in a speeding allegation here in Texas, for instance, [01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:43.000] is both the posted speed limit and the actual traveled speed limit, okay? [01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:52.000] But what they're not putting in that is that that is only related to those engaging in transportation. [01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:57.000] The element of transportation is never stated in the complaint or the charging instrument. [01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:00.000] It is simply presumed, which is unconstitutional. [01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:04.000] It's a violation of the right to due process and the presumption of innocence. [01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:11.000] If they presume that you're engaged in transportation and thus subject to a speeding allegation, [01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:14.000] then they must prove transportation. [01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:22.000] Otherwise, they are presuming you guilty of a necessary, the necessary element of the offense. [01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:25.000] And that's unconstitutional. [01:54:25.000 --> 01:54:28.000] But it's exactly what they're doing. [01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:35.000] So the statute will give you everything you need as far as the specifically listed elements. [01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:40.000] But you've got to understand there may be elements that aren't listed anywhere that still must be stated. [01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:47.000] The posted and actual speed limit is not a requirement under the statute to commit the offense. [01:54:47.000 --> 01:54:51.000] But it is a requirement to make the allegation of the offense. [01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:58.000] And therefore, both are required to be proven at trial. [01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:01.000] Yeah, that totally makes sense. [01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:09.000] Is there a place, some kind of, I don't know, research material where I can see a list of all these things that are official names of, you know, you mentioned things. [01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:11.000] Well, the code, well, the thing is... [01:55:11.000 --> 01:55:13.000] Or abuse of official capacity. [01:55:13.000 --> 01:55:15.000] Yeah, those are in the penal code. [01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:18.000] Those are in 39.02 and 03 of the penal code. [01:55:18.000 --> 01:55:20.000] Those are actual crimes. [01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:21.000] Penal code, okay. [01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:22.000] Okay. [01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:24.000] 39, okay, good. [01:55:24.000 --> 01:55:27.000] 39.02 and 39.03. [01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:32.000] Abuse of official capacity and official oppression, respectively. [01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:37.000] Is it going to have some of those elements in there that say if this happened and this happened and this happened? [01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:44.000] For instance, one of the elements in 39 are under the aggravated assault statute in Chapter 21, for instance, or 20. [01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:47.000] Well, I forget which one it is, but I think it's 21. [01:55:47.000 --> 01:55:50.000] The, or I'm sorry, it is 20. [01:55:50.000 --> 01:56:01.000] To commit aggravated assault, it's a second-degree felony in Texas for someone to commit simple assault if they were displaying a deadly weapon while committing simple assault. [01:56:01.000 --> 01:56:03.000] It's a second-degree felony. [01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:17.000] However, another element is if the individual that committed the simple assault while displaying a deadly weapon is also a public servant, then it's a first-degree felony. [01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:21.000] Oh, so are they going to claim to be a public servant in that situation? [01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:27.000] Well, if it's a cop in uniform, he's going to have a hard time saying he's not a public servant, isn't he? [01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:28.000] Well, I don't know. [01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:38.000] If it's someone that's pretending to act under color of legal authority for some official capacity, he's going to have a hard time saying that he isn't a public servant, isn't he? [01:56:38.000 --> 01:56:42.000] Yes, it is. That's true. [01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:48.000] So is there somewhere that it would say something about color of law acting in this capacity? [01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:52.000] That's abuse of official capacity and official oppression where it mentions color of law. [01:56:52.000 --> 01:56:54.000] So you don't get to charge them with just one of these. [01:56:54.000 --> 01:57:06.000] For instance, if you charged a police officer with aggravated assault or aggravated kidnapping, you could simultaneously charge him with abuse of official capacity and official oppression. [01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:14.000] They go hand-in-hand with any other crime they commit under their official capacity. [01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:18.000] Very good. I wish I knew how to find a list of all these things. [01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:23.000] Well, the penal code is a list of every crime in every category of crime. [01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:29.000] The list of them are regulatory codes that define offenses in relation to the regulations within it. [01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:38.000] You just have to read through and see where it says a person commits an offense if, or it is an offense to, or something of that nature. [01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:45.000] Okay. Great. Well, I'm going to start looking through the penal code then. [01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:46.000] All right. [01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:53.000] And the other question I had for you, if you could just please repeat Sylvia, you mentioned something at the very beginning and I couldn't- [01:57:53.000 --> 01:58:07.000] Yeah. The case is the Sylvia v. State and the actual case site on it from the original case is 88 Texas Crim 634, which will be Texas Criminal Appeals 634. [01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:09.000] This was in 1921. [01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:18.000] Now, it's got another site of 229 Southwest 542, but that actually pulls up a different case. [01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:25.000] So I don't know. The Crim, the 88 Texas Crim 634 is the one that's got to be accurate. [01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:29.000] Okay. All right. All right. Brett, thanks for calling in. We are out of time. [01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:33.000] Adam, I'm sorry, man. I wasn't able to get to you before I ran out of time on this show. [01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:39.000] Folks, I want to thank you all for listening and for calling in. Remember the fundraiser. Remember to get the seminar material. [01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:42.000] It's a great way to learn and a great way to finance the network. [01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:50.000] Y'all have a great week. Good night and God bless. [01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version. [01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:04.000] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse, [01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:08.000] helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. [01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:20.000] Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:30.000] This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:32.000] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:41.000] To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. [01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:51.000] That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:51.000 --> 02:00:12.000] Looking for some truth? You found it, LogosRadioNetwork.com.